Jackson Jambalaya

Will the last one in the room please turn off the lights.

PERS is a defined benefit plan dinosaur. Destined for failure.
A 401k plan should be made available to new employees in its place.

PERS is a drain on the state economy and hard working non governmental Mississippians.

PERS contributors should be converted to 403(b) accounts. It solves the future problem but I'm not sure how to solve the current retirees problem.

February 21, 2024 at 9:00 AM
FYI 403(b) is the non-profit and government employer version of the 401(k).

Pensions are a rarity in the private sector, as most companies that offered them have discontinued them. There are still a few out there, but most of the private sector has traditional 401k and similar retirement plans available for employee participation. $2192 a month is a very nice benefit for a retiring state employee. And state employees often retire a lot earlier than folks who work in the private sector, which means they draw on PERS a lot longer. Remember, retirees can also draw social security so the two combined make for a tidy sum.

Would "the major issue" be crime, and PERS be "a major issue?"

" One of the primary issues for the system is that there is a declining number of public employees paying into the PERS system as opposed to those receiving benefits."

That's the key. There's no getting around that math. The state made the decision to shrink the size of its workforce and at some point it's going to have to make up the deficit in its retirement system that resulted.

@9:00 - you could turn state employment to a 401k system, but you're going to have start paying state employees a LOT more so they can actually save for retirement. I can tell you from my personal experience, anyone working for the state who is worth a damn is only able to do it because the retirement benefits are good. And yes, there are a lot of competent people working for the state in jobs that matter. Take that away and jobs that are already hard to fill are going to become impossible.

Yall go ahead and pull the ladder up once you get yours and then act like nothing happened.

When I was a state employee I worked very hard, took pride in my work, and was thus very productive.

My manager took me aside for a chat.

He explained that most state employees just draw a check and do as little as possible.

Then there are the employees in our department who work a little harder then the "most state employees."

Then there is me. I am making others look bad. He actually ordered me to slow down and go along to get along.

This may come as a surprise to those “well educated” legislators, if you pay out more than you earn, you WILL go broke. Luckily, we live in a very rich state and the people who actually work are more than happy to support the states stupid spending policies. I have been in nice bars around Jackson where lobbyists were buying those esteemed legislators whiskey. It may surprise you to know they drink Premium whiskey when others are paying for it.

@9:42
I had a similar experience. My supervisor told me he learned himself that it was pointless to do more than the bare minimum. He informed me that there won’t be any promotions or merit raises. Nothing more than a COLA raise if lucky. He advised me to pace myself and keep an eye out for open positions in other agencies at MSPB because the stacking chart and promotions at our agency was planned out before I got hired. I followed his advice for a few years and built my skill set and left state gov at the first opportunity. What a shitshow.

Legislators shouldn't even be in the system. Part-time employees with no retirement benefits. They should already be retired, or be working a full-time outside job with benefits.

"Since 1989, Mississippi’s 174 legislators and the lieutenant governor have enjoyed a preferential state retirement system that is 1.5 times more lucrative than that provided “regular” state employees like schoolteachers or highway workers. Lawmakers are eligible for two pensions that on average can add up to 165 percent of their salaries."

Well, legislators can participate in PERS AND SLRP???
It's no damn wonder they don't want Voter Reforendom broght back, huh? I have grown to HATE these people on all levels of government...Why aint we Rioting in the Streets???

February 21, 2024 at 9:28 AM
Are you a Democrat in the Mississippi Legislature? I wouldn't accuse you of financial literacy as the ladder was pulled up in 2011 when the retirement years was increased from 25 to 30 and benefits cut. the fundamental problem mentioned in both this post and comments is that the beneficiaries outnumber the contributors almost 3 to 1. that means there's 3 people drawing out for every one person contributing to PERS. The other problem is that PERS can't even match market returns.

When I left state government after 4.5 years in 2018 I rolled over in the ball park of $14,500 into my 401(k). That's contributions to PERS only, you don't get the returns if you pull your money out of PERS. Since then it has quadrupled and I don't even contribute as much to my 401(k) compared to PERS. I only contribute 7% (with 6% match of 100%) vs the 9% State employees have to contribute.

