Why the thumb on the scale, Governor Snyder?
This week, Governor Snyder released a report titled "Dollars and Sense: How State and Local Governments in Michigan Spend Your Money." I looked through it, and found it interesting that, in this period of economic hardship, Governor Snyder had an outside think tank/expert witness firm produce the analysis cited under every chart and in every
( Read more... )
During my great job search of 2005-2006, every one of those positions that was advertised, came with a lower salary than similar duties for a private employer. And I was looking at private employers in the same county, so the same wage dynamic should apply.
Now, it's entirely possible that Washtenaw County, MI, is the only place in the country this is true. When I've looked into complaints about overpaid government workers in other cities and states, the subject that was brought up always was the other end of the salary scale. One that stands out in myu memory was Colorado city manager who was overpaid . . . at less than 1/10 of the average pay for CEOs of businesses headquartered in the same county, with smaller revenues than the city.
. . . you're simply assuming that government employees *are* the gold coins.
Given what they do, the highly compensated government employees should be the "gold coins." They're the folks who make sure our home doesn't burn down because the neighbors were too cheap to put in properly thick and well-insulated wires when they built an extension on their house. They're the folks who see to it the factory upstream doesn't poison us by saving money on waste disposal. That means they should be smart and knowledgeable enough to catch those who are trying to cheat, whether from cheapness or sociopathy.
If they're not the best at what they do around, then we've got the wrong people doing the job. If we've got the wrong people doing the job, I'm inclined to blame the fact that everyone I've ever known who moved from the private to public sector, to work on pretty much the same thing, took a pay cut.
Perhaps it's different in Michigan, but in Massachusetts, state and city/town employees receive pensions after 20, 25, 30 years.
Michigan never was quite that generous. The equivalent plan covers employees hired before the state switched to a 401(k) (managed by ING); in order to retire:
Full Retirement. You will qualify for full retirement at age 60 with at least 10 years of service, or age 55 with 30 years of service. (Exception: If you are an unclassified legislative employee, executive branch employee, or Department of Community Mental Health employee involved in a facility closing, you are vested for a full retirement benefit at age 60 with 5 years of service.)
Early Reduced Retirement. If you are an active member with at least 15 but less than 30 years of service, you can elect to take an early reduced retirement at age 55. Your pension amount is permanently reduced by one-half of one percent for each month and fraction of a month you take your pension before age 60 (6 percent per year). An active member is a working member who is on the state payroll. If you terminate employment before your 55th birthday, you become a deferred member and don't qualify for the early reduced pension.
But the phrase "full retirement" is a wee bit deceptive. There's a formula, years of service are a factor, and someone who retires after 10 years gets 15% of the average salary from the previous three years. The 30-year retiree gets 45% of the last three years' wages. Someone who took a job with the State at 18, and retires at 67, has a "full retirement" of a hair more than 2/3 of their last three years' pay.
The 401(k) folks, of course, are under pretty much the same rules as everyone else with a 401(k): How well or poorly you do has as much to do with how well the plan administrator does at choosing mutual funds for you as how much you set aside. Don't forget, 80% of investment professionals underperform the market indices over their careers; does the administrator know how to tell the difference?
Reply
Leave a comment