DESPITE the improving national and regional economy, New York City’s budget remains stuck in a hole. With operating expenses momentarily in check, the city’s continuing fiscal imbalance stems mainly from big projected increases in the cost of Medicaid, debt service, employee health benefits – and, seemingly out of nowhere, pension contributions.

Since 2001, municipal pension costs have more than doubled, growing by over $1.3 billion – enough to consume the lion’s share of this year’s record property-tax increase.

And it’s not over yet. The city expects pension contributions to jump from $2.5 billion in fiscal 2004 to $4.3 billion by 2007.

Gotham’s predicament is not unique. Counties, cities and towns across New York, as well as the state government itself, are grappling with similar pension-cost explosions.

The problem is not simply a function of the 2001-02 stock- market slump or the big benefit hikes enacted by the Legislature and governor just before the market crashed (although both helped precipitate the crisis). The ultimate cause is the outmoded and inherently volatile pension structure itself, which obscures costs and wreaks havoc on long-term financial planning.

Because the state Constitution doesn’t allow pension benefits to be “diminished or impaired” for current public employees, nothing can be done to reverse the run-up in pension costs. This system will remain a ticking time-bomb – ready to explode again with the next market down-cycle – if it’s not reformed.

How to permanently defuse the pension bomb – and to ensure lasting stability and transparency for the pension system? Replace New York’s old-fashioned defined-benefit pension with the sort of defined-contribution plan that’s come to dominate private-sector retirement planning.

Defined-benefit (DB) plans give workers a guaranteed retirement benefit based on their career longevity and peak income while working for government. But to make good on this, the pension fund’s investments must perform strongly.

When investment returns sink, as state and city pension funds did starting in 2001, employer contribution must rise to pick up the slack. Conversely, when the rate of return rises above projections, employers may temporarily get to contribute less.

Since stock markets often decline during recessions, DB plans force governments to spend more money on pensions when unemployment is up and revenues are down – exactly when they can least afford it.

This pattern has particularly dire implications for New York City and state, which depend heavily on tax revenues from the stock market. It makes it even harder to weather downturns without raising their already high taxes, which in turn depresses the local economy and harms the business climate.

Defined-contribution (DC) retirement plans consist of individual accounts supported by employer contributions, usually matched in part by the employees’ own savings. Funds in the accounts are managed by private firms and invested in a combination of stocks and bonds.

One key difference is timing: Under a DB system, the employer promises to finance a future retirement benefit for a group of current and former workers. Under a DC system, the employer promises to make current contributions to the retirement accounts of each employee.

The size of the ultimate retirement benefit generated by a DC plan depends on the amount of savings and investment returns the worker accumulates over the course of his or her working life. Both the risk of unanticipated investment losses and the potential upside of unanticipated investment gains shift from the employer to the employee.

The most common example of a defined-contribution plan is the 401(k), which has become the backbone of retirement planning in the private sector, where DB plans are dying out.

A DC plan is now being phased in as the sole pension for state government employees in one major state (Michigan) and as an option in another (Florida). And for decades now, a DC plan also has been the retirement vehicle of choice for most employees of public higher-education systems throughout the country, including both SUNY and CUNY.

A defined contribution plan would gradually ensure that pension costs remain well below today’s high levels, relative to payroll. At the same time, a personalized, savings-based pension would provide city and state employees with benefits that are flexible, portable – and comparable to those offered by most private-sector retirement plans.

Even in times of retrenchment, the city and state need to hire thousands of new employees every year just to maintain current service levels. At the moment, these new employees are becoming permanent members of a costly and inequitable pension system – adding to the future obligations of a costly and inequitable system.

The sooner New York switches to a new pension plan, the sooner taxpayers and employees alike can begin to reap the many advantages of individual retirement accounts.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

Want to Save the Planet? Where’s Your Union Card?

New York state officials this week took their most serious step yet to limit the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions. But they also showed they are more serious about taking care of one of the Read More

Nassau should post labor contracts on its website so taxpayers aren’t left in the dark

Nassau County taxpayers face what could be a $109 million bill. When will they be allowed to see the details? Read More

Big Labor’s next target: Grad schools

Christakis remarked on the website that graduate students, now moving to unionize at the school, are not ordinary worker. Read More

And Now the Union Would Like a Word in Private

The onboarding process has become a key battleground for the country’s government unions. Read More

State senators to get a harsh reality check as their own workers unionize

Labor leaders were giddy when a group of state Senate employees last month announced their intent to unionize. Read More

Albany’s latest gift to the teachers union will shackle NYC schools — and their budgets

The Legislature last week put a new spin on the debate over “mayoral control” of New York City’s schools by shackling the Big Apple with a costly class-size mandate. Read More

Hochul’s first budget rewards unions at taxpayers’ expense — and sets the state on the road to insolvency

New Yorkers are aghast that the Buffalo Bills stadium deal, which will fill the pockets of a wealthy NFL team owner with their tax dollars, is in the state budget the Legislature just adopted. Read More

Pray Hochul won’t cave to union calls for a big pension giveaway — at NY taxpayer expense

While Tier 6 wasn’t the “bold and transformational” breakthrough touted by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2012, it was a solid net positive for taxpayers Read More