How will unfunded “pensions” affect the local economy?

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Problem is public employers say x contributions today will pay for y benefits in the future. Then 10 years later, opps we calculated wrong so we need to cut services and raise taxes to contribute more to pensions. Because by law, we cannot cut pensions.[/quote]

Wrong. Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far. Many haven’t had a raise in over 6 years…many have had their compensation reduced, some by a large amount. READ what I’ve posted, above, about how employees are having to contribute more to their pensions…and more increases are on the way.

Sorry, brian, because I don’t want to take this out on you, specifically; but it gets very frustrating when I have to keep correcting some incredibly ignorant and uninformed statements, over and over and over, again. This has been going on for years, usually because the same ~2-3 people want to keep attacking public sector employees by spreading the propaganda put out there by the Privatization Movement.

[Anonymous]

[quote] Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far.[/quote]

It’s easy to prove a lie with a counterexample (you should try it sometime.)

Vallejo

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cities-financial-straights-weigh-bankruptcy/

For nearly 30 years, he was a police officer in the city of Vallejo […] He was able to retire at 50 with a pension and family health insurance benefits worth a total of a little over $180,000 a year.

Cop retires at 50 with a pension worth millions.

He’s not working, but making an income that is easily in the top 5% of the nation.

(BTW: Who was saying up-thread that a police officer retiring at 50 was “bullshit?”)

Vallejo’s financial situation is desperate, city services were cut by 40%, city is still on verge of bankruptcy. Cost of pensions alone is 30% and rising – yes, thirty percent of the budget pays for people who aren’t even working for the city.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/10/pf/vallejo-pensions/

Retired cop in PBS interview did have to take a cut. He now has to pay for his own health insurance. Income was reduced by $769/month, or about 5%.

Cop complains about it, as if it will be a struggle to live on $170K per year. Would rather current employees (and therefore the quality of current services) to take the hit:

“Where I think that they should’ve started to make changes is with the current employees. Those people still have an opportunity to plan for these things in the future.”

Yup, kick the can down the road, into the face of the next generation.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Wrong. Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far. Many haven’t had a raise in over 6 years…many have had their compensation reduced, some by a large amount. READ what I’ve posted, above, about how employees are having to contribute more to their pensions…and more increases are on the way.
[/quote]

The problem is the total cost of employee isn’t what they see in their pay check. San Diego’s revenue stream has been pretty flat and just growing with GDP/inflation at best. The problem is that things like healthcare benefits and pension issues are growing at a faster rate so somehow the city has to reduce it’s costs. It has done so via pay freezes, laying people off, etc. In some cases the citizens took a hit, your water bill has gone quite a bit over the past 5-6 years correct. In some cases services were reduced. In some cases employee got pay freezes or pay reductions. With all those cuts the pension plan is still underfunded.

Let’s say tomorrow we magically get a 10% increase in city revenues. Are we going to use that money to shore up the pension system or give employees raises who haven’t had a raise in 6 years. My guess is we’ll give raises now and leave the pension system underfunded because that’s a problem in the future. That act of giving employees raises makes the pension problem worse because of how most of these defined benefit pension plans work.

These defined benefit plans just don’t manage the risks properly. They never have. Most of them are going to fail one way or another.

Look at social security. You contribute 13.6% of your salary. If you make 50K per year and wait until 70 to retire you get 50% of your salary. If you retire at 62 you get about 25% of you salary. If you make $100K per year you get 37% of your salary at 70, at 62 you get 20%. So that’s far less of a benefit and even that system is in some trouble.

The problem for the public sector employees is that combined the employee and employer might be putting in 20% max which is more than social security, but the benefit is far higher. Usually something like 60% of your highest salary. Plus you tend to retire earlier. So a social security system that’s in a bit of trouble pays like 20-25% of you salary at 62 but the public sector wants to get 60% at 60 or so. It’s just not going to work. You might be able to do it but you’d need to contribute 30-35% percent of your compensation or assume unrealistic returns and end up unfunded.

[FlyerInHi]

CAr, what you say is so irrelevant.

