Users who Dugg This
David Sullivan
4983 Followers
Mike Oxhard
845 Followers
Shovelbaby
2109 Followers
bobosmitor
5476 Followers
cajungalJul 12, 2010
If it's a government pension, I think it is actually in more peril than a private 401K because the government has promised far more than they could ever pay. Some governments have made some really bad investments too, for instance, I heard on the radio a few days ago that the city police in Baton Rouge together with some surrounding area police departments made 78 million dollars in bad investments in golf courses of all things and now those courses are now only worth about 11 million, so they are greatly increasing the contributions that the police are required to put into their pension funds so that it won’t go bankrupt. So just because you work for the government and have a pension that doesn’t mean it is safe and secure, I would suggest not putting all of your eggs in one basket.
oxidaneJul 12, 2010
the government has promised far more than they could ever pay? what a surprise.
it's become so cliche for governments to do that, it's probably safe to believe the exact opposite of whatever they say.
stghurkaJul 12, 2010
"If it's a government pension, I think it is actually in more peril than a private 401K"
That may be true, but it's like saying that my $5k in the bank is more secure than Warren Buffets 30 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock.
The point of the article is that government employees are paying next to nothing for their retirement and private employees have to fund their own and hope for the best and ALSO are on the hook for generous government pensions.
It's sickening to me that (in my town, at least) police and firefighters are making $150k and retiring with six figure pensions in their early fifties (with annual cost of living increases, right of survivorship and health benefits), when the average worker makes $65k and has to work until they are 65 or older, and then they get, what, $20k from social security?.
theinformerJul 12, 2010
The Government isn't going bankrupt, nor do they adhere to a budget like individuals and private businesses have to.
November needs to hurry up and arrive.
beratebirthersJul 12, 2010
The only difference is that government debt is a sign of our wealth. The more debt we have, the wealthier we are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0&feature=player_embedded#!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joculatorJul 12, 2010
Some day the civil service scam is going to go bust. Forget about NYC, the surrounding counties are totally insane with what they're paying some people, not to mention the railroad.
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
Bus drivers in San Francisco make six figure salaries.
marx2kJul 12, 2010
All of them?
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
I dont know what the starting pay is or how their increases work. A couple months ago the local news ran a story about the cutbacks to NUMI, the SF transmit authority. They said that the "average driver" made over 100K a year. Someone who sits on their ass and drives a bus all day makes that much, while a teacher in the San Francisco makes half that or less.
stghurkaJul 12, 2010
San Francisco made the brilliant decision to make it a legal requirement in the 70s that their muni drivers be the second highest paid in the country. It's in the city charter.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-09/bay-area/18381807_1_muni-operators-second-highest-paid-transit-operators-fall-ballot
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
It's a damn shame. We are supposed to tell are kids to avoid a path that leads to being a bus driver.
nutsackninjaJul 12, 2010
Hitler did the same thing, treat your inner circle very well, and when s**t hits the fan you will have their absolute loyalty. Its socialism at its finest
beratebirthersJul 12, 2010
@STGhurka: if only every city make their workers the highest paid, then a rising tide could lift all boats.
Closed AccountJul 12, 2010
FTA: "Teachers get the biggest bang for their pension contributions -- the city puts in $15.50 for every $1 they contribute.
Oh, just in case you didn't know. In NYC 50 % of the students in high school don't graduate. Not a bad pension plan for teachers who are complete failures.
waiting2awakeJul 12, 2010
To be honest I am surprised that it is that low.
cygnus2112Jul 12, 2010
Are you sure it's teachers that are at fault? I think it's a mix between the environment they're in, the public school structure and parents. It's not like teachers can force kids to do well in their classes, nor force them to come to class.
Sure, there's probably some crap teachers, but that doesn't explain how the rate is so despicable in the States compared to other countries. The whole US public system seems a bit f**ked.
theosterJul 12, 2010
source?
noblepaladinJul 12, 2010
Teachers do get very low pay, a lot of their compensation is be benefits. However, that needs to change. Just pay them more money and take away some of the benefits. That way, the government must be honest to their budgets. They cannot pay what they do not have and let the bomb blow up 20 years down the road when new people are in office.
stghurkaJul 12, 2010
That used to be true but not so much any more. Teacher salaries have climbed much faster than private worker salaries over the last few decades.
