[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]They were not underfunded during the boom. From around 1990 through the middle of the last decade, most calpers plans were either very close to fully funded, fully funded, or over funded. It wasn’t until the market crashed did they become underfunded due to fund losses, and having nothing to do with insufficient funding from employees or sponsors.
This is it for me tonight, I’m off to my son’s graduation in nor cal.[/quote]
The use of the term “funding” is unclear to me here. Are we talking about making the required contributions? (I thought you were.)
There were a several posts from CA Renter where she claimed that employers/the state did not contribute to the funds during the “good” years. Her sources are always a bit sketch, but there were some citations. She was very insistent that the shortfall was due to the fact that employers were not making required contributions. The posts are probably toward the end of this thread, if you care:
It sounds like you are saying that required contributions were always made (which is what my research also shows), and that the shortfall is only due to failure to meet expected investment returns.
If this is true, seems to me that the claim that the public-sector enjoys “government-backstopped investment returns” is spot on. Privatized gains, socialized losses.
Have a safe trip. Congratulations on your son’s graduation.[/quote]
SK is exactly right. The pension funds, in general, were not underfunded during the boom.
You are confusing “funding status” with “pension contributions.” They are two separate things.
My sources were never “sketch.” I said that pension contributions were NOT BEING MADE by many, many employers (that’s “taxpayers” to you, Pri). Some public employers didn’t pay **anything** toward their pension funds for many years! Why? Because they were **over-funded**!
Google “pension holiday” and see what you come up with. Look in your own backyard — San Diego wasn’t making contributions to their pension funds, either. That’s what got them into such hot water WRT the pension funds.
If you didn’t even know what a “pension holiday” was, how could you logically debate Gov. Brown’s plan? He specifically bans pension holidays in his second point.
Did the unions fight the “pension holidays”? You bet they did!
Couple the lack of contributions with the market crashes, and it’s easy to see why the pension funds are having problems. Did union members have anything to do with the pension holidays or the asset allocations? No! This is why public sector workers are sick and tired of being scapegoated for the financial woes in this country. They are NOT the problem.
Pri, you’ve called both SK and me liars, and failed to point to a single post where I lied (and I have yet to see SK lie in any of his posts).
You claim that you’ve researched this topic, but state that your “research” shows that contributions were always made. There is no f’ing way you’ve done any research at all on this topic if you’re claiming that contributions have always been made. So, not only do you change the debate, make personal attacks, intentionally twist other people’s words, and intentionally quote them out of context when you’re losing an argument; YOU are a bald-faced liar. You’ve done no such research, and your ignorance on this topic (and others, including your understanding of socialism) has been highlighted over and over, again.
Just stop.
Either do some research and come to the table with REAL facts and logic, or stop baiting everyone you disagree with.
