Jackson Jambalaya

That's the problem with the deceptive practice of using 5 year averaging by plans. It lets you cry wolf for 4 more years even after the market turns around.

Its funny to me how much angst is expended on the pension status....we would save a lot more money by cutting 25% of the workforce than by cutting benefits. Consolidate agencies, and eliminate duplicate departments. Look at how many more employees we are carrying today than we were 20 years ago....that's the problem, not PERS

Wane: To decrease gradually in size, amount, intensity, or degree; decline. - The Free Dictionary (on-line)

CL/Pender describes 13% return as waning? Must be the Democrat version of the word. CL uses those definitions most of the time.

Sorry 8:10 but you can't consolidate/eliminate duplication and not take any action to reform PERS. You'd only make the Ponzi worse.

8:10 - let's consolidate and eliminate. All for it. BUT, let's fix PERS as well. If we can save money through consolidation and elimination (which I certainly agree can be done) it should be done. But that in no way means we should close our eyes to other inefficient and poor management.

13th checks are a major drain on the system. I know of several getting over 15,000 each year for their 13th check...

just compare total state heads compared to 20 years ago. Its 3x the growth in the economy. Fix that and state finances are fine, including benefits.

Teachers are a big part of the PERS membership. Remember there are a lot more teachers , county and city workers in PERS than just state workers. Need to be wary of getting rid of the 13th check. My Aunt taught school for 30 years for a very small paycheck. She lived long enough (95) to build her 13 check to more than she got every month yearly. This allowed her to live her life off the food stamp roles. A lot of poor state workers depend on that 13th check if they can live long enough to enjoy it.

True. However, its not a COLA, its an automatic pay raise. 3% annual and then after three years compounded annually. If it were me, I'd change it to an actual COLA tied to CPI. However, and I will probably differ with some on this, I would tie it to the headline inflation number, not the regular CPI or core inflation number.

8:07 – Returns are averaged over 5 years to prevent people from crying wolf because the system had a loss one year or crying “problem over” because the system had a large gain one year. Management of a retirement system has to take a long-term view and look at performance over a period of time instead of one year – just like people should do with their individual investments.

8:10 – If 25% of the workforce were cut today, it would lessen the system’s liabilities in the future but it would also eliminate 25% of the funds going into the system today from members and employers. Such a drastic change would require a huge increase in contributions from remaining members and from employers.

10:57 - I don’t know how many people were in PERS 20 years ago, but ten years ago, there were 156,353 and as of June 30, 2013 there were 161,744, an increase of 3.4% in ten years and over 5,300 fewer than 6/30/09.

Keep in mind that PERS covers state employees, school employees, and county and municipal employees. There are roughly 100,000 state and school employees in PERS; the remaining third are in the county and city governments. Any talk about cutting people in PERS or PERS benefits also applies locally.

that math doesn't work. thats like saying we could fix PERs by hiring more people.

It's a weasel phrase. "As" implies causation, but doesn't expressly claim it. "My marriage declined as Obamacare's rollout was plagued by errors" - true, but no causal link.

thats like saying we could fix PERs by hiring more people.

That's what that nice Mr. Ponzi said we should do!

PERS (and all other government employee pension programs) should be changed to what private businesses largely went to decades ago, and get away from a defined benefit program. Federal government changed their program in the early 80's, but allowed existing employees to opt to change to new program or stay in the old Civil Service Retirement System. All new employees entered into the defined contribution program and participate in the investment decision. Why our fine state can't figure out how to make a similar change is ridiculous. But the real problem is that our leaders don't have the balls to do it

There are frequent rotating openings on the PERS Board of Directors. What is Kingfish waiting for to get his name in the hat? These positions are elected by the membership, with a few exceptions of mandated representatives from high government positions.

I know one thirty-two year retired teacher who is now in her 80s. Her monthly retirement check is $313 a month and her 13th check is almost $5500. Average THAT and compare it to a union pension or private sector retirement plan. $770 per month is what it is. Thirty year manufacturing retirees with less than a high school education retire at more than that!

