5.21.2010

Welcome to America's Pension Nightmare

Actuaries all fairly anonymous folks most of the time. But they are awfully good with numbers. And many of them, using simple data like population growth, life expectancies and guaranteed payout projections, believe that the nation's pension system is unsustainable. While this may, in a flash of inspiration and/or dumb luck be remedied by someone on Capitol Hill before the prophecy comes to pass, it is far more likely that the pension system of the nation is on an unsustainable path to failure. A great contemporary example of the pain that the nation at-large is destined for is provided by Yonkers, New York, specifically its police department.

Blawgconomics would be the first to acknowledge the difficulties and dangers of the law enforcement profession. The last thing we would ever want to suggest is that some of our greatest public servants, people who put their lives on the line, should not get their fair shake. However, that does not mean that the politicians who have created an unsustainable system which appears to be set up to ensure that it is gamed should be let off the hook. By definition, they are answerable to us all.

In Yonkers, in what is, granted, a fairly egregious example, one 44 year old officer is fully retired and makes over $101,000 per year. For life. He was able to do so by inflating his average earnings with overtime hours as a member of electric company road crews, something that the state courts have held is illegal, but which nonetheless appears to be encouraged by individual municipalities. In all likelihood this officer will receive pension benefits for longer than the 20 years he was on the force. With good health, much longer. And with laws that protect beneficiaries from benefit reductions, and therefore foreclose future corrective remedies, this unsustainable path could well lead to bankrutpcy for Yonkers and other localities in the same position. There are other problems. For example, in Yonkers, the annual payments into pension funds which high payouts have necessitated have reduced budgets for services, including police and fire, which local governments can no longer afford.

The biggest surprise here is not that the officer did anything wrong, however. On the contrary, he fulfilled his end of the bargain that was made with the city twenty years ago. Granted, the police department shares some blame for arguably playing outside the rules as far as the overtime details, but the politicians are much more at fault for both putting the system in place and allowing subsequent developments.

This scenario can easily be extrapolated out to the federal government level. Granted, it is unlikely that anyone in the Department of Transportation, for example, is allowed to work road crews to pad their stats. However, many of the normal pension liabilities that are being created today will need to be paid tomorrow. And, they will need to be paid to a growing retired population by a shrinking workforce. This is true of both the pension liabilities of federal workers themselves and the state pensions which will almost certainly need to be bailed out by the federal government.

Individual states, and more broadly the nation, are currently resting below the guillotine of future pension liabilities. Unfortunately, many of the politicians currently in power will be gone and forgotten before the blade falls. Fortunately, there may still be time to increase funding and stop the cycle of promising unsustainable levels of payouts. If it takes a few more Yonkers for people to see this, it is unfortunate. However the lesson needs to be learned before its too late.

3 comments:

  1. I appreciate the comment, thanks for reading!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed. Any suggestions or examples for what municipalities and organizations are doing about this. This is large problem for the NY Port Authority Police right now. In their last three years they put in exorbitant amounts of OT in order to inflate their average pay, thus their pension. Most pension systems have started with tier systems, where as new hires do not receive the same benefits as current employees, and the three year average is extended to 5.
    Anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the insights. I think you have pointed out the fact that Blawgconomics is much better at noticing problems than suggesting solutions.

    That said, there are some things that can be done. First off, I really like the tier system. It is a good way to set the correct expectations for new hires for the future. Frankly, in this jobs environment, it is not that difficult to get people to accept the fact that they will need to work for a long time to get their deserved benefits.

    I think that this could have some broader implications for the entire pension regime in the country as well. Doing things like raising the retirement age for government workers in the future could ensure the lasting viability of systems that are currently in place without upsetting the proverbial apple cart of those who are zeroing in on their respective retirement dates.

    I think that today's 20 and 30 somethings might also need to resign themselves to the fact that certain plans, such as social security, might not exist for them and plan accordingly. This will mean years of contributing to systems without a proportionate, or even partial payout, but it may also be reality. Though this is not a solution per se, it is, in all liklihood, going to have to be accepted.

    Another solution, though one that cannot for obvious reasons be implemented proactively would be to work with unions and worker representatives in a more realistic way as these crises occur. This is a recognition of the fact that the opportunity to pre-plan has passed and current actions need to be taken. In the case of the police departments, for example municipalities could use their red ink as a bargaining chip to gain concessions. For example, negotiate something like the 5 year average for all employees across the board in return for guarantees of payout, or use a slightly lower percentage base for perpetual payments. After all, giving up a little to get benefits is better than not getting benefits at all from a bankrupt city.

    ReplyDelete