View Full Version : Public Pensions - myth and facts
Good article on public pensions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-schaitberger/public-employee-pensions_b_1665029.html
flowerseverywhere
7-14-12, 1:01pm
thanks, it is and excellent article.
Unfortunately, everyone is looking for a scapegoat these days for the irresponsible spending our governments have done.
I also don't think it helps that the few cases of abuse are highlighted in bold headlines in the paper and internet. for instance, I have read stories of several high ranking officials in NY state that retired from their high paying jobs and got good pensions, then were hired the next day as contractors making insane amounts of money. Or spiking, when your pension is based on your last three years, so during those years you work huge amounts of overtime so your pension does not reflect your actual years of earnings. I do think as I said, these are by far exceptions to the norm, but those are what make the headlines.
The cynic in me wonders if our overlords are amused to watch us down here in the pit fighting over scraps. Divide and conquer.
The cynic in me wonders if our overlords are amused to watch us down here in the pit fighting over scraps. Divide and conquer.
Jane, I honestly don't think they consider anything beyond how to more effectively and completely line their own pockets. Means to an end. They have much more interesting ways to entertain themselves, I bet.
SteveinMN
7-14-12, 11:29pm
The cynic in me wonders if our overlords are amused to watch us down here in the pit fighting over scraps. Divide and conquer.
A CEO, a Tea Party member and a union laborer sit down at a table where a tray of a dozen cookies have been placed. The CEO grabs 11 of the cookies and says to the Tea Bagger, "Watch out for that union guy -- he wants a piece of your cookie."
Love your "joke" SteveinMN! Sad and true!
Love your "joke" SteveinMN! Sad and true!
Thank you, though I must admit I'm simply repeating something I saw elsewhere. It seems to sum up the situation all too well.
A CEO, a Tea Party member and a union laborer sit down at a table where a tray of a dozen cookies have been placed. The CEO grabs 11 of the cookies and says to the Tea Bagger, "Watch out for that union guy -- he wants a piece of your cookie."
:laff::laff::laff:
In Arizona, salaries for public workers are 3% to 13% lower than private sector workers. http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_government_salary
That's nothing new. At one point in ~ 2000, they were the lowest paid state workers in the entire United States - yes, lower salaries than Mississippi. And my understanding, which I assumed everyone knew, was that the tradeoff for the lower salary was a pension and some health benefits when you retired. Now that the bill is coming due, our governor and state legislators seems surprised and are acting like these workers are robbing the state treasury.
iris lily
7-16-12, 12:05am
In Arizona, salaries for public workers are 3% to 13% lower than private sector workers. http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_government_salary
That's nothing new. At one point in ~ 2000, they were the lowest paid state workers in the entire United States - yes, lower salaries than Mississippi. And my understanding, which I assumed everyone knew, was that the tradeoff for the lower salary was a pension and some health benefits when you retired. Now that the bill is coming due, our governor and state legislators seems surprised and are acting like these workers are robbing the state treasury.
Pension isn't the only tradeoff for public vs private: better hours of work (without the expectation of 60 - 80 hour weeks) as well as longer vacations and sick leave hours were in the mix. I don't consider a salary of 3% to 13% below private sector to be much lower, I would expect 20% to 30%. This article talks about the problems of making these kind of data comparisons:
http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary
Not all public employees receive a health care benefit though. I wonder how many actually do.
I think that examining public employee salaries, and focusing on them increasing as well as the increase in public employee numbers is a valid concern.
Pension isn't the only tradeoff for public vs private: better hours of work (without the expectation of 60 - 80 hour weeks) as well as longer vacations and sick leave hours were in the mix.
Iris lily, I don't know how recently you worked at a public-sector job, but I can tell you that my wife, who works as a supervisor in county government, is not able to walk out of work after a mere 40 hours -- and neither are her coworkers. It's more like 50+ hours a week -- plus time checking and responding to email pretty much every evening and every day off and a few 12-13 hour days each month besides. Like workforces at many private companies, her staff has not seen a replacement worker in years even as people quit, retire, or leave for medical reasons. She does have decent medical coverage, but so did I at my corporate job. My wife has worked at the county for 21 years and she receives less vacation time than I received after 15 years. And she is nowhere near qualified for retirement.
Yes, it's anecdotal. But I think many people believe public employees still are immune to the relentless push for productivity seen in the corporate world and that they just keep doing the same job year after year until they are turned loose for an early retirement with a cornucopia of benefits. The pressures for all workers today are real, and I don't believe anyone gets more of a pass because they work at a public agency.
And I think it's also somewhat exagerated to think that all corporate employees work 60-80 hours per week. In my corporate job I officially work a 35 hour week. I actually work more like 40 hours per week and in a crazy week I may put in 42 or 43. And I get 27 PTO days and 9 holidays per year, 6% 401k match and 6% pension deposit paid by my employer.
Again anecdotal, but I've also noticed that the train home is way more crowded at 5:00 then it is at 7:00, so if I had to guess I'd say that more people fall into my category, at least regarding hours.
My husband was a senior technologist at a Fortune 500 and he regularily put in way more than 40 hours. But it was easier since he had a computer at home and could work around what he wanted to do. It gradually crept up on all of them over the 25 years he worked there.
