[EconProf]

This thread has had a lot of back and forth about little details about public employee pensions. But there are several well-established realities that all sides ought to agree on which point to a grossly unfair system that will only get worse.
It is well known that public sector employees have total compensation that far exceeds similar positions in the private sector. Remember that total compensation includes ALL fringe benefits: medical, retirement, vacation days off, etc., plus the smaller likelihood for getting fired for poor performance. And fire and police personnel are good at gaming the system to enhance their benefits with pseudo disability claims, racking up overtime in their final year, etc. Those same public safety workers have convinced the public that their jobs are dangerous, even though the mortality rates for a host of other occupations are far greater. Construction workers, fishermen, farmers, taxi-drivers, convenience store clerks face far more danger and higher on-the-job deaths. And on top of it all, the latter workers retire in their 60’s in order to pay taxes to support the public safety workers retiring in their 50’s.
Let’s remember these obvious realities and not get so bogged down in little details. Government pension expenses in cities, counties, and states are exploding and squeezing out other needed government goods and services.

[EconProf]

[quote=CA renter]Let’s look at where the real money is coming from, and whether it’s supporting labor or capital, shall we?

[formatting issues, but click on the link]

Grand Total Democrats Republicans Dem % Repub %
Business $698,136,635 $295,238,284 $398,886,016 43% 57%

Labor $284,017 $272,187 $8,855 97% 3%

————

The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

Even among PACs – the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions – business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.

An important caveat must be added to these figures: “business” contributions from individuals are based on the donor’s occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php%5B/quote%5D
CAR: You report how business donations far outweigh labor donations. But don’t a lot of businesses support liberal causes? Solyndra comes to mind. With crony capitalism under Obama, big business is “persuaded” to help out the existing administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Let’s remember that true conservatives do not automatically support big business.
I recall media reports that in present House and Senage races, the Republicans are being outspent by Democrats, even with the troubled economy and foreign policy.
I don’t know if this funding difference is true or not, so perhaps you can look it up. Your research seems to be thorough, so I tend to trust what you will reveal to us.

[EconProf]

It appears she was rude and obnoxious, and the deputy was looking for an excuse to get revenge. A less macho officer would know how to defuse the situation. A lot of taxpayers money was wasted because these two deputies let their egos get in the way. Thank goodness for the cameras, they contradicted what the deputies claimed in their report.

[EconProf]

I must say I did not expect this subject to elicit such anti-dog sentiment. FWIW, I like dogs. They love you unconditionally, can be fun to play with, and are companions that don’t talk back to you. I’d like to own one for about twenty minutes a day.
But if you do an honest cost/benefit analysis on the full implications of owning one, it doesn’t make sense for most people.

[EconProf]

I have had many rentals for many years, and I used to accept pets. But after a while I realized it was just not worth it. Getting the units handed back to me with pet damage just got to be too much. And every prospective tenant claimed their dog was trained, not a barker, and they would of course take good care of the unit. I may be a slow learner, but eventually the evidence just became overwhelming.
As to the common assumption that cutting your prospective rental pool in half (approximately) by not allowing pets hurts one’s rent levels and bottom line–the opposite may be true. Some tenants actually want a pet-free environment. They may be tired of barking dogs and poop on the lawns and be seeking out my kind of apartment complex. Accordingly, my Craigslist ad actually says “Sorry, no pets allowed in these clean and quiet buildings.” Don’t know if I gain more prospects than I lose from such a policy.

[EconProf]

Above all, be realistic about the costs and revenues of renting out. Beginning landlords usually underestimate costs and overestimate rents. They especially ignor fix-up costs, vacancy periods, opportunity cost of your equity, and the notorious Tenant-From-Hell.
On the other hand, I am optimistic about San Diego’s housing prices over the next couple of years, unlike you. So the appreciation of your old house may nicely offset the possible losses on renting out a SFH.

[EconProf]

[quote=pencilneck]Thanks Sk! Very good explanation.

I still didn’t really get it until I saw a chart that illustrated what you were saying. But you were spot on.
http://www.stancounty.com/assessor/pdf/prop8-13.pdf%5B/quote%5D
Pencilneck:
That explanation and graph is a very good description of the law. I recommend it to everyone confused by Prop 13.
Now, the question you have not yet answered: what is your property really worth?