Starting pay for teachers isn't exactly high, but it rises pretty quickly - at least in California, and private workers can only dream about the vacation and holiday time that they get.
darkmatter911Jul 12, 2010
Teachers also work 9 months a year and have fairly short hours per day. And don't try and give me the crap about all the work they do outside of work hours they are hardly unique in that respect.
mdellingJul 12, 2010
Or maybe its the students that are the failure.
noyb1Jul 12, 2010
Wow great way to post a fact without any backup. Sorry this isnt from fox news or the post but here you go.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/03/09/2010-03-09_new_york_city_high_school_graduation_rates_on_the_rise.html
Closed AccountJul 12, 2010
Are you an idiot or do you just work in the public sector ?. Being 59 % effective is good ? Chrsit, no business could survive with that kind of fail rate.
Only Government, which steals it's money, could ever function when greater than 40 % of it's "product" is deficient. Try it out. Do you want your prescriptions to be 59 % effective, how 'bout any surgeries ? Do you want your food to 59 % edible and 40 % spoiled ?
pyroglassJul 12, 2010
look at NJ's situation and our state pension fiasco, then NYC can complain.
waiting2awakeJul 12, 2010
Nice, real nice... So while the private sector employees are scraping together enough to split a can of span, these teachers - who waste no time telling you how it is for the children...
The public sector unions/pensions/etc are the real elephant in the room when dealing with any countries finance.
chilidogsJul 12, 2010
So everyone should join in scraping together for can of "span" because you are too much of pussy to join a union?
allisonv12Jul 12, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
waiting2awakeJul 12, 2010
Apparently the truth isn't appreciated.
nutsackninjaJul 12, 2010
You and me both, if I was to do it all over again, forget going into engineering I would take some social science class or a 6 month police course and I would be making well over 150k + a fully index pension by now.
hokie47Jul 12, 2010
Guys I know it is popular to hate on government workers now days, but just because because the pay in such places like California, NYC, and some federal employees are outrageous does not mean that other places are equally outrageous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joeynineJul 12, 2010
The solution is easy, get rid of all public sector unions.
waiting2awakeJul 12, 2010
Should never have been allowed to unionize in the first place.
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
Public sector unions can stay, they just need less power under the law. IMO, any striking work force should be eligible for termination because they are on strike. The company would have to terminate all strikers, they couldn't pick and choose, but at least they would have the option to do so.
guyincognitooJul 12, 2010
I don't know about everyone else, but here in RI they can do that. It was on digg a several months ago, they fired all teachers at a local school.
http://digg.com/educational/One_School_s_Teachers_Get_an_F_for_Fired
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
Different situation. Those teachers weren't fired because they were on strike.
stghurkaJul 12, 2010
I'd be happy if they took away their right to spend money lobbying the government. That gives them more power than the right to strike.
Very few politician can stand up to a threat from police, firefighter or teachers unions.
chilidogsJul 12, 2010
Yeah only employers should be able to bargain collectively!
/s
beratebirthersJul 12, 2010
Easier solution: require everyone to have unions.
bloodwineJul 12, 2010
A problem I encounter is that a lot of people think government jobs are low-paying so they deserve all their benefits and opulent pensions.
I am not sure when things changed, but government workers are anything but overpaid. I'm sure there are still a few overworked, underpaid public employees here and there, but that is typical of any organization, public or private. As a whole, though, government employees have a really sweet deal.
Closed AccountJul 12, 2010
Civil service hacks and their undeserved, overly generous pension plans will be the death of a once fine country.
waiting2awakeJul 12, 2010
As they have everywhere else.... I am generally not against unions, but they should be outlawed in the public sector. Without any cost ceiling it is simply a golden goose for them, on the private sectors dime.
gsm54321Jul 12, 2010
I think we should be looking more towards umm, I don't know, Corporatism and subsidies for the private sector.
It wasn't civil service pensions that have destroyed the Gulf, it wasn't civil service pensions that created the largest deficit ever, it wasn't pensions that allowed destructive greed to tank the economy, it wasn't civil service pensions that started a pointless expensive war and eroded our civil liberties.
If this country fails, I think there are more likely candidates then Govt. workers being able to retire.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timthetaxmanJul 12, 2010
I honestly believe the day of reckoning is coming for government workers. Most of the states are already in the red and as baby boomers retire into these fat pensions, the entire system is going to implode. Private businesses have known for years that this type of system is untenable.
Government workers’ total compensation (pay plus benefits) should not exceed that for a similar position in the private market.
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
This is why in CA Meg Whitman wants to scale down the size of the state government. That sheer size of the government workforce is the #1 reason, above all else, for CA's financial problems.
gsm54321Jul 12, 2010
Is that also why she never bothered to vote or get interested in politics?
I think Meg Whitman wants to "scale down" the size of government so that she could then hand contracts to do government work to private businesses that funded her "buy a governorship" campaign at twice what the Govt. workers get in the first place.
