San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life…

[blahblahblah]

I don’t know who Samuel Clemmens is, but more than likely he has never held a five year old girl in his arms while she died and then had to tell her parents and a hundred other things that eat away at you, and each time calling his own kids to tell them he will be missing the school play or christmas, again. These things change you, and untimatley contribute to an early date with your maker, so his opinion mens Sh*& to me.

If you don’t know who Samuel Clemens was, then I’m hoping you weren’t born in the states or at least didn’t attend school here.

And if they deserve pensions because the work is dangerous, why aren’t we pushing for pensions for truck drivers or farmworkers (both more dangerous jobs according to that BLS data)?

[temeculaguy]

You got me, I forgot his real name, wine tends to strip me of my trivial pursuit prowess.

The reason they gave them those pensions was that they died shortly after starting to collect them, over time, the funds swelled, the pension funds were sustainable until they began raising benefits for everyone. Governemnt entities can’t help themselves with large pots of money.

The reason they don’t base pensions on actual on the job deaths is that the pension doesn’t pay for those for the most part, insurance (workmans comp, life insurance, etc.) pays for that. Pensions are for those that survive and if the average retired teacher lives thirty years into retirement and the average cop lives seven, they can pay the cop a bigger check because it will actually end up costing less. Plus more cops don’t make it to retirement than do, abandoning the funds placed into the pension fund, if they don’t work a certain amount of time, they forfeit the money, not so with 410k style retirements.

It’s been studied and ultimately it will be changed away from a defined benefit, it will probably benefit those who live a very short amount of time into retirement anyway.

[temeculaguy]

You got me, I forgot his real name, wine tends to strip me of my trivial pursuit prowess.

The reason they gave them those pensions was that they died shortly after starting to collect them, over time, the funds swelled, the pension funds were sustainable until they began raising benefits for everyone. Governemnt entities can’t help themselves with large pots of money.

The reason they don’t base pensions on actual on the job deaths is that the pension doesn’t pay for those for the most part, insurance (workmans comp, life insurance, etc.) pays for that. Pensions are for those that survive and if the average retired teacher lives thirty years into retirement and the average cop lives seven, they can pay the cop a bigger check because it will actually end up costing less. Plus more cops don’t make it to retirement than do, abandoning the funds placed into the pension fund, if they don’t work a certain amount of time, they forfeit the money, not so with 410k style retirements.

It’s been studied and ultimately it will be changed away from a defined benefit, it will probably benefit those who live a very short amount of time into retirement anyway.

[temeculaguy]

You got me, I forgot his real name, wine tends to strip me of my trivial pursuit prowess.

The reason they gave them those pensions was that they died shortly after starting to collect them, over time, the funds swelled, the pension funds were sustainable until they began raising benefits for everyone. Governemnt entities can’t help themselves with large pots of money.

The reason they don’t base pensions on actual on the job deaths is that the pension doesn’t pay for those for the most part, insurance (workmans comp, life insurance, etc.) pays for that. Pensions are for those that survive and if the average retired teacher lives thirty years into retirement and the average cop lives seven, they can pay the cop a bigger check because it will actually end up costing less. Plus more cops don’t make it to retirement than do, abandoning the funds placed into the pension fund, if they don’t work a certain amount of time, they forfeit the money, not so with 410k style retirements.

It’s been studied and ultimately it will be changed away from a defined benefit, it will probably benefit those who live a very short amount of time into retirement anyway.

[temeculaguy]

You got me, I forgot his real name, wine tends to strip me of my trivial pursuit prowess.

The reason they gave them those pensions was that they died shortly after starting to collect them, over time, the funds swelled, the pension funds were sustainable until they began raising benefits for everyone. Governemnt entities can’t help themselves with large pots of money.

The reason they don’t base pensions on actual on the job deaths is that the pension doesn’t pay for those for the most part, insurance (workmans comp, life insurance, etc.) pays for that. Pensions are for those that survive and if the average retired teacher lives thirty years into retirement and the average cop lives seven, they can pay the cop a bigger check because it will actually end up costing less. Plus more cops don’t make it to retirement than do, abandoning the funds placed into the pension fund, if they don’t work a certain amount of time, they forfeit the money, not so with 410k style retirements.

It’s been studied and ultimately it will be changed away from a defined benefit, it will probably benefit those who live a very short amount of time into retirement anyway.

[temeculaguy]

You got me, I forgot his real name, wine tends to strip me of my trivial pursuit prowess.

The reason they gave them those pensions was that they died shortly after starting to collect them, over time, the funds swelled, the pension funds were sustainable until they began raising benefits for everyone. Governemnt entities can’t help themselves with large pots of money.

The reason they don’t base pensions on actual on the job deaths is that the pension doesn’t pay for those for the most part, insurance (workmans comp, life insurance, etc.) pays for that. Pensions are for those that survive and if the average retired teacher lives thirty years into retirement and the average cop lives seven, they can pay the cop a bigger check because it will actually end up costing less. Plus more cops don’t make it to retirement than do, abandoning the funds placed into the pension fund, if they don’t work a certain amount of time, they forfeit the money, not so with 410k style retirements.

It’s been studied and ultimately it will be changed away from a defined benefit, it will probably benefit those who live a very short amount of time into retirement anyway.

[Anonymous]

TG,

I think Mark Twain’s writings convey much more wisdom about the dynamics of American history than the Band of Brothers story.

Don’t get me wrong: I have as much respect for those that fought in WWII than anyone. But a common mistake I see in today’s politics is that so many Americans relate today’s world to WWII. The most destructive war in history is a comfortable place for American nostalgia: in WWII, we were the good guys, the enemy was clearly a bad guy, and we won a decisive victory. It seemed to be time when the country was doing everything right, and many Americans emerged as genuine heroes.

The American experience in WWII was a unique time in history, and it will never happen again. Since the battle of the bulge, millions have served in the military, and the vast majority have never seen combat. But they all get the same financial benefits, which are effectively becoming more generous every year.

I was in the Army — heck I was even Airborne (not the 101, but I’ve heard their hymn so many times I could sing it from memory…) However, my experience was a million miles apart from those portrayed in Band of Brothers. It was a tough job, but I certainly don’t feel entitled to a lifetime of financial support because of my very loose connection with genuine heroes.

More than two-thirds of the military consists of support roles that, frankly, aren’t that difficult and certainly aren’t dangerous. These jobs can be difficult on family, but the chances of being killed or wounded are essentially zero. Everyone in the military serves an important role, which should be respected. But it is ridiculously impractical to provide a lifetime of financial benefits to millions of people after only 20 years of service. (And real heroes don’t do it for the money anyway.)

[Anonymous]

TG,

I think Mark Twain’s writings convey much more wisdom about the dynamics of American history than the Band of Brothers story.

Don’t get me wrong: I have as much respect for those that fought in WWII than anyone. But a common mistake I see in today’s politics is that so many Americans relate today’s world to WWII. The most destructive war in history is a comfortable place for American nostalgia: in WWII, we were the good guys, the enemy was clearly a bad guy, and we won a decisive victory. It seemed to be time when the country was doing everything right, and many Americans emerged as genuine heroes.

The American experience in WWII was a unique time in history, and it will never happen again. Since the battle of the bulge, millions have served in the military, and the vast majority have never seen combat. But they all get the same financial benefits, which are effectively becoming more generous every year.

I was in the Army — heck I was even Airborne (not the 101, but I’ve heard their hymn so many times I could sing it from memory…) However, my experience was a million miles apart from those portrayed in Band of Brothers. It was a tough job, but I certainly don’t feel entitled to a lifetime of financial support because of my very loose connection with genuine heroes.

More than two-thirds of the military consists of support roles that, frankly, aren’t that difficult and certainly aren’t dangerous. These jobs can be difficult on family, but the chances of being killed or wounded are essentially zero. Everyone in the military serves an important role, which should be respected. But it is ridiculously impractical to provide a lifetime of financial benefits to millions of people after only 20 years of service. (And real heroes don’t do it for the money anyway.)

[Anonymous]

TG,

I think Mark Twain’s writings convey much more wisdom about the dynamics of American history than the Band of Brothers story.

Don’t get me wrong: I have as much respect for those that fought in WWII than anyone. But a common mistake I see in today’s politics is that so many Americans relate today’s world to WWII. The most destructive war in history is a comfortable place for American nostalgia: in WWII, we were the good guys, the enemy was clearly a bad guy, and we won a decisive victory. It seemed to be time when the country was doing everything right, and many Americans emerged as genuine heroes.

The American experience in WWII was a unique time in history, and it will never happen again. Since the battle of the bulge, millions have served in the military, and the vast majority have never seen combat. But they all get the same financial benefits, which are effectively becoming more generous every year.

I was in the Army — heck I was even Airborne (not the 101, but I’ve heard their hymn so many times I could sing it from memory…) However, my experience was a million miles apart from those portrayed in Band of Brothers. It was a tough job, but I certainly don’t feel entitled to a lifetime of financial support because of my very loose connection with genuine heroes.

More than two-thirds of the military consists of support roles that, frankly, aren’t that difficult and certainly aren’t dangerous. These jobs can be difficult on family, but the chances of being killed or wounded are essentially zero. Everyone in the military serves an important role, which should be respected. But it is ridiculously impractical to provide a lifetime of financial benefits to millions of people after only 20 years of service. (And real heroes don’t do it for the money anyway.)

[Anonymous]

TG,

I think Mark Twain’s writings convey much more wisdom about the dynamics of American history than the Band of Brothers story.

Don’t get me wrong: I have as much respect for those that fought in WWII than anyone. But a common mistake I see in today’s politics is that so many Americans relate today’s world to WWII. The most destructive war in history is a comfortable place for American nostalgia: in WWII, we were the good guys, the enemy was clearly a bad guy, and we won a decisive victory. It seemed to be time when the country was doing everything right, and many Americans emerged as genuine heroes.

The American experience in WWII was a unique time in history, and it will never happen again. Since the battle of the bulge, millions have served in the military, and the vast majority have never seen combat. But they all get the same financial benefits, which are effectively becoming more generous every year.

I was in the Army — heck I was even Airborne (not the 101, but I’ve heard their hymn so many times I could sing it from memory…) However, my experience was a million miles apart from those portrayed in Band of Brothers. It was a tough job, but I certainly don’t feel entitled to a lifetime of financial support because of my very loose connection with genuine heroes.

More than two-thirds of the military consists of support roles that, frankly, aren’t that difficult and certainly aren’t dangerous. These jobs can be difficult on family, but the chances of being killed or wounded are essentially zero. Everyone in the military serves an important role, which should be respected. But it is ridiculously impractical to provide a lifetime of financial benefits to millions of people after only 20 years of service. (And real heroes don’t do it for the money anyway.)

[Anonymous]

TG,

I think Mark Twain’s writings convey much more wisdom about the dynamics of American history than the Band of Brothers story.

Don’t get me wrong: I have as much respect for those that fought in WWII than anyone. But a common mistake I see in today’s politics is that so many Americans relate today’s world to WWII. The most destructive war in history is a comfortable place for American nostalgia: in WWII, we were the good guys, the enemy was clearly a bad guy, and we won a decisive victory. It seemed to be time when the country was doing everything right, and many Americans emerged as genuine heroes.

The American experience in WWII was a unique time in history, and it will never happen again. Since the battle of the bulge, millions have served in the military, and the vast majority have never seen combat. But they all get the same financial benefits, which are effectively becoming more generous every year.

I was in the Army — heck I was even Airborne (not the 101, but I’ve heard their hymn so many times I could sing it from memory…) However, my experience was a million miles apart from those portrayed in Band of Brothers. It was a tough job, but I certainly don’t feel entitled to a lifetime of financial support because of my very loose connection with genuine heroes.

More than two-thirds of the military consists of support roles that, frankly, aren’t that difficult and certainly aren’t dangerous. These jobs can be difficult on family, but the chances of being killed or wounded are essentially zero. Everyone in the military serves an important role, which should be respected. But it is ridiculously impractical to provide a lifetime of financial benefits to millions of people after only 20 years of service. (And real heroes don’t do it for the money anyway.)

[werewolf34]

I gotta back up TG on this one. I grew up in a military family (both parents) and lived on military bases most of my childhood.

Most military personnel could not cut in the US as civilians. They don’t have the education they need. Some are true-blue believers but most were in it for free education and job training for later (weapons systems, engineers, finance)

Back on topic.
I think Peter has the best argument in the thread. Lower comp and benefits to a point where the applicant to job ratio is more reasonable. I also believe that fire fighter and police are distinctly different jobs (hero status, risk and pay). I think police should get paid more than fire fighter b/c the risk is higher.

Some people idolize policeman and firefighters. In my hometown, most of the school bullies went into police and fire units.

[werewolf34]

I gotta back up TG on this one. I grew up in a military family (both parents) and lived on military bases most of my childhood.

Most military personnel could not cut in the US as civilians. They don’t have the education they need. Some are true-blue believers but most were in it for free education and job training for later (weapons systems, engineers, finance)

Back on topic.
I think Peter has the best argument in the thread. Lower comp and benefits to a point where the applicant to job ratio is more reasonable. I also believe that fire fighter and police are distinctly different jobs (hero status, risk and pay). I think police should get paid more than fire fighter b/c the risk is higher.

Some people idolize policeman and firefighters. In my hometown, most of the school bullies went into police and fire units.

[werewolf34]

I gotta back up TG on this one. I grew up in a military family (both parents) and lived on military bases most of my childhood.

Most military personnel could not cut in the US as civilians. They don’t have the education they need. Some are true-blue believers but most were in it for free education and job training for later (weapons systems, engineers, finance)

Back on topic.
I think Peter has the best argument in the thread. Lower comp and benefits to a point where the applicant to job ratio is more reasonable. I also believe that fire fighter and police are distinctly different jobs (hero status, risk and pay). I think police should get paid more than fire fighter b/c the risk is higher.

Some people idolize policeman and firefighters. In my hometown, most of the school bullies went into police and fire units.

[werewolf34]

I gotta back up TG on this one. I grew up in a military family (both parents) and lived on military bases most of my childhood.

Most military personnel could not cut in the US as civilians. They don’t have the education they need. Some are true-blue believers but most were in it for free education and job training for later (weapons systems, engineers, finance)

Back on topic.
I think Peter has the best argument in the thread. Lower comp and benefits to a point where the applicant to job ratio is more reasonable. I also believe that fire fighter and police are distinctly different jobs (hero status, risk and pay). I think police should get paid more than fire fighter b/c the risk is higher.

Some people idolize policeman and firefighters. In my hometown, most of the school bullies went into police and fire units.

[Author]

Posts