They take the job and know what it involves. My point was that firemen have to make a good wage that society can afford to pay and that taxpayers can afford to fund as a pension when they retire. That is true for every position of employment with a retirement.
Not sure what part of that was difficult to understand and I am in the field. It is not just about salary any more - the smart folks pick a job with an eye towards the financial health of the entity in the future. I could go to California and do my same job and make 80k more a year with more retirement, but I question the sustainability of “the pension fund” I would be relying on based on the spending habits and history of the politicians who control it.
This is true for all government workers and many private company workers with pension plans as well. Why should people in rural America be asked to subsidize patrolmen salaries that are way more than what a Chief of Police makes in their district? Same thing for an auto-worker or utility lineman.
It will be a big problem. People can get mad about it, but it is based on nothing more than a reasonable and logical cost/benefit analysis. Do you want to subsidize janitors in the NYC school system who make 120k a year and have a cadillac retirement plan?
I did not have a vote for that so why should we “bail them out?”
That’s why I think all states need to do what the post office requires. Pay retirement for 75 years the day the employee starts. I don’t think 75 years is necessary but 40 for sure. It is a definite possibility that in 2069, the only people getting a pension will be the post office retirees. The post office was brilliant to do this. People with 401K will maybe be all right but that depends on the whim of the stakeholders.