JayB

Then there's also the possibility that some of the gains have been misattributed: US Productivity Measures Overstate Domestic Gains: Explains Lack Of Workers' Wage Gains And Lack Of Job Growth: McKinsey & Co. From McKinsey & Co, "Not all productivity gains are the same. Here's why." by Michael Mandel and Susan Houseman, June 2011: Under ordinary circumstances, economic theory would tell us that an industry with rising productivity would pay higher wages and/or boost employment. However, real wages for many production and nonsupervisory workers stagnated in most tradable industries during this period, even as jobs disappeared. Notably, the durable goods manufacturing sector showed only a 0.2 percent cumulative increase in real wages for production and supervisory workers from 1990 to 2008, despite more than doubling in productivity over the same stretch, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But recent work suggests a resolution to this apparent paradox. [see, for example, Susan Houseman, Christopher Kurz, Paul Lengermann, and Benjamin Mandel, “Offshoring Bias in U.S. Manufacturing,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 2011. See also Michael Mandel, “Implausible Numbers: How our current measures of economic competitiveness are misleading us and why we need new ones,” February 2011.] The key is to understand that the US government’s systems for tracking the national economy were never designed to deal with offshoring or global supply chains. In particular, shifts in global sourcing to take advantage of lower costs—the very essence of globalization—are inco rrectly picked up in the US economic statistics. As a result, the apparent strong growth in the productivity or value-added per job in tradable industries actually combines three very different effects: * Improvements in domestic production processes * Gains in global supply chain efficiency * Productivity gains at foreign suppliers. Each of these components of “productivity growth” has different implications for real wages and for the creation of new jobs. Understanding the distinctions among them can improve understanding of our current situation and open up new avenues for policy. *** It matters greatly for wages and employment whether rising value-added per worker is being driven by domestic production improvements, supply chain efficiencies, or by productivity gains abroad. http://misunderstoodfinance.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-productivity-measures-overstate.html

What percentage of the productivity gains are derived from A) innovation, B) capital investment or C) both vs D)people working harder or picking up additional skills? I'd guess it's about 90% A,B, or C in the US and 10% training/education and effort on the part of workers. Like it or not - I suspect that determines where the upside of productivity gains goes, but I also suspect that workers have realized a higher percentage of the payout from the productivity gains than they've been responsible for generating via D.

Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... This redistribution of wealth? The one that's actually happening rather than the rhetorical one that's dragged out any time improving the lives of regular people is mentioned? This relates to the issue of "shared sacrifice" as well. Why are we even discussing squeezing what are really just marginally better off workers when American finance, corporations and wealthy individuals whose incomes grew by leaps and bounds during the great redistribution, are sitting on a cash hoard in the trillions, and are positively thriving in the midst of austerity? Jim caught the drift of my comment. I find it irksome that the WFSE did not even consider a little "shared sacrifice" on everyone's part in order to keep everyone's job. Instead, they flatly said, "No!" to a reasonable request to do that. I don't think that's the kind of representation that I would want in the current economic climate. Guess we'll see how many chairs get pulled away when the music stops... Purely tactical. The thinking is that once things improve it's much easier to rehire the folks that got canned during the downturn at existing wage/benefit rates than it is to recapture the lost ground for everyone at the next round of negotiations. Seems odd to me, since things may not turn around for a long while, and historically they've done pretty well at the "negotiating" table. Makes for an amusing exercise for the participants, and may even fool onlookers - but the outcome is always the same. It's the political equivalent of a serial John taking a prostitute for dinner and a movie.

The guy behind the "Climategate" released a statement to accompany the second tranche of e-mail disclosures... /// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context /// "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day." "Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes." "One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true. "Poverty is a death sentence." "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get.... http://foia2011.org/ Not sure where whoever this is ranks the various ills that can beset humanity, but there are quite a few folks including myself that accept the scientific consensus that the globe is warming and CO2 emissions are driving the change who nonetheless think that diverting trillions of dollars into limiting emissions will be a massive waste of money because it won't actually do much to prevent warming, will cripple or at least substantially hinder economic growth, and waste precious resources that could be put to much better use if the goal is to prevent human suffering and ecosystem damage. Given the yawning chasm between the rich world's economic output and its present future commitments to its old people - anything that makes it tougher to pay for them by hindering growth and output is toast. Might as well accept that, quit the international kabuki dance, and allow smart folks to benefit by giving people the tools to make more stuff with fewer resources and learn to live in a world with a higher CO2 concentration for the next few centuries. i'm confused on the connection between what i said and you said obviously, the bottom line is human happiness, be the matter at hand the environoment, taxes, pitbulls in city-parks, whatever specifics are easiest to comprehend - the al gore types want to see less use of fossil fuels - isn't oil going to run out rather soon, in the grand sense of time, and if it is in fact tied up in damaging the envirnoment, isn't it wise to push alternatives as soon as possible? Not necessarily. Depends on the cost, benefits, and feasibility. Mankind could have burned a lot of time, wealth, and energy trying to send a man to the moon using existing technology back in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century without achieving much beyond squandering the said time, energy, and resources. The point is there's lots of stuff that'll give humanity vastly more bang for the buck if the goal is to alleviate human suffering and minimize ecological damage. (list below). When and if there's an energy source that generates more energy at a lower cost with the same or better reliability than the stuff we use now that'll spur a massive investment binge since it'll pay for itself and then some. Might as well go down that path since adding a few dozen trillion dollars worth of friction to an economic machine that's shuddering under the load of existing obligations represents a road that the civilized world is never going to walk down, no matter how much wailing and teeth-gnashing the assorted scourges, scolds, and scrutineers amongst the conference-going class unleash at their bi-annual seances that try to bring it back from the dead. It's over. 1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) Malnutrition 2 The Doha development agenda Trade 3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Malnutrition 4 Expanded immunization coverage for children Diseases 5 Biofortification Malnutrition 6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school Malnutrition & Education 7 Lowering the price of schooling Education 8 Increase andimprove girls’ schooling Women 9 Community-based nutrition promotion Malnutrition 10 Provide support for women’s reproductive role Women 11 Heart attack acute management Diseases 12 Malaria prevention and treatment Diseases 13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment Diseases 14 R&D in low-carbon energy technologies Global Warming 15 Bio-sand filters for household water treatment Water 16 Rural water supply Water 17 Conditional cash transfers Education 18 Peace-keepingin post‐conflict situations Conflicts 19 HIV combination prevention Diseases 20 Total sanitation campaign Water 21 Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level Diseases 22 Microfinance Women 23 Improved stove intervention Air Pollution 24 Large, multipurpose dam in Africa Water 25 Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles Air Pollution 26 Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles Air Pollution 27 Diesel vehicle particulate control technology Air Pollution 28 Tobacco tax Diseases 29 R&D and mitigation Global Warming 30 Mitigation only Global Warming

The guy behind the "Climategate" released a statement to accompany the second tranche of e-mail disclosures... /// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context /// "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day." "Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes." "One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true. "Poverty is a death sentence." "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get.... http://foia2011.org/ Not sure where whoever this is ranks the various ills that can beset humanity, but there are quite a few folks including myself that accept the scientific consensus that the globe is warming and CO2 emissions are driving the change who nonetheless think that diverting trillions of dollars into limiting emissions will be a massive waste of money because it won't actually do much to prevent warming, will cripple or at least substantially hinder economic growth, and waste precious resources that could be put to much better use if the goal is to prevent human suffering and ecosystem damage. Given the yawning chasm between the rich world's economic output and its present future commitments to its old people - anything that makes it tougher to pay for them by hindering growth and output is toast. Might as well accept that, quit the international kabuki dance, and allow smart folks to benefit by giving people the tools to make more stuff with fewer resources and learn to live in a world with a higher CO2 concentration for the next few centuries.

"Just like scores of other communities across Rhode Island, if you live in Warwick, you’ve seen a steady increase in property taxes every year over the last ten years—more often than not, by the maximum allowed by law. But a GoLocalProv review of reports shows Warwick’s tax increases went, almost exclusively, to increases in the costs of benefits to city employees—not to increases in services or infrastructure. To be more precise, 92.5-percent of all new revenue went to pensions, healthcare, salaries, sick pay bonuses, and longevity. The remaining 7.25-percent went to services and infrastructure. In the year 2004, the City of Warwick spent $30.3 million in employee benefits. This year, the city is budgeted to spend $47.9 million. That’s a 58-percent increase in the cost of employee benefits (pension, health care, dental, unpaid sick days, etc.) over 8 years—a steady hike of 7-percent every year. By comparison, the city spent $6.6 million on social services in 2004. This year, the city is budgeted to spend less than it did 8-years ago—$6.4 million." More likely the rule than the exception. http://www.golocalprov.com/news/warwick-facing-pension-meltdown/

Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... From actor Michael Caine's autobiography, "What's It All About?" (1992): [P]olitics entered into my life [in my late teens] in an unusual and exciting way. Coming out of the club one evening [in the early 1950s] I was surprised to find myself surrounded by a bevy of very attractive . . . older women, about twenty or twenty-two years old. They were offering leaflets. I took one and one of the girls said mysteriously: "Read it and let us know if you're interested. We'll be back tomorrow night." What exciting proposition could this be, I thought as I walked home reading the leaflet. From what I could make out I was being asked to join something called Young Communists. I knew it was a political party, I also knew that they were very keen on it in Russia and that it had been invented by someone called Marx. I knew the Marx Brothers from the movies so at least, I thought, it might be amusing. The leaflet went on to something really interesting: there was going to be a redistribution of wealth. I could not believe my luck! If they were going to do that, my family and I would have to come out ahead. The clincher for me, was that Communists believed in free love. I couldn't credit that I'd found a political party that offered wealth and love: my two absorbing passions. I couldn't wait to get out of the club the next evening to meet the group of girls. I had a good look at them and picked the one that I wanted to have free love with the most. "I want to join," I said. "Wonderful," she replied and dragged me off to a small dingy office a couple of streets away. "He wants to join," she announced and then she disappeared. I was left standing in a room with four men, all doing smile impersonations. I was instantly suspicious. Remembering what my father had told me about spotting untrustworthy men, I had hit the jackpot here. Two of them had beards, one was wearing sandals and another one had a bow tie. The only thing missing were the two-toned shoes. The object of my free love had disappeared and here I was with a group of guys who obviously so far had not done very well in the redistribution of wealth by the look of them. One of them put a form on the desk in front of me and told me to sign it and pay over my subscription of five shillings. I saw at once what a mistake I had made: the distribution of wealth was to be mine to them, not the other way around. I fled—and a lingering suspicion of Communism has remained planted in my mind forever.

http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2011/11/28/washington-state-budget-woes-wheres-the-beef/

Interesting criterion for utility. Hopefully neither man perishes suddenly and renders their ideas irrelevant and useless before mankind has a chance to apply them.

hey here is a novel idea, why not just let the occupiers just stay there? Why is it so important that protests disburse? Taking the protesters away only feeds the message that they are making. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like the protesters are picking parks and public areas and are a problem to very few people. Not like they are sitting down on a highway. -How would you feel if it were right wing Christians using the same tactics to restrict access to Planned Parenthood? The only difference between the above and the "Occupy" is a set of subjective value judgments. Wow. How many minutes a day do they let you out? The Kristians have been long term-blocking access to Planned Parenthood for decades. They've also added death threats, shootings, and bombings, with fatal results, to the party. Otherwise, JUST THE SAME, right? In addition, the Kristian goal is to deny equal rights to fully half the population based on a kooky idea that an embryo = a fully grown woman, which was invented by Nixon to get re-elected (yes, his administration recruited Falwell, and the rest is history, as they say. A phony idea invented to play partisan... ...much like the systemic wealth imbalance that has put one out of every 3 people in this country under or near the poverty line. Otherwise, SHEEEIT, I kin hardly reckon any difference at all. -Exercising free speech rights is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions and doesn't include the right to interfere with lawful access to public spaces, much less any other illegal activity - so I'm all for using force against people who unlawfully restrict anyone else's access to churches, strip joints, Best Buy, the local vegan harvest collective, or public roads. The whole point is that the law is supposed to be value neutral and apply impartially to everyone, irrespective of whether or not the general public loves or loathes whatever agenda they're trying to advance by, say, blocking a bridge at rush hour. -Income inequality. Good news! See below.

hey here is a novel idea, why not just let the occupiers just stay there? Why is it so important that protests disburse? Taking the protesters away only feeds the message that they are making. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like the protesters are picking parks and public areas and are a problem to very few people. Not like they are sitting down on a highway. -How would you feel if it were right wing Christians using the same tactics to restrict access to Planned Parenthood? The only difference between the above and the "Occupy" is a set of subjective value judgments. If it was right wingers "occupying" public spaces in the name of whatever ideological crusade they thought entitled them to interfere with everyone else's lives, the average Seattleite would be demanding to know why the police hadn't whipped out the water cannons, batons, and tear gas cannisters on day one.

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 120--21 1623 All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

You are surely correct that Northern bit of Vermont is an outdoor paradise that should get it's own asterisk when anyone is making blanket denunciations of all things Eastern. Seems like the Kung Fujas might deliver what you're looking for if you're trying to find something in between the Obsethed and the Enforcer.

"Male Spiders Scam Females with Gift-Wrapped Garbage Male nursery web spiders lure mates with silk-wrapped offerings, only some of which contain tasty treats. Male nursery web spiders often woo potential lady-friends with gifts wrapped in silk. Mating may ensue, during which a female unspools the present, expecting to find a tasty treat. But the males can be unscrupulous. Some offerings contain inedible plant seeds or empty insect exoskeletons. How do males get away with such egregious behavior? Researchers provided males with potential gifts—either a fly or an inedible item, such as a bit of cotton. Other males had to give it a shot with no gift at all. The empty-handed males were mostly unsuccessful at mating. Whereas those with a gift could get the girl. But if the gift was worthless, the females quickly realized the deceit and pushed the copulating males off. Which gave the males less time to transfer sperm. Females clearly prefer males bearing edible presents. But some males know they can get limited action without expending the energy on a real gift. And the females laid almost the same amount of eggs fertilized by males bearing real or phony gifts. With both strategies successful, the behavior gets maintained. And the species stays stocked with deadbeat dads." http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=male-spiders-scam-females-with-gift-11-11-21

I told you so. [Chortle]* I feel much better now. *"You had me at 'Chortle'"

Yes.

Germany failed to place 40% of 10 year bonds at an auction today. That's even worse news than I was expecting, which is saying something. THE bad news out of Europe is coming fast and thick now. Markets were still digesting news of Spain's terrible bond auction yesterday, in which the yield on its 3-month debt more than doubled, from 2.3% to over 5%. That was but an appetizer, however; in an auction of 10-year debt today, Germany failed to place some 40% of the issuance. The lack of appetite for German debt has come as a shock to many, and the language being used to describe matters is increasingly apocalyptic. "It is a complete and utter disaster", Reuters has one strategist saying. On the secondary market, German bond yields have finally joined those of its neighbours on their upward march. The German 10-year yield is up over 7 percentage points today, and back above 2%. It still has a ways to go to catch France and Austria (approaching 4%), Belgium (over 5%), and Spain and Italy (back near 7%). Trouble at big European banks is growing; the euro-zone banking system is increasingly reliant on the European Central Bank for funding. The prospect of bank failures is a troubling one given the fiscal strain on European sovereigns; no one wants to find itself in Ireland's position, squarely in bond vigilantes' crosshairs having assumed the obligations of sinking banks. Uncontrolled collapses are too awful to contemplate, however, and so the pressure on the ECB will grow. Meanwhile, trouble is growing around the eastern periphery of the euro zone. Poland's zloty is under pressure, and there are signs of bank runs in the Baltics. Perhaps worst of all, the financial strain in the euro zone is increasingly apparent in the real economy. New data indicate that euro-zone industrial orders plummeted in September, falling 6.4%. Orders dropped 4.4% in Germany, 6.2% in France, and 9.2% in Italy. Predictions that the euro zone will face little more than a shallow recession oin 2012 increasingly seem to be wildly optimistic. That's a scary thought. The impact of a serious euro-zone downturn on the finances of banks and governments, not to mention on the sentiment among voters facing high and rising unemployment, is tough to contemplate. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/11/euro-crisis-17

