California's Pension Deal Costing Billions

cawacko said:
Politicians give out generous benefits because it benefits them today and they won't be around when the check comes due. What we have here is clearly unsustainable. We are going to pay more in taxes and receive less services to meet these payments.

The workers aren't above greed themselves. Very few retire at 55 earning close to $100K/yr for the rest of their life other than public employees.
Click to expand...
No comment about the effect that taking $1.6 billion from the coffers did over the long term?

What you have is unsustainable because of a crooked bunch of thieves on Wall St.

I think your anger is misplaced.
 
Bill said:
I listened to a discussion w/ him yesterday on KQED radio.....

He said back then he did it as a way to give them more as he felt they weren't getting enough........ Then the DOT com bubble hit.......

He feels it will get worse & then worse until voters demand some changes.... He believed (if I recall correctly) that would happen....

Living her in the Sacto area I know many state workers & those under the old contract have a real sweet deal, + full medical coverage(+spouse domestic partner) until death......

Many retire early & then go back to the state part time..... $$$$$$$$
Click to expand...
I have friends who worked for the County for 30 years, and now make more during retirement than they did while employed. They too go back part time.

But...if you want an accurate picture of your issue, go research the contract negotiations from those years, and you'll find that workers took either no raise, or a small raise during the negotiations, in lieu of a better pension.

So the govt got to relieve themselves of the burden of a short term expenditure in exchange for a future expense that at the time, seemed very doable.

It's easy to sit back now and judge these moves. During the tech boom, nobody thought the market would crash under Bush.
 
Althea said:
No comment about the effect that taking $1.6 billion from the coffers did over the long term?

What you have is unsustainable because of a crooked bunch of thieves on Wall St.

I think your anger is misplaced.
Click to expand...

Wait, you think the dot com boom was going to last forever?
 
Althea said:
I have friends who worked for the County for 30 years, and now make more during retirement than they did while employed. They too go back part time.

But...if you want an accurate picture of your issue, go research the contract negotiations from those years, and you'll find that workers took either no raise, or a small raise during the negotiations, in lieu of a better pension.

So the govt got to relieve themselves of the burden of a short term expenditure in exchange for a future expense that at the time, seemed very doable.

It's easy to sit back now and judge these moves. During the tech boom, nobody thought the market would crash under Bush.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I wrote at the beginning. Politicians are fine with loading up these pensions because it doesn't cost them today and they'll be out of office by the time the bill comes due.

Nobody thought we were in a bubble during the boom? That is not true at all and that's to be ignorant of most basic history to think current good times are different and there won't be anymore down turns going forward
 
Althea said:
No comment about the effect that taking $1.6 billion from the coffers did over the long term?

What you have is unsustainable because of a crooked bunch of thieves on Wall St.

I think your anger is misplaced.
Click to expand...

In the end we can argue until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that it is unwise to rely on others in matters of such importance.
 
cawacko said:
It works great when one side says "I want your vote and it's not my money i'm giving you so here you go".
Click to expand...
Well then vote them out!! Pass laws that all public services workers have to work for half the minimum wage if you can negotiate that with them but don't try to sell me a hypocritical one sided solution from the other side that demonizes those who have negotiated that compensation then delivered the agreed upon work. That was their contractually agreed upon compensation and they earned it. They delivered the required labor.

If you run a business and have a contract with the government to sell them widgets at $25X per widget should the government be allowed to rennig on your contract cause some taxpayers feel you over charged and only pay you $12X per widget after you have delivered the widgets at the agreed upon time with the agreed upon specifications?
 
Crooked ILLary said:
You didn't tell us how you negotiated your pension plan
Click to expand...
I didn't. Thanks to morons like you who don't know what their best interest are you've allowed management in the private sector to collectively negotiate with me for my services and force me to negotiate as an individual with no representation. Makes it easy for them to just do away with such nuisances like pensions.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well then vote them out!! Pass laws that all public services workers have to work for half the minimum wage if you can negotiate that with them but don't try to sell me a hypocritical one sided solution from the other side that demonizes those who have negotiated that compensation then delivered the agreed upon work. That was their contractually agreed upon compensation and they earned it. They delivered the required labor.

If you run a business and have a contract with the government to sell them widgets at $25X per widget should the government be allowed to rennig on your contract cause some taxpayers feel you over charged and only pay you $12X per widget after you have delivered the widgets at the agreed upon time with the agreed upon specifications?
Click to expand...
The free market team is in the Trump camp. Sign a contract, and then refuse to pay contractors. When you have lawyers on retainer, it doesn't matter what they're billing you for. It might as well be another breach of contract case.
 
cawacko said:
Wait, you think the dot com boom was going to last forever?
Click to expand...
What I thought/think doesn't matter. I'm not the one who made the poor investment with other people's money. Regardless,what did removing $1.6 billion from the investment money do to the overall earnings?

cawacko said:
Exactly what I wrote at the beginning. Politicians are fine with loading up these pensions because it doesn't cost them today and they'll be out of office by the time the bill comes due.

Nobody thought we were in a bubble during the boom? That is not true at all and that's to be ignorant of most basic history to think current good times are different and there won't be anymore down turns going forward
Click to expand...
Why do you keep harping on what others believed about the market? The end of the tech bubble did not crash the economy. It created a minor recession. The housing bubble crashed the economy.

Who did the investing? That's where your anger belongs.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well then vote them out!! Pass laws that all public services workers have to work for half the minimum wage if you can negotiate that with them but don't try to sell me a hypocritical one sided solution from the other side that demonizes those who have negotiated that compensation then delivered the agreed upon work. That was their contractually agreed upon compensation and they earned it. They delivered the required labor.

If you run a business and have a contract with the government to sell them widgets at $25X per widget should the government be allowed to rennig on your contract cause some taxpayers feel you over charged and only pay you $12X per widget after you have delivered the widgets at the agreed upon time with the agreed upon specifications?
Click to expand...

So people of the state should sit and back and say I have no problem with these billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and lack of services today because good for the workers?
 
Althea said:
The free market team is in the Trump camp. Sign a contract, and then refuse to pay contractors. When you have lawyers on retainer, it doesn't matter what they're billing you for. It might as well be another breach of contract case.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean or have to do with California?
 
Althea said:
What I thought/think doesn't matter. I'm not the one who made the poor investment with other people's money. Regardless,what did removing $1.6 billion from the investment money do to the overall earnings?

Why do you keep harping on what others believed about the market? The end of the tech bubble did not crash the economy. It created a minor recession. The housing bubble crashed the economy.

Who did the investing? That's where your anger belongs.
Click to expand...

No, money should not have been taken out of the account to balance the budget.

The politicians are the ones who agreed to the higher returns which they claimed wouldn't cost the workers any money based on expected continuation of the dot com boom. That's why I harp on it because it's central to this case.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I didn't. Thanks to morons like you who don't know what their best interest are you've allowed management in the private sector to collectively negotiate with me for my services and force me to negotiate as an individual with no representation. Makes it easy for them to just do away with such nuisances like pensions.
Click to expand...

You said you did

I guess you are a shitty negotiator
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Show me one public servant you know who is earning $100 kpy pension who isn't a high level executive, legislature or council member.

Althea is right. Those pension benefits were a negotiated part of those employees compensation. Just as my health insurance and pension fund with my private sector employer are. No one is giving them or me shit. They and I earned those.

This is just more of your free market fundamentalism and a double standard that only the privileged few in business are permitted to negotiate what the market will bear for their goods and services.
Click to expand...

Mott, why would they claim this deal would cost tax payers no money and why would Gray Davis say he wouldn't do this deal again if he had it over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top