OT: Illinois fair tax: yes or no?

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Unions are tricky to integrate into modern economics because so many jobs now are sort of one-off unique positions. It's easy to organize into a union where a bunch of workers are doing identical tasks in front of each other but it's a lot more difficult in most Fields where no one really does the same work.

On the related issues of pensions they're just not a plausible idea going forward because of the enormous uncertainties regarding life expectancies.

I'm open to the idea that the union of the 21st century worker may need to evolve from that of the 20th century worker, but if we just go along with workers no longer banding together, workers are never going to share in the record profits that their increasing efficiency helps produce.

[moorhosj]

Unions are tricky to integrate into modern economics because so many jobs now are sort of one-off unique positions. It's easy to organize into a union where a bunch of workers are doing identical tasks in front of each other but it's a lot more difficult in most Fields where no one really does the same work.

I'm not sure either end of this argument is true. Is there proof that jobs are now more "one-off unique" than in the past. Looking through the job titles on LinkedIn suggests otherwise as they are pretty standardized. Maybe you are talking about more people "consulting" as independent contractors rather than employees, that is certainly true. The simple solution for that could be a union or guild specifically for consultants. Unions have always represented a collection of workers across many jobs and industries. Just look at the Teamsters and SEIU. They each represent workers from across multiple industries and job functions, so that isn't any different than a new union covering Data Analysts or Uber Drivers.

Our 1.4 million members are public defenders in Minnesota; vegetable workers in California; sanitation workers in New York; brewers in St. Louis; newspaper workers in Seattle; construction workers in Las Vegas; zoo keepers in Pennsylvania; healthcare workers in Rhode Island; bakery workers in Maine; airline pilots, secretaries and police officers. Name the occupation and chances are we represent those workers somewhere.

https://teamster.org/about/who-are-teamsters/

SEIU is focused on organizing workers in three sectors: health care (over half of members work in the health care field), including hospital, home care and nursing home workers; public services (government employees, including law enforcement); and property services (including janitors, security guards and food service workers).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union

[League Circles]

Unions are tricky to integrate into modern economics because so many jobs now are sort of one-off unique positions. It's easy to organize into a union where a bunch of workers are doing identical tasks in front of each other but it's a lot more difficult in most Fields where no one really does the same work.

On the related issues of pensions they're just not a plausible idea going forward because of the enormous uncertainties regarding life expectancies.

I'm open to the idea that the union of the 21st century worker may need to evolve from that of the 20th century worker, but if we just go along with workers no longer banding together, workers are never going to share in the record profits that their increasing efficiency helps produce.

It's not clear to me that unions would inherently give workers a greater share of profits, but instead just have whatever share they get distributed evenly among the workers as opposed to distributed by production (where a minority of workers produce the majority of profits).

[dougthonus]

What industries did unions kill off?

I guess I'm out over my skiis there Probably repeating deeply seeded thoughts from my youth that I haven't really looked into. I think of the steel / auto industries being hurt especially by unions, but I can't say I really know a lot about the data.

[League Circles]

Unions are tricky to integrate into modern economics because so many jobs now are sort of one-off unique positions. It's easy to organize into a union where a bunch of workers are doing identical tasks in front of each other but it's a lot more difficult in most Fields where no one really does the same work.

I'm not sure either end of this argument is true. Is there proof that jobs are now more "one-off unique" than in the past. Looking through the job titles on LinkedIn suggests otherwise as they are pretty standardized. Maybe you are talking about more people "consulting" as independent contractors rather than employees, that is certainly true. The simple solution for that could be a union or guild specifically for consultants. Unions have always represented a collection of workers across many jobs and industries. Just look at the Teamsters and SEIU. They each represent workers from across multiple industries and job functions, so that isn't any different than a new union covering Data Analysts or Uber Drivers.