S&P averaged 6.5% growth over the last 20 years plus compounded dividends averaged ~3%. Shall I also do the addition for you? Over 30 and more years total returns averaged ~10%. You forget the part when markets perform significantly better than 8% and individual pensions aren’t credited for more than 8% in returns. Plus, the ability to better weather market fluctuations is an asset of programs like social security and public pension plans, which is why they are so much better than individual plans. Unfortunate that your ideology prevents you from seeing it since it has some obvious applications in other domains. -Past performance is one thing, future performance is another. Retrodiction is easy, prediction is hard. -The ability to weather market fluctuations is solely a function of asset allocation. The only intrinsic advantage that people with public sector pensions funds have is that they can force other people to cover the shortfall between what they take out and what they put in. When those shortfalls materialize, the money has got to come from somewhere, and thus far it has primarily come from service cuts. You can only take the "all service cut, no reform" model so far. So much for "progressive" priorities like basic health, the disability lifeline, etc, etc, etc. All of that can burn to the ground before public sector unions will even consider revising future benefit accruals. Nice.

Dispatch from the blast radius: “The town condo market is now in freefall, the condos that were built in abundance during the peak can’t be given away at $200k. One development is now back to the pricing they were at in 2002 and they have only sold 2 condos since spring. There are several developments like this all next to each other in the same boat. “However, the three sisters development, 7 miles from town, is in worse shape, condos sold a few years ago for $740k for a 970ft, 2 bed apartment (the 2nd bed has no windows). These now underwater by about $500k, even to have a chance of selling. Many of these are in the shadow of abandoned projects, tarp and wire fencing dominating the area devoid of residents. Rental prices for these places are about $1000 per month, if they can find tenants….. These “fine estates” have a long way to drop yet….. We were lucky, we just sold our place and are now being “smug renters” renting a comparable place for half the cost of owning. It was a lucky escape.”

I forgot to mention that I am a complete fool, since I brought three pairs of skis and a snowboard back there, bought season's passes every time, and logged ~100+ days in three years, just about all of which required three hours or more of driving each way. Having said that - I stand by what I said. Fools errand. If you're stuck there - make the best of it by all means, but anyone who travels there instead of, say, Utah to ski is literally insane. If you happen to live on the EC, I think that Nick Greener Pro's would probably work very well as a teeter-totter for infants, or as a diving board for Vern Troyer if he's a frequent guest at your lake-house...