Of course, it never got to the number of hours at his job in Anchorage Alaska in 1977 that caused our move to Indiana. He literally worked around the clock and did not have one single day off from August to February. He was working with contractors that came up to AK for two week periods and then went home. Sometimes he even slept at the office. He was paid hourly and got double and triple time but it WAS NOT WORTH IT. We took a vacation and just on a whim he stopped in the city of Indy to see what they were doing in his computer area and they offered him a job 24 hours later.
I think that both of you, Steve and jp, have good points. Each workplace has its own culture and certainly public servants may put in many many hours + 40, while others in private sector put in 40 or less. Tradd's co-worker for instance (another thread) ha ha ha.
On of my friends in IT went job hunting, interviewing at his former place of work (private sector.). They came after him so presumably wanted him. He made it clear that he wasn't going to work more than 40 hrs unless there was real need. He sees, too often, manufactured emergencies originating in bad management. It's that he is disrespectful of, not the real need for occasional overtime. And guess what--he didn't get the job.
ApatheticNoMore
7-16-12, 12:11pm
And I think it's also somewhat exagerated to think that all corporate employees work 60-80 hours per week. In my corporate job I officially work a 35 hour week. I actually work more like 40 hours per week and in a crazy week I may put in 42 or 43.
I'm mostly working 40, ocassionally a little overtime. I think that's not typical though! I'm scared about other jobs out there because I know they will probably have lots of overtime (and I'll negotiate hard in the interview as well).
And I get 27 PTO days and 9 holidays per year
I get 10 vacation days, 5 sick days, 8 holidays.
6% 401k match
the employer 401k contribution comes to around .007 of my salary (yes that's right less than 1%), it's just throwing a few pennies at me basically. I consider that for all intents and purposes I don't have matching, that my retirement is and pretty much always has been entirely 100% about saving my own pay (and hoping for Social Security!), employers are out of the game. They have totally bailed. In 13 years of working I have had real matching maybe only 2 or 3 years. It's not the norm.
and 6% pension deposit paid by my employer.
I never have and never will get a pension in my life. There is no way to get pensions these days. I mean really does anyone of my age or younger have them? Yea maybe the public sector workers, otherwise unheard of.
Again anecdotal, but I've also noticed that the train home is way more crowded at 5:00 then it is at 7:00, so if I had to guess I'd say that more people fall into my category, at least regarding hours.
I'm not seeing it. And by the way everywhere I worked putting in even a few years less than a decade was considered BEING THERE FOREVER, was considered unusual, was almost considered "why do you stay? have you no ambition?" - and these weren't all bad places to work either, at all! Just staying anywhere too long was considered slothy. Anyone being 15 years at the same workplace was UNHEARD OF.
On of my friends in IT went job hunting, interviewing at his former place of work (private sector.). They came after him so presumably wanted him. He made it clear that he wasn't going to work more than 40 hrs unless there was real need. He sees, too often, manufactured emergencies originating in bad management. It's that he is disrespectful of, not the real need for occasional overtime. And guess what--he didn't get the job.
Establishing the policy of not working more than 40 hours on a regular basis is a delicate negotiation.
At the company where I used to work, our European counterparts for years refused to carry a pager for after-hours coverage. They went home; they were done (who says we can't learn anything from people living in other countries? :)) They finally have relented somewhat, but I think that's tied more to the intimidation tactics used by most managers (you don't want to be the nail sticking out of the board) and to hiring people into positions with the understanding that they are part of a global team and will be expected to work some off hours (as were we, with 8 pm meetings with Japanese and Chinese colleagues). But I totally hear about responding to manufactured emergencies, usually brought on by some know-nothing boss who felt entitled to Bloomingdale's service at WalMart prices....
And another perspective on the government employee gig...my husband was in the service and he regularly worked 60-70 hour weeks, often more, rarely less after 9/11. Often he worked holidays..Yes Christmas, New Years, etc...made it really hard to plan family stuff over the holidays, and usually last minute. But he was the boss and he didn't ask his people to do anything he wouldn't do, including going to Iraq and being shot at, so there's that. Plus they kick you out at 30, whether you have a mortgage or kids in college or not, you're out. So, if you happen to join when you are vary young, like my husband, you're out in the prime of your working years....but, try getting a job at 50. I know many of you understand that one!
I know a military career is a different tract that other public sector jobs, but just another perspective on public servants.
From my mix of friends and family I've not seen any real strong pattern in work hours. But regardless of what ever myths the article presents (I did read it), my government employee friends are able to retire earlier, with betters benefits, and a higher post retirement income, as a percent of working income, by the strong majority. I personally think some leveling is in order.
From my mix of friends and family I've not seen any real strong pattern in work hours. But regardless of what ever myths the article presents (I did read it), my government employee friends are able to retire earlier, with betters benefits, and a higher post retirement income, as a percent of working income, by the strong majority. I personally think some leveling is in order.
Maybe it's just my perspective, but it seems like it used to be if you wanted money you'd go into the private sector and if you wanted a lifetime job you'd go into the public sector. That the private sector has degraded faster than the public sector, making the public sector look much more attractive. And the pushed "fix" is to accelerate reducing public sector pay and benefits to keep pace with the private sector.
In a economic model that's dependent on growth it sounds like we're moving in the wrong direction
ApatheticNoMore
7-16-12, 4:36pm
Maybe it's just my perspective, but it seems like it used to be if you wanted money you'd go into the private sector and if you wanted a lifetime job you'd go into the public sector. That the private sector has degraded faster than the public sector, making the public sector look much more attractive. And the pushed "fix" is to accelerate reducing public sector pay and benefits to keep pace with the private sector.
