[RHSeeger]

> You still have to pay the bills before retirement.

That's a valid point, but choices need to be made. Go to the teachers union and ask if they'd be willing to drop future pensions (and cap current ones to the benefits payed in so far) in exchange for a higher salary (based on the amount saved by not longer having pensions). My guess would be that they wouldn't even be willing to discuss it.

[swores]

You're talking as if "choices need to be made" doesn't extend to the question of whether or not they get enough tax dollars total, regardless of split between income and pensions.

But actually, you're the only commenter I've so far seen in the thread who claims that their pensions are enough to make up for their salaries. Personally I think both salaries and pensions for (most) teachers should increase, in most countries including the US, and I have no problem with teachers' unions not being willing to have a discuss boxed into your opinion that they already get as much as they deserve.

[RHSeeger]

> you're the only commenter I've so far seen in the thread who claims that their pensions are enough to make up for their salaries

That is not true, given that I was replying to you, and you were replying to the person that said _this_.

> Counterpoint: teachers' pay is great, it's just backloaded in pension plans.

That being said, in some places the teachers make good money when you include their pension; in other places they do not. It's not consistent across the country.

> You're talking as if "choices need to be made" doesn't extend to the question of whether or not they get enough tax dollars total

That was not my intent. My intent was to indicate...

If you think that teachers make enough when you include their pension, you can't complain that their pension causes a hardship early in their career; because the choice of a pension is likely not something they'd be willing to give up". If you think the pension causes a hardship earlier in the career and that that needs to be changed, then either 1) You do _not_ believe teachers make enough including their pensions, OR 2) You think pensions should be done away with (which I doubt will be supported by the teachers/union).

[swores]

> That is not true, given that I was replying to you, and you were replying to the person that said _this_.

a) Oops! Not sure why I thought that diognesofsinope's comment and your comment were written by the same person, my bad.

b) You've either made the same mistake I did or you've excellently satirised my mistake, as you were replying not to me but to somebody else :P

So fair enough, sorry I thought your comment that I replied to was the owner of the original belief that salaries + pensions = enough currently, and then expanding on that belief.