If we're going to be adults, we're also going to recognize that many of us were not adults when these contracts were drawn up and signed. Many of us were never even born, and some of those who were of the right age opposed them to some degree or another.

Maybe we should recognize, in a truly adult fashion, that the mistakes of previous generations should not be passed on to the current generation. Maybe adults should recognize the math just doesn't add up.

> It’s not a responsible behavior to use retirement plans as weapons at the 11th hour.

It's not a responsible behavior to over promise pensions and bankrupt dozens of states either. Nor, in the pursuit of fulfilling those reckless promises, is it responsible to bankrupt future generations.

Which curiously, is exactly the solution we have in place now: reduced benefits for new employees to compensate for outsized ones for retirees. Should they stand for this?

> It's not a responsible behavior to over promise pensions and bankrupt dozens of states either. Nor, in the pursuit of fulfilling those reckless promises, is it responsible to bankrupt future generations.

You're ignoring the substantial hand states have had in making this crisis. Several have continually neglected their annual contributions. Maybe they were backed into a corner when tax reciepts fell in 2008, maybe it was a political self-inflicted wound. When states like Kansas or Colorado cut taxes and take on substantial debt, it's pretty goddamn odious to point to budget shortfalls and say "Sorry employees, we can't make our pension obligation, we have interest payments to make!"

Moreover, when demanding pensions take a cut while paying lenders 100 cents on the dollar, you're concentrating investment losses onto those least able to afford it.

So are you okay with a future generation repudiating their contracts and obligations with you when you reach retirement age? After all, all of us are someday going to part of a "previous generation" and none of are so perfect that our generation has made no mistakes.

Why do so many people behave as if aging is something that only happens to other people?

There are solutions that provide the benefits of retirement without pitting young against old.

> KEA opposes the pension reform, in which new hires will have to enter a hybrid cash balance plan, which differs from a traditional pension, and would limit new sick days that teachers can put toward their retirement.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/us/kentucky-teachers-pension-...

Now that they enjoyed not having to fund the pensions for 30 years, they are retiring and expecting the next generation to pay for them having their cake and eating it too.

I find it very difficult to really figure out where the greater moral hazard here lies. As you state this was a problem everyone knew about when setting these public pensions up and it was easier to kick the can down the road. You will find it very difficult to convince me that the average union member in the 80's didn't know the sweet deal they were getting. It was a trope growing up in the 80's/90's to hear adults talk about "scamming" the overly generous pensions systems of the day.

I think it's interesting public unions in Illinois advocated 30 years ago for enshrining pension benefits into the state constitution. That language was added specifically because the public unions knew the deals they were making with politicians were not fiscally sustainable.

At this point I don't see a good way out and something major will break at a societal level before it gets fixed. There simply is no way to pay for these promised benefits and still maintain local and state government at a functional level in many states. I don't think bailing them out federally is an answer either - again for moral hazard reasons. I also don't think quadrupling taxes on the next generation is morally any better either.

In many ways this discussion is moot. The math is so overwhelmingly bad in some places it's simply not fixable from the revenue side only. Everyone is going to have to share some pain here, and that includes those receiving benefits.

Washington will also look at this as an opportunity to take more power from states and move it to DC. Of course they can also print/borrow money do this.

More likely it was added because they knew that there would eventually be a concerted political effort to strip them of their pensions )and raid those pensions) by a combination of business lobbies and wall street.

>I also don't think quadrupling taxes on the next generation is morally any better either.

What is your moral objection to taxing unearned income at a higher rate?

We’re just arguing about the amount of the transfer at this point.

So, younger adults who are just entering the workforce are going to shoulder the burden for paying for these deficits based on decision made when they were children or not even born.

Pensioners in the private sector do face those risks.