This Editorial Opinion column purports to show a gender gap between the highest paid state workers. It does, but the real news is the “public service” salaries themselves. Did you know that some are making over $1 million a year?
“It gets worse,” says Op-Ed writer Shirley Leung. I’d say making $1 million a year on the public payroll is bad enough.
What Leung doesn’t talk about is what these people on the public payroll get in retirement. It is my understanding that the standard pensions for those working in the system for 30-35 years are 80% of the highest wages earned over the last three years. This is a guaranteed benefit, not subject to investment returns.
This and other promised benefits like retirement healthcare has led to a serious underfunding of our future obligations. I just happened to write about this topic yesterday in relationship to the French rail strikes and how France is trying to cut back on their generous promises, but the promisees will have none of that. See https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/a-great-reason-to-keep-cars/
So in today’s article, if someone is earning $1 million a year, and they are eligible for a pension, they would be getting paid $800,000 a year in retirement. If they retire at age 60 and live until 85, that would be about $20 million. And that’s just for one guy.
For the women who are “only” earning $500,000, that is $400,000 a year. Women tend to live longer, so that’s to their financial benefit under the state’s generous pension plan.
Not all of these high-earners will have put in enough years to get these huge pension payouts. But if you look at rank-and-file state employees, the pension promises add up to a lot of money.
Take a teacher, for example. Teachers start out at relatively low salaries and they “pay their dues.” The benefits, however, are excellent. If a teacher works for 40 years at an average salary of $70,000, they would earn $2.8 million over their lifetime.
But if they retire and their ending salary is $100,000 (and in Acton, many teachers make more than this), their pension payment would be $80,000 a year. If they live for 30 years, and get 2% COLA raises each year, they would be paid in retirement a total of $3,245,446, according to my calculation. So depending on their life expectancy, they could make more money in retirement than they made while working.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/757097764815369
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!