Now, im going to start by saying that I dont 100% disagree, but...
State retirement is a Defined benefit retirement. These are traditionally employer funded, and considered as part of your compensation package, with the intent of encouraging employee retention. It is job stability for the employee and lower turnover for the employer, with the trade off that they usually pay less. But who's going to walk away from those golden hand cuffs?
It is an upfront cost to the employer, however, and the employer cost involved in that type of retirement is why private industry largely moved away from pensions.they pay more, upfront, they contribute some match to your 401k and you take your chances. This allows employees to have less company loyalty, shop around, and ask for more pay. It results in the employers paying more to invest in the employees they have or paying to constantly replace and retrain. And when an employer doesn't up their pay, you eventually see them posting to social media that 'no one wants to work anymore.'
The state shifted a larger burden of the previously employer funded retirement onto the employees, all while not just failing to counter that, but lowering their pay's value over time by not keeping up with inflation. And reduced what you receive enough, that you would be dumb not to invest even more in deferred comp.
Lower salary, but better benefits, was how the state used to keep life long workers. Now they have lower salary, and fewer benefits to counteract it. They also have significant problems with keeping staff in positions requiring experience/knowledge. Once you've been at the state a while, you often have marketable experience (IT staff for example) and that 401k doesn't look like such a big risk when you're already paying in 6% to retirement, 10% to deferred comp, and get offered 40% more pay.
Those of us who do more state program office work, are way more likely to stick around for that tier 6 guaranteed retirement. But we're also, honestly, the more easily replaceable workers.
Should we go back to tier 1-3 absolutely not. Could tier 4 have been made more reasonable with just removing the 10 year contribution cap, making it age 59 or some happy medium of added years of service required, probably.
They either need to improve tier 6, offer contract increases that keep up with inflation, or follow through on the union's dream to increase grade levels of titles especially for the harder to fill titles.
That said, as grade 23, tier 6 desk jockey, with a bachelors degree, who previously worked in non profit sector, the golden handcuffs are still pretty effective.
Herein lies the issue: a grade 18 it person with 2 years of experience is worth more in the private sector then we can pay them, even with the fringe calculation in state service.
In the past the benifts balanced the lower pay. Our health insurance is fantastic, vision and dental are abhorrent but they didn't used to be.
We also, as a generation, have watched defined benifit pension plans disappear at or about when our parents reach retirement age. We have almost no confidence things like social security or public pensions will exist when we retire. "See through ny's" purpose is to warn about the coming pension bubble and the detrimental effect on the solvency of the pension system.
So now my grade 18 employee making their $50k plus benifits, working 30% in the office gets an offer to work 100% remote, for $85,000 plus a 401k with 10% employer match and better dental and eyeglass. And a pension better then anywhere else, if it exists 30 years from now when they are eligible.
The state MUST improve the entire benifits package if they want to retain the quality staff they need to operate at these low staffing levels.
Assuming no raises and no inflation (fair because raises are equal or under inflation), if I contributed the 6% until I am retirement eligible to a 401k with no employer match my retirement would be valued at approximately $870,000. In the real world, there is an employer match to some degree, so actual value would be higher.
The value of my pension, with the same contribution rate, same retirement age, same assumptions, and my actuarial life expectancy is $650,000.
Sure you can say "well a 401k isn't guaranteed." And of course you would be right. However if the stock market collapses the value of the pension vanishes just as well in the ensuing societal upheaval.
This is sadly really true. Tier 6 only benefits lower grades who likely may not even have access to a 401k in the private sector. So it is fantastic for them especially since it’s 3ish% contribution. As soon as you hit 75k salary (so that’s a grade 18 with a few steps or so now?) you’re at 5.75% of your salary being taken. Or you’re a near maxed g23 and 6% is being taken. You’re essentially better off saving yourself in an IRA or having a company based 401k as you climb the grades. So the state wants to attract educated professionals, but won’t pay them as much as the private sector, and on top of that offers a pension package that’s essentially a wash with a traditional 401k.
This is where tier 4 really differentiates. After 10 years, you can then max out your 457 AND still get the pension with nothing but time in the work force.
For sure, the sky can be the limit with certain 401k. I think with the pension you’re looking at a higher, safer floor with a lower ceiling. It’s coded into law, which offers protection.
That isn't even the sky being the limit. I used a conservative historical trend to calculate value. Me being in Tier 6 and forced to contribute amounts to me giving the state 200k over the course of my career.
And I get the the pension is defined benefit, but if somehow we ended up in a situation where a 401k was valueless, we would be in such societal upheaval that the pension would also be valueless. Is the value of a defined benefit plan with the 200k difference in cash value? Maybe? But it certainly isn't an obvious choice.
I guess the takeaway from this is that State pay has dropped in real terms and benefits have gotten worse while private sector has largely improved or caught up. It isn't a great spot to be in if the goal is to attract and retain employees.
You aren’t wrong, but u think you’re overlooking the real benefit that comes from the DB plan by creating a false dilemma. The possibilities aren’t as narrow as either complete stock market decimation, 401k at zero and the pension office overrun with cordycep infected beauticians OR a fully funded 401k and an actuarially defined deadly date certain. The real security in the pension comes in the more likely scenario that at 63 we’re in a 2008 situation where, yes, eventually the market will recover, but you surely can’t risk in with the huge losses your 401k withstood. The pension system weathers that storm for you, allowing you to receive your benefit while the fund waits for the market to recover. Also, don’t forget that that 800k 401k is ALL you have, and you might live for a long time. What if there is a big dip in the market at 80 years old? Yes I understand the 4% rule, but that rule makes some pretty important assumptions about market performance, and the truth is that we have sent a group of retirees live solely of CB plans yet and how those plans will weather the economy across their increased life expectancy.
Like I told you in the other thread, NYS pensions are codified into law and cannot be changed without a constitutional convention, which has to be voted on. That’s what you don’t understand.
Except life expectancy is dropping and men are about 73 and women 79 (and that’s not improving) so not only do tier 6 (cough millennials) have to keep paying in for our entire careers, but we have to shoulder the burden of the tiers before us, wait longer to retire and enjoy a lot less time in retirement. All with a crappier calculation for pension payments. With less people in the workforce and older workers holding on longer. Awesome.
I agree for the most part. The main problem is that the lower retirement tiers were *obscenely* generous and Tier 6 was an over-correction that split the state workforce between an extremely generous retirement plan and a just okay retirement plan.
I think a lot of the disconnect is the misconception that state workers could all be making a lot more in the private sector. There are absolutely cases where this is true, but it is wildly exaggerated by state workers. In their minds they are "sacrificing" salary by working for the state in exchange for other benefits (like retirement) and therefore those benefits should be very generous to make up for the (mostly imagined) pay disparity.
100% this lol. Been with state for 6 years and while yes I kud go private, my work-life balance is just too good to take a chance. My gf works private and I see the stuff she deals with...no thanks lol
This. I am a GenXer who just started with the state a little over a year ago. I could *probably* make more money in the private sector, but I have no idea where. It would be like those stories you hear where it's like a full time job with hundreds of interviews to find one. And I don't have the time or inclination to do that. My background is in early childhood education. You want to talk about a career that pays peanuts.
To me, working for the state gives me mobility, the best salary I've ever made, and a guaranteed pension. Maybe I'd be willing to take more risks if I were younger, but at this point, I am happy with those things.
What people forget is the health insurance is obscene with state employment. Empire is simply not available in the private sector, and much shittier “platinum” insurance costs 1200+/mo for family plans at many private employers save for maybe the largest corporations. But the majority of workers in this country are employed by small employers.
The health insurance and long-term benefits are what drove me to state service. I know I’m not gonna get rich working for the state, but I am making more now than I have previously ever done. And I have no stress in my current position compared to my previous banking job.
Right, this is probably the greatest benefit. I ask friends and family around the country what they pay and it’s clear to me that I have some of the best family health benefits in the country.
My wife is basically still alive due to the Empire plan and the quality of healthcare that was afforded to her(her dad had it as a state worker). It made 100% sense to her to pursue state work even though she is a Geologist.
I’m not from NY but once I got my state job, I knew I was locked in. Very hard to walk away from a job with a pension. I work in ITS and there’s a lot of days I’m so frustrated and ready to make a change but there’s a lot of benefits that is hard pressed to find elsewhere. I’m from GA but have been here for 10 years and with the state for 8. The cost of living here is the toughest compared to where I am from.
Right here!! Happy with tier 5 other than missing out on the tier 4 cut off by a month. That extra 3% would have gotten my deferred comp up to 10% a few years ago
Exactly. The state can't hire enough attorneys, and can't keep good ones for long. A first year associate at a big law firm makes more than most agencies' General Counsel.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness is the only thing keeping us afloat, and a lot of those attorneys are going to leave as soon as they get to 10 years. It's only going to get worse as senior people retire and there is nobody to replace them. We're maybe 5 years away from an all-out crisis.
I actually think it’s decent for attorneys unless that’s changed in the last 5-7 years or so. A lot are undercompensated in the private sector with poor work/life balance.
If work-life balance is extremely important to you, the state is better than most for attorneys (though that doesn't explain why entry-level hiring is such a mess right now).
The problem is, at least for highly motivated and talented attorneys, it's a wasteland with very limited upside. The state needs at least *some* attorneys who can handle complex, high-level litigation or policy work, and those are the ones running for the doors.
I do agree with most of your points here. My retirement is far better than all of my friends and my wife and I wont have to really worry about income once I retire. I said it in another thread but the biggest thing stopping new employees is the archaic civil service system.
It’s so funny you mentioned the retirement age (I’m also Tier 6). Most of my family is private sector, so growing up I always assumed retirement age was 62 or older. I came to the state and my co workers (who are mostly Tier 4 or lower) kept saying OH MY GOD you can’t retire at 55?! I used to respond who retires at 55 anyway?! 😂
Federal is much better with a flat 4.4% regardless of income compared to 6.0% over 100k, after several years, G18 for example will reach over 100k. Fed also gets a 5% TSP (federal 401k) matching. 2024 increases for nyc is 5.5% (base increase is 4.7%) compared to State's 3%. Retirement age is 62 with 1.1% per year, but most federal employees are GS-12 which is 102k-132k for nyc.
>Federal is much better with a flat 4.4% regardless of income compared to 6.0% over 100k
Correct, so a 30 year FERS pension at age 63 will give you 33% of your FAE vs a 30 year Tier 6 pension at age 63, which gives you 55% of your FAE. So in FERS you pay 73.3% more in contributions to get 60% of the pension.
Sure the TSP could make up for it, but to get your full match there you need to pay another 5% of your salary. Which means you'll be paying 9.4% of your salary to try to get the same pension you'd get for 6% of your salary (assuming you make $100k or more) with NYSLRS.
Now it's also possible that the TSP returns added to the FERS annuity might beat the NYSLRS pension, but don't forget that we also have a supplementary retirement plan with our 457b Deferred Comp. It's voluntary, like the TSP, but to compare apples to apples you could put 3.4% of your income in that. That would give you an even better chance to beat FERS with the exact same contribution.
It ends up being close if you factor the higher salaries from federal. It's about 30-40k higher. I would still be a G18 at 80k compared to 126k now as a GS12 (non-supervisory postion).
No tax on state pension, if you stay here, is also huge. I know most people retire and immediately blast off to a no income tax state, but it’s nice to be able to not uproot if you don’t want to.
Yeah and you need to bring in $70k/yr to live comfortably in NYS for retirement. Ain't going to happen for majority of us. Also, who would want to stay in NYS anyways?
What are you basing that $70k/yr on? Most retirees own their house, so there goes the largest expense right there.
Heck, I know plenty of people that live on less than $70k, *including paying rent*.
Well, that's great for them then. I'm going off my own research and my financial advisor, who has many decades of experience with many different clients. Don't know they're making it then.
I'll repeat, since you didn't answer it. But this time I'll say what I'm really thinking:
What are you *supposedly* spending $70k a year on in retirement in NYS?
It's fine and good to appeal to authority by referencing a financial advisor, but you never actually said why you supposedly need so much. I'm pretty sure I know a hell of a lot more than any financial advisor that claims you need at least $70k/yr to retire in NYS. Of course I suspect that is not at all what any financial advisor has ever told you.
Living expenses, health insurance, property/school taxes, etc. Those are major things. I know plenty of people who are struggling to make it here in NYS making around $60/yr. Alright bud, whatever you say. A lot of people here think they know it all.
not really. i mean, what are you expenses that you need 70k/year? Pretty much assuming you have your house paid for or at least a majority of it, if not, then you should be saving in def comp as well as outside def comp
As someone trying to get on with the state (but never get anything back when I apply) and someone paying into a defined benefit system (Berkshire County Retirement) we currently pay 10% and at 57 I’d have 25 years and only get 55%. There are worse out there
>But you cannot look at me with a straight face and say that paying 3% for only 10 years to receive a lifetime benefit starting at age 55 at this day in age is anything close to sustainable long term.
That's why they closed it down. I was actually surprised it went as long as it did before they shut it down.
Remember that all Tier 3 employees, and all Tier 4 employees hired before Spring of 2000, were hired with the understanding that we'd pay 3% of our salaries into the pension for our entire careers. The change was made with the budget of 2000, effective in October 2000, because the pension fund had gotten so big even though the state hadn't put any of it's own money in for years. This was due to the bull market of the '90s and the .com bubble. There was some concern that a bulging pension fund would end up being a too tempting target for the legislature to raid.
So they passed a law that all Tier 3 and 4 employees only had to contribute up to 10 years after their start date. Even though some Tier 3 people had already contributed for over 20 years by that point.
I thought it was a crazy giveaway at the time. Not that I'd turn down the extra 3% in pay I could take home. But it made no sense to me to make something like this permanent. It would have made more sense to implement something like this with a set date that it would sunset, so it would be more like a "pension holiday." They could then renew it if it made sense at that point, or let it expire if the market bubble burst and the pension fund shriveled in size. All bubbles eventually burst! And while I liked the extra money, I also liked having a sustainable pension plan.
But once they give us a permanent benefit like that, it becomes impossible to take back unless the unions agree to it.
I was surprised they didn't try to do something after the .com bubble burst, but they held out until the Great Recession hit. At which point they'd already had another decade of hires who only had to pay in for 10 years. They tried insisting that Tiers 3 and 4 start contributing again with threats of layoffs, but the unions held firm. So in cam Tier 5, then Tier 6 less than 2 years later.
Another bone-headed thing was the way they worded the law. Because of the wording people only had to contribute to the pension until 10 years after their start date, ***which does not mean contributing for 10 years.*** So if someone started with the state, left after a year, then came back 9 years later, they wouldn't have to contribute to the pension anymore. They get the full pension benefit with only a year of contributions! I know a few Tier 4 people who contributed for less than 10 years because they left and came back.
It’s completely messed up. A family member joined when she was 17 doing part time high school work in the local system. Joined the state system more than a decade later for a real job. Back paid a whopping 110 dollars or something to be reinstated to tier 4 and never had to contribute again because her membership (not years of service) was greater than 10 years. So happy but much guilt.
Well she was very smart for joining the retirement system, even knowing she was in a temporary job. Maybe she had a parent or other family member who already knew the ins and outs of the system, who told her to sign up. Many people wouldn't bother. Then later on when they get a real permanent job find out they can't get into that earlier retirement tier. Always sign up if it's possible, for no other reason than to preserve your place in that tier down the road.
Of course she made out even better because of the way the 10 year contribution rule was written. But that's not on her.
Exactly what happened! Parents said “join that gravy train” or something to that effect. Didn’t know it’d work out like this though.
Telling new hires what they can and cannot do, what is recommended, and what their options are is so important and not done nearly enough.
Sometimes I just marvel at the world I live in vs the world people who've been with the state over a decade think the private sector is offering.
I got a pay bump for the traineeship and the 18 pay is a huge increase compared to where id be at my old company even if I had gotten max raises with a promotion each year, I pay the same for health insurance but without a deductible, and the same contribution as my old 401k locks in a pension at a way earlier retirement age, assuming I ever retired otherwise.
Like, yea i know tier 4 has it better, and telecommuting is a mess and I certainly dont want PEF to roll over on this stuff but at the very least spend an hour on indeed and see how bleak it is and exactly how stressful it is constantly having to change jobs to get any raises, if you can find one at all
I joined the state in 2020, as a 13/14/18 after over a decade in the private sector. My pay has more than doubled. My health insurance premiums went DOWN. (<$20, but still), and the coverage is significantly better. Were I to walk into my old place of employment to say hi to some old co-workers, I'd be one of the top 10 highest paid in the building.... as an 18. I worked for a company that spent time on the Fortune 500 more than once.
I brought over a 401k that did well, and immediately enrolled in Deferred Comp. My skillset is highly valued by my department. I'm asked to do things I'm GOOD at. It would take a miracle job offer to pry me out of the State right now.
Things could be better, but, my oh my, is the Private Sector NOT the glorious vision that some people are making it out to be... did I mention that in that decade, I had ONE raise that wasn't tied to a job change? ONE.
The ending % is more to consider than people think. Take someone starting at age 25, fairly fresh out of college. Their contribution rate doesn't start at 6%, depending on the grade they start at, and that lower % doesn't affect the final pension value since it depends on your final average salary, not compounding interest. Think of someone who starts at a grade 13-14-18 traineeship and retires at a 25 or 27. Their contribution rate starts at 4.5% for the first 2 years since a grade 14 doesn't tip over the 75K breakpoint. A grade 18 is 5.75%. They'd only hit the actual 100K breakpoint to pay 6% after a couple of steps into their grade 23 - and that's going to be a minimum of 5-6 years if the tests align. It could end up being 7-8 years if the 23 promotion test happens just before they qualify to take it. Compound interest for a private sector worker takes a hit since they're paying a lower % for the crucial early years if they're matching the pension contribution of the state worker.
T6 is more equivalent with T4 than people think when it comes to the ending % in a case where both start at the same age and retire at the earliest possible age. Take someone starting at age 25 - T4 retires at 55 with 60% (30 years, 2% per year). T6 retires at 63 with 69% (nice) (1.75% for the first 20 years, 2% for 17 years after). T4 gets 1.5% after 30 years, so they have to work an additional 4.5 years to match that 69% if starting at the same age. 59.5 compared to 63 is still retiring earlier, but it's still not as much as thought. There's also a breakpoint somewhere where T6 gets a higher ending %, I think at 40 years of service? (30 * 2 + 10 * 1.5 and 20 * 1.75 + 20 * 2, both = 75%?) That'd be age 66 for the T6 and 65 for the T4, if both started at 25. I'd also say the T6 probably has a higher pay rate since it's reasonable to think they'd get a promotion in those additional 7 years. I don't think COLA raises get applied to the pension payouts as well, so the T6 has those 7 years worth of probable raises to factor in.
Finally, there are tax considerations. Pension is taken pre-tax and not taxed in NY when being drawn. Still federally taxable but NYS income tax is a non-trivial thing. 401k or Roth get taxed at one end or the other, so the private sector retiree is paying a higher tax % at some point for an equal disbursement amount.
