Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › More public pension loony tunes – now Providence RI is in trouble
- This topic has 141 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 11, 2012 at 6:53 AM #743552May 11, 2012 at 7:08 AM #743553
CoronitaParticipant[quote=harvey]
A small percentage of the population is devastating our schools and services because they once negotiated extraordinarily high compensation and now refuse to allow the economy to impact them in the same way it has everyone else.[/quote]
I would agree with this actually…
And unlike other unrealistic financial obligations that get rewritten, public sector pensions don’t get writen off that easily…City can’t exactly file for BK and then not pay it (unfortunately)….See despite all the huffy and puffy about “our U.S. future” all the rhetoric about “america having no future”, when it comes down to push an shove and sacrifice is really needed…It’s never me, it’s always someone else’s fault….It’s always someone else that needs to take the hit for the greater good of everyone else. never me….Yup, I’d say we’re pretty screwed….Everyone fend for themselves…
[quote]
So don’t bother, because I found a debate opponent that provides much more credible information and rational analysis:http://www.amazon.com/Olympia-Tools-38-7…
(And it’s eligible for Amazon Prime!)
[/quote]Can you at least find one that is made in the USA?
May 11, 2012 at 7:26 AM #743554blake
Participant[quote]
States Borrow to Cover Pension Fund Shortfalls…
This strategy could backfire if state retirement fund returns don’t rebound. Recent history isn’t encouraging: In the decade through June 2010, the nation’s biggest state retirement systems earned less than half of what they needed to keep up with pension obligations, according to a Bloomberg survey. Borrowing to pay pension benefits “is risky for a government,” says Douglas Wood, Fort Lauderdale’s director of finance. “If the market stays down and the pension systems don’t earn their fair share on their return, then over time the city has to make that up” from its general budget.
…
[/quote]Again, who’s going to cover the pension shortfalls?
Nice to be able to invest with losses being backstopped by the taxpayers.
May 11, 2012 at 7:39 AM #743555CoronitaParticipant[quote=blake][quote]
States Borrow to Cover Pension Fund Shortfalls…
This strategy could backfire if state retirement fund returns don’t rebound. Recent history isn’t encouraging: In the decade through June 2010, the nation’s biggest state retirement systems earned less than half of what they needed to keep up with pension obligations, according to a Bloomberg survey. Borrowing to pay pension benefits “is risky for a government,” says Douglas Wood, Fort Lauderdale’s director of finance. “If the market stays down and the pension systems don’t earn their fair share on their return, then over time the city has to make that up” from its general budget.
…
[/quote]Again, who’s going to cover the pension shortfalls?
Nice to be able to invest with losses being backstopped by the taxpayers.[/quote]
Yup, we taxpayers and our children are screwed. At least at the state/local level there is an option…Eventually, move out of the area so you don’t have to pay for this shit… More and more, I understand why folks have thought about moving…CA has a lot fo benefits to live here… Good weather. Good jobs (more or less)…Friendly people.
But this is an unheard of type of compensation package…In which if your own investments don’t meet completely unrealistic returns (in today’s markets), the taxpayer ends up paying the difference? That’s just absurd…May 11, 2012 at 7:48 AM #743556CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=flu][quote=harvey]
A small percentage of the population is devastating our schools and services because they once negotiated extraordinarily high compensation and now refuse to allow the economy to impact them in the same way it has everyone else.[/quote]
I would agree with this actually…
And unlike other unrealistic financial obligations that get rewritten, public sector pensions don’t get writen off that easily…City can’t exactly file for BK and then not pay it (unfortunately)….See despite all the huffy and puffy about “our U.S. future” all the rhetoric about “america having no future”, when it comes down to push an shove and sacrifice is really needed…It’s never me, it’s always someone else’s fault….It’s always someone else that needs to take the hit for the greater good of everyone else. never me….Yup, I’d say we’re pretty screwed….Everyone fend for themselves…
[/quote]
Very much so… Here is a perfect example of how the unions shows utter disregard for its own by chosing to take pay raise in lieu of keeping all of its paying patrons employed. So the whole idea of unions and thier “caring” about the common worker or the welfare of the student is BS to me. Of course the topic was pensions but it has been mention how the private sector shows no care for it own… Push come to show niether do the unions. The union is a business of its own and product it yields is self serving. Most don’t do the job for free and they are worried about thier jobs as well at the cost of the taxpayer.
CE
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Teachers-win-Clark-Co-pay-battle-layoffs-planned-3527941.php
P.S. This is from a very liberal source… Not Fox news.
May 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM #743559bearishgurl
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SD Realtor]Why shouldn’t they get the exact same benefit?[/quote]
“yes, everyone should get to retire at 50 with a full salary pension.”
Of course we’ve seen how well that actually works.[/quote]
Yes, I HAVE seen how well that works, FIRST HAND. Although I have been eligible for years to begin to collect it, I myself have “deferred” my paltry gov’t pension until the age of 62, just to receive an additional $331 month!
I was not a “sworn safety member” (whose pensions are calculated on more generous formulas) and am NOT ALONE in this regard. And I did not hold a “professional” or “managerial” position.
There are thousands of “BG’s” out there.
I’m wondering if my govm’t pension will even cover my monthly utilities at the time I begin to collect it, lol…
pri, based upon your past and present demeanor on this forum, I can’t see you (or any of the other Piggs continually ragging on this subject in the middle of the business day) “bending over” every day for as long as I did for this “generous reward,” that is, if I don’t die first. If I do, there will be no survivor benefit to anyone.
Ahem, my family doesn’t have a “history” of longetivity. I’m trying mightily to be an outlier in that regard :=0
May 11, 2012 at 8:29 AM #743558fat_lazy_union
Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=flu][quote=harvey]
A small percentage of the population is devastating our schools and services because they once negotiated extraordinarily high compensation and now refuse to allow the economy to impact them in the same way it has everyone else.[/quote]
Very much so… Here is a perfect example of how the unions shows utter disregard for its own by chosing to take pay raise in lieu of keeping all of its paying patrons employed. So the whole idea of unions and thier “caring” about the common worker or the welfare of the student is BS to me. Of course the topic was pensions but it has been mention how the private sector shows no care for it own… Push come to show niether do the unions. The union is a business of its own and product it yields is self serving. Most don’t do the job for free and they are worried about thier jobs as well at the cost of the taxpayer.
CE
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Teachers-win-Clark-Co-pay-battle-layoffs-planned-3527941.php
P.S. This is from a very liberal source… Not Fox news.[/quote]
Interesting article…Well, time to switch back to my old handle….
I got a few new tag lines…
The New America… Hypocrisy at it’s Finest.
San Diego. America’s Finest HypocrisyMay 11, 2012 at 8:51 AM #743560Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=harvey][quote=SD Realtor]Why shouldn’t they get the exact same benefit?[/quote]
“yes, everyone should get to retire at 50 with a full salary pension.”
Of course we’ve seen how well that actually works.[/quote]
Yes, I HAVE seen how well that works, FIRST HAND. Although I have been eligible for years to begin to collect it, I myself have “deferred” my paltry gov’t pension until the age of 62, just to receive an additional $331 month!
I was not a “sworn safety member” (whose pensions are calculated on more generous formulas) and am NOT ALONE in this regard. And I did not hold a “professional” or “managerial” position.
There are thousands of “BG’s” out there.
I’m wondering if my govm’t pension will even cover my monthly utilities at the time I begin to collect it, lol…
pri, based upon your past and present demeanor on this forum, I can’t see you (or any of the other Piggs continually ragging on this subject in the middle of the business day) “bending over” every day for as long as I did for this “generous reward,” that is, if I don’t die first. If I do, there will be no survivor benefit to anyone.
Ahem, my family doesn’t have a “history” of longetivity. I’m trying mightily to be an outlier in that regard :=0[/quote]
BG, I think you’re missing the point here by taking it personal to pri…
The point here is…There has never been any type of investment vehicle that has ever been able to guarantee an always “above market return”. Every part of investment vehicle, there is a correlation between risk versus rewa+rd. Potential higher returns = Higher risk….Every type of financial instrument 401k, IRA,stocks,RE works this way…. Public sector pension is the only type of guarantee that completely goes the opposite.
Despite fulfilled contributions by contributors, the contributor is also on the hook for any shortfall in the performance of the financial instrument, and the contributor has the means by passing the “problem” on to someone else..the taxpayers…
If this isn’t by definition insanity, I don’t know what is…Can anyone really say look at this in a straight face and say that a guaranteed return 10-15% for the lifetime of someone’s retirement isn’t a completely unrealistic thing???? That’s 100% above market returns for the rest of someone’s life….
And if you have children that are going to be paying into this ridiculous system, I would be appalled that they’re pretty much going to be screwed and have a significantly lesser quality of life than you…..Because in one way or the other they are already going to be paying for it in higher prices with a weakening dollar. They are going to have even more global competition for work…And on top of that, they have to pay an ever increasing ballooning federal/state/local taxes….
Better buy them a house for them now…If you think housing is unaffordable now for them…Just wait when shit hits the fan….But I guess our children will make very good slaves and indentured servants, both to this internal debt we created, and to external debt we owe…
I find it really really ironic that despite all the moaning about how we’re being robbed, and irresponsible financing, that anyone here can’t look at this pension predicament and can’t see how insane, how unsustainable, and how utterly financially irresponsible it is… But then again, like I said, it’s not my fault, I was promised this, and someone else should take the hit…Not my issue….Let’s blame it on everyone else. let’s blame it on wall street and the banks..
The new american way…
Greece is really fvcked btw…For very interesting reasons.
May 11, 2012 at 8:56 AM #743561ParticipantOk BG and CAR, I got a deal for you… I’ll fully support the public sector pension returns guarantee with my taxpa dollars fully IF, you’re will to accept the following….
I was told if I stock daytrade, I would be able to earn 20% returns….
Let me day stock trade every day..
On the days that I earned $1000+, I’ll keep them because they are my returns.
On the days that I lose -$1000+, you pay for my losses, because that’s not my fault…That’s because the markets didn’t cooperate with me, and I was promised that if I just buy and sell stock, I would always make money… Because I didn’t, you the taxpayer should pay for my losses…
Oh, and one additional thing I’ll be doing…
Instead of investing say $100k of my own cash that I have, I plan on taking out a margin loan of $500k…I can now invest $500k each day taken out on a margin loan…knowing that it’s really not my money, and that even if I lose the money that doesn’t belong to me, no matter how big the loss is, you’ll be happy to make up the difference.
Sounds pretty fair to me, because it’s a win-win for me….
May 11, 2012 at 8:57 AM #743562sdrealtor
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]Really “boots on the ground” workers bitch and moan about mangement in the public sector? Thats the oldest chorus in the world and plays out everywhere. That is until those “boots on the ground” workers eventually end up in management or with some title like Leuitenant Fire Captain Class 4. They get promoted 10 times in 10 years with very little real changes in their actual day to day work. Has there ever been a fireman hired who just stayed at their current pay grade? They dont stay “boots on the ground” workers they have a solid keep your head down and do your job so eventually you get that managment job title guarantee. And thats where the big pay day arrives.
BTW my income has been remarkably stable over the last decade and I have benefited very little from taxpayer bailouts. I’d be right where I am with or without them.[/quote]
Once again, you’ve proved with this post how little you know about the public sector.
You’ve benefitted tremendously from taxpayer-funded bailouts. Not only because your commissions are based on artificially inflated prices, but because of the liquidity.
Without the Fed/govt money, the housing market would be frozen — and at much lower prices — with very few sales being made at any price. Remember the second half of 2007? Things were only getting started then. If not for the “cash-for-trash” deals, the Fed give-aways, ZIRP, the GSEs, FHA, and various tax credits on both a state and federal level…your income over the past 5 years would have plummeted.
If not for the artificially low interest rates, tax exemptions, MID, etc. before the “crash,” your income would have been much lower in the five+ years prior to that, as well.[/quote]
The omniscient all knowing CAR speaks! Always right! Just make dinner reservations for the end of the 3rd qtr when our bet ends because you were so far off its laughable. It will be particularly enjoyable enjoying dinner with a side order of all your “buts”.
May 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM #743565Anonymous
Guest[quote=fat_lazy_union]BG, I think you’re missing the point here by taking it personal to pri…[/quote]
Spot on.
This isn’t about anyone’s individual situation, it’s about policy and sustainability.
It’s about the hundreds of billions of dollars that public-sector workers are demanding, even though the contributions have been paid in full.
(And despite BG’s gossipy hints and speculation, I do work, but not full time. Between my wife and me there is more than 40 hours a week of employment in our household. We pay plenty of taxes, and do not receive one cent of direct payments or special services from the government.)
But the post you quoted from BG does provide an interesting data point. The fact that she even has the option to retire before age 62 puts her years ahead of anyone who will be collecting Social Security:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm
My full retirement age under Social Security: 67
Average age for state workers: 60
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/05/11/average-retirement-age-for-public-workers-60/82705/
A difference of seven years of work-free income. And the public-sector pension paychecks are typically many times higher than the maximum Social Security benefit.
Even the highest Social Security payouts amount to only around 40% of someone’s salary (at age 67), and that is the average salary for their whole life (not just the last few years.)
Most state workers with only 25 years of service would receive at least 50% of their final salary, and many receive much more.
May 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM #743567Participant[quote=SD Realtor]It is absolutely hilarious.
On the one hand you will argue that it is a shame that people would have to move out of san diego to find affordable housing. That they should not have to.
Yet your argument for pensions is that people who do not work in the public sector should not get them. That the solution is for us chumps in the private sector to quit and get a public sector job.
You love to argue how in favor of the workers, that the working class should receive all corporate profits but you are plenty satisfied with the differences in how the private and public working class employees are treated.
In your utopia shouldn’t all working class employees receive the exact same treatment?
Why shouldn’t they get the exact same benefit?[/quote]
Two words ….. PRIVACY and FREEDOM! As a lineworker in a govm’t bureaucracy, the “privacy” and “freedoms” that private-sector workers enjoy does not exist. Not unlike the military, a gov’t peon has to “fall in line” with the way they are taught to perform their tasks or be labeled “insubordinate” and disciplined or released during their probationary period. It doesn’t matter whether the way you are taught is the most efficient way or whether you think the task even needs to be done, your “supervisor” knows best. He or she could very well have little to no actual “qualifications” for the job and quite often far less education than you but was “promoted” for “bending over.”As a new govmt employee, you will first meet your new “supervisor” to get your set of five-pound-each “Rule Binders” and learn what makes them tick, pronto … “respect” be damned!
I want to know a few things about the “privately-employed” Piggs who rag on and on here about public pensions.
1. Do you routinely “day trade” during NYSE trading hours (6:00 am to 1:00 pm PST)? Do you day-trade in foreign markets between 1:00 and 5:00 pm?
2. If you came back to your workstation a little late from lunch hour because perhaps you got stuck in traffic (as little as 6 mins or 1/10 of an hour), will you be docked vacation pay for it?
3. If you decided to lay down in the restroom or in your vehicle during a 15 min break because you had a headache and came back 15-30 mins late, would you be docked vacation or sick pay for it?
4. If you were arrested for a DUI or other misdemeanor, would your employer get word of it before you even came back to work the next day and take disciplinary action against you, up to and including termination, pending outcome of your case. Would they send one of their “lackeys” to court to watch the resolution of your case?
5. Have you ever been sent home from work to change clothes and docked vacation pay for the time away from work because your supervisor/mgr did not feel what you wore to work was “appropriate?”
6. Do you blog, shop online and surf the internet during the business day?
7. Do you have a keylogger installed on your workstation?
8. Do you have a keystroke counter installed on your workstation? Do you have to tally your work up at the end of each workday, much like showing “billable hours?”