You can calculate an amount today that equates to a stream of future payments. The only reason that pension funds are underfunded is because past and present contributions are too low in relation to future promises.

Depending on the amount, I would theoretically be indifferent between a DB or a DC plan. If they raise my salary enough, I’d be willing to give up any kind of future benefits.

There is a shifting of risk. But you have to pay for the risk.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, what you say is so irrelevant.

You can calculate an amount today that equates to a stream of future payments. The only reason that pension funds are underfunded is because past and present contributions are too low in relation to future promises.

Depending on the amount, I would theoretically be indifferent between a DB or a DC plan. If they raise my salary enough, I’d be willing to give up any kind of future benefits.

There is a shifting of risk. But you have to pay for the risk.[/quote]

They do pay for the risk. Most public employees have taken lower pay and other benefits in return for these pensions. Again, contribution rates absolutely do need to go up and, IMHO, benefit formulas need to be reduced (and there are many *fair and legal* ways to do this).

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote] Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far.[/quote]

It’s easy to prove a lie with a counterexample (you should try it sometime.)

Vallejo

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cities-financial-straights-weigh-bankruptcy/

For nearly 30 years, he was a police officer in the city of Vallejo […] He was able to retire at 50 with a pension and family health insurance benefits worth a total of a little over $180,000 a year.

Cop retires at 50 with a pension worth millions.

He’s not working, but making an income that is easily in the top 5% of the nation.

(BTW: Who was saying up-thread that a police officer retiring at 50 was “bullshit?”)

Vallejo’s financial situation is desperate, city services were cut by 40%, city is still on verge of bankruptcy. Cost of pensions alone is 30% and rising – yes, thirty percent of the budget pays for people who aren’t even working for the city.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/10/pf/vallejo-pensions/

Retired cop in PBS interview did have to take a cut. He now has to pay for his own health insurance. Income was reduced by $769/month, or about 5%.

Cop complains about it, as if it will be a struggle to live on $170K per year. Would rather current employees (and therefore the quality of current services) to take the hit:

“Where I think that they should’ve started to make changes is with the current employees. Those people still have an opportunity to plan for these things in the future.”

Yup, kick the can down the road, into the face of the next generation.[/quote]

First, here is my quote. Note how your poor reading comprehension skills have, once again, prevented you from grasping what was written.

[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey]Wow. Not a hint of compassion in your posts.

There are lot of Macks out there, on the golf courses, in the RV parks and marinas — yes they’re out there. They can be easy to miss — their youth masks their retiree status — but they’re out there. Victims, all of them.

What about Mack? Who will rescue Mack from Wall Street?[/quote]

Bullshit. Very few can retire at 50 with full benefits because they’d have to start at 20 to do so. [/quote]

Now, for why Vallejo has so many financial problems…it’s not because of pensions. EVERYBODY has to take a hit, including the retirees, because of problems that were brought on by base closures and the recession (and the bursting of the Fed’s bubbles…we’re in another one right now). Is is not the public employees’ job to take the hit for everyone else. All stakeholders have to share in the pain. From your own PBS link:

“RICK KARR: Gomes had a front row seat on the city council as Vallejo went broke in 2008. The city never recovered from the blow its economy took in 1996, when the Mare Island Naval Shipyard closed there and thousands of residents lost jobs. The additional burden of the recession was too much for the municipal budget. For Gomes, the worst part of the crisis was just before the city filed for bankruptcy.”

……….

BTW, how many people have personally lost $769/month in order to fund someone else’s pension? Again, your post proves that the public employee is the one taking the largest hit, by far.

I have always said that changes are needed with respect to benefit formulas and retroactive pension increases, especially for those who get retiree healthcare when newer employees do not (benefit parity between older retirees and current employees). And I’ve long said that contribution rates have to increase, even for employees. They have been increasing, as noted in my comment about PEPRA, and also in my comments about changes in negotiations that result in a net reduction in compensation for public employees (effectively increasing their contribution rates by reducing other pay/benefits to pay for it). They are also working on *legal* legislative changes that would increase direct employee contribution amounts for employees.

