The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon?

[UCGal]

[quote=Doooh]But remember, teaching is such hard work that a 50yr old can hardly manage.

Comparing teaching to “hard work” and rought with liability is a joke when you look at the jobs in the private sector.[/quote]
I’m an engineer, not a teacher.
That said – done right, teaching is a lot harder.

It’s not just mastery of subject matter. That’s the easy part. The teachers that I respect regularly put in 80+ hour weeks. And also are continuing to take courses, even though they’ve maxed their educational pay steps – to enhance their skill set.

Unfortunately, not all teachers fit that model. Some have not kept up with teaching techniques, computer literacy, etc. It’s not an age thing – it’s a complacency or striving for excellence thing. This is true in the private workforce also. Some folks excel – others coast…

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]”BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.[/quote]

jeeman,

I was referring to the boom/bust cycles that the Fed creates, and the “guaranteed” inflation, as the Fed tries to maintain a ~2% inflation rate, which they call “price stability.” The Fed’s tendency to bail speculators out of their foolish mistakes (the Greenspan/Bernanke put) made investors think that “they” would never let deflation happen, so the investors had no choice but to go all in.

If not for the bubbles, our commitments would be significantly lower. During the bubbles, city and state managers/legislators offer up compensation packages that cannot be sustained in a “normal” economy.

The problem is that our bubble economy has been going on for so long (since the early 80s), that everyone (govt management AND pension fund managers and actuaries) thinks the bubble economy is “normal,” and they plan accordingly. Those who thought it was unsustainable were forced out, as the returns they made were consistently lower than those who chased the bubbles and got the bubble returns. Also, as asset prices rose, unions would (logically) demand compensation increases to keep up.

BTW, in the situations I’m aware of, it’s not the reduced TAX revenue that is causing a problem with the pension plans. It’s the losses they saw during the “financial crisis,” and the lower returns on investments. The large pension funds do not rely on taxpayer funding, and taxpayers have not spent a single cent on the “pension crisis” experienced by these large funds (CalPERS and CalSTRS*). The pension funds, at lest the large ones I’m most familiar with (I’m not as familiar with independent municipal pension funds) get their revenue from the pension contributions that are paid by the employees and their employers, as part of their compensation packages. Approximately 70% of the revenue is supposed to come from investments (the link below is from 2005, and it shows investment returns are 75% of projected revenue), and THAT is where the problem lies. It’s not about tax revenue, it’s about investment returns/losses.

The funds were super-funded in the late 90s (a bubble!), which is why they passed the pension boost for public safety personnel. The bubbles that resulted from the actions taken by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are what have caused them to make such foolish mistakes, and this is why there is a “pension crisis.”

From the CalPERS link, who pays into the fund:

Member – $16.8
Employer – $17.0
Investments – $116.1

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/Buenrostro%20(FINAL%20POWER%20POINT).pdf
——————

*The state pays ~2-3% of the employees’ (teachers’) wages to CalSTRS, from what I can tell. The rest comes from employees, the employers (as part of the compensation package), and investment returns.

http://calstrs.com/About%20CalSTRS/fastfacts.aspx
————–

I think this is why I get so frustrated, and it’s not at all directed at you, BTW. It’s just that so few people actually understand how the system works, and why it’s in trouble right now, yet they are ranting and raving about things that aren’t even related to the cause of the problems. Again, it is NOT the unions who caused the problems, but the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).

This is why some of us are so infuriated. This is being labeled as “taxpayers vs. unions,” when that’s not the issue here. Why has Wall Street — the ones who caused the crisis — been getting bailouts, record bonuses and tax breaks, which cost taxpayers trillions of dollars…while public sector workers are being blamed in the media for causing the “pension crisis” and told they have to give up everything **they’ve worked for over the years** and were promised in good faith? IMHO, it’s an intentional diversion, and public workers are being made the scapegoats for the financial industry.

Sorry, but it’s B.S.

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]”BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.[/quote]

jeeman,

I was referring to the boom/bust cycles that the Fed creates, and the “guaranteed” inflation, as the Fed tries to maintain a ~2% inflation rate, which they call “price stability.” The Fed’s tendency to bail speculators out of their foolish mistakes (the Greenspan/Bernanke put) made investors think that “they” would never let deflation happen, so the investors had no choice but to go all in.

If not for the bubbles, our commitments would be significantly lower. During the bubbles, city and state managers/legislators offer up compensation packages that cannot be sustained in a “normal” economy.

The problem is that our bubble economy has been going on for so long (since the early 80s), that everyone (govt management AND pension fund managers and actuaries) thinks the bubble economy is “normal,” and they plan accordingly. Those who thought it was unsustainable were forced out, as the returns they made were consistently lower than those who chased the bubbles and got the bubble returns. Also, as asset prices rose, unions would (logically) demand compensation increases to keep up.

BTW, in the situations I’m aware of, it’s not the reduced TAX revenue that is causing a problem with the pension plans. It’s the losses they saw during the “financial crisis,” and the lower returns on investments. The large pension funds do not rely on taxpayer funding, and taxpayers have not spent a single cent on the “pension crisis” experienced by these large funds (CalPERS and CalSTRS*). The pension funds, at lest the large ones I’m most familiar with (I’m not as familiar with independent municipal pension funds) get their revenue from the pension contributions that are paid by the employees and their employers, as part of their compensation packages. Approximately 70% of the revenue is supposed to come from investments (the link below is from 2005, and it shows investment returns are 75% of projected revenue), and THAT is where the problem lies. It’s not about tax revenue, it’s about investment returns/losses.

The funds were super-funded in the late 90s (a bubble!), which is why they passed the pension boost for public safety personnel. The bubbles that resulted from the actions taken by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are what have caused them to make such foolish mistakes, and this is why there is a “pension crisis.”

From the CalPERS link, who pays into the fund:

Member – $16.8
Employer – $17.0
Investments – $116.1

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/Buenrostro%20(FINAL%20POWER%20POINT).pdf
——————

*The state pays ~2-3% of the employees’ (teachers’) wages to CalSTRS, from what I can tell. The rest comes from employees, the employers (as part of the compensation package), and investment returns.

http://calstrs.com/About%20CalSTRS/fastfacts.aspx
————–

I think this is why I get so frustrated, and it’s not at all directed at you, BTW. It’s just that so few people actually understand how the system works, and why it’s in trouble right now, yet they are ranting and raving about things that aren’t even related to the cause of the problems. Again, it is NOT the unions who caused the problems, but the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).

This is why some of us are so infuriated. This is being labeled as “taxpayers vs. unions,” when that’s not the issue here. Why has Wall Street — the ones who caused the crisis — been getting bailouts, record bonuses and tax breaks, which cost taxpayers trillions of dollars…while public sector workers are being blamed in the media for causing the “pension crisis” and told they have to give up everything **they’ve worked for over the years** and were promised in good faith? IMHO, it’s an intentional diversion, and public workers are being made the scapegoats for the financial industry.

Sorry, but it’s B.S.

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]”BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.[/quote]

jeeman,

I was referring to the boom/bust cycles that the Fed creates, and the “guaranteed” inflation, as the Fed tries to maintain a ~2% inflation rate, which they call “price stability.” The Fed’s tendency to bail speculators out of their foolish mistakes (the Greenspan/Bernanke put) made investors think that “they” would never let deflation happen, so the investors had no choice but to go all in.

If not for the bubbles, our commitments would be significantly lower. During the bubbles, city and state managers/legislators offer up compensation packages that cannot be sustained in a “normal” economy.

The problem is that our bubble economy has been going on for so long (since the early 80s), that everyone (govt management AND pension fund managers and actuaries) thinks the bubble economy is “normal,” and they plan accordingly. Those who thought it was unsustainable were forced out, as the returns they made were consistently lower than those who chased the bubbles and got the bubble returns. Also, as asset prices rose, unions would (logically) demand compensation increases to keep up.

BTW, in the situations I’m aware of, it’s not the reduced TAX revenue that is causing a problem with the pension plans. It’s the losses they saw during the “financial crisis,” and the lower returns on investments. The large pension funds do not rely on taxpayer funding, and taxpayers have not spent a single cent on the “pension crisis” experienced by these large funds (CalPERS and CalSTRS*). The pension funds, at lest the large ones I’m most familiar with (I’m not as familiar with independent municipal pension funds) get their revenue from the pension contributions that are paid by the employees and their employers, as part of their compensation packages. Approximately 70% of the revenue is supposed to come from investments (the link below is from 2005, and it shows investment returns are 75% of projected revenue), and THAT is where the problem lies. It’s not about tax revenue, it’s about investment returns/losses.

The funds were super-funded in the late 90s (a bubble!), which is why they passed the pension boost for public safety personnel. The bubbles that resulted from the actions taken by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are what have caused them to make such foolish mistakes, and this is why there is a “pension crisis.”

From the CalPERS link, who pays into the fund:

Member – $16.8
Employer – $17.0
Investments – $116.1

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/Buenrostro%20(FINAL%20POWER%20POINT).pdf
——————

*The state pays ~2-3% of the employees’ (teachers’) wages to CalSTRS, from what I can tell. The rest comes from employees, the employers (as part of the compensation package), and investment returns.

http://calstrs.com/About%20CalSTRS/fastfacts.aspx
————–

I think this is why I get so frustrated, and it’s not at all directed at you, BTW. It’s just that so few people actually understand how the system works, and why it’s in trouble right now, yet they are ranting and raving about things that aren’t even related to the cause of the problems. Again, it is NOT the unions who caused the problems, but the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).

This is why some of us are so infuriated. This is being labeled as “taxpayers vs. unions,” when that’s not the issue here. Why has Wall Street — the ones who caused the crisis — been getting bailouts, record bonuses and tax breaks, which cost taxpayers trillions of dollars…while public sector workers are being blamed in the media for causing the “pension crisis” and told they have to give up everything **they’ve worked for over the years** and were promised in good faith? IMHO, it’s an intentional diversion, and public workers are being made the scapegoats for the financial industry.

Sorry, but it’s B.S.

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]”BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.[/quote]

jeeman,

I was referring to the boom/bust cycles that the Fed creates, and the “guaranteed” inflation, as the Fed tries to maintain a ~2% inflation rate, which they call “price stability.” The Fed’s tendency to bail speculators out of their foolish mistakes (the Greenspan/Bernanke put) made investors think that “they” would never let deflation happen, so the investors had no choice but to go all in.

If not for the bubbles, our commitments would be significantly lower. During the bubbles, city and state managers/legislators offer up compensation packages that cannot be sustained in a “normal” economy.

The problem is that our bubble economy has been going on for so long (since the early 80s), that everyone (govt management AND pension fund managers and actuaries) thinks the bubble economy is “normal,” and they plan accordingly. Those who thought it was unsustainable were forced out, as the returns they made were consistently lower than those who chased the bubbles and got the bubble returns. Also, as asset prices rose, unions would (logically) demand compensation increases to keep up.

BTW, in the situations I’m aware of, it’s not the reduced TAX revenue that is causing a problem with the pension plans. It’s the losses they saw during the “financial crisis,” and the lower returns on investments. The large pension funds do not rely on taxpayer funding, and taxpayers have not spent a single cent on the “pension crisis” experienced by these large funds (CalPERS and CalSTRS*). The pension funds, at lest the large ones I’m most familiar with (I’m not as familiar with independent municipal pension funds) get their revenue from the pension contributions that are paid by the employees and their employers, as part of their compensation packages. Approximately 70% of the revenue is supposed to come from investments (the link below is from 2005, and it shows investment returns are 75% of projected revenue), and THAT is where the problem lies. It’s not about tax revenue, it’s about investment returns/losses.

The funds were super-funded in the late 90s (a bubble!), which is why they passed the pension boost for public safety personnel. The bubbles that resulted from the actions taken by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are what have caused them to make such foolish mistakes, and this is why there is a “pension crisis.”

From the CalPERS link, who pays into the fund:

Member – $16.8
Employer – $17.0
Investments – $116.1

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/Buenrostro%20(FINAL%20POWER%20POINT).pdf
——————

*The state pays ~2-3% of the employees’ (teachers’) wages to CalSTRS, from what I can tell. The rest comes from employees, the employers (as part of the compensation package), and investment returns.

http://calstrs.com/About%20CalSTRS/fastfacts.aspx
————–

I think this is why I get so frustrated, and it’s not at all directed at you, BTW. It’s just that so few people actually understand how the system works, and why it’s in trouble right now, yet they are ranting and raving about things that aren’t even related to the cause of the problems. Again, it is NOT the unions who caused the problems, but the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).

This is why some of us are so infuriated. This is being labeled as “taxpayers vs. unions,” when that’s not the issue here. Why has Wall Street — the ones who caused the crisis — been getting bailouts, record bonuses and tax breaks, which cost taxpayers trillions of dollars…while public sector workers are being blamed in the media for causing the “pension crisis” and told they have to give up everything **they’ve worked for over the years** and were promised in good faith? IMHO, it’s an intentional diversion, and public workers are being made the scapegoats for the financial industry.

Sorry, but it’s B.S.

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]”BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.[/quote]

jeeman,

I was referring to the boom/bust cycles that the Fed creates, and the “guaranteed” inflation, as the Fed tries to maintain a ~2% inflation rate, which they call “price stability.” The Fed’s tendency to bail speculators out of their foolish mistakes (the Greenspan/Bernanke put) made investors think that “they” would never let deflation happen, so the investors had no choice but to go all in.

If not for the bubbles, our commitments would be significantly lower. During the bubbles, city and state managers/legislators offer up compensation packages that cannot be sustained in a “normal” economy.

The problem is that our bubble economy has been going on for so long (since the early 80s), that everyone (govt management AND pension fund managers and actuaries) thinks the bubble economy is “normal,” and they plan accordingly. Those who thought it was unsustainable were forced out, as the returns they made were consistently lower than those who chased the bubbles and got the bubble returns. Also, as asset prices rose, unions would (logically) demand compensation increases to keep up.

BTW, in the situations I’m aware of, it’s not the reduced TAX revenue that is causing a problem with the pension plans. It’s the losses they saw during the “financial crisis,” and the lower returns on investments. The large pension funds do not rely on taxpayer funding, and taxpayers have not spent a single cent on the “pension crisis” experienced by these large funds (CalPERS and CalSTRS*). The pension funds, at lest the large ones I’m most familiar with (I’m not as familiar with independent municipal pension funds) get their revenue from the pension contributions that are paid by the employees and their employers, as part of their compensation packages. Approximately 70% of the revenue is supposed to come from investments (the link below is from 2005, and it shows investment returns are 75% of projected revenue), and THAT is where the problem lies. It’s not about tax revenue, it’s about investment returns/losses.

The funds were super-funded in the late 90s (a bubble!), which is why they passed the pension boost for public safety personnel. The bubbles that resulted from the actions taken by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are what have caused them to make such foolish mistakes, and this is why there is a “pension crisis.”

From the CalPERS link, who pays into the fund:

Member – $16.8
Employer – $17.0
Investments – $116.1

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/Buenrostro%20(FINAL%20POWER%20POINT).pdf
——————

*The state pays ~2-3% of the employees’ (teachers’) wages to CalSTRS, from what I can tell. The rest comes from employees, the employers (as part of the compensation package), and investment returns.

http://calstrs.com/About%20CalSTRS/fastfacts.aspx
————–

I think this is why I get so frustrated, and it’s not at all directed at you, BTW. It’s just that so few people actually understand how the system works, and why it’s in trouble right now, yet they are ranting and raving about things that aren’t even related to the cause of the problems. Again, it is NOT the unions who caused the problems, but the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).

This is why some of us are so infuriated. This is being labeled as “taxpayers vs. unions,” when that’s not the issue here. Why has Wall Street — the ones who caused the crisis — been getting bailouts, record bonuses and tax breaks, which cost taxpayers trillions of dollars…while public sector workers are being blamed in the media for causing the “pension crisis” and told they have to give up everything **they’ve worked for over the years** and were promised in good faith? IMHO, it’s an intentional diversion, and public workers are being made the scapegoats for the financial industry.

Sorry, but it’s B.S.

[CA renter]

BTW, please check out the link to the Harvard presentation for CalPERS.

On page 22, you’ll see how the employer contribution dropped off. This was due to the internet bubble, and they (CalPERS) reduced employer contribution requirements at the same time they (public employers/legislators) increased benefits. The public workers BEGGED them to save this money for future contributions/a rainy day, but their employers — almost all of them — refused, and spent it instead.

[CA renter]

BTW, please check out the link to the Harvard presentation for CalPERS.

On page 22, you’ll see how the employer contribution dropped off. This was due to the internet bubble, and they (CalPERS) reduced employer contribution requirements at the same time they (public employers/legislators) increased benefits. The public workers BEGGED them to save this money for future contributions/a rainy day, but their employers — almost all of them — refused, and spent it instead.

[CA renter]

BTW, please check out the link to the Harvard presentation for CalPERS.

On page 22, you’ll see how the employer contribution dropped off. This was due to the internet bubble, and they (CalPERS) reduced employer contribution requirements at the same time they (public employers/legislators) increased benefits. The public workers BEGGED them to save this money for future contributions/a rainy day, but their employers — almost all of them — refused, and spent it instead.

[CA renter]

BTW, please check out the link to the Harvard presentation for CalPERS.

On page 22, you’ll see how the employer contribution dropped off. This was due to the internet bubble, and they (CalPERS) reduced employer contribution requirements at the same time they (public employers/legislators) increased benefits. The public workers BEGGED them to save this money for future contributions/a rainy day, but their employers — almost all of them — refused, and spent it instead.

[CA renter]

BTW, please check out the link to the Harvard presentation for CalPERS.

On page 22, you’ll see how the employer contribution dropped off. This was due to the internet bubble, and they (CalPERS) reduced employer contribution requirements at the same time they (public employers/legislators) increased benefits. The public workers BEGGED them to save this money for future contributions/a rainy day, but their employers — almost all of them — refused, and spent it instead.

[CA renter]

More on CalSTRS:

Investment returns and contributions comprise the income to the CalSTRS system. CalSTRS cannot set its own contribution rates and requires action by the Legislature and Governor to change them.

The latest CalSTRS valuation, a snapshot of the fund’s health, showed the system’s funding level dipping from 87 percent as of June 30, 2008 to 78 percent as of June 30, 2009. However, investment returns still accounted for the majority of the $8.6 billion of benefits paid out in 2008-09. Solid investment returns, such as those seen at year’s end, are therefore a key component of the CalSTRS funding picture.

http://www.calstrs.com/Newsroom/2011/news012011.aspx
———————

Lest anyone misunderstand what I’m about…

I think it’s ridiculous that investment returns are expected to fund such a large portion of these benefits. IMHO, contribution rates have to increase, and the employees should have to pay for the majority of these increases. Also, pension benefits need to be reduced from the current 3% rate for public safety personnel to 2% (teachers are already lower).

IOW, public employees will probably see a drop in total compensation ranging from 15-35% in the coming years. I don’t like it; not because I think they should be paid a lot, but because they **have been promised** this compensation, and many of them have planned their finances based on these promises.

A lot of public employees left higher-paying private sector jobs for the stability and benefits of the public sector. It just seems wrong that when their actions are about to be rewarded (sometimes, after many years of sacrificing higher pay), it’s pulled out from under them.

[CA renter]

More on CalSTRS:

Investment returns and contributions comprise the income to the CalSTRS system. CalSTRS cannot set its own contribution rates and requires action by the Legislature and Governor to change them.

The latest CalSTRS valuation, a snapshot of the fund’s health, showed the system’s funding level dipping from 87 percent as of June 30, 2008 to 78 percent as of June 30, 2009. However, investment returns still accounted for the majority of the $8.6 billion of benefits paid out in 2008-09. Solid investment returns, such as those seen at year’s end, are therefore a key component of the CalSTRS funding picture.

http://www.calstrs.com/Newsroom/2011/news012011.aspx
———————

Lest anyone misunderstand what I’m about…

I think it’s ridiculous that investment returns are expected to fund such a large portion of these benefits. IMHO, contribution rates have to increase, and the employees should have to pay for the majority of these increases. Also, pension benefits need to be reduced from the current 3% rate for public safety personnel to 2% (teachers are already lower).

IOW, public employees will probably see a drop in total compensation ranging from 15-35% in the coming years. I don’t like it; not because I think they should be paid a lot, but because they **have been promised** this compensation, and many of them have planned their finances based on these promises.

A lot of public employees left higher-paying private sector jobs for the stability and benefits of the public sector. It just seems wrong that when their actions are about to be rewarded (sometimes, after many years of sacrificing higher pay), it’s pulled out from under them.

[CA renter]

More on CalSTRS:

Investment returns and contributions comprise the income to the CalSTRS system. CalSTRS cannot set its own contribution rates and requires action by the Legislature and Governor to change them.

The latest CalSTRS valuation, a snapshot of the fund’s health, showed the system’s funding level dipping from 87 percent as of June 30, 2008 to 78 percent as of June 30, 2009. However, investment returns still accounted for the majority of the $8.6 billion of benefits paid out in 2008-09. Solid investment returns, such as those seen at year’s end, are therefore a key component of the CalSTRS funding picture.

http://www.calstrs.com/Newsroom/2011/news012011.aspx
———————

Lest anyone misunderstand what I’m about…

I think it’s ridiculous that investment returns are expected to fund such a large portion of these benefits. IMHO, contribution rates have to increase, and the employees should have to pay for the majority of these increases. Also, pension benefits need to be reduced from the current 3% rate for public safety personnel to 2% (teachers are already lower).

IOW, public employees will probably see a drop in total compensation ranging from 15-35% in the coming years. I don’t like it; not because I think they should be paid a lot, but because they **have been promised** this compensation, and many of them have planned their finances based on these promises.

A lot of public employees left higher-paying private sector jobs for the stability and benefits of the public sector. It just seems wrong that when their actions are about to be rewarded (sometimes, after many years of sacrificing higher pay), it’s pulled out from under them.

[CA renter]

More on CalSTRS:

Investment returns and contributions comprise the income to the CalSTRS system. CalSTRS cannot set its own contribution rates and requires action by the Legislature and Governor to change them.

The latest CalSTRS valuation, a snapshot of the fund’s health, showed the system’s funding level dipping from 87 percent as of June 30, 2008 to 78 percent as of June 30, 2009. However, investment returns still accounted for the majority of the $8.6 billion of benefits paid out in 2008-09. Solid investment returns, such as those seen at year’s end, are therefore a key component of the CalSTRS funding picture.

http://www.calstrs.com/Newsroom/2011/news012011.aspx
———————

Lest anyone misunderstand what I’m about…

I think it’s ridiculous that investment returns are expected to fund such a large portion of these benefits. IMHO, contribution rates have to increase, and the employees should have to pay for the majority of these increases. Also, pension benefits need to be reduced from the current 3% rate for public safety personnel to 2% (teachers are already lower).

IOW, public employees will probably see a drop in total compensation ranging from 15-35% in the coming years. I don’t like it; not because I think they should be paid a lot, but because they **have been promised** this compensation, and many of them have planned their finances based on these promises.

A lot of public employees left higher-paying private sector jobs for the stability and benefits of the public sector. It just seems wrong that when their actions are about to be rewarded (sometimes, after many years of sacrificing higher pay), it’s pulled out from under them.

[Author]

Posts