Barney Frank marries longtime partner Jim Ready

Quote from shhaggy : In my personal experience, potential good candidates to teach are avoiding teaching not just because of the poor compensation, but because of the culture surrounding some Americans and labor unions and the uncertainty concerning what little teacher compensation exists now.

You said you forewent education because of the pay, but what if there are actually people out there ready and willing to do the job "for the children" and for less pay. hmm.

My cousin is a newly-graduated teacher. She had to move hours away to a little town to get a job. She's a very nice person. (Certainly less outspoken than me! ahahaha!) Is she a good teacher? I've never taken her class, so I don't know. But I do know she's willing to do the job.

I'll say it again: many people think a degree is for earning more money. Not necessarily. A degree should be foremost for getting the kind of job you want so you can be happy going to work every day. If you enjoy going to work every day, you're ahead of 95% of everyone else. If someone is going into teaching to make big bucks, hey, I think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

Quote from SigX : i will list out some of my concerns and attempt to address your comments here. you did not reply to all my comments and therefor, dont know how you feel about each of them since my opinion is based off all of them in entirety i would ask you to comment on them each. #1 the amount of the "pension" value at time of retirement (actual retirement in early 50's) is far higher than the gen population in their 60's. #2 the bill to state/local and fed gov is unsustainable, primarily because we are not seeing the growth explosion seen when the baby boomers entered the work force. thus its not financially sustainable. if you think this is wrong please provide a link. #3 private worker must work more years. I have provided links which lend credence to my OPINION as to why public pensions are so "lavish". ??? what is up with this kind of crap. yes I have an agenda ---> that public and private workers enjoy the same TOTAL COMPENSATION. OMG, give the partisan bickering a break. Now to your point about increase private sector retirements to the same level as public. talk about moments of unintended honesty: it seems you finally admit that public worker compensation IS more than private compensation. Lets assume that we can "lift up" private retirements to the level of public.... please tell me how this can be accomplished while not losing even more jobs to other nations. thank you.

I think focusing on retirement alone is silly. It should be the total compensation. (You and I agree on that.)

If total compensation for gov workers was way more than their counterparts in the private sectors, you would see a huge rush and desire to become gov workers. I have not seen that, excluding present out of work private sector workers. Whose number one career choice is becoming a postal worker? I think the resentment towards gov workers comes mainly from resentment to gov itself from a certain population. That certain population assumes, perhaps correctly, that gov workers vote dem and therefore they are fair games to be brutalized. The resentment also comes from the belief that gov workers are lazy and therefore whatever compensation they get is too much. Having said that, I do not have a strong objection to the claim that total compensation for gov workers is more than that in the private sectors.

When times were good, private sector employees were fairing better. They were not complaining and they were not scapegoating gov workers. Gov workers were being paid less but they accepted the lesser pay for better benefits and job security. Now the economy is in shambles and private sectors workers are unemployed and rather than resenting the super rich who have raked huge amounts of wealth, they resent gov workers. How pathetic is that?

The notion that gov workers have not earned their pensions is just wrong. You do not need to literally pay into a benefit in order to have earned that benefit. Most reasonable people know and acknowledge that. Unreasonable resenters of course are a different story. The notion that Frank did not earn his pension any more than that he did not earn his salary, if any, is just silly.

I am not married to the notion that pensions are better values than 401ks. In fact I have said so repeatedly that I prefer a pension over a 401k. However, I will not accept that the very concept of pension is wrong. Any system can and has been abused. I am sure there are horror stories about exorbitant contribution to highly paid employees' 401ks.

The notion that a $3600-4000 a month pension for a teacher after 30 years of service and a last salary of 80,000 is "lavish" is just preposterous and not supported by reality.

The notion that healthcare is "free" is just silly. Nothing is free. Every single benefit given to employees, be it gov workers or private sector workers, is earned. Even the employer part of the SS taxes paid on behalf of the worker is earned by the worker. Only people with agenda and filled with resentment would claim otherwise.

The notion that gov workers get SS is a red herring. If an employee has paid into the SS they get a payment. If not, not. This is the same for gov and private sector workers. Gov workers get criticized for both of these:

(a) They get SS on top of their pension. SS is such a good deal. People get much more than they put in.


(b) SS is such a bad thing. No wonder politicians have exempted themselves from paying into it.


So which is it? I say this is a witch hunt and gov and gov workers will be brutalized no matter what by those who resent gov and gov workers.