Yea pretty much. Public sector work *IS* more attractive now *IF* .... you can get it. Haha, nice work if you can get it, know what I mean? As in: are public sector layoffs coming (and already here)? Of course! Nice work if you can get it but there might not be any jobs! Now I'm speaking of state and local government of course, teachers and other school employees and social workers and so on, the usual things one thinks of when one things of public sector work.
The words I would use to describe the federal public sector security state nightmare that is literally creating millionaires (the NSA is actually turning out millionaires) are all obscene. Scum of the earth made millionaires IMO >:(. Very wrong. And that is also public sector work, but not what most people think of when they use the term.
"Well, the private sector is doing fine." (How many times have I been tortured with that one).
I saw a feature on the news that debunked that famous Romney ad. What Obama was referring to was that the jobs and wages in the public sector were indeed shrinking faster than the private sector. And that Obama was making a relative comparison of the public vs. the private sectors. At least that's how I remember it.
I worked for an "almost" fortune 500 company for many years. Every year there would be belt tightening. Layoffs, pension reductions, wages freezes, health benefit reductions, demotions. I remember when my boss posted that poster about the lion and the gazelle, ending, no matter who you are you better be running when you wake up. Maybe the public sector is just starting to catch on. At least as a group. There are some great hard working people in government jobs.
I saw a feature on the news that debunked that famous Romney ad. What Obama was referring to was that the jobs and wages in the public sector were indeed shrinking faster than the private sector. And that Obama was making a relative comparison of the public vs. the private sectors. At least that's how I remember it.
The question, and his reply:
Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?
President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
Now, we all remember things differently, but what I get from his statement was not that the private sector was shrinking more slowly, but rather that it was recoverning faster than the public sector. I guess that's all well and good if you don't make any comparisons to the beginnings of the recession. If he had mentioned that the economy had lost 8.5M jobs since 2008 (approximately 9.2% of Jan 2008 job numbers), with roughly half of those being recovered, and that government jobs had decreased by about 118K (approximately 9.9%), without any mention of recovery in the government sector, we'd have something to compare the statement to.
By my calculations, the private sector is still down by 4.2M jobs and the public sector is down at most by 118K jobs. Which do you think needs more support?
The question, and his reply:
By my calculations, the private sector is still down by 4.2M jobs and the public sector is down at most by 118K jobs. Which do you think needs more support?
But wouldn't we need another bubble to get that kind of job growth? I kind of wonder if the real estate bubble and the deficit spending going on at the time (I know it was nothing like the last 3 years, but it was high given how heated the economy was) masked a lot of the issues we're seeing now with anemic job growth.
miradoblackwarrior
7-16-12, 7:32pm
Hi, all--
As a mere librarian in the public sector, I just wanted to add my two cents.
The "benefits" an employee gets is based on bargaining and contractual arrangements. Lately, municipalities think that violating a contract, or tweaking it until it screams, is the way of fiscal responsibility. To me, a violation of a contract is still a violation. Our union tried to bargain in a furlough, for a guarantee of no layoffs for one year. The government would not hear of it. We have not had a new contract since 2006. My point is that a public job is only as "good" as the #$%!@ that the city chooses to give it. Since then, health care has been increased on the state level, and shoved down our throats through legislative manipulation. Public employees are always pawns in the game of government wackiness. If any of you are disgusted with the way the government, on any level, works, try being directly on the receiving end.
This library (and yours truly) was hit with the layoff of 4 people (from a staff of 35). After that, another four quit in disgust. We have not had any new hires since 2009. We have, however, been expected to cover a 65-hour open schedule, as well as two branch libraries. For those of you who don't like math, we are down to 27, with no cut backs in service.
I'm not looking for sympathy, here. If you enjoy a library book or your garbage picked up, if you enjoy fireworks and Christmas lights, if you enjoy that your basement hasn't flooded because someone worked in the rain to clear a sewer, if you have watched a police officer or a firefighter work, in any capacity, it is because we are working stiffs on the public payroll. We happen to believe in public service. Some of us have weird schedules, and some of us get to work 9 - 5 M - F (not me!). None of us make as much money as our fearless leaders. Not even close!
Goodness, look at me on my soapbox! I'm tired (and scared) that public employees are in the cross hairs. I'm struggling to build up my savings as it is, and seriously contemplating removing some of the little pleasures in my life (car, cable). Never knowing whether or not I will be laid off (again) just adds to the pressure.
Just sayin'
Susan
Alan, I stand corrected on my recollection of the explanation of Obama's words. As to whether the private or public sector is lagging or recovering, I guess it depends on the time period being discussed. Regardless, the President's words were taken out of context.
I don't think I have an answer to which sector needs more or less support. I think the economy needs more support. I came from a manufacturing background and maybe a little biased, but I think we need to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. I don't think, at least in words, there is much dispute on this from either candidate. Government jobs do not do well when the tax base is doing poorly and they are intrinsically related.
Sorry to get things off track.
But wouldn't we need another bubble to get that kind of job growth? I kind of wonder if the real estate bubble and the deficit spending going on at the time (I know it was nothing like the last 3 years, but it was high given how heated the economy was) masked a lot of the issues we're seeing now with anemic job growth.
Maybe. I really don't know. Perhaps all we need is a little certainty in what the future holds such as the costs, above base salary, of each new employee, or the variable costs associated with business expansion. Uncertainty in tax rates, benefit plans and regulatory restrictions are not helpful.
By my calculations, the private sector is still down by 4.2M jobs and the public sector is down at most by 118K jobs. Which do you think needs more support?
'Course, part of the problem here is that many of those 4.2M private-sector jobs were not truly "lost" -- they simply moved to China, Singapore, Vietnam, and eastern Europe. Many public-service jobs cannot be outsourced quite the same way.
'Course, part of the problem here is that many of those 4.2M private-sector jobs were not truly "lost" -- they simply moved to China, Singapore, Vietnam, and eastern Europe. Many public-service jobs cannot be outsourced quite the same way.
Which goes back to uncertainty. If you already enjoy the highest corporate tax rate in the world and increasing threats of even higher public confiscation of private capital, it has an effect.
On a micro level, there are many examples of cities and states losing businesses to friendly states once tax rates are increased. It's no surprise that it works on a macro level as well.
'Course, part of the problem here is that many of those 4.2M private-sector jobs were not truly "lost" -- they simply moved to China, Singapore, Vietnam, and eastern Europe. Many public-service jobs cannot be outsourced quite the same way.
+1 The corporation I work for is aggressively downsizing its US workforce and physical plants and has been for many years. And they have no intention of bringing any of that back, no matter who wins the election in November. Of course, none of that affects the multi-million dollar bonuses being paid to top leadership.
One central California business moved to business friendly Texas. It was polluting the ground water around it. It was fined something like a million dollars. The farmers and other business in the area did not like drinking cancer causing water. But I guess the people of Texas do not mind drinking cancer causing water.
But if we did not have regulations against a business polluting the water we could have kept the business. Dam those petty regulations I would rather have cancer.
Which goes back to uncertainty. If you already enjoy the highest corporate tax rate in the world and increasing threats of even higher public confiscation of private capital, it has an effect.
On a micro level, there are many examples of cities and states losing businesses to friendly states once tax rates are increased. It's no surprise that it works on a macro level as well.
You really have to get back to root cause on the loss of manufacturing jobs. It is cheap labor and lower operating costs that include lax regulations that endanger the health and safety of the workers and surrounding communities. In turn we often get low quality goods with short life spans that satisfy our consumer demand for having a bunch of low cost stuff. Taxes are a smaller part of the picture, but there are other more fundamental issues that may not be resolved any time soon.
You really have to get back to root cause on the loss of manufacturing jobs. It is cheap labor and lower operating costs that include lax regulations that endanger the health and safety of the workers and surrounding communities.
There are ways to level the playing field, but we should think hard about whether or not we really want to do that. I'm not sure all those manufacturing jobs are something we really want to bring back. IMO its not wholly negative for the US to have raw material processing happening overseas.
The environmental aspects of unregulated manufacturing are going to bite us all at some point, but we all know what root needs to be cut to reign that in, but even in a global recession consumption keeps chugging along.
There are ways to level the playing field, but we should think hard about whether or not we really want to do that. I'm not sure all those manufacturing jobs are something we really want to bring back. IMO its not wholly negative for the US to have raw material processing happening overseas.
The environmental aspects of unregulated manufacturing are going to bite us all at some point, but we all know what root needs to be cut to reign that in, but even in a global recession consumption keeps chugging along.
That sort of sounds like a different spin to the not in my back yard phenomena to me. If we are going to be the end users of the products we should be able to bear the responsibility of cost to health, safety and the environment. Some of this means having wise regulation.
Reality though is that a lot of these jobs just aren't coming home any time soon. It seems like there are other ways to shift our economy back to where the middle class actually builds and makes things instead of flipping burgers and other service jobs. I think Obama was close by stimulating green energy jobs, but there are also other things. Like renewing our aging infrastructure of dams, water delivery, and highways. Or bringing transportation up to European standards that might include rapid rail transit systems. Germany seems like an economy that has remained green and has prospered, but has also found niches in manufacturing.
Which goes back to uncertainty. If you already enjoy the highest corporate tax rate in the world and increasing threats of even higher public confiscation of private capital, it has an effect.
On a micro level, there are many examples of cities and states losing businesses to friendly states once tax rates are increased. It's no surprise that it works on a macro level as well.
You know, you keep saying this but it's just not true. The tax rate has NOT changed under Obama. Nor is he threatening to change it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/a-bogus-tax-attack-against-obama/
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obama-no-different-today-on-taxes/
So where are the jobs huh? How come the 'job creators' aren't creating jobs? The republicans, starting with Reagan and then with Bush opened the treasury doors to let their rich buddies pillage and plunder, and unfortunately Obama continued it, but...no jobs! How long do you think people will believe this lie? Oh I know, if you tell a lie over and over it becomes truthiness, and unfortunately Democrats aren't very good at getting the message out. But I'm getting pretty sick of this lie you keep telling over and over. Taxes haven't changed, he's not threatening to change them. Taxes haven't gone up, but greed has. That is the reason companies outsource.
But apparently greed is good, cause you all want to elect an outsourcer in Chief! You want to put in charge a man who made his millions by scavenging and out-sourcing. But he would have to throw those treasury doors open a little wider cause the fat cats want more.
I never in my life understand people who can't see into tomorrow much less next year or next decade with deregulation of environmental and health and safety rules, and defunding of programs that benefit us all as a nation like education and SS and medicare/medicaid, good roads and bridges, and health care. Can these people truly not see beyond their noses and imagine what this sort of society would look like? People like this are just greedy, period. there isn't any other explanation. They are like a swarm of locust who want to pillage and plunder and strip it to the bone, then move on.
