[Brucev]

Pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... i.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

What do we do with the politicians who negotiated unrealistic pension obligations in the first place?

Research San Jose. They had one of the worst retirements in the state yet they somehow can't fund the pension. Orange county is another. They lot money in the 90s. Who lost money in the 90s? People committing fraud and got caught and sent to club fed. Morgan Hill is actually doing very well for employee pensions because they set up a secret account for rainy days. They actually have the best pension for non public safety in the area because of it.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Brucev

Pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... i.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

And everyone should get a castle, and a unicorn, and free hugs for life.

[Clutch Cargo]

The Texas Municipal Retirement System has always been financially sound due to conservative investing. We have not had a year-end bonus in a few years, but we are on solid financial ground.

[Brucev]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

And everyone should get a castle, and a unicorn, and free hugs for life.

No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised their pension as a part of their compensation have every right to expect that pension to be paid by the state which made the agreement. If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Brucev

No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised

Pensioners entered a legally binding contract, which is something else entirely. It should have been very obvious that there was no possibility that the government would have the funds to pay the contracts at the time they were signed. That's part of the reason I left government service.

Because the governments are broke, they pursue legal methods (like bankruptcy) which void a contract when one party is incapable of paying.

If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying.

The pensioners are at the mercy of whatever they get. That's the nature of depending on someone else to fund one's retirement. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue to fund pension systems, no matter how much you want to raise taxes. You can only squeeze the taxpayer so much.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by brucev

pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... Let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... I.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

lol !!

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Pensioners entered a legally binding contract, which is something else entirely. It should have been very obvious that there was no possibility that the government would have the funds to pay the contracts at the time they were signed. That's part of the reason I left government service.

Because the governments are broke, they pursue legal methods (like bankruptcy) which void a contract when one party is incapable of paying.



The pensioners are at the mercy of whatever they get. That's the nature of depending on someone else to fund one's retirement. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue to fund pension systems, no matter how much you want to raise taxes. You can only squeeze the taxpayer so much.

The interesting thing about cities going bankrupt is that it makes things better for the employees because the books are now opened. No more "behind closed doors" awarding of contracts or funding pet rograms.

Vallejo employees are essentially being paid the prevailing wage for the area with similar benefits. If they didn't they would have no one wanting to work for them. See San Jose for details on that. They are trying to retroactively nogotiate without bankruptcy and it is going badly.

[sourdough44]

There is no $$$, the Federal Gov't is borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent. A painful adjustment is in store.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

The interesting thing about cities going bankrupt is that it makes things better for the employees because the books are now opened. No more "behind closed doors" awarding of contracts or funding pet rograms.

Vallejo employees are essentially being paid the prevailing wage for the area with similar benefits. If they didn't they would have no one wanting to work for them. See San Jose for details on that. They are trying to retroactively nogotiate without bankruptcy and it is going badly.

Prevailing wage isn't necessary for gov employees. There will always be plenty of people without better options to take those jobs. Performance will remain static.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Prevailing wage isn't necessary for gov employees. There will always be plenty of people without better options to take those jobs. Performance will remain static.

There is always a prevailing wage, even for government workers. Maybe my view is colored by living and working in and near the Silicon Valley for nearly 20 years.

An IT worker for a governement needs to be paid and compensated somewhat similarly to a private sector work. If not he will leave for the private sector. The city of San Jose is about to learn that lesson the hard way. I suspect within a few years their IT department will consist of new grads looking for experience and then moving on quickly. There will of course be a cost to this turnover.

Now for my job. Sure their is no direct equivalent for my job in the private sector. However their are dozens of governement agencies within easy commute times of where I live. Take San Jose for example. Thier pay used to be consistently #3 for the county they are in. Their benefits was probably last but at least they had plenty of assignments. They laid off over 100 cops. They then tried to hire them back when a bunch started leaving for other agencies. They could see the writing on the wall. Now they are dead last in terms of pay and benefits, possibly for the entire Bay Area. An area of 7.7 million people. They have gone from 1400 officers to just under 1000. For 1 million people in the city. Each one of those officers retired or left for other departments. During good economic times they have a 6% hire rate from app to hire. For the planned academy class they have coming up they are going to have to interview 1,000 people minimum to get what they want. I suspect they will not fill their academy spots because they are dead last in pay and benefits.

Maybe it is because you are from the South that you think the way you do. Traditionally the South has had the worst pay and training for officers. Maybe you guys in the South just don't care about the quality of officers you have protecting you. I guess CA here in the West, which has paid the best and has given new officers the most training, cares more about who is going to come when they dial 911.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

There is always a prevailing wage, even for government workers. Maybe my view is colored by living and working in and near the Silicon Valley for nearly 20 years.

An IT worker for a governement needs to be paid and compensated somewhat similarly to a private sector work.

