Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[Jim]

You talk out of both corners of your mouth. In one sentence, you describe public employee compensations as a fundamental cause of sovereign debt and in another you just want tweaks (inferring they are minor).

 

Don't get your shorts twisted son. Tweaks, such as going to all 401k plans, increased employee contributions for health care, and shaving off salaries at the top end would lend substantial savings. The present standard isn't sustainable.

[j_b]

Don't get your shorts twisted son. Tweaks, such as going to all 401k plans, increased employee contributions for health care, and shaving off salaries at the top end would lend substantial savings. The present standard isn't sustainable.

 

Fuck this noise. You deal with your 401k and wait for the next market bailout to recover your losses.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You talk out of both corners of your mouth. In one sentence, you describe public employee compensations as a fundamental cause of sovereign debt and in another you just want tweaks (inferring they are minor).

 

Don't get your shorts twisted son. Tweaks, such as going to all 401k plans, increased employee contributions for health care, and shaving off salaries at the top end would lend substantial savings. The present standard isn't sustainable.

 

cue up j_bot response about Monte Carlo gambling in 3...2...1...

[j_b]

The current median public pension benefit is $18,182 a year, according to the Washington State Treasurer. 78% of public pensions are less than $30,000 a year.22

 

The average annual benefit for all retirees of all these systems combined was $19,917 in 2009.23 Compare this to the total necessary annual income from the elder Economic Security Standard in our state.24

 

ELDER ECONOMIC SECURITY STANDARD INDEX FOR WASHINGTON, 2010:

$18,336 (one person without mortgage)

 

Washington has 99% of its public pension obligations funded – the state’s public pensions are in good financial shape. These combined pensions have net assets of $57.6 billion (as of June 30, 2010), having gained $5.5 billion in the past year.1

http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/reports/public-pensions-insuring-economic-security-may11.pdf

[j_b]

Public Employees Earn Less

 

Public employees earn less than their private sector counterparts when the total cost of wages and benefits is included.

 

Nationally, state and local governments spent $26.25 per hour per employee in 2010, with 34% of total compensation represented by benefits. Private industry employers spent $27.88 per hour, with 29.4% for benefits.3

 

A study of national data controlling for education, work experience, annual hours worked, organizational size and other factors found that total compensation was 1.8% less for local government employees and 7.6% less for state government employees than for comparable private sector workers.4

 

A separate study found that state government employees across the country earned 6.8% less in total compensation than comparable private sector peers between 2000 and 2008, and local government employees earned 7.4% less.5

 

According to an analysis by the Seattle Times, median wages for the same type of work was lower for Washington state government workers than in the private sector in the majority of nearly 200 occupational categories examined. State government workers tended to earn higher wages in lower paying jobs.6

 

Over the past twenty years, the gap between public and private sector compensation has grown.7

 

http://www.eoionline.org/state_economy/fact_sheets/public-employee-compensation-mar11.pdf

[Jim]

Yea, yea. We can trot out these dueling rags again. We've already done that - thanks Oregon Public Employees Fact(?)Sheet. Who paid for that?

 

The problems with the Center for State and Local Excellence (uh-huh)report most often cited and the Rutgers study have been pretty well hashed out - under estimating benefit values, no merit comparision only time-in-grade; which I remember as a great euphemism in the federal government; greater job security as noted by much less percentage of job loss compared to private sector in this downturn; increasing benefit package value as medical costs increase; and percent return on pension "investments" compared to 401k returns - thanks taxpayers!

 

In California, the state pays 100 percent of health care costs for retired state workers and 90 percent of costs for retirees' families. Whoot! That on top of generous pensions that you could never get a similar return even with 15% interest. Yea, no changes needed.

[j_b]

I gave you hard numbers, you prefer anecdotal evidence. There is little I can do for you.

[j_b]

Why Does the Public Hear: "tales of six-figure pensions and public employees comfortably retiring in their early 50s"?

 

Thursday, 16 June 2011 05:24

 

 

The NYT told readers that many states are planning to increase employee contributions to their pensions. One of the reasons is that legislators are hearing:

 

"tales of six-figure pensions and public employees comfortably retiring in their early 50s."

