Well, if you got in the military after Vietnam, it was probably the best deal in town. 20 years, often in the U.S. cities of your choice (if they had a base/post) or in Europe, Japan or some garden spot of your choice. The worst that might happen is going to Grenada or the first Iraq war, and most avoided that. Now there's a lot more of a chance you'll get sent to a hostile area. Even if you aren't in combat, you'll be spending ample time in the "sand box." Having said that, we spend way too much on the military and I'm not opposed to revise some of their pay/benefits as well. For e.g., no pay increases or extra pay except for time in a true hazardous duty location. And we should start leaving all those hazardous locations (and foreign "garden spots") ASAP anyway. Let the Germans, et. al. take care of themselves.
You hit the nail on the head! The majority of people would like a retirement without having to save for it. The democracy is the problem, we need new laws to be dictated to us. Is there going to be great civil unrest if we tell some retired people they are going to have to live on 45k a year instead of 75K/year? Isn't 45k better than nothing which is what it could be. How can we brainwash the masses to think sacrificing something now will help preserve the future? If the masses really only care about themselves and their level of affluence let them kill each other for it.
Plunder: How Public Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation by Steven Greenhut is an excellent book on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Plunder-Emplo...upting/dp/0984275207/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top He also writes for the OC Register. http://www.ocregister.com/search/?q=greenhut&x=29&y=3
One thing I don't understand... If pension liabilities are the problem why can't we just pay these workers a higher base salary but make them save their own money and pay slightly more for health insurance.
Good idea, but there would be an incredible amount of kicking and screaming before you pulled that off. Good luck fighting the unions on that one. And I'm sure there would be a generous grandfathering period, so it wouldn't really address the time bomb of the Boomers or even Gen-X crowd.
No one --- not a single person should be able to retire after 20 or 25 years given life expectancy. So military people retiring at 40 is nonsense. Same with others such as union members retiring with 25, 28 or even 30 years. People went to work at the auto companies years ago out of high school and retired at 48. Work 30 years max and spend possibly MORE years than that in retirement is illogical in this day. As far as your teacher comment -- not all teachers are in the scenario you describe. I volunteer in 2 high poverty "Title I" schools and have done this over 10 years tutoring kids in math. What the teachers have to deal with is incomprehensible. They have to teach, manage an unruly class (at times), deal with hungry kids, angry kids, kids from abusive homes, homeless kids, transient, etc. The teachers I help out work at least 10 hours/day. They arrive at 6:30 am and often head home at 4:30. After they get home they have to prepare for the next day which can easily be a couple hours. This is a whole different ballgame than teachers who teach in affluent communities with middle or upper class kids with a stable, supporting household.
Because people won't save. More to the point, in a "well functioning" capitalist system where the President gets on TV to encourage people to shop more, people aren't even supposed to save.
For some reason, this concept does not resonate very well. Americans have an opportunity every 24 months to drastically alter the course of their gov't - and they consistently choose not to.