[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Unlikely to happen on a large-scale basis:

If it’s proven that mortgages can’t be enforced, then banks won’t be able to give mortgages. With the future fate of Fannie and Freddie unknown at present, this has the potential of freezing the mortgage market in CA entirely.[/quote]

spdrun, first of all, I find your posts quite astute and insightful for the age you profess to be here (in comparison to other Piggs who claim to be the same or similar age as you).

HOWEVER, the LAW in CA gives lenders the right to non-judicial foreclosure (auction) on the 111th day after the first due date of their (late) mortgage payment:

http://www.defaultpros.com/programs/foreclosure.php

OR, the 141th day after, , depending on which category the borrower falls under, that is:

2923.5. (a) (1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until
30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph (2)
or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as
described in subdivision (g).
(2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact
the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the
borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower
to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or
she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested,
the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the
meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s
financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the
first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that
purpose. In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free
telephone number made available by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency. Any meeting may occur telephonically.
(b) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent has contacted the borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or that no contact
was required pursuant to subdivision (h).
(c) If a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent had already filed the notice of default prior to the enactment of this
section and did not subsequently file a notice of rescission, then the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall, as
part of the notice of sale filed pursuant to Section 2924f, include a declaration that either:
(1) States that the borrower was contacted to assess the borrower’s financial situation and to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.
(2) Lists the efforts made, if any, to contact the borrower in the event no contact was made.
(d) A mortgagee’s, beneficiary’s, or authorized agent’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by telephone during any contact required by this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, a “borrower” shall include a mortgagor or trustor.
(f) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other advisor
to discuss with the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrowers financial situation and options
for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact requirements of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or workout plan offered at the meeting by the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent is subject to approval by the borrower.
(g) A notice of default may be filed pursuant to Section 2924 when a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has not contacted a
borrower as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact the borrower occurred despite the due
diligence of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent. For purposes of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all
of the following:
(1) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall first attempt to contact a borrower by sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall attempt to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours and on
different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone number on file.
(B) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may attempt to contact a borrower using an automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is answered, the call is
connected to a live representative of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(C) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent satisfies the telephone contact requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.
(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall then send a
certified letter, with return receipt requested.
(4) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide a means for the borrower to contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that will provide access to a live representative during business hours.
(5) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has posted a prominent link on the homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:
(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.
(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be prepared to present to the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent when discussing options for avoiding foreclosure.
(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgagee, beneficiary,
or authorized agent.
(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
(h) Subdivisions (a), (c), and (g) shall not apply if any of the following occurs:
(1) The borrower has surrendered the property as evidenced by either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(2) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to
leave their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
(3) A case has been filed by the borrower under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code and the bankruptcy court
has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case, or granting relief from a stay of foreclosure.
(i) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust recorded from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, inclusive, that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more than four dwelling units. For purposes of this subdivision, “owner-occupied” means that the residence is the principal residence of the borrower as indicated to the lender in loan documents.
(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends
that date.

I understand what you are saying here about “FF,” and their “viability” being paramount to continuation of conventional mortgages being sold on the “secondary market” and being available to the masses in CA. However, mortgage (delinquency) has been and will continue to be legally “enforced” in CA, by law. The $64M question here is WHY haven’t the majority of the defaulted-upon lenders exercised their right to foreclose in a timely manner on CA mortgages?

In my mind, there is absolutely no excuse. Even though these lenders may be compensated by the GOV “in the back room” to “work with delinquent (often `cunning’ strategic-defaulting) borrowers,” I call this non-action “lender malaise” and see no other term to describe it.

In the end, “lender malaise” affects every property owner’s values, including those “potential sellers” who “played by the `rules'” and those “potential sellers” who own free and clear. Neither will likely be putting their propertie(s) on the market under today’s artificially-screwed-up “conditions” unless they are nearly incapacitated and in need of “board and care.” (If they’re terminally ill, they’ll just let their heirs deal with the disposition of their property.)

And there you have it … (severely) reduced “inventory.” All due to CA lenders having a CHOICE to foreclose (with the law on their side) and instead opting to play the current “GOV game.”

It is what it is.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]I have no doubt Civita will be a successful development that will hold value well.

I say let the market decide. New developments near the urban core sell well. People don’t wan’t far flung as much as they want new, clean and comfortable at a reasonable price.

BG sounds like a selfish old person who wants no new building near the urban core. But then she laments that people are moving to far flung areas. Those 2 positions are not realistically compatible.

Progress is about embracing change and newcomers. Your San Diego of 30 years ago is not what people want. It was never yours to begin with.[/quote]

WOW, brian! Where did this vitriol come from? And how did you come to this conclusion??

I actually like all the mid-century-wannabe condo bldgs in East Village! HOWEVER, the units in them have not been selling well in recent years. Along with several other languishing projects, I passed by the “Strata” today and it looks like its mgmt is STILL trying to rent these units after initially converting them to rentals nearly three years ago. Perhaps Pigg UR can tell us if more buyers have been showing interest of late in some of these *new* buildings. I think these new condos and apt bldgs, along with the redevelopment of the Gaslamp District, expansion of the SD Convention Center, completion of Petco Park, etc., has significantly improved SD’s dtn for the better. These projects replaced old, dilapidated SFR’s and comm’l buildings where the homeless slept under the eaves and lived on every corner with all their worldly possessions. Not to mention it eliminated scores of “porta-pottis” set out for the homeless on vacant lots near 14th and Market Sts (just NE of where the homeless were able to obtain sack breakfasts and lunches from charities for years – sometimes straight out of the backs of vehicles). The difference in dtn SD due to the rampant development of recent years is night and day!

I believe dtn SD got overbuilt and then underwater due to builders having excess liquidity and initial buyers being able to buy with “funny money.” But this is one area that WILL eventually “catch up to itself,” IMO.

I am completely against urban sprawl for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which it has had the unintended consequence of completely decimating the finances of so many CA cities and counties.

The “urban renewal” that has taken place in dtn SD is NOT “urban sprawl,” nor is “Civita” in MV. Whether or not any buildings existed on those sites prior to what is there now, they are considered infill. The two are completely different animals.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Do more people necessarily want to live closer to the core? This is San Diego, not Manhattan or Capitol Hill/DC. Given unlimited money, I’d probably take La Jolla or PB over the immediate downtown area/Little Italy.[/quote]

spdrun, in decades past, downtown workers DID want to live close to downtown (even those who had families). However, I’m not sure very many of today’s families with school-age children want to live in SD’s urban core. The vast majority of young parents on this board seem to have issues with the schools although there is really nothing wrong with 80% of SD’s schools located in the urban core, IMO. Excluding military bases, what has happened over the years in SD County is that dtn SD, Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch and later, what is now known as the “Golden Triangle” WERE the “work centers” of 25+ years ago (in that order by amt of workers employed in them). Now that most of the aerospace and defense contractors have left, SD has “high-tech” and “biotech” centers which employ the most workers. The majority of these job centers are located in the Golden Triangle, Sorrento Mesa, Sorrento Valley and surrounds. Tract housing and condos sprung up around these work centers, attracting nearby workers and their families. Of course, these companies draw workers from the entire county but the workers who don’t live nearby have to commute daily on crowded freeways in and out of these work centers.

LJ, although fairly close to the *new* work centers, is too expensive for the vast majority of these workers. PB is a little less expensive than LJ but most of these workers are young and do not care for the older housing stock (either in PB OR LJ). In CA coastal counties, the older stock in the best locations typically has substantially larger lots than newer tract-housing does. Schools aside, the younger cohort of Gen X and Gen Y typically do not want to spend time or money on extensive landscape and staunchly refuse to raise their children in a 1400-2200 sf house when they can get a 3000+ sf house in the far-flung lizard-infested stix for the same price or less. They would rather spend their time commuting and have their air conditioner regularly serviced.

To each his own :=0

[bearishgurl]

To answer your questions about identity theft, AN, I suppose one can use a minor’s SSN to apply for credit, etc. Since a minor doesn’t really NEED to use their SSN yet, when they become an adult and run their credit reports, they will find out someone else used their SSN to open new credit accounts and pretended to be them when they were too young to take out any credit. I imagine this could take awhile to clear up.

I would presume persons using a decedent’s SSN could attempt to take out credit in that decedent’s name and get away with it for awhile or even indefinitely. This would depend on how long the SSN-holder has been dead, their age at time of death and whether their estate was still open.

Note that my experience with this buyer “with an assumed name” dates back to 1991, prior to US employers’ mandatory use of Form I-9, the internet, FICO scores, etc. I’m not sure someone could get away with this for years, anymore, like she did. I kinda felt sorry for her at the time because she would never be able to collect the substantial SS she and her employer(s) deposited into the “system” under her “assumed name.” She had absolutely NO IDEA that buying a property (ESP under a “govm’t program”) was this involved. In addition, I think she would have returned to the Phillipines to work after she couldn’t get her visa renewed but for her minor son.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Do more people necessarily want to live closer to the core? This is San Diego, not Manhattan or Capitol Hill/DC. Given unlimited money, I’d probably take La Jolla or PB over the immediate downtown area/Little Italy.[/quote]

San Diego works differently from say NYC or SF…
SD downtown is much more dead than the burbs I think.
Assuming infinite amount of money, downtown never crossed my mind personally. Folks wanting “city life” probably shouldn’t live in San Diego.

You should also note a LOT of downtown development was recent, overpriced, underwater, and with huge hoa fees.[/quote]

I don’t think dtn SD is dead. I was just down there today (a weekend) and it was hopping. There are a lot of tourists down there and the Gaslamp/Horton Plaza was busy. However, SD’s “city life” doesn’t compare to SF and I’m sure it doesn’t compare to NYC (never been there).

Agree about overbuilding of condos which were/are underwater but I think this area is slowly recovering as some of the complexes originally built to sell are being converted to rentals. The HOAs there DO tend to have high dues because many are full-service with 24-hr staff and amenities such as gyms. However, the sound levels when opening windows or standing on a balcony are very high there, day and night, especially those complexes directly over the nightlife at the Gaslamp, within earshot of Petco Park and the ones up on Bankers Hill (with noise from airport landings and I-5).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]

So please explain how an illegal can pay state or federal income tax when they do not have a SSN or TIN?
…
…
A lot of the wages for illegals are handled as cash under the table – Cash = not track-able. Note that I highlighted income which is not the same as sales tax.

Actually, a lot of illegals are paid using stolen SSNs these days. From what I’ve read, probably more than are paid the old way via cash under the table. They’re paying the taxes — they’ll just never see any benefits.[/quote]
Is there anyway to validate this statement?

BTW, where do they get the stolen SSNs? Identity theft? Do they also open credit cards with those SSNs too?[/quote]

They “buy” the SSN on the black market. This is a huge enterprise in Los Angeles County. Often they are decedents’ or a minor’s SSN. The “manufactured” Social Security cards looked pretty good. I once knew an accountant in National City (Filipina). Yes, she really had an accounting degree and was the “controller” for a small biz there of about 40 employees. Her visa had run out and she was using a decedent’s SSN so she could continue to be employed in the US. Her employer didn’t realize it. She had a six-year old child in San Diego that she didn’t want to leave behind. The father was local but married to someone else and his spouse didn’t know about the child.

How do I know all this? I represented a her as an FHA buyer on a NC house. After I opened escrow, she got the “Statement of Information” from the title company to fill out and a mountain of other forms to fill out for her FHA loan. She looked them over, panicked, got cold feet, promptly backed out of the deal and told me she decided to keep renting until she could put down 20% or pay cash for a property.

Aside from this minor problem, she was otherwise a little overqualified for the modest house she was in escrow to buy :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]Thank you CAR for being clear for everyone.

The government workers do not think they are accountable to the taxpayer.

If the taxpayer doesnt like it, get out of the State is their position.[/quote]

The REAL situation is, govm’t employees have a “monopoly” on the services they are providing. No one else does it and the taxpayer cannot visit a private business to get a certified copy of a document, for example, unless that business is simply a “middleman” who must visit the gov’t agency themselves to provide the service (such as a DMV “tag office” or “runner”).

ALL of the “services” govm’t employees are providing MUST be provided by law, no matter what anyone who doesn’t receive or doesn’t qualify to receive the service may think about it. The working conditions inherent in providing many of these public services may or may not be what a typical worker in private enterprise CAN or WILL agree to comply with for the duration of their employment.

Therefore, the “taxpayer” (in ANY jurisdiction) has no choice but to use the gov’mt agency if they need services only it provides. There is no “shopping around.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]sdrealtor… You know. screw the iphone5…

I’d say go retro and get a piece of history.

Only costs Three hundred seventy five thousand.

Apple I auctions for $375k
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/15/technology/apple-i-auction/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

Pssss sdrealtor. I still have my Apple IIe.. It’s fully working with three 5.25″ floppy drive…a whopping 128KB ram, 80 column text card, and ImageWriter I printer….

I’m not greedy. Only asking for half of what was sold at Sotheby’s.

I got the Mac SE/30 that is working too, if you’re interested in that too…

The way I look at it… Anyone can get an iPhone 1,2,3,4,5…But how many peoplare really going to have a piece of and Apple IIe or the original Macs in the the fishtank box?

Hey, maybe I can get cynaogen mod/Android to run on the SE/30…Just need a bigger harddrive…Damnit, I need to find a scsi drive.[/quote]

I still have the Quadra 610 DOS Compatible (circa 1994 in mint condition) completely “maxed out” with all components incl ultra-wide SCSI and 14″ Apple Display (Sony Trinitron). Runs up to System 8. All very heavy duty. Also have two extremely reliable SCSI drives, one LaCie 2GB and one Fujitsu 17GB (NOT selling – still in operation).

Believe it or not, I paid nearly $4K for all (incl software)!

Eat your heart out, Piggs!

[bearishgurl]

spdrun, most of the condo complexes in the area of Rancho Mission Road and Friars (92108) are fairly new. This area is very, very congested, meaning it could take 40 minutes to drive from the Fashion Valley area to this area or the reverse, ESP during lunch hours in the middle of the business day. If you have rentals there, you would experience a LOT of competition for tenants. Yes, it IS convenient to the trolley, Qualcomm Stadium (football) and various well-known SD urban communities and 4 freeways.

You should be aware that this area lies both on and adjacent to the SD River bank and is considered to be a CA “Type A” floodplain. Therefore, the developments likely require flood insurance (pd by the assns). Most of the more recent condo developers around there have had to “shore up” the land they built condos on and also “shore up” the riverbank with what we call “glass breakwater” techniques using infill. This particular area of the riverbank is still inhabited by homeless camps, IIRC.

Luckily, the freeways are situated over and above this area, reducing much of the tire noise that would be present if the freeway was situated below these streets and condo complexes. Shopping is plentiful in the area except for grocery shopping which can be found in up the hill off Mission Village Drive off Sandrock (Mission Village), up Mission Gorge Rd (Allied Gardens) or up Qualcomm Drive (formerly “Texas St”) on the south side of I-8 (North Park).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee]Interesting. I’m pretty happy to have just bought in South 4S Ranch with the following:

Stone Ranch Elementary 963 10 / 7

Also, Del Norte now has the top scores in PUSD.
(Admittedly, this is all splitting hairs and my kids will not be in HS for 12 more years or so…)
And yes, I realize that schools in La Jolla and Carmel Valley are a bit higher. 🙂

I’m a bit confused by the whole “statewide rank” and “similar schools rank.”
I guess the first compares you to all schools, and the second compares you to schools with a similar demographic or income.

But here’s where I get confused:

Rancho Santa Fe Elementary School District:
R. Roger Rowe Elemntary: 951 10 / 10

I am really interested that it has a 10 in similar schools with a score of 951, while my local school has a 7 in similar schools with a score of 963.

Does this imply that the demographics of 4S are in a higher category by some measurement (surely not income!) than the demographics or RSF?

Or, if it is income-based, does it mean that the kids of top income earners statewide (RSF and similar areas) actually have a lower average score than the kids of upper middle class professional types who live in 4S?[/quote]

Essbee, the bulk of properties located inside the covenant (RSF being one of those areas) are MUCH older than those in 4S Ranch (which I presume attracts mostly young families headed by one or more “professional worker-bee” parents).

This is NOT the case with RSF. The majority of households there are likely headed by retirees and small biz owners (who live off investments and profits). Believe it or not, one could purchase a <=3000 sf SFR (likely "cosmetic fixer") inside the covenant just 20 years ago for $275K to $400K! Just because SFRs located in a particular exclusive "enclave" in CA (ie. LJ Muirlands, RSF/Fairbanks, Palos Verdes, Pebble Beach) are "expensive" by today's standards, doesn't necessarily mean that the bulk of its owners are necessarily "highly-educated" or even have any minor children in residence. I have absolutely no doubt that many of the RSF's owners *grandchildren* are a large segment of the children who attend RSF's elementary school(s). It's very possible that they and their parent[s] (the children of "covenant-homeowners") actually reside in the parents home. These "parents" aren't necessarily "highly educated." There is always a reason young parents bring their children “back home” to live with parents.

It’s such an oft-touted fallacy on this site that average AGI on income tax returns is somehow a measure of an area’s residents’ “net worth” or “wealth.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Often, a higher median AGI for any area simply means the population there is younger overall and is currently paying more income tax. In addition, this younger, “higher-taxable-income worker-bee set” is more often than not MUCH more indebted than its forebears who often have little to zero mortgage and zero consumer debt.

In fact, Essbee, the area you left in Clairemont likely has far more owners with a MUCH higher “net worth” than the area you moved to!

I don’t know exactly what criteria greatschools.org uses to rate schools’ demographic data. It may be have to do with the teacher-student ratio or the amount of applications parents file with the district to obtain a free or reduced-price lunch for their child(ren) at a particular school. Just because a school is located in RSF, LJ or PL doesn’t in any way mean the bulk of their students’ parents are necessarily of means or that they or the student(s) grandparents are even qualified to help them with homework. The students’ parents could very well be living in subsidized housing in the area, have transferred their kids to that school from another area or be living with their parents or more established siblings due to their inability to earn enough money to support their children.

I can’t even begin to tell you how many (mostly senior) homeowners I know who own valuable paid-off residences in SD’s finest neighborhoods and possess only a GED, previous state occupational licenses, “ROP” Certificate, a high-school diploma … or even less.

In a nutshell, in more established areas, educational level of homeowners has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with property values or net worth of the residents there. Hence, some of the schools in those well-established areas which greatschools.org has rated lower are actually very good schools. The student-teacher ratio is typically less because there are less students living in the attendance area and less transfer applications because the “low” (lol) API score scares many parents from making application to these schools.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][img_assist|nid=16324|title=It must be Five O’clock P.M. Somewhere|desc=,B>It must be Five O’clock P.M. Somewhere|link=node|align=left|width=720|height=960][/quote]

Ironic that I just scheduled my fall “crushing season” NoCal mini-cation yesterday 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
I’m beginning to think sdr is starting his “imbibement hour” too early in the business day :=0[/quote]

Hi BG 🙂 didn’t think anyone else was still watching this train wreck.

I’d rather give sdr the benefit of the doubt. I screwed up and misattributed something. I’m not even sure I addressed the point he was making. 11-12 pages in….these things can get pretty confusing.[/quote]

Well, its not easy keeping it all straight from several days ago when we have pri_dk in here muddying the waters hourly beginning with his lament of public DB plans, then moving over to lament private DB plans, then waffling back and forth.

If he would have begun that “legislation-drafting session” with his co-lamenters, sdr and nsr (of which I had suggested to them weeks ago), we wouldn’t still be discussing this issue here ad nauseum. They would all be BUSY BEES doing their part to “make a difference.” :=]

http://piggington.com/otcontest_to_guess_the_occupant_of_beautiful_new_building_in_rsf

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=sdrealtor]
SK
I’m beginning to think you could be a bit bi-polar. Re-read the quoted passage and you will see the 17% was your figure and no one elses. You also attributed my comment that “many public companies are merely shells” (they are and that is indisputable) to Harvey. Time to up the meds.[/quote]

The 17% was originally harvey’s number. I said 20-30%, he called me out on it. I provided a link to an article that I think said 30% (as did another poster). I used the 17% because it’s lower, no need to reargue that point.[/quote]

I’m beginning to think sdr is starting his “imbibement hour” too early in the business day :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=harvey]…Do a google on GM and “legacy costs” and you’ll see lots of info describing just how big the issue is. Every GM car still carries the cost (mostly healthcare) of employees who retired decades ago. Some estimates are as high as $2,000 per car! At one time a huge portion of these liabilities didn’t even show on the balance sheet…[/quote]

Uhhh, pri_dk, GM employees who retired “decades ago” are likely now on Medicare or deceased. How is it that their (exorbitant?) healthcare costs are wrapped into the price of a new GM vehicle today?

How many “decades” is “decades ago?” And …. more to the point, what was the average retirement age for a GM autoworker??

[bearishgurl]

pri_dk/harvey, I see you STILL haven’t made an appointment with your “representative” yet. For someone so full of “solutions,” what gives??

How are all these Pigg peons going to do anything about this mess??

I’ve offered at least twice to assist you and your brethren “DB-pension haters” in rewriting the law as your “contribution” towards solving CA’s “public pension crisis” and I’m STILL waiting ….

http://piggington.com/otcontest_to_guess_the_occupant_of_beautiful_new_building_in_rsf

Now GET BUSY!!!

[Author]

Posts