Now to the points that you have made in this post:

#1 If the present value of pension A is greater than the present value of a 401k account B, then that is what it is. I am not gonna argue against math. However, A being grater than B is not a proof that A is "lavish." You say A is lavish but your only evidence for that claim is that A is greater than B.

#2 The fact that local, state, and fed gov cannot pay their obligations is no fault of the workers. This is not the first thing that the gov has fvcked up. What do you expect when a doofus president starts two phony wars to help his friends in Halliburton and instead of asking people to pay for them he doubles down on his buffoonery and give exorbitant tax cuts to his friends? And now this is the teachers' fault?

What is more important is what is a fair and reasonable retirement amount for say a teacher who has worked 30 years and her salary just before retirement is 80K. I could never get you to opine on that. I think the reason is that you know $4000 a month is NOT exorbitant but just don't want to admit it.

#3 I really do not have an opinion on that. I am not sure if it is true that private workers must work longer. We as a society should agree that people are entitled to a reasonable retirement after X years. If X = 30 is no longer valid, then so be it.

Quote from Deusxmachina : You said you forewent education because of the pay, but what if there are actually people out there ready and willing to do the job "for the children" and for less pay. hmm. My cousin is a newly-graduated teacher. She had to move hours away to a little town to get a job. She's a very nice person. (Certainly less outspoken than me! ahahaha!) Is she a good teacher? I've never taken her class, so I don't know. But I do know she's willing to do the job. I'll say it again: many people think a degree is for earning more money. Not necessarily. A degree should be foremost for getting the kind of job you want so you can be happy going to work every day. If you enjoy going to work every day, you're ahead of 95% of everyone else. If someone is going into teaching to make big bucks, hey, I think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

"Willing to do the job" is pretty irrelevant. I'm "willing" to be CFO of my company, and I'll even work for less than the average CFO makes, but I'm pretty sure that'll rank pretty low on the list of reasons to hand me that position.

What would you propose the school system do to accommodate your cousin getting a job there? Routinely purge the older teachers off of their payroll? If you're alleging that there is cause to fire a teacher, then we should fire them. I agree with you. But again, that is NOT the case when "last in first out" comes up. That doesn't come up to hire new teachers, that comes up to REDUCE a workforce. If there is no cause for firing a teacher, why on Earth would we just "make room" for your cousin to get a chance? One with way more experience no less.

At the end of the day, there is a reason for last in first out. You repeatedly act like it's merely an idiotic policy to help protect bad teachers. That's just not the case. It is not in anybody's best interest to protect bad teachers. Not municipalities, not the union, not teachers in general, and certainly not our children. The reason the policy is in place is because of the way we want to structure the way we pay our teachers. Without the policy, why wouldn't schools ROUTINELY purge older teachers off of the payroll, once they get a few raises, regardless of their ability to teach? It keeps costs down, it would flat out make rational sense. But once you start doing that, all of a sudden those years at the beginning of your career when you're barely making anything are hard to justify. You're not working towards anything. The whole world demonizes your pension and benefits package, and your municipality decides you're a "bad teacher" once you climb the salary ladder. But everyone loves you when you're a great young 'teacher of the year" and you're willing to accept less than $30k and eat ramen noodles 4x a week. I'm pretty sure if that was the structure of how we paid teachers, your cousin would never have even considered it, unless she literally doesn't need to make a living and either has a high earning spouse or is already wealthy. Other than that, the people willing to take that job will be people who's alternatives are working at Target or Best Buy. Is that really where we want our teaching workforce from?

If your position is: get rid of the escalating pay scale, dump the job security, allow for poor teachers to be fired, and pay them a competitive salary, I'm 100% for that. But the people arguing against the pay scale and job security are the same people who ALREADY think the salary is too high, and basically want to pay for babysitters and not educators. You're going to get what you pay for. I don't want babysitters for my kids, I want teachers.

Quote from TRNT : I think focusing on retirement alone is silly. It should be the total compensation. (You and I agree on that.)

yes we do.

Quote : If total compensation for gov workers was way more than their counterparts in the private sectors, you would see a huge rush and desire to become gov workers. I have not seen that, excluding present out of work private sector workers. Whose number one career choice is becoming a postal worker? I think the resentment towards gov workers comes mainly from resentment to gov itself from a certain population. That certain population assumes, perhaps correctly, that gov workers vote dem and therefore they are fair games to be brutalized. The resentment also comes from the belief that gov workers are lazy and therefore whatever compensation they get is too much. Having said that, I do not have a strong objection to the claim that total compensation for gov workers is more than that in the private sectors.

first, i have not called gov workers lazy. second, I am now brutalizing anyone. third, some gov jobs are highly prized. yes, most people don't dream of being a postal worker in school but most people understand that these are in fact good paying jobs. just because some people are too stupid to know about them does not change the fact that they pay a pretty good wage while not requiring any special skills.