Our 1.4 million members are public defenders in Minnesota; vegetable workers in California; sanitation workers in New York; brewers in St. Louis; newspaper workers in Seattle; construction workers in Las Vegas; zoo keepers in Pennsylvania; healthcare workers in Rhode Island; bakery workers in Maine; airline pilots, secretaries and police officers. Name the occupation and chances are we represent those workers somewhere.

https://teamster.org/about/who-are-teamsters/

SEIU is focused on organizing workers in three sectors: health care (over half of members work in the health care field), including hospital, home care and nursing home workers; public services (government employees, including law enforcement); and property services (including janitors, security guards and food service workers).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union

I don't know what to say. As jobs become more complex and more isolated, where it's not clear to others how much effective work you're doing, they become differentiated in productivity. I'm an engineer. In my company every one of us with the same job title has quite significantly different levels of production, and associated pay. Yes, driving an Uber and some other jobs are still easier to standardize, but most fields that involve some sort of creative productivity, which is a LOT of jobs, are too difficult to standardize IMO.

[League Circles]

What industries did unions kill off?

I guess I'm out over my skiis there Probably repeating deeply seeded thoughts from my youth that I haven't really looked into. I think of the steel / auto industries being hurt especially by unions, but I can't say I really know a lot about the data.

They may not have killed them off, but quite obviously various major American industries have had strong unions eventually hurt their competitiveness internationally. As you suggest, automotive industry is a big one. Education is definitely another. Just because a union is good for it's members doesn't mean it's good for it's industry or society.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

What industries did unions kill off?

I guess I'm out over my skiis there Probably repeating deeply seeded thoughts from my youth that I haven't really looked into. I think of the steel / auto industries being hurt especially by unions, but I can't say I really know a lot about the data.

They may not have killed them off, but quite obviously various major American industries have had strong unions eventually hurt their competitiveness internationally. As you suggest, automotive industry is a big one. Education is definitely another. Just because a union is good for it's members doesn't mean it's good for it's industry or society.

No question globalization is a dynamic that today's laborers have to compete against like our grandparents when we had the greatest middle class work force ever.

I don't believe just cutting off unions at the knees is the solution though.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Unions are tricky to integrate into modern economics because so many jobs now are sort of one-off unique positions. It's easy to organize into a union where a bunch of workers are doing identical tasks in front of each other but it's a lot more difficult in most Fields where no one really does the same work.

On the related issues of pensions they're just not a plausible idea going forward because of the enormous uncertainties regarding life expectancies.

I'm open to the idea that the union of the 21st century worker may need to evolve from that of the 20th century worker, but if we just go along with workers no longer banding together, workers are never going to share in the record profits that their increasing efficiency helps produce.

It's not clear to me that unions would inherently give workers a greater share of profits, but instead just have whatever share they get distributed evenly among the workers as opposed to distributed by production (where a minority of workers produce the majority of profits).

I know economists (real ones, not arm chair amateurs like me) debate the correlation v causation of wage growth and decline in union membership, but the evidence of correlation of declining union membership and stagnant or falling wage growth is pretty compelling. Where causation falls... over my head. However I think its likely that there's a threshold where strong unions are a tide that rises all (working class) boats. I know that's been an argument for why soaring corporate profits are good too, but the correlation doesn't seem to prove that out, and we're on at least year 40 of trickle down economic theory.

[League Circles]

I guess I'm out over my skiis there Probably repeating deeply seeded thoughts from my youth that I haven't really looked into. I think of the steel / auto industries being hurt especially by unions, but I can't say I really know a lot about the data.

They may not have killed them off, but quite obviously various major American industries have had strong unions eventually hurt their competitiveness internationally. As you suggest, automotive industry is a big one. Education is definitely another. Just because a union is good for it's members doesn't mean it's good for it's industry or society.

No question globalization is a dynamic that today's laborers have to compete against like our grandparents when we had the greatest middle class work force ever.

I don't believe just cutting off unions at the knees is the solution though.

