Incidentally, the assumptions people make about Congress are even crazier. As much as it pains me to defend their often worthless butts, have the same benefits as any other fed…they DO NOT have super sekrit speshul gold-plated bennies such as free health care and salary for life.

It sounds to me like a lot of the public-sector commenters really enjoy their work. They deal with the low compensation because of the love for their work.

I doubt there is much of a private sector market for crime analyst, or high-school teacher. These jobs exist because, for the most part, we as a society find them necessary but the private sector doesn’t want to invest in them because they don’t provide shorter-term profits (there’s no monetary gain in capturing child pornographers, for example).

Personally, I would only go into the public sector to be a professor or researcher at a national lab (I’m an engineering graduate student). Otherwise, the compensation is so much better in the private sector that it’s not work it.

I also like having control over my money, so I don’t think I’d like being in a union where I’m required to contribute money into a pension I have no control over. Not to mention not being able to negotiate directly with my employer.

I took a masters degree in architecture but with the economy being down past few years my career has seen only the negative side of it. I was told that a college degree will give me an cutting edge and I don’t deny that except that I have learnt that it has to be the right college degree. My friends from other field make 2-3 times more than me working same 8-5. Your article talks about how someone can still be thankful about what they have got without worrying about trivial things. Its not how much you make but its about how much you save that matters at the end of the day.

I have learnt some good things in past few months after reading blogs like these and have become responsible spender. My current job may not be high paying but I can see I have a potential of being a partner at this company down the line if I stay long enough. Also, I haven’t gotten a raise in past four years but its better to have a salary than not having it at all.

So for everyone out there who are comparing salaries, let me tell ya its just a “number” and things are that really matter are independent of that number.

I also contribute mandatorily to the normal state pension system (akin to US Social Security). I’d say about 20% of my income each month goes solely to my pension, not counting the state pension contribution. Health insurance, disability insurance and critical illness insurance are voluntary (but the public health system in this country is too bad to consider living without private health insurance), however, my union has brokered some good deals with private providers on these.

Anyway, long story short, while I serve in a judicial function and am fortunate to make considerabely more than Robin (about 97k in USD), I take less than half of that home as net pay (app. 43k in USD).

What I find shocking is that the state in Robin’s case has the right to re-negotiate her contract every four years. That is not possible here. A new public service employment contract applies only to those who enter employment after it is agreed. Everyone else is entitled to stay on their old contract, under the legal doctrine of “legitimate expectation”.

It’s a great job. I can honestly say that I’m doing exactly what I was meant to do.

At 30 with a master’s degree I was making over $50K as a legal assistant. Robin could undoubtedly make a ton more money elsewhere.

But 30 is … very young. This is no longer 1930 when the average 30-yr-old woman already had had six kids, three of whom survived, and had another 15 years to live. Robin has another 30 to 40 years of working life … as long as she can manage the stress.

Generally the 50% pension would be on par with an employer who’s offering a ~6% match to 401k contributions (which is a fairly generous match). Of course in return someone with a 401k generally has a quicker vesting schedule (some even instant), and has access to their full nest egg, though this can be good or bad depending on their spending habits.

Interestingly the 10year/20% offer is just about exactly equivalent to contriubting money for 10 years then letting it grow for 15 more. So same as a 0% employer match.

Robin pays 10% towards that pension and no social security. If she works 40 years she could probably retire with a 80% of her salary. Thats good.

If Robin worked at my company she would have social security cut out at 6.2%. My employer would then put 6.2% into social security and 6% into our retirement plan. If Robin put 3.8% into the retirement plan then that would be 9.8% total. Between the retirement plan and social security you’d end up with approximately 75% of your working income at full retirement age. The social security would be worth more than Robins pension dollar for dollar since it has a cost of living increase.

Robins pension with 10% contribution is about equivalent to my social security taxes and 6% employer cash benefit more or less.

Seriously, Thank you for your candor!

When you get to near retirement, look up the rules – in some schemes, you can sacrifice a small amount of your pension to provide a pension for your spouse. In my father’s case a 10% reduction in his annual pension provided for a 50% survivor pension to my mother (which thankfully they haven’t needed).

Your scheme may not allow it, and the math will vary, but it is worth investigating.

Although I will benefit from this, I feel bad because this is why California is in the mess it is. The retirement benefits that this state carries for its civil servants and teachers is unbelievable.

Now the public is being sold that the bottom of the barrel is the gold standard and we all need to shoulder a bigger burden.

Funny how that worked out to the companies favor.