Jim

And thanks for providing that link. But did you actually read it? Notice the "risk proof investment line" --- well great - without any link to reality and how states and municipalities were assuming their investments would grow. Excellent! A graph! Please lean how to interpt them. AND - the artlice says NOTHING on how states and municipalities were consitently, year after year, not setting aside funds to meet their pension obligations. While I generally like Krugman this article is disingenous.

Bullshit with no proof. Any actuary would look at states' pension funds and conclude they are underfunded. Their RETURNS, similar to 401ks were diminished, but how they were FUNDED - meaning that legislators choose not to, or were unable to, fully fund their obligations is the crux of the matter. Previously someone posted a "report" that Krugman cited and the lovely graph that noted how the market deviated from a safe return of 4%. Yea - but - earlier in the thread we were discussing how NJ, and other states, were making the ASSUMPTION of an 8.5% return and over ten years getting 2.5% returns - and not FUNDING their debt obligations so that they were adding DEBT. Get it? Really dude, you need an economics or accounting class.

Oh, I strongly disagree. While pension funds and 401ks are both subject the vageries of the market, the vast amount of pension funds are woefully underfunded - meaning that states and local jurisdictions are in debt against their obligations. All the arm waving in the world can't dispute those facts. The financial crash made no differnce in this issue. 401ks by definition are self funded - no debt - so really no comparison.

Newsflash. You're not the only one aware of how the economic downturn has affected folks, including family and friends. I'll spare you the details. I was merely responding to some of your comments on the downturn. While you seem to be deriding the bailout of financial institutions - which to some degree I agree - but also pointing out the hardships of unemployement, which very likely would have been worse without the said bailouts. My advice to my kid who is in college: work hard, be smart about career choices, be fiscally prudent.

I think it's fair to say that the market would have gone lower - how much? Speculation. But unemployment also would have gone further south along with middle class 401ks, pension funds, etc. without the bailout and stimulus. Could the depth of the financial crisis been averted? Probably. Could the bailout have been smaller without hurting the middle class and unemployment? I don't know. But if you hung in there or manged some proper market timing you're doing pretty well now with equities. 13% for 2010 and almost 6% ytd (S&P). Not without risk but better than stuffing it in the mattress.

Well, of course they don't. Frankly - I don't see a solution - the Repubs are just wacko on this subject this day and the Dems don't have a spine regarding softballs like letting the tax benefits for upper income folks expire. The shift of the tax burden to the middle class has been constant the past few decades and I see no signs of it slowing down. Maybe if the dumbass middle class got off their butts something would happen. That appears doubtful as well.

Not bad actually - a little heads up and sound money management will go a long way. Maybe that is what folks are scared about - actually having responsibility over their own future.

Don't know what you mean by this. I'm not a public employee nor do I have a pension. Self-funded 401k that is doing quite fine thank you. What a concept.

That guy is a bit of a wacko. But - the unions are now willing to negotiate items they said were off limits a week ago. Better to be at the table than on the menu.

Agreed. But even in WA, just to get up to date on the pension liabilities, about $2B is needed right now. And that will repeat about every 5-7 yrs. What is the solution? Taxes? Given the results of the last election I'd say it's not improbable but impossible. Maybe you could pitch taxes if you showed serious structural changes to the pension plan. Maybe.

The unsustainability of pension benefits has nothing to do with cyclical tax revenue cycles. These issues were there for the past 10 years and have only gotten worse. The recent economic strain has only stripped bare the facade. Your argument seems to be "the fat cats are getting tax breaks so there's no reason why public employees should walk away from the public trough - even though these pension programs are unsustainable." The day of reckoning is coming and the unions can help how to decide to change these programs or get taken along on the ride. Business as usual might go on for a year or two more at best.

I agree with the notion of getting the marginal rates back up to more historic levels - but that will not solve the unsustainability of the pension issue. Seriously - raising taxes substantially on say, those that make $250k plus will certainly help state coffers deal with some underlying structural issues and will lend some stability but they will not scratch the surface of pension liabilities. The problem lies with the amount of retirement funds promised employees, the amount of capital that would need to be set aside for each employee to be able to generate those promised funds until death, the pittance that has to be put up by employees, and the astonishing estimates of return by legislatures. In NJ the legislature assumes and 8.5% return annually. Anyone with an common sense would know to lower that to a more reasonable 4-5% return. NJ's return on pension investments over the past 10 yrs? A whopping 2.5%. Most other states are dealing with the same issues. WA is better and can likely deal with it by doing several things - 1) raise taxes (but good luck with that one) 2) eliminating COL raises to existing retirees, 3) either convert all present workers over to 401ks or have them contribute much more to their own retirement rather than ride on the taxpayers. I would vote for converting all incoming employees to 401ks and raising the contribution level of all existing employees substantially. Gregoire, to date, has ignored the issue just as past governors have.

And your point? The states have let liabilities build up. NJ has some of the highest if not THE highest taxes in the US. The larger problem has been promising what cannot be delivered. I noticed you failed to mention the chart on pg 3 that indicates the liabilities of each state. WA, with one of the smallest, has ONLY a pension liability of $3,200 per household. The only two solutions I hear from the left is 1) it's not a problem, or 2) raise taxes. The former is more of the same, the latter not feasible. You cannot tax your way out of these huge liabilities. No way. No how. Taxing the rich 50% will not do it.

Here we go again. NJ does have a serious pension problem. If you look at the liabilities it adds up to about $35k per household (in today's dollars - more in the future) - and there is a lot of them in NJ! One of the items Christie proposed was to have state employees contribute 1.5 percent of their salary towards paying their health care. The unions went ballistic. Something has to change to alter an unsustainable system. Look at pg 3 of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/magazine/27christie-t.html

FYI - I thought I would close the loop here. I ordered this: Bob Kandiko's North Cascades Traverses! http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/invited/1485261/86152bae2d034fbb485997fd4e7c5f63#author-bookshelf In short - it's disappointing. While the photos look crisp online the printed version is not - surprisingly fuzzy and poor color tones. The choice of fonts and backgrounds for the narrative is odd and difficult to read - the maps are not sharp either. Good idea - poor quality product. I've completed projects in desktop publishing that look much better than this effort. I would not recomend the book.

While I think there are some tweaks needed to public employee contracts - primarily in benefits - the Wisconsin ploy is over the top and clearly not related to budget issues.

Uh, yea. But the article you posted specifically addressed employers who were putting unemployed folks at the bottom of the candidate list. What is your point about that? Or was there any?

Not quite sure what the point is. Do you want a bill to force employers to consider unemployed people first? Yea - if you have a job it's often easier to get a job - nothing new. Do we need to get the economic engine going - you bet. I'm looking for a good technical staff person right now. Doesn't matter if they are employed or not - I'm taking the best qualified .

Had an old car in D.C. Used to leave it parked unless heading out of the city and used the bike - fastest way to get around by far. The kids stole the standard radio out of my '73 bug and once there were footprints up the hood, on the roof, and down the back. But some good Samaritian did plug up my gas line that popped off with a stick - rather than torch it. Very interesting city and with a sharp contrast between the haves and have-nots.

Having worked in DC for several years I gotta agree on the efficiency of the Metro - with an exception. A chicken or egg thing - but if you are in a "better" neighborhood you are more likely near a metro station than not. If not, then you're on the Byzantine bus route schedules, which are a myrid of leftover routes from a gazillion different private lines. Quite a contrast in riders going from metro to bus. Going back for a week for meetings and a conference - looking forward to visiting the o' Adams Morgan hood, hanging w/friends, and eating some good food.

A valued colleague is leaving my workplace - husband got a great new job in the Bay area. Looking for a nice book as a farewell - they are both climbers/skiers. Thanks.

You're correct. I shouldn't judge the temper of the general opinion of climbers based on the posts here. Not being a local I think I will just STFU. Cheers.

Not to belabor the point - but it's a wide range and not "minor variations". For instance the policy at the Gunks is no bolts -period; while a different atmosphere prevails at Smith - all for good reasons. From the small sample I see here - most folks appear to be ok with the line in question given its location.

IMO - then different standards might apply. The same standards do not apply to the Gunks, Smith, Index, or Rummy, for instance. I'm not a local, but as usual, I think that history and majority rule is the norm.

Seriously. I mean it is Beacon and NOT the Valley for crying out loud. Let the locals figure it out. Plus - without some outlet in the winter Ivan is going to drown a student or two in the hallway water fountain.