Pensions do need to be managed wisely, but ALL aspects of government finance need to be managed wisely, and they are not (again, reference links in phasters last post…and there are many, many more examples of this).

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote] Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far.[/quote]

It’s easy to prove a lie with a counterexample (you should try it sometime.)

Vallejo

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cities-financial-straights-weigh-bankruptcy/

For nearly 30 years, he was a police officer in the city of Vallejo […] He was able to retire at 50 with a pension and family health insurance benefits worth a total of a little over $180,000 a year.

Cop retires at 50 with a pension worth millions.

He’s not working, but making an income that is easily in the top 5% of the nation.

(BTW: Who was saying up-thread that a police officer retiring at 50 was “bullshit?”)

Vallejo’s financial situation is desperate, city services were cut by 40%, city is still on verge of bankruptcy. Cost of pensions alone is 30% and rising – yes, thirty percent of the budget pays for people who aren’t even working for the city.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/10/pf/vallejo-pensions/

Retired cop in PBS interview did have to take a cut. He now has to pay for his own health insurance. Income was reduced by $769/month, or about 5%.

Cop complains about it, as if it will be a struggle to live on $170K per year. Would rather current employees (and therefore the quality of current services) to take the hit:

“Where I think that they should’ve started to make changes is with the current employees. Those people still have an opportunity to plan for these things in the future.”

Yup, kick the can down the road, into the face of the next generation.[/quote]

More…

He’s not living on $180,000/year. That’s the TOTAL cost of his retirement benefits, including the family’s healthcare which probably accounts for at least $24,000 of that. Not saying he’s living in poverty, but let’s be honest about numbers. Let’s also not forget that he’s probably paying a much higher percentage of income tax than the vast majority of “taxpayers” who are complaining about public sector employees and their pensions.

And current employees are already taking the hit. It is primarily the current and future employees who will take the hits. The only possible way for current retirees to take some kind of a hit is in retiree healthcare because, in most cases, that is not a legally protected benefit. It can be used as a negotiation tool to extract other concessions from current retirees.

Also, the almost 26% (not 30%) of the budget going toward pensions is NOT paying for “people who aren’t even working for the city.” Again, your ignorance and lack of knowledge about this topic rears its ugly head…not to mention your poor reading comprehension skills (again), as I’ve explained this to you multiple times over the years. The employer share of pension contributions is paid out as a percentage of their **current employees’** pay. The (almost) 26% number comes from the percentage of the budget that is going toward pension contributions for current employees. Vallejo does not cut retirement benefit checks to their retirees.

But, feel free to keep on “discrediting” me, troll.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
Wrong. Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far. Many haven’t had a raise in over 6 years…many have had their compensation reduced, some by a large amount. READ what I’ve posted, above, about how employees are having to contribute more to their pensions…and more increases are on the way.
[/quote]

The problem is the total cost of employee isn’t what they see in their pay check. San Diego’s revenue stream has been pretty flat and just growing with GDP/inflation at best. The problem is that things like healthcare benefits and pension issues are growing at a faster rate so somehow the city has to reduce it’s costs. It has done so via pay freezes, laying people off, etc. In some cases the citizens took a hit, your water bill has gone quite a bit over the past 5-6 years correct. In some cases services were reduced. In some cases employee got pay freezes or pay reductions. With all those cuts the pension plan is still underfunded.

Let’s say tomorrow we magically get a 10% increase in city revenues. Are we going to use that money to shore up the pension system or give employees raises who haven’t had a raise in 6 years. My guess is we’ll give raises now and leave the pension system underfunded because that’s a problem in the future. That act of giving employees raises makes the pension problem worse because of how most of these defined benefit pension plans work.

These defined benefit plans just don’t manage the risks properly. They never have. Most of them are going to fail one way or another.

Look at social security. You contribute 13.6% of your salary. If you make 50K per year and wait until 70 to retire you get 50% of your salary. If you retire at 62 you get about 25% of you salary. If you make $100K per year you get 37% of your salary at 70, at 62 you get 20%. So that’s far less of a benefit and even that system is in some trouble.

