Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the pension, federal employees also have generous sick leave and annual leave.

+1 Yes, the best thing about fed employment besides job security is that you can be at every school performance, parent-teacher conference, etc. Work-life balance is awesome. The pension is not good.

Our combined pensions will be 200k. How is that not good?

That's very high for most feds. Will you but have 40 years?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the pension, federal employees also have generous sick leave and annual leave.

+1 Yes, the best thing about fed employment besides job security is that you can be at every school performance, parent-teacher conference, etc. Work-life balance is awesome. The pension is not good.

Our combined pensions will be 200k. How is that not good?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the pension, federal employees also have generous sick leave and annual leave.

+1 Yes, the best thing about fed employment besides job security is that you can be at every school performance, parent-teacher conference, etc. Work-life balance is awesome. The pension is not good.

Our combined pensions will be 200k. How is that not good?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the pension, federal employees also have generous sick leave and annual leave.

+1 Yes, the best thing about fed employment besides job security is that you can be at every school performance, parent-teacher conference, etc. Work-life balance is awesome. The pension is not good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reasons pensions still exist is because the government does not care what anything costs. Companies got rid of them decades ago because pensions are *outlandishly* expensive.

Another delusional post. There are far more people covered by private sector defined benefit plans than Feds with FERS. Yes, most companies got rid of them, but lots did not, and the private sector has far more employees .

For new hires? I would need a cite for that before I could believe it.

Just , to name some of them, the following fortune 500 offers a pension to their employees:
Berkshire Hathaway
PepsiCo
MMM
Southern Company
ExxonMobil
BB&T
NuStar
Pacific Gas & Company
Coca-Cola
Nextera Energy
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-biggest-companies-offer-pensions-143402543.html

Probably around 5% in the private sector

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never say it out loud but I see their points.

It’s not envy. It’s resentment.

You were paid fairly for your work if you worked for a federal agency. What makes you think you could have earned more in a private company? Did you receive actual private company offers and turned them down repeatedly?

Just don’t engage in the conversation and eventually they will move on. Don’t get your feathers ruffled so easily either. That’s a fairly tame opinion compared to the judgement that gets heaped on me by extended family and I don’t have any pension at all.

Yes. STEM professional. I was offered double. Turned it down because I believe I have more impact where I am at. My DH left govt, made 1.5x when he left and 5 yrs later makes 3x more than he did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reasons pensions still exist is because the government does not care what anything costs. Companies got rid of them decades ago because pensions are *outlandishly* expensive.

Another delusional post. There are far more people covered by private sector defined benefit plans than Feds with FERS. Yes, most companies got rid of them, but lots did not, and the private sector has far more employees .

For new hires? I would need a cite for that before I could believe it.

Just , to name some of them, the following fortune 500 offers a pension to their employees:
Berkshire Hathaway
PepsiCo
MMM
Southern Company
ExxonMobil
BB&T
NuStar
Pacific Gas & Company
Coca-Cola
Nextera Energy
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-biggest-companies-offer-pensions-143402543.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reasons pensions still exist is because the government does not care what anything costs. Companies got rid of them decades ago because pensions are *outlandishly* expensive.

Another delusional post. There are far more people covered by private sector defined benefit plans than Feds with FERS. Yes, most companies got rid of them, but lots did not, and the private sector has far more employees .

For new hires? I would need a cite for that before I could believe it.

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the pension, federal employees also have generous sick leave and annual leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reasons pensions still exist is because the government does not care what anything costs. Companies got rid of them decades ago because pensions are *outlandishly* expensive.

Another delusional post. There are far more people covered by private sector defined benefit plans than Feds with FERS. Yes, most companies got rid of them, but lots did not, and the private sector has far more employees .

Anonymous wrote:The only reasons pensions still exist is because the government does not care what anything costs. Companies got rid of them decades ago because pensions are *outlandishly* expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would only be jealous of a fed pension if they started 15 years ago. Newer feds pay in a lot more to get the same pension amount so it's lower salary in reality. Sucks.

Yea but you would need to have many millions of dollars in a 401k to generate the sort of income you’ll get from a pension

Nonsense. Most people who work their whole careers in a federal position retire with a pension worth roughly $1.5M, about $0.5M of which was taken from their paychecks while working. So the net benefit of a pension is worth $1M, which you could get by a $10K annual investment. So if you can boost your pay by $10K and save that, you come out ahead by leaving the federal government.

Nope. They get the 1+ pension and also 1.2m+ thrift (that included good matching). Also get the healthcare for life and can retire well before 65.

Anonymous wrote:I never say it out loud but I see their points.

It’s not envy. It’s resentment.

You were paid fairly for your work if you worked for a federal agency. What makes you think you could have earned more in a private company? Did you receive actual private company offers and turned them down repeatedly?

Just don’t engage in the conversation and eventually they will move on. Don’t get your feathers ruffled so easily either. That’s a fairly tame opinion compared to the judgement that gets heaped on me by extended family and I don’t have any pension at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would only be jealous of a fed pension if they started 15 years ago. Newer feds pay in a lot more to get the same pension amount so it's lower salary in reality. Sucks.

Yea but you would need to have many millions of dollars in a 401k to generate the sort of income you’ll get from a pension

Pensions are only good if you live long enough to collect. I know of two people who died within two or three years after retiring. Pensions stop at the pensioner's death. What is remaining in a 401k can be left to heirs.

Nope. For federal pension the spouse continues to receive at least 50% after death of partner with pension.

That’s only if you select survivor benefits. And only a spouse can inherit that pension. Everyone isn’t married, but most people have someone that might want to leave money when they die. Children or any beneficiary can inherit a 491k, 457, or IRA.