City/State Employee Unions

[bigmack]

Facts to mull over:

- The California Public Employees Retirement System has at least $75 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The state also faces nearly $52 billion in unfunded retiree health care benefits.

- One-third of Los Angeles' operating budget could go to paying employees' retirement costs by 2015. In San Diego, it could be half of general fund spending by 2025.

- The New York Times on Sunday offered an extraordinarily sober prediction: if the state of New York doesn't rein in spiraling costs of public employees, it will find itself unable to provide even essential services.

In all, the salaries and benefits of state employees add up to $18.5 billion, or a fifth of New York’s operating budget. Unless those costs are reined in, New York will find itself unable to provide even essential services.

The average salary for New York’s full-time state employees in 2009 (even before the last round of raises) was $63,382, well above the state’s average personal income that year of $46,957.

- In 2000, employee pensions cost New York State taxpayers $100 million. They now cost $1.5 billion, and will be more than $2 billion in 2014.

[Tom]

Fear not, Mac. We are dead here. Stick a fork in us.
We are too far gone to be saved. And, we have nothing but political hacks and morons running this state. We will probably be asked to leave the union or traded to Canada for two goalies to be named later.

We rank 57th in terms of states.

[mostpost]

Facts to mull over:

- The California Public Employees Retirement System has at least $75 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The state also faces nearly $52 billion in unfunded retiree health care benefits.

- One-third of Los Angeles' operating budget could go to paying employees' retirement costs by 2015. In San Diego, it could be half of general fund spending by 2025.

- The New York Times on Sunday offered an extraordinarily sober prediction: if the state of New York doesn't rein in spiraling costs of public employees, it will find itself unable to provide even essential services.

In all, the salaries and benefits of state employees add up to $18.5 billion, or a fifth of New York’s operating budget. Unless those costs are reined in, New York will find itself unable to provide even essential services.

The average salary for New York’s full-time state employees in 2009 (even before the last round of raises) was $63,382, well above the state’s average personal income that year of $46,957.

- In 2000, employee pensions cost New York State taxpayers $100 million. They now cost $1.5 billion, and will be more than $2 billion in 2014.
Whatever happened to the idea that when you post something, you also post a link to back it up. Exactly what does "$75B in unfunded liabilities" mean? According to Calpers the average retiree benefit is $20,000 a year. Also according to Calpers 25,000 people retire each year. Does this mean we are paying benefits to everyone who has retired from a California government job in the last 150 years? Surely some of those people must have died by now. I demand an investigation.

Or is that $75B what we will have to pay far into the future. Is it caused by an excess in benefits, or is it caused by a fall off in revenues which can be directly tied to the current economic crisis. $20,000 does not seem like an excess in benefits to me.

More likely the shortfall is caused by the fact that the states are stealing money from the pension funds to pay for other things. I remember a few weeks ago talking about the New Jersey fire fighters and how they had continued to pay into their retirement fund, yet the state of New Jersey had not only not paid its share, but had taken money out of the fund.
Here is the link to the Calpers article.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/member/retirement/info-sources/defined-bene-facts.pdf

[JustRalph]

We rank 57th in terms of states. :lol: :lol:

58th.........you gotta add in Egypt now.......

[bigmack]

The California Public Employees Retirement System has at least $75 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The state also faces nearly $52 billion in unfunded retiree health care benefits.
Costs to the state general fund also are projected to rise, especially with the expected wave of baby boomer retirements. Neither the state Department of Finance nor the Legislative Analyst’s Office has projected how much of the state’s general fund might be consumed by pension payments in the years ahead if no changes are enacted.
But local governments provide an indication: According to the Little Hoover Commission, a state auditing agency, one-third of Los Angeles’ operating budget could go to paying employees’ retirement costs by 2015. In San Diego, it could be half of general fund spending by 2025.
City officials told the commission the payments already are sapping money from other services and forcing the closures of libraries, community centers and swimming pools.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/06/pensions-under-crosshairs-in-calif-budget-talks/

Fear not, Mac. We are dead here. Stick a fork in us.
We are too far gone to be saved. And, we have nothing but political hacks and morons running this state. We will probably be asked to leave the union or traded to Canada for two goalies to be named later.

We rank 57th in terms of states.
How could this be? The Empire State & The Golden State are two of the highest taxed states. You'd think they'd be flush.

The state legislature runs Blue here. How 'bout there?

[mostpost]

The California Public Employees Retirement System has at least $75 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The state also faces nearly $52 billion in unfunded retiree health care benefits.
Costs to the state general fund also are projected to rise, especially with the expected wave of baby boomer retirements. Neither the state Department of Finance nor the Legislative Analyst’s Office has projected how much of the state’s general fund might be consumed by pension payments in the years ahead if no changes are enacted.
But local governments provide an indication: According to the Little Hoover Commission, a state auditing agency, one-third of Los Angeles’ operating budget could go to paying employees’ retirement costs by 2015. In San Diego, it could be half of general fund spending by 2025.
City officials told the commission the payments already are sapping money from other services and forcing the closures of libraries, community centers and swimming pools.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/06/pensions-under-crosshairs-in-calif-budget-talks/


How could this be? The Empire State & The Golden State are two of the highest taxed states. You'd think they'd be flush.

The state legislature runs Blue here. How 'bout there?

Thank you for providing that link. It wasn't that I disbelieved you, but reading the full article gives better context. Although I still don't have a good definition of "unfunded liabilities".

Also the story contradicts itself and is unclear in some cases.

The average pension from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System is less than $40,000 a year, the system’s chief executive officer, Jack Ehnes, said. The average from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System is $27,000 a year, and 78 percent of the system’s retirees receive $36,000 a year or less, said chief executive officer Anne Stausboll.
Those figures, however, can be misleading, in part because they include people who have been retired for many years and earned far less during their career than more recent retirees. A 30-year employee who retired in 2009 averaged more than $66,000 in annual payouts, while many others have annual pensions in six figures.

The second paragraph compares the benefit for a newly retired employee to the average benefit and implies that the benefit is larger than claimed in paragraph one. But that's what an average is. You take the larger and the smaller and you get a figure in the middle. So what California is paying out is $40,000 times the number of retirees; not $66,000 times the number of retirees.

[mostpost]

This is from the article posted by Bigmack
Republicans so far have refused to support the tax extensions. They say the state must first make fundamental government reforms, led by restructuring a pension system filled with benefits that disappeared long ago for most the private sector.

This bugs me beyond belief. The idea that because the private sector no longer has pensions, the public sector should not have them either. The great crime was allowing the private sector to drop their pension plans. If Exxon can make a $13B profit, it can contribute to a pension for its employees. We allowed greed to become the overriding force in our society and now we are paying for it. The problem is the greedy are not the ones who are paying.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is from the article posted by Bigmack


This bugs me beyond belief. The idea that because the private sector no longer has pensions, the public sector should not have them either. The great crime was allowing the private sector to drop their pension plans. If Exxon can make a $13B profit, it can contribute to a pension for its employees. We allowed greed to become the overriding force in our society and now we are paying for it. The problem is the greedy are not the ones who are paying.

I know what you're saying here, but lets put a positive spin on what bugs you beyond comprehension - if the public sector exhibited a hint of "greed", maybe they'd likewise have some money to actually use to fix the common problems of all citizens. Take the good part of the idea and make it work, if you know what I mean. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[eastie]

you guys act as if we don't pay an arm and a leg towards our pensions...we do, and they get all that money to play with for all that time....

[bigmack]

The problem is the greedy are not the ones who are paying.
How did we get here? The answer is simple: For decades -- and without voter consent -- state leaders have been issuing billions of dollars of debt in the form of unfunded pension and healthcare promises, then gaming accounting rules in order to understate the size of those promises.

As we saw during the recent financial crisis, hiding debt is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, General Motors did something similar to obscure the true cost of its retirement promises. Through aggressive accounting, for a while it, too, got away with making pension contributions that were a fraction of what it really needed to make, thereby reporting better earnings than was truly the case.

But eventually the pension promises come due, and for GM, that meant having to add extra costs to its cars, making its prices less attractive to consumers and contributing to its eventual bankruptcy.

In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same period.http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06

I was talking with a 4th grade teacher tonight and she informed me that CA teachers do not pay into SS. They solely rely on CA pension. I did not know that. Is that the case in other states?

[JustRalph]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06

I was talking with a 4th grade teacher tonight and she informed me that CA teachers do not pay into SS. They solely rely on CA pension. I did not know that. Is that the case in other states?

Police in CA are the same. And in several other states. I didn't pay in while employed as a Police Officer. Ohio Firefighters don't pay in either.

Ohio Teachers don't pay into social security either. They pay into STRS (State Teachers Retirement System)

[delayjf]

This bugs me beyond belief. The idea that because the private sector no longer has pensions, the public sector should not have them either.

They can have their pensions as long as its not at my expense, right now the terms and conditions of state employee pensions plus their pay scales - well to quote Sherriff Lucky (Used Cars) they're "TOO f**King HIGH".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqHZWdFVyyQ

[boxcar]

This is from the article posted by Bigmack


This bugs me beyond belief. The idea that because the private sector no longer has pensions, the public sector should not have them either. The great crime was allowing the private sector to drop their pension plans. If Exxon can make a $13B profit, it can contribute to a pension for its employees. We allowed greed to become the overriding force in our society and now we are paying for it. The problem is the greedy are not the ones who are paying.

You're right about the greed; but wrong about the extent of it. It's time for the public sector share in the pain of the private sector. This is all about sharing, leveling the playing field, belt tightening, sucking it up and all that good stuff that your messiah preaches but doesn't believe applies to the public sector. Trickle Up Misery is the only chance America has to survive.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Unfunded liability means there is a certain threshold for a minimum amount of funds that has not been met. That threshold is not fixed but fluctuates depending upon contributions and the rate of return from the investments. If the amount of funds and the cash generated from the investments falls below this threshold it is called unfunded. It is a liability because there is a fiduciary duty to have enough funds available to sustain the fund and to be able to meet current and future obligations.

[ArlJim78]

If Exxon can make a $13B profit, it can contribute to a pension for its employees.
Exxon Mobil does have a pretty good pension plan (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Family-English/HR/SuppInfo/SPD/Pension/PensionAbout.html).

[mostpost]

Exxon Mobil does have a pretty good pension plan (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Family-English/HR/SuppInfo/SPD/Pension/PensionAbout.html).
Indeed they do. I should not have assumed without checking the facts. Apologies to Exxon Mobil.

[Tom]

GM had a nice one too.

So good, WE TAXPAYERS had to bail their arse out.
Still not paid back for that one,

[JustRalph]

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/03/25/alameda-county-administrator-tops-in-pay/

This is an atrocity. If she were in private business the Libs would be screaming about golden parachutes

[TJDave]

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/03/25/alameda-county-administrator-tops-in-pay/

This is an atrocity. If she were in private business the Libs would be screaming about golden parachutes

It was a negotiated contract. Good for her.

[JustRalph]

It was a negotiated contract. Good for her.

I didn't know she was playing utility infield fr the Angels too......pardon me

[TJDave]

I didn't know she was playing utility infield fr the Angels too......pardon me

Ralph, they offered and she accepted. They were obviously within the law to make and she would have been stupid to reject, no?

Who elected or elected those who appointed the supervisors? Ultimately, it's the voter who is responsible.

[Mike at A+]

Ralph, they offered and she accepted. They were obviously within the law to make and she would have been stupid to reject, no?

Who elected or elected those who appointed the supervisors? Ultimately, it's the voter who is responsible.
Pretty much like WalMart, eh? They offer jobs and people accept.

[TJDave]

Pretty much like WalMart, eh? They offer jobs and people accept.

I wouldn't call "take it or leave it" a negotiation. I doubt Walmart has to worry about anyone competing for their employee.

[Mike at A+]

I wouldn't call "take it or leave it" a negotiation. I doubt Walmart has to worry about anyone competing for their employee.
If you don't bring "game", "take it or leave it" is pretty much what you get. No one pays Masters Degree salary to high school dropouts. Unless maybe if you're one of 0bama's bodyguards from da hood in Chicago.

[TJDave]

No one pays Masters Degree salary to high school dropouts.

Allowing for inflation, have minimum wage and master's degree salaries kept relative pace?

[Mike at A+]

Allowing for inflation, have minimum wage and master's degree salaries kept relative pace?
That depends on which two endpoints you use.

[Mike at A+]

In all of these minimum wage discussions, I still haven't heard the left's plan on what to do with all the unskilled and minimal skilled people who get priced out of jobs as a result of raising minimum wage. Anyone? Welfare? Food stamps? 99 weeks of unemployment? What?

[Mike at A+]

Is that crickets I hear???

[newtothegame]

It was a negotiated contract. Good for her.\
And in the private sector, arent those negotiated contracts?
The difference between, as I see it, is in the public sector the tax payers are on the hook for it!

[NJ Stinks]

In all of these minimum wage discussions, I still haven't heard the left's plan on what to do with all the unskilled and minimal skilled people who get priced out of jobs as a result of raising minimum wage. Anyone? Welfare? Food stamps? 99 weeks of unemployment? What?

Is that crickets I hear???


The problem/question/issue is not black and white clear no matter how convinced you may be. We don't know if a lot of people will lose their jobs if the minimum wage is raised. Here's a paste from an article discussing the Million Dollar question:
_________________________________

Overall, the impact on workers is uncertain: Does the gain for those who remain employed more than offset the loss to those who cannot find work?

By contrast, if the employment effects turn out to be small, then we can be much more certain that an increase in the minimum wage is a net positive for the households we are trying to help.

What does research on this issue tell us about the minimum wage's employment effects? It depends on which set of research studies you believe. One set of studies -- the most cited is by the University of California, Berkeley's David Card and Princeton University's Alan Krueger, who is also head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers -- finds that increasing the minimum wage does not have significant effects on employment.

Other studies reach the opposite conclusion, notably the work of David Neumark and William Wascher. They claim that workers are made worse off overall when the minimum wage goes up. More recent work such asthis paper (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/10/does-a-higher-minimum-wage-reduce-jobs.html) by University of Massachusetts economist Arin Dube tends to support the view that the minimum wage has minimal employment effects and is beneficial to workers, but the debate on this issue is far from over. (There's a nice summary of the empirical work on this issue, including a full set of citations to the work mentioned above, at the beginning ofthis paper (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf) by economist John Schmitt.)

Link to full article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57569557/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-really-help-workers/

[johnhannibalsmith]

... We don't know if a lot of people will lose their jobs if the minimum wage is raised...

His post didn't even really get into the effect on the rate of employment (as far as I can tell), it had to do with the effect of "pricing into the market" employees that otherwise may not work for a minimum wage, displacing those from those positions that need those jobs because of their inferior abilities/education.

Edited to mention that I didn't mean to use the word "those" three times in seven words, but I think I'll just note the fact instead of actually changing the post. :D

[newtothegame]

NJ, I think youre right in the fact there is no ONE right or wrong conclusion. The end result, as pointed out in most stories i've read is multi faceted.
Employers can do a number of things to offset the increase in cost. It doesnt always have to be a reduction in force.
It can raise the cost of goods.....which again does no good for the economy.
It can reduce the increases or wages of others....(The USPS just cut A LOT of their workers by nearly five dollars PER hour).
It can absorb the cost...which is the least likely of scenarios.
And there are others regarding efficiencies etc etc.
But, the point is that cost are rarely just absorbed.

[NJ Stinks]

His post didn't even really get into the effect on the rate of employment (as far as I can tell), it had to do with the effect of "pricing into the market" employees that otherwise may not work for a minimum wage, displacing those from those positions that need those jobs because of their inferior abilities/education.



Look, the guy was hearing crickets. I just tried to alleviate the noise. :p

[TJDave]

And in the private sector, arent those negotiated contracts?
The difference between, as I see it, is in the public sector the tax payers are on the hook for it!

OF COURSE, the taxpayers are on the hook. They are her employer. They hired her.

[newtothegame]

OF COURSE, the taxpayers are on the hook. They are her employer. They hired her.
Maybe technically, but her contract was not negotiated by those same tax payers.....And, like most officials in office (we have one under a ton of scrutiny here in louisiana for similiar reasons) they vote themselves pay increases.....

[TJDave]

Maybe technically, but her contract was not negotiated by those same tax payers.....And, like most officials in office (we have one under a ton of scrutiny here in louisiana for similiar reasons) they vote themselves pay increases.....

The way government works:

Citizens elect representatives to conduct their business...hire and fire employees, negotiate contracts, pay purveyors, enact laws, police their communities, dispense justice, even voting themselves pay increases.

[newtothegame]

The way government works:

Citizens elect representatives to conduct their business...hire and fire employees, negotiate contracts, pay purveyors, enact laws, police their communities, dispense justice, even voting themselves pay increases.
Again, I dont argue that fact. But not every elected official was elected by every voter. remember, majorities win.
By your own argument above, you are ok with every decision our current politicians do. After all, they were elected by you!

Then again, if I recall correctly, you live in Mexico.....if so, you are therefore responsible for everything Mexico and its officials do......
That's just a silly argument.

we are still electing PEOPLE last time I checked and people will be people (have flaws etc etc).

[JustRalph]

I bet these guys aren't very happy about being convicted for the same shit, basically.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/20/bell-corruption-conviction-california/2003473/

Btw, I predict some of these convictions will be overturned on appeal