I agree with most of this.  It's also the case that endowments and other investment-based programs are facing the same difficulty of having to adjust to lower "expected returns." I do think, though, that PERS has managed its investments pretty well (I'd be satisfied with getting the returns it has achieved), and I don't think its allocations are unreasonable given that PERS itself is nowhere near retirement :) --it's looking at a long investment period, as it should. But the current expectations about returns require adjustments. Some of this should certainly fall on the side of employers and the contracts they give their employees. They, too, can anticipate likely costs. None of them should have relied on the false promises about the obviously illegal "reforms" Sickinger and Ferrioli promoted during the last assault on old folks' retirements. But I'm among those who believe that more people should belong to PERS-type systems. Too many are cheated by other kinds of plans. So yes on 97.