Jim

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.

Not the issue here: -----Since 2000, revenues grew 22 percent while employee costs rose 77 percent and staffing fell 17 percent.------------ So let's see, staffing down by almost 20% revenue grows, but costs go up by over triple? Inflation ain't the issue.

-----Since 2000, revenues grew 22 percent while employee costs rose 77 percent and staffing fell 17 percent.------------ A bit unsustainable I'd say and due mostly to pensions. Can only raise property taxes so much on deflated real estate, which is their primary tax revenue.

That ain't going to solve San Jose's - and other municipalities woes.

In the example I quoted I don't beleive that is what has been proposed.

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. What is a municipality to do, seriously? Practical solutions please - less on the lectures about the corporate elite. I don't see there is much room to move - taxes ain't going up. -----Since 2000, revenues grew 22 percent while employee costs rose 77 percent and staffing fell 17 percent.------------

Puts things in perspective. Whatever day-to-day headaches you have they are trivial. Grim.

True, with the caveat that if you own your own business and are smart enough to incorporate and pay yourself in dividends then the rate is maximum 15%. I know a couple single-shingle owners who do this.

What's your point again? Change the channel already. Or at least get more witty. It's getting old.

I'm saying that the poor can't afford to build to 9.0 standards. Is that contentious? What to do about it? I don't know. I guess eliminating poverty from the world would be a big step in that direction. How do you propose we do that? Are these questions even worth asking anymore? Are we so resigned to global apartheid that we're only tasked with figuring out how either lower our standards to accommodate it or protect ourselves from being touched by it? I don't know. I think hyjacking another innocuous discussion in Spray into the inevitable arm-waving exercise will solve the world-cum- corporate-vassal problem. Really.

It only took four posts to go down the usual rabbit hole on this one. Jeesh.

It's pretty clear that wages have gone down over the past 30 years or so and haven't kept pace with inflation, housing, education costs, etc. While the stressors have increased on the middle and lower classes, the upper (I mean top 5%) class has enjoyed more and more tax breaks. I think most folks are ok with the rich getting richer - as long as there is some equity in investment in items important to the mass of people - general infrastructure, transit, schools, public safety, and a social safety net. Unfortuantely the past 15 yrs or so, including the past two, have seen more and more benefits shoveled to the ubber-rich. So while I see the need to make some structual changes on the state and local levels (auto pay raises, pensions) opponents of these changes do have a valid point when they point to upper level and coporate tax breaks. It's very short-sighted policy.

Ha! While I have to get up into trees or on cliffs occasionally for work - doing that with a chainsaw would be a disaster quickly!! Yikes!!