It is absurd to say that a given level of spending on pensions is 'overspending'. If the State has employed persons, it must give them proper, full, comfortable pensions as per contract for their years after age 60. The same should be required of 'private' employers.
How could anything else be accepted as reasonable? Are people suicidal (or desirous of starving to death after a certain age?)?
No because they have been fully compensated for their employment through the paychecks they recieved down the years they were employed. Paying people for doing nothing is an absurdity. If people want a nice retirement they should save.
Don't say the s word around opebo
for most people that is a fantasy. how are can you reliably live off a 401k, figure out what your money will be worth with inflation, anticipate how long you will live and in what sort of condition, etc.? you cant, you can only guess. of course this is a fiscal trainwreck but you can hardly blame the unions for wanting to 'get theirs' under such conditions.
Assuming they are running a standard 60/40 portfolio they should be able to withdraw 4% upon retirement, increase this amount with inflation, and still have your principal left over. Median real household income was about $50 000 in 2009, which works out to a 401(k) worth $1 250 000. Over 30 years of saving, this shouldn't be too hard to obtain.
Even in this terrible decade, it was still possible to come out ok. The 60/40 portfolio quoted above made about 3.8% per year from 2002-2012.