That sort of sounds like a different spin to the not in my back yard phenomena to me.
Not at all Rogar. I do think that since the manufacture of little plastic cupie dolls for Wal-Mart has gone off shore there is no benefit to bringing that specific kind of industry back. I also don't think imposing tariffs on imported goods is the proper tool to use to reduce consumption of that class of goods (although its probably worth a discussion to really explore that possibility).
We need so called "green" jobs because we need a green economy. It's the future, there isn't a choice. The President has not created any significant number of green jobs. I'm not throwing darts at him, money simply was not allocated in ways that would create the jobs. Hardly anyone is making green products that average consumers want and can afford. If anything I think that is our President’s weak link. The administration seems to forget that jobs can’t just be created out of thin air because demand for the goods and services those jobs generate has to come first. At some point almost every President seems to forget that the government can’t hire everybody.
Any type of forced environmentalism through legislation won't work any better than forced gentrification in urban renewal does. The process has to be more organic than that, no pun intended. If the government is to play any roll or subsidize anyone, let it be the inventors. As soon as someone comes up with any environmentally sane product that looks good, performs like the traditional product or better and doesn't cost more the world is their oyster. If the proper incentives are in place the manufacturing jobs required to produce this magic widget will flow back to this country.
You touched on my personal hot button in your post: infrastructure. The manufacturing jobs we need in the US involve building truck engines that run on natural gas and rail cars and tidal turbines… We also need to “create” a few million construction jobs. The demand is already there. As you said, our dams and highways need work. So does our electric grid. So do our communication and fiber optic networks. Europe, for the most part, has a great rail system. We should, too. The roads there (except for Germany) are more suspect. Ours should not be. Building construction throughout most of Europe follows the IBC, but is completely substandard to where it should be. Ours should be the best in the world. Every new building, house or garden shed built in this country should be LEED Silver or better. And yes, there should be incentives for bringing existing buildings up to higher standards. All that would create the kind of jobs we need to keep the economy, the environment and the US all clicking along nicely. Sorry for the soapbox.
Which goes back to uncertainty. If you already enjoy the highest corporate tax rate in the world and increasing threats of even higher public confiscation of private capital, it has an effect.
On a micro level, there are many examples of cities and states losing businesses to friendly states once tax rates are increased. It's no surprise that it works on a macro level as well.
I notice you did not mention personal tax rates. We have the lowest personal tax rates of any first world country. Many countries have personal tax rates of 45 percent or more. So let's reduce corp rates and increase personal rates to 50 percent!
ApatheticNoMore
7-17-12, 11:36am
California has adopted some pretty tough new environmental building efficiency laws, all new buildings must be built according to them. The toughest ever and they even got buyout on this from the housing industry (amazing), so that there isn't even a lot of opposition. Progress is definitely being made.
I notice you did not mention personal tax rates. We have the lowest personal tax rates of any first world country. Many countries have personal tax rates of 45 percent or more. So let's reduce corp rates and increase personal rates to 50 percent!
The subject was jobs. Most businesses, other than sub chapter S, pay corporate taxes, not personal taxes, so mentioning it would be off-topic and sort of meaningless. But, as long as you've brought it up, are you implying that the federal government deserves half of your income? If so, does that exclude state & local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.,?
If all the others are additional, wouldn't it be easier to simply declare that all income belongs to the various governments, national & local, and then allow them to give us a monthly stipend in order to ensure that we were all equal?
Sorry for the soapbox. I actually enjoyed the thoughts. A few things I could quibble about further, but I think we are basically coming from the same place.
And another perspective on the government employee gig...my husband was in the service and he regularly worked 60-70 hour weeks, often more, rarely less after 9/11. Often he worked holidays..Yes Christmas, New Years, etc...made it really hard to plan family stuff over the holidays, and usually last minute. But he was the boss and he didn't ask his people to do anything he wouldn't do, including going to Iraq and being shot at, so there's that. Plus they kick you out at 30, whether you have a mortgage or kids in college or not, you're out. So, if you happen to join when you are vary young, like my husband, you're out in the prime of your working years....but, try getting a job at 50. I know many of you understand that one!
I know a military career is a different tract that other public sector jobs, but just another perspective on public servants.
I posted this in another thread (Obamacare) but think it sums up military life for many people - and of course you have to live that life for at least 20 years or you get nothing at all - no partial pensions, no partial benefits, no 401Ks, etc...:
"I know lots of people complain that service members get too many pension and medical benefits but the job is tough! It's certainly not a Mon - Fri 9 to 5 with nightts, weekends and holidays off type of job for most people in the service. When we would go on our annual patrol (I was in the Coast Guard) on the big cutters that went worldwide, we'd be gone for over a year sometimes - not going home or seeing our families at all during that time, working non-stop with very few breaks in often very hazardous and dangerous conditions, and pretty much being stuck with the same people living in a tiny shared communal space 24/7 for months and months at a time. And don't get me started on the food !! And even when you where in in your home port for a couple of months, you still had to work a huge amount, stand watches, have over-night and weekend duty (on the job for a 24 hour shift). And of course, then you'd do it all again. All for that giant paycheck of about $1000 - $2000/month!! So I always tell people who say that folks in the service have too many benefits to imagine kissing the spouse, kids and dog goodbye one morning and heading off for work - and then staying there for a year and living and working there with all your co-workers 24/7. Sleeping withg them all in one room together, eating, showering, using the bathrooms, and socializing just with them - and not going home or seeing your loved ones for a year. And then doing that each year for 20 years for very little pay (and no overtime either) to get those pension benefits. Puts a different perspective on things."
