How will unfunded “pensions” affect the local economy?

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Then why are you so inclined to just spout propaganda without ever using data and research to back up your claims? Why do you disappear whenever somebody calls you out on your false claims? It’s frightening that you were an economics professor. I’ve never seen a professor so inclined to argue the way you do without any regard for the facts (and harvey/pri and paramount are right behind you).

And I’ve already stated many times what I do/have done. I was a public school teacher many years ago, but spent most of my time in the private sector…management in the tech industry, to be specific.

[EconProf]

Thank you for telling us what you have done in the past. What about your spouse?

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]And I’ve already stated many times what I do/have done. I was a public school teacher many years ago, but spent most of my time in the private sector…management in the tech industry, to be specific.[/quote]

For years on this forum you have claimed extraordinary, detailed knowledge of public sector labor economics, such as pension investment strategies and compensation rules. You have claimed to have been intimate with union and contract negotiations.

And now you are saying you have had little affiliation with the public sector and spent most of your career in private industry?

It doesn’t jibe.

[quote]I advocate for the people who make the world go ’round — the workers.[/quote]

Then why are you arguing so hard for the guy making an income in the top 2% who isn’t working at all?

And what would you know about “the workers?” You just said you were in management.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Thank you for telling us what you have done in the past. What about your spouse?[/quote]

Also in the public sector after working for years in the private sector.

If you were a full-time, faculty professor, are you also receiving a pension and, possibly, retiree healthcare? How about your spouse?

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]And I’ve already stated many times what I do/have done. I was a public school teacher many years ago, but spent most of my time in the private sector…management in the tech industry, to be specific.[/quote]

For years on this forum you have claimed extraordinary, detailed knowledge of public sector labor economics, such as pension investment strategies and compensation rules. You have claimed to have been intimate with union and contract negotiations.

And now you are saying you have had little affiliation with the public sector and spent most of your career in private industry?

It doesn’t jibe.

[quote]I advocate for the people who make the world go ’round — the workers.[/quote]

Then why are you arguing so hard for the guy making an income in the top 2% who isn’t working at all?

And what would you know about “the workers?” You just said you were in management.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve been following the pension issue for many, many years (far, far, far longer than you have), and I have also worked with negotiating committees and have done research for public employee unions. Yes, I’ve also spent most of my working years in the private sector.

I’ve never let my own self-interest get in the way of what I thought was right, which is why I advocate for eliminating Prop 13 protection for non-owner-occupied properties, even though we have benefited from it in the past and stand to benefit greatly in the future. It’s why I’ve advocated for changes to the pension systems that would go very much against my own interests. There are many things that I advocate for and against that go against my own self-interest. How about you?

See, I actually do research and make sure that I know what I’m talking about before spouting off, unlike you.

FYI, a person who makes $120K/year [about the average for a public safety worker with many years of experience, often in a management position (captain, etc.), including benefit costs and some overtime] in San Diego is in the top 21%, not the top 2%. Also in the top 21% in Vallejo. For the example in the story, which is probably an outlier, they are in the top 8% in both areas. See map with income percentiles. And they most certainly are “the workers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0

[EconProf]

[quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Thank you for telling us what you have done in the past. What about your spouse?[/quote]

Also in the public sector after working for years in the private sector.

If you were a full-time, faculty professor, are you also receiving a pension and, possibly, retiree healthcare? How about your spouse?[/quote]
Someone told me he is a firefighter. Is that correct?

[Anonymous]

[quote]Yes, I’ve been following the pension issue for many, many years (far, far, far longer than you have)[/quote]

I’ve been following the pension issue since the steel industry began collapsing in the 1970s. But go ahead and tell me more about myself since you seem to know so much.

[quote=CA renter]FYI, a person who makes $120K/year ]about the average for a public safety worker with many years of experience,[/quote]

You specifically defended the $180K compensation of a retired Vallejo police officer.

The $180K figure is retirement income, which means the total income pre-retirement would need to be far more.

(Have you taken the time to understand the value of an $180K lifetime fixed annuity for a 50 year old? It turns out to be quite a nest egg!)

[quote]For the example in the story, which is probably an outlier, they are in the top 8% in both areas. See map with income percentiles. And they most certainly are “the workers.”[/quote]

The data in your link is for household income, not individual.

And do you think someone retired with that level of income is going to live in a city with inadequate public services and and crumbling infrastructure … a place like Vallejo?

You see, the people of Vallejo – the ones that don’t have the option to move to the golf course community in a low cost of living area – did “take a hit” … a big one!

The retirees can live wherever they want. And $180K is in the top 2% of the nation.

(If you don’t like the 2% figure please don’t bother to dig up links so that you can split hairs – everybody knows that $180K is a very good income.)

As for EconProf’s question: What you personally do for a living doesn’t alter the merits of your arguments which have consistently been self-contradictory and nonsensical.

But he did call you out, and you showed your true character with your answer. The claim that your support of public sector pensions has nothing to do with your “self interest” is blatantly dishonest.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote]Yes, I’ve been following the pension issue for many, many years (far, far, far longer than you have)[/quote]

I’ve been following the pension issue since the steel industry began collapsing in the 1970s. But go ahead and tell me more about myself since you seem to know so much.[/quote]

I know by the claims you’ve made about public sector pensions that you know nothing about them. There is no way you’ve been following them for any amount of time, and what you do know about them, you’ve only learned from propaganda pieces put out by the Privatization Movement. We’re not talking about steel mills here, we’re talking about pensions in the public sector.

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]FYI, a person who makes $120K/year ]about the average for a public safety worker with many years of experience,[/quote]

You specifically defended the $180K compensation of a retired Vallejo police officer.

The $180K figure is retirement income, which means the total income pre-retirement would need to be far more.

(Have you taken the time to understand the value of an $180K lifetime fixed annuity for a 50 year old? It turns out to be quite a nest egg!)

[quote]For the example in the story, which is probably an outlier, they are in the top 8% in both areas. See map with income percentiles. And they most certainly are “the workers.”[/quote]

The data in your link is for household income, not individual.

And do you think someone retired with that level of income is going to live in a city with inadequate public services and and crumbling infrastructure … a place like Vallejo?

You see, the people of Vallejo – the ones that don’t have the option to move to the golf course community in a low cost of living area – did “take a hit” … a big one!

The retirees can live wherever they want. And $180K is in the top 2% of the nation.

(If you don’t like the 2% figure please don’t bother to dig up links so that you can split hairs – everybody knows that $180K is a very good income.)

As for EconProf’s question: What you personally do for a living doesn’t alter the merits of your arguments which have consistently been self-contradictory and nonsensical.

But he did call you out, and you showed your true character with your answer. The claim that your support of public sector pensions has nothing to do with your “self interest” is blatantly dishonest.[/quote]

I didn’t “defend” anyone’s compensation. We’re discussing the reasons for Vallejo’s financial problems and how these problems affect their pension obligations. And I’ve never claimed that $180K isn’t a good income, whether one is retired or not.

BTW, $180K is still not in the top 2% for men, even for individual income, but it is in the top 4%, and that’s for the U.S. 😉 And where a person lives dramatically changes the percentile ranking; this guy is still living in the Bay Area (Napa), and has moved to an even more expensive area, so he’s nowhere near the top 2%, or even the top 5% for the area.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-your-us-income-percentile.html#.VC0Fb1eTl1M

The residents of Vallejo are losing what was gained during the Fed’s bubbles. Services and infrastructure were greatly enhanced as a result of the bubbles; now, they are losing some of those things. These financial losses are in addition to the losses (and additional expenditures) sustained as a result of the base closure. These residents were the ones who were begging the city council for a larger and better-paid police force, among other things. I would also point out that while the city is claiming that they can’t afford to pay their employees as promised, they’ve managed to militarize their police force, as have many other “broke” police departments across the country. While much of that money comes from the federal govt, it would have been better if the same money could have been used to actually improve these departments instead of gearing them up for a war against “domestic terrorists” (a.k.a.: people who don’t agree with the current corporatist regime).

Please show me an example of my “self-contradictory and nonsensical” posts. The only ones who’ve made self-contradictory and nonsensical posts about this topic are you, econprof, and paramount. While others might have opinions that differ from mine, at least they appear to be trying to better understand the issues. You just spout pure nonsense.

And econprof, the former public sector worker of 18 years who, if he was full-time faculty, is probably getting one of those awful pensions (and, quite possibly, retiree healthcare) didn’t call out anything. Let’s revist my post and show, once again, how poor your reading comprehension skills are, shall we?

[quote=CA renter]

I’ve never let my own self-interest get in the way of what I thought was right, which is why I advocate for eliminating Prop 13 protection for non-owner-occupied properties, even though we have benefited from it in the past and stand to benefit greatly in the future. It’s why I’ve advocated for changes to the pension systems that would go very much against my own interests. There are many things that I advocate for and against that go against my own self-interest. How about you?

[/quote]

I have ALWAYS been 100% in favor of DB pensions for ALL workers (and single-payer healthcare, among other things), even when I was working in the private sector. I have been arguing *for years* about the insane, and growing, wealth/income gap between capital and labor. I have participated in the (original, when it was opposed to bank bailouts) Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, even though it doesn’t affect me, personally. This has nothing to do with my own self-interest; I have always been an advocate for doing the right thing, period.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]We’re not talking about steel mills here, we’re talking about pensions in the public sector.[/quote]

If you don’t understand the relationship between defined-benefit pensions, labor unions, and the collapse of one of the most important industries in the United States, then you don’t have a clue about “the pension issue.”

[CA renter]

That would be globalization. Because in a world where some people are willing to work for pennies on the dollar (and where environmental protections are low to non-existent) vs. American labor, the U.S. will continue to lose jobs.

So, do you think we should continue to spiral down until we are all living in mud huts and eating a bowl of rice per day (while our corporate masters get wealthier and more powerful), or do you think we should protect our industries and our way of life by enacting trade laws and tariffs that offset the differences between our environmental and labor standards and the standards of others?

[EconProf]

CAR, the (apparent) fact that your husband is a firefighter explains your strong defense of government sector unions. We all get that. I don’t know why you won’t admit it. Piggs are smart enough and fair-minded enough to look beyond that fact and weigh the arguments and evidence based on their merits.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]So, do you think we should continue to spiral down until we are all living in mud huts and eating a bowl of rice per day (while our corporate masters get wealthier and more powerful), or do you think we should protect our industries and our way of life by enacting trade laws and tariffs that offset the differences between our environmental and labor standards and the standards of others?[/quote]

A strawman and a false choice in one sentence! Nice use of logical fallacies!

What I think is that any attempt to guarantee investment returns decades into the future is folly. I think we should base policy on the realities that history has taught us, not the fantasies that some would like to believe.

[joec]

[quote=EconProf]CAR, the (apparent) fact that your husband is a firefighter explains your strong defense of government sector unions. We all get that. I don’t know why you won’t admit it. Piggs are smart enough and fair-minded enough to look beyond that fact and weigh the arguments and evidence based on their merits.[/quote]

Because CAR likes to believe she is a good person and isn’t out to get what’s best for herself and her loved ones.

I don’t blame CAR, but this is true for pretty much everyone in society including all the wall street, big business types, etc…Everyone just wants their piece of meat and screw the hells with everyone else.

That’s life…honestly. It doesn’t hurt to look in the mirror and admit it (I know I do and can care less for plenty of things/people/etc…).

Best course of action for everyone is just find ways to avoid getting taxed I think and be able and flexible to move…If you can find ways to like get solar, your own water, police/fire protection, etc…do it…or find tax advantaged ways to generate very to 0 income, and live off capital gains, tax exempt bonds, etc…

Since her husband is a fire fighter, that makes her whole argument biased already since any change will greatly affect her own life so take anything mentioned with buckets of salt.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]So, do you think we should continue to spiral down until we are all living in mud huts and eating a bowl of rice per day (while our corporate masters get wealthier and more powerful), or do you think we should protect our industries and our way of life by enacting trade laws and tariffs that offset the differences between our environmental and labor standards and the standards of others?[/quote]

A strawman and a false choice in one sentence! Nice use of logical fallacies!

What I think is that any attempt to guarantee investment returns decades into the future is folly. I think we should base policy on the realities that history has taught us, not the fantasies that some would like to believe.[/quote]

Not at all a false choice or a straw man argument (you like to make these claims a lot, pretty much anytime you don’t have an answer to someone else’s challenge). Do you seriously not understand the trajectory that we’re on? Do you honestly not know where our corporate masters are driving the global economy? Do some research for a change!

And if we were to all lose Social Security and DB pensions (and Medicare, since we’re throwing everything out there that is backed by taxpayers), how do you think that would play out? Do you not understand that we would still have to pay for these people when they run out of money (and they would run out of money), or risk serious social and civil strife?

In the past, a large and strong family unit was the social safety net. With industrialization and globalization, that can’t happen. What do you propose *that would actually work*?

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]CAR, the (apparent) fact that your husband is a firefighter explains your strong defense of government sector unions. We all get that. I don’t know why you won’t admit it. Piggs are smart enough and fair-minded enough to look beyond that fact and weigh the arguments and evidence based on their merits.[/quote]

I’ve never said what my husband did, only that he works in the public sector. I have often mentioned that on this site; it’s no secret. My father also worked in the public sector, as did I.

But I’m definitely calling you out on your bullshit. Some of us are quite capable of doing the right thing, irrespective of whether or not we benefit or lose as a result of any changes. As I’ve said before, I ALREADY HAVE advocated for things that would go against my own best interests. And I have spent a lot of time, money, and energy on improving things for others when I never stood to benefit one bit from my actions; oftentimes, I would lose. How about you?

——–

BTW, nice diversionary tactics, econprof. Once again, were you full-time faculty? Do you have a pension? How about retiree healthcare? How about your spouse?

Let me guess, you tried to get a faculty position at a *public* institution because of the pay and benefits, right?

And we’re STILL waiting for you to cite some facts to back your claims about how the high teacher attrition rate is due to unions, or how non-union schools outperform union schools, or how private sector workers are underpaid relative to public sector workers, or how privatization saves money, etc.

I’ve cited many sources over the years that totally refute what you’ve said (even from right-wing think tanks, just for the sake of fairness). You’ve never done so.

[Author]

Posts