Jim

Wages fine. Unfunded pensions with auto increases despite the economy. No. So another 6% from the WA budget. Where's should it come from in your opinion?

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive"

Here we go. More of the same. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/103063499.html

Private companies do it all the time. And w/r/t retirement... so do individual employees at private companies. Sometimes you have to cut 401k from 10% to say 6% when times are not so good. Sometimes you even have to cut below the amount where you get matching funds. That's life, j_b. Radical!

as I already told you many times, to everyone his role. Mine isn't to be a sycophant for bashing the character and worth of public employees while pretending that is going to solve the fiscal crisis. Your position is no different than Obama's when he caves in getting nothing in return. Translation: My ideals are not well enough defined to offer any practical solutions

Well, let's look at WA's situation that you quote. The public rejected every tax measure in the past two years. The exception is school levies, which generally pass than not. So the pie in the sky rhetoric is great - it's not helpful. So what exactly are you proposing? While I disagree with some folks on their solutions, I'll entertain any that appear thoughtful, practical, and use real math. Ideology is a wonderful thing, until you actually have to make public policy. Much of the arm waving I hear from the left includes no practical solutions to folks having to deal with the real world of public policy.

I figured another non-answer was in store. Cheers

Still waiting for some practical advice. Or is it to low on the scale to actually get dirty trying to work out public policy?

Nice dodge. If you want to be taken seriously then stop avoiding a straight-forward question. If you were the major of San Jose what would you propose now that services are bone bare? keep pretending that not paying people their fair share is going to address the root of our fiscal problems like exploding healh care costs, no taxation of those who can be taxed, cratering wages and benefits, mass unemployemnt, etc... All local issues as one can readily see. One last try at a logical discussion (I know, I know). You, JB, are a key advisor to the Mayor of San Jose. You have cut services to the bone to keep a balanced budget over the past 5 years or so. Further cuts to services are quite impossible without affecting safety and welfare of your residents. You have a month to implement something. Go!

Nice dodge. If you want to be taken seriously then stop avoiding a straight-forward question. If you were the major of San Jose what would you propose now that services are bone bare?

Come on. Jim's suggesting some very reasonable (and likely unavoidable) solutions. Everything isn't an 'us' versus 'them' thing. FACT: most states MUST balance their budgets by law. Constitution and all that. FACT: They can't right now OPINION: Bringing retirement contributions in line with private sector norms is one of the least painful ways to do this. Recognizing a real problem and trying to solve it in a real and fair way is what 'our side' is supposed to do. Science based reality and all that. You seem to object to any proposed solution save 'grow the economy'...which is precisely the kind of 'wish your way out' proposal the 'other side' typically pursues. I think tweaks like this, in the long run, will aid public service workers and sustain vulnerable programs. There is nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative while pushing a progressive agenda. It just makes sense in the long run.

Well then give me a practical solution that say, the mayor of San Jose or Gov Gregoire can implement in the next month to balance the books. Honestly - something, anything but abstractions. The pension thing is something else - that will change, one way or another over time. We just don't - have - the - money.

I'm generally good with collective bargaining - the difficultly I'm having is how does, WA state for instance, go forward with reasonable concessions such as having employees pay for more share of medical costs or wage reductions. Yea, I know. Medical care in this country is f*****. Yes work towards changing the structure. But in the meantime there is fiscal reality. The states cannot run a deficit. There was a very, very minor tweak to health care contributions the last go round -window dressing only, and no salary reductions but 4 hr furloughs a month. Great. Honestly, I don't know how it will play out in the long term. But I would vote for the same things I've advocated for all along. Honor the existing pensions but cap increases (past ones too generous and w/o funding) convert all current employees to 401ks - let them have control over their future and stop the unsustainable programs, and last have public employees contribute more to there medical in line with the private sector. But. I just don't see the unions budging so more services will be cut.

Teachers in particular I'd say are underpaid - the others, nurses, cops, firemen, lawyers, etc. get paid for overtime. Curious how teachers miss out. Rather than criticize the source (notice who paid for the study you cited) it would be something original to discuss the issue. Brookings is pretty middle of the road and their study says it's difficult if not impossible to make comparisons in WAGES and output. The do note the higher pensions in public sector - what they don't address is how unsustainable the programs are. So - more arm waving or do you have a solution to the newly released state budget forecast. Or is it more of equality, apple pie, and freedom? Practical solutions would be a new high point

Sorry if I didn't make that clear - my opinion. Maybe overstated - better to state (IMO) that in my experience a greater portion were under motivated and the vast majority were more stable-seeking than risk takers.

In general public sector workers are less motivated than private sector workers, which should translate to lower output and public sector workers are risk-averse. This might not affect output levels, but might indicate that they should be willing to accept lower pay in exchange for the greater job security of the public sector. From the Brookings study of other studies on compensation: At the end of the day, we will probably never know for sure whether state and local workers are overpaid on average in terms of total compensation. This makes it hard to address the directly relevant question of whether these workers receive extravagant pensions. We know pensions are higher and more secure on average than in the private sector,......................... Meanwhile in WA: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2014527782_edit18bud.html Another middle road summary of other reports: http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

You're choice isn't it? Move on if you don't like it. I'm in the private sector right now and have worked for the feds, the state, and as a IC. While I had better benefits and guranteed pay increases with the government several of us figured out the 20/80 rule. 20% of us did 80% of the work because once you got a reputation of not doing good work, folks would not use you - yet these clowns were as much fixtures as the furniture. And there were the folks who were busting their butts like me. I can only go by my direct experience (I know Dilbert is inspired by private business) but private places I've worked hire and promote on merit. You don't work out - you're let go. I'm ok with the more relaxed work atmosphere of government work, it makes for a better work-life balance, but other items just don't make fiscal sense. My 2 cents. On the other hand - the crap like in WI is just fear-mongering and has no place in a rational discussion of cost-effictiveness.

And I would agree, to a point. But most, including current WA state and federal plans have participant contribute a very small amount, around 5-10% of the actual capital that will be needed to ensure a payout of the guaranteed benefits over a lifetime.

I agree. And it's it up to good-minded people to come together to keep that from happening. But ignoring unsustainable practices that involve valid critisisims doesn't do the govenment labor force any good either. If I thought there were a sustainable, cost-effective solution to maintain the current practice - I would suggest it. I honestly just don't see how local governments, the state, or the feds are going be able to keep the pyramid alive.

As usual another staw dog. No one has said anything about cutting wages. The folks in the article live in an area of the country that has been on the sharp end of manufacturing decline for decades. With no education the options are pretty bleak, I agree. Hacking the military budget, maintaining social security benefits, putting money into more grants for low income folks to go to school, universal medical care - yep to all of them. But subsidising pensions - nope. There's lots of low-wage taxpayers struggling to put a retirement plan together - who then have to fund the above. Now, if you're suggesting EVERYONE get a pony....

Declare bankruptcy, request federal aid, revisit egregious abuses in wage and benefit packages of public workers where they exist, build the economy, sustain middle class jobs, offer universal health care, etc. Well that's practical. I believe in unions and collective bargining, but the pension thing should just be turned into 401ks. That would help preserve government jobs and show that folks are interested in being responsible for funding their own reiterment, rather than on the back of public services and the taxpayer.

I think the answers have been - build the economy, sustain middle class jobs, offer universal health care, etc. While all great ideas, if you were discussing the issue with the mayor of San Jose, or many other jurisdictions, he would patiently lean across the desk and say "Yes, but what am I to do now, in my City?". Still waiting for that answer.

Exactly

Hyperbole aside - I don't think anyone (at least not me) is in favor of privatizing police, fire, etc. but with the serious increasing debt of retiree benefit programs the choices are to keep cutting services - in the case of San Jose - to a point where alternatives need to be considered. Sure - increase revenue - tax the rich! But on a local scale revenue is largely comprised of real estate tax revenue, fees and taxes on municipal services (water, sewer) and in some cases sales tax (limited revenue). So pension programs, which were relying on the magic of underfunded payments from said government, lack of sufficient capital to generate the needed revenues, years of pension funds performing under wildly over optimistic interest forecasts, and now, a drop in the market. So it's not that the market has suddenly, in a couple years, infested the pension plans with holes, but rather it has provided a harsh light on what was always going on. So the solution? I guess you can try and propose some extra high tax rate on local real estate of high end properties - but that is not going to close the gap - no way, no how. Next option - institute a new income tax? Newsflash - ain't going to happen even in the cases it was legal. Hmmmm - what does that leave us? - oh yea, the elephant in the room. But I'm sure the struggling municipalities are open to suggestions - ones that apply to them.

Well, looking at this in a logical manner and assuming a 3% inflation rate a year over 11 years - it's hard to imagine that using the above statistics you could blame inflation as the culprit. A nuanced view would be that costs are outpacing revenues, by a long shot.