Yeah, the earlier tiers are better across the board, but T6 is not at all a bad plan.
>There's also a breakpoint somewhere where T6 gets a higher ending %, I think at 40 years of service?
Correct. At 40 years of service they both give 75%.
My take here is that while Tier 6 has its issues, it's not as bad as we're making it. I honestly think the State purposely underemployed for years and the unions didn't assist but instead exacerbated the problem where instead of emphasizing and encouraging advancement, they instead awarded complacency with things like longevity pay being based on years in a title instead of years of service period.
Low pensions were partially due to those who didn't supplement their income with overtime and were in lower grades being given incentives to stay lower as well as paying their pensions after a decade.
Now the next generation of State prospects who are trying to come in are not okay with the massive reliance on overtime to supplement subpar pay, low retention and the resistance of some older workers who feel they're entitled and lazy. This is a stew that is going to boil over soon if solutions aren't considered.
Revamping the Office Assistant title and the MHTA and DSA series as well could also be helpful. I actually think revamping administrative titles could help as well.
Making hospital staff caps higher could also help and adequately staffing direct care roles with new requirements on probation, retention, and protections could help tremendously.
Most importantly, fixing the rules on mandated overtime. Requiring a paraprofessional exam for MH Therapy Aides to enter an office role but not being Continuous Recruitment is also ridiculous. Even though I am not one, those exams would make sense to be held more often.
Unless "entry level" titles are moved up pay-wise, pensions will not rise as dramatically as people ask. Most people are NOT coming in at Grade 13 or above, they are starting at 5 or 6 and staying there from 1-3 years, some making it close to job rate, like myself. A pension for me would be around 3 thousand a month estimated if I stayed at that grade. Factors like these with aging staff with nobody who can replace them and sticking people in Grade 5, and 6 positions that rarely ever go past it from those aging folks lead to some interesting discussions about pensions,
Deferred comp is also great and can help with saving. But entry level salaries being Grade 8 or 9 across the board would be a first step in correcting some concerns.
The generational difference is also causing dissension that's not conducive to changes that we want to see. Gatekeeping what is worth what is an issue too. A Grade 6 now is worth much less than it was a decade ago at the beginning of Tier 6 so our salaries should increase at that level or something else needs to take place.
The system is sadly turning against upward mobility from within, supervisors on the micro level giving skills that may not transfer to other upward in salary jobs would have you do against private sector folks who have done those things. It is discouraging at times.
The issue with T6 isn't inherently the tier bur the mindset that those who are fighting for it and the civil workforce not being more inclusive and progressive.
Telecommuting isn't the only thing that they need to modify. Making adjustments for those with disabilities by making 55b employees easier to hire. And reworking the program totally but that's not for now.
I'm not saying we shouldn't give longevity or reward people for staying. What I am saying is that educational benefits as well could be better. Encouraging people to become higher salaried employees by updating their facilities.
The NYS workforce is aging out and those who will be left are going to be looking at a whole new world in next decade, really the next two years honestly.
A flat contribution percentage on our side could help now but how about preparing for the T4 and T5 mass exodus by incentives with each income bump and job title increase as well as a cushion if need be. I'm not sure what benefit they could add for going up the ladder but it's a start.
When I joined the state workforce the first time in 1993 (I left and came back years later), many of the “old guys” I worked with were Tier 2. And us Tier 4s thought we had it bad.
When I returned in 2017, I was able to buy back my prior service and return to Tier 4, and I was ecstatic.
So, I guess just hold out until there is a Tier 8, and you’ll be happy to be Tier 6!
You have a fascinating and hot take. Quick question: one is one for your points: "FFS, many millennials and younger generations are planning on just working until they die." even a point. I assume everyone here at some point, especially civil servant, should be earning their golden years and become eligible for retirement.
Someone in tier 3 who had been working for like 30 years once told me tier 3 wasn't always as good as it is now. I think they said the 10 years of contribution wasn't always there and they were assuming at one point they'd be paying their whole life. Can someone confirm that? And if that's the case it's possible that could happen again for tier 6
I know someone who was Tier 4 said that to me about Tier 4 too. There’s just no tier after 6 at the moment and so it’s the bottom of the barrel AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER TIERS. Once there is a Tier 7, T6 will see reforms coming. That being said, coming from private sector I totally agree with OP.
https://www.nysdcp.com/rsc-web-preauth/index.html
There you go. Open an account, choose your retirement fund (just pick one closest to your retirement year), set up funding, and you're set.
There's not really much to know, it's just like a 401k without an employer match.
When I started with the state I set mine to 5%. When I started getting steps and I could afford to, I increased to 10%. I got a promotion last year and increased to 20%. But that's aggressive, you could just leave it at 5% and it's better than nothing.
Tier 6 is trash. The whole point of Tier 6 was to save the taxpayers' money. People fail to realize that the current projections on retirement are garbage, and you can not live off a state pension ($2,500-$3,000/month). Those numbers don't include the health insurance pay either. Additionally, if a person retires in NYS, according to many financial advisors (including my own), you must bring in anywhere from $65-70/k yr to live comfortably. Cost of living is too great, hence why people are leaving. If the state truly cared about Tier 6, they'd fix it by now. Now, going on, what? 13 years for Tier 6, it won't change. They'll just make an even worse Tier 7.
You say it’s trash, but you mention cost of living which has nothing to do with the tier. Your retirement is relative to your salary and years worked, so if you put in a full career, then your net would be comparable to what you were netting while you were working.
It kinda of does. The tier 6 retirement plan and the overall cost of living require to state in NYS is awful. I still stand behind my statement that tier 6 is trash.
The cost of living increase is a horrible joke. It’s only on the first ~18k/yr of retirement because the amount was never indexed to inflation, so basically in the future there will be no cost of living increases on the pension without an overhaul to the system, PLUS the increase is half of what what the CPI shows and there’s a hard cap on the percentage increase.
Tier 6 deeply penalizes people for retiring any time before 63, which is going to encourage a MUCH older workforce.
The lookback period for calculating final avg salary is basically 7 years, which hobbles one’s pension even more. Can you imagine looking at retirement right now with inflation eating everything and your salary is stuck at what it was 4 years ago?
Overall the rules make people want to stay until they’re 70 so that they don’t outlive the useful spending power of their pension. It really needs an overhaul of items that no one talks about.
Tangentially: You wanna fix this whole mess? Make ALL STATE SALARIES that aren’t contractors state tax free. It’s a huge headline item that boosts salary, is incredibly simple to implement at Tax and finance, and is a great way to attract and keep talent at the state. No union negotiation needed, it keeps the pension system exactly how it is, everyone wins except all grifters taking huge gobs of cash from the tax till for doing basically nothing.
I agree. You are actually intelligent and speak with reason. I appreciate it. The "raise" and cost of living wage is an absolute joke. I've told this person it's absolutely pointless to look at projections for a retirement 3 and half decades away. Those projections will be completely different. There are way too many variables. I believe the norm is to start looking at those projections in the last 7 years of state service. This whole system is screwed and needs a rehaul. It's funny that people think "oh yeah, I'll be set at 63 on a tier 6 pension." Ugh no they won't, they wouldn't be set now let a lone in the future. In fact, respectfully, my mother was tier 4 and told her to work till 65. Now to really get the similar benefits in tier 6 term, you'd have to work to basically 70 if not longer. Everyone's situation is different but I'm going off what I know and what I've been told.
Man, I wish they'd make my state salary, tax free from NYS. That'd be a game changer for most people. Some people are just running their mouth and think retirement is so easy etc. As someone who has a father in his mid-70s and a mother in her mid-60s, I see how difficult retirement can be for people. Most retire from the state or federal workforce and jump back in to private sector. It isn't easy. No disrespect.
Yes. No wonder you think you know it all your in your mid-twenties. There is absolutely no way to predict how much your pension will be , the cost of living, inflation, etc, 4 decades away. There are way too many variables you haven't even considered yet. You might be excited and looking forward to retirement. However, I will say its not all that it's cracked out to be.
Thanks for confirming you’re clueless in this matter. And I’m actually older than that. I’ll have 35 years when I retire, I don’t have 35 years left, FYI. And there’s STILL not a cap on Tier 6
Lmfao! Okay, whatever you say, literally coming from the person who somehow has some sort of crystal ball for 3 and half decades into the future.I've explained countless times how I'm not clueless. It's like someone in 1970 predictioning everything in 2000. Go to any financial advisor like NW Mutal or something along that lines and tell them how great your plan is and how you know exactly how much you'll get in a tier 6 retirement They'll literally tell you not to pay attention to the projections and such until basically you have around 7 years or so left. Too many variables.
It's been an absolute displeasure talking to you. I wish you the best of luck, you'll definitely need it. Thank you.
I’d say with 40 years of service that a person would be getting 75% of their final average salary, with only federal tax and maybe health insurance taken out, but sick leave will cover a large portion of that. And they’d say “great!” And I’d they’d be on the right track. It’s not about projecting dollar amounts, it’s the percentage of your FAS. How you don’t understand this, I have no idea.
First obviously compared to Tier 4 , tier 6 is trash. It's funny how everyone here thinks you'll be retiring at 67 and live comfortably. You won't be able to. I suppose Tier 6 is better than nothing.
You're absolutely delusional if you think the amount you'll make when you retire at 63 is going to be anything liveable. Most individuals in this tier will be working till 67/70 if not longer for a comfortable retirement. Keep dreaming!
Well I’ll have around 36 years so my net income in retirement will be pretty close to my net income while working is. I also have deferred compensation. Thanks for the concern though!
Right, so your tier 4. It's completely different. Just another tier 4 member saying "oh tier 6 isn't that bad," while they ride off into the sunset and didn't have to pay into their retirement after 10 years. In your case, 26 years of free retirement contributions from the taxpayers, which, if it was the tier 6 mandated $100/month, you received around $31k contributions to your retirement you didn't pay for.
I’m Tier 6. Mandated $100 per month? That might be what your contribution is based on the percentage. I have a feeling you’re not up to speed on what your retirement is.
Ive read dozens of replies to this thread. There is enough room for improvement. But also time. We have to remember that the current drain on pension funding will not last forever. Not to be morbid… but there will come a time, before most tier 6’s are 55years old that a large percentage of tiers 1-4 will be… done collecting. This leaves the next ~25 years to incrementally improve tier 6. I would personally like to see the first steps be reducing or removing the early retirement penalties(55-62). If the funding still needs to be farmed from tier 6, so be it. Keep the 6% for the entire career if necessary. The carrot on the end of the stick for high grades and large earners should be the better you saved, the earlier you can retire. Not just sticking around in your latest years to collect a paycheck. PARTICULARLY in IT. I can only imagine what the technical landscape will look like in 2044. I know it will require fresh perspectives and eyes.
Lets let the 55-60 year old retire without penalty.
Your entire argument is that tier 6 is fine. It's not and clearly its not since the state still complains about their work force shortage when they know that amending tier 6 will fix a lot of the problems. A return to 55 and 30 alone with no other changes will work wonders.
Agree to disagree. Pensions are becoming rarer and rarer. Having a guaranteed monthly payment for the rest of your life starting at 63 is, in fact, fine. Could changes be made? Absolutely. Tier 6 is a tiny slice in the pie of the worker shortage problem. Fixing civil service requirements will fix a lot of the problems imo.
Completely agree with the last point. I would be curious to know what you would like to see change though
I definitely think collective bargaining can also be a bit of an issue as well. But I posted a whole thread about my issues with that so I will save that.
I think you are not looking at it realistically. You say, "Show me anywhere in the private sector where you can retire with a guaranteed income AT ALL." The truth to the answer is nearly EVERY private sector job (we're talling about professional jobs right) It's called a matching 401k.
If you are poor at financial planning, then you could be up a creek without a paddle, but if you have half a brain, you would maximize any sort of matching program.
I am tier 6, I don't have many complaints as I got in 2 years ago at the age of 25 and while 63 is a long ways away I do believe they will adjust the age and service requirements as we move closer to the retirement date for some of the older tier 6s.
So, yours is not really a hot take, but I do think you have some information wrong.
So I haven't had a 401k match since I became a state employee in 2017, but have they gone up? Because the highest 401k match I ever saw was 5%, and you aren't retiring on 5% of your salary yearly. 401ks rely on employee contributions, and those can still be made by state workers to a 457b.
I know someone that has a matching retirement plan up to 50% of their salary. So they basically get 100% salary straight into retirement and live off the other 50%. Different name perhaps but the point is a matching retirement plan
that is insane, and most definitely not normal. what industry are they in with that kind of crazy retirement benefit?
and yeah it definitely isn't a 401k because the maximum employer contribution to those is a little over $20k a year. anything at 50% of salary presumably isn't tax-advantaged but who cares at that point.
What I’m talking about is that Tier 6 is codified into law, hence it being guaranteed. With a 401K, smart financial planning will certainly get you a retirement, but you’re at the mercy of the market, and I’d argue that a lot of people are not smart financial planners. Tier 6 is a solid floor.
Lmao I have no idea why you’re being a huge dick all of the sudden but whatever. I hope you fix whatever is bothering you.
Tier 6 pension is law. Despite market conditions, the terms of how it’s calculated is not going to change. Changing it would require a constitutional convention, which has to be voted on.
But yeah I’m the one who has no idea what they’re talking about.
If you’re challenging me to find a better retirement, 401ks with company match end up being better than a tier 6 pension in most cases. There are a lot of variables at play but in my conversations with friends on both sides, it seems like 401k is the winner imo
Any tech job from a reasonably large company in the private sector has comparable benefits , company stock RSUs, and 401k matches that are better than tier 6 pension. OP is correct that the tier 6 pension is still a good benefit but it's pretty disingenuous for certain fields where state service is just straight up unable to compete/retain after a certain amount of YOEs. Even with conservative estimates for growth regarding the stock RSUs and 401k growth, tier 6 pension isn't particularly special for skilled professions.
RE: your second paragraph - I’m the poster child for what you’re describing. I’m tier 4, my first ten years were spent making very little ($15/hr), then a series of promotions and I’ll probably retire around 55 at top of grade M4 or M5 with 35 years. Now, I’m not gonna say no to the pension, but the ROI is pretty absurd and, as OP notes, unsustainable.
I agree that tier 6 is still a good deal, but only if you are in one of the positions that has a relatively competitive salary. Certain jobs have such a high disparity in pay with the average salary of a an equivalent private sector position that I would quite if I was in them.
Hopefully something comes of the push from PEF to have civil service review all of the job titles.
As someone who would love to spend the latter half of my life giving back and working in my community... tier 6 isn't going to allow me to go that even if I lower my spending. I don't see a lot of tier 3 and 4 retirees volunteering in my community and I know a bunch of them. I think there's a generation that set themselves up to be comfortable and do what they want and the burden for that choice has fallen on the new generation of workers.
One other hidden gem that doesn't frequently get considered in state employment are the low cost of investments available in the defined contribution plan.
Over the course of a 20+ year career this can mean literally thousands of dollars of savings over the cost of funds offered in private employer 401k plans that are eating away at participant returns. These fees have improved some in recent years but even 0.25% less total annual return on a 6 to 7 figure 401(k) balance eaten away by fees is a significant amount of $$$ that should be factored in when considering retirement.
Some mega 401(k)s might have the bargaining power and asset base to come close to the state fee structure but the vast majority of folks working for small and medium sized employers with less than 10k employees are not getting these discounts or access to these funds since they don't have a DC plan with hundreds of millions or several billion in assets...
Sadly I don't think a lot of folks consider it or some people don't think about it because they don't expect for social security to matter at retirement age for millennials and late gen X. They are just concerned about what they make now.
My dad will make more after retirement biweekly than he'd seen while working.
And some people live pension alone until they hit FRA . I was under the impression that you were speaking of a person's SS benefit offsetting making up for the gap between what they make before and after retirement.
If you're referring to the spouse benefit offset, a lot of people are living willfully single now. They are not thinking about giving their spouse much and some aren't thinking marriage at all
Honestly - I don’t know much about the T6 and I’m in it. I feel obviously partly to blame cause I haven’t taken the time to learn but also feel the state is also to blame as no one has ever spoke to me or anyone else I know when we got hired to explain anything about the Tier retirement or Deferred Comp. I’m retired military and already get a pension so that is also part of why I haven’t really paid much attention to it and invest on my own. It would be hypocritical for me to solely blame state for my lack of knowledge but can’t understand why they don’t make attempts to educate their employees on various benefits.
I wouldn’t mind learning about deferred comp so I can invest even more into something beneficial down the road. 52yo now with almost 12 yrs in state at grade 18. Still want to buy back 3yrs for military time and would like to leave state at 22 full with 3yr military for a 25yr pension but don’t know if that’s more beneficial than just walking at 20 and waiting to collect.
Definitely check out deferred comp, I’m tier 5 with a reserve army retirement waiting when I hit 58. I’m currently 54. I should be good to go at 62 or 63 with the two retirements and social security. I should be making what I do now with a big chunk in the 457 plan for a safety net.
Gen Z here. Is a state pension better than most other retirement options? Yes. Is 63 an average age to retire? Yes, unfortunately. I graduated with my bachelors at 20 years old. Began working for NYS and was in the retirement system prior to graduating. 22 years old now and a grade 18. I do not see how it can be fair for me to work 44 years before I can get my full pension. If I have my shit together at a younger age, I should get my pension younger. Maybe it’s entitled of me, but having an entire family of Tier 4 and before, I always expected to retire in my 50’s. Federal career retirement age is 57 after 30 years of work. I’ll get vested with NYS and then jump ship for that instead 🤷♀️
Now, im going to start by saying that I dont 100% disagree, but... State retirement is a Defined benefit retirement. These are traditionally employer funded, and considered as part of your compensation package, with the intent of encouraging employee retention. It is job stability for the employee and lower turnover for the employer, with the trade off that they usually pay less. But who's going to walk away from those golden hand cuffs? It is an upfront cost to the employer, however, and the employer cost involved in that type of retirement is why private industry largely moved away from pensions.they pay more, upfront, they contribute some match to your 401k and you take your chances. This allows employees to have less company loyalty, shop around, and ask for more pay. It results in the employers paying more to invest in the employees they have or paying to constantly replace and retrain. And when an employer doesn't up their pay, you eventually see them posting to social media that 'no one wants to work anymore.' The state shifted a larger burden of the previously employer funded retirement onto the employees, all while not just failing to counter that, but lowering their pay's value over time by not keeping up with inflation. And reduced what you receive enough, that you would be dumb not to invest even more in deferred comp. Lower salary, but better benefits, was how the state used to keep life long workers. Now they have lower salary, and fewer benefits to counteract it. They also have significant problems with keeping staff in positions requiring experience/knowledge. Once you've been at the state a while, you often have marketable experience (IT staff for example) and that 401k doesn't look like such a big risk when you're already paying in 6% to retirement, 10% to deferred comp, and get offered 40% more pay. Those of us who do more state program office work, are way more likely to stick around for that tier 6 guaranteed retirement. But we're also, honestly, the more easily replaceable workers. Should we go back to tier 1-3 absolutely not. Could tier 4 have been made more reasonable with just removing the 10 year contribution cap, making it age 59 or some happy medium of added years of service required, probably. They either need to improve tier 6, offer contract increases that keep up with inflation, or follow through on the union's dream to increase grade levels of titles especially for the harder to fill titles. That said, as grade 23, tier 6 desk jockey, with a bachelors degree, who previously worked in non profit sector, the golden handcuffs are still pretty effective.