Seems to be the standard Republican M.O. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
I think it is great that she has not had political interest. It means that she isn't a politician. She's a businesswomen and a very good one at that. Her credentials speak for themselves. CA is in a money s**t hole and Whitman knows her way around money. The massive CA government workforce is a self-feeding problem. Larger government workforce = higher taxes needed to sustain = businesses leave CA = less jobs = bad times for all.
Notice how when the libs attack Whitman it is either about her lack of political interest in the past, or the fact that she is rich. No one can attack her business or leadership skills and those are the skills we need in CA's governor's office right now. I think when she's elected the liberals will find her much more palatable than Arnold and they will be able to get behind many of her ideas because they will make sense and be coming from a reputable source.
gsm54321Jul 12, 2010
I'm attacking Whitman because she has no political interest and is running her entire campaign on spending more then the other guy and attack adds.
I've seen this before: It's the standard play; spend a ton to get elected, then make even more through nepotism, contracts, and speaking fees after you leave office.
She's a great business person who didn't care about voting or CA before the governor run, so why would that change now? She'll run CA like a business i.e. for her profit.
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
Well hey, vote for Jerry Brown, someone who doesn't even want to be governor and is only running because the dems couldn't come up with anyone else. That is just what CA needs.
beratebirthersJul 12, 2010
BWAAAA, the GOP wants to "reduce the size of government"? After years of the Governator claiming he wouldn't raise the car tax and wouldn't borrow and spend and then deciding that he'd raise the car tax to borrow and spend?
ieatskunkJul 12, 2010
BB: Dig a little deeper Holmes. The GOP is the minority power in the CA legislature. The liberals refuse to cut spending. The only way that the Republicans could get the democrats to agree to spending limits (not even cuts) was to allow the dems to raise the registration fees. GOP fought hard against it but the libs are in control. CA's legislature is the most ridiculous, useless and clueless elected body in this country. While CA sits in a money s**thole the democrats are concerning themselves with banning f**king plastic grocery bags.
beratebirthersJul 13, 2010
@Ieatskunk: The governor is a Republican. Ergo, the GOP is in charge of the state.
ieatskunkJul 13, 2010
"The governor is a Republican. Ergo, the GOP is in charge of the state."
Uggh. State Government 101: The executive branch does not have much control over the state's spending. The legislature has the power to decide how the state spends money, not the governor.
butterbeeJul 12, 2010
Tax payers pay 100% of government employees' anything. Salary, benefits all taxpayer money. It's a bit of union scam to make the pay seem lower than it actually is. Who cares if the money gets funneled through payroll first?
black6xJul 12, 2010
You do realize that government workers also pay taxes, right?
oboshoeJul 12, 2010
That doesn't refute this point.
Unless of course you are implying that city workers pay 100% of their own salary, which would be ridiculous.
black6xJul 12, 2010
The point is that the article takes a tone as if City workers are not tax payers. In reality, each city worker would contribute that initial $1 (using the title as an example) and some percentage of the tax dollars that fund the pension. The article has forgotten to remove that amount from the calculation, and given the number of tax paying city workers, I would believe that the number would not be small.
butterbeeJul 12, 2010
Where does the money come from that government workers pay in taxes? From all the other taxpayers. The non-government workers pay "100% of government employees' anything. Salary, benefits" - and taxes as well.
prosequiJul 12, 2010
Government pensions are not taxed in NY while private pensions are taxed over a $20K exclusion. Therefore, government employees are taxed quite a bit less than those in the private sector.
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/BudgetTax/StatePersonalIncomeTaxesonPensionsandRetire/tabid/12657/Default.aspx
anarcurtJul 12, 2010
But what about the kids?
isenborgJul 12, 2010
America, this is your future.
steelchickenJul 12, 2010
Not for long it isn't
prlmeJul 12, 2010
NYC retired Fireman collects $86,000-a-year disability pension and then starts running marathons.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/FDNY-Marathoner-Received-Disability-Pension-for-Asthma-97859344.html
beratebirthersJul 12, 2010
We should all be proud. That kind of perseverance deserves an award.
jbmcbJul 12, 2010
Even better is how some cities figure out pension benefits.
A popular method around here is averaging the last few years of pay - so you take the last three years of total compensation to figure out how much per month your pension is.
Thing is, some civil service jobs allow unlimited banking of vacation days. So what people do is bank their vacation for decades - sometimes weeks a year. Then, in the last few years before they retire, they cash in their vacation instead of taking days off. This boosts their compensation average, so they get more in pension payouts.
darkmatter911Jul 12, 2010
You forgot to include all the overtime that police departments and their like allow their employees to work thus bumping up their compensation for pension payout.
nutsackninjaJul 12, 2010
I knew a police officer that took a massive amount of overtime, so much that he remodeled his entire house himself in that same year. His patrol car was park outside of his house all day while he was "working overtime" serving and protecting us citizens.