[EconProf]

I am not sure from the data you reveal, but it seems the property got a temporary assessment reduction while either you or the previous owner owned it. It doesn’t matter, the Assessor has the right to now “catch up” with the market value if it is rising rapidly. In other words, the 2% per year Proposition 13 rule does not apply yet in this case.
Now if you bought it for $300k in 2010 and the Assessor now wants to tax it based on a value of $313k, it seems to me you have a good deal since properties have appreciated so much since 2010.
If you think you are overassessed, would you consider selling the property at $313k?

[EconProf]

Another benefit to the 10% or 20% down payment buyers is that they had to develop self-discipline and budgeting skills over years in order to buy a house. So they not only had “skin in the game”, they had the habit of saving for the future. A no-down or little-down buyer has no such experience.

[EconProf]

Lease-option arrangements are like business partnerships with relatives–they almost never work out.
HLS gave good advice–reread his piece.

[EconProf]

Today’s copy of USA Today has some interesting data points about the status quo with existing tenure and unions in CA:
1. An average of 2.2 teachers a year are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in a state where 275,000 teachers work.
2. A CA teacher has a better chance of being struck by lightning than being fired for incompetence.
3. A teacher in CA can gain what amounts to lifetime job protection in less than two years–the deadline for deciding whether to give tenure to new, probationary teachers. When layoffs occur, the newest teachers are the first to go, even if they are top performers. Seniority rules.
This is the status quo that union defenders have to answer for. Now that parents, employers, and the broader public is demanding change, I think that is a good thing. And I really don’t mind if rich people are among those advocating change. Let’s look at the merits of the arguments, not who is pushing for the needed reforms.

[EconProf]

Exactly right, UCGal
Teachers should be evaluated on how much progress they make with their students each calendar year, not simply the average of their class at the end of the year. Call it value added, and then pay accordingly.
Teachers tend to want the easy job of working with well-to-do suburban kids with all the advantages that implies. It is easier and more fun. Naturally the higher seniority teachers gravitate to those schools, and the union rules enable this practice.
In the meantime, the truely disadvantaged inner city and minority schools are hurt by the status quo. It is interesting how unions, and the liberals that support their cause end up hurting the poor and helping the well-off.
I suggest that a teacher that inspires and helps a class of losers in a weak school go from awful to merely average in an academic year should be paid accordingly. Say, twice what an average teacher makes today. And an underperforming teacher in a wealthy school should have their next year’s pay reduced. This might encourage them to leave teaching, an added bonus. Of course, unions would oppose such an incentive-based system.

[EconProf]

Let’s step back from the minutia this thread has turned into and look at the larger issues this ruling points to. Much of the national and CA media have pointed out the shakeup this will have on public sector unions.
In essence, the court pointed out what has been obvious to the broader public for a long time: that what teachers’ unions advocate and practice hurts especially the poor and minority population, the very people liberals claim to want to help. The unions protect the adults at the expense of the children. The black and Hispanic parents who see their children trapped in failing schools have been clamoring for change. They cannot afford the private schools the rich liberals opt for, but favor vouchers, home-schooling, charter schools, lotteries to get into union-free schools–anything but their union-dominated local schools.
Now it will be interesting to witness the coming war within the democratic party. How will black and Hispanic politicians react to the rising tide of awareness among their own electorate of the harmful effects of liberalism. Some courageous democrats have already spoken up and broken from the status quo. More will be forced to in the future. This will be interesting to watch.

[EconProf]

This is a very significant ruling that will have huge positive ramifications for public schools in California. At last, teachers can be evaluated and bounced if they are demonstrably awful. Being stuck with a bad teacher for a whole school year can do real damage to the students, who are usually the ones in poor and minority neighborhoods. The unions, and the tenure they support, is meant to protect the adults, not the children.

[EconProf]

[quote=joecA lot of economist didn’t even see the bubble coming and there are plenty of stock market “experts” as well…[/quote]
Exactly right. Which is why one’s record should be fully disclosed before they are interviewed or quoted.

[Author]

Posts