9. If you have to go to the restroom while at work, do you have to let a coworker know and hang a sign in your workstation showing what time you’ll be back? Has your supervisor ever came in or sent someone into the restroom to find out why you’re taking so long?
10. Did your employer run your credit report as a condition of employment?
11. Did your employer contact as many of your relatives as they could dig up out of the “archives” prior to hire to see what they would say about you?
12. Did your employer send an investigator out to talk to your neighbors prior to deciding to hire you?
13. Did your employer run a FBI/CII (now CA DOJ) background check on you and members of your immediate family prior to deciding to hire you?
14. Did you have to sign an open-ended “release” allowing your employer to perform all of the above “checks” on you prior to hire? Did the release you sign give them the right to keep running these checks throughout your employment? Was the signing of this release a condition of employment?
15. Does your employer have the right at any time during your employment to demand a “fitness for duty” examination by their doctor in the absence of your filing worker’s comp claim?
16. Were you ever formally disciplined because you called in sick 15 minutes after your “start time” elapsed?
17. Were you ever formally disciplined because you tried to “sneak out” of work prior to the “closing bell” at 5:00 pm?
18. Have you ever asked your employer if you could telecommute 1-2 days per week and were told to “pack sand?”
19. If you are an “hourly” non-exempt employee, have you been denied overtime pay for working late to complete a particular job?
20. If you work in downtown SD, is parking provided to you free of charge by your employer?
21. Are you allowed to talk on your cell phone, text and go online on your mobile device during working hours?
22. If you have a “side gig” or moonlight, do you need to disclose all the “who, what, when, where and why” about it on a form to your employer (so you can be “monitored” for potential conflicts of interest), lest they find out from another employee (or overhear you talk about it on your lunch hour) and take disciplinary action against you for NOT disclosing it?
23. Have you ever lunched with or hired for labor on your property an ex-con and feared your employer would find out about it and discipline you? Do you actually even run background checks on workers who come on to your property??
24. Are you required to submit to a periodic urinalysis by your employer’s medical contractor as a condition of continuing employment?
25. If arrested for a felony and bailed out of jail, will your employer immediately put you on an unpaid “furlough” pending outcome of your case?
L@rd . . . I can go on …. and on …. and on. Suffice to say I have represented many non-managerial employees in the past on grievances, ULPs and discipline taken against them on the above “transgressions.”
If you are a new parent, do you think you’re going to “stay home with child(ren)” longer than the statutory 10-week FML (plus any accrued vacation time you have on the books) and still retain your govm’t gig, its benefits and pension vesting or accrual? Think again.
In order to earn that “lofty pension” you all are lamenting over here, a gov’t employee needs to “fall in line” and “bend over” for a minimum of 25 years.
If you often wonder why the 40 or 50-something gov’t peons at your local service counter look “worn out,” it is likely because their vacation accrual was consistently bled off their “books” biweekly in increments of 1/10 of an hour due to “life” happening to them.
Do you all think can do this? Like I’ve always stated here, GO FOR IT!!!!! Start filling out those lengthy applications and get ready to bend over … no, d-e-e-e-per . . . and stay there – don’t move! Because, even though this is America, yo a$$ will NOT belong to YOU anymore ;=]
May 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM #743570SD Realtor
ParticipantI showed a firefighter friend of mine bgs ridiculous post about govt workers and he laughed so hard he almost fell over. He was wondering when the last time you actually worked was.
So lets see… should I trust a current govt worker about the way things really are right now or someone who is an internet poster….
pretty easy decision.
May 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM #743568Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Do you all think can do this? Like I’ve always stated here, GO FOR IT!!!!! Start filling out those lengthy applications and get ready to bend over … no, d-e-e-e-per . . . and stay there – don’t move! Because, even though this is America, yo a$$ will NOT belong to YOU anymore ;=][/quote]
BG, to counter your equally long post (which I actually read from beginning to end, unlike maybe people who probably wont)… I’ll respond with a equally long post…
Regardless of whether someone can or can’t do a public sector job this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether this arrangement is right or wrong to begin with..(I’m pretty sure I can, do the job but that’s irrelevant). Bringing this sort of “well if it’s so great, you do it…” sort of argument seems to be that you’ really in agreement that this pension arrangement with the taxpayer isn’t correct, but there are no other valid counterpoints to justify that its existence…
Take yourself out of the equation. And simply answer the question… Is it right or wrong that taxpayers should have to pay the difference of pensions that don’t meet unrealistic returns, when the rest of the world financial instruments don’t work that way?
That question is independent of whether someone can/can’t qualify to do this job…That question is independent of whether Wall Street fairly or unfairly got bailed out by taxpayers too…”, or whoever else got an unfair benefit…Two wrongs don’t make a right. So let’s just consider the issue at hand….. Do you really think taxpayers making up for a pension performance shortfall is right and just thing to do to the taxpayers?
Because arguing that well if Wall Street gets a unfair bailout, so should public pensions holders”…is basically admitting it’s a selfish free-for-all in which anyone should just grab anything they can.. Screw everyone else, including my/your kids…… Which is fine if that’s really what folks are saying…But then just call it as it is…But then I really don’t want to hear any bitching about how some folks got a loan forgiveness, wall street got bailed out, outsourcing and losing jobs, Romney and rich people unfairly getting a tax break with offsource accounts, companies unfairly getting tax treatments by keeping money oversees……unfair this, unfair that. etc etc etc…
Because in my book, it’s all the same…Self-absorbed, self-entitlement self-interest groups with the only purpose is to ensure they gain/get to keep what they have…even if it means at the expense of everyone else……It’s exactly this viewpoint which is why I think IMHO this country is going to be feeling pain for decades to come..And exactly why any Generation X-er or beyond should take notice when any baby-boomer or older tries to lecture you about being fiscally responsible, paying your bills on time before you pay yourself, think about the “greater good”,etc,etc,etc, bullshit… Because they want you think about everyone else….. so they don’t have to….
If you are going to make the argument “we’ll if it’s such a sweet deal than you apply for the job and do it”… Then I can make the statement that “well if you think it’s fair that the rest of us should be paying for your pensions trading losses, than you should pay for my trading losses I incur myself”. Are you going to? I’ll quote my proposal again here
[quote=fat_lazy_union]Ok BG and CAR, I got a deal for you… I’ll fully support the public sector pension returns guarantee with my tax dollars fully IF, you’re will to accept the following….
I was told if I stock daytrade, I would be able to earn 20% returns….
Let me day stock trade every day..
On the days that I earned $1000+, I’ll keep them because they are my returns.
On the days that I lose -$1000+, you pay for my losses, because that’s not my fault…That’s because the markets didn’t cooperate with me, and I was promised that if I just buy and sell stock, I would always make money… Because I didn’t, you the taxpayer should pay for my losses…
Oh, and one additional thing I’ll be doing…
Instead of investing say $100k of my own cash that I have, I plan on taking out a margin loan of $500k…I can now invest $500k each day taken out on a margin loan…knowing that it’s really not my money, and that even if I lose the money that doesn’t belong to me, no matter how big the loss is, you’ll be happy to make up the difference.
Sounds pretty fair to me, because it’s a win-win for me….[/quote]
I’m telling you folks, if people continue to think this same way…. we’re doomed…Greece here we come.
May 11, 2012 at 11:07 AM #743571Guest[quote=fat_lazy_union]BG, to counter your equally long post (which I actually read from beginning to end, unlike maybe people who probably wont)… [/quote]
Count me in the “didn’t read it” group. I glanced at it and got the gist of it though.
The whole argument that “my job is hard” is childish and arrogant. WTF do you think the rest of the world does at their jobs? I come from a family of steelworkers and coal miners, many of whom ultimately lost the majority of their pension benefits.
Yeah, let’s talk about difficult jobs and hardship, I could use a good laugh as you lament the horrors of having a dress code in your office…
And the reasoning that goes from “my job is hard” to “therefore you need to cover my investment losses” is absolute nonsense.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.