patrick.net

I'm all for a small increase in what employees and the state pay in to our pensions.

it seems very reasonable. Would be good if they did something like that in CA for many of the same reasons.

shrekgrinch says

Question is: Is it enough?
It doesn’t impact existing workers, which is where the bulk of the pension obligations are going to be for the next 30 years at least.

The NJ plan does impact current workers. The NY one does not.

There is a big difference between current employees and current retirees shrek. I was referring to workers, not retirees.

"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Senate legislative leaders have reached a deal to cut pensions and benefits for current public employees, according to a person familiar with the matter."

According to some of the articles I have read, the NJ Assembly dies not support the pension plan and likely won't pass it as it currently stands. The NJ senate, however, does support Christie's plan. So it is not a done deal and it could collapse at any moment.

N.J. Assembly holds up pension, health benefits overhaul brokered by Christie, Sweeney

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/christies_health_and_pension_b.html

HousingWatcher says

There is a big difference between current employees and current retirees shrek. I was referring to workers, not retirees.

“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Senate legislative leaders have reached a deal to cut pensions and benefits for current public employees, according to a person familiar with the matter.”

Aside from that initial summary sentence, it sounds like the only cut to current employees might be a change in the way colas work (when they do retire). In California I would like to see them just increase our contributions a little, and the states, and see what that does to the out year liabilities.

In CA they need to do a lot more than just increase contributions. They need to address retirement age, vacation pooling, pension spiking especially which is just flat out fraudulent loophole, all those things.

ChrisLA says

In CA they need to do a lot more than just increase contributions. They need to address retirement age, vacation pooling, pension spiking especially which is just flat out fraudulent loophole, all those things.

Believe it or not, I agree.

Although they don't need to do anything about retiremnet age for teachers. It doesn't get up to the max multiplier for teachers until 62. You don't have many teachers retiring at 55. If they do, it's probably fine for the state, because if they worked 7 years more, the state will be paying them A LOT more. Most teachers work until 65 or later if they can.

I think in todays economy people try to work well into their 70's and 80's.