I also held a public sector govermint job after I got out of the CG and, if it hasn't been mentioned yet, most public sector employees don't get Soc. Sec. benefits just their public pension. And of those that are entitled to some SS benefits because they held private sector jobs at some point in their lives, your SS benefits will be cut by 2/3 rds of your public pension amount. And, because public pensions are each different and the benefits and age of retirement, amount you get, etc... are determined by contract, some are better than others. Because I worked in a law enforcement catagory (compliance officer) I was able to get my pension starting at age 50. And some law enforcement type public jobs actually mandate you MUST retire at 50 or 55 so you are forced out then as Peggy says, irregardless of your financial needs.
I actually enjoyed the thoughts. A few things I could quibble about further, but I think we are basically coming from the same place.
Kind of the beauty of talking to instead of talking at, huh? At least we realize that we need to head toward the same place. All the yahoos in Washington (both sides) with their my way or the highway attitude need to pull their heads out of....the sand. Unfortunately we do need to Federal government to take a lead position. Nothing else is big enough to push start activity on multiple fronts and, IMO, we don't have the time to work through what needs to be done one category at a time.
Not at all Rogar. I do think that since the manufacture of little plastic cupie dolls for Wal-Mart has gone off shore there is no benefit to bringing that specific kind of industry back. I also don't think imposing tariffs on imported goods is the proper tool to use to reduce consumption of that class of goods (although its probably worth a discussion to really explore that possibility).
We need so called "green" jobs because we need a green economy. It's the future, there isn't a choice. The President has not created any significant number of green jobs. I'm not throwing darts at him, money simply was not allocated in ways that would create the jobs. Hardly anyone is making green products that average consumers want and can afford. If anything I think that is our President’s weak link. The administration seems to forget that jobs can’t just be created out of thin air because demand for the goods and services those jobs generate has to come first. At some point almost every President seems to forget that the government can’t hire everybody.
Any type of forced environmentalism through legislation won't work any better than forced gentrification in urban renewal does. The process has to be more organic than that, no pun intended. If the government is to play any roll or subsidize anyone, let it be the inventors. As soon as someone comes up with any environmentally sane product that looks good, performs like the traditional product or better and doesn't cost more the world is their oyster. If the proper incentives are in place the manufacturing jobs required to produce this magic widget will flow back to this country.
You touched on my personal hot button in your post: infrastructure. The manufacturing jobs we need in the US involve building truck engines that run on natural gas and rail cars and tidal turbines… We also need to “create” a few million construction jobs. The demand is already there. As you said, our dams and highways need work. So does our electric grid. So do our communication and fiber optic networks. Europe, for the most part, has a great rail system. We should, too. The roads there (except for Germany) are more suspect. Ours should not be. Building construction throughout most of Europe follows the IBC, but is completely substandard to where it should be. Ours should be the best in the world. Every new building, house or garden shed built in this country should be LEED Silver or better. And yes, there should be incentives for bringing existing buildings up to higher standards. All that would create the kind of jobs we need to keep the economy, the environment and the US all clicking along nicely. Sorry for the soapbox.
Good thoughts Gregg, and I absolutely agree. Of course you and I know this President wasn't about to get anything successful through funding in Congress cause, well, Job#1, but yes we need to look to the future and green jobs, absolutely. We are smart enough and big enough and innovative enough to completely lead the world in this. And in so many cases we don't even need to re-invent the wheel. The wheel is there, but it maybe just isn't round, so to speak.
But, the same people who complain about the manufacture of plastic cupie dolls going offshore are the same ones who absolutely won't have a windmill within their sight! I think we need some better PR, and yes we need to s.p.e.l.l. it out for those who don't get it. We need to give them at least an idea of where the jobs will be and what they may look like. And we need to shout louder and longer than Rush Beck and Fox and all those who have the microphone 24/7 telling everyone their lives suck and who to blame. No solutions, just who is at fault (to their thinking) in negative, hate mongering cadence. People who's stock in trade is to keep us divided on this, and all other issues facing this nation. We need to shout these people down, or laugh in their faces, or whatever it takes to stop this destructive path we are on.
The future can be exciting and fantastic, but not if we keep allowing some to hold us down in the past. And not if we don't recognize which industry can move away, (plastic cupie dolls) and which can not (auto). The car that runs on water is in the future. I think we should be the ones who build it!
I think we need some better PR, and yes we need to s.p.e.l.l. it out for those who don't get it.
It has long interested me that, in the space of one, maybe two, generations, in the U.S., people who smoked have almost become social pariahs. Yeah, maybe higher taxes (or "fees", as our former governor used to say with a straight face) encouraged a few people to quit. But most of it was that the supermajority of us decided we didn't want that stuff around anymore. Now there are few non-residential places in which you can smoke indoors, and some places are careful about where you can smoke outside, too. That whole change was mostly PR. Ditto with Designated Drivers. Sure, there are laws about driving while under the influence, but it has become socially acceptable to not drink if you are the DD. PR move, all of it. Even "winning" the space race in the 60s was largely a PR event -- a goal was set and we encouraged it, both with federal dollars and by encouraging engineering and science.