I don't think there's any inherent problem with unions. I've been a union member in the past and support their existence. I just think it's important to note that many modern jobs aren't appropriate for collective bargaining (due to differentiation and employee competition among other things), and that it's super easy for a union to hurt it's industry, and thus, indirectly, its members through pay and benefits that aren't warranted.

I'm not currently a union member but work with many who are and they have out themselves in such a good relative position that it threatens their existence to be frank.

[2018C3]

Obtaining wealth is just a cycle. Sometimes throughout history it has been easy, other times much harder.

My parents were able to purchase a decent house for just $40,000 in the early 70's. My dad got a later start because he was sent to the war. Then 15-20 years later he was probably making more than that a year. This made it easy for him to save.

My grandfather came to this country sometime around the great depression. At that time jobs were hard to get. He told me he got his first job, by walking up to a employer, and telling the employer he would work for free until he proved his worth. Eventually the guy started paying him, and first started out making well under a dollar a day working as a water delivery man. He later became a brick layer, and eventually purchased a tavern bar. And once he retired from that purchased a couple small apartment buildings.

His great grandson "a very smart college drop out" and following in his footsteps. Just recently he purchased a 3 flat in Chicago (all on his own), in his very late 20's / almost 30's as his first home. He is now renting out the other two levels. He lived with his dad "not me", up to this point.

When I got my first decent paying job. My Grandfather asked me what I was making, and once I told him he called me a liar and refused to believe me. I got it by luck. The college invited businesses to campus one night to perform mock interviews to improve skills. I went as a junior and actually got offered a full time position I could not refuse.

Everyone needs to start somewhere. After I lost my IT job a few years ago, I spent the next couple of months with a shovel in my hand working sewer lines. The job was offered and I took it, to help pay some bills. I liked it. The guys I worked with were great and the experience was a refreshing change of pace. I never met harder working people in my whole life, and loved hearing there stories, and how family orientated they all were. Some bragged how there kids are in now in med school, or doing well. One was studying to become a pastor. Most of the guys on this crew, were first generation immigrants, and one of them even had a psychology degree in Mexico, but found that he could make more money working here in the USA putting in sewer lines.

In the IT world I see grown men sitting at there desks playing feakin video games. On the construction crew these guys I worked with only took a single break at lunch. The entire group displayed a higher level of work ethic than I have ever experienced in the corporate world. There was no room for slackers. On my first day a truck drove away, and as we were waiting for another truck to come, I sat down. Just a few seconds later I was told to stand back up as that is not a image the company wants to portray. These guys I worked with would never once even sit down in a 10 hour day, unless eating lunch. (Once I knew the rules, I also obeyed).

Also there was no such thing as politically correct talk, Curse words were used in almost every sentence, and nobody's feelings ever got hurt.

[League Circles]

I'm open to the idea that the union of the 21st century worker may need to evolve from that of the 20th century worker, but if we just go along with workers no longer banding together, workers are never going to share in the record profits that their increasing efficiency helps produce.

It's not clear to me that unions would inherently give workers a greater share of profits, but instead just have whatever share they get distributed evenly among the workers as opposed to distributed by production (where a minority of workers produce the majority of profits).

I know economists (real ones, not arm chair amateurs like me) debate the correlation v causation of wage growth and decline in union membership, but the evidence of correlation of declining union membership and stagnant or falling wage growth is pretty compelling. Where causation falls... over my head. However I think its likely that there's a threshold where strong unions are a tide that rises all (working class) boats. I know that's been an argument for why soaring corporate profits are good too, but the correlation doesn't seem to prove that out, and we're on at least year 40 of trickle down economic theory.

Trickle down economic theory, from what I've gathered, wasn't a serious economic theory at all but rather a mythical theory held up for political purposes (probably by both sides of the aisle).

I'd say that modernization and technological advancement have been much greater forces in wage changes than union participation, though it drives that too (drives it down).

[moorhosj]

I don't know what to say. As jobs become more complex and more isolated, where it's not clear to others how much effective work you're doing, they become differentiated in productivity. I'm an engineer. In my company every one of us with the same job title has quite significantly different levels of production, and associated pay. Yes, driving an Uber and some other jobs are still easier to standardize, but most fields that involve some sort of creative productivity, which is a LOT of jobs, are too difficult to standardize IMO.

There are plenty of unions in creative fields. The Writer's Guild, the Graphic Artists Guild, and the Screen Actors Guild are examples. Actors are paid different wages for different roles (or productivity), so that isn't really a shot against the concept as we see it work in industries where people make vastly different wages for vastly different performance.

At my company, the organization has already identified pay bands for different job groups. The difference is that I don't have an advocate (union) negotiating to increase that pay band on my behalf, I have to negotiate alone. Negotiating alone is fine, but due to the market not being open/free as the company has more information than I do, I am at a disadvantage. A union would help level the playing field. On the flip side, it might move my employer to outsource or automate my job away, which is a completely different discussion.

[League Circles]

I don't know what to say. As jobs become more complex and more isolated, where it's not clear to others how much effective work you're doing, they become differentiated in productivity. I'm an engineer. In my company every one of us with the same job title has quite significantly different levels of production, and associated pay. Yes, driving an Uber and some other jobs are still easier to standardize, but most fields that involve some sort of creative productivity, which is a LOT of jobs, are too difficult to standardize IMO.

There are plenty of unions in creative fields. The Writer's Guild, the Graphic Artists Guild, and the Screen Actors Guild are examples. Actors are paid different wages for different roles (or productivity), so that isn't really a shot against the concept as we see it work in industries where people make vastly different wages for vastly different performance.

At my company, the organization has already identified pay bands for different job groups. The difference is that I don't have an advocate (union) negotiating to increase that pay band on my behalf, I have to negotiate alone. Negotiating alone is fine, but due to the market not being open/free as the company has more information than I do, I am at a disadvantage. A union would help level the playing field. On the flip side, it might move my employer to outsource or automate my job away, which is a completely different discussion.

Just as you don't have all the info that the company does about it's situation, they don't have the info that you do about your situation, so I don't see the negotiation as not being open or free as you suggest. Negotiating parties never have all the info that each other have.

When I said creative I wasn't really talking about artistic fields, but rather things like engineering, law, business executives, etc. It's extremely difficult to gauge productivity from the outside. You make a good point though about those unions existing despite radical pay differences. I'd be interested to learn more about what they DO standardize among their members. Could be some great ideas for society and/or a bunch of nothing.

[CashConsider]

I'm biased as I was raised by a father who was in a union (firefighter) and my wife is part of the teachers union.

But its also largely a choice of our country to not prioritize labors/unions. Elsewhere in the developed world union rates are much better off and they prioritize it. Maybe there's something structurally different about our unions in the USA where that balance you described was not historically met, I don't know. But the past 20 years or so, the right has really turned on unions and actively sought measures to weaken them.

As far as education goes and privatization, are you basically referring to a total sell off to the charter school model?

Maybe that will be the path, though for what its worth, charter schools are now seeing teachers unionize I think. Obviously they'll have to go a while to negotiate back up wages and benefits to prior levels, but as long as the source for education is overwhelmingly at the local level, its a ripe situation for large increases because people are more willing to pay more taxes when they stay so local. I guess the only difference is that the pensions (if the new union negotiates one) may then be funded locally instead of at the state level with TRS - which is basically what police and fire pensions are now, and most of those are similarly way underfunded.

The unions have, in part, been very successful at taking care of their people. But it's come at a cost, and now these roles many times are set for a better life after their career ends, often early (many firefighters can retire at 55 for instance). As the population grows, we require more of these which only adds to our burden.