No, not really. Not every IT worker is a good IT worker. They may lack skills, certs or even the desire to be productive. If they do, government work is perfect for them at whatever wage it pays because they aren't cut out for the private industry.

Government shouldn't compete for the best talent. We need the best talent out producing......to pay for government.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

No, not really. Not every IT worker is a good IT worker. They may lack skills, certs or even the desire to be productive. If they do, government work is perfect for them at whatever wage it pays because they aren't cut out for the private industry.

Government shouldn't compete for the best talent. We need the best talent out producing......to pay for government.

Apparently you missed "somewhat similarly."

Unless of course your motto for government worker's pay is "pay ****, get ****."

Which is perfect for you since you live in the South.

[Clutch Cargo]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

7% for 30 years is not unreasonable--to fund benefits which are not inflation adjusted and are based on this year's salary.

But every pension system I've seen bases your pension on the last few years' salary--i.e., the highest possible ones--and gives increases in benefits for inflation.

7% is not unreasonable--but 7% above inflation is.

Texas Municipal Retirement System does NOT base pension on the last few years salary. If they did, my pension would more than double.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Apparently you missed "somewhat similarly."

Unless of course your motto for government worker's pay is "pay ****, get ****."

Which is perfect for you since you live in the South.

So is it a "prevailing" wage or a "somewhat similarly" wage?

I don't have a motto about government workers pay. Generally speaking I think "pay ****, get ****" is a pretty good one though. Lets face it, if you're willing to accept government work that pretty much means you're going to "give ****" or you'd be in the productive sector in the first place. So, yeah, pay **** get ****.

Also, like I said (perhaps you missed it) it isn't good for the country to have government competing with industry for talent. Like anything else government does, it will make for an inefficient use of resources. So "pay ****, get ****" is actually pretty good, yeah.

Then reduce taxes on the productive sector.

Government workers should aspire to move into the productive sector, like a promotion. They should dream of it and want to get out of government ASAP. Working for the government shouldn't be pleasant.

Then, miraculously, public pension obligations go down.

Amazing how that works.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by jpa

Assuming a 7% rate of return on that money for the next 30 years,

Yet you have left out the part that the market is not returning 7% and there have been years of loses.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

And everyone should get a castle, and a unicorn, and free hugs for life.

What do you have against unicorns and castles?

You must be a hateful person to dislike unicorns.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Brucev

No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised their pension as a part of their compensation have every right to expect that pension to be paid by the state which made the agreement. If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying.

IF someone worked for a private company, and said company promised them a job when they were hired, and then the company doesnt have enough money, should the tax payers have to pick up the tab and pay their salary since they were promised something?

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Brucev

No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised their pension as a part of their compensation have every right to expect that pension to be paid by the state which made the agreement. If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying.

If a person borrows a money to buy a house, mercedes, and a bunch of credit cards, all with legally binding contracts where they PROMISED to pay the money they got back, and then later they cant pay it back, do you support not allowing these people to file bankruptcy and be forced to pay what they promised to pay?

[JohnBT]

"Maybe it is because you are from the South that you think the way you do."

Generalize much? Maybe you need to get out more. You know, take a few fact-finding trips.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by JohnBT

"Maybe it is because you are from the South that you think the way you do."

Generalize much? Maybe you need to get out more. You know, take a few fact-finding trips.

His frame of reference is very small. Every post of his on the subject matter comes back to local California police departments.

[certifiedfunds]

A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. How much value does the person bring to the organization? How will this person help us make more money?

The government has no such consideration. It operates in a zero sum environment. It doesn't grow the pie. Every dollar it spends paying an employed must be taken from someone else by force.

Therefore 2 things:

We want our best talent out growing the pie, not eating it.

Government must make do with what it gets. Make talent fit that.


Generally speaking people who want to achieve, people driven to do more and do it better, don't even consider bottom dollar government jobs. Nor should they. That's how it should be.

Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

...
Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.

But should they be promised castles, unicorns, and hugs for life?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Atlas

But should they be promised castles, unicorns, and hugs for life?

No. They should have conditions and compensation that provides motivation to get out of government employment and into the productive sector as quickly as possible.

The very notion of government pensions for 90% of .gov workers is the antithesis of what we should be doing. We don't need to hire them and hand them a comfy recliner to ride out their 20 years.

[Naelbis]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. How much value does the person bring to the organization? How will this person help us make more money?

The government has no such consideration. It operates in a zero sum environment. It doesn't grow the pie. Every dollar it spends paying an employed must be taken from someone else by force.

Therefore 2 things:

We want our best talent out growing the pie, not eating it.

Government must make do with what it gets. Make talent fit that.


Generally speaking people who want to achieve, people driven to do more and do it better, don't even consider bottom dollar government jobs. Nor should they. That's how it should be.

Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.

Wow....I don't think I can even give your post the response it deserves without breaking the TOS....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine