News Story

Teacher Pension Poverty Claim Warrants Scrutiny

MEA article said teacher pensions forced retirees to live 'barely' above poverty level

A Michigan fiscal policy expert says that a public school employee and spouse would be “barely” above the poverty level if they had to live on the school employee’s annual pension.

Gary Olson, a former Senate Fiscal Agency Director and a senior policy fellow at Public Sector Consultants, was quoted as saying that in a Michigan Education Association article about Senate Bill 1040, which would require public school employees to contribute at least 5 percent of their compensation to their retirement plan.

Olson’s comments, however, deserve closer scrutiny.

The average pension for a public school employee is $21,000 annually, Olson said. He said he got that figure from the 2011 Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System annual financial report.

That annual MPSERS pension is still higher than the average U.S. government pension, according to a Congressional Research Service 2008 report. That study found people with government pensions had a median pension of $18,000 a year while private-sector median pensions were $7,584 a year. An $18,000 annual pension in 2008 would be $19,178 after it was adjusted for inflation in 2012.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that the poverty level for a household of two in 2012 is $15,130 in 2012.

A household of three would have a poverty level of $19,090, which would meet Olson’s standard of “barely” above poverty.

But that would mean that the household of three is only living off that single public school employee’s pension.

Olson’s quote also doesn’t factor in Social Security. If the public school employee and spouse were eligible for Social Security retirement, they each could make an extra $29,000 a year combined. According to the Social Security Administration, the average annual benefit for a retired worker in the U.S. in 2012 was $14,760.

That would mean that retired public school employee and spouse could have an annual retirement of $50,000-a-year relying just on the single school pension and each person’s Social Security pension.

To meet a poverty threshold of $50,770, a household would have to have 11 people.

When contacted by email, Olson said he didn’t make his comments about poverty during his testimony before the Senate hearing. When it was pointed out in a later email that the comments were in the MEA article, Olson didn’t respond.

Another fiscal policy expert says the MPSERS pensions are fair.

“The state offers decent pension benefits to members who have cost taxpayers billions,” said James Hohman, a fiscal policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Policymakers can be confident that the reforms they are considering will continue the state’s generosity, despite objections from current members.”

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

Commentary

Commentary: Laws Should Be Just, Benefit Consumers

Licensing standards need to be scaled back

There’s a reason organizations like the Mackinac Center describe themselves as “free market” rather than “pro-business.”

Too often, businesses — especially, but not exclusively Big Business — self-servingly try to use government to limit competition and keep prices high. For true defenders of the free enterprise system, the benchmark of good policy is what benefits consumers, not what serves the narrow interests of a particular firm or industry.

Michigan’s licensed barber shop colleges provide a case study of such a price-hiking “conspiracy against the public," to use the phrase coined by Adam Smith, the father of modern economics.*

Recently, a bill was introduced in the Michigan House to repeal the law making it illegal to earn a living as a barber unless one first obtains a state license that, among other things, requires taking a 2,000 hour “course of study” at a licensed barber college. The state Office of Regulator Reinvention suggested last week that 18 occupations should be deregulated.

The prohibition and mandate is a good deal for Michigan’s five licensed barber colleges that are guaranteed a regular stream of customers. It’s also a good deal for incumbent barbers, because it dramatically reduces the chances of some plucky newcomer opening a shop down the street offering lower-priced haircuts.

Not surprisingly, the beneficiaries of the anti-consumer status quo are mad as heck and aren’t going to take it.

According to MIRS News, Michigan Barber School Director Darryl Green called it “the craziest thing I've ever heard of" and "total irresponsibility." He also trotted out the usual “public health and safety” scare tactics that are the common refrain of licensure protectionists, summoning the specter of AIDS and Hepatitis C should freedom reign and consumers be allowed to use their own judgment.

Here’s the specter that really scares the industry’s incumbents though: Repeal of the licensure mandate would mean more barbers, more competition and lower prices for consumers.

In Michigan and elsewhere, this same spectacle plays out all the time. Here are some recent examples provided by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that assists individuals victimized by licensure protectionism:

  • Eyebrow threading is a booming business in Texas. But state bureaucrats and business interests force threaders to take 1,500 hours of instruction at beauty schools that don’t even teach the practice.
  • Interior designers in Florida are forced to get a degree, pass a licensing exam and complete a four-year apprenticeship before they can earn a living on their own. A well-funded industry group fights to restrict competition by keeping these regulations in place.
  • Hair braiders in Utah must obtain 2,000 hours of cosmetology training.
  • Independent limo services in Nashville, Tenn., offering an affordable alternative to taxicabs were hobbled by a series of anti-competitive regulations forcing higher prices.
  • Tour guides giving Segway trips around Washington, D.C., must obtain a license for people who merely communicate for a living.
  • Funeral homes are forced by Minnesota to have embalming rooms — whether they use them or not. This benefits larger providers and harms consumers by prohibiting smaller competitors from outsourcing embalming and use the savings to charge less.
  • Barber licensure mandates are endemic, and result in perverse outcomes like the 80-year-old man in Oregon who has been cutting hair for 50 years but was forced to go back to school to keep his license.

No one has a stronger incentive to provide a clean shop and avoid harming customers than the owner of a barber shop, or any other consumer service provider. “The tragedy of a bad haircut” should be the punch line for a joke, not the rationale for laws that harm consumers and diminish opportunity.

* “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776.

~~~~~

See also:

1,200 Hours To Be a Lawyer, But 2,000 To Be a Barber

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.