by Clem
Perhaps I jumped the gun here, though I don't think so.
I believe you are saying that the MTA can no longer afford paying pensions; that this is a trend in the US post-global-economy.
What I am saying is that the MTA has a vast surplus, which is between $1 billion and $3.5 billion, depending on which of their press releases you choose. The surplus is partly from paying less than standard wages to a workforce who considered the pension in lieu of better salaries.
Even if the pension cost is $20 million per year, this one year's surplus could fund the full pension costs of the MTA for a long, long time.
The MTA is exploiting the "I-can't-have-it-so-neither-should-they" class envy mentality here.
Among skilled workers, generous pensions are alive and well. I was recently offered a position in the private sector that would pay a nice pension after ten years' service.
Didn't mean to insult, call names, or otherwise pi$$ you off -- too close to Christmas for that.
Best regards,
Clemuel
I believe you are saying that the MTA can no longer afford paying pensions; that this is a trend in the US post-global-economy.
What I am saying is that the MTA has a vast surplus, which is between $1 billion and $3.5 billion, depending on which of their press releases you choose. The surplus is partly from paying less than standard wages to a workforce who considered the pension in lieu of better salaries.
Even if the pension cost is $20 million per year, this one year's surplus could fund the full pension costs of the MTA for a long, long time.
The MTA is exploiting the "I-can't-have-it-so-neither-should-they" class envy mentality here.
Among skilled workers, generous pensions are alive and well. I was recently offered a position in the private sector that would pay a nice pension after ten years' service.
Didn't mean to insult, call names, or otherwise pi$$ you off -- too close to Christmas for that.
Best regards,
Clemuel