More on public pensions and the economy

[The-Shoveler]

Very Good BG,

Now explain Compton, LA will soon follow.

[no_such_reality]

BG, that’s nice data however, it really highlights why you don’t want to live in the IE, not why they went broke.

Again, peak actual revenues, $133M, 2011-2012 revenues, $118m.

You are all missing the forest for the trees

(the forest)
A 10-15% revenue drop and the government is unable to adjust over a four year period.
(/the forest)

The rest is noise.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Very Good BG,

Now explain Compton, LA will soon follow.[/quote]

If Compton does file for BK protection, it will be on account of sheninigans on the order of the City of Bell and Cudahy.

I don’t see the City of LA filing for BK. It has a VERY diverse population with a HUGE base of high-earning taxpayers owning multiple RE assets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]BG, that’s nice data however, it really highlights why you don’t want to live in the IE, not why they went broke.

Again, peak actual revenues, $133M, 2011-2012 revenues, $118m.

You are all missing the forest for the trees

(the forest)
A 10-15% revenue drop and the government is unable to adjust over a four year period.
(/the forest)

The rest is noise.[/quote]

When did SB go on a hiring spree? Was it before FY 2007/08 or after?

The answer to this question will shed some light on the way thru the forest.

[The-Shoveler]

Compton cannot make September payroll so they will go BK by then (they are already starting the paper work).

And no they are not even close to Bell.

Los Angeles teeters on the brink of bankruptcy

Los Angeles teeters on the brink of bankruptcy

The tsunami of unfunded pension liabilities and health benefits is about to hit the shoreline for Los Angeles. And if Stanford University’s estimates are correct, Los Angeles is facing roughly $27 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. For a city whose annual budget is in the $7 billion range this year, that figure is daunting.

L.A.’s chief administrative officer, Miguel Santana, noted that the budget shortfall is likely to be much greater by 2014-15. “Every year it gets worse,” he said.

[The-Shoveler]

It’s just me maybe, but If I was on the calpers Dole I would squirrel away as much as possible maybe think about a second career?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . Los Angeles teeters on the brink of bankruptcy

Los Angeles teeters on the brink of bankruptcy

The tsunami of unfunded pension liabilities and health benefits is about to hit the shoreline for Los Angeles. And if Stanford University’s estimates are correct, Los Angeles is facing roughly $27 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. For a city whose annual budget is in the $7 billion range this year, that figure is daunting.

L.A.’s chief administrative officer, Miguel Santana, noted that the budget shortfall is likely to be much greater by 2014-15. “Every year it gets worse,” he said.[/quote]

Time for LA to rein in those retiree health benefits (which are NOT “guaranteed”). THAT is the the low-hanging fruit which would yield immediate results. A big part of this problem is that in recent years they likely coerced (thru “dangling carrots” and/or making their work lives miserable) their older workers to retire early, like so many other CA jurisdictions did … in order to replace them with young (cheaper) know-nothings. A huge retiree health-benefit liability is a direct function of having too many retirees ineligible for Medicare at one time. That’s p!ss-poor planning, IMO. Not only does LA no longer have the daily benefit of these retirees’ intellectual property, they (short-sightedly) “put out to pasture” hundreds, if not thousands of still-able-bodied workers in favor of 20-somethings.

Stupid is as stupid does. Now they are likely paying hundreds of 75-100% retirements whilst paying salaries to the same amount of replacements … this time with l-o-o-ong learning curves ahead of them and virtually no one with any institutional knowledge to speak of to train the new hires and “mind the store.”

Could LA have possibly done this to themselves??

[The-Shoveler]

Well if they made the retirement age 65-7 like everyone else, a lot of the budget issue go away.
I know L.A. City Desk Jockeys retiring at 55 with full pension/benefits.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Aecetia]So Brian, what do you propose to do with the “privileged class”? What is the solution to the retirees already getting the pensions?[/quote]

As a practical matter, I’m pretty sure nothing can be done, unless those already getting the pensions are doing so as a result of illegal acts. That is, unless the retirement systems go bankrupt, in which case all pension beneficiaries would probably be treated similarly.[/quote]

Pretty much what SK said.

The contracts are very hard to undo. Bankruptcy in some municipalities will show the potential course of action for other municipalities.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

Time for LA to rein in those retiree health benefits (which are NOT “guaranteed”). THAT is the the low-hanging fruit which would yield immediate results. [/quote]

One very good suggestion. End their health benefits and for force them into Medicare.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Question to ponder: If Dr. Husing’s info on pgs 10, 23, 24, 25 and 48 was accurate or near-accurate in 2000, why did the IE’s leaders vote to approve all the subdivisions they did??
[/quote]

Too late now. The houses have been built. The people are there. You can’t undo the past.

If the citizens won’t go for tax increases, you have to cut somewhere. I’d rather not cut services to citizens while the retirees are fully funded.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]

Time for LA to rein in those retiree health benefits (which are NOT “guaranteed”). THAT is the the low-hanging fruit which would yield immediate results. [/quote]

One very good suggestion. End their health benefits and for force them into Medicare.[/quote]

One is not eligible for Medicare until they are 65 years old. If the worker was “put out to pasture” at 55 with a gold watch and a party (in favor of a 23 yo), what do you expect them to do for healthcare in the intervening ten years, brian?

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV][quote=Aecetia]So Brian, what do you propose to do with the “privileged class”? What is the solution to the retirees already getting the pensions?[/quote]

As a practical matter, I’m pretty sure nothing can be done, unless those already getting the pensions are doing so as a result of illegal acts. That is, unless the retirement systems go bankrupt, in which case all pension beneficiaries would probably be treated similarly.[/quote]

Pretty much what SK said.

The contracts are very hard to undo. Bankruptcy in some municipalities will show the potential course of action for other municipalities.[/quote]

I’m not sure that municipality bankrutpcies will have any effect on current retirees, with regards to pensions. (health care benefits are a different story.) I think it’s possible that liabilities related to already retired employee pensions may shift from the individual employers (municipalities, school districts, etc.) to the plan trustees (STRS, CalPers). Interesting question though. I responded originally as if I was pretty sure. I still think I’m right, but far from positive.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

One is not eligible for Medicare until they are 65 years old. If the worker was “put out to pasture” at 55 with a gold watch and a party (in favor of a 23 yo), what do you expect them to do for healthcare in the intervening ten years, brian?[/quote]

Get another job, like everyone else? Or pay premiums out of pocket? Or don’t get sick. Or get medical in Mexico. Like everyone else.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
Question to ponder: If Dr. Husing’s info on pgs 10, 23, 24, 25 and 48 was accurate or near-accurate in 2000, why did the IE’s leaders vote to approve all the subdivisions they did??
[/quote]

Too late now. The houses have been built. The people are there. You can’t undo the past…[/quote]

I’m sure everyone (now but not then) is beginning to understand this, brian. Hindsight is 20/20.

I was simply showing here how the blame lies with the pols (and their lackey appointees) who carried out the votes and implementation for all the (unneeded) CFD’s and subdivision permits in the last decade-plus.

Urban sprawl was indeed the straw that broke the camels back (in the cities/counties which still had land left to build in 2000-ish). CA jurisdictions really didn’t have to go thru this at all as we didn’t need the addt’l housing and still don’t need it.

[Author]

Posts