â€œThe current system is unsustainable. The impact of rising pension costs has meant that San Jose canâ€™t hire more firefighters, police officers, librarians, gang intervention workers. These out-of-control costs are why we canâ€™t keep all of our libraries, community centers and swimming pools open.â€ San Jose mayor Chuck Reed, 2010
â€œThe pension crisis is no longer around the corner. It has arrived at our schools.â€ Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, remarking on Chicagoâ€™s decision to lay off 2,100 teachers and school support staff this past summer
â€œI talked to social-services agencies or social workers who, when I started to talk about pensions, would ask, â€˜Why should I care about pensions?â€™ And I said, â€˜Because if you donâ€™t, your whatever it isâ€”homeless shelter, for exampleâ€”is going to lose thousands of dollars of funding.â€™ â€ Rhode Island treasurer Gina Raimondo, 2012
Much recent debate over the health of state and local budgets has been dominated by concerns about how spending on employee benefits is â€œcrowding outâ€ funds for basic services. The economy is growing, and spending is upâ€”but taxpayers are seeing little benefit.
Crowd-out finds its roots in a problem of simple math. Cities canâ€™t run deficits, so when growth in revenues fails to keep pace with any major spending category, some other category or categories must be reduced. The effect is most clearly discerned in local workforces, which are still down by over 500,000 employees since the recession, as well as salaries. Local government workersâ€™ wages have been flat over the past decade, after adjusting for inflation, and salary spending has been taking up a smaller share of city budgets as benefitsâ€™ share has grown. Almost unintentionally, increases in benefit costs are reducing funds available to provide for salary increases for a workforce which is shrinking overall.
This paper documents the crowd-out effect at a general level and analyzes budget trends in five major American cities.
Crowd-out is felt in cities in blue states (Los Angeles) and red states (Houston) alike. In Baltimore, unchecked benefits spending threatens the cityâ€™s nascent renaissance. Some cities have resorted to adjustments that many would describe as gimmicks to respond to crowd-out, particularly the variety associated with pensions. But other, more authentic solutions are available. For instance, Bostonâ€™s record on managing health-care crowd-out offers valuable lessons for other states and cities. Detroit illustrates the thin line between crowd-out and insolvency.
The best thing for cities to do to combat crowd-out is to keep government small. Benefit costsâ€™ growth ratesâ€”the root of the problemâ€”are significantly determined by factors out of city officialsâ€™ ability to control. But by employing fewer workers, governments will at least reduce the principal, if not the interest, of what they owe for benefits.
Governments should also concentrate more of their compensation costs in salaries instead of benefits. In addition to being more manageable than pension and health care, take-home pay likely matters more than benefits in citiesâ€™ ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce, and thus serve taxpayers.