If I remember right, the last big pension that I remember being cancelled was United Airlines. The cost of these things at scale grows above and beyond. When United grew and grew its employee base it could no longer keep up with a pension system. And it is understandable. Without a hard cap on pension benefits (i.e. a maximum salary that they can receive), with guaranteed raises that others don't get, etc., it's spiraled. And there are currently around 150k teachers state wide. That doesn't go with how many are retired, that's active (it was about 136k in 2013). That's just not sustainable without taxing and taxing and taxing.

It used to be that teachers weren't paid as much and that was the reason for the pension. But that isn't the case in a lot of areas. You've got a lot of teachers/admins making in the 6 figure range that a lot of workers aren't getting to. And they're not having to fund their pensions themselves.

It's kind of like a blank check. I just don't know how we continue to let it go.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

I'm biased as I was raised by a father who was in a union (firefighter) and my wife is part of the teachers union.

But its also largely a choice of our country to not prioritize labors/unions. Elsewhere in the developed world union rates are much better off and they prioritize it. Maybe there's something structurally different about our unions in the USA where that balance you described was not historically met, I don't know. But the past 20 years or so, the right has really turned on unions and actively sought measures to weaken them.

As far as education goes and privatization, are you basically referring to a total sell off to the charter school model?

Maybe that will be the path, though for what its worth, charter schools are now seeing teachers unionize I think. Obviously they'll have to go a while to negotiate back up wages and benefits to prior levels, but as long as the source for education is overwhelmingly at the local level, its a ripe situation for large increases because people are more willing to pay more taxes when they stay so local. I guess the only difference is that the pensions (if the new union negotiates one) may then be funded locally instead of at the state level with TRS - which is basically what police and fire pensions are now, and most of those are similarly way underfunded.

The unions have, in part, been very successful at taking care of their people. But it's come at a cost, and now these roles many times are set for a better life after their career ends, often early (many firefighters can retire at 55 for instance). As the population grows, we require more of these which only adds to our burden.

If I remember right, the last big pension that I remember being cancelled was United Airlines. The cost of these things at scale grows above and beyond. When United grew and grew its employee base it could no longer keep up with a pension system. And it is understandable. Without a hard cap on pension benefits (i.e. a maximum salary that they can receive), with guaranteed raises that others don't get, etc., it's spiraled. And there are currently around 150k teachers state wide. That doesn't go with how many are retired, that's active (it was about 136k in 2013). That's just not sustainable without taxing and taxing and taxing.

It used to be that teachers weren't paid as much and that was the reason for the pension. But that isn't the case in a lot of areas. You've got a lot of teachers/admins making in the 6 figure range that a lot of workers aren't getting to. And they're not having to fund their pensions themselves.

It's kind of like a blank check. I just don't know how we continue to let it go.

Was the benefit just too rich, or is a defined benefit plan (verse a defined contribution) plan really the only feasible plan? Defined contributions most of the time are crap in the private sector. You can have a defined benefit plan with things like out of control growth that aren't sustainable...or you can have ones with realistic growth/promises that are well funded in advance. IL worked the worst case on both - unrealistic growth and awful funding in advance.

As for teacher pay, I think this pandemic should be showing how much value there is in the economic benefit/security that a functional education pays out. Without it, the strain on the workforce of child-aged parents is immense. So if teachers lose their pension perk, I believe the pay/benefit trade off should be big - their value is huge to our economy now, to say nothing that they're helping build the economic workforce of the future. There is also a large value in the defined benefit plan that they have contributed towards and need to be compensated for.

My grandparents generation benefited from defined benefit plans. Corporate profits are immense. Can we not afford retirement stability, or we just don't want to? My parents generation may have gotten enough of a start that even with switch from defined benefit to defined contribution they'll be mostly okay in retirement.

My generation (millennial or younger Gen Xers)... we are working behind in wealth generation compared to a generation or two generations ago. And that's including the fact that we've delayed having kids (i.e. we're probably headed towards European-like slow birth rates and a huge portion of the country that's xenophobic and doesn't want to grow via immigration).