Quote : When times were good, private sector employees were fairing better. They were not complaining and they were not scapegoating gov workers. Gov workers were being paid less but they accepted the lesser pay for better benefits and job security. Now the economy is in shambles and private sectors workers are unemployed and rather than resenting the super rich who have raked huge amounts of wealth, they resent gov workers. How pathetic is that?

its the nature of politics that if things are good people tend to become apathetic. when things are bad, people pay more attention and wants answers. you may thinks it pathetic but that does NOT change the validity of concerns. its really just a fallacious comment. plus, please consider that the financial capabilities of the taxpayer have changed. this is not a small point, this is a huge issue that can not be ignored. the taxpayer is broke and the gov needs to be able to change to the new economic conditions. people in the private sector are being forced to accept far less why is it so hard to expect the public sector to do the same?????

Quote : The notion that gov workers have not earned their pensions is just wrong. You do not need to literally pay into a benefit in order to have earned that benefit. Most reasonable people know and acknowledge that. Unreasonable resenters of course are a different story. The notion that Frank did not earn his pension any more than that he did not earn his salary, if any, is just silly.

i would generally say that pensions are in fact "earned" in the strict sense but would maintain my position that they are too "generous". these are NOT mutually exclusive. As far as politicians, I see no point is arguing about thier retirement as I think that is a far more complex discussion.

Quote : I am not married to the notion that pensions are better values than 401ks. In fact I have said so repeatedly that I prefer a pension over a 401k. However, I will not accept that the very concept of pension is wrong. Any system can and has been abused. I am sure there are horror stories about exorbitant contribution to highly paid employees' 401ks. The notion that a $3600-4000 a month pension for a teacher after 30 years of service and a last salary of 80,000 is "lavish" is just preposterous and not supported by reality.

why the hyperbole?

would it be lavish if they only had to work 25 years? 20 years? 15 years? 10 yeas? 5 years? at what point would YOU call it lavish? It really is just opinion, and each person has a right to one. it really adds nothing to the conversation make your comments above. I understand you think its preposterous but some people think these pension as just as preposterous.

Quote : The notion that healthcare is "free" is just silly. Nothing is free. Every single benefit given to employees, be it gov workers or private sector workers, is earned. Even the employer part of the SS taxes paid on behalf of the worker is earned by the worker. Only people with agenda and filled with resentment would claim otherwise.

it was incorrect for me to imply it was free. it is earned but may be too generous at the same time.

Quote : The notion that gov workers get SS is a red herring. If an employee has paid into the SS they get a payment. If not, not. This is the same for gov and private sector workers. Gov workers get criticized for both of these: (a) They get SS on top of their pension. SS is such a good deal. People get much more than they put in. (b) SS is such a bad thing. No wonder politicians have exempted themselves from paying into it.

a and b are not mutually exclusive. My gma and gpa gat FAR more than they put in. it is very likely I will get far less than I put in (and far less benefits by comparison than boomers or my gpa). SS is predicted to not be solvent when I retire. do you expect that a 20something or 30 something will have the same benefits (and pay in the same amount) as teh boomers did? not likely, my generation is paying in far more than they did when they were my age (by percentage of income).

as far as A... I am simply pointing out that when they are 65 they are not receiving far more than $3600-4000 a month which you have been defending. IIRC SS will add 35K to thier income. so now they get 6-7k per month no? now they are essential back to thier pre-retirement salary.............. if i did the math wrong please point it out.

Quote : So which is it? I say this is a witch hunt and gov and gov workers will be brutalized no matter what by those who resent gov and gov workers.

seriously man, the hyperbole adds nothing. I would argue that wages should be increased and pension changes to defined contribution retirements that are now present in the private sector. why should the gov SOP never change???

Quote : Now to the points that you have made in this post: #1 If the present value of pension A is greater than the present value of a 401k account B, then that is what it is. I am not gonna argue against math. However, A being grater than B is not a proof that A is "lavish." You say A is lavish but your only evidence for that claim is that A is greater than B.

I posted links to articles that show that retirement for MOST people in the private sector when these people are trying to reiter in their 60's is less than public worker who retire in 50's. its my OPINION they are lavish.

