OK, in my town, both the police and teacher contracts are up for renewal. I went to the first meting for each, and asked why these public servants (and that's what they are) cannot live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions.

I used to work as a pension actuary, and my job was telling companies how much they'd save by switching to 401(k)s. The savings is enormous, which is why the entire non-unionized private sector made the switch 15-20 years ago. And we all survived.

At the teachers meeting, the union rep accused me of not caring about children. At the police meeting, the union rep actually asked me "have you ever had to tell a parent that his child was killed?" For the reciord, when I told him yes (from my time in the USMC), he was more than a bit suprised, as his question was meant to stop the conversation.

Here is my take on this. In the private sector, we have to make people want to buy our products/services, and we all know that pensions are so expensive, that there is no way we can pass that cost on to our customers.

In the case of public unionized employees, they don't have that burden. They tell us, buy our product (pay your property taxes) or we seize your house. So they pass on (what to me are) unreasonable expenses.

I have no problem paying taxes so that cops and teachers can get reasonable benefits. I have a huge problem paying exorbitant taxes so that they can cling to insane, antiquated benefits that dwarf anything available to the public which they claim to serve.

I agree, I'm all for paying competetive salaries/benefits. I don't have a pension and don't want to pay for someone else to have something I don't have myself. My town has been struggling with the same issues.

The part of pensions that bothers me the most is the how the many pensions are based on only the last 3 years or so of earnings

Teacher Unions are the #1 reason why I will do everything I can to keep my kids out of public school from Preschool through high school. I'm not going to get into it again, as I've ranted about it probably half a dozen times.

Teacher Unions are a disservice to the children of America.

So JD......are you lumping ALL Public schools together under the same exterme spectrum.

I happen to like the public school system where I live. We have a nice mixture of old and young teachers and a lot of them really do care about the kids. I can e-mail any of them with my concerns and they will get back to me w/ things they can do to help.

I even got in touch w/ my kids Music teacher and he signed on to be a Merit Badge counselor for the kids that he teaches.

My wife and I looked around and checked the school systems of towns in the area before we bought our house here. Are there budget issues.....absolutely. but to assume that because of these that kids aren't going to get a good education is a bit of a stretch.

Teacher Unions are the #1 reason why I will do everything I can to keep my kids out of public school from Preschool through high school. I'm not going to get into it again, as I've ranted about it probably half a dozen times.

Teacher Unions are a disservice to the children of America.

We agree 100%. I don't see why you need a union for a bunch of public service employees who have a monopoly.

So JD......are you lumping ALL Public schools together under the same exterme spectrum.

I happen to like the public school system where I live. We have a nice mixture of old and young teachers and a lot of them really do care about the kids. I can e-mail any of them with my concerns and they will get back to me w/ things they can do to help.

I even got in touch w/ my kids Music teacher and he signed on to be a Merit Badge counselor for the kids that he teaches.

My wife and I looked around and checked the school systems of towns in the area before we bought our house here. Are there budget issues.....absolutely. but to assume that because of these that kids aren't going to get a good education is a bit of a stretch.

That's a good point. I have great respect for teachers (for the most part), the unions are despicable.

So JD......are you lumping ALL Public schools together under the same exterme spectrum.

I happen to like the public school system where I live. We have a nice mixture of old and young teachers and a lot of them really do care about the kids. I can e-mail any of them with my concerns and they will get back to me w/ things they can do to help.

I even got in touch w/ my kids Music teacher and he signed on to be a Merit Badge counselor for the kids that he teaches.

My wife and I looked around and checked the school systems of towns in the area before we bought our house here. Are there budget issues.....absolutely. but to assume that because of these that kids aren't going to get a good education is a bit of a stretch.
Having worked with as a subcontracted percussion instructor at multiple different schools - public and private, yeah I am grouping them all together. There are definitely exceptions, but my repeated negative observations seem to be the rule. I'm not willing to gamble that a school system that is good today, will still be good in 10-12 years and those last 4 years are the only ones that colleges look at.

Ask the handful of people here that have/had kids in the Mansfield School System. 10 years ago, it was a model system for the region in terms of academic, sports and extracurricular performance. But, now that the town isn't printing money like it used to, it has slowly but steadily been wilting. This is definitely not all on the Unions, but the Unions prevent progress from happening, while also causing huge added costs.

Most people don't go into teaching for the pension. They go into it for the summer vacation.:) Seriously, I think most teachers go into it because they really want to help children learn. In order to be in that profession, they have to join the union. Once they're in, they are pretty much committed to whatever the union wants to do. I can't really fault them, but I agree about the pension being an outdated for of a retirement plan.

These unions are going to be the economic death of RI. Each and every year the unions have their hand out for more taxpayer dollars. While i was up on vacation for Christmas I read a story in the Journal about a Firefighter who was going to retire with 32 years and bring home nearly 66k a year in retirement. WTF is that all about? The taxpayers in RI refuse to do anything about it. Sad but that's the truth.

Most people don't go into teaching for the pension. They go into it for the summer vacation.:) Seriously, I think most teachers go into it because they really want to help children learn. In order to be in that profession, they have to join the union. Once they're in, they are pretty much committed to whatever the union wants to do. I can't really fault them, but I agree about the pension being an outdated for of a retirement plan.
I completely agree with you with regards to why people get into teaching. All of the younger teachers I know are some of the most motivated individuals. After a decade or two of dealing with everyone else's problem kids and realizing that all you have to do is the minimum work expected from you as long as you are not diddling the children, the more veteran teachers stop caring - again, there are exceptions to the rule.

The luxuries of seniority-based power - dead weight be filtered out and teachers that perform above and beyond are not rewarded - gold ribbons and stars outside the Main Office don't count. It is amazing how impossible it is to get rid of bad teachers if they have been teaching for 10-15 years.

perform above and beyond are not rewarded

Yup, that's a Union for you. All I've seen them do is save the poor underperformers who should be fired anyway and do nothing for the ones that outperform.
Actually, in labor Unions they make it hard on the “over performers” so that they aren’t too productive. They don’t want someone too over productive to the point that they put a fellow “brother” out of work

Seriously, I think most teachers go into it because they really want to help children learn. In order to be in that profession, they have to join the union. Once they're in, they are pretty much committed to whatever the union wants to do. I can't really fault them, but I agree about the pension being an outdated for of a retirement plan.


Pensions are outdated for sure.
There are no sure guarantees that the money will be there even with the PBGC protecting them.
When they're out of money they're out of money.

The way to make the switch over to a 401K fair, would to grandfather the workers
who were hired with a promised pension receive the pension but offer a 401 k for them
going forward. New hires would only have a 401 k pension plan.

That's a good point. I have great respect for teachers (for the most part), the unions are despicable.

The reason you need unions is because rather than parents taking the blame because their kids are not applying themselves, especially at home, they want to blame teachers who can only control for the most part what happens in the classroom. When I was in HS you had kids that went home and studied, did their homework and excelled. More often then not their parents were heavily involved with what the kids did after school. On the other hand you had the kids who showed up, caused distractions, never studied or did homework and barely got by because the parents never pushed or helped their kids. In these times they want to blame the teacher for this,and use incentive based pay, now do you think that is fair? You could be the best teacher in the world, and still have a student who just is never gonna get it, and you as a teacher should not be punished for it. As far as pensions go, they should be phased put , not outright taken away. Are 401k really that much better in the long run for employees, or are they better for the employers? AFAIW most pension pay outs are guaranteed, your 401k is not, just ask the hundreds of thousands who were looking forward to retiring recently on their 401k's, and had to put those plans on the back burner.

I completely agree with you with regards to why people get into teaching. All of the younger teachers I know are some of the most motivated individuals. After a decade or two of dealing with everyone else's problem kids and realizing that all you have to do is the minimum work expected from you as long as you are not diddling the children, the more veteran teachers stop caring - again, there are exceptions to the rule.



JD, I don't think they stop caring, but depending on where they teach,
they get tired of wiping kids noses, trying to motivate unmotivated students
and doing the disciplining that the parents should be doing.
Throw in uncooperative parents who don't take an interest in their kids, or the opposite where the parents think their kids are right and the teachers wrong and they get :smash:

Being a good teacher requires cooperation from the home.

JD,

You are becoming a liberal as we speak...expecting above and beyond performance to be rewarded. I thought it was rewarded every two weeks when they get a paycheck and are allowed to continue working?

JD,

You are becoming a liberal as we speak...expecting above and beyond performance to be rewarded. I thought it was rewarded every two weeks when they get a paycheck and are allowed to continue working?
Huh? How about this... throw out the word "reward". There is no incentive to do more than the absolute minimum because there will never be additional compensation or opportunity for pay raises for stellar performance. A pat on the back doesn't cut it.

I'm not sure how thinking that people who outperform in the workplace should be compensated better and given more opportunities than those that due the minimum is a liberal ideology. Union-style status-quo is a more liberal position by treating everyone the same.

I had 2 shop teachers from my high school (blue hills vo tech)
Both of them would be hitting the bottle every day, one of them it was so obvious as he would turn bright red like santa clause !
I was told some years ago that one of them retired on a 100% disability plus his pension.
He claimed students caused him to become an alcoholic so his union felt he should get 100% disability plus his pension ! :biglaugh:

Dictatorship of the Proletariat....

I had 2 shop teachers from my high school (blue hills vo tech)
Both of them would be hitting the bottle every day, one of them it was so obvious as he would turn bright red like santa clause !
I was told some years ago that one of them retired on a 100% disability plus his pension.
He claimed students caused him to become an alcoholic so his union felt he should get 100% disability plus his pension ! :biglaugh:

so it was your fault!

What did you do to him?

Because your elected officials have no balls to bring it to a vote to put city or state workers on a 401K

I have talked to several councillors to do away with pension plans and put the city on 401 K's after a certain date. Keep the present workers on a pension, any new workers hired after starting in 2013 go on their own 401k, the older workers will die off reducing people on a pension.

Keep the present workers on a pension, any new workers hired after starting in 2013 go on their own 401k, the older workers will die off reducing people on a pension.

That doesn't reduce the pension demand until they all die off. With today's life expectancies that coul dbe a while. What it does do is require future generations to continue paying for the misdeeds of today's leaders.

Everyone keeps electing these officials who make sweetheart deals and then expect them to find a way to back out of the agreement. I agree that the going forward approach is plausible. However, I wonder how many of those on this thread who speak ill of the workers are willing to sit back and allow someone to blatently cancel an agreement that they had. Let the bank call in your mortgage for no reason and see how fast they claim the rules were changed fo rno reason.

They often say that today's republican was a democrat who got mugged yesterday...

Let the bank call in your mortgage for no reason and see how fast they claim the rules were changed fo rno reason.

...

Chesepeake Bill, I am not saying we need to kill pensions "for no reason". Many towns and states, which already have insane tax rates, have no chance of meeting these obligations. So you tell me, what's the choice? Does everyone in the private sector have to work 75 hours a week, so that cops can retire at 45 years old, with a guaranteed pension for life?

I don't blame the cop for the fact that politicians (who only cared about getting the union vote) had no business making that deal. But the fact is, governments don't have nearly enough money to fund those benefits. That's the harsh reality.

Your insinuation that I suggest cutting back is "for no reason" is insulting and deeply offensive. My "reason" is that I don't want to pay $15,000 a year in property taxes for a 3 bedroom house on half an acre. For my house, my current property tax bill of $8,000 feels like more than enough. If municipal employees cannot find a way to live within that level of revenue, that greed shouldn't be forced upon me and my family. Public service is not supposed to be a guaranteed path to wealth and comfort. If cops and teachers want to be wealthy, let them earn it in the private sector.

I respect cops and teachers. However, their financial security is not more important to society than my own financial security.

In another post, someone suggested that teachers would all leave the profession if they did away with pensions. FAT CHANCE. I'd like to see tenured teachers hack it in the private sector, where you have to earn your job every single day, work more hours for significantly less benefits, and not get a raise unless you worked for it.

In another post, someone suggested that teachers would all leave the profession if they did away with pensions. FAT CHANCE. I'd like to see tenured teachers hack it in the private sector, where you have to earn your job every single day, work more hours for significantly less benefits, and not get a raise unless you worked for it.

My in-laws both worked for the public sector (Teacher and City Attorney). My wife and I work for in the private sector. My in-laws cannot fathom the fact that we have to travel for work from time to time and be away from home. They've told us they would never do that when they were working and think it's crazy (obviously they are a little old school). They also can't understand that my wife and I work more than "9 to 5" hours. Work issued Black Berries so that you can be contacted at any time are another thing they can’t understand.

