San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

If our public pension system doesn't change by the time my kids are out of high school, I will encourage them to apply for city firefighter jobs and do so every year they are in college. If they get the firefighter job, even after a couple of years of college, I will recommend they drop out of school and go with the firefighter job.

I have no doubt that someday, when they are 50 years old, my comfortably retired firefighter children will visit my grave and thank me. Because their former classmates - who were foolish enough to study accounting, science, engineering, etc. - will be still facing twenty more years before they can stop working.

That's if they don't have a heart attack or stroke from stress, inhale too much smoke and burn their lungs, get second or third degree burns and have to go on prolonged disability, or get trapped on a hillside and perish trying to save a neighborhood. The possibility exists that YOU could outlive them.

Stranger things have happened...

Harvey
Make sure to encourage them to learn about wine while in college. Its a good second career for retired firefighters.

http://www.hookandladderwinery.com/about...

Police and firefighters do not have particularly dangerous jobs. The unions have bamboozled the public with their dishonest advertisements.
Google "occupational death rates" to find many sources documenting dangerous jobs. Of the ten most dangerous occupations, not one is firefighters or police. Instead, ALL are private sector jobs: roofers, taxi drivers, fishermen, ranchers, farmers, etc. In other words, they are the taxpayers paying for the police and fire personnel. And generally they work way past age 50 or 55 to keep paying taxes toward those generous government pensions.

1. Fishermen (116.0) — In late June, two people died when a 20-foot fishing boat capsized near the top of Alaska’s panhandle. A third person was able to climb on top of the overturned skiff where he waited for rescue. As the BLS states, “this occupation is characterized by strenuous work, long hours, seasonal employment, and some of the most hazardous conditions in the workforce.”

10. Police officers (18.0) — In 2010, there was a nearly 40% increase in line-of-duty deaths among U.S. law enforcement. The most recent officer death involved Deputy Sheriff Derrick Whittle of the Union County, Georgia, Sheriff’s Office. He was killed in an automobile accident while responding to a call on September 18th. He is the 48th law enforcement officer to be killed in a traffic-related incident in 2011.

http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/the...

[edited format because it didn't copy over correctly -CAR]

------------------

It's important to note that the reason there aren't more fatalities in police and fire work is because of the extensive training, protective gear, building codes, etc. -- most of which came about because of unions.

Firefighters are not simply paid because of the danger involved, but because of the skills involved. Firefighters also have medical skills (most new firefighters are required to be paramedics, not just EMTs) in addition to firefighting, rescue , and some hazmat skills.

If having a dangerous job is a primary determinant for high pay, why in the heck are executives paid so much? From everything I've ever seen, most executives are not at all worth of what they're paid. Do we even need to get into various middlemen and sales positions? Financial industry workers?

Yes, we all pay for these salaries -- whether public or private.

We should at least make it mandatory that police and firemen have college education.

I hate dumb police.

Or all of us stiffs get the same pension plan as them.

I like that one better.

Why should they be the only ones who get a pension?

Airplane pilots and flight engineers likely receive more training than cops, yet the death rate is much higher. And their unions are fairly strong.

It was BG, not EconProf who invoked job safety. Right or wrong, cops&firefighters are sucking on the same tit that's feeding the banksters. And unlike banksters they are instrument of oppression in the hand of the ruling class (i.e. banksters).

Social Security IS the private sector's DB pension system. In both cases, employees and employers pay into the retirement system. In both cases, employees get a specific benefit for life. In both cases, they get cost-of-living increases to offset inflation. Both systems are backed by the government. Public employees and employers pay more into the system, and it is also a form of deferred compensation, so public employees tend to have higher benefit payments.

Now, I agree that some aspects of both systems are unworkable. But let's keep things honest here.

Why don't we actually read about some comparisons between social security and public pensions.

http://civfi.com/2010/05/08/social-secur...

The vast majority of airplane accidents/fatalities occur in general aviation, NOT commercial aviation which is where you have the highly-trained, highly-skilled, unionized pilots.
----------------

"General aviation is typically defined as any noncommercial,
civil aviation that includes, but is not limited to, recreational
flying, pilot training flights, aerial acrobatics, aerial
application of insecticides or herbicides, aerial survey, sightseeing,
and aerial search and rescue. As of 1996, there were
187,312 registered general aviation aircraft in the United
States that flew a total of 26 million flight hours. Every year,
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB;
Washington, DC) records approximately 2,000 general aviation
crashes, with an average of 765 fatalities. Even with
the recent decline in the number of general aviation crashes,
they remain the predominant source of aviation-related
fatalities. For example, in 1996, 98 percent of all aviation
crashes and 66 percent of all aviation fatalities were related
to general aviation (1)."

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/15...

Doesn't it suck when those pesky facts get in the way

Let's do that...

Here's what the source you've cited (not sure about their credibility) has to say:

"A public safety employee who enters the workforce at age 22, works for 44 years, makes $65K per year, and retires on their 66th birthday – earning a 3.0% per year pension factor – will qualify for a pension equivalent to 132% of their final salary, based on 3.0% per year times 44 years worked. This equates to a monthly benefit of $7,150, or $85,800 per year, a retirement income 4.5 times better than what a social security recipient would earn after working the same number of years and earning the same amount of money."

--------

Here's the truth (mind you, the 3%@50 formula is the most generous benefit formula available to most public safety employees, many have a 3%@55, or hybrid plan):

"Estimating Retirement Allowance

Final compensation is your average monthly pay rate for the last employment period of either 36 months or 12 months, depending upon your employer’s contract with CalPERS."

//www [dot] porac [dot] org/3percent [at] 50 [dot] html" title="http://www [dot] porac [dot] org/3percent [at] 50 [dot] html">http://www [dot] porac [dot] org/3percent [at] 50 [dot] html
-----------

FWIW, I'm not defending the 3% formula, and was opposed to it from the very beginning, but what really irks me is the constant barrage of lies, hyperbole, and misinformation that is intentionally designed to redirect public anger from the financial sector to public employees who had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the finanicial crisis.

One more thing...I've read through a number of articles on that site and have found numerous lies. That is not a credible source of information. "Pesky facts," indeed.

For more information and actual FACTS:

http://www.iaff1775.org/news/local/294-t...

Let's take a quick look at these "facts:"

#5 : Firefighter retirement benefits are not paid by the "taxpayers," cities, counties or state. Benefits are deferred compensation, and are paid by the employee funded retirement systems [...]

Absolutely false.

Not even open for interpretation, this one is an an outright lie.

And it is the only "fact" that matters.

ALL of their compensation comes from taxpayers. Where else would it come from?

And the issue is not compensation per se, the issue is the pension SHORTFALLS.

The tab for the shortfalls come directly from the taxpayers. The Unions and CalPERS have aggressively fought for this and in court and have won.

They were already paid once with taxpayer money. Their salary, benefits, and retirement contributions were paid YEARS AGO. And now they are demanding to be paid AGAIN, even though they aren't even working any more.

Why are they claiming that they should get MORE taxpayer money, years after the fact? Because the stock market did not meet their unrealistic expectations.

And they try to blame "Wall Street" for the whole mess. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 401K with guaranteed unrealistic performance, backed by the government? Choose a stock, any stock - the taxpayers will cover the loss if you pick a loser!

Read it this way: The unions and CalPERS have aggressively fought to take MORE money from schools, from the poor, and from existing public safety budgets. All across California, cites are laying off teachers and public safety workers in order to pay for retirees.

We are laying off firefighters that are on duty today so that we can give the money to retired firefighters who are on a cruise ship.

We are laying off teachers that are in the classroom today so that we can give the money to retired teachers who are on the golf course.

How could anyone claim that these are ethically sound policies? It is simply staggering.

And even if we choose to abandon ethics - as apparently some folks have - there is no escaping the reality that it is completely unsustainable.

As for the comparison to Social Security - the only fact you need to know is this: Social Security retirement age has gone UP over the years (and will continue to go up), public-sector retirement age has gone DOWN.

Trying to convince me that my social security benefit is in any manner comparable to a public pension is laughable.

I would gladly give more to the system to receive the pensions that those in the public sector receive.

GLADLY!!!

Oh fucking ya! That is a unbiased source of news and information.

Don't cite something like this and think there is any validite left to your arguement. I liked it better when you were citing CALPERs or something like that but to invoke union disclaimer puts the arguement to shame.

CAR... You know bettter than that.

CE

BTW, who is voting for San Diego's Prop B.

I will.

Prop B might cost some cash up front to implement, but it will save money over decades and after that.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/may/08/ele...

I'm not anti-union, but I believe that we cannot afford to pay those pension benefits to government employees.

Brian: It doesn't come down to pro-union or anti-union, it comes down to what it is and what is not affordable.

The situation in Wisconsin with the Walker recall election is instructive: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...

The underlying subtext to the Wisconsin recall is less Dem versus GOP and more to do with the perception that many states, especially the former strong union states (IL, IN, MI, WI), are in a fiscal quagmire and that pensions/benefits are contributing hugely.

Of course they are biased, but what they're saying is factual.

If you can find any factual errors on their site, please point them out.

Pri,

Once again, you didn't comprehend what was written. Pension benefits ARE NOT paid by taxpayers. That is a fact. How many times do I have to explain it to you before you "get it"?

The **contributions** to the pension funds are paid by employers when the employees are working. Once they are retired, 100% of a retiree's benefits are paid out by their pension funds -- in the case of CalPERS (and many other funds), it is not even a government entity, they are contractors. The vast majority of the benefits (usually around 75%) come from the funds' investment returns...not from employer/employee contributions. Public employers (or "taxpayers" in your words) do not make any further contributions to the employee's pension once the employee is retired.

The public employees receive their compensation from their employers, not taxpayers. Their employers' revenues come from various taxes, fees, and even investment income. Your argument is like saying that I, as a Microsoft consumer, am the direct employer of MS employees. I am Microsoft's customer, not the employer of MS's employees (and executives) -- there is a distinction.

Nonetheless, the pension shortfalls are primarily a result of market losses, not "greedy union thugs." Couple that with revenue declines --especially in property tax revenues, which is usually the largest revenue source for most municipalities -- and you get problems. Boots-on-the-ground" workers had nothing to do with it, yet the financial sector parasites are scapegoating them for all the damage inflicted by the financial industry (both booms and busts).

Again, many municipalities are already negotiating for increased employee pension contributions, pay and benefit cuts, etc. from unions...and most unions are being very conciliatory during these negotiations because they DO understand what's going on with their employers' finances (they understand much more than you do, as a matter of fact). Unfortunately, the MSM isn't reporting this because it's not nearly as dramatic as reporting on outliers in the public sector. For every one employee who is reported by the MSM because of their incredibly high pay/benefits, there are tens of thousands who are taking cuts...but that's not the stuff that sells papers or gets idiots riled up against public sector workers...so we make grand pronouncements based upon a handful of public employees who have managed to scam the system (and many are being reviewed for this, but that's not reported, either), and we ignore the very real concessions that union members have been making over the past few years.

Absolutely false.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/billi...

[...] in the current fiscal year, ending June 30, CalSTRS is projected to tap $1.9 billion from the general fund.

...

Worse, the projection for fiscal 2012-13, which begins July 1, is $3.1 billion going to CalPERS and $1.3 billion to CalSTRS.

Money from the general fund (read: "taxpayer money") is being transferred to the pension systems TODAY because of shortfalls.

The taxpayers are being forced to make the pension contributions AGAIN.

And of course, how do you explain why Vallejo, San Jose, Stockton and other cities have had to cut services in order to maintain pension payments? It's because their general funds had to pay for the pension shortfalls.

And it is going to get far worse:

http://www.arc.asm.ca.gov/budgetfactchec...

Does anyone understand that these "outliers" such as the Fire Chief and Librarian mentioned in the OP were NOT union members? These retired "public employees" were appointed officials by their respective City Councils (not sure how a city is RI is governed). In CA, when a City Council or County Board of Supervisors releases a job opening for a public official position, they typically contract with a headhunter to search nationwide and interview at least 12-14 candidates. Yes, often they DO end up hiring someone from within the organization for the job simply because of their valuable institutional knowledge and these candidates typically have years of seniority already behind them. The job offer of an appointed public official is entirely negotiable between the Council/BOS and the candidate. This includes pay, medical/dental/vision benefits, leave accrual, etc, which may be entirely different plans or rate of accrual that unions negotiated for their rank and file public-worker members. Since appointed and elected officials do not typically stay on board as long as "rank and file union members," it was not unheard of for them to be offered vesting in as little as five years with a pension at a higher percentage of their "wage" than the worker-bees. This was a carrot used to steal the "best" public officials away from other locales.

"Civil Service Rules" and "Union Contracts" do not apply here. In other words, your SD elected officials offered and/or agreed upon the City Librarian's appointment to use a particular formula to calculate their pension (among negotiating and agreeing to other perks at the time of their appointment).

These "appointed outliers" work strictly at the pleasure of City Councils/Boards of Supervisors. Their "contributions" and "personality" can fall in and out of favor with the PTB, depending on WHO gets replaced in the next election cycle (and WHO replaced the incumbent who voted to hire/retain the official).

Don't mix up the salaries, benefits and pension formulas of elected officials and their appointees with the rank and file public worker union members. The "total pkg" of compensation between the two is as different as night and day.

-1

Thank you for making the point that teachers and firefighters today are being laid off so that retired workers' pension can be paid.

CA renter even suggested before that if could kick the children of unauthorized migrants out of school, be they citizens or not, we could save money. "Save money" means laying off teachers who are working today.

That's why I support Prop B to move City of San Diego employees to 401k type pensions. Yes, on B.

Why invest with Wall Street if they are such parasites?

The pension funds could have bought more conservatives investments. The problem with that is that pension contributions would have been much higher for the same level of guaranteed benefits.

Yes the "financial sector parasites," like these guys:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Ex-CEO of Calpers Accused of Fraud

Guess who will be paying for these losses also?

The whole system is corrupt and unsustainable.

The solution is trivial: Convert to individual 401K retirement accounts - like everybody else has - and the pension problems go away.

There is simply no reason to have a special class of citizens that get automatic bailouts whenever there is an economic downturn.

That's too harsh, Brian. Why not call them 'partially documented migrants', or 'amnesty eligible migrants'?

"The solution is trivial: Convert to individual 401K retirement accounts - like everybody else has - and the pension problems go away."

What? That sounds way to complex to me.

Why?

Can you point out any factual errors?