OT: Public pay & benefits

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]

How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?

How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?

I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.

You are confounding two different questions:

1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?

2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?

In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.

Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]

How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?

How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?

I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.

You are confounding two different questions:

1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?

2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?

In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.

Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]

How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?

How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?

I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.

You are confounding two different questions:

1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?

2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?

In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.

Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]

How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?

How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?

I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.

You are confounding two different questions:

1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?

2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?

In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.

Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]

How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?

How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?

I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.

You are confounding two different questions:

1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?

2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?

In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.

Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.[/quote]

Not sure where you’re getting your information, but public employees have been getting pay cuts, furloughs, benefit reductions, and many are contributing more to their pensions.

Here’s what I think is going to happen, in general:

1. At some point (might be later, rather than sooner), the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis will be repealed, at least for people hired after a certain date, which may include existing personnel, and will most certainly include new hires.

2. The pension contributions are being shifted from the employers to the employees. Many departments have already done this, and more are in process.

3. After the contribution requirements have shifted, I believe CalPERS will change their formulas WRT contribution amounts, going from highly optimistic return assumptions (7-9%, historically) to finally acknowledging their losses and accounting for that in the new formulas (perhaps a <3%> return or??).

4. If they change their formulas, the employees will have to contribute a much larger portion of their pay to CalPERS, my guess is it might end up being 20-35% of their pay. Any caps regarding contribution limits will be lifted, IMHO.

In other words, public employees will probably be paying a lot more for their much reduced retirement benefits. I think they can work around any existing laws WRT “not being able to take away existing benefits” this way.

We will see.

BTW, here is a link to some info on new trends:

http://www.sdcta.org/Media/Detail.asp

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.[/quote]

Not sure where you’re getting your information, but public employees have been getting pay cuts, furloughs, benefit reductions, and many are contributing more to their pensions.

Here’s what I think is going to happen, in general:

1. At some point (might be later, rather than sooner), the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis will be repealed, at least for people hired after a certain date, which may include existing personnel, and will most certainly include new hires.

2. The pension contributions are being shifted from the employers to the employees. Many departments have already done this, and more are in process.

3. After the contribution requirements have shifted, I believe CalPERS will change their formulas WRT contribution amounts, going from highly optimistic return assumptions (7-9%, historically) to finally acknowledging their losses and accounting for that in the new formulas (perhaps a <3%> return or??).

4. If they change their formulas, the employees will have to contribute a much larger portion of their pay to CalPERS, my guess is it might end up being 20-35% of their pay. Any caps regarding contribution limits will be lifted, IMHO.

In other words, public employees will probably be paying a lot more for their much reduced retirement benefits. I think they can work around any existing laws WRT “not being able to take away existing benefits” this way.

We will see.

BTW, here is a link to some info on new trends:

http://www.sdcta.org/Media/Detail.asp

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.[/quote]

Not sure where you’re getting your information, but public employees have been getting pay cuts, furloughs, benefit reductions, and many are contributing more to their pensions.

Here’s what I think is going to happen, in general:

1. At some point (might be later, rather than sooner), the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis will be repealed, at least for people hired after a certain date, which may include existing personnel, and will most certainly include new hires.

2. The pension contributions are being shifted from the employers to the employees. Many departments have already done this, and more are in process.

3. After the contribution requirements have shifted, I believe CalPERS will change their formulas WRT contribution amounts, going from highly optimistic return assumptions (7-9%, historically) to finally acknowledging their losses and accounting for that in the new formulas (perhaps a <3%> return or??).

4. If they change their formulas, the employees will have to contribute a much larger portion of their pay to CalPERS, my guess is it might end up being 20-35% of their pay. Any caps regarding contribution limits will be lifted, IMHO.

In other words, public employees will probably be paying a lot more for their much reduced retirement benefits. I think they can work around any existing laws WRT “not being able to take away existing benefits” this way.

We will see.

BTW, here is a link to some info on new trends:

http://www.sdcta.org/Media/Detail.asp

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]**they are in the process of changing this.** [/quote]

Do you have some references to support this?

All evidence I’ve seen lately has been to the contrary.[/quote]

Not sure where you’re getting your information, but public employees have been getting pay cuts, furloughs, benefit reductions, and many are contributing more to their pensions.

Here’s what I think is going to happen, in general:

1. At some point (might be later, rather than sooner), the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis will be repealed, at least for people hired after a certain date, which may include existing personnel, and will most certainly include new hires.

2. The pension contributions are being shifted from the employers to the employees. Many departments have already done this, and more are in process.

3. After the contribution requirements have shifted, I believe CalPERS will change their formulas WRT contribution amounts, going from highly optimistic return assumptions (7-9%, historically) to finally acknowledging their losses and accounting for that in the new formulas (perhaps a <3%> return or??).

4. If they change their formulas, the employees will have to contribute a much larger portion of their pay to CalPERS, my guess is it might end up being 20-35% of their pay. Any caps regarding contribution limits will be lifted, IMHO.

In other words, public employees will probably be paying a lot more for their much reduced retirement benefits. I think they can work around any existing laws WRT “not being able to take away existing benefits” this way.

We will see.

BTW, here is a link to some info on new trends:

http://www.sdcta.org/Media/Detail.asp

[Author]

Posts