[an]

I subscribe to C&D and it is pretty well known that they prefer BMW. If you read the comparison carefully, you’ll see the 328 is much slower but it win because it gets better fuel economy.

[an]

[quote=flu]Get the carrera… :)[/quote]
I vote for a Carrera too. If it’s going to be my weekend car, I would even consider a few years older 911 Turbo or 911 RS3 to keep price at parity with the newer Carrera. 2008 CPO M5 are going for around $40k these day too, so, I’d consider that too, if you want more space than a Carrera.

[an]

[quote=paramount]TG: I bought a 328 and as mentioned I love it.

I looked at the 5 Series, in fact I went to the dealer with the intent of getting a 5 series.

But the 3 Series is really the Crown Jewel of BMW.

Given your parameters I would give serious consideration to the 335i (Sport Package). Absolutely incredible vehicle in every way.

For commuting I didn’t want the twin turbo, but for your purposes a 335 would be perfect IMO.

A G37 is nice, but it’s not a BMW….[/quote]
G37 is priced like a 328i, not a 335i, so compare is not really fair. I’d take the G37 over 328 but a 335 over a G37. I’d take a CPO M5 over all of those cars.

[an]

[quote=temeculaguy]I am kinda/sorta saying that. Some other posters talked about scape goats, just don’t get distracted by shiny objects when in fact it doesn’t add up to what it is being portrayed as. When you get riled up, ask yourself “who benefits from my being riled up?” Sure, there are some examples to get riled up about and those things are being changed as we type. someone wants you to get riled up, maybe so you will ignore something else. Maybe it’s about some stupid election, who knows, who cares.

I gave up being riled up for lent and I’m not catholic, life is easier now, try it. I worry about sports, breasts, cars, you know, the important things.

See, feel better, SDSU will be playing UNM at the pit on wednesday, that is a whole lot more important than the life expectancey of government employees now isnt it.[/quote]
Don’t worry TG, I’m not riled up. I enjoy talking about it. I know I can’t really do anything about it personally, so I don’t take this too personal, other than taking it as an opportunity to learn more information. Now, coming back to the statement about it not adding up, what do you have to say about this statement from pri_dk’s link:
[quote=linky]Half-truth #2: “There is no crisis. Once the stock market recovers, there is no problem.”
Some of today’s pension Pollyannas claim that when stock-market trends return to their historical averages, everything works out. That is simply ignorance and puffery from people who don’t even bother to understand pension math. The actuarial projections used by most public pension plans are already assuming that 85-year historical returns will continue indefinitely, even though many of the major investment consultants have already dialed down their projections for the next decade. Perpetual stock-market increases of 10 percent annually are already baked into the funding ratios that now hover just above 70 percent on average nationwide. Even if stocks return next year to their previous peak levels (DJIA 14,100), that wouldn’t restore pre-recession funding ratios. That’s because there have been no capital gains from equities for the five intervening years while the underlying liabilities have grown about 50 percent. Stocks may have good and bad growing seasons, but there is never a crop failure on the liabilities farm. As I explained last year, stock indexes would have to double in the next two years to restore most pension funds to their 2007 funding ratios. To return the average pension fund to full funding, stock markets would have to produce 14 percent compounded returns the rest of this decade, with no intervening recession. That would put the Dow Industrials at 30,000 in January 2020. I’ll gladly give even odds against that scenario to anyone who wants to buy into that long-shot.[/quote]

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Sure, but we’ll have to subtract the cost of their rent while they bubble-sat. :)[/quote]
Sweet, so if I bubble-sit for the rest of my life, I can get my money back?

[an]

[quote=xiv014]Why is it that most new construction in San Diego have HOAs?[/quote]
I wonder the same thing myself. Too bad all of the one I know have HOAs. I want to be the king of my castle and I don’t want someone telling what I can or can’t do with my castle. Because of that, I don’t want to tell others what they can or can’t do with their castle either. This, along with the small lot & big house phenomenon is the biggest reason why I’m more attracted to older homes.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Everyone in charge of originating, bundling, rating, and selling the “toxic” mortgages and related derivatives, etc. should take the first hit. Either they were grossly incompetent and totally undeserving of any profits they made (least likely), or they are criminals (most likely). I’d put Alan Greenspan at the very top of the list. After that, would come every single person who got in the way of investigators/auditors/whistle-blowers who were trying to do their jobs.

You don’t actually think it was all one big “accidental” mistake, do you?[/quote]
Would you also add in those who made money from RE by selling at the peak? How about those who expected the down turn and short the market when it start to crash?

[an]

TG, what you’re saying then is, the public employee pension system is not unsustainable, and we’re blow it out of proportion due to this down turn? I’d love to see an apple to apple comparison between a public vs a private employee, to see which much “underpaid” public employees really area. Too bad I don’t have that data.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Public workers often work themselves to death … or attempt to work during chemotherapy and return to work as soon as medically released after open-heart surgery, etc.[/quote]
Got proof? Data please. I can provide anecdotal stories to offset your anecdotal stories. Workaholics are everywhere. Some people are just crazy, but that doesn’t prove anything other than there are some crazy workaholics.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]I don’t see the average public worker (ESP safety and CALTRANS) living beyond their seventies and even that is a stretch to me.

Again, SDCERA workers are but a microcosm of all public workers in CA. I myself am a SDCERA “deferred retiree.”[/quote]
Data for life expectancy: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=average+life+expectancy

Average right now is 78. So, assuming average public employees have similar expectancy to average American, then I would say you made a valid statement that the average won’t make it past their 70s. A good portion will make it into their 80s, though <50%. See that trend line? It's going higher.

Are these average pension numbers public information?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The amount you overpay for a house as a result of govt-intervention (and you’re paying extra in RE taxes, income taxes, higher commission/transaction costs, AND higher housing prices) is likely to be far, far, far more than you’ll ever pay toward public servants’ retirement/compensation in your lifetime.[/quote]
Do you have numbers to back up this assertion? As I run the numbers in my earlier post WRT to the pension numbers TG provided. An average of pension at $28k/year comes out to $800k-$1M over 30-40 years of receiving such benefits. A $100k/year pension comes out to $3M-$4M over 30-40 years. Can you provide numbers to how much an average person is overpaying in their house? I love to see the “far, far, far more…” numbers.

BTW, just to keep in mind, lower taxes = lower funding for public services. How much worse would the pension short fall be if there’s less tax money coming in?

[an]

[quote=temeculaguy]I could bore you to death with the reality of pensions and how they are calculated, but this is a fact. There are 368 people retired from sd county making $8,300 or more per month in pension benefits. There are 36,000 members, so 1% have pensions of 100k or more.

http://www.sdcera.org/about_us.htm

This is the second largest county in the state and the 5th largest in the united states, over 3 million people, and the thousands of blogs and posts are about 368 people. Let’s just keep some perspective. So before you assume that evey run of the mill government employee gets some fantastic deal, get the facts, they are probably just as out of touch as the perception that all realtors make 6 figures.

I am not protecting myself, I’m not one of the 368, but I’m also not an NBA player or a CEO, some have more than me and some have less. You just happen to run into some who had more, that doesn’t mean they all do. In fact the average gov’t pension in san diego county is $28,284 per year. But it’s more fun to scream about the rare exceptions.[/quote]
$100k/year pension is HUGE. At $100k/year, assuming you can retire at 50 and live to 80, that’s $3M over the retirement years, assuming you don’t get inflation adjustment through your retirement. If you live to 90, that’s $4M. How many in the private sector do you know that make $100-150k/year can save $3-4M for retirement?

Now, lets look at the average number you presented: $28,284/year. Assuming average public employee is similar to average private employee making about median income. In San Diego in 2009, the median house hold income was $59901/year. Assuming dual income, that’s $29950.5/person. So, average public employee pension is slightly less than your median income. Now, lets see how much $28,284/year is really worth over the retirement years. Assuming you can retire at 50 and live to 80, that’s $848,520 over 30 years. If you die at 90, that’s $1,131,360. That again assume that you get no inflation adjustment. How many people with in $30k/year income can accrue $848k-$1.1M for retirement?

Bottom line is, you don’t need to have $100k pension to make it not sustainable. Even your lowly $28k/year comes out to a huge number over the life of their retirement. We also know people have been living longer and longer every year. So maybe 80-90 might sound young 30-40 years from now.

[an]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=AN]$236k[/quote]

Curse you! The old “Price is Right” trick. At least I know someone else is thinking the same way I am…

I’m guessing 1 person making $140K, the other making $96K, something along those lines.

As everyone knows, in the public sector it’s the benefits that really count…[/quote]
You got it 😀

[an]

[quote=poorgradstudent]With extremely limited information, I’m going to guess $300K.

I’m also going to guess based on experience and education, these two could clear $350-500K in the private sector, before bonuses. I’m also going to guess they are both well above the median income in their departments; one is probably at the equivalent of “VP” level, the other the equivalent of a highly skilled technician. Both probably have professional degrees beyond a bachelor’s.[/quote]
Having a a Master or a Ph.D. doesn’t always mean more money. It depends on what you got your Master/Ph.D. in.

You stated that there’s extremely limited information in the beginning, but then you go and say they can clear $350-500k in the private sector and are probably at VP level. So, which is it, extremely limited information or enough information to make these kinds of assumptions?

[an]

dup

[Author]

Posts