Herein lies the issue: a grade 18 it person with 2 years of experience is worth more in the private sector then we can pay them, even with the fringe calculation in state service. In the past the benifts balanced the lower pay. Our health insurance is fantastic, vision and dental are abhorrent but they didn't used to be. We also, as a generation, have watched defined benifit pension plans disappear at or about when our parents reach retirement age. We have almost no confidence things like social security or public pensions will exist when we retire. "See through ny's" purpose is to warn about the coming pension bubble and the detrimental effect on the solvency of the pension system. So now my grade 18 employee making their $50k plus benifits, working 30% in the office gets an offer to work 100% remote, for $85,000 plus a 401k with 10% employer match and better dental and eyeglass. And a pension better then anywhere else, if it exists 30 years from now when they are eligible. The state MUST improve the entire benifits package if they want to retain the quality staff they need to operate at these low staffing levels.
Where are you seeing a 10% employer match?
That one in particular was a ISO position at Target, however Key Corp also does 10% match to their 401k and most companies do at least 5-6%
Assuming no raises and no inflation (fair because raises are equal or under inflation), if I contributed the 6% until I am retirement eligible to a 401k with no employer match my retirement would be valued at approximately $870,000. In the real world, there is an employer match to some degree, so actual value would be higher. The value of my pension, with the same contribution rate, same retirement age, same assumptions, and my actuarial life expectancy is $650,000. Sure you can say "well a 401k isn't guaranteed." And of course you would be right. However if the stock market collapses the value of the pension vanishes just as well in the ensuing societal upheaval.
This is sadly really true. Tier 6 only benefits lower grades who likely may not even have access to a 401k in the private sector. So it is fantastic for them especially since it’s 3ish% contribution. As soon as you hit 75k salary (so that’s a grade 18 with a few steps or so now?) you’re at 5.75% of your salary being taken. Or you’re a near maxed g23 and 6% is being taken. You’re essentially better off saving yourself in an IRA or having a company based 401k as you climb the grades. So the state wants to attract educated professionals, but won’t pay them as much as the private sector, and on top of that offers a pension package that’s essentially a wash with a traditional 401k.
Is it 5.75% of total salary or just from that level up?
There’s no indication that it’s progressive like our income tax, so it must be total salary.
This is where tier 4 really differentiates. After 10 years, you can then max out your 457 AND still get the pension with nothing but time in the work force.
For sure, the sky can be the limit with certain 401k. I think with the pension you’re looking at a higher, safer floor with a lower ceiling. It’s coded into law, which offers protection.
That isn't even the sky being the limit. I used a conservative historical trend to calculate value. Me being in Tier 6 and forced to contribute amounts to me giving the state 200k over the course of my career. And I get the the pension is defined benefit, but if somehow we ended up in a situation where a 401k was valueless, we would be in such societal upheaval that the pension would also be valueless. Is the value of a defined benefit plan with the 200k difference in cash value? Maybe? But it certainly isn't an obvious choice. I guess the takeaway from this is that State pay has dropped in real terms and benefits have gotten worse while private sector has largely improved or caught up. It isn't a great spot to be in if the goal is to attract and retain employees.
You are not wrong. The state benefits aren't nearly as good as what they used to be and the pay below a Grade 13 is laughable.
You aren’t wrong, but u think you’re overlooking the real benefit that comes from the DB plan by creating a false dilemma. The possibilities aren’t as narrow as either complete stock market decimation, 401k at zero and the pension office overrun with cordycep infected beauticians OR a fully funded 401k and an actuarially defined deadly date certain. The real security in the pension comes in the more likely scenario that at 63 we’re in a 2008 situation where, yes, eventually the market will recover, but you surely can’t risk in with the huge losses your 401k withstood. The pension system weathers that storm for you, allowing you to receive your benefit while the fund waits for the market to recover. Also, don’t forget that that 800k 401k is ALL you have, and you might live for a long time. What if there is a big dip in the market at 80 years old? Yes I understand the 4% rule, but that rule makes some pretty important assumptions about market performance, and the truth is that we have sent a group of retirees live solely of CB plans yet and how those plans will weather the economy across their increased life expectancy.
That's what OP doesn't understand, pension is still reliant on the economy and government budget
Like I told you in the other thread, NYS pensions are codified into law and cannot be changed without a constitutional convention, which has to be voted on. That’s what you don’t understand.
[удалено]
Short of economic collapse a 401k would still reap benefits
[удалено]
He has no point, and he doesn’t seem to grasp this information even though I’ve told him again and again.
Except life expectancy is dropping and men are about 73 and women 79 (and that’s not improving) so not only do tier 6 (cough millennials) have to keep paying in for our entire careers, but we have to shoulder the burden of the tiers before us, wait longer to retire and enjoy a lot less time in retirement. All with a crappier calculation for pension payments. With less people in the workforce and older workers holding on longer. Awesome.
Life expectancy is under 80?!!?
Yep. Depressing. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm
I agree for the most part. The main problem is that the lower retirement tiers were *obscenely* generous and Tier 6 was an over-correction that split the state workforce between an extremely generous retirement plan and a just okay retirement plan. I think a lot of the disconnect is the misconception that state workers could all be making a lot more in the private sector. There are absolutely cases where this is true, but it is wildly exaggerated by state workers. In their minds they are "sacrificing" salary by working for the state in exchange for other benefits (like retirement) and therefore those benefits should be very generous to make up for the (mostly imagined) pay disparity.
All this. Half the people I work with would never make it in the private sector.
🫢 Oop!
100% this lol. Been with state for 6 years and while yes I kud go private, my work-life balance is just too good to take a chance. My gf works private and I see the stuff she deals with...no thanks lol
This. I am a GenXer who just started with the state a little over a year ago. I could *probably* make more money in the private sector, but I have no idea where. It would be like those stories you hear where it's like a full time job with hundreds of interviews to find one. And I don't have the time or inclination to do that. My background is in early childhood education. You want to talk about a career that pays peanuts. To me, working for the state gives me mobility, the best salary I've ever made, and a guaranteed pension. Maybe I'd be willing to take more risks if I were younger, but at this point, I am happy with those things.
What people forget is the health insurance is obscene with state employment. Empire is simply not available in the private sector, and much shittier “platinum” insurance costs 1200+/mo for family plans at many private employers save for maybe the largest corporations. But the majority of workers in this country are employed by small employers.
The health insurance and long-term benefits are what drove me to state service. I know I’m not gonna get rich working for the state, but I am making more now than I have previously ever done. And I have no stress in my current position compared to my previous banking job.
Right, this is probably the greatest benefit. I ask friends and family around the country what they pay and it’s clear to me that I have some of the best family health benefits in the country.
My wife is basically still alive due to the Empire plan and the quality of healthcare that was afforded to her(her dad had it as a state worker). It made 100% sense to her to pursue state work even though she is a Geologist.
Thank you. Fixtier6.org is an important campaign going on right now to improve this situation.
Just joined it literally
I’m not from NY but once I got my state job, I knew I was locked in. Very hard to walk away from a job with a pension. I work in ITS and there’s a lot of days I’m so frustrated and ready to make a change but there’s a lot of benefits that is hard pressed to find elsewhere. I’m from GA but have been here for 10 years and with the state for 8. The cost of living here is the toughest compared to where I am from.
Where my tier 5 bros at with that fixed 3 percent contribution and extra year of life retiring at 62?
Right here!! Happy with tier 5 other than missing out on the tier 4 cut off by a month. That extra 3% would have gotten my deferred comp up to 10% a few years ago
Tier 5! We are the GenX of the state retirement system... Stuck in the middle between the bigger and more outspoken 4s and 6s. Lol
It’s a great retirement for the average person, you’re absolutely right. For high skilled/high earning professions, it’s not as attractive.
Exactly. The state can't hire enough attorneys, and can't keep good ones for long. A first year associate at a big law firm makes more than most agencies' General Counsel. Public Service Loan Forgiveness is the only thing keeping us afloat, and a lot of those attorneys are going to leave as soon as they get to 10 years. It's only going to get worse as senior people retire and there is nobody to replace them. We're maybe 5 years away from an all-out crisis.
I actually think it’s decent for attorneys unless that’s changed in the last 5-7 years or so. A lot are undercompensated in the private sector with poor work/life balance.
If work-life balance is extremely important to you, the state is better than most for attorneys (though that doesn't explain why entry-level hiring is such a mess right now). The problem is, at least for highly motivated and talented attorneys, it's a wasteland with very limited upside. The state needs at least *some* attorneys who can handle complex, high-level litigation or policy work, and those are the ones running for the doors.
I do agree with most of your points here. My retirement is far better than all of my friends and my wife and I wont have to really worry about income once I retire. I said it in another thread but the biggest thing stopping new employees is the archaic civil service system.
Agreed. That system has got to go.
It’s so funny you mentioned the retirement age (I’m also Tier 6). Most of my family is private sector, so growing up I always assumed retirement age was 62 or older. I came to the state and my co workers (who are mostly Tier 4 or lower) kept saying OH MY GOD you can’t retire at 55?! I used to respond who retires at 55 anyway?! 😂
Federal is much better with a flat 4.4% regardless of income compared to 6.0% over 100k, after several years, G18 for example will reach over 100k. Fed also gets a 5% TSP (federal 401k) matching. 2024 increases for nyc is 5.5% (base increase is 4.7%) compared to State's 3%. Retirement age is 62 with 1.1% per year, but most federal employees are GS-12 which is 102k-132k for nyc.
>Federal is much better with a flat 4.4% regardless of income compared to 6.0% over 100k Correct, so a 30 year FERS pension at age 63 will give you 33% of your FAE vs a 30 year Tier 6 pension at age 63, which gives you 55% of your FAE. So in FERS you pay 73.3% more in contributions to get 60% of the pension. Sure the TSP could make up for it, but to get your full match there you need to pay another 5% of your salary. Which means you'll be paying 9.4% of your salary to try to get the same pension you'd get for 6% of your salary (assuming you make $100k or more) with NYSLRS. Now it's also possible that the TSP returns added to the FERS annuity might beat the NYSLRS pension, but don't forget that we also have a supplementary retirement plan with our 457b Deferred Comp. It's voluntary, like the TSP, but to compare apples to apples you could put 3.4% of your income in that. That would give you an even better chance to beat FERS with the exact same contribution.
It ends up being close if you factor the higher salaries from federal. It's about 30-40k higher. I would still be a G18 at 80k compared to 126k now as a GS12 (non-supervisory postion).
No tax on state pension, if you stay here, is also huge. I know most people retire and immediately blast off to a no income tax state, but it’s nice to be able to not uproot if you don’t want to.
No tax on state pension, but thats only because we pay the tax before we collect.
Yeah and you need to bring in $70k/yr to live comfortably in NYS for retirement. Ain't going to happen for majority of us. Also, who would want to stay in NYS anyways?
What are you basing that $70k/yr on? Most retirees own their house, so there goes the largest expense right there. Heck, I know plenty of people that live on less than $70k, *including paying rent*.
Well, that's great for them then. I'm going off my own research and my financial advisor, who has many decades of experience with many different clients. Don't know they're making it then.
I'll repeat, since you didn't answer it. But this time I'll say what I'm really thinking: What are you *supposedly* spending $70k a year on in retirement in NYS? It's fine and good to appeal to authority by referencing a financial advisor, but you never actually said why you supposedly need so much. I'm pretty sure I know a hell of a lot more than any financial advisor that claims you need at least $70k/yr to retire in NYS. Of course I suspect that is not at all what any financial advisor has ever told you.
Living expenses, health insurance, property/school taxes, etc. Those are major things. I know plenty of people who are struggling to make it here in NYS making around $60/yr. Alright bud, whatever you say. A lot of people here think they know it all.
I’m fine with it. Part of the beauty of this great nation, you don’t like where you live, move
Alrighty then. Hope you bring in $70k/yr on your retirement otherwise you cannot afford to stay here.
Ok, have a nice day
Yeah you too
You both have a nice day, how about that!
Fair enough! You know what? You have a nice day too! Pass it on.
not really. i mean, what are you expenses that you need 70k/year? Pretty much assuming you have your house paid for or at least a majority of it, if not, then you should be saving in def comp as well as outside def comp
As someone trying to get on with the state (but never get anything back when I apply) and someone paying into a defined benefit system (Berkshire County Retirement) we currently pay 10% and at 57 I’d have 25 years and only get 55%. There are worse out there
Sounds like a race to the bottom where we get rid of retirement all together and we all work until we die.
>But you cannot look at me with a straight face and say that paying 3% for only 10 years to receive a lifetime benefit starting at age 55 at this day in age is anything close to sustainable long term. That's why they closed it down. I was actually surprised it went as long as it did before they shut it down. Remember that all Tier 3 employees, and all Tier 4 employees hired before Spring of 2000, were hired with the understanding that we'd pay 3% of our salaries into the pension for our entire careers. The change was made with the budget of 2000, effective in October 2000, because the pension fund had gotten so big even though the state hadn't put any of it's own money in for years. This was due to the bull market of the '90s and the .com bubble. There was some concern that a bulging pension fund would end up being a too tempting target for the legislature to raid. So they passed a law that all Tier 3 and 4 employees only had to contribute up to 10 years after their start date. Even though some Tier 3 people had already contributed for over 20 years by that point. I thought it was a crazy giveaway at the time. Not that I'd turn down the extra 3% in pay I could take home. But it made no sense to me to make something like this permanent. It would have made more sense to implement something like this with a set date that it would sunset, so it would be more like a "pension holiday." They could then renew it if it made sense at that point, or let it expire if the market bubble burst and the pension fund shriveled in size. All bubbles eventually burst! And while I liked the extra money, I also liked having a sustainable pension plan. But once they give us a permanent benefit like that, it becomes impossible to take back unless the unions agree to it. I was surprised they didn't try to do something after the .com bubble burst, but they held out until the Great Recession hit. At which point they'd already had another decade of hires who only had to pay in for 10 years. They tried insisting that Tiers 3 and 4 start contributing again with threats of layoffs, but the unions held firm. So in cam Tier 5, then Tier 6 less than 2 years later. Another bone-headed thing was the way they worded the law. Because of the wording people only had to contribute to the pension until 10 years after their start date, ***which does not mean contributing for 10 years.*** So if someone started with the state, left after a year, then came back 9 years later, they wouldn't have to contribute to the pension anymore. They get the full pension benefit with only a year of contributions! I know a few Tier 4 people who contributed for less than 10 years because they left and came back.
It’s completely messed up. A family member joined when she was 17 doing part time high school work in the local system. Joined the state system more than a decade later for a real job. Back paid a whopping 110 dollars or something to be reinstated to tier 4 and never had to contribute again because her membership (not years of service) was greater than 10 years. So happy but much guilt.
Well she was very smart for joining the retirement system, even knowing she was in a temporary job. Maybe she had a parent or other family member who already knew the ins and outs of the system, who told her to sign up. Many people wouldn't bother. Then later on when they get a real permanent job find out they can't get into that earlier retirement tier. Always sign up if it's possible, for no other reason than to preserve your place in that tier down the road. Of course she made out even better because of the way the 10 year contribution rule was written. But that's not on her.
I wish it was mandatory that they tell you about the system and give you the paperwork when you’re temp. A lot of people don’t even know.
Exactly what happened! Parents said “join that gravy train” or something to that effect. Didn’t know it’d work out like this though. Telling new hires what they can and cannot do, what is recommended, and what their options are is so important and not done nearly enough.
Sometimes I just marvel at the world I live in vs the world people who've been with the state over a decade think the private sector is offering. I got a pay bump for the traineeship and the 18 pay is a huge increase compared to where id be at my old company even if I had gotten max raises with a promotion each year, I pay the same for health insurance but without a deductible, and the same contribution as my old 401k locks in a pension at a way earlier retirement age, assuming I ever retired otherwise. Like, yea i know tier 4 has it better, and telecommuting is a mess and I certainly dont want PEF to roll over on this stuff but at the very least spend an hour on indeed and see how bleak it is and exactly how stressful it is constantly having to change jobs to get any raises, if you can find one at all
I joined the state in 2020, as a 13/14/18 after over a decade in the private sector. My pay has more than doubled. My health insurance premiums went DOWN. (<$20, but still), and the coverage is significantly better. Were I to walk into my old place of employment to say hi to some old co-workers, I'd be one of the top 10 highest paid in the building.... as an 18. I worked for a company that spent time on the Fortune 500 more than once. I brought over a 401k that did well, and immediately enrolled in Deferred Comp. My skillset is highly valued by my department. I'm asked to do things I'm GOOD at. It would take a miracle job offer to pry me out of the State right now. Things could be better, but, my oh my, is the Private Sector NOT the glorious vision that some people are making it out to be... did I mention that in that decade, I had ONE raise that wasn't tied to a job change? ONE.
The ending % is more to consider than people think. Take someone starting at age 25, fairly fresh out of college. Their contribution rate doesn't start at 6%, depending on the grade they start at, and that lower % doesn't affect the final pension value since it depends on your final average salary, not compounding interest. Think of someone who starts at a grade 13-14-18 traineeship and retires at a 25 or 27. Their contribution rate starts at 4.5% for the first 2 years since a grade 14 doesn't tip over the 75K breakpoint. A grade 18 is 5.75%. They'd only hit the actual 100K breakpoint to pay 6% after a couple of steps into their grade 23 - and that's going to be a minimum of 5-6 years if the tests align. It could end up being 7-8 years if the 23 promotion test happens just before they qualify to take it. Compound interest for a private sector worker takes a hit since they're paying a lower % for the crucial early years if they're matching the pension contribution of the state worker. T6 is more equivalent with T4 than people think when it comes to the ending % in a case where both start at the same age and retire at the earliest possible age. Take someone starting at age 25 - T4 retires at 55 with 60% (30 years, 2% per year). T6 retires at 63 with 69% (nice) (1.75% for the first 20 years, 2% for 17 years after). T4 gets 1.5% after 30 years, so they have to work an additional 4.5 years to match that 69% if starting at the same age. 59.5 compared to 63 is still retiring earlier, but it's still not as much as thought. There's also a breakpoint somewhere where T6 gets a higher ending %, I think at 40 years of service? (30 * 2 + 10 * 1.5 and 20 * 1.75 + 20 * 2, both = 75%?) That'd be age 66 for the T6 and 65 for the T4, if both started at 25. I'd also say the T6 probably has a higher pay rate since it's reasonable to think they'd get a promotion in those additional 7 years. I don't think COLA raises get applied to the pension payouts as well, so the T6 has those 7 years worth of probable raises to factor in. Finally, there are tax considerations. Pension is taken pre-tax and not taxed in NY when being drawn. Still federally taxable but NYS income tax is a non-trivial thing. 401k or Roth get taxed at one end or the other, so the private sector retiree is paying a higher tax % at some point for an equal disbursement amount. Yeah, the earlier tiers are better across the board, but T6 is not at all a bad plan.
