OT: Public pay & benefits

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]
What most of us are saying is that much or their compensation is in other “hidden” forms, such as access to liberal overtime policies and extremely generous pensions. [/quote]

They often have to work overtime. Doesn’t mean they WANT to. That comes w/the job, like it or not. I’m sure many would rather go surf or do whatever hobby it is a normal person does. They do not have that option. Forced working overtime is not a plus or benefit. They don’t have a choice. Well, I suppose they can quit or get fired. But they can’t just say, “No, I don’t want to work overtime to put out that fire or take down some criminals or find a rape suspect.” They have to sacrifice personal enjoyment to work. How the hell is that a benefit? Great if you don’t want to have a life.

[quote=pri_dk]
We are also saying that the curve is incredibly steep – their compensation grows *much* faster than comparable professions, and after just twenty years many firefighters get a retirement package that essentially makes them multi-millionaires. [/quote]

I wouldn’t say the average fireman retires a multi-millionaire. That’s a stretch.

[quote=pri_dk]
But the MAIN point of what we are saying is that firefighter salaries seem to be exempt from the basic laws of supply and demand. It’s very simple:

Any job with backlog of applicants and a two-year waiting list pays more than the job requirements demand. [/quote]

Again, this waiting list is probably so b/c of the fact there is a pension.

Heck, at this point I’m thinking people want to sign up b/c of the lies about what a great job it is. But as I said, how many of these people would want to do that job w/out the pension benefit? Take away the benefits and how many would stay when they can double their income doing a bubble job? Something tells me that long list of people wanting to sign up would shrink. And something tells me that the first bubble that comes along, they would have quite a few vacancies to fill were it not for a pension dangling over their heads.

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[jstoesz]

They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. Do the math for more or less benefits and interest…

This is of course assuming you are not eating the nest egg.

So those fat pensions are really worth millions. How many private sector employees (forget blue collar workers) can sock away that much money for their retirement?

Most professionals I know, myself included, have to work overtime and are not compensated directly (forget time and a half). It is called salary…

[jstoesz]

They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. Do the math for more or less benefits and interest…

This is of course assuming you are not eating the nest egg.

So those fat pensions are really worth millions. How many private sector employees (forget blue collar workers) can sock away that much money for their retirement?

Most professionals I know, myself included, have to work overtime and are not compensated directly (forget time and a half). It is called salary…

[jstoesz]

They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. Do the math for more or less benefits and interest…

This is of course assuming you are not eating the nest egg.

So those fat pensions are really worth millions. How many private sector employees (forget blue collar workers) can sock away that much money for their retirement?

Most professionals I know, myself included, have to work overtime and are not compensated directly (forget time and a half). It is called salary…

[jstoesz]

They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. Do the math for more or less benefits and interest…

This is of course assuming you are not eating the nest egg.

So those fat pensions are really worth millions. How many private sector employees (forget blue collar workers) can sock away that much money for their retirement?

Most professionals I know, myself included, have to work overtime and are not compensated directly (forget time and a half). It is called salary…

[jstoesz]

They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. Do the math for more or less benefits and interest…

This is of course assuming you are not eating the nest egg.

So those fat pensions are really worth millions. How many private sector employees (forget blue collar workers) can sock away that much money for their retirement?

Most professionals I know, myself included, have to work overtime and are not compensated directly (forget time and a half). It is called salary…

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.

[Author]

Posts