That's the average pension benefit for all living retirees and their widows/widowers. That includes people who stopped working *decades* ago. If you want a number that accurately reflects the dollar value of the pensions that recent and future retirees are entitled to, you need to get the data and determine the dollar value of pensions being paid to recent retirees. For a quick and dirty estimate of future liabilities, multiply that number times the compounded (n = number of years in the future) average wage growth in NY's public sector. Here's the stats San Jose: "Police and firefighters who retired in 2009-10 after at least 26 years of service collected an average starting pension of $119,000 a year. For other workers with similar service, the average was $63,500. The pensions come with a guaranteed 3 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment." That dollar value doesn't include retiree health insurance benefits. Just for fun, price out immediate annuities that feature survivor benefits and inflation protection at 3% and report back. Then you'll start to understand why the folks that are running the numbers (computing the total projected value of public employee contributions plus earning vs the value of pension obligations) are ringing the alarm bells. Here's a hint: the first value is significantly lower than the second. There's not enough money to fund the existing level of public services and pensions. Cutting services to fund pensions will only take you so far, because as in San Jose is projected to, you will arrive at the endpoint where pension payouts exceed all tax revenues. E.g. you cut all employees and the delivery of all services and there's still not enough money. Public employees should be *thankful* that people are pointing this out so they don't wind up the folks from Pritchard: http://www.cnbc.com/id/40791768/Alabama_Town_s_Failed_Pension_Is_a_Warning This is the heart of the issue. Do a little straight forward math and get labeled a regressive. With a little common sense here it could be made solvent and bring service levels (and jobs) up to a sustainable level. Like I said - the fact that they're fighting the adoption of 401(k)'s shows that they're much better at math than they're letting on. I suspect that their own internal calculations of what they stand to lose is roughly consistent with the calculations done by the warmongering right-wing shills at the Pew Institute: At the heart of the debate surrounding the appropriate discount rate assumption is whether states should calculate the current value of these long-term promises using an expected rate of return. In other words, if investment returns are disappointing and do not meet expectations, states are still required to pay retirees the benefits they have earned. Therefore, some experts recommend that states employ a “riskless rate” that might be analogous to a 30-year Treasury bond when valuing their future pension liabilities, arguing that pension obligations are legally binding and guaranteed to recipients. Based on the Treasury bond’s rate of 4.38 percent as of mid-March 2011, the states’ cumulative liability for pension benefits would grow to $4.6 trillion, with an unfunded liability of $2.4 trillion. Another benchmark suggested by some experts is the investment return required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a private counterpart to the Government Accounting Standards Board. FASB requires that private sector defined benefit plans use investment return assumptions based on the rate on corporate bonds: 5.22 percent as of mid-March 2011. Based on this assumption, states’ pension benefit liabilities would grow to $4.1 trillion, $1.8 trillion of which would be unfunded. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_pensions_retiree_benefits.pdf

Nobody but you and other regressives want to cut services. Evidently nobody but other regressives and I understand why you can't use the average pension payment for all living retirees when figuring out how to fund the obligations for recent and future retirees, either. I did no such thing. The Government Accountability Office found that public pension funds were almost fully funded according to the most up to date accounting practices. Lo and behold: Pensionscare Via Andrew Leonard, the rise in stocks since the financial crisis has made the financial position of public employee pension funds much better: “Public pension funds are experiencing a robust recovery from the historic market downturn of 2008-2009 — reporting strong investment returns, growing assets and funding levels on track to meet obligations,” said the National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems. The group, the largest trade association for public sector pensions, surveyed state and local systems representing 7.6 million people and assets exceeding $900 billion. It found that over the last year, funds have achieved an annual investment return of 13.5 percent, nearly double the 7.7 percent rate most assume. On average, said NCPERS, pension systems are 76.1 percent funded, meaning they can cover more than three-quarters of liabilities. Typically, pensions are considered fully funded when they surpass 80 percent. Things aren’t perfect, by a long shot. But that crushing pension deficit, which everyone knew was going to bankrupt all state and local governments? Mainly a creation of right-wing propaganda. Are you surprised? Leonard draws a wider conclusion: But the changed financial outlook does underscore an important point that defenders of public sector unions have been making for several years: Judging the financial prospects of a pension fund in the middle of a historic economic crash is a dumb thing to do. As the economy improves so too will fund performance. The lesson can be extrapolated to the larger challenges facing the federal government. The best deficit-reducing strategy is a growing economy that generates increased tax revenues. A misguided pivot to austerity, on the other hand, runs the clear risk of inducing slower economic growth, lower tax revenues and higher deficits. But the bleeding must continue until the patient recovers! http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/pensionscare/ All of these analyses uncritically accept the projections calculated using rates of return that are in the 7.75 to 8.5% range. Most pension funds haven't averaged anything close to that over the course of the past ten years, and there's absolutely no guarantee that they'll get anything like that in the future - particularly since they're heavily (~70% on average) invested in stocks. The fact that you can't predict the future is why private pension funds are required fund stuff that they're going to have to pay for in the future on assets that are going to be worth a specific amount in the future - like US Treasuries. The only reason that public pension funds are allowed to base their funding levels on returns that may or may not materialize is that they're allowed to plug the gap with tax revenues, and private pension funds aren't. It's likely that nearly every public pension fund in the country would be insolvent if they had to follow the same rules as private sector pensions - which is why they're all lobbying to prevent that from happening. If they did - the public would see the magnitude of the tab they're potentially on the hook for. Can't imagine why the folks who stand to be on the receiving end of that asset transfer don't want those figures circulating. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the gap between projected returns and actual returns can be massive, and in the likely event that there aren't enough assets in public sector pension funds to pay for all of the public pension benefits no one is going to come out unscathed. None of this would be a problem if public employees funded their own retirements with their contributions plus earnings like everyone else in the private sector. The fact that public employee unions everywhere are fighting the introduction of 401(K) style plans like it's a death threat shows that they're aware of the massive gap between the retirement benefits they're getting and the benefits they'd actually be willing to pay for....which shows that they're much better at math than they're letting on.

Nobody but you and other regressives want to cut services. Evidently nobody but other regressives and I understand why you can't use the average pension payment for all living retirees when figuring out how to fund the obligations for recent and future retirees, either. Keep pay and benefits unreformed in the public sector and the default is a pay-and-benefits provider with a sideline in providing public services. Legally obliged to meet these costs, the city can respond only by cutting elsewhere. As a result, San Jose, once run by 7,450 city workers, was now being run by 5,400 city workers. The city was back to staffing levels of 1988, when it had a quarter of a million fewer residents. The remaining workers had taken a 10 percent pay cut; yet even that was not enough to offset the increase in the city’s pension liability. The city had closed its libraries three days a week. It had cut back servicing its parks. It had refrained from opening a brand-new community center, built before the housing bust, because it couldn’t pay to staff the place. For the first time in history it had laid off police officers and firefighters. By 2014, Reed had calculated, a city of a million people, the 10th-largest city in the United States, would be serviced by 1,600 public workers. “There is no way to run a city with that level of staffing,” he said. “You start to ask: What is a city? Why do we bother to live together? But that’s just the start.” The problem was going to grow worse until, as he put it, “you get to one.” A single employee to service the entire city, presumably with a focus on paying pensions. “I don’t know how far out you have to go until you get to one,” said Reed, “but it isn’t all that far.” At that point, if not before, the city would be nothing more than a vehicle to pay the retirement costs of its former workers http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111#gotopage1

That's the average pension benefit for all living retirees and their widows/widowers. That includes people who stopped working *decades* ago. If you want a number that accurately reflects the dollar value of the pensions that recent and future retirees are entitled to, you need to get the data and determine the dollar value of pensions being paid to recent retirees. For a quick and dirty estimate of future liabilities, multiply that number times the compounded (n = number of years in the future) average wage growth in NY's public sector. Here's the stats San Jose: "Police and firefighters who retired in 2009-10 after at least 26 years of service collected an average starting pension of $119,000 a year. For other workers with similar service, the average was $63,500. The pensions come with a guaranteed 3 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment." That dollar value doesn't include retiree health insurance benefits. Just for fun, price out immediate annuities that feature survivor benefits and inflation protection at 3% and report back. Then you'll start to understand why the folks that are running the numbers (computing the total projected value of public employee contributions plus earning vs the value of pension obligations) are ringing the alarm bells. Here's a hint: the first value is significantly lower than the second. There's not enough money to fund the existing level of public services and pensions. Cutting services to fund pensions will only take you so far, because as in San Jose is projected to, you will arrive at the endpoint where pension payouts exceed all tax revenues. E.g. you cut all employees and the delivery of all services and there's still not enough money. Public employees should be *thankful* that people are pointing this out so they don't wind up the folks from Pritchard: http://www.cnbc.com/id/40791768/Alabama_Town_s_Failed_Pension_Is_a_Warning

I'd add traffic predictability in there as a variable that matters, on top of time and distance. I'd gladly drive an easy and predictable 30 minutes much sooner that I'd drive a heavily congested and cluster-prone route that could vary between 20 and 60 minutes.