He sold the house for over 700k about a year later.
That was tax payer money well spent
phylaxerJul 12, 2010
Wow the return of equity with the risk of a bond. Talk about arbitrage, on the taxpayer's dime!
zoltan9Jul 12, 2010
Government unions are soon to be the only ones left. I guess the only way a union can survive the free market is if the benefits are subsidized from external sources.
chilidogsJul 12, 2010
Sure sure it's the "free market" that destroyed unions.
zoltan9Jul 12, 2010
Motor unions had to take large cuts to their benefits, since there was no way to pay for them and they were driving the their companies to bankruptcy. Government believes that they dont have to be accountable and can always cover the overage on our dime.
dhughesJul 12, 2010
The way I see it is a union is fantastic if the majority of workers in a country are not in a union, that way the difference between what you the unionized worker makes for a salary and what non-union workers make is extreme.
The cost of products is low compared to what you make, a non-unionized worker pays more their cost of living is higher.
If everyone joined a union and all had huge pay raises the cost of living would go up and even out so really the only benefit to being in a union is when the majority of people are not in a union, a great scam.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJul 12, 2010
LOL and they still don't get it. Vote yourselves more money libs! get it all before its gone!
mbtriaJul 12, 2010
There are significant abuses of the NY pension funds, particularly in disability pensions amongst the uniformed services, and using overtime to swell the computed pension salary basis.
That said, the State of New York has a pension system that is significantly self funding via investments. For a decade starting in the '90s, the State and the municipalities put little to NO money into the pension fund.
Closed AccountJul 12, 2010
Following the course of GM,
priced out of business by the unions which distort natural market forces.
We live in a selfish age.
It will continue until they run out of other people's money.
beratebirthersJul 12, 2010
GM is fine now. Obama and the unions are now in charge. The solution is just to have everyone put their workers and the government in charge.
dzhuo04Jul 12, 2010
Freepers gonna Freep
jjason1985Jul 12, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
noyb1Jul 12, 2010
Those evil unions trying to stick up for the little guys! Evil bastards for making sure I have a health insurance plan and retirement benefits!
I feel so bad for the big companies and city governments. :(
jjason1985Jul 12, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mouskyJul 12, 2010
Can someone clarify the article? When an employee pays $1 into the pension fund, the city kicks in, on average, $8.60. So, if my bi-weekly contribution is $10, the City will contribute $86? Am I reading that right? If yes, wow, what a deal.
I'm a municipal employee in Canada, and the pension contribution is split equally between the employee and employer. For every $1 of my income that is put into the pension, the municipality puts in a $1.
gefahrJul 12, 2010
yes, that's correct.
"Teachers get the biggest bang for their pension contributions -- the city puts in $15.50 for every $1 they contribute."
you put in $400/mo, they put in $6200. Tax exempted.
noyb1Jul 12, 2010
WOW! You mean people actually want to work a career job for their entire life and be able to retire from it while having money for retirement? You dont say. Why thats horrible it should be against the law!
What type of SCUMBAGS actually expect their employer to give them benefits? Its not like a teacher or fireman isnt giving their life to the job?
omahawildcatJul 12, 2010
Things will only get worse with obama in office.
jmonesJul 12, 2010
Industrialist and union-buster Jay Gould on hiring strikebreakers "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.". Keep drinking the kool aid people. It always amazes me how people can still buy this corporate propaganda about the unions.
shawnfromnhJul 13, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
shawnfromnhJul 13, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
factionriderJul 13, 2010
The reason there is such a disparity between what taxpayers pay and what the employees put in is because 8% grows so fast that it surpassed what the employees could possibly pay. Because of this the system will almost certainly grow out of control. Eventually down the line the city either goes bust, or reneges on its promise to the retirees. The only question is will it take destroying everyone to get something changed.
pvbklyn7Jul 15, 2010
In 2000 the NYS legislature proposed a bill (and passed it and George Pataki signed it) where NYC and I assume NYS employees as well wouldn't have to contribute to their pension plans anymore. Anyone wonder why they did that? They wanted the union vote. In 2000 everyone was living on the bubble thinking it would last forever especially those who wanted to retain their powerful positions . . . Don't blame the workers or the unions. 20/20 hindsight is always perfect vision isn't it? "It is difficult to make an accurate prediction especially about the future. . . " Neils Bohr