The problem for the public sector employees is that combined the employee and employer might be putting in 20% max which is more than social security, but the benefit is far higher. Usually something like 60% of your highest salary. Plus you tend to retire earlier. So a social security system that’s in a bit of trouble pays like 20-25% of you salary at 62 but the public sector wants to get 60% at 60 or so. It’s just not going to work. You might be able to do it but you’d need to contribute 30-35% percent of your compensation or assume unrealistic returns and end up unfunded.[/quote]

Healthcare costs need to come down dramatically, for everyone. We’re paying higher costs than anyone else in the developed world for the same, or poorer, care. I’ve always been a staunch supporter of single-payer healthcare, which all the research shows is capable of delivering better care for less money.

Actually, the combined contributions from employees and employers is usually quite a bit higher than 20%, usually by around 50% (it varies from one agency to another, depending on all of the usual investment and benefit factors). And I’ve also said that public employees will probably see a 25-35% cut in compensation when all is said and done in order to fund the pensions with higher benefits. IMO, in the future, they will be offered a series of benefit options, matched with respectively higher contribution amounts for the more generous benefit packages. Retirement ages have already been increased, too.

I also agree that raises should not be given until the pension issues are resolved. As you’ve noted, increasing their pay will make the pension problem worse.

Essentially, we’re in agreement about this.

[EconProf]

This thread has had a lot of back and forth about little details about public employee pensions. But there are several well-established realities that all sides ought to agree on which point to a grossly unfair system that will only get worse.
It is well known that public sector employees have total compensation that far exceeds similar positions in the private sector. Remember that total compensation includes ALL fringe benefits: medical, retirement, vacation days off, etc., plus the smaller likelihood for getting fired for poor performance. And fire and police personnel are good at gaming the system to enhance their benefits with pseudo disability claims, racking up overtime in their final year, etc. Those same public safety workers have convinced the public that their jobs are dangerous, even though the mortality rates for a host of other occupations are far greater. Construction workers, fishermen, farmers, taxi-drivers, convenience store clerks face far more danger and higher on-the-job deaths. And on top of it all, the latter workers retire in their 60’s in order to pay taxes to support the public safety workers retiring in their 50’s.
Let’s remember these obvious realities and not get so bogged down in little details. Government pension expenses in cities, counties, and states are exploding and squeezing out other needed government goods and services.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]This thread has had a lot of back and forth about little details about public employee pensions. But there are several well-established realities that all sides ought to agree on which point to a grossly unfair system that will only get worse.
It is well known that public sector employees have total compensation that far exceeds similar positions in the private sector. Remember that total compensation includes ALL fringe benefits: medical, retirement, vacation days off, etc., plus the smaller likelihood for getting fired for poor performance. And fire and police personnel are good at gaming the system to enhance their benefits with pseudo disability claims, racking up overtime in their final year, etc. Those same public safety workers have convinced the public that their jobs are dangerous, even though the mortality rates for a host of other occupations are far greater. Construction workers, fishermen, farmers, taxi-drivers, convenience store clerks face far more danger and higher on-the-job deaths. And on top of it all, the latter workers retire in their 60’s in order to pay taxes to support the public safety workers retiring in their 50’s.
Let’s remember these obvious realities and not get so bogged down in little details. Government pension expenses in cities, counties, and states are exploding and squeezing out other needed government goods and services.[/quote]

Econprof, are you really an economics professor? After all of the false statements you’ve made in various threads — teachers don’t like unions, privatization saves money, etc., etc. — I have to question this. You simply spout right-wing propaganda, and when asked for any kind of data to back up your points, you disappear. It’s happened on numerous occasions.

As for your claim that public sector employees have total compensation that far exceeds similar positions in the private sector, we’ve already covered that, too.