"Remember, retirees can also draw social security so the two combined make for a tidy sum."

Remember, 9:20, any retiree can also draw social security and the retirement plan they had at work or in the military or a combination of all three.

And a military retiree who goes to work for the federal government as a civilian, then state government and later the private sector, can (if vested) draw FIVE damned retirements. So, your point is?...

Meanwhile, 9:42 aka 9:58 is lying through his teeth.

The state is between a rock and a hard place. Raising the employer contribution is not economically viable and raising the employee contribution or altering the benefits structure will run off the employees that are competent without a considerable pay raise.

About 10 years ago I asked a newly elected state represetative if he was willing to address the PERS situation. He said "the legislature will never address PERS in an election year."

My answer to him was "well, isn't every year an election year?"

SLRP it up.

@ "Remember, retirees can also draw social security so the two combined make for a tidy sum."

That's because they pay into both systems during their working career - the law requires it.

It would make sense for local municipalities and counties to privatize every governmental function they can to get out of paying the legacy of PERS taxes for government employees.

I recently retired with 30 years and I can appreciate the "just show up and collect a check" stereotype. I saw it every day. However, I also saw the majority of state employees as good humble folks just trying to make a living.

Funding PERS is a predicament that won't go away anytime soon. If you can't fix it, at least use it to shape behavior. I would pass legislation that ties receiving retirement benefits to paying child support, paying state taxes, and meeting other obligations. Garnish retirement benefits for folks not paying taxes and stop benefits for folks while they're in prison.

10:09 - See that's where you're wrong. Legislators need to be affiliated with PERS so that they have some skin in the game. If they have something to lose, they're more likely to work on legislation to fix it.

The legislature diverts money from general funds to special areas frequently. A few years ago they diverted money from restaurant and hotel sales taxes to a tourism advertising fund with no proof that the advertising increased tourism. The legislature needs to pick something to divert money to PERS. After all, tater brags about the budget surplus so $50 or $75 million or so to PERS every year will help PERS and not severely impact the state budget.

Base benefit on high ten. Stop these 25 year legislators from moving to a high paying job and taking more out in 2 years than they ever paid in.

The legislature should ask the PERS board why they continue to pay investment advisers for sub par returns on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are invested. This has been going on for years and years. If the return on investment had simply matched the markets as a whole, the deficit would be much lower. So before making drastic changes or asking local governments to pay more, do a better job with the investment dollars on hand.
I am a current retiree and agree the system needs changes to make it sustainable. I also agree that long term the answer is a 401k style system. In order to make that work the State would need to allocate funds to pay those in the system until the last person dies There are many people like me who would have loved to have invested our money while we were working, but we had no choice but to pay into the system. The State made a deal, that by doing so we could expect certain benefits upon retirement. I worked 34 years and held up my end of the bargain and expect the State to honor their promise with every penny they said I would receive.

@8:32 - perfectly stated, my sentiments exactly. I have 29 years in the system.

@ "ask the PERS board why they continue to pay investment advisers for sub par returns on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are invested."

You are so right. I've been making around 12% over the last 20-30 years on my personal portfolio on my own without any advice or help. If you're gonna pay for help, they should help you significantly exceed what you can do on your own. One industry problem is the "help" seems to invariably charge a percentage of funds under advisement, instead of a percentage of profit. So the advisor can make a killing while you're actually losing money on your investments using his advice.

Legislators haven’t funded the plan as required, that’s why it is in bad financial shape. Shouldn’t have to depend on new workers to fund benefits for retired workers. Fund the projected benefits during the working years of that future retiree.

Basing benefits on the highest 4 years is just a way for legislators to work four years full time to supercharge their benefits compared to lifetime employees.
Elected officials also receive other enhancements to their benefits like and extra 30 days of time each year that ultimately increases their retirement benefits.

SO where does the legislature get $5 to $7 billion to shore it up?

