OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[jstoesz]

Allan…just claw back the money from the banks…that is the solution right? Get it from the ones responsible (the banksters). No need to restructure state priorities, because they are a monument of piety.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…

Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).

So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.

What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.

I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. 😉

We are very much in agreement, BTW. I understand that the pension funds/actuaries made some big mistakes, and also know that these rosy assumptions led municipal and state govts to **stop contributing to the pension funds** during a number of years. This was very much in opposition to the unions’ position — they wanted the contributions to remain, even during the “good times.”

As you’ve (hopefully) noted in my “suggestions to fix California’s budget problems” post (which I will repost, in case you missed it), I also acknowledge that more concessions need to be made on behalf of union employees.

The reason I keep hammering on this issue, though, is because there is a very biased — and very uninformed — slant that’s being portrayed in the media. The union members are not a bunch of thugs or crooks, and have been making concessions all along…long before the media hype. I have a problem with the fact that unions are being villified, and that is why I keep debating this issue with those who get all their information from Glenn Beck or others in the MSM.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…

Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).

So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.

What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.

I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. 😉

We are very much in agreement, BTW. I understand that the pension funds/actuaries made some big mistakes, and also know that these rosy assumptions led municipal and state govts to **stop contributing to the pension funds** during a number of years. This was very much in opposition to the unions’ position — they wanted the contributions to remain, even during the “good times.”

As you’ve (hopefully) noted in my “suggestions to fix California’s budget problems” post (which I will repost, in case you missed it), I also acknowledge that more concessions need to be made on behalf of union employees.

The reason I keep hammering on this issue, though, is because there is a very biased — and very uninformed — slant that’s being portrayed in the media. The union members are not a bunch of thugs or crooks, and have been making concessions all along…long before the media hype. I have a problem with the fact that unions are being villified, and that is why I keep debating this issue with those who get all their information from Glenn Beck or others in the MSM.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…

Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).

So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.

What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.

I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. 😉

We are very much in agreement, BTW. I understand that the pension funds/actuaries made some big mistakes, and also know that these rosy assumptions led municipal and state govts to **stop contributing to the pension funds** during a number of years. This was very much in opposition to the unions’ position — they wanted the contributions to remain, even during the “good times.”

As you’ve (hopefully) noted in my “suggestions to fix California’s budget problems” post (which I will repost, in case you missed it), I also acknowledge that more concessions need to be made on behalf of union employees.

The reason I keep hammering on this issue, though, is because there is a very biased — and very uninformed — slant that’s being portrayed in the media. The union members are not a bunch of thugs or crooks, and have been making concessions all along…long before the media hype. I have a problem with the fact that unions are being villified, and that is why I keep debating this issue with those who get all their information from Glenn Beck or others in the MSM.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…

Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).

So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.

What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.

I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. 😉

We are very much in agreement, BTW. I understand that the pension funds/actuaries made some big mistakes, and also know that these rosy assumptions led municipal and state govts to **stop contributing to the pension funds** during a number of years. This was very much in opposition to the unions’ position — they wanted the contributions to remain, even during the “good times.”

As you’ve (hopefully) noted in my “suggestions to fix California’s budget problems” post (which I will repost, in case you missed it), I also acknowledge that more concessions need to be made on behalf of union employees.

The reason I keep hammering on this issue, though, is because there is a very biased — and very uninformed — slant that’s being portrayed in the media. The union members are not a bunch of thugs or crooks, and have been making concessions all along…long before the media hype. I have a problem with the fact that unions are being villified, and that is why I keep debating this issue with those who get all their information from Glenn Beck or others in the MSM.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…

Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).

So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.

What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.

I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. 😉

We are very much in agreement, BTW. I understand that the pension funds/actuaries made some big mistakes, and also know that these rosy assumptions led municipal and state govts to **stop contributing to the pension funds** during a number of years. This was very much in opposition to the unions’ position — they wanted the contributions to remain, even during the “good times.”

As you’ve (hopefully) noted in my “suggestions to fix California’s budget problems” post (which I will repost, in case you missed it), I also acknowledge that more concessions need to be made on behalf of union employees.

The reason I keep hammering on this issue, though, is because there is a very biased — and very uninformed — slant that’s being portrayed in the media. The union members are not a bunch of thugs or crooks, and have been making concessions all along…long before the media hype. I have a problem with the fact that unions are being villified, and that is why I keep debating this issue with those who get all their information from Glenn Beck or others in the MSM.

[CA renter]

Re-posting this for Allan. Would love to hear your feedback.

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

[CA renter]

Re-posting this for Allan. Would love to hear your feedback.

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

[CA renter]

Re-posting this for Allan. Would love to hear your feedback.

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

[CA renter]

Re-posting this for Allan. Would love to hear your feedback.

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

[CA renter]

Re-posting this for Allan. Would love to hear your feedback.

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[Author]

Posts