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=sdrealtor]But if you perform below average you should fall behind. Its the private sectors way of showing you where the door is without getting sued.[/quote]

ultimately that’s the downfall of the public sector. the pay increases are all set in stone, regardless of performance.[/quote]

I’m pretty familiar with a number of public employers and their compensation numbers. Of the ones I’m familiar with, almost all have had their compensation frozen or seen net decreases in total compensation since about 2008. No net raises in the vast majority of cases. Their compensation has gone down in real terms, and in many cases, in nominal terms.[/quote]

But that’s looking at a short term deviation from the norm secondary to budgetary crisis at all levels of government. Overall, the government employees are significantly overpaid.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf%5B/quote%5D

Where does it say that?

From your link, on page 4:

“Comparing private and public sector data
Compensation cost levels in state and local government should not be directly compared with levels in
private industry. Differences between these sectors stem from factors such as variation in work
activities and occupational structures. Manufacturing and sales, for example, make up a large part of
private industry work activities but are rare in state and local government. Professional and
administrative support occupations (including teachers) account for two-thirds of the state and local
government workforce, compared with one-half of private industry.”
——————

Here are some articles and studies regarding compensation in the public vs. private sectors:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/working-in-america-public-vs-private-sector/

And this more “mixed” analysis from the Reason Foundation — hardly a “liberal” or “pro-union” organization:

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

And from Mother Jones (to get all sides in here), another “mixed” bag:

Chart of the Day: Federal Government Pay vs. Private Sector Pay

——————

One comment I have to make about the higher pay for the jobs with fewer degree requirements — many of which are public safety jobs — there are no similar jobs in the private sector with which to compare them.

Not only that, but they mention the much lower turnover rate in many public sectors jobs; this is very important to public employers. The (necessarily) bureaucratic hiring process and extensive initial, and ongoing, training required for these employees is VERY expensive. They cannot afford to have high turnover rates. IMHO, even if they were to go to defined contribution plans (as many suggest), I don’t think they’d end up saving very much (anything?) in the long run. One of the main reasons people are attracted to these jobs is the benefits packages. Take that away, and the turnover rates — and related costs — would be much, much higher.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/2012_edition_what039s_your_raise_this_year

Here’s another study regarding public vs private sector compensation:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/21/mitch-daniels/mitch-daniels-says-government-workers-41-states-ma/

————

And your claim that public safety workers “game the system” to enhance retirement benefits? While some do (mostly state employees), most cannot. Overtime is NOT calculated in pension benefit formulas for many (most?) municipal employees. New employees are specifically prohibited from using OT to “spike” pensions (and I think it should apply across the board).

“Also specifically excludes certain types of pay from being
reported as pensionable compensation, including, bonuses, overtime, pay for additional
services outside normal working hours, cash payouts for unused leave (vacation, annual,
sick leave, CTO, etc.,), and severance pay, among others.”

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/program-services/summary-pension-act.pdf

—–

And those public safety workers are not just being paid because of the dangerous nature of their jobs (and they are dangerous; cops are in the top 10, firefighters in the top 15), they are also being paid for the skill set and responsibilities (HUGE liabilities…witness the Ferguson issue…where a split-second decision can easily change the rest of your life) inherent with those jobs.

Most dangerous jobs:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/11/12/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/

[EconProf]

To answer your question–I taught economics for 18 years at SDSU and have since kept up with the research and published nationally.
CAR, please tell us Piggs what you and your spouse do for a living.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Wrong. Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far.[/quote]

Unbelievable that anyone could make this claim, which is absolutely false.

You contradict it in the very next post!

[quote]EVERYBODY has to take a hit[/quote]

And this one perfectly illustrates your grasp of the situation:

[quote]He’s not living on $180,000/year. That’s the TOTAL cost of his retirement benefits, including the family’s healthcare which probably accounts for at least $24,000 of that. Not saying he’s living in poverty, but let’s be honest about numbers. Let’s also not forget that he’s probably paying a much higher percentage of income tax than the vast majority of “taxpayers” who are complaining about public sector employees and their pensions.[/quote]

So, being “honest about numbers:”

– It’s not all cash – part of it is $2000/month in healthcare benefits.

– And the poor guy makes so much money, it puts him in a high tax bracket.

When a city has to cut services while the taxpayers still pay the same, your only concern is for the “employees” that have to “take a hit.” When the people who are paying for services get substantially less police protection, fewer ambulances and paramedics, more crowded schools and crumbling infrastructure, you direct your outrage toward the notion that public employees might actually have to fund their own retirements.

