The New York Times has a long piece today arguing that older public employees are "unnerved by cutbacks" and consequently
deciding to retire early. The number of problems with this story are hard to count. First, even based on the evidence marshaled in the article itself, it is hardly clear that there is a trend in the direction of greater retirements. The two surveys cited in the piece show that while some workers are speeding up their retirement, many are choosing to delay it. And in 2008, when the recession first hit, many workers decided to stay put for a few more years. Second, aside from a few anecdotal quotes, there is little to suggest that the primary cause for most workers is displeasure with states' requiring more furlough days, salary freezes, and greater contributions to pension and health benefits. When to retire is a complicated decision for any worker with multiple variables impacting when they decide to do it. The third, and most glaring problem, are the things the piece fails to mention. These omissions allow the piece to deliver the message, usually reserved for the editorial page, that any changes in government labor relations that aren't about hiring more workers and paying them more are bad.
deciding to retire early. The number of problems with this story are hard to count. First, even based on the evidence marshaled in the article itself, it is hardly clear that there is a trend in the direction of greater retirements. The two surveys cited in the piece show that while some workers are speeding up their retirement, many are choosing to delay it. And in 2008, when the recession first hit, many workers decided to stay put for a few more years. Second, aside from a few anecdotal quotes, there is little to suggest that the primary cause for most workers is displeasure with states' requiring more furlough days, salary freezes, and greater contributions to pension and health benefits. When to retire is a complicated decision for any worker with multiple variables impacting when they decide to do it. The third, and most glaring problem, are the things the piece fails to mention. These omissions allow the piece to deliver the message, usually reserved for the editorial page, that any changes in government labor relations that aren't about hiring more workers and paying them more are bad.
These omissions include the fact that pension reforms in most states have
hardly scathed those close to retirement. Rather changes such as
increasing the retirement age apply to new hires and younger workers not
older ones. Even those workers asked to pay higher contributions to
their pensions and healthcare for a few years before retirement will so
be getting those dollars back. Another important fact is that many
public workers near retirement in states like California can earn nearly
as much, and sometimes more, in retirement as they did while working.
Yet, the Times makes no mention of the substantial extent to
which public sector compensation is back-loaded into retirement.
Finally, the notion that states are shorthanded with greater retirements
ignores the fact that states had been on a hiring binge prior to the
recession, as Steve Malagna has document on this blog and elsewhere.
Join the conversation