State Pensions Must be Paid.

[Barefootsies]

Pensions must be paid versus creditors? It seems these government jobs have better benefits than the private sector. With cities and the postal service drowning in debt, you would think there would be an end to the madness at some point? Either you need more revenue/taxes, or you need to cut salaries and benefits. A private business does not get to run this way, or they go out of business.

Stockton California to enter bankruptcy

The people of Stockton, California, will feel financial fallout for years after a federal judge ruled to allow the city become the most populous in America to enter bankruptcy.

But the case is also being watched closely because it could answer the significant question of who gets paid first by financially strapped cities – retirement funds or creditors.

Stockton, a city of nearly 300,000, has tried to restructure some debt by slashing employment, renegotiating labour contracts, and cutting health benefits for workers.

Library and recreation funding have been halved, and the scaled-down Police Department only responds to emergencies in progress. The city crime rate is among the highest in America.

The potential constitutional question in the Stockton case is whether US bankruptcy law trumps a California law that says money owed to the state pension fund must be paid.

FULL STORY

[slapass]

It it is the law there. Yes they should cut them but you can't do that to the existing people. Also a law.

It does make sense if you are hired and work and at a job with a defined benefits package and then you retire and they say, "Oops, we can't do that now."

But you need to look forward and make sure the next round is not killing you. Then start promoting smoking or senior skydiving and see if you can't move some folks off the rolls.

[suesheboy]

Lest see the question is pay employees who work and earn their benefits, or pay businesses who profit from taking risks?

People over businesses every day.

You have no idea what is going on in the USPS and the bull shit mandated extreme over-funding of pensions that is sinking them (or purpose) do you?

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by slapass

It does make sense if you are hired and work and at a job with a defined benefits package and then you retire and they say, "Oops, we can't do that now."

It happens in the private sector all the time, whether right or wrong. Few offer pensions.

If the general public thinks that civil servants should have better benefits that can never be touched compared to the private sector business, they should have no problem paying extra taxes for that 'guarantee'. However, if Joe Blow tax payer does not want to pay for it, then it should be cut or law (in this case) repealed.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

Lest see the question is pay employees who work and earn their benefits, or.....?

....pay employees over-funded pensions and go bankrupt? Or cut those pensions and stay in business. Business every time.

In this case, because it's a government entity, they have the luxury of running in the red. Most business owners do not.

[suesheboy]

...and most government employees get paid far less than conventional jobs in the private sector and consider the loss income gap acceptable due to the inherent stability.

Our GI and Government agents get trained and BAIL to go to the private sector to get paid for more for the same job and we as tax payers pay that. That reality seems like it is your logic too.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

...and most government employees get paid far less than conventional jobs in the private sector.

Rightfully so.



Although I am sure your calculation does not take into account their lifetime benefits, health insurance, paid holidays and vacations, etc. If so, that would be much better for many government gigs if you tallied up TOTAL dollars, not just hourly pay check dollars, once the dust clears for the same job in the private sector. I'd bet, more times than not, you would see the government jobs in total benefits and dollar for dollar is still higher many (not all) times.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

Our GI and Government agents get trained and BAIL to go to the private sector to get paid for more for the same job and we as tax payers pay that.

Do you have any actual examples of this mass exodus going on around you?



I see the same ladies today at the Secretary of State office I did when I got my license at 16. Many of those I know who get in at the road commission have never left for a private sector construction job. I have a few buddies working for various police agencies or fed government (VA, homeland security, etc), and while bitch about being overworked, still do not leave their federal digs.

Feel free to post up some actual examples and facts of this mass exodus happening from federal/state to private sector.

[Femjoy Michael]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

...and most government employees get paid far less than conventional jobs in the private sector and consider the loss income gap acceptable due to the inherent stability.

Our GI and Government agents get trained and BAIL to go to the private sector to get paid for more for the same job and we as tax payers pay that. That reality seems like it is your logic too.

Where are the stats on this? I've only seen stats showing the average government employee makes MORE than the average american.

There does seem to be less income inequality from the top and the bottom though.

But everyone should note FDR's statement about government unions:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. [. . .]

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Many states already have "Right To Work" legislation. Write to your local congressman if yours doesn't. Encourage them to introduce it.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

It happens in the private sector all the time, whether right or wrong. Few offer pensions.

If the general public thinks that civil servants should have better benefits that can never be touched compared to the private sector business, they should have no problem paying extra taxes for that 'guarantee'. However, if Joe Blow tax payer does not want to pay for it, then it should be cut or law (in this case) repealed.

Joe Blow tax payer never wants to pay higher taxes. Civil servants take those jobs because of the pension. They were offered the pension and accepted. Yes they need to look at the new people and make a matching plan or something. BUT it is not like this problem wasn't foreseen 20 years ago. The bond investors knew about this problem. None of this is new and the lawyers will get rich fighting it out.

The simple facts are that people live longer then they used to and there is less fat in any budget. So you have to quit paying people for life. We have hit the wall and now we will solve the problem hopefully. Or Bernake will inflate the fuck out of this shit, and we can all go back to our ignorance.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

...and most government employees get paid far less than conventional jobs in the private sector and consider the loss income gap acceptable due to the inherent stability.

Our GI and Government agents get trained and BAIL to go to the private sector to get paid for more for the same job and we as tax payers pay that. That reality seems like it is your logic too.

You know this is no longer true right? When you add in health care and pension, the public sector pays better and has for a while.

[woj]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

Lest see the question is pay employees who work and earn their benefits, or pay businesses who profit from taking risks?

People over businesses every day.

You have no idea what is going on in the USPS and the bull shit mandated extreme over-funding of pensions that is sinking them (or purpose) do you?

you are looking at this wrong, there are people on both sides of the equation, "businesses" is just the way it's structured...

to over simplify a little, there are people that saved up some $$ ("savers"), and they lend out that $$ to others... but instead of lending it out directly, they buy into some for example "municipal bonds fund" run by some "business", that fund then lends the $$ that "savers" saved up to municipalities like Stockton California...

so now lets see, the people of Stockton California lived beyond their means for decades, elected officials who did nothing about it... and now when shit hits the fan, the "savers" who lent them $$ who probably never stepped a foot in Stockon California should take a hit for it?

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by woj

you are looking at this wrong, there are people on both sides of the equation, "businesses" is just the way it's structured...

to over simplify a little, there are people that saved up some $$ ("savers"), and they lend out that $$ to others... but instead of lending it out directly, they buy into some for example "municipal bonds fund" run by some "business", that fund then lends the $$ that "savers" saved up to municipalities like Stockton California...

so now lets see, the people of Stockton California lived beyond their means for decades, elected officials who did nothing about it... and now when shit hits the fan, the "savers" who lent them $$ who probably never stepped a foot in Stockon California should take a hit for it?

Of course, the one REALLY big difference between private business and government, is that government can come take your money by force. Business can only try to persuade you to deal with them....



.



.

[Sly]

Most pensions are basically a Ponzi scheme.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by slapass

The simple facts are that people live longer then they used to and there is less fat in any budget. So you have to quit paying people for life. We have hit the wall and now we will solve the problem hopefully. Or Bernake will inflate the fuck out of this shit, and we can all go back to our ignorance.

True dat fine sire on all accounts (i.e. paying people for life, free health benefits for life, job for life, etc.).

[Rochard]

A friend of mine was medically retired from the US Army, and a short time later he was hired under some Veteran program at the US Post Office. A few years later his medical condition affected him again - Hydrocephalus - and he was medically retired from the post office. He collects a full pension from the military (and lifetime medical benefits), full time pension from the USPS, and is on state disability.

He hasn't worked in twenty years because he "might get a headache" but has no programs mowing his own lawn. Go figure.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Rochard

A friend of mine was medically retired from the US Army, and a short time later he was hired under some Veteran program at the US Post Office. A few years later his medical condition affected him again - Hydrocephalus - and he was medically retired from the post office. He collects a full pension from the military (and lifetime medical benefits), full time pension from the USPS, and is on state disability.

He hasn't worked in twenty years because he "might get a headache" but has no programs mowing his own lawn. Go figure.

I have to ask, why are you friends with such a person?

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by woj

so now lets see, the people of Stockton California lived beyond their means for decades, elected officials who did nothing about it... and now when shit hits the fan, the "savers" who lent them $$ who probably never stepped a foot in Stockon California should take a hit for it?

How dare you advocate any sort of blame or personal responsibility at any level fine sire.

/sarcasm

[kane]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

True dat fine sire on all accounts (i.e. paying people for life, free health benefits for life, job for life, etc.).

What would you replace it with.

The options, at least to me, are to either have a bulk dollar amount a person has in an account and can draw from IE your pension is worth X dollars and you decide how you want to spend it. If you want to sit it in an interest bearing account and draw $2K a month on it for 25 years you can. If you want to pull it all out and spend it at once you can. Or you give them a set amount per month/year for a set amount of time IE you will get $4K per month for 15 years.

At least this way a person knows right from the start how much their pension is going to be worth to them. But you also have to decide who to start this with. It is unfair to tell a guy who has worked for 20 years and is a few years from retiring that his pension is going to end up being much less than he thought it would be.

As for healthcare, again what would you suggest? Most older people have some kind of health condition. Getting private insurance on the market will be nearly impossible for them because even if they are healthy the cost of the policy will be through the roof. This means that they likely will end up on Medicare. If the person is a public employee then the government pays for their healthcare one way or another. If it is a private company, if they don't pay for the healthcare the government ends up paying for it.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Sly

I have to ask, why are you friends with such a person?

Indeed.