Not having worked for The State, I am not intimately knowledgable of it. I do know that I’ve read from people who spent their lives working in the public sector who won’t work for private industry and compromise their retirement.
I know there are pensions that pay upwards of 90% of annual salary.
But I am also refering to their rejection of getting under Social Security. I go by their own statements. Perhaps these are older workers since they may be less likely to retire in 2009 if they started in 1989.
You don’t need to have worked for the state to be aware of the 1983 social security reforms of the Greenspan commission - they are discussed in lots and lots of books. And by the way, the Greenspan Commission moved federal workers into social security to (temporarily) shore up the SS trust fund.
No federal pension pays 90% of annual salary, unless there is something special for the president or congress. You are simply wrong.
Actually your original play on words is the opposite of the truth - the old federal system is more insecure than the Social Security system. The old Civil Service Retirement system is a giant unfunded liability. When given the chance I GLADLY switched to SS. As I said to my wife at the time “When SS runs out of money at the same time as the old federal pension system, which do you think is going to be first in line with the politicians? You think they will fight SS receipients to pay federal pensions? Please!”