"When I left state government after 4.5 years in 2018 I rolled over in the ball park of $14,500 into my 401(k). That's contributions to PERS only"

No way in hell you worked just over 4 years and had 14.5k to withdraw unless you were a political appointee who couldn't find your way to the restroom.

"Pensions are a rarity in the private sector, as most companies that offered them have discontinued them. There are still a few out there, but most of the private sector has traditional 401k and similar retirement plans available for employee participation."

So, what's your point? Those employers who switched did so for business reasons - Because the 401k employer match (if any) cost them a helluva lot less money than a company pension.

I'm retired from a worldwide corporation with over 85,000 employees - a company that has for almost a century had a pension plan for hourly as well as exempt employees, and also has a 401k plan and quarterly profit sharing for all employees.

Take a water-system, for example. If you have 40,000 people using water and only 4,000 people paying for it, what happens? Sound familiar?

It's the fault of the legislature, over time, and a few governors, that the numbers contributing to PERS are far fewer than the contributions needed to float the plan.

When employees go for years without any increase on top of low wages and increasing insurance premiums to begin with...and when the legislature allows a few agency heads to fire at will to trim staff...and when the system allows agencies to replace workers with contract employees who do not pay into PERS...you will have far fewer employees. And none of those three were wise business decisions.

And we have constantly heard the present Lieutenant Governor brag about how he has reduced state employee numbers.

@10:38 - Save the hype! The only way that figure would be needed would be if every employee in the PERS system retired on June 30 of this year.

There's no run on the bank.

@11:39 AM This is 9:42 AM - Everything that I wrote is 100% accurate.

How did you go bankrupt? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

Ernest Hemingway,
The Sun Also Rises

@1:06, then you had a supervisor who should not have been promoted and should have been fired 5 years before he hired you. A supervisor who accepts, condones and encourages less than mediocrity should not be tolerated in public or private sector. But you knew that.

It's also the fault of state government for not allowing merit increases and not allowing an annual evaluation program that weeds out incompetent employees.

February 21, 2024 at 11:22 AM
Having slept on my comment I'd like to apologize to MS legislative Democrats. Not because I think they are financially literate. I don't want to imply that MS legislative Republicans are.

February 22, 2024 at 11:44 AM
Believe what you want but I started at 34k then got a job change to 40k then 50k.

32000 x 9% = 2880
40000 x 9% = 3600 (x2) = 7200
50000 x 9% = 4500

2880 + 7200 + 4500 = 14580

You only get the principal if you pull out of PERS.

If you were hired into a state job 10 years ago and immediately progressed to 50,000 in four years, you had somebody pulling strings. Don't be alarmed though...That's not at all unusual in every agency.

If it's one thing I detest more than blanket, across the board raises, it a newby who gets elevated because of special associations.

February 23, 2024 at 6:28 AM
If by pulling strings means I was willing to work on call time to support the system that funds the entire State then yes I pulled some strings. Definitely had help with a great boss (who has since retired from the State) who put up with a complete asshole CIO. In fact I was the only member on that team that was a constant for it's entire tenure before the CIO ran off the whole team. In fact I trained 3 different team members. One of those was supposed to be my "senior" but at that point I had 3 years experience supporting the system. All of them left.

There was supposed to be a state side and contractor side (that was supposed to go away and be left in the hands of the State). Evidently the CIO didn't know that to get someone to do what I was doing in the private sector would cost double if not triple what I left the State getting paid. I

To be honest you sound like a butthurt State employee.

February 23, 2024 at 6:28 AM
Oh and I'd also like to add that that job entailed getting calls at all hours of the night and day about the system. I couldn't go to fucking Kroger to shop because I'd get a call literally right after work. I was the only other person willing to work non-standard 8 to 5 hours besides my boss.

Amazing to read all the negatively viewed opinions around state employees. I know a lot of the folks that used to work for the state had their fair share of hard working years. With PERS being a major liability to the state, keeping the pressure off of it's sustainability is paramount. The state has a massive talent gap to fill as it already does not pay close to what the private industry does for most types of work. Screwing the retirement benefits up would be the last straw for anyone looking to work for the state. We are just a few blocks left from toppling on the jenga tower.