[moorhosj]

Just as you don't have all the info that the company does about it's situation, they don't have the info that you do about your situation, so I don't see the negotiation as not being open or free as you suggest. Negotiating parties never have all the info that each other have.

When I said creative I wasn't really talking about artistic fields, but rather things like engineering, law, business executives, etc. It's extremely difficult to gauge productivity from the outside. You make a good point though about those unions existing despite radical pay differences. I'd be interested to learn more about what they DO standardize among their members. Could be some great ideas for society and/or a bunch of nothing.

In labor economics, it's known that companies control more of the information and thus the pricing power compared to workers. It is one of the big things that separates labor markets from commodity markets and why labor has it's own field of economics. A true market has clearly defined bid/ask rates and greater mobility than labor. They don't need to know your situation because they already know your replacement rate based on the other engineers they employee. This can be different in the technology economy as certain employees have outsized value and may have the true negotiating leverage (maybe the lead engineer on Google Maps or Alexa), but that is by far the minority.

A point on actors getting paid a lot, it's worth noting that they have high-priced agents working for them. I think the SAG union is more about working conditions, healthcare, and minimum wages.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

One additional point just to highlight on the switch away from defined benefits to defined contributions, just in case its not clear what I'm talking about.

My wife has been a part of TRS and paying into the pension plan for about 8 years. In those 8 years, she has not been contributing to social security. Factor in market growth over that 8 years, the matching amount that the state would have made in a defined contribution setup... we should be prepared for a REALLY big buyouts, or a very slow transition away from defined benefit plans. Now I'm not that hopeful about the future about SS either, but in theory, that's a defined-benefit educators gave up to participate in a different defined-benefit, and in both cases the worker contributes to those plans, they are not free rides.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

I think the SAG union is more about working conditions, healthcare, and minimum wages.

I think the healthcare part is an interesting angle as far as the future of unionization in this country. Its a huge inefficiency of our economy in general and makes up a growing part of our total benefit package, even if we don't actually get more value out of it.

Widespread union participation where we reduce the number of payers in the system, leveraging buying power of unions on behalf of members and your employer pays in a fixed, negotiable contribution into your "health union". It frees up the workers freedom of movement tremendously, while working towards a more universal healthcare solution where the government and unions can work closely together to drive down costs of care as a more unified negotiating body - the employers role is no longer to dictate health insurance options but to make a fixed contribution that's managed separately. When you switch employers your no longer dealing with Cobra or minimum employment periods for enrollemnt or losing insurance you may like.

I don't know, I'm probably simplifying it, but I hate our employer-dependent health insurance model that many/most in this country use. Healthcare unions for any who want it (including traditional unions who negotiate). Public option or medicare/medicaid for anyone else. Universal coverage through a highly regulated multi-payer system that's centered around the individual and not employers.

ETA- I guess you could throw defined contribution plan administration in there too. My eyes were opened when I switched from a larger company to a smaller company as far as the buying power in my 401k. My choices are limited and higher cost administratively at the small firm. Consolidating administration of that benefit could be helpful too. And while maybe you won't get a defined benefit plan like old school pensions that have big growth and last until death, maybe for some people they could find plans that are more annuity-like in nature and pay out some sort of limited-term defined benefit based on the contribution amount... particularly for lower income workers who would be more sensitive to market fluctuations that might be a nice middle ground between endless defined benefit pensions and defined contribution 401ks. From the employer its still defined contribution, but the employee gets much more freedom and control over it (and no damn minimum vesting).

[dougthonus]

No question globalization is a dynamic that today's laborers have to compete against like our grandparents when we had the greatest middle class work force ever.

I don't believe just cutting off unions at the knees is the solution though.

I don't think the ridiculous benefits public servants get because they have unionized is good for society either though. Especially when they have negotiated a path that incentivizes people to be awful at their jobs.

