Pensions have created more problems than they were originally slated to solve. If public sector work is so unappealing, then perhaps municipal governments should have offered higher pay instead of promising unsustainable payouts. It's bad enough that in some professions, workers are guaranteed a job for life after a set number of years. It seems like a poor investment of funding and wisdom then to award a salary for doing nothing long after these individuals leave the workforce.
Perhaps city governments could have negotiated a cap for retirement with the public workers' unions. It is both cynical and disappointing that local and state governments were banking on retirees not living long after they left the work force. Now that retirees are living longer than originally anticipated, perhaps more cities will "die out" due to bankruptcy before the public workers from natural causes.
One reason for the spike in pension costs is due to the added benefits passed on to public safety employees post 9-11. In the aftermath of public safety officers' brave — and in some cases, fatal — service to their cities and country, municipal governments wanted to offer a more lavish set of emoluments to these men and women who put themselves in harm's way. Still, the enthusiasm that prospered such past generosity has now come at a great cost to third-party interests: the taxpayers, those paying today, as well as those who will have to pay in the future.
Beyond any other political problem, the pension obligations menacing municipalities today point out the most compelling reason for curbing public sector union power at every level of government.