All you dunces clamoring for a switch to 'how we do stuff around here in the private sector' need to turn your caps around and understand that the system is what it is and it's contractual and you don't flip a roadside switch and convert over night.

Twenty years ago, Mississippi PERS was the strongest of like systems nationally. You don't just switch tracks without understanding that trains are coming from the other direction.

Who the hell wants to mirror private sector retirement plans anyway. They can drop matching contributions behind closed doors at the drop of a hat each time the plan year ends. They can (and do) shit-can the entire program without employee comment. They can screw employees with plan revisions and investment hoodwinkery almost unnoticed.

These people already aren't paid shit. Screw them out of their meager retirement (and their so called COLA) and you'll wish you'd never entered the discussion.

There ya go. Put 'em all on food stamps and let Steve Holland raise hell because they're medicaid eligible.

We have a winner...

Sure hope that Holland will offer their families as substantial a discount at the end of the road as that matching the size of Representative Holland's huge distributionist mouth.

Go to the State website and see what the State jobs pay.
Pretty much nothing in comparison to the private sector.
Do away with the 13th check and the State will lose
their best employees and won't be able to replace them
at the current salaries. Considering the population growth
in this state, the growth in PERS covered employees isn't
out of line.

I believe the employees take a reduction of their monthly checks to accumulate (save for) the thirteenth check. They can distribute the 13th check over 12 months by special request.

Considering the population growth
in this state, the growth in PERS covered employees isn't out of line.

Pure bullshit.

The retirees have increased by over 35,000 in the last ten years. 55,000 in 2002 to over 90,000 last year. Ratio of active to retirees dropped from over 2 to 1.76 or so.

KF said: "3% annual and then after three years compounded annually." Written twice to correct you but you've seen fit not to post my comment. And since I can finally read your "Please prove you're not a robot", maybe this time I'll get your attention.
COLA is paid after a person is retired for one full state fiscal year. At that point (assuming under 55) COLA is 3% times the annual base benefit times the number of fiscal years that person has been in retirement until the person reaches 55. At 56 the COLA begins to compound. If a person is 55 or older when he/she retires, the first COLA check (after meeting the one full state fiscal year in retirement requirement) is 3%. In the following year it compounds.
Also glad to see you read the latest PERS annual report.

I haven't approved your comment? That is a lie. I've approved every one on this subject.

As for what you just wrote, yes, you are correct. I have not disputed it at all nor said otherwise. Most of my PERS readers know this already so when I say 3% and then compounded later they know what I am talking about.

Well then KF, where are my other two comments? Sorry bud, I haven't lied to you. Nice try on the flip. What I wrote above is not what you previously said.

Not my problem. I've approved everything that has come across, Shadow.

Compounding COLA. What a scam.

I haven't a clue as to who Shadow is, I don't really care, and you sir, never call me a liar again. You have no idea who I am, nor what my knowledge of PERS is. Maybe you'd like to consult me the next time you have a question. Just a suggestion. And if you talk with a legislator about PERS, discount at least 90% of what he or she says. Few have any knowledge of PERS.
In closing, have you ever interviewed Pat Robertson?

When you are telling me I am not approving your comments when that is not true, oh well. You are the one accusing me of doing things that are not true. Get over it. Believe it or not, sometimes comments don't come through. Friends of mine have had the same complaints and they don't run around accusing me of rejecting their comments. They just ask why they are not appearing. Apology accepted.

I've talked to her quite a few times. How many board meetings and investment committee meetings have you been to?

Let me see if I can get through the robot this time.

I did not apologize to you, get that straight! I can be of benefit to you if you'll let me, but don't accuse me of lying when you get something wrong, and you did.

Been to many a meeting, not all, but hey, you actually may have me on your tape. Like I said, you have no idea who I am and what I know about the retirement system.

Don't want my help, no problem, but don't expect me to sit back when someone screws up, to include you.

As to Ms. Pat, you believed everything she said? Bad move on your part if you did.

My last comment was culled also.

I went into detail regarding how this post was bullshit: "I believe the employees take a reduction of their monthly checks to accumulate (save for) the thirteenth check. They can distribute the 13th check over 12 months by special request."

I won't bother to post factual information again as KF obviously does not want it on here.

While the discussion tilted left to the number of employees entering the system (which is irrelevant), Kingfish decided to move the direction over to the increase in the number of retirees. There is absolutely no correlation.

Just report the news. Where you get twisted around the axle is when you attempt to be an expert on things you don't know jack shit about.

...and you sir, never call me a liar again.

Earth to numbskull. You are anonymous.

Bystander, how about providing us with the link to your online gig so we can all see how a real f'ing expert does it?

The problem is not with PERS! The problem is the State has three retirements. Throw everyone in the same basket. If a Legislator or Highway Patrolman has a problem with it, let their system fail and not sure up their systems with money from the rest of us. Do your homework and find the people who are always penalized and those that prosper differ according to the system they belong. Kinda interesting that the all mighty Governor doesn't realize this. I just wonder why the rest of the members of PERS don't realize the differences in the three systems and why they are so willing to negotiate their benefits without suggesting the other systems be reformed to be selfsustainable so funds aren't transferred from PERS.

Earth to 5:11 PM and you are? Idiot!

5:33PM try the PERS handbook for a starter. Then read PERS law and all the 60+ regs. After that, comment.

For those you haven't a clue or for those who care, contact Bob Rhoads at PERS. He knows more about the system than even the executive director. Just a suggestion.

Good golly, what a ringing endorsement for Pat 7:31! But, of course, refer to the handbook first.

Enjoy your insolvent retirement system.

According to the US census Mississippi's population
grew by 10 percent. I seriously doubt that State and
local employees grew by that percentage. So to call
it bullshit is just that. PERS is underfunded because
the number of current retirees on the rolls, which by
the way, will start to decline at a faster rate due as the
Boomers age. But don't let facts get in the way of
profanity.

8:15 shows himself to be an idiot by suggesting the system is insolvent. It's like he woke up in the middle of an employee meeting and heard the word in a sentence and that was his total take-away from the meeting. Dummy. No, the sky is not falling as some suggest and others hope.

But the most ill-educated of all of you are those who actually believe 'taxes on Mississippians are raised' to support the PERS system in any way. Kingfish gets his jollies when his 'sky is falling' rhetoric has that effect on the proletariat.

Mississippi's population has only grown +16.7% over the last 30 years. The JPS Einstein @ 9:27 PM is clueless.

Pat thinks the PERS brain trust can get the system back up to 80% by 2042. YUP, no problems there. LMAO

As goes the market, so goes PERS.

So, to recap:

Some time back, employees were encouraged by the legislature to take early retirement. The legislature dangled the magic early-retirement carrot out there. As a result a thousand or more retired with 25 years and that option remained available for a long time.

They retired early and one whole fiscal year later began to reap their contractual reward of the 13th check. Of course it never compensated for chump wages for those 25 years, but anyway.

Continuing to recap....With thousands taking 25 year retirement and the legislature granting themselves double retirement within the PERS system, now comes the legislature to announce a new consideration. Let's tell those considering retirement that if they do retire, they won't be able to receive their promised benefit before they reach age 65, regardless of years of service, even those who have 43 years of service, but who are not 65. Penalized. FAIL.

First: All of you people need to take a look at early retirement so we can hire entry level people.

Next: Wait, we no longer will have that option. It's gone. Put us in the hole.

Now: Stay as long as you're breathing and remember that if you retire, you'll be penalized.

Rep One: How do we keep these teachers in the classroom while avoiding pay raises and at the same time getting rid of them and hire new ones at entry pay? Remembering that PERS contributions are a derivative of their salary.

Rep Two: I have no clue, but let's gavel-in. Ticos tonite, Bro.