If Americans decide to do it, we can accomplish pretty much anything we want. Taxation and budgeting certainly can nudge in the proper direction. But I believe there is no force greater than public opinion. And if we decided for reasons of national pride or to secure our future away from corrupt sand pits we wouldn't care about if they didn't overflow with oil or that this is one area in which the U.S. is primed to move fast, then it can happen. But, as you said, we need to get past the people whose primary function is to be nay-sayers and to insist that only one road -- their road -- leads to the promised land.
It has long interested me that, in the space of one, maybe two, generations, in the U.S., people who smoked have almost become social pariahs...
Has the overall population of U.S. smoker decreased? I don't know honestly, haven't done my Goggling. But based on the trash from the eejits who surround one of my flower gardens, Kools and Newports (menthols!) are still pretty popular. I picked up their trash along 3 blocks on Sunday, disgusting pigs that they are.
SteveinMN
7-18-12, 10:01am
Has the overall population of U.S. smoker decreased?
According to WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20081113/smoking-rate-is-declining-in-us), it has, to maybe half of what it was in 1965 (per the article). Unfortunately, that does not stop people (smokers and non-smokers) from being thoughtless pigs, and it's disappointing that that kind of person is choosing to use your garden for a rubbish bin. :(
.
If Americans decide to do it, we can accomplish pretty much anything we want. Taxation and budgeting certainly can nudge in the proper direction. But I believe there is no force greater than public opinion. And if we decided for reasons of national pride or to secure our future away from corrupt sand pits we wouldn't care about if they didn't overflow with oil or that this is one area in which the U.S. is primed to move fast, then it can happen. But, as you said, we need to get past the people whose primary function is to be nay-sayers and to insist that only one road -- their road -- leads to the promised land.
Absolutely Steve! This is the key. We have lost our will, or community, or something that we are so divided, even when we agree we insist we don't agree. And there is a whole nasty industry that buys, sells and trades on this division.
We have sun, wind and waves aplenty! And natural gas. Dagnabbit! We can do this! But I think we need to rely on the garage inventors and innovators. Big energy isn't about to tinker with and perfect solar energy cells/power cause then I could put that 'oil well' on my roof and cut out the middle man, i.e. big energy. Oh they yammer and fiddle around and make commercials about how 'they' are working for our future, yada yada yada, but they don't really want anything to happen in that direction. They certainly want to keep us on that energy teat. But I think solar is the wave of the future cause it is so plentiful and powerful. And it is available to the garage shop innovator, the true brilliance of Americans.
Honestly, the referenced article was a collection of opinions, totally free of facts. Not very helpful.
Big energy isn't about to tinker with and perfect solar energy cells/power cause then I could put that 'oil well' on my roof and cut out the middle man, i.e. big energy.
Big Energy already has its hands in one of the most critical aspects of our energy future, and that is distribution. If every car tomorrow could run on hydrogen or natural gas, one of the challenges would be making that hydrogen or natural gas available as readily as gasoline or diesel fuel. There's already an infrastructure capable of or similar to the one needed to distribute new vehicle fuels. Big Energy has it. Ditto with solar or thermal energy -- the need to store it for when sufficient sun or heat are not available is already in place. But, again, it's Big Energy. Not to be fatalistic; just that there already exists infrastructure which has been built and may not economically or ecologically be abandoned in favor of something quite similar but new. So we are going to have to deal with Big Energy in one way or another. Perhaps the key is to rein in the corporate excess of more than just Big Energy. And figure out how to deal with the fallout of countries and NGOs which are no longer influential because they're not providing the raw material.
Big energy isn't about to tinker with and perfect solar energy cells/power cause then I could put that 'oil well' on my roof and cut out the middle man, i.e. big energy.
Big energy is who pays me to develop alternative energy systems for them. I line up the customers, do all the design and engineering, build the system and sell the power to those customers at a rate below the cost of their grid power. Big energy pays me, in the form of a rebate, to build those systems. The customer then sells that power to the utility company (big energy) at full price by dumping it onto the grid which compensates for the power they take off the grid when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. I win because I get a check every month from the customer. The customer wins because they get a discount on the price of their power. The utility wins because solar, for example, generates the most power at exactly the same time they hit their peak demand (summer afternoons) meaning that if they can gather enough generation from guys like me they won't have to spend a few billion to build a new coal fired power plant. The rest of the population benefits because they don't have to build a new coal fired power plant. Its a win/win/win/win. But it doesn't fit very nicely into some people's preconceived notions...
Big energy is who pays me to develop alternative energy systems for them. I line up the customers, do all the design and engineering, build the system and sell the power to those customers at a rate below the cost of their grid power. Big energy pays me, in the form of a rebate, to build those systems. The customer then sells that power to the utility company (big energy) at full price by dumping it onto the grid which compensates for the power they take off the grid when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. I win because I get a check every month from the customer. The customer wins because they get a discount on the price of their power. The utility wins because solar, for example, generates the most power at exactly the same time they hit their peak demand (summer afternoons) meaning that if they can gather enough generation from guys like me they won't have to spend a few billion to build a new coal fired power plant. The rest of the population benefits because they don't have to build a new coal fired power plant. Its a win/win/win/win. But it doesn't fit very nicely into some people's preconceived notions...
yeah, but you know what Gregg, if I had efficient solar on my roof, I wouldn't need big energy to 'give me a break' on the energy they sell. If we put half the cash we use now to subsidize big energy into solar research, and I mean affordable, efficient cells, not some 'huge solar tower big mega couldn't afford it in your lifetime' thing, then we could have energy independence, individual energy independence, in a very short time. You know it, I know it and the pope knows it. Big energy isn't about to work on that cause they aren't about to work hard towards making themselves obsolete. In fact, I'm betting they would be working really hard to NOT let that happen.
Honestly, the referenced article was a collection of opinions, totally free of facts. Not very helpful.
I especially liked the "fact" that unfunded pension obligations are no big deal because they get amortized over a long time. Comparing them to a mortgage might be more on-point if you posited a house that was 60% underwater (such as some of the big Illinois plans) and you were legally prohibited from a short sale or simply walking away.
One interesting fact is from a recent TV interview with NJ gov Christie, who seems to be leading the charge against public pensions. Turns out that his state, and many others, simply did not fund their share of the workers' pensions for the last 10 years or so (IIRC). Just didn't do it. When asked why, he waves his hand and says something like, well that's all in the past, nothing we can do about it now. Huh? I think taxpayers want to know why it didn't happen. And I suspect the answer is that they were so busy slashing taxes, especially for businesses, that they didn't do the math, or didn't care, that they were severely underfunding their employee's pensions.
Now the bill has come due, and it's time to blame the victim.
They probably figured they would be out of office before the claims were made. Came a lot faster than then anticipated.
I suspect the answer is that they were so busy slashing taxes, especially for businesses, that they didn't do the math, or didn't care, that they were severely underfunding their employee's pensions.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
They probably figured they would be out of office before the claims were made. Came a lot faster than then anticipated.
The most recent New Jersey Governor was Jon Corzine. He has a history of losing other peoples money.
Good article about the non-funding of NJ pensions (among other things). Started years ago under then-gov Christine Todd Whitman.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/nj-public-pension-slugfest-reporting-omits-15-years-of-governors-stealing-from-workers.html
Are we all jealous of public pensions? Private pensions are for the most part gone so the majority of the people in the country don't have any pensions and I think they maybe jealous. The loss of public and private pensions is just another sign of the decline of the middle class.
ApatheticNoMore
7-23-12, 12:15am
Are we all jealous of public pensions?
yes
Private pensions are for the most part gone so the majority of the people in the country don't have any pensions and I think they maybe jealous.
of course. I've only had any matching in my 401k for 2-3 years out of over a decade. There's no pension and they don't even contribute to the 401k. Then you hear of public sector workers retiring in their 50s - weeee they are paying my healthcare now, weeee I could collection my pension early. Who gets that in the private sector? They may become unemployable at a certain age due to age discrimination, but they don't have an out with benefits. In fact it seems most of the time the only ones who retire early are either incredibly rich OR are public sector workers (because they often get the healthcare plans and the pensions etc.).
But you can't make policy based on that. Dragging everyone down to the lowest common demonator because it's already been done to the private sector workers. So that the few people who have any remaining benefits must lose theirs. Doing so wil only mean conditions continue to get even worse for private sector workers (in summary: because there is no better competition in employment to provide even a slight upward pull for wages/benefits). That's where crab mentality of people within more or less the same class even gets you ... nowhere. However the question of what benefits CAN actualy be paid (with real state budgets, in the real world under various reasonable scenarios (including increased taxes that can be passed) just leaving out pie in the sky scenarios), and what promises realistically will never be paid is a legitimate one.
The loss of public and private pensions is just another sign of the decline of the middle class.
definitely
Then you hear of public sector workers retiring in their 50s - weeee they are paying my healthcare now, weeee I could collection my pension early. Who gets that in the private sector? They may become unemployable at a certain age due to age discrimination, but they don't have an out with benefits. In fact it seems most of the time the only ones who retire early are either incredibly rich OR are public sector workers (because they often get the healthcare plans and the pensions etc.).
My previous employer is a private-sector Fortune 200 company. The company is full of people who have been there 20-30+ years and there is a thriving stock of people who retired on a company pension (many by choice; 401[k] optional) at age 55 to 60. Being on my wife's medical plan, I have not paid attention to the retiree medical plan, but there is one and it's not merely catastrophic coverage.
There still are companies like that out there, though their lot is being winnowed down by the continued Wall Street grab for profits and a lousy economy that doesn't push the company to add to benefits. Anyone hired there in the last 10 years has only been able to select 401(k) options, no pension. I'm one of the last cohort that got to choose pension versus 401(k), and I decided against the pension because I didn't think I'd be there long enough to collect (in a way, I was right).
My wife was hired by a neighboring county about 20 years ago; that county did away with "Rule of 90" just before she came on, so she does not get to enjoy that early retirement that so many think all government workers get. She'll work for several more years to up her pension amount.
The times, they are a-changin'.
San Onofre Guy
7-23-12, 4:35pm
I have had three jobs in adult life.
#1 Insurance Company, 35 hour per week matching 401K with a retirement plan 50% at 60.
#2 Large capitalist compnay. Officially 40 hours per week actual 50 plus travel. Not matching 401K, no retirement. Profit Sharing plan designed to fund retirement.
#3 Local Government. 40 hour 9/80, actual 10 hour days plus evening emails half hour lunch vs. scheduled hour. Last week was the week with my flex day but I am down an employee so I worked six hours on my "day off", then Saturday night missed dinner to attend emergency, then Sunday night up at 2:00 am for two hours dealing with emergency. I do get a retirement plan 2.7% at 55 which I pay 11% of the cost, I don't participate in Social Security. I have 368 hours of vacation on the books as I can't take much time off due to pressures to serve the public.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.