Total cop-out.
California’s economic situation!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Total cop-out.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
What is punitive about treating teachers just like everyone else? Education is not underfunded. But please tell me how much money per student, per school year you think we ought to be spending.
cawacko
Well-known member
Not at all. You live across the country and clearly don't follow closely what's happening here. That's not a negative at you, I don't follow the daily issues of states I don't live in. You just don't understand the affect the pension issue is having and you have chosen, which is your right, to not read the articles explaining it.
I think you posted as The Derp before and now it makes sense. Defending California is a very ideological thing hence the need to deny the pension issue.
It's weird how California's stunning turn-around coincided pretty much exactly with the Democratic Party's takeover of all the levers of state government, including super-majorities in the legislature.
For some weird reason, this state was verging on a bankrupt banana republic-status when Republicans held the governership and were allowed to wield some power here.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
There is no reason whatsoever that federal oversight would be required.
Redundancy and circular reasoning are two different things.
You have me confused with another poster. I never said that.
They said all that crap when Walker reformed the system in Wisconsin. There's not any worse of a teacher shortage than there was before.
Correcting mistakes made in the past isn't being punitive.
The politicians who set up the pension systems are to blame.
cawacko
Well-known member
Democrats controlled the state congress all through Arnold's time in office, no different than today. California relies heavily on personal income tax and cap gains from the top one percent. When the economy is good we boom, when it's not we suffer. You act like Arnold came in and tried to upend how the state was run when he did nothing of the sort. The economy is going to turn while Gavin is governor and Dems control state congress and California will suffer. Are you going to be saying the same thing then that you are now?
I agree to an extent. What caused the collapse of the US housing market in 2007 were non-existent or weak lending standards for subprimes around 2002-4. Those subprimes would end up entering delinquency by 2006-7, with a default rate of around 23%. Prior to 2002-4, the delinquency rate for subprime loans was around 7%. So something happened to the standards for subprimes around 2002-4. Also, not helping the matter, was that the number of subprimes issued jumped from around 110,000 a year from 1993-2003, to about 266,000 a year from 2004-6. So there were tons of more subprimes, with relaxed standards, that were inevitably going to enter delinquency as soon as the introductory ARM rate expired.
They actually made a movie about it called The Big Short that I would recommend.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
No, you missed the point. Defined benefit pensions are unsustainable, we don't have the population growth to support them. The point isn't what's better for individuals. Of course defined benefit is better for the individuals. Everyone else can't afford to foot the bill.
I see you're back to ignoring unfunded liabilities.
cawacko
Well-known member
Seen the movie and read the book. California's issue is about zoning laws and nimbyism. We simply do not build enough housing to meet demand. It's Econ 101. During the house bubble we built in many tertiary areas where the house wasn't needed instead of building in places like SF and LA where it is. This is going to hurt is long term.
Right, and I answered that so here we are talking in circles again.
The pension issue is not tied to teachers, it's tied to the performance of the funds in which the pension is investing. During the 2000's, those pension funds were seeing great returns because of the hot markets that were being fueled by subprimes. The Investment Funds knew these markets were going to collapse, but they sold the pension funds on the growth they were seeing before the collapse, all the while they knew a collapse was coming. The pension fund managers didn't know this; they were relying on what the Investment Funds were telling them. So an IF was telling a pension manager that this particular pension fund X was going to produce X% growth. Then, that growth didn't happen and instead what happened was a collapse. So the pension fund lost its value, and these liabilities began to appear.
Now, the simple, reasonable solution to this would be to hold the Investment Funds accountable for lying to the Pension Managers, and restoring the value of the pension funds that were lost as a result of the collapse. But that never happened. Instead, Investment Funds recouped their losses, but pension funds were left holding the short straw. I personally think that sucks. You might disagree, in which case you will find yourself defending bad faith practices from Investment Funds. Is that what you want to do? Because that's what you're doing when you demand punitive action against public employees whose pensions were wiped out by shady Investment Funds.
We in that sunshine state with a bomb ass hemp beat
The state where ya never find a dance floor empty
And pimps be on a mission for them greens
Lean mean money-making-machines serving fiends
I been in the game for ten years making rap tunes
Ever since honeys was wearing Sassoon
Now it's '95 and they clock me and watch me
Diamonds shining looking like I robbed Liberace
It's all good, from Diego to the Bay
Your city is the bomb if your city making pay
Throw up a finger if ya feel the same way
Dre putting it down for Californ-I-A
Oh, I totally agree that it's hard to start a family and buy a home in CA, and Prop 13 has everything to do with that for all the reasons cited earlier. So if you want to make housing more affordable in CA, you have to do away with Prop 13. It's that simple.
I think they should. But I think they should raise taxes on the rich and corporations who have had 40 years of tax cuts and didn't trickle down.
But you can only do merit based pay increases if you have a uniform standard by which merit is judged. In order for it to be effective, it has to be universal.
You're thinking about this the wrong way. You want good candidates to apply. How are you going to attract good candidates if you offer them no incentives????
Then keep prop 13. Stay in Ohio and North Dakota!
I don't know what that answer is. What I do know is that teachers are underpaid now, given what is expected of them and the personal expense they incur. No two schools have the same $-per-student because schools are funded by property taxes. So a school in a district with high property values is inevitably going to be better funded than a school in a district with low property values. I happen to think that is immoral and wrong, and that all schools should be funded equally. The current system of funding schools with property taxes is a holdover from Jim Crow that needs to go.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
It can be determined at the state level. No need for feds.
You just word-saladed me with a non-answer.
I lived in CA for about a decade from 2003-2013; I'm familiar with their pension system.
Yeah, in 2012 when voters got to decide if taxes were to be raised, I remember Conservatives saying it would result in the sky falling.
As usual, they were wrong.