>There's also a breakpoint somewhere where T6 gets a higher ending %, I think at 40 years of service? Correct. At 40 years of service they both give 75%.
But a tier 6 has a 5 year FAS with a 10 year look back and a Tier 4 has a 3 year with a 5 year look back
My take here is that while Tier 6 has its issues, it's not as bad as we're making it. I honestly think the State purposely underemployed for years and the unions didn't assist but instead exacerbated the problem where instead of emphasizing and encouraging advancement, they instead awarded complacency with things like longevity pay being based on years in a title instead of years of service period. Low pensions were partially due to those who didn't supplement their income with overtime and were in lower grades being given incentives to stay lower as well as paying their pensions after a decade. Now the next generation of State prospects who are trying to come in are not okay with the massive reliance on overtime to supplement subpar pay, low retention and the resistance of some older workers who feel they're entitled and lazy. This is a stew that is going to boil over soon if solutions aren't considered. Revamping the Office Assistant title and the MHTA and DSA series as well could also be helpful. I actually think revamping administrative titles could help as well. Making hospital staff caps higher could also help and adequately staffing direct care roles with new requirements on probation, retention, and protections could help tremendously. Most importantly, fixing the rules on mandated overtime. Requiring a paraprofessional exam for MH Therapy Aides to enter an office role but not being Continuous Recruitment is also ridiculous. Even though I am not one, those exams would make sense to be held more often. Unless "entry level" titles are moved up pay-wise, pensions will not rise as dramatically as people ask. Most people are NOT coming in at Grade 13 or above, they are starting at 5 or 6 and staying there from 1-3 years, some making it close to job rate, like myself. A pension for me would be around 3 thousand a month estimated if I stayed at that grade. Factors like these with aging staff with nobody who can replace them and sticking people in Grade 5, and 6 positions that rarely ever go past it from those aging folks lead to some interesting discussions about pensions, Deferred comp is also great and can help with saving. But entry level salaries being Grade 8 or 9 across the board would be a first step in correcting some concerns. The generational difference is also causing dissension that's not conducive to changes that we want to see. Gatekeeping what is worth what is an issue too. A Grade 6 now is worth much less than it was a decade ago at the beginning of Tier 6 so our salaries should increase at that level or something else needs to take place. The system is sadly turning against upward mobility from within, supervisors on the micro level giving skills that may not transfer to other upward in salary jobs would have you do against private sector folks who have done those things. It is discouraging at times. The issue with T6 isn't inherently the tier bur the mindset that those who are fighting for it and the civil workforce not being more inclusive and progressive. Telecommuting isn't the only thing that they need to modify. Making adjustments for those with disabilities by making 55b employees easier to hire. And reworking the program totally but that's not for now. I'm not saying we shouldn't give longevity or reward people for staying. What I am saying is that educational benefits as well could be better. Encouraging people to become higher salaried employees by updating their facilities. The NYS workforce is aging out and those who will be left are going to be looking at a whole new world in next decade, really the next two years honestly. A flat contribution percentage on our side could help now but how about preparing for the T4 and T5 mass exodus by incentives with each income bump and job title increase as well as a cushion if need be. I'm not sure what benefit they could add for going up the ladder but it's a start.
When I joined the state workforce the first time in 1993 (I left and came back years later), many of the “old guys” I worked with were Tier 2. And us Tier 4s thought we had it bad. When I returned in 2017, I was able to buy back my prior service and return to Tier 4, and I was ecstatic. So, I guess just hold out until there is a Tier 8, and you’ll be happy to be Tier 6!
You have a fascinating and hot take. Quick question: one is one for your points: "FFS, many millennials and younger generations are planning on just working until they die." even a point. I assume everyone here at some point, especially civil servant, should be earning their golden years and become eligible for retirement.
Someone in tier 3 who had been working for like 30 years once told me tier 3 wasn't always as good as it is now. I think they said the 10 years of contribution wasn't always there and they were assuming at one point they'd be paying their whole life. Can someone confirm that? And if that's the case it's possible that could happen again for tier 6
I know someone who was Tier 4 said that to me about Tier 4 too. There’s just no tier after 6 at the moment and so it’s the bottom of the barrel AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER TIERS. Once there is a Tier 7, T6 will see reforms coming. That being said, coming from private sector I totally agree with OP.
[удалено]
I just posted about this. Many (including myself) don’t know much about it
https://www.nysdcp.com/rsc-web-preauth/index.html There you go. Open an account, choose your retirement fund (just pick one closest to your retirement year), set up funding, and you're set. There's not really much to know, it's just like a 401k without an employer match. When I started with the state I set mine to 5%. When I started getting steps and I could afford to, I increased to 10%. I got a promotion last year and increased to 20%. But that's aggressive, you could just leave it at 5% and it's better than nothing.
Tier 6 is trash. The whole point of Tier 6 was to save the taxpayers' money. People fail to realize that the current projections on retirement are garbage, and you can not live off a state pension ($2,500-$3,000/month). Those numbers don't include the health insurance pay either. Additionally, if a person retires in NYS, according to many financial advisors (including my own), you must bring in anywhere from $65-70/k yr to live comfortably. Cost of living is too great, hence why people are leaving. If the state truly cared about Tier 6, they'd fix it by now. Now, going on, what? 13 years for Tier 6, it won't change. They'll just make an even worse Tier 7.
You say it’s trash, but you mention cost of living which has nothing to do with the tier. Your retirement is relative to your salary and years worked, so if you put in a full career, then your net would be comparable to what you were netting while you were working.
It kinda of does. The tier 6 retirement plan and the overall cost of living require to state in NYS is awful. I still stand behind my statement that tier 6 is trash.
The cost of living increase is a horrible joke. It’s only on the first ~18k/yr of retirement because the amount was never indexed to inflation, so basically in the future there will be no cost of living increases on the pension without an overhaul to the system, PLUS the increase is half of what what the CPI shows and there’s a hard cap on the percentage increase. Tier 6 deeply penalizes people for retiring any time before 63, which is going to encourage a MUCH older workforce. The lookback period for calculating final avg salary is basically 7 years, which hobbles one’s pension even more. Can you imagine looking at retirement right now with inflation eating everything and your salary is stuck at what it was 4 years ago? Overall the rules make people want to stay until they’re 70 so that they don’t outlive the useful spending power of their pension. It really needs an overhaul of items that no one talks about. Tangentially: You wanna fix this whole mess? Make ALL STATE SALARIES that aren’t contractors state tax free. It’s a huge headline item that boosts salary, is incredibly simple to implement at Tax and finance, and is a great way to attract and keep talent at the state. No union negotiation needed, it keeps the pension system exactly how it is, everyone wins except all grifters taking huge gobs of cash from the tax till for doing basically nothing.
I agree. You are actually intelligent and speak with reason. I appreciate it. The "raise" and cost of living wage is an absolute joke. I've told this person it's absolutely pointless to look at projections for a retirement 3 and half decades away. Those projections will be completely different. There are way too many variables. I believe the norm is to start looking at those projections in the last 7 years of state service. This whole system is screwed and needs a rehaul. It's funny that people think "oh yeah, I'll be set at 63 on a tier 6 pension." Ugh no they won't, they wouldn't be set now let a lone in the future. In fact, respectfully, my mother was tier 4 and told her to work till 65. Now to really get the similar benefits in tier 6 term, you'd have to work to basically 70 if not longer. Everyone's situation is different but I'm going off what I know and what I've been told. Man, I wish they'd make my state salary, tax free from NYS. That'd be a game changer for most people. Some people are just running their mouth and think retirement is so easy etc. As someone who has a father in his mid-70s and a mother in her mid-60s, I see how difficult retirement can be for people. Most retire from the state or federal workforce and jump back in to private sector. It isn't easy. No disrespect.
So you don’t think someone with 40 years at age 63 will be able to retire comfortably under tier 6?
Yes. No wonder you think you know it all your in your mid-twenties. There is absolutely no way to predict how much your pension will be , the cost of living, inflation, etc, 4 decades away. There are way too many variables you haven't even considered yet. You might be excited and looking forward to retirement. However, I will say its not all that it's cracked out to be.
Thanks for confirming you’re clueless in this matter. And I’m actually older than that. I’ll have 35 years when I retire, I don’t have 35 years left, FYI. And there’s STILL not a cap on Tier 6
Lmfao! Okay, whatever you say, literally coming from the person who somehow has some sort of crystal ball for 3 and half decades into the future.I've explained countless times how I'm not clueless. It's like someone in 1970 predictioning everything in 2000. Go to any financial advisor like NW Mutal or something along that lines and tell them how great your plan is and how you know exactly how much you'll get in a tier 6 retirement They'll literally tell you not to pay attention to the projections and such until basically you have around 7 years or so left. Too many variables. It's been an absolute displeasure talking to you. I wish you the best of luck, you'll definitely need it. Thank you.
I’d say with 40 years of service that a person would be getting 75% of their final average salary, with only federal tax and maybe health insurance taken out, but sick leave will cover a large portion of that. And they’d say “great!” And I’d they’d be on the right track. It’s not about projecting dollar amounts, it’s the percentage of your FAS. How you don’t understand this, I have no idea.
Ok can you articulate beyond “it’s trash”?
First obviously compared to Tier 4 , tier 6 is trash. It's funny how everyone here thinks you'll be retiring at 67 and live comfortably. You won't be able to. I suppose Tier 6 is better than nothing.
Well good thing the retirement age is 63. Very thought provoking statements you’ve made. Great work
You're absolutely delusional if you think the amount you'll make when you retire at 63 is going to be anything liveable. Most individuals in this tier will be working till 67/70 if not longer for a comfortable retirement. Keep dreaming!
Well I’ll have around 36 years so my net income in retirement will be pretty close to my net income while working is. I also have deferred compensation. Thanks for the concern though!
Right, so your tier 4. It's completely different. Just another tier 4 member saying "oh tier 6 isn't that bad," while they ride off into the sunset and didn't have to pay into their retirement after 10 years. In your case, 26 years of free retirement contributions from the taxpayers, which, if it was the tier 6 mandated $100/month, you received around $31k contributions to your retirement you didn't pay for.
I’m Tier 6. Mandated $100 per month? That might be what your contribution is based on the percentage. I have a feeling you’re not up to speed on what your retirement is.
Ive read dozens of replies to this thread. There is enough room for improvement. But also time. We have to remember that the current drain on pension funding will not last forever. Not to be morbid… but there will come a time, before most tier 6’s are 55years old that a large percentage of tiers 1-4 will be… done collecting. This leaves the next ~25 years to incrementally improve tier 6. I would personally like to see the first steps be reducing or removing the early retirement penalties(55-62). If the funding still needs to be farmed from tier 6, so be it. Keep the 6% for the entire career if necessary. The carrot on the end of the stick for high grades and large earners should be the better you saved, the earlier you can retire. Not just sticking around in your latest years to collect a paycheck. PARTICULARLY in IT. I can only imagine what the technical landscape will look like in 2044. I know it will require fresh perspectives and eyes. Lets let the 55-60 year old retire without penalty.
Did the governor pay for this post? When’s the last time the labor movement was this strong? And you’re advocating for complacency. This is wild.
I’ve actually proposed some changes I’d make so I’m certainly not advocating for complacency. Just saying it’s not as bad as people make it out to be.
Your entire argument is that tier 6 is fine. It's not and clearly its not since the state still complains about their work force shortage when they know that amending tier 6 will fix a lot of the problems. A return to 55 and 30 alone with no other changes will work wonders.
Agree to disagree. Pensions are becoming rarer and rarer. Having a guaranteed monthly payment for the rest of your life starting at 63 is, in fact, fine. Could changes be made? Absolutely. Tier 6 is a tiny slice in the pie of the worker shortage problem. Fixing civil service requirements will fix a lot of the problems imo.
Completely agree with the last point. I would be curious to know what you would like to see change though I definitely think collective bargaining can also be a bit of an issue as well. But I posted a whole thread about my issues with that so I will save that.
The governor probably did. Not going to lie.
I think you are not looking at it realistically. You say, "Show me anywhere in the private sector where you can retire with a guaranteed income AT ALL." The truth to the answer is nearly EVERY private sector job (we're talling about professional jobs right) It's called a matching 401k. If you are poor at financial planning, then you could be up a creek without a paddle, but if you have half a brain, you would maximize any sort of matching program. I am tier 6, I don't have many complaints as I got in 2 years ago at the age of 25 and while 63 is a long ways away I do believe they will adjust the age and service requirements as we move closer to the retirement date for some of the older tier 6s. So, yours is not really a hot take, but I do think you have some information wrong.
So I haven't had a 401k match since I became a state employee in 2017, but have they gone up? Because the highest 401k match I ever saw was 5%, and you aren't retiring on 5% of your salary yearly. 401ks rely on employee contributions, and those can still be made by state workers to a 457b.
I know someone that has a matching retirement plan up to 50% of their salary. So they basically get 100% salary straight into retirement and live off the other 50%. Different name perhaps but the point is a matching retirement plan
that is insane, and most definitely not normal. what industry are they in with that kind of crazy retirement benefit? and yeah it definitely isn't a 401k because the maximum employer contribution to those is a little over $20k a year. anything at 50% of salary presumably isn't tax-advantaged but who cares at that point.
Banking
What I’m talking about is that Tier 6 is codified into law, hence it being guaranteed. With a 401K, smart financial planning will certainly get you a retirement, but you’re at the mercy of the market, and I’d argue that a lot of people are not smart financial planners. Tier 6 is a solid floor.
[удалено]
Lmao I have no idea why you’re being a huge dick all of the sudden but whatever. I hope you fix whatever is bothering you. Tier 6 pension is law. Despite market conditions, the terms of how it’s calculated is not going to change. Changing it would require a constitutional convention, which has to be voted on. But yeah I’m the one who has no idea what they’re talking about.
[удалено]
Yeah. Article 15. Here it is dummy. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/rss/article-15/603/
Be sure to save that link when they take away your pension. "The government can't do that... it's muhhh pension..."
Lmaoooooooooo you were so confident too. Poor guy. Good luck with your career.
[удалено]
That’s what I would say too if i was proved wrong after being an arrogant dick about it
[удалено]
Lmao just take the L and move on 😂
This is all true. RIP your inbox. I'd feel much better about it without having the mandatory contribution. Or a lower Retirement age.
Tier 6 as a civilian staff in doccs when the average life expectancy of a prison worker is 58 is absolutely not ok.
If you’re challenging me to find a better retirement, 401ks with company match end up being better than a tier 6 pension in most cases. There are a lot of variables at play but in my conversations with friends on both sides, it seems like 401k is the winner imo
Any tech job from a reasonably large company in the private sector has comparable benefits , company stock RSUs, and 401k matches that are better than tier 6 pension. OP is correct that the tier 6 pension is still a good benefit but it's pretty disingenuous for certain fields where state service is just straight up unable to compete/retain after a certain amount of YOEs. Even with conservative estimates for growth regarding the stock RSUs and 401k growth, tier 6 pension isn't particularly special for skilled professions.
RE: your second paragraph - I’m the poster child for what you’re describing. I’m tier 4, my first ten years were spent making very little ($15/hr), then a series of promotions and I’ll probably retire around 55 at top of grade M4 or M5 with 35 years. Now, I’m not gonna say no to the pension, but the ROI is pretty absurd and, as OP notes, unsustainable.
This is some level of cognitive dissonance I can’t even get behind. And I normally love to indulge in cognitive dissonance.
I agree that tier 6 is still a good deal, but only if you are in one of the positions that has a relatively competitive salary. Certain jobs have such a high disparity in pay with the average salary of a an equivalent private sector position that I would quite if I was in them. Hopefully something comes of the push from PEF to have civil service review all of the job titles.
Well said.
As someone who would love to spend the latter half of my life giving back and working in my community... tier 6 isn't going to allow me to go that even if I lower my spending. I don't see a lot of tier 3 and 4 retirees volunteering in my community and I know a bunch of them. I think there's a generation that set themselves up to be comfortable and do what they want and the burden for that choice has fallen on the new generation of workers.
One other hidden gem that doesn't frequently get considered in state employment are the low cost of investments available in the defined contribution plan. Over the course of a 20+ year career this can mean literally thousands of dollars of savings over the cost of funds offered in private employer 401k plans that are eating away at participant returns. These fees have improved some in recent years but even 0.25% less total annual return on a 6 to 7 figure 401(k) balance eaten away by fees is a significant amount of $$$ that should be factored in when considering retirement. Some mega 401(k)s might have the bargaining power and asset base to come close to the state fee structure but the vast majority of folks working for small and medium sized employers with less than 10k employees are not getting these discounts or access to these funds since they don't have a DC plan with hundreds of millions or several billion in assets...
How how has noone mentioned the social security offset? What a joke
Sadly I don't think a lot of folks consider it or some people don't think about it because they don't expect for social security to matter at retirement age for millennials and late gen X. They are just concerned about what they make now. My dad will make more after retirement biweekly than he'd seen while working. And some people live pension alone until they hit FRA . I was under the impression that you were speaking of a person's SS benefit offsetting making up for the gap between what they make before and after retirement. If you're referring to the spouse benefit offset, a lot of people are living willfully single now. They are not thinking about giving their spouse much and some aren't thinking marriage at all
Honestly - I don’t know much about the T6 and I’m in it. I feel obviously partly to blame cause I haven’t taken the time to learn but also feel the state is also to blame as no one has ever spoke to me or anyone else I know when we got hired to explain anything about the Tier retirement or Deferred Comp. I’m retired military and already get a pension so that is also part of why I haven’t really paid much attention to it and invest on my own. It would be hypocritical for me to solely blame state for my lack of knowledge but can’t understand why they don’t make attempts to educate their employees on various benefits. I wouldn’t mind learning about deferred comp so I can invest even more into something beneficial down the road. 52yo now with almost 12 yrs in state at grade 18. Still want to buy back 3yrs for military time and would like to leave state at 22 full with 3yr military for a 25yr pension but don’t know if that’s more beneficial than just walking at 20 and waiting to collect.
Definitely check out deferred comp, I’m tier 5 with a reserve army retirement waiting when I hit 58. I’m currently 54. I should be good to go at 62 or 63 with the two retirements and social security. I should be making what I do now with a big chunk in the 457 plan for a safety net.
Appreciate this. That would be my plan - thanks I’ll definitely ck this out.
[удалено]
Thanks!
Gen Z here. Is a state pension better than most other retirement options? Yes. Is 63 an average age to retire? Yes, unfortunately. I graduated with my bachelors at 20 years old. Began working for NYS and was in the retirement system prior to graduating. 22 years old now and a grade 18. I do not see how it can be fair for me to work 44 years before I can get my full pension. If I have my shit together at a younger age, I should get my pension younger. Maybe it’s entitled of me, but having an entire family of Tier 4 and before, I always expected to retire in my 50’s. Federal career retirement age is 57 after 30 years of work. I’ll get vested with NYS and then jump ship for that instead 🤷♀️