On the flip side, they are retired and have a great pension and great Health coverage from the State. I don't want them to lose any of that and since they are retired, I don’t think that should be taken away from them. My point is that the private and public sector are different in many ways. I think it’s gotten a bit out of control and the public sector has a lot of “perks” that are taken for granted that are now expected. As I posted on another thread, it is not sustainable as the only way pensions and high percentages of health coverage can be paid is to continue to increase taxes. The Government isn’t in business to make money and profit so you can’t compare or compete salaries with the private sector.

Jim,

It surely isn't a path to wealth. I did not mean to insult. Merely to point out that the deals these workers get are long term contractual agreements. I will not defend those who made them because, like you, I think they were shortsighted acts to merely gain votes. I do, however, feel we need to honor those agreements and find a go-forward approach. If that means negotiating a 401K buy-out then I am all for it. My name should give some indication that I line in the People's Republic of Maryland where we are beset with high taxes as well. My tax bill is slightly worse than your stated amount. Like you, I don't want to see it go up any more than it has to.

Bill

Jim,

It surely isn't a path to wealth. I did not mean to insult. Merely to point out that the deals these workers get are long term contractual agreements. I will not defend those who made them because, like you, I think they were shortsighted acts to merely gain votes. I do, however, feel we need to honor those agreements and find a go-forward approach. If that means negotiating a 401K buy-out then I am all for it. My name should give some indication that I line in the People's Republic of Maryland where we are beset with high taxes as well. My tax bill is slightly worse than your stated amount. Like you, I don't want to see it go up any more than it has to.

Bill

"It surely isn't a path to wealth"

Yes, it surely is...at least here in CT it is...

My 2 best friends are a married couple who are public teachers in CT. They are each 41 years old, they have each been working for 17 years with masters degrees. Their combined income is about $160,000, and of course on top of that, they get insane healthcare and retirement benefits. You'd have to make a lot more that $160,000 in the private sector to equal their purchasing power, because of their benefits. In most towns in CT, public teachers can earn more than $85,000, and again, with ridiculous benefits. Also, here in CT, teachers don't participate in Social Security, which is a huge benefit. I wish I could have my social security taxes given back to me, because as it is, I pay into social security, and I don't expect to get much back (I'm 41 years old). That alone is a huge, huge benefit.

My only first cousin is a police officer. He started at age 21 in the city of New Haven, worked for 23 years, retired with a full pension ($paying $62,000 a year, for the rest of his life) at AGE 44. Then, he took a job as a detective in another town. So between his paycheck and his pension, he makes about $130,000.

In my opinion, those 2 situations represent wealthy folks. In my opinion, both of those scenarios are indescribably crazy, totally irrational, completely fiscally irresponsible, and not sustainable.

I'm not saying I want to pull the rug out from underneath those who are too close to retirement to make changes. But we need to cut back on benefits for those workers who are young enouogh to absorb the change. Again, everyone in the private sector went through the same exact switch 20 years ago, and we all managed to survive somehow.

As for the contracts...you will see some governmengts (towns or states) file bankruptcy in the next couple of years, which gives them legal recourse to re-negotiate the contracts.

Defined benefit plans (where the risk of payment is borne by the employer) are things of the past.

With exploding plan costs (thank you Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke) and sharply lower investment returns (thank you Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke), more employers, be it private sector or public sector, are providing defined contribution pensions (where the risk is borne by the beneficiary).

State and municipal governments are feeling pain, with tax revenues down. States are feeling the squeeze because income taxes are down (pervasive unemployment). Municipalities are in pain because assessed home values, and therefore property taxes are down (housing bubble popping, foreclosures, pervasive unemployment).

Revenues are down, and at the same time the cost to pay into pensions and post-retirement healthcare plans is spiking. Unfortunately, since the states can't print money to pay their bills like the U.S. gov't can, states have to cut expenses.

You will likely see, especially this year, an acceleration in state and local layoffs and even benefit curtailments.

Unfortunately, that's just how the math is working out.

Also, here in CT, teachers don't participate in Social Security, which is a huge benefit. I wish I could have my social security taxes given back to me, because as it is, I pay into social security, and I don't expect to get much back (I'm 41 years old). That alone is a huge, huge benefit.

...

As for the contracts...you will see some governmengts (towns or states) file bankruptcy in the next couple of years, which gives them legal recourse to re-negotiate the contracts.
With regards to SS tax, the teachers in my area pay into a separate fund with a rate that (if I remember correctly, probably am not though) equals the SS tax rate.

Concerning the town contracts, it is only a matter of time before towns realize firing everyone and subcontracting all of it to private entities is the best course of action.
Maywood, California Fires All Town Employees, Outsources Everything: An Act Of 'Municipal Genius'? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/maywood-california-outsources-everything_n_652441.html)

Mansfield for example has two full time public works employees that spend half their day watching soap operas and playing cards. I know because a kid I graduated with landed one of the jobs making good money, earning towards his pension, good beni's... great for him, terrible for the rest of us. It is absolutely insane.

Revenues are down, and at the same time the cost to pay into pensions and post-retirement healthcare plans is spiking. Unfortunately, since the states can't print money to pay their bills like the U.S. gov't can, states have to cut expenses.

You will likely see, especially this year, an acceleration in state and local layoffs and even benefit curtailments.

Unfortunately, that's just how the math is working out.

"states have to cut expenses"

Here in CT, there have been no signicant cuts (maybe this year). I don't know that state spending has ever decreased from year to year. Our elected officials have decided to "fix" the problem by raising taxes, because God forbid someone have the guts to stand up to the unions and be honest. I wonder if our politicians are literally unaware that there are 2 ways to addess this problem, one being that you cut spending. The other, raising taxes, that they're well aware of...

With regards to SS tax, the teachers in my area pay into a separate fund with a rate that (if I remember correctly, probably am not though) equals the SS tax rate.

Concerning the town contracts, it is only a matter of time before towns realize firing everyone and subcontracting all of it to private entities is the best course of action.
Maywood, California Fires All Town Employees, Outsources Everything: An Act Of 'Municipal Genius'? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/maywood-california-outsources-everything_n_652441.html)

Mansfield for example has two full time public works employees that spend half their day watching soap operas and playing cards. I know because a kid I graduated with landed one of the jobs making good money, earning towards his pension, good beni's... great for him, terrible for the rest of us. It is absolutely insane.

"With regards to SS tax, the teachers in my area pay into a separate fund with a rate that (if I remember correctly, probably am not though) equals the SS tax rate."

Do you know what kind of return they get on those contributions? I read that baby-boomers will ee about a 1.9% average annual return on what they paid into social security, which is a lousy rate of return. My generation will pay more and receive less, so there's no way I'll break even. That teacher fund you referred to probbaly returns teachers 35% a year, guaranteed.

We all had the opprotunity to work for the town, city state or federal, instead we chose the private sector. I was offered a job on three occasions and refused, would have started with four weeks paid vacation and credited with four years towards retirement but, I chose the private sector, had worked out great for me.

Jim
I do not know what your property is assessed for but, I'm assessed for 450,000 and pay about 4,200 in property taxes. If your property is assessed around the same maybe you should think about moving to Cape Ann, great fishing, nice beaches and only 2.5 hours to ski country.

Do you know what kind of return they get on those contributions? I read that baby-boomers will ee about a 1.9% average annual return on what they paid into social security, which is a lousy rate of return. My generation will pay more and receive less, so there's no way I'll break even. That teacher fund you referred to probbaly returns teachers 35% a year, guaranteed.
I'll have to check. They screwed up my payment one year and paid me as an employee as opposed to a contractor so I have something like $50 sitting in the account. I'll see if I can dig up the info.

We all had the opprotunity to work for the town, city state or federal, instead we chose the private sector. I was offered a job on three occasions and refused, would have started with four weeks paid vacation and credited with four years towards retirement but, I chose the private sector, had worked out great for me.

Jim
I do not know what your property is assessed for but, I'm assessed for 450,000 and pay about 4,200 in property taxes. If your property is assessed around the same maybe you should think about moving to Cape Ann, great fishing, nice beaches and only 2.5 hours to ski country.

FlyRod, you're right, I chose not to work in the public sector. However, I don't think that means that public employees can enslave me for eternity to fund their unreasonable demands. The bottom line is, in my opinion, what public employees are receiving is way out of whack what what we should be expected to pay for. I don't want my teachers eating cat food. But I don't want to have to get a 2nd job so that they can keep insane, antiquated benefits.

My house is assessed at $450,000 as well, and my propetry taxes are just about double yours, and mine will go WAY up this year. Plus, towns in CT charge an annual "car tax" for the privilidge of owning a car. We have a 2004 Honda Accord and a 2009 Sienna minivan, and for that, I have to pay the town about $1,000 a year. CT has been very creative in finding ways to stick their fingers in our pockets, very few states have this car tax. Plus our sales tax is 6%, income tax is 5.5%.

Everyone I love lives in central CT, so I'm stuck for now. If I could convince my parents, brothers, and 5 best friends to move to New Hampshire, we'd be g-o-n-e.

Do you know what kind of return they get on those contributions? I read that baby-boomers will ee about a 1.9% average annual return on what they paid into social security, which is a lousy rate of return. .

That's in nominal terms.

If you consider real inflation ... you're getting a negative return.

"It surely isn't a path to wealth"

Yes, it surely is...at least here in CT it is...

My 2 best friends are a married couple who are public teachers in CT. They are each 41 years old, they have each been working for 17 years with masters degrees. Their combined income is about $160,000, and of course on top of that, they get insane healthcare and retirement benefits. You'd have to make a lot more that $160,000 in the private sector to equal their purchasing power, because of their benefits. In most towns in CT, public teachers can earn more than $85,000, and again, with ridiculous benefits. Also, here in CT, teachers don't participate in Social Security, which is a huge benefit. I wish I could have my social security taxes given back to me, because as it is, I pay into social security, and I don't expect to get much back (I'm 41 years old). That alone is a huge, huge benefit.

My only first cousin is a police officer. He started at age 21 in the city of New Haven, worked for 23 years, retired with a full pension ($paying $62,000 a year, for the rest of his life) at AGE 44. Then, he took a job as a detective in another town. So between his paycheck and his pension, he makes about $130,000.

In my opinion, those 2 situations represent wealthy folks. In my opinion, both of those scenarios are indescribably crazy, totally irrational, completely fiscally irresponsible, and not sustainable.

I'm not saying I want to pull the rug out from underneath those who are too close to retirement to make changes. But we need to cut back on benefits for those workers who are young enouogh to absorb the change. Again, everyone in the private sector went through the same exact switch 20 years ago, and we all managed to survive somehow.

As for the contracts...you will see some governmengts (towns or states) file bankruptcy in the next couple of years, which gives them legal recourse to re-negotiate the contracts.

Bingo we have somebody who actually gets it. I will tell you I am a local government worker here in NC and our benefit package and pention package are nothing like what is the norm up in RI/CT. The unions through corruption have managed bury the average taxpayer with these gold platter pension plans.

Interesting that folks mention pensions.

While this thread has been addressing mostly state and local situations, a lot of people also benefit from double dipping the federal pension plan.

Put in your 20 with the fed.gov, get pension, then work in a lucrative related (e.g., IT or defense contractor for the fed.gov) private sector job.

If I'm not mistaken, you the federal governemnt goes 25/55 or 20/60.....in other words to retire you need 25 years of service AND have to be 55 years old to retire.

a lot of the guys that are contracting w/ the government are ex-military...where the age rule does not exist. do 20 and collect, then contract out.

the federal government has also changed, where now the retirement plan is more of a 401k format. not a pension. people are grandfathered in depending on start of service date whether they qualify for pension or savings plans

If I'm not mistaken, you the federal governemnt goes 25/55 or 20/60.....in other words to retire you need 25 years of service AND have to be 55 years old to retire.

a lot of the guys that are contracting w/ the government are ex-military...where the age rule does not exist. do 20 and collect, then contract out.

the federal government has also changed, where now the retirement plan is more of a 401k format. not a pension. people are grandfathered in depending on start of service date whether they qualify for pension or savings plans

not just law enforcement ... IT and systems folks (=nerds) with security clearances likely outnumber LEO double dippers.

not just law enforcement ... IT and systems folks (=nerds) with security clearances likely outnumber LEO double dippers.


That would be me...:hee:

I actually work as a contractor in the IT department in DOD and what I described is how it is in our department. I'm looking to cross over to Government, and we've had a few already do so. What I described is how it is now-a-days. 401k for new hires going forward....been that way for probably 5 years

We agree 100%. I don't see why you need a union for a bunch of public service employees who have a monopoly.

They need a union, because all the underachievers who attend town meetings wouldn't pay them beans if they didn't band together and negotiate en mass. And you well know as an actuary that these union members pay half of the contribution to the retirement fund, right. So its not as if the municipality pays the whole GD thing is it.

These employees (teachers not withstanding, because I dont know a thing about their contracts) were given these perks back in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, when the pay was so low, and as you know as an actuary it didn't cost much, or at least the cost was negligable, to give out more perks during negotiations, like vacation, sick time, blah blah blah.

If you want monkeys working for you, then pay them peanuts. You'll get what you deserve soon enough in the form of civil rights law suits, caused by brutal thugs who take the low paying jobs, because educated people will go elsewhere. These cops, fitefighters, teachers, all hire contractors to work on their houses, local garges to repair thier vehicles, plumbers, electricians, and so on. Cut thier pay and everyone else will suffer right down the line. Its all relative.

Oh, I forgot one thing, we all pay taxes as well and I dont like what they are and complain when I see waste in all its forms. It doesn't sound to me as if the private sector worked out as well as you would have liked.

One more thing, just a short story, several years ago two of the guys I was working iwth on the 12-8 shiftb, (when by all rights they should have been sleeping or eating a donut) were driving along and spotted a house on fire. Without hesitating they rushed into the house, got the four people out. Called the Fire Dept. and the fire department was able to save the house. Guy never said thanks, not once. Two weeks after that fire almost claimed the father's life(homeowner), his wife and two childrens lives, one of those heroic officers wrote the guy wo had the fire a parking ticket. Guy wrote a two page letter of complaint aout why he didn't deserve a ticket. He didn't get the ticket taken care of and he did know in the end it was the same officer who saved his life. I'm done ranting.

Swimmer,

It doesn't do any good to try and change mindsets. Just use the forum as a tool for culling those that you would rather not offer an invite to fish with because they would have to tell you exactly where you can stand, what bait to use, and who you should thank for the fish (them of course).

They're the first ones to complain when someone tells them what to do yet they want to do the same. They are stuck where they are so we have to hear why we should suffer. I personally don't fall for that misery loves company routine. I tried to be cordial...

Swimmer,

It doesn't do any good to try and change mindsets. Just use the forum as a tool for culling those that you would rather not offer an invite to fish with because they would have to tell you exactly where you can stand, what bait to use, and who you should thank for the fish (them of course).

They're the first ones to complain when someone tells them what to do yet they want to do the same. They are stuck where they are so we have to hear why we should suffer. I personally don't fall for that misery loves company routine. I tried to be cordial...

Bill,
Post of the day:btu:

They need a union, because all the underachievers who attend town meetings wouldn't pay them beans if they didn't band together and negotiate en mass. And you well know as an actuary that these union members pay half of the contribution to the retirement fund, right. So its not as if the municipality pays the whole GD thing is it.

These employees (teachers not withstanding, because I dont know a thing about their contracts) were given these perks back in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, when the pay was so low, and as you know as an actuary it didn't cost much, or at least the cost was negligable, to give out more perks during negotiations, like vacation, sick time, blah blah blah.

If you want monkeys working for you, then pay them peanuts. You'll get what you deserve soon enough in the form of civil rights law suits, caused by brutal thugs who take the low paying jobs, because educated people will go elsewhere. These cops, fitefighters, teachers, all hire contractors to work on their houses, local garges to repair thier vehicles, plumbers, electricians, and so on. Cut thier pay and everyone else will suffer right down the line. Its all relative.

Oh, I forgot one thing, we all pay taxes as well and I dont like what they are and complain when I see waste in all its forms. It doesn't sound to me as if the private sector worked out as well as you would have liked.

One more thing, just a short story, several years ago two of the guys I was working iwth on the 12-8 shiftb, (when by all rights they should have been sleeping or eating a donut) were driving along and spotted a house on fire. Without hesitating they rushed into the house, got the four people out. Called the Fire Dept. and the fire department was able to save the house. Guy never said thanks, not once. Two weeks after that fire almost claimed the father's life(homeowner), his wife and two childrens lives, one of those heroic officers wrote the guy wo had the fire a parking ticket. Guy wrote a two page letter of complaint aout why he didn't deserve a ticket. He didn't get the ticket taken care of and he did know in the end it was the same officer who saved his life. I'm done ranting.

I agree with some of what you wrote, not all...

"all the underachievers who attend town meetings wouldn't pay them beans if they didn't band together and negotiate en mass."

I disagree. I see a lot of common sense folks who feel, like me, that public servants deserve to be paid a bit less than the average citizen whom they claim to serve. In CT, we are nowhere near that equilibrium, and it's getting more unbalanced (in favor of unionized municipal workers) not better. I know this as an actuary.

"these union members pay half of the contribution to the retirement fund, right."

It varies by town here in CT. What I also know is this...with a 401(k), I put money into it. When I want to retire, I have to figure out how to live on whatever is in there. If there's not enough to live on, that's my problem.

Unionized municipal employees put some of their own money to fund the pension. If the employee contributions are not enough to fund the promised payout (which happens, oh, 100% of the time) the public has to fund the difference. Warren Buffet could not invest contributions and earn enough to pay for the insane guaranteed benefits. I know this as an actuary.

Why is that? Why is the financial security of unionized municipal workers more important to society, than the financial security of those in the private scetor?

"These employees (teachers not withstanding, because I dont know a thing about their contracts) were given these perks back in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, when the pay was so low, and as you know as an actuary it didn't cost much, or at least the cost was negligable"

Correct. Back then, the costs were controllable because of several things (more workers per retiree, retirees didn't live as long, healthcare was cheaper). The problem is, pension benefits have not changed with the costs. So the public gets stuck with a massive bill, that was promised by a politician who (1) would do anything to get the union vote, and (2) is long gone so he's no longer answerable to the public that he just screwed.

"If you want monkeys working for you, then pay them peanuts. "

Thsi is what liberals do. If I suggest that teachers compensation needs to be somehting that the public can afford to pay, you take that to mean I want them eating cat food. That's not even close to what I said, so do us all a favor and stick to what I say. Don't put extremist words in my mouth just because they are easier for you to respond to.

Also, private schools pay their teachers far less than public schools, and somehow those students do OK. I have never, not once, seen a study that shows a correlation between student performance and teacher compensation. If there was any trace of a correlation, teachers unions would be plastering it everywhere.

"Cut thier pay and everyone else will suffer right down the line. "

Wrong! 100% wrong! And here's why. Cutting their pay means that everyone else gets to keep more of their own money, which will be spent on the things you listed. If current teacher pay levels are so good for the economy, why are towns and states having to borrow outrageous sums to pay for those benefits? Why aren't tax revenues enough to pay the salaries of the unionized employees? Have you seen the debt levels of nearly every state, thanks to unfunded retirement and healthcare benefits for unionized public workers? Many towns, and a few states, are flirting with bankruptcy.

"It doesn't sound to me as if the private sector worked out as well as you would have liked."

I'm pretty comfy, let's leave it at that. You want to know more, ask and I'll tell you. I just don't like getting robbed so that public sector employees can cling to insane benefits, and I cannot imagine what the tax rates will be for my kids, if things don't change.

Nice story you told. If you want to hear my story, look at the debt levels by state, thanks to the ridiculous promises made to these people. I used to be a public servant (I was in the USMC), and I have great respect for cops, teachers, firemen (well, many of them). But the math is what it is, and it is absolutely not sustainable.

Here in CT, our tax rates are among the 3 highest in the nation, every single year. On top of that, we have about the highest avereage income. What I mean is, if the state with the highest incomes, has the highest tax rates, then that state has a TON of tax revenue. On top of that, we get hundreds of millions from the casinos. And yet our debt, measured as dollars per citizen, is the highest in the country.

There is only one possible conclusion. We had the money to live well, but we spent it very recklessly. By far, the biggest debt item is union benefits. You try telling me that there is any other conclusion. But you can't, cuz there ain't. The money is gone, the well is dry, the golden goose has been slain. Still these unions want more and more and more. It is never enough.

You can't spend what you don't have. Whatever you have, you need to spend less. I knew that even before I was an actuary. Everyone knows this, it seems, except unionized municipal employees.

I like this post. It's my opus...

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.


I can't wait to see the answer to this one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.



should he base it on a normal work year or a 180 day work year? just want to clarify?



for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles...actuarialize this one too JIM, if you would...

Jim, I'm a gardener/landscaper(because I like it)...I have a degree in botany/plant genetics and I'm working on one in astrophysics at my own expense during the slow months, the median income in my area is $300,000 and the average home is 1.2 million...I work about half of the year but when I started at a bioengineering firm out of college I was making over a hundred grand plus a full benefits package....what do you think my fair wage should be ?


I wonder what the reaction will be when the payment transfers aren't made one Friday or the paycheck bounces....I heard someone say recently that these cities and towns are finally having to face the reality of what it actually costs to run their governments, the state subsidies are reduced and drying up, the feds aren't/can't subsidize the states, it all about trying to keep a sinking ship of ponzi schemes afloat and it is just too far underwater.....and not enough hands to bail, they're still dancing to the music on the deck

Zimmy and Scott,

You both missed Jim's point. He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire and are are forced to leave for more affordable housing elsewhere. Of course, the void created by your departure would immediately be filled by some other teacher with S&M tendencies who wants to be treated just as bad.

After all, he was a public servant (NOT!!!) and they did the same to him. Unlike his statement, Military service does not make him a public servant...it makes him a veteran (like me). This discussion is about civil service so I suggest he keep to the point. At no time has anyone lumped military benefits in with the discussion about civil servants. Unless he is willing to make more concessions that afford mothly death benefits to spouses of lost fireman and police he should stop trying to claim something he is not.

I wonder what flavor catfood they'll choose when the Ponzi scheme collapses?

U.S. Bills States $1.3 Billion in Interest Amid Tight Budgets

MICHAEL COOPER and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

As if states did not have enough on their plates getting their shaky finances in order, a new bill is coming due — from the federal government, which will charge them $1.3 billion in interest this fall on the billions they have borrowed from Washington to pay unemployment benefits during the downturn.

The interest cost, which has been looming in plain sight without attracting much attention, represents only a sliver of the huge deficits most states will have to grapple with this year . But it comes as states are already cutting services, laying off employees and raising taxes. And it heralds a larger reckoning that many states will have to face before long: what to do about the $41 billion they have borrowed from the federal government to help them pay benefits to millions of unemployed people, a debt that federal officials say could rise to $80 billion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/politics/15stimulus.html?_r=1&hp

Quote:


for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles...actuarialize this one too JIM, if you would...




What he thinks you should make is irrelevant. What he thinks I as a teacher should make is relevant since he funds teachers. I wasn't asking to be a dck. I was asking because I am curious what he thinks.

Just a clarification about fed pension system - the conversion to the new system happened for all employees in 1984. The new system is a combination of soc sec, thrift savings and a small pension. States and towns should follow suit.

Zimmy and Scott,

You both missed Jim's point. He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire and are are forced to leave for more affordable housing elsewhere. Of course, the void created by your departure would immediately be filled by some other teacher with S&M tendencies who wants to be treated just as bad.

After all, he was a public servant (NOT!!!) and they did the same to him. Unlike his statement, Military service does not make him a public servant...it makes him a veteran (like me). This discussion is about civil service so I suggest he keep to the point. At no time has anyone lumped military benefits in with the discussion about civil servants. Unless he is willing to make more concessions that afford mothly death benefits to spouses of lost fireman and police he should stop trying to claim something he is not.

Bill, yuo said this...

"He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire "

I guess you can't read very well, because that's not even CLOSE to anything I said. I think teachers should have benefits that resemble what's available to the public which they claim to serve. Namely, 401(k)'s instead of pensions. If I ask teachers to live with the same benefits that those who pay their salaries (taxpayers) have to live on, why is that unreasonable? Can you plkease answer that, instead of putting extremist words in my mouth?

What he thinks you should make is irrelevant. What he thinks I as a teacher should make is relevant since he funds teachers. I wasn't asking to be a dck. I was asking because I am curious what he thinks.

why is the income of others, the value of other's homes, how much others make in the private sector working ALL year doing a completely different job.. at all relevant to what Jim might think you should be paid as a teacher?

why not just ask him how much a science teacher should make?


US debt passes $14 trillion, Congress weighs caps

WASHINGTON – The United States just passed a dubious milestone: Government debt surged to an all-time high, more than $14 trillion.

That means Congress soon will have to lift the legal debt limit to give the nearly maxed-out government an even higher credit limit or dramatically cut spending to stay within the current cap. Either way, a fight is ahead on Capitol Hill, inflamed by the passions of tea party activists and deficit hawks.

Today's debt level represents a $45,300 tab for each and everyone in the country.

maybe better to compare it to what other science teachers are making
Average Teacher Salary in Connecticut....Connecticut teacher salaries are some of the highest average salaries in the nation, with a 2009 figure of $64,773. This salary increased 3.9 percent over the 2008 teaching salary in Connecticut of $62,345. The 2008 teaching salary is 2.3 percent higher than the 2007 average salary of $60,943.

Teaching salaries in Connecticut are higher than the national average salary of $49,720 in 2009, and the 2008 salary of $48,353. The percentage increase in Connecticut teacher salaries from 2008 to 2009 was higher than the national average increase of 2.8 percent.

Teacher salaries in Connecticut ranked 4th in the nation in 2009, a slight drop from their standing the previous two years. The average teacher salary in Connecticut ranked 3rd in both 2007 and 2008. Connecticut teacher salaries averaged a 6.2 percent increase overall for the 2007 through 2009 period.

The average teacher salaries in Connecticut have been increasing steadily though the 2007-2009 period. The following Connecticut teacher salary schedule summarizes this information:

Average Salary Percent Change
Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 2008 to 2009 2007 to 2008 2007 to 2009
Connecticut 4 $64,773.33 3 $62,345.00 3 $60,943.33 3.89% 2.30% 6.28%

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.

Hi Zimmy.

"I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits"

That's pretty honest, I respect that...

"are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching."

I live in Southington, and I have been a parft of the last 2 union contracts. Both times, the teachers tjhreatened to quit en masse if we cut their compensation. That tells me that in my town, teachers are pretty motivated by money, rather than by a calling to teach. I hear that a lot, teachers threatening to leave for the private sector. Just my observation. They all say they're in it for the kids, until we ask them to share the pain...

"Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage?"

First, let's talk about total compensation, not salary, because benefits are where unions get crazy. I don't know where you teach, somewhere in Fairfield County I guess. The average household income in CT is about $68,000, the average home price is around $275,000. In my opinion, public servants total compensation (salary plus benefits) should be just below the average of the citizens they claim to serve. I say just below because public servants are spared the significant stress of those in the private sector, the stress of being under presure to create wealth.

Zimmy, if you earned $100k in the private sector, yuo would work hundreds more hours each year than you do now. You would not have a guaranteed pension. You would pay twice as much for your healthcare as you do now. You would pay into social security, which is a ripoff. No week off at Xmas, February, April, no 7 weeks off in the summer. And finally, no guarantee that as long as you are breathing, your job is still there.

I believe I answered your question directly. Can I askyou a question Zimmy? As you know, here in CT, we have about the highest tax rates in the nation. Yet here in CT, the unfunded obligations for retirement and healthcare benefits is exactly $10,000 per citizen (recently reported in the Courant). That's $50,000 for my family of 5.

So here is my question...if my taxes are already just about the highest in the nation, and my family STILL owes another $50,000 to pay for union compensation, doesn't that PROVE that the spending is insane?

You asked me what's a fair wage, and I answered. Let me ask you, what tax level do you think is fair, to burden my family with? I pay 5% income tax, 6% sales tax, $8,000 propetry tax, and my family still owes your unions another $50k that I simply don't have. Is it fair that I get a seciond job so you and your ilk can cling to insane, antiquated benefits?

You thought you asked me a "gotcha" question. Please answer mine. How many of my bi-weekly paychecks do you think you're entitled to, so that you can have a guaranteed pension, and healthcare that's better than mine? How much of my kids' college fund should they have to sign over to the teachers union, because somehow you guys haven't realized that pensions simply don't work?

If you are a man of science, like me, you should know that you simply cannot spend what you don't have. In the near future, some muncipalities are going to start bouncing checks. The math is what it is. We need to start facing reality, and stop kicking the can down the road.

why is the income of others, the value of other's homes, how much others make in the private sector working ALL year doing a completely different job.. at all relevant to what Jim might think you should be paid as a teacher?

why not just ask him how much a science teacher should make?



The reason the potential income info is relevant because it affects whether someone goes into teaching. The housing info is relevant because it relates to the tax base and the cost of living in that town. What a science teacher makes in fairfield county is going to be different than what they make in rural carolinas where the median house price is $110,000, not 600,000. I work 186 days, so if you want to say the average professional works 245 (3 weeks vacation), that is reasonable. So yes, 76% of the standard work year is reasonable. I don't know anyone who works ALL year.

In my town, teachers max out at about $80k I think. So a married couple who both teach are earning $160,000, with benefits that dwarf anything that are available in the private sector. So those teachers have a private-secor equivalent of probably somewhere around $190k. And they work hundreds fewer hours per year, no matter what teachers say...they just do not work 2,000 hours a year, no way.

To me, that is insane. Not only does it "feel" crazy, the debt that states and towns are facing prove it.

You can't spend what you don't have. Business leaders get that. Heads of households get that. Only unionized public employees are immune to that law, and I don't understand why.

The reason the potential income info is relevant because it affects whether someone goes into teaching. I don't know anyone who works ALL year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching.


huh???

Jim, thanks for the answer. I think what you are missing is that if you look at teachers as "public servants" and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work. I see us more as professional educators who's job is to educate. That requires a particular skill set and education. My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month. I also pay taxes here, so I am affected by them as well. I could not afford to teach if my salary after 10 years was less than 34000, which is equal to 1/2 the household income you stated. The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. If doctors made $40,000 health care costs would be lower. If electricians charged less , it would be cheaper to build houses and schools. Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. By the way, alot of private school teachers do very well as they are often compensated in other ways.

Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach.

do you ever look at the gym teacher or home ec. teacher with 11 years under his/her belt pulling down the same salary and benefits as you and just shake your head?

I think that one of the biggest obstacles teachers have when advocating for their profession, salaries, benefits is that most of us have around at least 12 years experience with teachers to reflect on....

Jim, thanks for the answer. I think what you are missing is that if you look at teachers as "public servants" and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work. I see us more as professional educators who's job is to educate. That requires a particular skill set and education. My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month. I also pay taxes here, so I am affected by them as well. I could not afford to teach if my salary after 10 years was less than 34000, which is equal to 1/2 the household income you stated. The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. If doctors made $40,000 health care costs would be lower. If electricians charged less , it would be cheaper to build houses and schools. Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. By the way, alot of private school teachers do very well as they are often compensated in other ways.

Zimmy, you didn't even try to answer my question. I answered yours directly, you dodged mine. Not fair.

"and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work"

I'm 41 years old. When I was in grade school, public school teacher compensation was a disgrace. We all know that. But I still got a great education. So I categorically deny your claim that public education doesn't work if you cut compensation. As I said earlier, there isn't a shred of correlation between student performance and teacher compensation. I don't want teacher compensation to go back to what it was when I was a kid, but you can't ask taxpayers to kill themselves for your benefits, either. You need to be able to live on what we can reasonably provide to you. If our current tax rates still leave my family in debt to you to the tune of $50k, then we are at a crazy place.

"My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month"

Me too. The difference is, I have to make people want to voluntarily give me money to repay my loans. You get to take it from me through force of law.

"The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are"

Fine. WHY ARE TEACHERS THE LAST PROFESSIONALS IN THE WORLD WHO STILL HAVE PENSIONS? Why can't you address that question?


"If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. "

Bullsh*t. Pure bullsh*t. First, private schools pay a fraction of what public schools pay, and those schools manage to find great teachers. And back when I was a kid, when teacher pay was appallingly low, schools found folks to teach. With the private sector as tattered as it is, don't you dare suggest that if teachers had to switch to 401(k)s, no one would teach. God that's dishonest.

Zimmy, I'm a reasonable guy. I've done my homework on this issue, and I have thought it through from every angle. You won't get me with a "gotcha" question. And we all know the reason why you dodged the direct questions I asked you...because there is no rational answer as to why teachers cstubbornly refuse to live with benefits comparable to taxpayers who pay your salaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching.


huh???

Let me make it simple for you scott... If I can make 110000+ in biotech and teaching pays 30,000, I can't justify teaching. I think my salary is in line with what it should be. My district the union also agreed to a pay freeze. It will cost me 3,000 per year for the rest of my career. We pay a fair percent of our benefits. I don't know too many teachers asking for more more more.

The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. .

Fine. All other professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, actuaries) switched from pensions to 401(k)s 20 years ago, because we could no longer pass the cost of pensions on to our customers.

Why do teachers feel justified in FORCING that expense on to their customers (and that's a fair term, because I cannot choose not to pay), when the entire private sector realized 20 years ago that was an unreasonable burden?

Have a lot of fun with that one, pal.

Let me make it simple for you scott... If I can make 110000+ in biotech and teaching pays 30,000, I can't justify teaching. I think my salary is in line with what it should be. My district the union also agreed to a pay freeze. It will cost me 3,000 per year for the rest of my career. We pay a fair percent of our benefits. I don't know too many teachers asking for more more more.


A pay freeze, without addressing thye benefits, is meaningless.

And if you give up a raise for one year, how does that cost you $3,000 every year for the rest of you career? How big was the raise that you gave up?

well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing :) Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may :) I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.

well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing :) Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may :) I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.

The "pal" reference was because I went to great lengths to answer your questions directly. You still won't even try to answe mine. That really, really bothers me.

I tried Zimmy, I gave you a direct answer to the questions you asked. Your answer to mine was "I'm sorry you're so mad".

That's what teachers always, always do. They come up with phrases that are designed to alter the discussion. Each of the last 2 contract discussions, when I brought up 401(k)s, I was accused of not caring about kids' education. Right.

If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.

And we're all still waiting to see how giving up a raise, costs you $3k a year for perpetuity.

Let me make it simple for you scott... If I can make 110000+ in biotech and teaching pays 30,000, I can't justify teaching. I think my salary is in line with what it should be. My district the union also agreed to a pay freeze. It will cost me 3,000 per year for the rest of my career. We pay a fair percent of our benefits. I don't know too many teachers asking for more more more.

186 days

I answered your question. i wouldn't mind getting social security and a 401k. What else do you want me to answer? As far as the raise, I don't know what the actual value was, but I am not at the max step, so I was in line to get a step increase along with a cost of living increase. At the point i am at it was a pretty big difference. The step freeze means I am at the 10th step, when I would have gone to 11th, and the cost of living increase was frozen. I will always be one step lower than I would have been, so over my career it adds up. Also had an increase in benefits contributions and increase in insurance co-pay.
i was sincere about being sorry you are so mad. maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.

186 days

yes, that is 75% of a typical schedule. 30000, isn't 75% of 110000

I answered your question. i wouldn't mind getting social security and a 401k. What else do you want me to answer? As far as the raise, I don't know what the actual value was, but I am not at the max step, so I was in line to get a step increase along with a cost of living increase. At the point i am at it was a pretty big difference. The step freeze means I am at the 10th step, when I would have gone to 11th, and the cost of living increase was frozen. I will always be one step lower than I would have been, so over my career it adds up. Also had an increase in benefits contributions and increase in insurance co-pay.
i was sincere about being sorry you are so mad. maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.

OK, you did answer my question, thanks. Sincerely. The vast majority of your bretheren are not nearly as reasonable, and your unions use negotiating tactics that would make the Gambino family proud.

I assure you that forgoing a raise for a couple of years isn't costing you $3000 every year. It might cost you that mush in the year you gave up tha raise, but not in perpetuity.

maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.


Zimmy, if my town's union was the only one being demanding, the state of CT wouldn't be in the gaping whole it's in. The profession is compensated at a level that's nowhere near sustainable.

Bill, yuo said this...

"He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire "

I guess you can't read very well, because that's not even CLOSE to anything I said. I think teachers should have benefits that resemble what's available to the public which they claim to serve. Namely, 401(k)'s instead of pensions. If I ask teachers to live with the same benefits that those who pay their salaries (taxpayers) have to live on, why is that unreasonable? Can you plkease answer that, instead of putting extremist words in my mouth?

I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.

OK, you did answer my question, thanks. Sincerely. The vast majority of your bretheren are not nearly as reasonable, and your unions use negotiating tactics that would make the Gambino family proud.

I assure you that forgoing a raise for a couple of years isn't costing you $3000 every year. It might cost you that mush in the year you gave up tha raise, but not in perpetuity.


Jim I don't know where the Ct. unions get their strength to strong arm elected officials into giving them these huge contracts, but I do know for the last five to ten years the power has swung around the other wy in Massachusetts, where unions that represent every facet of public employee have lost tremendous amounts of bargaining power.

In thirty seven years of public service, never bargaining for a contract, but being the recipient of what was bargained, both good and bad, I never ever saw any officers in my union strong arm anyone, and thats in any form. Now if what your saying that officers new certain things about certain elected officials and they used that, well you should take that info to the nearest F.B.I. office.

And why is it that you base everything on your being an actuary. Everyone here is familiar with unfunded liabilty, in all its forms. My wife has her graduate degree in math and she wouldn't go for any interviews to do actuarial work, because the money wasn't there.

I retired from public service last July. I don't make enough to survive on either. SO I WENT OUT AND GOT A SECOND JOB TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

You don't need to adjust the retirement system in regard to the 44 yr. old retiring and taking another job as a detective. The residents there just need to enact legislation making that illegal, they probaly wont though. Who wouldn't hire a retired, qualified person, who probably serve with distinction in one town, in another town, if he was healthy and had good references.

It is true, at least from my perspective, the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" analogy. I'll say this to back that up. When the men who served in WW2 and Korea came home there were no jobs. The towns gave them the first opening on various town departments as a way of thanking them for their service. Those men, were for the most part uneducated (high aschool), some were illiterate, I know this personally, but they had one thing going for them, and that is they believe in the order of things. Thats because of where they were four the last four or five years. These men, from my perspective were thugs at best. And the town didn't really care. They only cared that they didn't see anything, and the town didn't get sued. Well after a while towns did get sued. Because these guys did what they did best any way they could physically. The only people who saw the end result of this physical activity were the parents and loved ones when the beaten person came home. Thats why rules changed, and had to change, and that is why the Quinn bill in Massachusetts was first introduced in Massachusetts in regard to police officers. Even you will admit that a more highly educated individual is one whose skills and critical thinking proceeses better prepares the officer for the street. Now to the point. Educated officers received more compentsation than uneducated officers. Most officers now have some college. Some officers have several college degrees. In private business you dont have to ask for more money for degree work. You automatically recive it. In public service we have to beg for it. But I am digressing.................Educated officer dont place themselves or the municpalities in the postion to have to defend themselves from civil rights actions that cost the towns they work for and the insurance company that cover the towns huge sums of money. In Massachusetts, brutality compalints were so common they stopped reporting them 15 or 20 years ago. Now they report them because they make news because they rarely happen. So, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, which translates to hired thugs, who can't be controlled, and act out worse in some ways than the perps on the streets do. But if you pay a decent wage to officers or other emplyees the benefits received back from the employees most often cant be seen. I can tell you personally I ended up in federal court three times, and its not pleasant. I was a witness all three times, never a defendent. But I can't tell you the defendents are just as I described above. Uneducated, uncaring, willing to fight at the drop of a hat, because the people they were dealing with they looked upon them as someone trying to take something from them. That doesn't happen anymore.

Oh, I have my own 401K also.

I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.

Less than 1 in 5 non-unionized employees still get a pension.

And in the private sector, that's fine, because your customers can freely choose whether or not they are willing to have that cost passed onto them. You don't get to seize my house if I don't want to absorb that cost.

Public unionized employees get to do just that.

I know how all you guys feel out there feeling that you have been cheated and paying more taxes and all.

Here I am on social security and my cost of living has been cut for the next two years because of your president. We were suppose to get a 5.8% pay raise, that is a little more then 500 bucks per year, "GONE."

And your ranting over and over about something meaningless that you are never going to solve. I'm surprised that some of you do not have sore finger tips from your long responses.

RANT! RANT! RANT! :smash: :wall:

JANUARY 15, 2011

Detroit and Decay

The city may abandon half its schools to pay union benefits
Detroit was once America's fourth largest city, though today large sections of its inner core are abandoned to the elements, and monuments like Michigan Central Station are returning to dust. Another emblem of civic decline is a plan to desert nearly half of Detroit's public schools so that it can afford to fulfill its teachers union contract.

The school district is facing a $327 million deficit and has already closed 59 schools over the last two years to avoid paying maintenance, utility and operating costs

Under the emergency plan, consolidated high-school class sizes would increase to 62 by 2014, “consistent with what students would expect in large university settings.” Yet under the terms of the Detroit Federation of Teachers contract, the district must pay bonuses for class enrollment over 35, thus imposing some $11.1 million in new costs through 2014.

“Additional savings of approximately $12.4 million can be achieved from school closures if the District simply abandons the closed buildings,” the proposal explains, purging costs like boarding up buildings, storage and security patrols.

Steven Wasko, a spokesman for Mr. Bobb, said that urban property sales have been difficult, in part because until recently the state board of education banned transactions with “competing educational institutions” like charter schools. Once buildings are deserted, even if the doors and windows are welded shut with protective metal covers, scavengers break in and dismantle them for copper wire, pipes and so on.

they deserve a bailout :uhuh:

If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.


There's a phrase for 'ordinary dads' like that.

Its called living beyond their means.

I think I get it...a teacher....I'm sorry...a "highly paid professional educator(gym teacher:))" working 186 days a year(how many days do you actually work when you use up all of your sick and personal days?) should not have to get a part-time job to be able to do what they love in the form of employment in a particular town....but a town resident who probably works more than 186 days a year is living "beyond their means" if they find themselves needing a part-time job to pay the taxes to pay the highly paid professional educator working 186 days a year while enjoying health benefits not found in the private sector and a guaranteed income after retirement that is in no way based on their contibutions through their employment regardless of whether or not the money exists to pay them.......sounds to me like the teachers and others are living beyond the public's means....:uhuh:
did anyone see Gov Christie's stats about NJ education and compensation?
before you assume I hate teachers...I have a lifetime of experience with teachers as both of my parents were teachers, dad was a science teacher(with his masters) and my wife is currently a teacher...

she was substituting a couple of years ago and it was quite funny that the sub notification system that she was a part of would call the house to request subs...it would be somewhat quiet through the week but every Friday the phone would ring off of the hook and very often the Monday after a vacation was quite busy...

If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.

If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.

that would be a great argument the next time they want to extend unemployment and borrow even more money to do so :uhuh:

If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.

Likwid, if property taxes double in 6 years because teachers refuse to accept the economic realities that face the rest of us, then that guy making $50k isn't necessarily living beyond his means. he just had no way of knowing that his teachers are completely unwilling to live on the tax revenue that he can provide.

It's the unions that won't live within the means that the public can reasonably provide.

I don't know of a business that isn't cutting exoenses. That being said, it's extremely rare for a town budget to decrease from year to year, it almost never happens.

I think I get it...a teacher....I'm sorry...a "highly paid professional educator(gym teacher:))" working 186 days a year(how many days do you actually work when you use up all of your sick and personal days?) should not have to get a part-time job to be able to do what they love in the form of employment in a particular town....but a town resident who probably works more than 186 days a year is living "beyond their means" if they find themselves needing a part-time job to pay the taxes to pay the highly paid professional educator working 186 days a year while enjoying health benefits not found in the private sector and a guaranteed income after retirement that is in no way based on their contibutions through their employment regardless of whether or not the money exists to pay them.......sounds to me like the teachers and others are living beyond the public's means....:uhuh:
did anyone see Gov Christie's stats about NJ education and compensation?
before you assume I hate teachers...I have a lifetime of experience with teachers as both of my parents were teachers, dad was a science teacher(with his masters) and my wife is currently a teacher...

she was substituting a couple of years ago and it was quite funny that the sub notification system that she was a part of would call the house to request subs...it would be somewhat quiet through the week but every Friday the phone would ring off of the hook and very often the Monday after a vacation was quite busy...

Great post, you nailed it!

When public servants (which includes everyone whose salary is funded through taxes) rank way above the median in terms of average income, with insane benefits on top of that, you have a bubble.

Here in CT, our tax rates are about the highest in the nation, and so our our incomes. That means that there is a TON of tax revenue. On top of that, teh state gets hundreds of millions from the casinos every year.

Yet with all that revebue, we are still on the verge of bankruptcy, and by far the biggest expense item is unionized benefits.

So who lived beyond their means? Those public unions are like a 25 yera old NBA star who makes $20 mill a year but goes bankrupt. The problem AIN'T a lack of revenue, it's a lack of common sense in spending habits.

You cannot look at the facts rationally, and come to a different conclusion. Only those with a political axe to grind could possibly disagree.

And I respect teachers as well. But I do not accept the premise that the financial security of teachers is more important to society, than the financial security of those who work in the private sector.

Likwid, if property taxes double in 6 years because teachers refuse to accept the economic realities that face the rest of us, then that guy making $50k isn't necessarily living beyond his means. he just had no way of knowing that his teachers are completely unwilling to live on the tax revenue that he can provide.

It's the unions that won't live within the means that the public can reasonably provide.

I don't know of a business that isn't cutting exoenses. That being said, it's extremely rare for a town budget to decrease from year to year, it almost never happens.

Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

that would be a great argument the next time they want to extend unemployment and borrow even more money to do so :uhuh:


maybe joe bob recognizes that he is working much harder to fund a bloated, inefficient, bankrupt behemoth at the local, state and federal level and is also aware that many of those that he is funding are working much less, with embarassing results and getting far more in terms of pay and benefits than he or they could ever get in the real world....:uhuh:

Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

"We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town."

Likwid, if Joebob isn't as fortunate as me, he might work for a company that is freezing raises. On top of that, everyone's medical insurance costs more. So if Joebob is forced to live with less, why do unionized employees always, always get more.

As I said likwid, I am fortunate enough to be able to pay whatever they want to tax me, my kids are still fine. But please re-read the question at the title of this thread. If teachers, cops, etc switched to 401(k)'s, property taxes could be reduced significantly. Instead of calling me a crybaby, how about answering the first question I asked...why can't teachers and cops live with 401(k)'s like the rest of us? What is the reason? Anyone?

In my town, the first education proposed budget for this year called for a 4% increase in spending over last year, and the teachers union is talking about all the sacrifices they made to keep the increase at 4% (still keeping their pensions, naturally).

The amount teachers receive ought to be proportional to the amount that the public has available to give them. And collectively, we don't have 4% more than last year, we have less. But their budgets never, ever, ever decrease.

Finally likwid, how come you never address my repeated point about current debt levels. If what we pay these parasites isn't excessive, why are so many municipalities in so much debt, that their bond ratings are being downgraded? If CT takes in enormous tax ravenue, plus gazillions from the casinos, and we still have the highest debt (per citizen) in the country, doesn't that necessarily mean we spent recklessly?

You like to make fun of Joebob, Likwid. But he knows something that you (and certainly teachers unions) have not figured out yet...whatever you have, you need to spend less.

States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011 | 4:51 AM ET Text Size By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

News Headlines (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41129099) :smash:

hey, didn't these unions spend all of their pension money getting democrats elected?

Campaign's Big Spender
Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays.

By BRODY MULLINS And JOHN D. MCKINNON

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs.

States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011 | 4:51 AM ET Text Size By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

[/B].

$2.5 trillion in pension shortfall. There are 300 million people living in this country, so that works out to $8,333 for every person living here.

Are there really a lot of people here who feel that asking for another $8,333 per person, on top of the taxes you currently pay, is reasonable? And bear in mind this is just the PENSION shortfall. In CT at least, the healthcare benefit shortfall is higher than the pension shortfall, so you can bet that what you owe is significantly more than $8,333 per person. These are contractual obligations that are unfunded, so these union members are expecting that money. which is guaranteed by contract (until municipalities declare bankruptcy, which gives them the legal right to re-negotiate.

And faced with this crisis, voters in CT went even heavier in favor of Democrats. Unbelievable.

And the federal unfunded obligations for social security and medicare? Those are in the tens of trillions. According to Likwid, if you take issue with any of this, you are a crybaby who can't make his own way in life.

"We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town."

Likwid, if Joebob isn't as fortunate as me, he might work for a company that is freezing raises. On top of that, everyone's medical insurance costs more. So if Joebob is forced to live with less, why do unionized employees always, always get more.

Poor joe,he should be worrying about himself, not what unions are doing. Maybe joe should have started looking for a new job! But hey, if joe just wants to sit in the same place, complain and whine about how horrible the world is to him, whatever, his problem, not anyone else's.

As I said likwid, I am fortunate enough to be able to pay whatever they want to tax me, my kids are still fine. But please re-read the question at the title of this thread. If teachers, cops, etc switched to 401(k)'s, property taxes could be reduced significantly. Instead of calling me a crybaby, how about answering the first question I asked...why can't teachers and cops live with 401(k)'s like the rest of us? What is the reason? Anyone?

Why should they?

In my town, the first education proposed budget for this year called for a 4% increase in spending over last year, and the teachers union is talking about all the sacrifices they made to keep the increase at 4% (still keeping their pensions, naturally).

Please itemize the 4% here for us. Thanks.

The amount teachers receive ought to be proportional to the amount that the public has available to give them. And collectively, we don't have 4% more than last year, we have less. But their budgets never, ever, ever decrease.

How many kids did the school's population increase by?

Finally likwid, how come you never address my repeated point about current debt levels. If what we pay these parasites isn't excessive, why are so many municipalities in so much debt, that their bond ratings are being downgraded? If CT takes in enormous tax ravenue, plus gazillions from the casinos, and we still have the highest debt (per citizen) in the country, doesn't that necessarily mean we spent recklessly?

We all know CT is screwed, has been screwed, will always be screwed. For the amount of time you spend complaining about it, maybe its time to move to somewhere better? I've done it. You can too!

You like to make fun of Joebob, Likwid. But he knows something that you (and certainly teachers unions) have not figured out yet...whatever you have, you need to spend less.

Joebob was never made fun of, just his own hypocrisy pointed out. Maybe he should stop complaining, stand up, and do something for himself for once instead of complaining about others?

And I believe, I have a leg up on Joebob, I live within my means.

I'd be really careful how much you complain about unions around here, a large portion of the members are union. :)

likwid, your argument is basically that "we the people" have no say in what our governments spend $ on or how much we pay?
If taxes get to be to much, is that we dont live within our means?
I dont know you but I can pretty much conclude that you're single and dont have kids. Expenses, such as taxes, take on a different meaning once you have financial decisions that impact others.

Why should they?






You know what Likwid? That's a fair question. And unlike what you do to my posts, I will respond directly to this fair question. (whereas you dodge and insult, and ask other questions)

Likwid asks, why should teachers and cops switch to 401(k)'s.

20 years ago, the entire private sector (which, unlike teachers, must make people WANT to buy their services) realized that pensions were not sustainable. There was no way that private businesses could ask their customers to absorb those costs (by the way, that's one o fthe reasons GM couldn't compete with the Japanese car companies; something liek $3,000 was added to the cost of every American car because of union demands). So the private sector switched to 401(k)s.

The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve. Therefore, it stands to reason that public sector benefits be somewhat in line (or slightly less than) private sector benefits.

In other words, if the private sector cannot get away with passing pension costs onto its customers, why should the public sector be able to FORCE those same costs on to us? By what logic are pensions less painful to pay for in the public sector, than the private sector?

Finally likwid, you ask why they should switch? Did you read Scott W's post above? Pensions are bankrupting most states. They should switch because, OBVIOUSLY, there isn't enough money to continue to fund pensions.

I think I've answered your question directly. For once, how about you return the courtesy? WHAT IS THE REASON WHY PUBLIC SECTOR FOLKS GET TO HANG ONTO ANTIQUATED BENEFITS THAT EVERYONE ELSE REALIZED, 20 YEARS AGO, WERE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE SUSTAINABLE? Why is it reasonable for public unionized employees to force costs upon us, that no one would voluntarily pay for?

I await your reply sir.

I can pretty much conclude that you're single and dont have kids. Expenses, such as taxes, take on a different meaning once you have financial decisions that impact others.

That, or he is a member of a public union, or he is married to someone who is...or he's successful enough to not have to worry about these debt levels that will soon have a crushing impact on everyone who's not a millionaire.

I'd be really careful how much you complain about unions around here, a large portion of the members are union. :)

Of course. In this economy, they're the only ones who can afford boats, and the only ones with enough free time to use them.

Too bad if they don't like hearing the truth, they work for the rest of us. And the rule of "you can't spend what you don't have" applies to them too.

Confucious say, he/she who complains about what the other worker gets in their benifit package, has to much free time. :rotf2: :rotf2:

Confucious say, he/she who complains about what the other worker gets in their benifit package, has to much free time. :rotf2: :rotf2:

You see Fly Rod, I complain because the more they get, the less I have to spend on my kids. At my company, if I reward myself with a fat pension, you (the customer) has the choice to buy my product, or get it somewhere cheaper if you want. You have that choice. Public unions give themselves whatever they want, and then just take it from the rest of us with force of law. It's not nearly the same thing as what happens in the private sector, it's not nearly fair, and it's about to implode.

Again, take the cowardly way out, avoid answering a tough but fair question, and insult the person asking the question. I don't get why someone like you reads this forum, if all you do is insult people instead of offering thoughtful responses to probing questions.

The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve.

In what dictionary? Is there a special one for actuaries that the rest of us are not aware of? Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?

In what dictionary? Is there a special one for actuaries that the rest of us are not aware of? Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?

It's called economics 101. In the private sector, the transaction only takes place when both sides find it beneficial. Otherwise one patry or the other would walk away from the deal. If both parties are voluntarily taking part in the transaction, both must feel they are benefitting from it. Am I going too fast for you?

In the public sector, the teachers union makes its demand, and the cost gets forced upon homeowners. Homeowners can pay the cost, or have their house taken away in tax delinquency. There is no choice on the part of the homeowner. The homeowner can't say "the Catholic school only spends half as much per kid, and performs way better, so I'll give my property taxes to the Catholic school instead". If homeowners had that choice, which they should, public schools would be forced to shape up. Am I going too fast for you?

In one environment, the customer gets to freely choose whether or not to give his money to the person performing the service. In the other environment, the person providing the service forcibly takes the money away from the customer, without asking his permission. Those two things are different. Am I going too fast for you?

"explain why a stimulus package was necessary"

It wasn't necessary. Nor was it stimulative.

"National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?"

If that research was obviously financially promising, someone in the private scetor would be funding it. If an idea needs government subsidy, that means the free market decided that the idea wouldn't be lucrative.

Obviously, some things are more important that creating wealth, like public safety. But in my opinion, those who receive public funds should not receive benefits that dwarf anything available to those who pay for those programs. I guess you disagree. In that case, will you pay my family's share of the shortfall? Because I do not recognize the right of teachers to reward themselves with these insane compensation levels.

Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation ?

right, I can see how funding a study on "stressed-out teens" can be construed as "wealth creation" :rotf2:

from the NSF website
Stressed Out: Teens and Adults Respond Differently

UCLA neuroscientist Adriana Galván studies the impact of normal, everyday stress and associated stress hormones on adolescents' brain function and decision making

Adriana Galván explores how daily stress and associated stress hormones impact decision making.
September 3, 2010

Stress can be compared with the pressure that a sculptor places on a piece of marble: the right pressure and it becomes a masterpiece, but too much pressure and the marble breaks into pieces.

The right amount of stress helps us to meet our goals and do good work. Too much stress can produce serious damage to the heart, the vascular system and the immune system, and it also causes changes in some areas of the brain.

With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Adriana Galván, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), is studying the effect of stress on brain function in adolescents and adults.

Nothing to see here folks.

If the needs of others have raised all of your fees, created some new ones, increased your taxes, jacked up your health care costs, doubled your utilities (and added more fees), clearly you are living beyond your means.

What? You got laid off? Had to start at 35% less than what you made before? Clearly you are living beyond your means.

Need to cut back your expenses? No, you just go out and get a job that pays better. What? No jobs? Well, pick up a second. Clearly, you are living beyond your means.

:rotf2:

Aye carumba. I just got my W2s. It has taken me 8 years to get to within 85% of the dollar figure (forget about inflation) I made in 2002. In those intervening 8 years I've constantly had to cut to live within my means yet I have paid more and more so others did not need to worry about their means because their means are not negotiable.

And I won't pick specifically on the public sector unions - a lot of them DO bust their a$$es. But the politicians elected have been doing a pees poor job of living within their means.

We as a nation are doing an awful job of living within our means, yet we continue to borrow and spend more and more, well beyond our means.

Hmmm. Wonder where this leads ?

Hmmm. Wonder where this leads ?

speaking Chinese :uhuh: Rosetta Stone anyone?

likwid, your argument is basically that "we the people" have no say in what our governments spend $ on or how much we pay?
If taxes get to be to much, is that we dont live within our means?
I dont know you but I can pretty much conclude that you're single and dont have kids. Expenses, such as taxes, take on a different meaning once you have financial decisions that impact others.

Having/not having kids is a personal choice that all should consider before putting themselves in that position for the next 18-23 years.

Why exactly should a cop/teacher/whatever have to suffer for other people's decisions?

Of course. In this economy, they're the only ones who can afford boats, and the only ones with enough free time to use them.

No they're not.

That, or he is a member of a public union, or he is married to someone who is...or he's successful enough to not have to worry about these debt levels that will soon have a crushing impact on everyone who's not a millionaire.

Not a member of a union, nor is my better half.

Having/not having kids is a personal choice that all should consider before putting themselves in that position for the next 18-23 years.

Why exactly should a cop/teacher/whatever have to suffer for other people's decisions?

26...we've redefined "childhood" to age 26 now and 27 in Indiana I think....

Nothing to see here folks.

If the needs of others have raised all of your fees, created some new ones, increased your taxes, jacked up your health care costs, doubled your utilities (and added more fees), clearly you are living beyond your means.

What? You got laid off? Had to start at 35% less than what you made before? Clearly you are living beyond your means.

Need to cut back your expenses? No, you just go out and get a job that pays better. What? No jobs? Well, pick up a second. Clearly, you are living beyond your means.

:rotf2:

Aye carumba. I just got my W2s. It has taken me 8 years to get to within 85% of the dollar figure (forget about inflation) I made in 2002. In those intervening 8 years I've constantly had to cut to live within my means yet I have paid more and more so others did not need to worry about their means because their means are not negotiable.

And I won't pick specifically on the public sector unions - a lot of them DO bust their a$$es. But the politicians elected have been doing a pees poor job of living within their means.

We as a nation are doing an awful job of living within our means, yet we continue to borrow and spend more and more, well beyond our means.

Hmmm. Wonder where this leads ?

"Nothing to see here folks."

Yes there is somehitng to see, because somehow likwid and chesepeake Bill don't get it.

"I've constantly had to cut to live within my means yet I have paid more and more so others did not need to worry about their means because their means are not negotiable. "

Very well said. The crazy part is, these union members will tell you of the awful sacrifices they've made to keep spending where it is.

"And I won't pick specifically on the public sector unions - a lot of them DO bust their a$$es."

I agree many work hard. But the fact is, those unions have made demands on the public they serve, which are unreasonable. Look at how underfunded those benefit plans are...doesn't that prove that the promises made were stupid?

Union benefits are a much bigger debt item than politician salaries.

Why exactly should a cop/teacher/whatever have to suffer for other people's decisions?

You're clueless, you just don't get it.

The cop/teacher makes demands that bankrupt most states in the country, and you're saying the cop and teacher are suffering?

What "suffering"? I'm asking the cop and the teacher to live with the same benefits available to those that pay taxes. Why is that "suffering"? I sure don't feel like I'm suffering with my 401(k), so why is it inhuman to ask people who work for me, to live with the same benefits? Why are they special?

Never mind, I know you won't try to answer, you never do...

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;Union benefits are a much bigger debt item than politician salaries.[/QUOTE]

union benefits were "purchased" through and as political graft....the union members represent an organized, easily mobilized voting block and politicians have paid for that support at election time using public money and promises in the form of contracts, perks and pensions promises for a very long time...we are paying their salaries with borrowed money, we borrowed a fortune to "save" their jobs and creat work with the stimulus(BORROWED MONEY) and their pensions unfunded are paid with borrowed money....PLUS INTEREST!!!!! WOW:wall:

I think they'll get a nice "injection" with unspent stimulus funds prior to the next election

I don't get why someone like you reads this forum, if all you do is insult people instead of offering thoughtful responses to probing questions.