The selfishness and complete disregard for the public you supposedly serve says a lot about your character.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
And your claim that public safety workers “game the system” to enhance retirement benefits? While some do (mostly state employees), most cannot. Overtime is NOT calculated in pension benefit formulas for many (most?) municipal employees. New employees are specifically prohibited from using OT to “spike” pensions (and I think it should apply across the board).
[/quote]

I worked on a project for RISK management about 12 years ago, which is the San Diego’s self funded disability insurance office. What firefighter and cops did at retirement was pretty bad. That was more a case of disability fraud, where if you retire under disability 50% of you pension income is tax free. But there were crazy things in the payroll system. People claiming to work more than 24 hours in a day. People claiming light duty (aka a disability claim) and regular duty in the same day. People like to game the system unfortunately, and defined benefit contribution plans like the ones that are currently designed encourage that unethical but possibly legal behavior.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
And your claim that public safety workers “game the system” to enhance retirement benefits? While some do (mostly state employees), most cannot. Overtime is NOT calculated in pension benefit formulas for many (most?) municipal employees. New employees are specifically prohibited from using OT to “spike” pensions (and I think it should apply across the board).
[/quote]

I worked on a project for RISK management about 12 years ago, which is the San Diego’s self funded disability insurance office. What firefighter and cops did at retirement was pretty bad. That was more a case of disability fraud, where if you retire under disability 50% of you pension income is tax free. But there were crazy things in the payroll system. People claiming to work more than 24 hours in a day. People claiming light duty (aka a disability claim) and regular duty in the same day. People like to game the system unfortunately, and defined benefit contribution plans like the ones that are currently designed encourage that unethical but possibly legal behavior.[/quote]

I agree with you on the disability stuff. While most are legitimate claims, I think that some people do stretch things in order to qualify for this. IMO, the 50% tax-free income should not be allowed, especially if the person gets retiree healthcare…so their healthcare costs are covered, witch would be the only legitimate reason for this tax-free status if they had to pay for their own healthcare costs in retirement.

The other issues might have been a problem with the record-keeping system. I know for a fact that the system can sometimes double-count shifts when the employee enters a different code for a shift; it’s not intentional in the cases that I’m aware of. It should be audited on an ongoing basis (and it usually is) to make sure this doesn’t happen.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Wrong. Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far.[/quote]

Unbelievable that anyone could make this claim, which is absolutely false.

You contradict it in the very next post!

[quote]EVERYBODY has to take a hit[/quote]

And this one perfectly illustrates your grasp of the situation:

[quote]He’s not living on $180,000/year. That’s the TOTAL cost of his retirement benefits, including the family’s healthcare which probably accounts for at least $24,000 of that. Not saying he’s living in poverty, but let’s be honest about numbers. Let’s also not forget that he’s probably paying a much higher percentage of income tax than the vast majority of “taxpayers” who are complaining about public sector employees and their pensions.[/quote]

So, being “honest about numbers:”

– It’s not all cash – part of it is $2000/month in healthcare benefits.

– And the poor guy makes so much money, it puts him in a high tax bracket.

When a city has to cut services while the taxpayers still pay the same, your only concern is for the “employees” that have to “take a hit.” When the people who are paying for services get substantially less police protection, fewer ambulances and paramedics, more crowded schools and crumbling infrastructure, you direct your outrage toward the notion that public employees might actually have to fund their own retirements.

The selfishness and complete disregard for the public you supposedly serve says a lot about your character.[/quote]

There you go with your reading comprehension problems again, troll. The first statement is about what IS happening. The second statement is about what should be happening. The problems were not caused by public employees, so they should not be the only ones to take the hit. ALL STAKEHOLDERS need to take the hit. Get it?

Your disregard for the people who do the actual work is disgusting. You advocate for investors (like landlords and other non-resident property owners who benefit from Prop 13, and high-frequency traders, to name a couple); I advocate for the people who make the world go ’round — the workers.

[Author]

Posts