This @NYTimes piece about pensions is interesting, but the framing bothers me. Headline’s about 1 person’s very high pension, which gives impression lavish pensions are the root of the problem. But what the average benefit is m, is never mentioned 1/ nyti.ms/2IVNY5E
The author mentions the impact of the recession on pension systems, but leaves out how financial reporting and actuarial assumptions have changed over time. I’d like to see analysis of pensions using the same set of assumptions over a long period of time 2/
She also mentions that local governments are on the hook for pensions, but doesn’t look at whether governments ever shorted their pensions (we know that’s happened at all scales in IL). So, again, the framing of the piece really seems to be blaming pensioners 3/
The piece also mentions shrinking workforces, and I wonder if there were any early retirement incentives. In IL there’s been early retirement systems, which were meant to decrease operating expenses, but in-turn increased pensions costs 4/
I think it’s also important to look and and think about what groups of people work in the public sector and the racial and gender implications of the pension backlash 5/
Last, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but the framing of a problem has important implications for how the general public understands the issue and policy solutions that get crafted. The NYTimes piece, I think, largely just feeds into a “cut benefits” narrative 6/6
ugh, meant “early retirement incentives”, not “early retirement systems” 😑