I, personally, don't get why somebody comes to a Fishing Website just to argue Politics. But, To each his Own

I, personally, don't get why somebody comes to a Fishing Website just to argue Politics. But, To each his Own

that was good! :rotf2:

I, personally, don't get why somebody comes to a Fishing Website just to argue Politics. But, To each his Own

It's the political discussion forum, correct?

Its www.Striped-bass.com.....correct

Having/not having kids is a personal choice that all should consider before putting themselves in that position for the next 18-23 years.

Why exactly should a cop/teacher/whatever have to suffer for other people's decisions?

I agree, but kids change your outlook and what you pay. What I pay monthly for daycare would pay 99% of most peoples mortgage. Tack on increased taxes, when does it become financially not worth it for me or my wife to work? You may think Im kidding, but my wife and I have had this discussion many, many times. I have done hypothetical calculations with the main variable - our taxes. Do we want to have a country where prosperous people cant afford to work? I dont expect anyone to pay a dime for my kids, but news flash most of the people who you side with politically DO.


Why should a teacher or cop suffer from others decisions? Kind of silly question, no? I suffer from my boss's decisions. I suffer from my coworkers decisions. I can leave at any time. A teacher or cop should suffer OR benefit from others decisions too. There needs to be fiscal responsibility and we - you and me, are the bosses, we pay the bills. If teachers or cops dont like the benefits or pay, they can pursue other careers. the market should be defining wages and benefits.

Its Striped-Bass Fishing | Striper Fishing (http://www.Striped-bass.com).....correct


Dad, if it makes it more palatable to you, I'll re-phrase.

The last time I owned a fishing boat was a 20 foot Key West center console which I loved. Paired with an E-tec 130. One day my son and I were casting eels with custom rods made by J&B tackle in Niantic, matched with spinning reels and 14 pound braid, along Fishers Island, NY. I noticed my neighbor who is a public schoolteacher, married to another pubilc schoolteacher, and he is in a 27 foot grady white center console.

My boy asked me why we couldn't afford a boat that sweet, and I said "well son, since I'm not in a public union, I have to put $15k a year into my 401(k). If I had a pension instead, my financial security in retirement would be everybody else's problem except my own, and in that case, we could put that money towards our dream boat." At this time, we were near Isabella beach at high tide, and the fishing was picking up.

He asked me "why don't you have a pension?" as he landed a nice schoolie.

As I removed the size 5/0 Gamagatsu circle hook, I said "because they are too expensive to ask our customers to pay for". As the tide slackened, we moved to the Race and trolled umbrella rigs with wire line. We let out 300 feet of wire to get below the cocktail blues that were down to 10 feet or so.

So he said "so why do teachers get pensions then. I'm only 4 years old, but even I see that it doesn't seem fair".

On the way in, we stopped at the warm water discharge at Millstone Power Plant and hooked up with some albies. "Son, I said, you're right, it's not fair, and not only that, it is bankrupting our entire country. When you get a paper route in 5 years, they'll put you in the 75% income tax bracket to pay for all this spending".

While cleaning the boat afterwards with Colinite boat cleaner (which works great when paired with Colinite wax), he said "gee Dad, it seems selfish for public unionized employees to place such a significant tax burden on the public that they claim to serve. If we can all live with 401(k)'s, why can't they?"

We grilled the stripers with lemon, garlic, onions, and pepper.

Other than the spot burning, is that framed better?

that was really good! :rotf2:

"I'm 4 years old and even I can understand that" heh...heh

that was really good! :rotf2:

"I'm 4 years old and even I can understand that" heh...heh

You post the stats that say that the retirement benefits alone are underfunded by $8,333 per person.

I ask if that doesn't suggest that the current benefits are too rich.

For responses, I get...

"why didn't you go into teaching"

"what do you care what someone else gets"

"seems like you're just jealous" (which I guess I am)

I just want someone to tell me why it's not unfair and reckless...

You post the stats that say that the retirement benefits alone are underfunded by $8,333 per person.

I ask if that doesn't suggest that the current benefits are too rich.

For responses, I get...

"why didn't you go into teaching"

"what do you care what someone else gets"

"seems like you're just jealous" (which I guess I am)

I just want someone to tell me why it's not unfair and reckless...

You forgot two questions...
How many town meetings have you gone to to get answers to why there is a 4% increase this year?
And I'm still waiting to hear what the 4% increase was for and by how many students there are this year compared to last year?

Just out of curiosity, does your company give you a cost of living pay increase every year? Most do.

And your story, while cute, leaves alot open.
How long did they save for the boat?
Do you know exactly how much were paid per year?
Do you know if any family members died and left them some money?
Do they play the market?
Does one of them have a trust fund?

Judging others by material posessions is very shallow of you.

Just out of curiosity, does your company give you a cost of living pay increase every year? Most do

.

Most do? Really. I guess you have not heard of the great economic downturn that taken place the last few years? Have you seen the unemplyment rates? Seen the decline in personal incomes?
Most companies are slashing expenses, many have stopped 401k match, stopped bonuses. Towns should too, do you get it now?

Most do? Really. I guess you have not heard of the great economic downturn that taken place the last few years? Have you seen the unemplyment rates? Seen the decline in personal incomes?

Pssst, there are companies that are excelling right now! I know, crazytalk. But its happening.

Most companies are slashing expenses, many have stopped 401k match, stopped bonuses. Towns should too, do you get it now?

Most?
Have any evidence to back this up? Or is it just speculation based on media hoodoo?

You forgot two questions...
And your story, while cute, leaves alot open.
How long did they save for the boat?
Do you know exactly how much were paid per year?
Do you know if any family members died and left them some money?
Do they play the market?
Does one of them have a trust fund?

Judging others by material posessions is very shallow of you.

in your little story about joebob you didn't provide many specifics about his particular situation and you didn't seem to think twice about kicking the crap out of him and calling him a hypocrit :uhuh::)

"Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job
Maybe he should stop complaining, stand up, and do something for himself for once instead of complaining about others?

"

yikes...maybe joebob has no legs, no trust fund, no inheritance, no windfall from the lottery or stock market, likes what he's doing and just wants to work hard and be left alone?

yikes...maybe joebob has no legs, no trust fund, no inheritance, no windfall from the lottery or stock market, likes what he's doing and just wants to work hard and be left alone?

hey he wanted to go with the general story of the guy making 50k getting priced out of his neighborhood.

I also have to ask Jim in CT, why would someone tell their son that story? That someone else gets more than he does to their son? Do you hate your neighbor that much? Are you that jealous?

Why couldn't you teach a life lesson? That they work hard and saved up for the boat instead of teaching a distrust of teachers due to what they have. That they get a pension and they're "special".

Sure you could say its a lesson, but certainly not a positive one.

But hey, you wanna raise your kids that way, thats your right.

You forgot two questions...
How many town meetings have you gone to to get answers to why there is a 4% increase this year?
And I'm still waiting to hear what the 4% increase was for and by how many students there are this year compared to last year?

Just out of curiosity, does your company give you a cost of living pay increase every year? Most do.

And your story, while cute, leaves alot open.
How long did they save for the boat?
Do you know exactly how much were paid per year?
Do you know if any family members died and left them some money?
Do they play the market?
Does one of them have a trust fund?

Judging others by material posessions is very shallow of you.

Can't you please answer my question that started this thread? I keep answering all your questions, you keep avoiding all of mine...

Is that unfair of me? I answer all your questions, and I'm asking you to answer one of mine. Too much to ask?

Likwid, I'm very comfortable. That doesn't mean that what public unionized employees are doing is right. Most folks aren't as lucky as me.

Judging others by material posessions is very shallow of you.

Dodging my simple question is very cowardly of you.

Dodging my simple question is very cowardly of you.

Very classy!

That they work hard and saved up for the boat.

Wrong again. If I want to teach my kid about the rewards of hard work, the very last place on earth I'll point to is a teachers union. Here's why. In a teacher's union, every teacher with the same experience, from the best teacher to the worst teacher, is paid exactly the same. There is ZERO financial incentive to excel. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

That philosophy worked great in the USSR, Cuba, and the auto unions...it gusrantees complacency and mediocrity.

In the private sector, hard working talented employees get rewarded. People who just show up and coast, get left behind.

In a teachers union,the worst teacher and the best teacher get paid identically. If someone here wants to explain the logic behind that, I'm all ears...

Very classy!

Again, you insult me instead of simply answering the question...

Again, you insult me instead of simply answering the question...

"You're clueless, you just don't get it."
"very cowardly"

Uh huh.

Right.

I feel sorry for you.
I really do.

Jim,

Depsite your acertions, I do get it. You do not. The Nobel Prize winning economist George Friedman even understands the value that government research puts into the economy. Were it not for DARPA attempting to share research we might not have the internet, arguably one of the largest economic drivers of the modern era. Without scientists at NASA trying to build a better space ship we would not have the IPod. Government's role (particularly the military machine's) is to absorb the high cost of product development through research so it can then find comemrcial applications. Sure you can pick some obscure research about bovine flatulence research and argue its validity. What you cannot do is back up you statments about public servants building wealth. Public servants oversee the billions spent on research every year so that our economy continues to thrive and rebound. If the students are not educated they cannot compete and the economy suffers. If crime goes up businesses leave. Therefore public service does help build wealth. I find your tirades like those of a big bully who fires shots across the bow of others but calls foul when they fire back.

Jim,

Depsite your acertions, I do get it. You do not. The Nobel Prize winning economist George Friedman even understands the value that government research puts into the economy. Were it not for DARPA attempting to share research we might not have the internet, arguably one of the largest economic drivers of the modern era. Without scientists at NASA trying to build a better space ship we would not have the IPod. Government's role (particularly the military machine's) is to absorb the high cost of product development through research so it can then find comemrcial applications. Sure you can pick some obscure research about bovine flatulence research and argue its validity. What you cannot do is back up you statments about public servants building wealth. Public servants oversee the billions spent on research every year so that our economy continues to thrive and rebound. If the students are not educated they cannot compete and the economy suffers. If crime goes up businesses leave. Therefore public service does help build wealth. I find your tirades like those of a big bully who fires shots across the bow of others but calls foul when they fire back.

There would be no commercial spinoffs from government funded research without entrepeneurs. Nor would there be government funding of anything without those businesses and the employees created by entrepeneurs and the taxes collected from them.

Jim wants to know why public servants should get better bennies than the private servants who fund them. And he especially referred to the more local type public employees, not the rarified research types.

Jim,

Depsite your acertions, I do get it. You do not. The Nobel Prize winning economist George Friedman even understands the value that government research puts into the economy. Were it not for DARPA attempting to share research we might not have the internet, arguably one of the largest economic drivers of the modern era. Without scientists at NASA trying to build a better space ship we would not have the IPod. Government's role (particularly the military machine's) is to absorb the high cost of product development through research so it can then find comemrcial applications. Sure you can pick some obscure research about bovine flatulence research and argue its validity. What you cannot do is back up you statments about public servants building wealth. Public servants oversee the billions spent on research every year so that our economy continues to thrive and rebound. If the students are not educated they cannot compete and the economy suffers. If crime goes up businesses leave. Therefore public service does help build wealth. I find your tirades like those of a big bully who fires shots across the bow of others but calls foul when they fire back.

really?, what does any of what you wrote have to do with teachers and police and the burden of unfunded pension obligations?

[QUOTE=likwid;828806Uh huh.

Right.

I feel sorry for you.
I really do.[/QUOTE]

predictable:uhuh:

but if you want to talk about federal workers...maybe we should just change the name from "public servants" to 'highly paid/compensated government professionals"
....similar situation...maybe the answer is even more tax money funding more studies creating more wealth to help pay for these highly paid government workers and their luxurious benefits as they accomplish what could never be accomplished in the private sector?


Federal workers earning double their private counterparts
Updated 8/13/2010 10:53 AM

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.


Business Insider

WARNING: The Federal Employees Pension System Is Running An Even Bigger Deficit Than Social Security
Bruce Krasting | Oct. 21, 2010,

I don’t think there is anyone who looks at the issue of entitlements in the US who is not gravely concerned about the direction we are on. Economists of all stripes, damn near everyone in D.C. and a long list of academics have all highlighted the problems. But the same groups that are raising red flags are misleading us on when and how this problem will affect us. They say/think it is a tomorrow problem. Actually it is hitting us today.

I want to focus on the Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”). This is a retirement program for federal workers. The program is similar to Social Security in a number of ways.

-FERS collects money from government workers and their employer.

-The program pays benefits to eligible workers and their families.

-FERS has a trust fund. Currently there is $775b of Special Issue Treasury securities in the fund. This is equivalent to 6% of our total debt and is therefore a very big deal. FERS holds as much of our paper as do the Chinese and the Federal Reserve.

-FERS is running a cash flow deficit. This is a new phenomenon. FERS is converting itself into a defined contribution plan that will address some of the problems. However the cash drain experienced in 2010 will not be reversed in the foreseeable future. It will increase. Some numbers from OMB:

Read more: WARNING: The Federal Employees Pension System Is Running An Even Bigger Deficit Than Social Security (http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-employees-pension-system-deficit-2010-10#ixzz1BTVTfLyC)

quick...somebody build a spaceship!!! :rotf2::rotf2:

I'd be the first to press the button and send you wherever you want to go...

For every article that says they are overcompensated there is another in a different paper that says they are undercompensated.If you base your reasoning on the Moonies you are putting yourself at risk. Do a little research on your own instead of taking everything at face value or spitting out sound bites. Your credibility wanes...

I'd be the first to press the button and send you wherever you want to go...

For every article that says they are overcompensated there is another in a different paper that says they are undercompensated.If you base your reasoning on the Moonies you are putting yourself at risk. Do a little research on your own instead of taking everything at face value or spitting out sound bites. Your credibility wanes...

my credability?

how is it possible that employees making far more than their counterparts in the private sector, recieving much more generous benefits and guarantees(or do you have an article that shows they're not?) which are bankrupting their "employer" at every level of government are "undercompensated" ?

your reasoning will lead to oblivion :uhuh:

this is like your wife maxing out all of your credit cards and then you ask her how she's planning to pay for it and she tells you that you are going to pay for it and that she plans to keep on spending because her spending creates your wealth :uhuh:

WAKE UP!!!

For every article that says they are overcompensated there is another in a different paper that says they are undercompensated. ...

Please post a credible source that suggests that spending on municipal employees is not putting states and towns in a huge hole, or that municipal employees compensation is falling further behind private sector employees.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.


I can tell you from my experience, where I'm working now, that the Government employees make a shade less than the private sector for the IT field. I work for an IT contractor and I make about 3% more than my equivelant government counterpart. My health insurance is also better and my contribution is roughly half of theirs. They do have it better in time off where they start w/ 15 days off and I started w/ 13...and they receive 13 sick days to my 5. I am Private sector versus the public sector (DOD).

I can also tell you that I am making less here than my last job in the private sector. So in my experience the Government is less than or equal too the private sector as far as pay. Not twice as much.

As I stated this is in the IT field so I can't vouch for other fields in Government.

As to the Monkeys and Peanuts analogy.....the IT field would be extremely affected by sub par pay and benefits. IT Guys notoriously move around in search of better pay/benefits, so if you didn't make things comparable to Private sector you would have an IT Workforce in the DOD that was made up of tech school graduates that probably wouldn't spend more than 2 years on the job before leaving. How efficient is that for an organisation to operate....6 months to ramp up your talent then they leave a year/year and a half down the road.

Jim,

Depsite your acertions, I do get it. You do not. The Nobel Prize winning economist George Friedman even understands the value that government research puts into the economy. Were it not for DARPA attempting to share research we might not have the internet, arguably one of the largest economic drivers of the modern era. Without scientists at NASA trying to build a better space ship we would not have the IPod. Government's role (particularly the military machine's) is to absorb the high cost of product development through research so it can then find comemrcial applications. Sure you can pick some obscure research about bovine flatulence research and argue its validity. What you cannot do is back up you statments about public servants building wealth. Public servants oversee the billions spent on research every year so that our economy continues to thrive and rebound. If the students are not educated they cannot compete and the economy suffers. If crime goes up businesses leave. Therefore public service does help build wealth. I find your tirades like those of a big bully who fires shots across the bow of others but calls foul when they fire back.

If you're saying that some publicly funded entities to produce valuable work, you get no argument from me.

However, the facts are that (1) in CT, Mass, and RI, we have tax rates that are higher than average.

(2) despite those high tax rates, we have managed to spend way more than we have, menaing we have lots of debt

(3) a huge reason for that over-spending is bennies to public employees.

Those 3 facts tell me that teh benefits promised to public employees are more than the taxpayers can reasonably afford. Pointing out that NASA does some worthwhile things, does not refute my point.

I can tell you from my experience, where I'm working now, that the Government employees make a shade less than the private sector for the IT field. I work for an IT contractor and I make about 3% more than my equivelant government counterpart. My health insurance is also better and my contribution is roughly half of theirs. They do have it better in time off where they start w/ 15 days off and I started w/ 13...and they receive 13 sick days to my 5. I am Private sector versus the public sector (DOD).

I can also tell you that I am making less here than my last job in the private sector. So in my experience the Government is less than or equal too the private sector as far as pay. Not twice as much.

As I stated this is in the IT field so I can't vouch for other fields in Government.

As to the Monkeys and Peanuts analogy.....the IT field would be extremely affected by sub par pay and benefits. IT Guys notoriously move around in search of better pay/benefits, so if you didn't make things comparable to Private sector you would have an IT Workforce in the DOD that was made up of tech school graduates that probably wouldn't spend more than 2 years on the job before leaving. How efficient is that for an organisation to operate....6 months to ramp up your talent then they leave a year/year and a half down the road.

That's an interesting observation, but as you said, it's in our national security interests to have qualified IT guys working for the DOD. Furthermore, I have never seen data that suggests that federal spending of DOD IT employees is the #1 driver of the federal deficit. However, state spending on benefits of municipal employees is a huge driver of state/town deficits.

In other words, DOD IT employees are not pushing the federal government to the brink of bankruptcy. But retirement/healthcare benefits to municipal employees absolutely are pushing local governments to the brink of bankruptcy.

That couple in my neighborhood (both public schoolteachers) make a combined salary of about $150k. That's more than double the median household income in CT, and they work far fewer hours. And with the bennies they get, the difference is much greater. And no matter how bad they are at their job, with tenure, it's virtually impossible to get rid of them (not that they are bad teachers, i have no idea).

And cops being able to collect pensions after 20 years, at age 43? While everyone else hopes to retire at 65?

If everyone here is comfortable with forking over another paycheck or two every year, so that teachers and cops can keep benefits that dwarf what's available to the taxpayers, then we should do it. That's how democracy works.

I just don't see why they deserve so much more than what's available to those of us stuck with the bill, and I'm not sure any post here directly addressed that.

I really wonder what some believe is going to happen, boatloads of money will suddenly appear to make things all better??? the feds have been subsidizing the states have been subsidizing the towns and cities and that is OVER! 14 TRILLION dollars OVER!

this isn't a little bump in the road...this is a sink hole :uhuh:

I have never seen data that suggests that federal spending of DOD IT employees is the #1 driver of the federal deficit.


You didn't read Scott's Post above? :huh: :hihi:

Granted it was for all federal employees...not just IT...then again I was just putting forth what I've seen

You didn't read Scott's Post above? :huh: :hihi:

Granted it was for all federal employees...not just IT...then again I was just putting forth what I've seen

I did indeed read it. And from what I read, there was a concern with benefits paid to all federal workers, not salaries paid to IT contractors.

Dad, in your area, do most IT workers in the private scetor have guaranteed pensions? Not here in CT.

The biggest challenge by far for the federal budget is unfunded obligations for Medicare. However, the majority of states that have huge debt, are in that posiiton largely because of public employee benefits.

I did indeed read it. And from what I read, there was a concern with benefits paid to all federal workers, not salaries paid to IT contractors.

I was drawing a comparison to the Federal vs. Private sector salaries in the IT field. That the federal salaries are below or equal too private.....not grossly above.

I was drawing a comparison to the Federal vs. Private sector salaries in the IT field. That the federal salaries are below or equal too private.....not grossly above.

I saw that, and I found that interesting. In your area (are you in Mass?) do IT workers in the private scetor get guaranteed pensions? If not, that's something you need to consider when comparing public to private. If public salaries are 5% less than the private scetor, but they get pensions, then in my opinion total compensation is much higher in the public sector.

I was talking about teachers. Here in CT, public schoolteachers make more than double what private schoolteachers make, with far inferior results (although you can't just compare test scores obviously, because private schools select who to let in).

Read an article several weeks ago ON AVERAGE public sector employees are compensated 120% of private sector employees and when benefits are included (sick time, vacation, retirement) it jumps to 150%.

Sure ONE GUY can make more in the private sector, but as a whole public employees make way more.

I saw that, and I found that interesting. In your area (are you in Mass?) do IT workers in the private scetor get guaranteed pensions? If not, that's something you need to consider when comparing public to private. If public salaries are 5% less than the private scetor, but they get pensions, then in my opinion total compensation is much higher in the public sector.

I was talking about teachers. Here in CT, public schoolteachers make more than double what private schoolteachers make, with far inferior results (although you can't just compare test scores obviously, because private schools select who to let in).

total compensation really needs to be considered, the numbers for RI state employees was released a while back showing "total compensation" and it was mind numbing( I used to think of this everytime I'd drive through the Newport Bridge toll booth where I think the average worker was making in excess of 60 grand+++ plus all the other stuff and I'd have to wait for them to finish stuffing the sandwich in their mouth before I could get my reciept, EasyPass is great)....I just read an article in the WSJ talking about the Utah plan for revamping the pension system going to a 401K and the government contributing 10-12% a year...one of the first comments said 10-12%??? the private sector employers have to factor in all costs for total compensation to determine your value or overall compensation level as an employee, something tells me that governement simple looks at compensation levels and then piles on the benefits without regard to how they're going to pay for it in the future...thus our insolvent current state... :uhuh:

I saw that, and I found that interesting. In your area (are you in Mass?) do IT workers in the private scetor get guaranteed pensions? If not, that's something you need to consider when comparing public to private. If public salaries are 5% less than the private scetor, but they get pensions, then in my opinion total compensation is much higher in the public sector.


Those that are grandfathered in recieve a pension, Government employees hired after 1984 are enrolled in FERS, which is comparable to a 401k (not exactly, but comparable).

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/RI90-1.pdf

Most of the guys I work w/ are not grandfathered in, so they are comparable to private sector

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;828892]Those that are grandfathered in recieve a pension, Government employees hired after 1984 are enrolled in FERS, which is comparable to a 401k (not exactly, but comparable).


FERS is running a cash flow deficit. This is a new phenomenon. FERS is converting itself into a defined contribution plan that will address some of the problems. However the cash drain experienced in 2010 will not be reversed in the foreseeable future. It will increase.


January 2011
factor in :
Even controlling for the effects of census employment, federal employment has increased constantly throughout the recession and into today. Since January 2008, net of census hiring, the federal government has grown by 3.5 percent, gaining 98,000 jobs.


What about employment in the rest of the economy? Since the beginning of the recession, state governments have added 42,000 employees to their payrolls. Local governments have cut 258,000 jobs (1.7 percent of their January 2008 workforce). Overall, total government employment has shrunk by 0.5 percent since January 2008. And the private sector has lost 7.2 million jobs, or 6 percent of its January 2008 workforce.

if you are perpetually on unemployment...you are essentially a government worker...are you not?:uhuh:


read about the new bureaucracies, offices, commissions, buildings, titles, and on and on.... jobs being "created" to institute and manage Obamacare and your head will really spin :uhuh:

Our view on public pensions: Lavish benefits hurt states - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-01-18-editorial18_ST_N.htm)

The Pew Center on the States estimates that state and local governments have promised $3.35 trillion in benefit plans and have underfunded these plans by $1 trillion.

In some states and localities, it is not uncommon to see pensions of 2.5%-3% of a worker's final salary, times the number of years worked. At 3%, a worker can retire in his or her 50s, after 33 years of service, and continue drawing the same income. With deals like this, plus retiree health benefits, New York City now spends $144,000 a year for a sanitation worker, according to the Manhattan Institute think tank.

here's govmt for ya...
News Tribune exclusive: State hires hundreds despite hiring freeze | Government / Politics - The News Tribune (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/12/1461842/hundreds-of-hires-despite-freeze.html)


News Tribune exclusive: State hires hundreds despite hiring freeze

Officially, there is a hiring freeze on the books. But state agencies have won exemptions that have opened the door to 1,700 hires since the freeze began in March, a News Tribune analysis found.

like the Obamacare exemptions...:rotf2:

I bet you can guess which states continue to hire workers to the payrolls and which are being more judicious:uhuh: