patrick.net

zzyzzx says

Detroit *proves* that pensions destroy cities and societies if not entire culture and should be outlawed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

When a city with public workers who were promised pensions gets into financial trouble, or for that matter when it happens to a business with workers that have pensions, it will always be the case that at the end the city or business can not afford it's pension commitments.

This is not anything close to proof that those pensions were the cause of the cities down fall.

What you say is like saying that all borrowing and debt is bad, and that when a business fails, it is always because they took out loans at some point.

Yes, when they get close to bankruptcy, their liabilities are a big problem. But that does not mean that the liability side of the balance sheet somehow was the cause of the businesses failure.

marcus says

.016 * 30 = .48

So that's 48% of full pay after working 30 years at 55.

That 5583 number would have to have come from assuming that a teacher makes 11,631 per month.

Yeah, right. Pay tops out in LAUSD at about 6K/month.

OK, I redid my calculations and re-edited with more results. Clearly some of these teachers will work other jobs and also collect social security, etc as well.

zzyzzx says

In any case, it's rich compared to today's nonexistant private industry pension.

Except that that's just selfish and ignorant envy. Teachers have pay deducted from their check every month to pay about 8% into the fund for those 30 years. The state or local employer pays in as well. IT's simply a form of pay and forced savings (investment).

Yeah, it's a good deal. But not as good as you seem to think, and it doesn't cost the taxpayer as much as you think it does either.

zzyzzx says

and can retire as early as 55 with full pay?

This is still a lie.

zzyzzx says

Clearly some of these teachers will work other jobs and also collect social security, etc as well.

Not often. We don't pay in to social securtiy. We pay in to our pension plan, and the employer does too (much like they would if we were on SS).

The other thing is, you have no idea how hard the job is for many of us. The time off is needed from working so many nights and weekend hours and otherwise burning out.

zzyzzx says

Anyway, as per Apocalypsefuck:

Except that he was being tongue in cheek.

jazz music says

high taxes and job losses versus unions and their boogeymen.

marcus, I guarantee you that we all have benefitted from worker's sacrifices and also from the sacrifices of civil rights demonstrators in the '60's.

Guess, you can thank JFKennedy and his tax cut which created more jobs and
higher tax revenue collected for that one...

jazz music says

thomas, I can't parse your comment

In the 1960s, Job boom created by

1) Hard working Union workers

2) Lower Income Taxes

What's there to like about unions?

The only thing we all see them constantly do is protest, undermine the state by picketing and disrupting, and constantly whine that they have to pay $5 copay for Cadillac health insurance plans that most people can't afford anyway. And bankrupting the state with exorbitant demands through thuggish behavior.

Lately I've heard some union in Bay Area disrupted and shut down some transportation because they are not getting high raises while being paid 3x what an average person makes in CA for a job that can be done after 1 week of training.

Unions have gone too far.

marcus says

zzyzzx says

and can retire as early as 55 with full pay?

This is still a lie.

You can retire at 50 with 90% pay... that was passed with Gray Davis. Not that long ago.

This must make some of the rigt-leaning folks on the forum happy. Why- sooner or later they will all be so happy to be working for $5 an hour with no benefits but they will be happy to do so since they are making lots and lots of money for the billionaires that own the companies they work for, and hence deserve every penny. The are such eager pawns to happily comply with whatever right wing media and corporate-influenced lobbys tells them to believe in, that getting paid less and less is honorable and just.

jazz music says

zzyzzx sets up the false choice: high taxes and job losses versus unions and their boogeymen.

No! I keep saying that we need import duties and mandatory made in USA requirements for everything that we can. That and a ban on immigration, outsourcing, and throw out the illegals. Do that and let the free market work and you will see unemployment and underemployment as practically non-existent and much higher average wages and standard of living in the US. Despite what you think, I (and most other conservatives) really do not have much of an issue with Unions in the private sector. Its the union leeches/thigs in the public sector that we really hate.

jazz music says

also from the sacrifices of civil rights demonstrators in the '60's.