I do agree we need more money to labor and less to capital though, and unions do help accomplish that. They just need to do it in a way that isn't so harmful.

[League Circles]

I'm biased as I was raised by a father who was in a union (firefighter) and my wife is part of the teachers union.

But its also largely a choice of our country to not prioritize labors/unions. Elsewhere in the developed world union rates are much better off and they prioritize it. Maybe there's something structurally different about our unions in the USA where that balance you described was not historically met, I don't know. But the past 20 years or so, the right has really turned on unions and actively sought measures to weaken them.

As far as education goes and privatization, are you basically referring to a total sell off to the charter school model?

Maybe that will be the path, though for what its worth, charter schools are now seeing teachers unionize I think. Obviously they'll have to go a while to negotiate back up wages and benefits to prior levels, but as long as the source for education is overwhelmingly at the local level, its a ripe situation for large increases because people are more willing to pay more taxes when they stay so local. I guess the only difference is that the pensions (if the new union negotiates one) may then be funded locally instead of at the state level with TRS - which is basically what police and fire pensions are now, and most of those are similarly way underfunded.

The unions have, in part, been very successful at taking care of their people. But it's come at a cost, and now these roles many times are set for a better life after their career ends, often early (many firefighters can retire at 55 for instance). As the population grows, we require more of these which only adds to our burden.

If I remember right, the last big pension that I remember being cancelled was United Airlines. The cost of these things at scale grows above and beyond. When United grew and grew its employee base it could no longer keep up with a pension system. And it is understandable. Without a hard cap on pension benefits (i.e. a maximum salary that they can receive), with guaranteed raises that others don't get, etc., it's spiraled. And there are currently around 150k teachers state wide. That doesn't go with how many are retired, that's active (it was about 136k in 2013). That's just not sustainable without taxing and taxing and taxing.

It used to be that teachers weren't paid as much and that was the reason for the pension. But that isn't the case in a lot of areas. You've got a lot of teachers/admins making in the 6 figure range that a lot of workers aren't getting to. And they're not having to fund their pensions themselves.

It's kind of like a blank check. I just don't know how we continue to let it go.

Was the benefit just too rich, or is a defined benefit plan (verse a defined contribution) plan really the only feasible plan? Defined contributions most of the time are crap in the private sector. You can have a defined benefit plan with things like out of control growth that aren't sustainable...or you can have ones with realistic growth/promises that are well funded in advance. IL worked the worst case on both - unrealistic growth and awful funding in advance.

As for teacher pay, I think this pandemic should be showing how much value there is in the economic benefit/security that a functional education pays out. Without it, the strain on the workforce of child-aged parents is immense. So if teachers lose their pension perk, I believe the pay/benefit trade off should be big - their value is huge to our economy now, to say nothing that they're helping build the economic workforce of the future. There is also a large value in the defined benefit plan that they have contributed towards and need to be compensated for.

My grandparents generation benefited from defined benefit plans. Corporate profits are immense. Can we not afford retirement stability, or we just don't want to? My parents generation may have gotten enough of a start that even with switch from defined benefit to defined contribution they'll be mostly okay in retirement.

My generation (millennial or younger Gen Xers)... we are working behind in wealth generation compared to a generation or two generations ago. And that's including the fact that we've delayed having kids (i.e. we're probably headed towards European-like slow birth rates and a huge portion of the country that's xenophobic and doesn't want to grow via immigration).

The problem with defined benefit isn't underfunding, it's the impossibility of predicting life expectancies. Our generation could easily outlive our parents by decades on average.

Our generation is behind in wealth generation in large part due to overspending on lifestyle IMO (myself included for sure). It's common for our generation to spend on everything in a way that dwarfs what our parents spent. It's probably a byproduct of the obsessive consumer marketing culture and the exposé of extravagant lifestyles. In seemingly a generation, it feels like most people went from seeing how little they could spend to trying to max out what they could spend. Travel, clothing, electronics, entertainment, etc are all big ones.