[bearishgurl]

I’m rather incensed that some Piggs (usually those who haven’t worked very long) are stating that pensions are “entitlements.”

They are NOT, in any way, shape or form “entitlements.” They are earned and paid for by the employee and employer as part of their pay package.

If you want one for yourself, they STILL exist in the public and private sector (even if somewhat “dumbed down” from the past). Everyone is free to attempt to “vest themselves” into a defined-benefit plan. You do whatever it takes to get vested and you earn one for yourself.

Plain and simple.

Any takers out there??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan] . . . But in the world I live in, there is no real way to have work life balance because the technologies and expectations have blurred the distinction between work and life. They are no longer on opposite ends of some fulcrum that labor laws move to the left or right to balance.[/quote]

FSD, would you rather be coming and going from the office as you please (to finish some tasks at home) or work 1-2 full days per week from home while the laundry is going and your toddler and preschooler are sitting on a blanket watching TV (for “free”) and subsequently “bothered” by your smartphone 12 hrs per day, OR:

dress up, commute EVERY day, five days per week, arrive 20-25 mins early so you can pay to park (must have correct change/no monthly pkg avail), walk seven blocks to the office, check in with supervisor immediately and do “face time” all day until the “bell” rings at 5:00 pm and then walk (uphill) in a dress/skirt back up to your “cheaper lot” in the dusk/dark where you find a homeless person who has spread his sleeping bag next to your right-front wheel and as you approach your vehicle you discover he is urinating on your tire.

This was the life of a typical downtown SD hourly worker for at least 30 years.

Take your pick.

Current hourly workers now have choices described in the first scenario. The hourly workers of yesteryear did not have such choices. “Telecommuting” was absolutely unheard of.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]
No these programs have not been cut or decreased. You are not correct. more important, the number of people needing the assistance has grown. [/quote]

Which programs have expanded benefits in the last 8 years?[/quote]

How about food stamps

How about looking at the Federal budget numbers for medicare, medicaid and social security over the past 8 years.[/quote]

livinincali, just because there are more people in the US using food stamps now than in 2006 doesn’t mean the program has been increased by a significant amount of money or increased at all.

A LOT of people in recent years no doubt found themselves “borderline qualified” for an EBT card. It could be worth $30, $60, $90 or $300 mo. “General Relief” recipients (single indigent and/or homeless adults and those just released from a state or Federal prison) currently qualify for an EBT card worth $69 mo (I think). It’s been $69 mo since at least 1994.

EBT cards are in no way intended to serve all of an individual or families’ food needs. That’s why we have food banks where recipients can work to earn their share and (overstock) commodity-pickup locations. Many, many EBT recipients ALSO qualify for WIC, in which recipients are issued vouchers which are only good to purchase a VERY limited list of food suitable for pregnant/nursing women and children under five years of age.

It’s very possible that the USDA just spread the wealth by giving states direction to lower the value of the highest-value EBT cards they issue.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]It is also not just at the federal level. How about the state level where a middle class guy cannot afford to send his kid to a college and some other kids will get some or all of the cost paid for. It is much more pervasive then getting an Obama phone.[/quote]

SDR, I must have missed something here. I’m not questioning this, but which categories of prospective students get need-based cash aid (for fees, NOT housing) or fee waivers from universities in CA who are NOT the spouses or children of disabled veterans?

Can you point me to any links with the exact qualifications to be eligible for this aid (I already know about the VA Chapter 30 program and CalVet).

Thanks.

Start with UC.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan] . . . Anyway, I can’t really relate to you and your universe with defined benefit plans and hourly worker drones who don;t think about work after 5:00.

So, I have nothing to say about them or their pensions, but just wanted to defend those folks who work in the more modern salaried environment that you were pointing out as lazy…[/quote]

I never stated that salaried workers were “lazy.”

I stated that today’s workers have superior working conditions to those workers of decades past, both physically (due to technology) and superior work-life balance (due to worker-friendly laws passed in the last 20 years).

The vast majority of workers in the United States (including 85-90% of all government workers) are “hourly workers.” That is why we have the FLSA.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/cfr/Title_29/Chapter_V.htm

FSD, if you and your colleagues choose to be salaried or “salaried” is customary for your profession, far be it from me to judge that. But just know that you went into your “salaried profession” or “company who only pays on salary” with your eyes wide open.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=Oni Koroshi]Why do you assume that the majority of these Asian students are foreign? Most of them are CA locals.[/quote]

I don’t think I was referring to students. I was referring to opportunities in general from foreign company competition, resources etc. If people have the mentality here that the work is too good for them or that it doesn’t pay enough or get scared out of not trying to do it to begin with, who else is gonna do it?[/quote]

flu, these foreign students are only here on student visas. The vast majority take their (expensive) degrees back home with them after they graduate … you know, to work on Hoover Dam and “interstates” and such :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Oni Koroshi]Why do you assume that the majority of these Asian students are foreign? Most of them are CA locals.[/quote]

Look on the websites of each UC campus (excluding UCM, UCR and UCSC) and they will tell you the percentage of freshmen admitted in Fall 2012 who were CA residents, foreign students and out-of-state students. The numbers speak for themselves.

It’s ALL ABOUT $$ now.[/quote]
http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/sriweb/Profile2012.pdf
87% are from CA. 9% are interational and 4% are out of state. 44.4% undergrad enrollee are Asian. So, how is 9% = majority again?[/quote]

That is the “entire campus” including CC transfers and local workers going there part-time for years.

Look at the stats for “freshman admissions” for fall 2012.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Oni Koroshi]Why do you assume that the majority of these Asian students are foreign? Most of them are CA locals.[/quote]

Look on the websites of each UC campus (excluding UCM, UCR and UCSC) and they will tell you the percentage of freshmen admitted in Fall 2012 who were CA residents, foreign students and out-of-state students. The numbers speak for themselves.

It’s ALL ABOUT $$ now.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . BTW, you need to acknowledge the weakness of your STEM degree and start reading a few history/sociology/political science books . . .[/quote]

Actually, I’ve known MANY successful people who majored in these subjects (AND “public administration”) and went on to be VERY highly paid lawyers, professors and bureaucrats.

Believe it or not, the truth is, lawyers are held to the highest levels of trust and confidence (by EVERYone) and they essentially rule the western world. And “business” makes the world go ’round.

Those three subjects are s-o-o-o important, along with physical and cultural anthropology. I’ll stop short of adding psychology to the list because PSY 101 (required for most college degrees) is pretty dry and boring and is a prereq to all other PSY classes (which most students don’t take).

If one doesn’t have even a working background of the three subjects mentioned by CAR, I have found that it is difficult for them to understand how the world works. You can claim I’m “living in the past” all you want but history IS the reason why things are as they are. You can’t take it away.

On this forum, I have seem time and time again the same posters chagrined and deeply disappointed about issues which are NOT new and for which they can do nothing about (ex. “public pensions”). By their repeated posts, they are implying that they think the world should be different (I’ve done the same thing with the unfairness of the SS laws) . . . . but it isn’t and it isn’t going to change for them.

The ONLY ways for joe6p Pigg to attempt to “make a difference” are to vote in each and every election, assist your favorite candidate(s) in their campaign efforts, personally lobby the CA Legislature or Congress thru your representatives on issues you feel strongly about, or better yet, run for public office yourself! It will surely be an eye-opener, whether you become elected … or not. And lastly, ACCEPT REALITY as it is.

In addition, macro and micro economics were the only subjects I needed to complete my “Associate Degree” and I have been acutely feeling the pain in recent years from never taking them.

It’s too late now to bother pursuing an AS because I have a graduate-level paralegal certificate, which trumps an AS, manyfold. The degree wouldn’t do me any good at this late date. My kids have given me their old college textbooks and I am slowly picking my way thru them on my own. I can confidently write for the CA Supreme Court but I feel extremely handicapped in the financial arena (investments) and am actively looking for good help. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses but STEM degrees aren’t for everyone and they are NOT the be-all, end-all.

I know the UC (nearly ALL campuses) currently favor the foreign (primarily Asian) student who will pursue a STEM major and whose parents will gladly pay 277% of CA resident fees over a CA resident applicant of any stripe. Even though I feel the Regents have a legal, ethical and moral “duty” to educate qualified “B student” CA residents (as they have in the past) whose parents have undoubtedly paid property taxes for many years (sometimes on multiple properties) which indirectly supported the UC system, I accept reality that my “B-student” kids couldn’t and won’t be able to get accepted there (except into the two campuses [UCM/UCR] they aren’t interested in attending).

Due to recent severe impaction on several major CSU campuses, I am encouraging my youngest to attend a liberal arts college out of state (they want to major in accounting) where they would be eligible for nearly a full-ride scholarship as a B student. They still have their heart set on UCSC and one CSU campus and I am not averse to applying for them. But I want to apply for at least ONE out of the three out-of-state school where they will be eligible for a “free ride.”

I think the vastly different setting, combined with small classes, accessible academic advisors, and teachers with “connections” (several “UC” defectors and retirees) will help them see the world in a brand new way.

There’s nothing wrong with having a strong liberal arts background with a major in a business field. Nothing at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=earlyretirement] . . . I wish I was as optimistic as some of you with how the online education will change the cost structure of a college degree but I don’t see this happening anytime soon.

My prediction is a University degree from a respected university will be much more expensive 10 years from now as it is today.[/quote]

ER, I agree with this. For-profit online universities such as University of Phoenix charge more than $1000 for one three credit-hour class lasting approximately one month.

They seem to have no shortage of students (who are no doubt deeply indebted with student-loans) who tout how “fast” it is to get a degree from UOP in comparison to “brick and mortar” schools.

I haven’t researched the dropout rates of these for-profit online schools. I suspect a good portion of their students run out of $$ quickly when they discover the amounts of their current loan balances, become scared and quit taking out loans.

I think a degree needs to be from an “accredited and recognized” college in order to make the graduate employable in their field of major. I think most employers can see straight thru degrees from online “diploma mills.”

And the CA Legislature isn’t going to suddenly decimate the CA Education Code as it applies to retirement formulas long ago voted in by the UC Regents and CSU Board of Trustees.

It is what it is.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]BG and Essbee, of course if you only contribute 3% into your 401A, then their match would seem big. For a typical RN ($70k/yr), you’re talking about $2100/year. No wonder savings rate is so horrible. If you actually max out your 401A + 403B, then it would be 81% employee and 19% Scripps. So, yes, you’re right, if you’re a low achieving saver, then the company contribute a HUGE amount. But if you are actually a rabid saver, then it’s not that big. Also, that only for you if you work there 20+ years. For the first 9 years, you only get 1/2 of that. For those who work their the first 9 years, it’s 90.5% employee and 9.5% Scripps (if you’re actually a saver).[/quote]

Whatever percentage it is, AN . . . it’s “free money, compounded.”

It’s kind of hard to be a “rabid saver” if one only works one day per week (or less).

If you or your spouse had a retirement plan where an employer matches your funds in ANY amount, this would GREATLY assist you in inching closer to your $5M retirement goal.

But I’m still not sure if you will be able to achieve your financial goals by age 50. That seems a bit over-the-top grand, to me.

The VA Hospital has a defined benefit plan in combination with TSP. It’s truly a win, win for their (civil-service) employees.

These plans are wonderful for those employees who can save at least the maximum matchable amount towards their retirement fund out of every paycheck 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee][quote=AN]Maybe math have changed over the years but 6% match is not 60% contribution. is 6%=60% now?[/quote]

After 20 yrs, if the employee contributes 3% of salary, the employer (Scripps) contributes 6% of salary.

So 33% of the contribution comes from the employee, and 67% comes from Scripps.

Of course, the employee should probably try to save much more (~20% of income.) My guess is that Scripps’ contribution would stay at 6%.[/quote]

Thank you Essbee. You beat me to the punch 🙂

You are correct in that the employer contribution is based upon years of service and stays the same until the employee reaches another seniority tier. 6% is the maximum employer contribution.

This could be prove to be a sizable sum for physicians directly employed by Scripps and Sharp.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Maybe math have changed over the years but 6% match is not 60% contribution. is 6%=60% now?[/quote]

If a (20 yr) employee contributes 3% of their gross pay, the employer will match that contribution with 6% of the employee’s pay at the end of every quarter, making the employee’s total contribution 9%.

This is just slightly more generous than the Sharpsaver Plan (40%/60%) where the same employee contributes 4% of their gross pay and the employer matches it with 6%, making the employee’s total contribution 10%.

Then there’s that infamous “VA Medical Center” which is merely a hop and a skip from your home, AN. There, your spouse could avail herself of its well-known Thrift Savings Plan:

A Thrift Savings Plan is essentially a contribution plan for federal employees. Federal workers can contribute pre-taxed money into a number of savings accounts that can be matched by their employers if they meet specific qualifications. If employees are eligible for matching funds, their employer will be able to match up to 5 percent of their contributions…

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4681354_federal-thrift-savings-plan-work.html

AND also FERS (their defined benefit plan):

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/

Great benefits abound for qualified, registered nurses of all specialties 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Nurses today (even part-timers) at both Sharp Healthcare and ScrippsHealth can avail themselves of a funds-matching retirement plan (emp contributes 40% and org contributes 60%, I believe).[/quote] Wrong.[/quote]

https://www.mysavingsatwork.com/atwork/scripps/1248709047941.htm

Does Scripps match my contributions?

Yes. As an incentive to participate in your Scripps Health 401(a) Retirement Savings Plan, Scripps Health will match your contributions based on your total years of accumulated service.

0-9 years = 3% match contribution based on a 3% employee contribution

10-14 years = 4% match contribution based on a 3% employee contribution

15-19 years = 5% match contribution based on a 3% employee contribution

20 years = 6% match contribution based on a 3% employee contribution

You must be employed by Scripps Health on the last day of the quarter to receive the quarterly match.

Does Scripps make an additional contribution to my account?

Yes. Scripps Health will contribute an amount equal to 1% of your eligible pay on an annual basis as long as you are employed by Scripps Health on December 31.

https://www.mysavingsatwork.com/atwork/scripps/1248709047941.htm

http://www.sharp.com/jobs/benefits-working-sharp.cfm

http://www.myplaniq.com/LTISystem/f401k_view.action?ID=5,633

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]BG – “These workers really have no idea what most boomers did all day to earn their pay. Not a clue.”

You really have no clue what people do today to earn their pay.

Today’s worker does not have the luxury of leaving at 5:00 without being electronically tethered to Email/work 24/7; customers/bosses/co-workers expecting immediate responses at 11 pm. Keeping up with the latest technologies and evolving our skills at a much faster rate than 20 years ago.

It’s a different world today. The challenges are different. Sure, we have Starbucks now. SO what ?

BTW, I am on the boundary between Gen-X/boomer and work in technology and I I don’t think your arrogant point of view is shared by those Boomer colleagues of mine who still happen to be in the workforce at 60+.[/quote]

Well, actually I DO have a clue what people do today to earn their pay as I am in/out of professional offices frequently. And at times I have stayed there to perform services I wasn’t able to perform at home.

An “hourly worker” isn’t tethered to their employer after their shift is up. That is against the law (in the absence of an employer paid standby or “on-call” allowance as well as a cell phone subsidy). I think you are confusing my position with a salaried worker. I was actually hourly, as were the vast majority of positions in my organization.

FormerSanDiegan, do you and your “Boomer colleagues” have pensions? If so, are they “defined benefit” pensions or does your employer match the funds you save in them?

[Author]

Posts