Quote : #2 The fact that local, state, and fed gov cannot pay their obligations is no fault of the workers. This is not the first thing that the gov has fvcked up. What do you expect when a doofus president starts two phony wars to help his friends in Halliburton and instead of asking people to pay for them he doubles down on his buffoonery and give exorbitant tax cuts to his friends? And now this is the teachers' fault?

gov workers and gov unions have zero responsbility for the gov runs??? also, how is Bush to blame for the local, city and state pensions??? what controll did he have over that? I guess you could blame texas on him but the rest of the states and local govs?????? talk about partisan attacks with little merit...

Quote : What is more important is what is a fair and reasonable retirement amount for say a teacher who has worked 30 years and her salary just before retirement is 80K. I could never get you to opine on that. I think the reason is that you know $4000 a month is NOT exorbitant but just don't want to admit it.

I have stated numerous times that I think they are being allowed to retire far to young (1) and that if this pay/retirement ben etc. is better than compartive private sector jobs then I find it unfair (2).

Quote : #3 I really do not have an opinion on that. I am not sure if it is true that private workers must work longer. We as a society should agree that people are entitled to a reasonable retirement after X years. If X = 30 is no longer valid, then so be it.

well, I would argue that x=30 is no longer valid. heck, look at the SS age of retirement, its already been pushed older so obviously SS thinks that retiring in you 50's is NOT sustainable. the financial guys are expecting ANOTHER change in retirement age from SS in the next few years to keep it solvent.... of course I highly doubt they will touch the boomers who will drain our nation dry.

Quote from Deusxmachina : If your income comes from capital gains, you are not subject to social security. The more you know....

Long term capital gains....

How many people derive 100% of their income from long term capital gains?

A tiny percentage compared to the number of government workers that pay zero into social security....

Quote from shhaggy : It is not in anybody's best interest to protect bad teachers. Not municipalities, not the union, not teachers in general, and certainly not our children

And yet that's what happens.

Quote from shhaggy : If your position is: get rid of the escalating pay scale, dump the job security, allow for poor teachers to be fired, and pay them a competitive salary, I'm 100% for that. But the people arguing against the pay scale and job security are the same people who ALREADY think the salary is too high, and basically want to pay for babysitters and not educators. You're going to get what you pay for. I don't want babysitters for my kids, I want teachers.

If there is a bigger supply of good workers than there is demand, then the pay is probably too high. Master's degree != high-paying job.

You are assuming more $ = better education. That theory lacks evidence.

Quote from Elmer : Long term capital gains....

Short-term too.

Well, "it depends," I guess.

Quote from Deusxmachina : And yet that's what happens. If there is a bigger supply of good workers than there is demand, then the pay is probably too high. Master's degree != high-paying job. You are assuming more $ = better education. That theory lacks evidence. Short-term too. Well, "it depends," I guess.

What you're describing is a byproduct of a policy, not the direct result of one. The policy does more good than bad.

Is there any evidence that there is a bigger supply of good workers than there is demand? Your definition of "good workers" is not clear. Further, your anecdote about young workers wanting to enter the workforce ignores one major variable: that they want to enter the workforce given the benefits and pay increases that the workforce enjoys. Would those hypothetical good young teachers, which I have not conceded exist in high numbers, agree to work for low pay without the benefits and pension and pay scale increases that come with the position? I don't think so, but if I'm wrong, you certainly haven't shown that I'm wrong. Logic would dictate that the allure of any given position would decrease as the compensation package decreases. I wouldn't want my job at half my salary, there're way easier jobs for that level of compensation.

I am assuming that more $ = more demand for jobs = larger pool of applicants = better chance at finding great teachers. That's logical, is it not? Isn't that how every position works? Isn't that why valuable employees get paid a lot of money? If I'm looking for a good second baseman for the Detroit Tigers, isn't it logical that I'd attract a better one with a $10M budget than I would with a $3M budget? It's fairly obvious that spending more money on teachers will yield better teachers. Is that the only variable to better education? No. Does it mean paying teachers more will DEFINITELY lead to better education? No. But that's the wrong question. You can't reduce how good the education is to how good the teacher is. If you put the best teacher in the middle of the jungle with no supplies: guess what? Those kids aren't gonna do as well on an algebra test as the kids in an average suburban school with an average teacher and average resources available to them. The variable we're isolating here is getting the better teachers, and yes, their compensation level does directly correlate to getting a better applicant pool and thus better candidates.

Quote from SigX : yes we do. first, i have not called gov workers lazy. second, I am now brutalizing anyone. third, some gov jobs are highly prized. yes, most people don't dream of being a postal worker in school but most people understand that these are in fact good paying jobs. just because some people are too stupid to know about them does not change the fact that they pay a pretty good wage while not requiring any special skills. its the nature of politics that if things are good people tend to become apathetic. when things are bad, people pay more attention and wants answers. you may thinks it pathetic but that does NOT change the validity of concerns. its really just a fallacious comment. plus, please consider that the financial capabilities of the taxpayer have changed. this is not a small point, this is a huge issue that can not be ignored. the taxpayer is broke and the gov needs to be able to change to the new economic conditions. people in the private sector are being forced to accept far less why is it so hard to expect the public sector to do the same????? i would generally say that pensions are in fact "earned" in the strict sense but would maintain my position that they are too "generous". these are NOT mutually exclusive. As far as politicians, I see no point is arguing about thier retirement as I think that is a far more complex discussion. why the hyperbole? would it be lavish if they only had to work 25 years? 20 years? 15 years? 10 yeas? 5 years? at what point would YOU call it lavish? It really is just opinion, and each person has a right to one. it really adds nothing to the conversation make your comments above. I understand you think its preposterous but some people think these pension as just as preposterous. it was incorrect for me to imply it was free. it is earned but may be too generous at the same time. a and b are not mutually exclusive. My gma and gpa gat FAR more than they put in. it is very likely I will get far less than I put in (and far less benefits by comparison than boomers or my gpa). SS is predicted to not be solvent when I retire. do you expect that a 20something or 30 something will have the same benefits (and pay in the same amount) as teh boomers did? not likely, my generation is paying in far more than they did when they were my age (by percentage of income). as far as A... I am simply pointing out that when they are 65 they are not receiving far more than $3600-4000 a month which you have been defending. IIRC SS will add 35K to thier income. so now they get 6-7k per month no? now they are essential back to thier pre-retirement salary.............. if i did the math wrong please point it out. seriously man, the hyperbole adds nothing. I would argue that wages should be increased and pension changes to defined contribution retirements that are now present in the private sector. why should the gov SOP never change??? I posted links to articles that show that retirement for MOST people in the private sector when these people are trying to reiter in their 60's is less than public worker who retire in 50's. its my OPINION they are lavish. gov workers and gov unions have zero responsbility for the gov runs??? also, how is Bush to blame for the local, city and state pensions??? what controll did he have over that? I guess you could blame texas on him but the rest of the states and local govs?????? talk about partisan attacks with little merit... I have stated numerous times that I think they are being allowed to retire far to young (1) and that if this pay/retirement ben etc. is better than compartive private sector jobs then I find it unfair (2). well, I would argue that x=30 is no longer valid. heck, look at the SS age of retirement, its already been pushed older so obviously SS thinks that retiring in you 50's is NOT sustainable. the financial guys are expecting ANOTHER change in retirement age from SS in the next few years to keep it solvent.... of course I highly doubt they will touch the boomers who will drain our nation dry.

There seems to be a disconnect here. Instead of a point by point, let's see if we can forward this discussion a bit differently.


So a single mother becomes nurse at the age of 25. At what age do you think she should be able to retire and at what level pension? For the sake of argument, assume her salary just before retirement is $80K.


It seems that you think this is a gotcha question. It is not. I even go first. I say she needs 75% of her last income in order to comfortably (not lavishly) retire.


Whatsayyou?

Quote from SigX : would it be lavish if they only had to work 25 years? 20 years? 15 years? 10 yeas? 5 years? at what point would YOU call it lavish? It really is just opinion, and each person has a right to one. it really adds nothing to the conversation make your comments above. I understand you think its preposterous but some people think these pension as just as preposterous.

You're looking at the wrong variable. How many years they worked is entirely irrelevant IMO. The formula that you should look at is overall work/overall compensation. Breaking down when that compensation is doled out is just creative math, nothing more. Teachers put in 30 years of work for a low salary, a decent health care package, and a solid pension. Is that outrageous? I don't think so. But if you start cutting into the pension, I'm gonna start complaining about the low salary. You can't only argue one side of the argument without looking at all of the variables. If you want them to work another 10 years, they're going to want better money when they enter the workforce. The perk is there to compensate for something that they gave up, namely a competitive salary. Nothing is "free". It's a part of their compensation package.

If the years before retirement were all that mattered, you'd automatically lose this argument if teachers made $400k a year, had no pension and paid for their own healthcare. Because you're completely ignoring the fact that their salary is low, since it doesn't fit your argument. You can't cherry pick when to include a variable and when not to, it's called a variable for a reason. It's important. Under this scenario, teachers would be overpaid.

