Why U.S. Public-Sector Pensions Face Major Shortfalls?

Why U.S. Public-Sector Pensions Face Major Shortfalls?

Public-sector pension systems in the US are dealing with an increasing and ongoing funding deficit. Large unfilled debts are becoming more and more apparent in promise-and-fund frameworks that were once thought to be manageable. 

The disparity between promised retiree benefits and the assets available to pay them presents a financial dilemma for many state and local governments, endangering future budgets, retirement security, and the provision of public services.

In this article, we examine the reasons behind the deficiencies in public-sector pensions, including benefit design, assumptions about investment returns, accounting procedures, and demographic and economic shifts. 

We also analyze the implications for taxpayers, governments, and public employees, and we identify possible reform avenues.

HSBC Cashback Credit Card 2025 – Benefits, Rewards & How to Apply?

The Problem’s Scale

The extent and continuity of underfunding in public-sector pension plans are startling. A working paper from 2012 predicted that the unfunded obligation for state and municipal pension plans in the United States may be anywhere from $730 billion to $4.4 trillion. 

According to more recent data, public-sector pension systems have over $1 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and many funds have funded ratios between 70 and 80 percent (i.e., assets cover only 70 to 80 percent of promised liabilities).

In summary, for many countries, what was formerly a long-term deferred burden is increasingly showing up as a near-term fiscal issue.

Principal Reasons for Pension Deficits

The pension shortfall issue is caused by a confluence of structural, demographic, political, and actuarial variables rather than a single element. Researchers find a number of recurrent themes.

The main drivers are listed below.

• Optimistic assumptions about investment returns

The fact that many public pension systems discount future obligations more aggressively because they assume larger long-term investment returns than have actually been realized is one of the biggest contributing factors. For instance, nearly all public pension systems fell short of their projected rate of return between 2001 and 2023.

• Benefit Enhancements & Legacy Costs

Many public pension systems have, over the decades, increased benefits: earlier retirement ages, richer cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), enhanced multipliers, or service credit purchases. According to research, these enhancements make the pension promises more expensive and harder to roll back, especially for legacy employees.

• Deferred funding and undercontribution

Another reason is that governments haven’t always made the “full actuarially determined contribution” needed to maintain full funding. In order to minimize short-term budget hits, numerous pension funds have deferred contributions or employed smoothing techniques due to accounting procedures, political decisions, and revenue pressures.

• Accounting and Discount Rate Practices

How pension liabilities are measured matters. Public pension funds often use discount rates based on long-term expected investment returns, rather than a “risk‐free” or market rate reflecting the lock-in obligation. Critics argue this understates the present value of the obligation.

• Demographic, Economic & Workforce Shifts

Public wages and employment patterns have changed, as have retirement age, longevity and workforce size. More retirees per active contributor, longer life expectancies, and slower growth in state/local revenue all combine to press pension systems. 

Research shows that state and local pension systems experienced serious funding problems in the last decades partly because of these structural shifts.

Highlight: The “Debt Paralysis” Phenomenon and Funding Ratios

Many public pension plans are still in what some academics refer to as “pension debt paralysis,” where the funded ratio (assets vs. liabilities) is trapped in a precarious range (roughly 70–85%) and the deficit is significant enough that regular contributions can only keep it from widening.

For instance, despite large contributions, record financial markets, and postponed maintenance of obligations, one study found average funding ratios in the mid 80s percent. The message is that structural changes are necessary to address the shortage rather than merely waiting for favorable markets.

Obstacles to Reform

It is easier said than done to reform pension schemes in the public sector. Among the main challenges are:

• Legal protections: Benefit changes are limited in many places because pension benefits are either contractually protected (for current employees) or constitutionally protected (for example, in some states).
• Political opposition: Benefit cuts or higher employee payments are frequently opposed by public sector workers and their unions. Politicians might worry about a backlash from voters.
• Fiscal pressures: Budgets are tight during recessions, making it more difficult to raise contributions or reduce benefits when they are most needed.
• Short-term incentives: Pension obligations accrue over decades, and the most obvious expenses would not become apparent for years, which would lessen the current political urgency.

Case Study Snapshot

Take for example the state of Illinois. Its pension plans for state employees were among the most underfunded: one report estimated the state’s pension funding ratio for certain systems at 36 % and 40 % for major retirement plans. 

The gap grew significantly during the dot-com crash and the financial crisis, and attempts at reform have been slowed by constitutional protections of benefits and litigation.

This highlights how even large, populous states with significant resources can struggle when assumptions, contributions and liabilities align against them.

In conclusion: Why U.S. Public-Sector Pensions Face Major Shortfalls? 

The United States’ public-sector pension systems are confronted with a significant obstacle. The combination of optimistic financial assumptions, legacy benefit commitments, demographic shifts, contribution shortfalls, and political inertia has created a situation where many plans are underfunded and the gap continues to grow. 

Unless addressed with realistic assumptions, robust contribution policies, improved governance and structural reform, the burden will increasingly fall on taxpayers and public services.

For governments, the question is no longer just about promises made—but about promises kept, and how. 

For employees and retirees, the question is how secure the promise will be in a changing environment. Today’s decisions around pension policy, investment strategy and budget priorities will shape public retirement security and public finances for decades to come.

“Federal vs. State Taxes in the U.S.: Understanding the Key Differences and What It Means for Taxpayers”

“Federal vs. State Taxes in the U.S.: Understanding the Key Differences and What It Means for Taxpayers”