Daniel Sutter: The perils of pensions and prosperity

1

Daniel SutterDuring the city of Detroit’s bankruptcy, the state-appointed administrator sought to cut pension payments for thousands of retired city workers in violation of Michigan’s state constitution. City retirees eventually accepted a 4.5 percent cut in benefits, in part to prevent possibly larger cuts. Many private sector pensions are also shaky; the Federal pension insurance agency is currently assisting a record number of multi-employer plans.

Pensions are complex contracts, on which employers can try to take advantage of workers. Timing presents a challenge for pensions: employees work before receiving a pension. Markets involve voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. But when one party must act first, the second can always refuse to perform as promised. In a simple deal like, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine first,” I could fail to return the favor. Reneging on a promise converts an exchange into a one-sided rip-off.

Complex business arrangements enable prosperity. We will likely do business only with people we trust, like close family and friends, if we cannot contract successfully with strangers. But you cannot run a national or global business with only trusted associates.

Fortunately, many solutions for tough contracting problems now exist. For instance, you and I might take short turns scratching each other’s back. A pension, however, must be paid after workers finish working. The problem is worst for defined benefit pension plans, where the plan accumulates contributions to pay benefits according to a formula. If the plan is underfunded and cannot pay the promised benefits, a worker cannot take back her years of work. The danger is not as pronounced for defined contribution plans, because workers will see on their quarterly statements if contributions are not being made and then can look for a new job.

Government employers can also renege on pension promises. Indeed, the problem may be worse because our elected representatives cannot force future representatives to appropriate funds to the pension in say 2025. Tax dollars that should go to the pension can be spent on other services.

States have taken a variety of measures to protect public sector pensions. A new study from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College examines how such measures affected public sector pension reforms since the 2008 recession. Several states protect promised benefits for current workers in the state constitution, while two states offer no legal protections. The remaining states (including Alabama) rely on contracts affording workers some legal protection.

Have stronger measures better protected promises? The answer is yes for state constitutional protection. Furthermore, fewer states have either reduced benefits or increased contributions for current employees than they have for new employees. For example, 60 percent of state pensions increased the years of service to retire for new employees, versus only 4 percent for current employees. This is significant because only current workers or current retirees have truly been promised pension benefits; reducing benefits for workers not yet hired does not renege on a promise.

Reneging on promises others rely on is never good, but some context can help us understand why this occurs. Illinois has perhaps the nation’s worst-funded state pension plan, thanks in part to the “Edgar ramp” plan. Illinois’ state pension was already in bad shape in 1994 when Governor James Edgar and the legislature agreed on a schedule involving fifteen years of modest contributions followed by steeply escalating payments. Meeting scheduled contributions in 2016 would have required over one quarter of Illinois’ general fund tax revenues.

Any Illinois state legislator or voter under age forty today was not eligible to vote when the Edgar ramp was adopted. We can understand why they might balk at slashing spending for schools or prisons or raising taxes to honor a promise which they did not make.

We do not live in a world where everyone’s word is their bond. Underfunded employer pensions result in part from a timing dilemma plaguing many types of exchanges. Fortunately, legal and constitutional guarantees for public employee pensions have limited politicians’ reneging on their promises.

•••

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

Share.

1 Comment

  1. “Defined retirement benefits” are creeping into budgets, especially when those benefits are underfunded. The unintended consequences are that it’s unfortunate that future generations, unable to vote today, will bear the costs of many enacted pension programs, entitlements and boondoggle projects, requiring them to pay higher taxes and work later into their lives to pay for these promises.

    The international business world is intelligent enough to know that DEFINED BENEFITS, neither capped nor precisely quantifiable in advance, financial disasters to any business, thus all businesses focus on the known, i.e., defined CONTRIBUTIONS alone.

    Stealing from the young who have no votes, but silently shoulder the costs and bear the burden of unfunded promises of these programs to enrich the old seems to describe the Governments expansion of entitlement benefits and other government services, along with the taxes young people will have to pay to support them, mostly to subsidize older Americans.

    Virtually all elected officials are heavily financed by unions which are focused on entitlements for their current members. The unions, government, and other bureaucrats have been very successful in manipulating the system to enrich themselves. Thus, no changes can be expected in the foreseeable future for elected officials to ever abandon their source of votes.

    It’s the inmates running the pension Asylum that are loading up system with lucrative packages for themselves, to be paid for by current and future taxpayers.

    The inmates know that debt for our future generations buys votes. Over the decades, the proven “concept’ practiced by voters is to defer as much financial responsibilities as possible from our current financial responsibilities to future generations, that have no votes on the subject. Simply stated, if we cannot afford it today, pass it off to the future generations to minimize any impact on our current lifestyles.

    Even before those young folks can vote, our Golden State schools are on track to force substantial budgetary cutbacks on core education spending, as public schools around California are bracing for a crisis driven by skyrocketing worker pension costs that are expected to force districts to divert billions of dollars.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons
%d bloggers like this: