[DWCAP]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.[/quote]

What do you do and how do I get to do it too?

[DWCAP]

[quote=Ash Housewares]
For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.[/quote]

What do you do and how do I get to do it too?

[DWCAP]

[quote=Aecetia]Brian-
Here is the impact of the non residents on the State budget: taken from an article in the Sunday’s San Diego Union “even a modest “10% false registration rate, … would be 4,200 students at a $10,800 average cost per student, or more than $45 million per year.”

They are not illegals. They live in Mexico and get driven up here to attend school for free. It all adds up and costs the California tax payers, causes increases in work load for teachers and increased class size, etc. It is a problem because the school officials refuse to enforce residence requirements. More waste, fraud and abuse.[/quote]

I am shocked this thread didnt become as explosive as earlier threads did. I read through last night and said to myself “read this one tomorrow, itll be crazy!”. Stangly enough, it wasnt. Pat on the back to the piggs.

Aecetia I totally get where you are coming from. I read an article about this in Imperial County and I was just flabbergasted. It is basically an eduaction subsidy to Mexico. Parents work, pay taxes, and vote in Mexico, but send their kids to school in California. They just walk across the border. I think the reason most people missed what you are saying is that this only happens in Southern San Diego and Imperial Counties. Everywhere else is just too far away to make it work. Illegal immigration is a totally different problem.

As for public employees pay, and cutting it. Eh, the vast majority of public employees dont get rich on their pay. The difference is the benifits and the job security. Id rather vote on a requirment that

1) All officers (ie Lt’s and Captns and district superviors etc) be considered management and not elegable for pensions and the “front line” benifits. They can keep what they have, but no more. These guys are paper pushers now, not front line personal. I have a feeling the increadable growth/demand in costs would slow when managment, ie those overseeing the money, dont also get to partake.

2) All pension/benifit/wage costs must be fully paid for each year and all contracts come up for negotiation every 2-4 years exactly 2 months before November elections. No deferring costs to the future. Lets see how many boards of supervisors wanna agree to increases when they gotta turn around and face the voters with tax increases.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Aecetia]Brian-
Here is the impact of the non residents on the State budget: taken from an article in the Sunday’s San Diego Union “even a modest “10% false registration rate, … would be 4,200 students at a $10,800 average cost per student, or more than $45 million per year.”

They are not illegals. They live in Mexico and get driven up here to attend school for free. It all adds up and costs the California tax payers, causes increases in work load for teachers and increased class size, etc. It is a problem because the school officials refuse to enforce residence requirements. More waste, fraud and abuse.[/quote]

I am shocked this thread didnt become as explosive as earlier threads did. I read through last night and said to myself “read this one tomorrow, itll be crazy!”. Stangly enough, it wasnt. Pat on the back to the piggs.

Aecetia I totally get where you are coming from. I read an article about this in Imperial County and I was just flabbergasted. It is basically an eduaction subsidy to Mexico. Parents work, pay taxes, and vote in Mexico, but send their kids to school in California. They just walk across the border. I think the reason most people missed what you are saying is that this only happens in Southern San Diego and Imperial Counties. Everywhere else is just too far away to make it work. Illegal immigration is a totally different problem.

As for public employees pay, and cutting it. Eh, the vast majority of public employees dont get rich on their pay. The difference is the benifits and the job security. Id rather vote on a requirment that

1) All officers (ie Lt’s and Captns and district superviors etc) be considered management and not elegable for pensions and the “front line” benifits. They can keep what they have, but no more. These guys are paper pushers now, not front line personal. I have a feeling the increadable growth/demand in costs would slow when managment, ie those overseeing the money, dont also get to partake.

2) All pension/benifit/wage costs must be fully paid for each year and all contracts come up for negotiation every 2-4 years exactly 2 months before November elections. No deferring costs to the future. Lets see how many boards of supervisors wanna agree to increases when they gotta turn around and face the voters with tax increases.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Aecetia]Brian-
Here is the impact of the non residents on the State budget: taken from an article in the Sunday’s San Diego Union “even a modest “10% false registration rate, … would be 4,200 students at a $10,800 average cost per student, or more than $45 million per year.”

They are not illegals. They live in Mexico and get driven up here to attend school for free. It all adds up and costs the California tax payers, causes increases in work load for teachers and increased class size, etc. It is a problem because the school officials refuse to enforce residence requirements. More waste, fraud and abuse.[/quote]

I am shocked this thread didnt become as explosive as earlier threads did. I read through last night and said to myself “read this one tomorrow, itll be crazy!”. Stangly enough, it wasnt. Pat on the back to the piggs.

Aecetia I totally get where you are coming from. I read an article about this in Imperial County and I was just flabbergasted. It is basically an eduaction subsidy to Mexico. Parents work, pay taxes, and vote in Mexico, but send their kids to school in California. They just walk across the border. I think the reason most people missed what you are saying is that this only happens in Southern San Diego and Imperial Counties. Everywhere else is just too far away to make it work. Illegal immigration is a totally different problem.

As for public employees pay, and cutting it. Eh, the vast majority of public employees dont get rich on their pay. The difference is the benifits and the job security. Id rather vote on a requirment that

1) All officers (ie Lt’s and Captns and district superviors etc) be considered management and not elegable for pensions and the “front line” benifits. They can keep what they have, but no more. These guys are paper pushers now, not front line personal. I have a feeling the increadable growth/demand in costs would slow when managment, ie those overseeing the money, dont also get to partake.

2) All pension/benifit/wage costs must be fully paid for each year and all contracts come up for negotiation every 2-4 years exactly 2 months before November elections. No deferring costs to the future. Lets see how many boards of supervisors wanna agree to increases when they gotta turn around and face the voters with tax increases.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Aecetia]Brian-
Here is the impact of the non residents on the State budget: taken from an article in the Sunday’s San Diego Union “even a modest “10% false registration rate, … would be 4,200 students at a $10,800 average cost per student, or more than $45 million per year.”

They are not illegals. They live in Mexico and get driven up here to attend school for free. It all adds up and costs the California tax payers, causes increases in work load for teachers and increased class size, etc. It is a problem because the school officials refuse to enforce residence requirements. More waste, fraud and abuse.[/quote]

I am shocked this thread didnt become as explosive as earlier threads did. I read through last night and said to myself “read this one tomorrow, itll be crazy!”. Stangly enough, it wasnt. Pat on the back to the piggs.

Aecetia I totally get where you are coming from. I read an article about this in Imperial County and I was just flabbergasted. It is basically an eduaction subsidy to Mexico. Parents work, pay taxes, and vote in Mexico, but send their kids to school in California. They just walk across the border. I think the reason most people missed what you are saying is that this only happens in Southern San Diego and Imperial Counties. Everywhere else is just too far away to make it work. Illegal immigration is a totally different problem.

As for public employees pay, and cutting it. Eh, the vast majority of public employees dont get rich on their pay. The difference is the benifits and the job security. Id rather vote on a requirment that

1) All officers (ie Lt’s and Captns and district superviors etc) be considered management and not elegable for pensions and the “front line” benifits. They can keep what they have, but no more. These guys are paper pushers now, not front line personal. I have a feeling the increadable growth/demand in costs would slow when managment, ie those overseeing the money, dont also get to partake.

2) All pension/benifit/wage costs must be fully paid for each year and all contracts come up for negotiation every 2-4 years exactly 2 months before November elections. No deferring costs to the future. Lets see how many boards of supervisors wanna agree to increases when they gotta turn around and face the voters with tax increases.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Aecetia]Brian-
Here is the impact of the non residents on the State budget: taken from an article in the Sunday’s San Diego Union “even a modest “10% false registration rate, … would be 4,200 students at a $10,800 average cost per student, or more than $45 million per year.”

They are not illegals. They live in Mexico and get driven up here to attend school for free. It all adds up and costs the California tax payers, causes increases in work load for teachers and increased class size, etc. It is a problem because the school officials refuse to enforce residence requirements. More waste, fraud and abuse.[/quote]

I am shocked this thread didnt become as explosive as earlier threads did. I read through last night and said to myself “read this one tomorrow, itll be crazy!”. Stangly enough, it wasnt. Pat on the back to the piggs.

Aecetia I totally get where you are coming from. I read an article about this in Imperial County and I was just flabbergasted. It is basically an eduaction subsidy to Mexico. Parents work, pay taxes, and vote in Mexico, but send their kids to school in California. They just walk across the border. I think the reason most people missed what you are saying is that this only happens in Southern San Diego and Imperial Counties. Everywhere else is just too far away to make it work. Illegal immigration is a totally different problem.

As for public employees pay, and cutting it. Eh, the vast majority of public employees dont get rich on their pay. The difference is the benifits and the job security. Id rather vote on a requirment that

1) All officers (ie Lt’s and Captns and district superviors etc) be considered management and not elegable for pensions and the “front line” benifits. They can keep what they have, but no more. These guys are paper pushers now, not front line personal. I have a feeling the increadable growth/demand in costs would slow when managment, ie those overseeing the money, dont also get to partake.

2) All pension/benifit/wage costs must be fully paid for each year and all contracts come up for negotiation every 2-4 years exactly 2 months before November elections. No deferring costs to the future. Lets see how many boards of supervisors wanna agree to increases when they gotta turn around and face the voters with tax increases.

[DWCAP]

While I see alot of the wisdom of what Allen and Dave are saying, I think there are two problems that they are overlooking in their “play the hand we have” outlook.

1) Change only happens when we are stressed. It took the repeated depression like swings of 1900-1939 to get alot of the rules we have/had about banks. When things get better, we will have no inputus to go back. One or two of the weakest banks wont heal, and changing the rules will “come to early”; because it will forever be to early for them. Atleast until the height of the next bubble, when everything is perfectly awsome, and then it will be dracoionion measures that caused a recession (read bubble burst) that cause more ‘hold my nose and do it’ backpeddling on the rules.

2) Stable responsible banks exist. They are lead by old school guys who fought their boards/stockholders when they were ‘only’ making 8% returns and everyone else was ‘earning’ 15%. They knew 15% was a joke, and would blow up in their faces, and they were right. If the rules are changed and the responsible punished for being responsible, then next time everyone will go for 15% and will just cozy up to their local politican as insurance. So we get more corrupt politicans and more unstable banking. Just what we need.
We could avoid this, except for #1 above.

I would say that a reasonable idea would be to make the changes temporary, like, “for the next two years…” and then hold to the date. But we have tried that time and again, and as the date approaches, the lobbying intensifies, and we delay again, and we end up back at #1. Perpetual temporary changes are no different than just changing the rules.

[DWCAP]

While I see alot of the wisdom of what Allen and Dave are saying, I think there are two problems that they are overlooking in their “play the hand we have” outlook.

1) Change only happens when we are stressed. It took the repeated depression like swings of 1900-1939 to get alot of the rules we have/had about banks. When things get better, we will have no inputus to go back. One or two of the weakest banks wont heal, and changing the rules will “come to early”; because it will forever be to early for them. Atleast until the height of the next bubble, when everything is perfectly awsome, and then it will be dracoionion measures that caused a recession (read bubble burst) that cause more ‘hold my nose and do it’ backpeddling on the rules.

2) Stable responsible banks exist. They are lead by old school guys who fought their boards/stockholders when they were ‘only’ making 8% returns and everyone else was ‘earning’ 15%. They knew 15% was a joke, and would blow up in their faces, and they were right. If the rules are changed and the responsible punished for being responsible, then next time everyone will go for 15% and will just cozy up to their local politican as insurance. So we get more corrupt politicans and more unstable banking. Just what we need.
We could avoid this, except for #1 above.

I would say that a reasonable idea would be to make the changes temporary, like, “for the next two years…” and then hold to the date. But we have tried that time and again, and as the date approaches, the lobbying intensifies, and we delay again, and we end up back at #1. Perpetual temporary changes are no different than just changing the rules.

[DWCAP]

While I see alot of the wisdom of what Allen and Dave are saying, I think there are two problems that they are overlooking in their “play the hand we have” outlook.

1) Change only happens when we are stressed. It took the repeated depression like swings of 1900-1939 to get alot of the rules we have/had about banks. When things get better, we will have no inputus to go back. One or two of the weakest banks wont heal, and changing the rules will “come to early”; because it will forever be to early for them. Atleast until the height of the next bubble, when everything is perfectly awsome, and then it will be dracoionion measures that caused a recession (read bubble burst) that cause more ‘hold my nose and do it’ backpeddling on the rules.

2) Stable responsible banks exist. They are lead by old school guys who fought their boards/stockholders when they were ‘only’ making 8% returns and everyone else was ‘earning’ 15%. They knew 15% was a joke, and would blow up in their faces, and they were right. If the rules are changed and the responsible punished for being responsible, then next time everyone will go for 15% and will just cozy up to their local politican as insurance. So we get more corrupt politicans and more unstable banking. Just what we need.
We could avoid this, except for #1 above.

I would say that a reasonable idea would be to make the changes temporary, like, “for the next two years…” and then hold to the date. But we have tried that time and again, and as the date approaches, the lobbying intensifies, and we delay again, and we end up back at #1. Perpetual temporary changes are no different than just changing the rules.

[DWCAP]

While I see alot of the wisdom of what Allen and Dave are saying, I think there are two problems that they are overlooking in their “play the hand we have” outlook.

1) Change only happens when we are stressed. It took the repeated depression like swings of 1900-1939 to get alot of the rules we have/had about banks. When things get better, we will have no inputus to go back. One or two of the weakest banks wont heal, and changing the rules will “come to early”; because it will forever be to early for them. Atleast until the height of the next bubble, when everything is perfectly awsome, and then it will be dracoionion measures that caused a recession (read bubble burst) that cause more ‘hold my nose and do it’ backpeddling on the rules.

2) Stable responsible banks exist. They are lead by old school guys who fought their boards/stockholders when they were ‘only’ making 8% returns and everyone else was ‘earning’ 15%. They knew 15% was a joke, and would blow up in their faces, and they were right. If the rules are changed and the responsible punished for being responsible, then next time everyone will go for 15% and will just cozy up to their local politican as insurance. So we get more corrupt politicans and more unstable banking. Just what we need.
We could avoid this, except for #1 above.

I would say that a reasonable idea would be to make the changes temporary, like, “for the next two years…” and then hold to the date. But we have tried that time and again, and as the date approaches, the lobbying intensifies, and we delay again, and we end up back at #1. Perpetual temporary changes are no different than just changing the rules.

[DWCAP]

While I see alot of the wisdom of what Allen and Dave are saying, I think there are two problems that they are overlooking in their “play the hand we have” outlook.

1) Change only happens when we are stressed. It took the repeated depression like swings of 1900-1939 to get alot of the rules we have/had about banks. When things get better, we will have no inputus to go back. One or two of the weakest banks wont heal, and changing the rules will “come to early”; because it will forever be to early for them. Atleast until the height of the next bubble, when everything is perfectly awsome, and then it will be dracoionion measures that caused a recession (read bubble burst) that cause more ‘hold my nose and do it’ backpeddling on the rules.

2) Stable responsible banks exist. They are lead by old school guys who fought their boards/stockholders when they were ‘only’ making 8% returns and everyone else was ‘earning’ 15%. They knew 15% was a joke, and would blow up in their faces, and they were right. If the rules are changed and the responsible punished for being responsible, then next time everyone will go for 15% and will just cozy up to their local politican as insurance. So we get more corrupt politicans and more unstable banking. Just what we need.
We could avoid this, except for #1 above.

I would say that a reasonable idea would be to make the changes temporary, like, “for the next two years…” and then hold to the date. But we have tried that time and again, and as the date approaches, the lobbying intensifies, and we delay again, and we end up back at #1. Perpetual temporary changes are no different than just changing the rules.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jimmyle]I only have 1/3 of the formula. And I am an above average saver. I doubt that even 10% of the 20s and 30s crowd meet the criteria.

For example,

30 year old guy making $80K needs $240K nest egg to meet the criteria. Let say he starts working at 23, he needs to save $35K a year while paying down his $20K+ college loan. Impossible.

Unless he bought a house on 0% down in 2002 and sold it in 2006.[/quote]

Add on to that fact that this guy didnt start at 80k when he was 23. He prob started at ~40k, and has been working his way up. So for the first few years he would have to be saving more than his after tax income.

Maybe we should use a real life example and modify the formula so that it is multiplied by 1/3. Meaning a 30 year old making 80k a year needs to have socked away 80k. It wouldnt be easy, but that is atleast in the ballpark of doable.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jimmyle]I only have 1/3 of the formula. And I am an above average saver. I doubt that even 10% of the 20s and 30s crowd meet the criteria.

For example,

30 year old guy making $80K needs $240K nest egg to meet the criteria. Let say he starts working at 23, he needs to save $35K a year while paying down his $20K+ college loan. Impossible.

Unless he bought a house on 0% down in 2002 and sold it in 2006.[/quote]

Add on to that fact that this guy didnt start at 80k when he was 23. He prob started at ~40k, and has been working his way up. So for the first few years he would have to be saving more than his after tax income.

Maybe we should use a real life example and modify the formula so that it is multiplied by 1/3. Meaning a 30 year old making 80k a year needs to have socked away 80k. It wouldnt be easy, but that is atleast in the ballpark of doable.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jimmyle]I only have 1/3 of the formula. And I am an above average saver. I doubt that even 10% of the 20s and 30s crowd meet the criteria.

For example,

30 year old guy making $80K needs $240K nest egg to meet the criteria. Let say he starts working at 23, he needs to save $35K a year while paying down his $20K+ college loan. Impossible.

Unless he bought a house on 0% down in 2002 and sold it in 2006.[/quote]

Add on to that fact that this guy didnt start at 80k when he was 23. He prob started at ~40k, and has been working his way up. So for the first few years he would have to be saving more than his after tax income.

Maybe we should use a real life example and modify the formula so that it is multiplied by 1/3. Meaning a 30 year old making 80k a year needs to have socked away 80k. It wouldnt be easy, but that is atleast in the ballpark of doable.

[Author]

Posts