Quote from shhaggy : You're looking at the wrong variable. How many years they worked is entirely irrelevant IMO. The formula that you should look at is overall work/overall compensation. Breaking down when that compensation is doled out is just creative math, nothing more. Teachers put in 30 years of work for a low salary, a decent health care package, and a solid pension. Is that outrageous? I don't think so. But if you start cutting into the pension, I'm gonna start complaining about the low salary. You can't only argue one side of the argument without looking at all of the variables. If you want them to work another 10 years, they're going to want better money when they enter the workforce. The perk is there to compensate for something that they gave up, namely a competitive salary. Nothing is "free". It's a part of their compensation package. If the years before retirement were all that mattered, you'd automatically lose this argument if teachers made $400k a year, had no pension and paid for their own healthcare. Because you're completely ignoring the fact that their salary is low, since it doesn't fit your argument. You can't cherry pick when to include a variable and when not to, it's called a variable for a reason. It's important. Under this scenario, teachers would be overpaid.

apparently, while tripping on yourself to prove me wrong, you missed the part where I said they should be paid the same as those people in the private sector, and if need be, that would include increasing the base salary. but go ahead and keep ignoring the things you want and creating staw men so its easy to prove me wrong.

Quote from SigX : apparently, while tripping on yourself to prove me wrong, you missed the part where I said they should be paid the same as those people in the private sector, and if need be, that would include increasing the base salary.

That wouldn't work.

If there aren't outrageous benefits not seen in the private sector to hand out, then what do the unions take credit for, and how would the DNC make up the shortfall in campaign donations?

Quote from TRNT : There seems to be a disconnect here. Instead of a point by point, let's see if we can forward this discussion a bit differently.

why? you dont want to respond to my reasoning to why you may or may not be wrong esp after you wrote that huge essay...whateva, its Bush's fault.

Quote : So a single mother becomes nurse at the age of 25. At what age do you think she should be able to retire and at what level pension? For the sake of argument, assume her salary just before retirement is $80K.

there are way too many factors in play for me to give you a good answer.... I will try anyway. Take the average pay for a similar level trained nurse in the region so that the pay in in the ~80% range base salary. Adjust the base salary and benefits for variables such as good/bad neoghborhood, access to qualified applicants, level of additional training needed (if any), relative difficulty of job (we talking super busy hard work or relatively quiet schedule), level of prior experience (new nurse or 10 years experience), etc etc. this was not an exhaustive list just some things I would take into consideration. one size does not fit all. For retirement package, would suggst defined contribution matching to retirement which can be adjusted periodically to be directly compatible with private industry. ultimate goal of compensation package would be to be very competitive, not much more, not much less.

Quote : It seems that you think this is a gotcha question. It is not. I even go first. I say she needs 75% of her last income in order to comfortably (not lavishly) retire.

what is the basis for that determination??? given the fact that millions of americans retire with less than thay makes me immediately question how that is "comfortable" and not lavish. It is far above average. please see article posted previously. thus far, I have not seen a single legit reason as to why a public worker doing the same exact job as a private worker (for ex a nurse) should get to retire 15 years younger with a better retirement. I guess I will never get a real answer to that.

Quote from TRNT : So a single mother becomes nurse at the age of 25. At what age do you think she should be able to retire and at what level pension? For the sake of argument, assume her salary just before retirement is $80K.

Quote from SigX : there are way too many factors in play for me to give you a good answer.... I will try anyway. Take the average pay for a similar level trained nurse in the region so that the pay in in the ~80% range base salary. Adjust the base salary and benefits for variables such as good/bad neoghborhood, access to qualified applicants, level of additional training needed (if any), relative difficulty of job (we talking super busy hard work or relatively quiet schedule), level of prior experience (new nurse or 10 years experience), etc etc. this was not an exhaustive list just some things I would take into consideration. one size does not fit all. For retirement package, would suggst defined contribution matching to retirement which can be adjusted periodically to be directly compatible with private industry. ultimate goal of compensation package would be to be very competitive, not much more, not much less.

This is not a pissing contest. No comparison is necessary. I simply asked what you consider a reasonable pension. Here is the type pf answr i was expecting: $xK a month. X could have been 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, .... Consider this a theroretical text-book example if you will. If I were a cynical person I would think that you are unwilling to give a number because you know you would either be shown unreasonable or heartless. But I will accept the possibility that there is a disconnect.