MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531825621

Ottawa's Pension Abyss: The Rapid Hidden Growth of Federal-Employee Retirement Liabilities

2012· article· en· W1531825621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William B. P. Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionNotional amountRate of returnGovernment (linguistics)Value (mathematics)LiabilityBusinessLabour economicsVestingReform ActEconomicsActuarial scienceFinancePolitical sciencePublic administration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Canadians saving for retirement are becoming painfully aware, rates of return on investment are much lower than they used to be. As a result, providing a given income in retirement now requires much more saving. Low returns are depressing incomes from RRSPs and defined-contribution pension plans, and causing target-benefit pension plans to reduce their promises. But defined-benefit pension plans cannot adjust their promises, and are showing large deficits. The largest and richest defined-benefit pensions in the country are those of federal government employees, and their situation is especially daunting. Despite recent high-profile changes to the pension plans of federal public servants, uniformed personnel and MPs, a critical flaw remains: the contributions to these plans, even after the changes, come nowhere close to covering the rocketing cost of their promises. Official figures on the current cost of these plans and their accumulated obligation use notional interest rates. Because their pension promises are guaranteed by taxpayers and indexed to inflation, the appropriate discount rate is the yield on federal-government real-return bonds, which is much lower than the assumed rate in official figures. A fair-value calculation shows that the values of different federal employee pension entitlements grow at rates from near 50 percent to more than 70 percent of pay annually. Even after the recent reforms, taxpayers will bear by far the greatest part of these costs. More startling yet is the accumulated unfunded liability of the plans, which at fair value stood at $267 billion at the end of March 2012, almost $118 billion worse than shown in the Public Accounts. The reforms did nothing to reduce the burden of this liability on taxpayers – who will have to fund most of these pensions as they become payable, even as they must save more to fund their own, less comfortable, retirements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207