What risk is an accountant sitting in SF City Hall taking? High risk positions - sure give them more security. Otherwise, treat them like everyone else. Also, people goto govt jobs because of job security as well - which is also a factor in lower income.

if you are going to cherry-pick, then so be it.

what about the police, fire department?

Read my comment. Don't be ignorant. I literally said that for high risk positions, give them more pension.

I don't think the police or fire are taking "unprecedented" risks.

Perhaps not, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a risk premium in your compensation. If you're more likely to die or be critically injured earlier than someone else of the same age solely because of the work you do, and your family depends on your income, it's not unreasonable to expect to be paid more to make up for the lost expected lifetime income.

(This is true for all dangerous professions, BTW - not just law enforcement and medical personnel.)

Would you say that to the police or firefighters who responded to 9/11?

There are outsized risks involved in both occupations.

The days where gov workers traded high private sector income for stability and retirement was finaihed sometime in the late 80s, when offshoring, immigration, and massive amounts of productivity started being squeezed from labor to capital.

I live in DC, and at my age many professionals who don't really have any lucrative skills or degrees are now hitting the 6 figure club in late 30s as GS13s. They'd be making less working at some private company without any pension, longer hours, less vacation, and worse benefits, and no guaranteed promotions.

In this town, a lot of people would be more than happy to get a nice office job working for the Federal Government, but it's not that easy anymore unless you're a certain special minority or other who gets pushed to the head of the line.

Other then police and firepeople... what city jobs are high risk? I think most city jobs are paying in the median and giving well above average benefits. it doesn't make sense.

> This is just crazy to me, this public servants takes unprecedented risks and take lower pays so they can take stable retirement.

I didn't realize I was signing up for an "unstable retirement" by working in the private sector.

Perhaps you mean "stable jobs", which indeed was historically supposed to be biggest selling-point of govt jobs, and the trade-off for lower pay. Though now when you count benefits, apparently they get the best total compensation too.

The whole thing is so nakedly corrupt. In Illinois, where I'm from, guys like JB Pritzker (governor) and Mike Madigan have made whole careers out of getting elected on the back of organized labor (e.g. AFSCME), and once elected, give them sweetheart deals.

On one hand, it's just part and parcel of politics, but there needs to be some kind of counterbalance to this. Maybe a taxpayer revolt would fix it?

> Now it comes time for due, we don't want to fund these anymore.

The people who agreed to this never wanted to fund them in the first place. If they had, they would have increased taxes or reduced benefits. Instead, we are seeing guaranteed 3% pension increases annually when inflation is <2% and rosy projections about 8% stock market returns when in practice it's more like 5%.

Literally no one is asking for the fed government to pay for those pensions, this is a GOP talking point.

They are asking for help due to hundreds of millions lost in tax revenue.

Police, Fire Department, transit workers yes but the vast majority of public servants are not taking "unprecedented risks" when they are at work. They're inspectors, judges, teachers, budget analysts etc.