Exactly how have I benefited from affirmative action?

marcus says

Except that that's just selfish and ignorant envy. Teachers have pay deducted from their check every month to pay about 8% into the fund for those 30 years. The state or local employer pays in as well. IT's simply a form of pay and forced savings (investment).

You do realize that only saving 8% of your pay for retirement doesn't fund your retirement? I mean you would have to save something more like at least 25% to 50% to get a more realistic number giving what everything costs (including the luxurious medical benefits for state retirees).

marcus says

Not often. We don't pay in to social securtiy. We pay in to our pension plan, and the employer does too (much like they would if we were on SS).

Lots of teachers work other jobs during the summer, and while in college (remember when people used to work through college?) and sometimes after they "retire" from being a teacher. So it's reasonable to believe that most teachers will also be getting something from Social Security. Probably not that much, but something is always better then nothing.

marcus says

Yeah, it's a good deal. But not as good as you seem to think, and it doesn't cost the taxpayer as much as you think it does either.

If you use Detroit as an example, their pension fund is underfunded by around 500K per retiree. And that does count the medical expenses for them. And that is just for the underfunded part, the total is much higher.

Shows 9.2 - 9.9 Billion total pension underfunding (I am including retiree benefits). Divided by 22,000 retirees, that's around 500K per retiree. And that's just for the underfunded part.

How expensive is this supposed to be?

zzyzzx says

Lots of teachers work other jobs during the summer, and while in college (remember when people used to work through college?) and sometimes after they "retire" from being a teacher. So it's reasonable to believe that most teachers will also be getting something from Social Security. Probably not that much, but something is always better then nothing.

My Mother retired after 40 years of being a public school teacher. Most people fail to realize that most teachers work a lot of off the clock ours grading papers, setting up schedules, reading ,materials for upcoming classes, and running to the store for supplies. Teachers are also not exactly paid that well. I make 2.5 times more than my mom even though she was in the workforce for almost twice as long as I have so far.

Teachers are one of the most important professionals in society. Yet they also get paid little for that importance. So when I hear people complain about their pensions and benefits, they tend to have no clue what its really like to be a teacher. Those teachers absolutely deserve those pensions given their years of underpaid service to their communities.

Lastly- if more and more initiatives are put into place that makes teaching less desirable as a career then those who complain now about teachers will have a lot more to compain about come the day that the upcoming generations of kids wind up being too uneducated to secure the types of jobs that grow the economy.

edvard2 says

Lastly- if more and more initiatives are put into place that makes teaching less desirable as a career then those who complain now about teachers will have a lot more to compain about come the day that the upcoming generations of kids wind up being too uneducated to secure the types of jobs that grow the economy.

If current trends continue, an even higher % of our cashiers and waiters will have college degrees. Exactly why should I be worried about us being undereducated?

Those who oppose unions are technically more dangerous than al queda/taliban to american citizens. While al queda/taliban may want me dead, their chances of success are relatively nil. However, american anti union voters have a much higher chance of electing politicians to use the power of government to dismantle public sector unions or donate to corporate super pacs to diminish whatever power private sector unions have left. That being said, I don't think these dangerous voters should be shipped off to guantanamo - I do believe in freedom of speech. But hopefully, they will see the light one day...

zzyzzx says

edvard2 says

Lastly- if more and more initiatives are put into place that makes teaching less desirable as a career then those who complain now about teachers will have a lot more to compain about come the day that the upcoming generations of kids wind up being too uneducated to secure the types of jobs that grow the economy.

If current trends continue, an even higher % of our cashiers and waiters will have college degrees. Exactly why should I be worried about us being undereducated?

Well humanities majors were always at a higher risk of ending up in that predicament. Off-shoring has simply moved up the risk curve to include people in tech/it.

Also, lets not forget that collective bargaining simply balances the scales. In private sector, companies are naturally collectively organized on management side via HR departments. Unions attempt to create the same bargaining ability via strength in numbers for their members. And it can make drastic difference. I think 50% of compensation/benefits package are based on nature of the job but the other 50% are based on collective bargaining ability. So for example you can have a scenario where a unionized social worker will make less than a software engineer from google, but will make significantly more than a so called "account manager" for a non-unionized small biz company. That's the benefit of collective bargaining.