 

This is true because the media have been repeating tales circulated by right-wing and business organizations who are attacking public sector workers and public sector unions. In fact, the vast majority of public sector workers do not retiree in their early 50s and do not enjoy especially generous benefits.

 

For example, in New York state, which is featured prominently in this article, the average benefit in 2010 paid by the state's main pension program was $18,300. Most of the workers who retiree in their early 50s are public safety employees like police and firefighters.

 

If the media had been doing a competent job reporting on this issue, legislators would be hearing tales of 70-year old retirees trying to get by on less than $20,000 a year. (Roughly 30 percent of public sector employees do not get Social Security.)

 

The article also includes the bizarre assertion that, "the era of generous compensation for public-sector employees is ending." In fact, after adjusting for education and experience the compensation for public employees is slightly less than for their private sector counterparts.

 

This article also cites a Pew Center study that refers to a public pension shortfall of more than $1 trillion. It would have been worth noting that this shortfall is equal to approximately 0.25 percent of projected GDP over the next 30 years (the time horizon for most pensions).

 

[..]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/why-does-the-public-hear-qtales-of-six-figure-pensions-and-public-employees-comfortably-retiring-in-their-early-50sq

[Jim]

Thanks for the cepr blog opinion post.

 

Meanwhile, back to reality.

 

NYT:

 

No municipality will sustain more damage than New York City, which next year faces a mind-boggling pension tab of $8.35 billion - a 19% increase in one year - at a time when Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council are forced to hack away at practically every other expenditure.

 

And the devastating drain will keep getting worse unless Albany lawmakers finally stand up to the public employee unions, dump the current retirement system and replace it with something taxpayers can afford.

 

Until that day, the city faces agonizing tradeoffs.

 

Take, for example, the Fire Department's boneheaded plan to charge drivers as much as $490 for responding to accident scenes. Is it any wonder, when the FDNY spends more on pensions and other fringe benefits than it does on salaries?

 

Then there's Bloomberg's plan to shed 6,000 of the schools' 80,000 teachers, including 4,500 layoffs. The reduction is driven in large part by the almost $3 billion the city will owe the teachers' retirement fund next year.

 

This is what happens when annual retirement costs mushroom to consume one out of every eight dollars in the city budget.

 

That sum is enough to cover the entire annual budget of the State of Maine. And it's enough to make you sick - if you think about what else the city could be doing with that money.

 

The year-to-year increase alone - $1.2 billion - would cover hiring 18,000 new teachers, 17,000 firefighters or 15,000 cops.

 

Yea, why make structual changes that will reinforce sevices when you can just ignore it?

 

[Jim]

Fuck this noise. You deal with your 401k and wait for the next market bailout to recover your losses.

 

Ah. So I guess this is where we part philosophically. While liberal socially I'm fiscally conservative - basically because I generally like the idea of accountability with tax payer money. And I want it to be used fugally so programs I support get their funding.

 

So - no, I don't support the guaranteed benefits - at taxpayer expense, when said taxpayers have to figure their own way out.

[j_b]

Mean New York public pension benefit paid in 2010: $18300. That's the reality, not the public employee punching you seem to enjoy.

 

In fact, you are the one who pretends to ignore that 1) state deficit is due to plunging revenue caused by the economic crisis and the financial crash, not by public employee compensation that are on average less than that of the private sector, and 2) decreasing benefits and cutting jobs will deepen the previously mentioned economic crisis.

 

[j_b]

Fuck this noise. You deal with your 401k and wait for the next market bailout to recover your losses.

 

Ah. So I guess this is where we part philosophically. While liberal socially I'm fiscally conservative - basically because I generally like the idea of accountability with tax payer money. And I want it to be used fugally so programs I support get their funding.

 

So - no, I don't support the guaranteed benefits - at taxpayer expense, when said taxpayers have to figure their own way out.

 

Keep ignoring that some states current inability to meet their obligations was caused by the very same people who crashed the economy and now want workers and employees to pay for their bailouts.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Mean New York pension benefit paid in 2010: $18300. That's the reality, not the public employee punching you seem to enjoy.

 

In fact, you are the one who pretends to ignore that 1) state deficit is due to plunging revenue caused by the economic crisis and the financial crash, not by public employee compensation that are on average less than that of the private sector, and 2) decreasing benefits and cutting jobs will deepen the previously mentioned economic crisis.

 

500K/year publicly-funded annual pensions for the elite public sector employees... nothing to see here! move along!

 

And then you claim to be sympathetic to the OWS and the "99%".

 

 

[j_b]

How do the elite compensation packages compare with those in the private sector? Unless, of course, you intend to have public institutions managed by those at the bottom of their class.

[Jim]

I'll avoid the cirle-jerk discussion that will ensue, but - it doesn't matter the cause of pension fund slides. States can't run a deficit so they have to deal. And so far the result is cutting sevices rather than scaling back on pensions, no matter what size, that you could not get by investing your own money and getting a reasonable return. Thanks taxpayers!

 

The recokoning is on the way on the state level. Feds next.

[j_b]

It's your prerogative to align with regressives.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How do the elite compensation packages compare with those in the private sector? Unless, of course, you intend to have public institutions managed by those at the bottom of their class.

 

Irrelevant. Abuse is abuse - if you a actually do more than pay lip service to the "ideals" of the OWS protestors - you know about how the 1% is taking it all and leaving shit for the 99%.

 

In the end however, we the public - the TAXPAYERS - fund the public sector, including these abusive and ridiculous high-end premium pensions, so we can actually control this bullshit in the public sector. These fools are accountable to us. Seems like the logical place to start, but logic is not your forte (neither is consistency).

 

[Fairweather]

The thing is, the revenue side really does need to be addressed--and letting the GWB tax cuts expire (for everyone) would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those on my side of the fence see useless unionist thug sponges like j_b screeching like baby birds in a nest and we ask ourselves whether tax increases are really going to get us out of this hole that we're in. Cuts first, public sector reform second, new revenues last.

[j_b]

Public pension mean annual benefit paid in New York state: $18,300. In Washington State: $18,150. Those public employees are such leaches! (Thanks to union thugs, too)

Edited November 23, 2011 by j_b

[Jim]

The thing is, the revenue side really does need to be addressed--and letting the GWB tax cuts expire (for everyone) would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those on my side of the fence see useless unionist thug sponges like j_b screeching like baby birds in a nest and we ask ourselves whether tax increases are really going to get us out of this hole that we're in. Cuts first, public sector reform second, new revenues last.

 

While I would tend to look at things comprehensively, I can see why reasonable conservatives are quite leary of lumping revenues in before honest structual reform is tried. And yes, agree, the Bushie tax cuts for all need to go. That would be a start and should be a good place to begin. Ok - we let these lapse and it's time for some reform.

[j_b]

The neanderthals finally found someone who made too much money and it's a public employee LOLZ

[j_b]

Cuts first, public sector reform second, new revenues last.

 

Sounds like a good recipe for an economic depression.

 

"Pension benefits result in $3.5 billion a year in state economic activity, as well as 23,000 jobs. For every dollar contributed by public employers for pensions, over nine dollars is generated in our economy, and through the multiplier effects of consumption expenditures, 40% of those public contributions are returned as tax revenues to public entities. 475,000 workers and retirees are members of these public pension systems – one out of every fourteen residents in Washington state. 3

 

Public pensions deliver regular, dependable monthly benefits to retired public servants. This is in stark contrast to the private sector, where half of workers lack any employer-based retirement plan and risky defined contribution plans have become the norm. Individuals and businesses in Washington and across the country have more money, income and wealth than 30 years ago when public and private sector pensions were strongly supported."

[Fairweather]

Gotta love the attempts at in-text citation that you're including with your posts, but, hint: you're not writing a 200-level rhetorical analysis here. And style points only count when referencing scholarly work--which is far from the gurge you're trying to pass off as credible here.

[j_b]

Says the bozo whose anti-public employee/anti-government side pretty much only relies on Kock think tanks propaganda

 

By the way, the numbers on public pensions are from state treasurers. i.e. the type of numbers that academics count on.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

By the way, the numbers on public pensions are from state treasurers. i.e. the type of numbers that academics count on.

 

Attention everyone: j_bot is not only a SCIENTIST but an ACADEMIC! :lmao: