Russell Kent wrote:

Henry Kisor wrote:


One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
getting. It actually saves the states money.


Jay Honeck responded:


Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.

While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
benefits?

Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

It ain't just gubmint accounting. Why do you think so many corporations
give early retirement incentives whenever they want to downsize? Same
principle, pensions come out of a different bucket (usually a bucket
already accounted for by pension contributions made years ago by the
employer so "free" on the balance sheet, at least until the pension plan
becomes underfunded by corporate raiding and/or accounting manipulations).

I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
some kind of "gubmint accounting."