patrick.net

anonymous says

Deferred maintenance $64.6 billion

We are screwed if they keep on deferring basic maintenance for that long. If one doesn't maintain their car it breaks pretty fast, I kind of fear just how much of our infrastructure is falling apart.

if adult school principals at LAUSD didn't make over 200k a year their pension would not be so much.

cut the similar high income makers from other programs and focus more on teachers salaries, and things here would not be so bad.

casandra says

if adult school principals at LAUSD didn't make over 200k a year their pension would not be so much.

cut the similar high income makers from other programs and focus more on teachers salaries, and things here would not be so bad.

Yes, thank you. In addition, nobody's pension should net them more (before or after taxes) in retirement than their final salary. No fucking boomer with a $500k to $1M house needs more than $50-70k in retirement, no matter how inflated their administrator salary was.

What is the deal with that? Do teachers retire at 90% of their salary guaranteed in perpetuity transferable to their spouse?

Not to defend the union or JB but they are held somewhat accountable compared to federal employees.

The idea that JB will pay this down is dubious.

indigenous says

What is the deal with that? Do teachers retire at 90% of their salary guaranteed in perpetuity transferable to their spouse?

After 40 years working at the same job, they can approach 90%. But those same employees have put away 8% with employee match of 8%...for 40 years. (And get no soc sec.) If you put that much into a 401k for that long, you'd be in pretty good shape. To me the problem is that it isn't the teachers (although they are the largest group), but the failure to cap the pensions at a reasonable level.

The rates are changing now, meaning that new employees will reap lesser (more practical) benefits. At least it's going in the right direction.

i think they will come out with some changes for CALSTRS in entirety instead of just throwing more money at the fund.

in reality how can you throw money at it when you don't have it; oh wait, we have been living that way for sometime now.

Not to worry. What with Great Earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, and sliding off into the ocean, very few will survive to collect a pension.

I am gleefully informed of doom everytime I talk to people back East.

JH says

After 40 years working at the same job, they can approach 90%. But those same employees have put away 8% with employee match of 8%...for 40 years. (And get no soc sec.) If you put that much into a 401k for that long, you'd be in pretty good shape.

I know of a grade school teacher making 85k, not bad when you extrapolate that out to 113 if they worked the whole year plus generous benefits. I mean this is 1st or 2nd grade. Do you really think that is earned?

JH says

The rates are changing now, meaning that new employees will reap lesser (more practical) benefits. At least it's going in the right direction.

I doubt that will occur with JB around if at all, more likely it will be when the state is forced to give haircuts.

indigenous says

I know of a grade school teacher making 85k, not bad when you extrapolate that out to 113 if they worked the whole year

But they don't because there aren't many grade school jobs that go 12 months. 8 weeks of vaca would be nice though.

indigenous says

I mean this is 1st or 2nd grade. Do you really think that is earned?

I sure as hell would not take 85k to teach 1st/2nd grade. The technical skills are not demanding, but the patience, etc, is.

indigenous says

I doubt that will occur with JB around if at all, more likely it will be when the state is forced to give haircuts.

It is happening with calstrs and calpers. with strs, the retirement age calculation is bumped out +2 years. Not going to save the state budget, but considering a democratic supermajority, it's the right direction. pers is bumped out +2 years, calculation factor was reduced, and I think some cap might have been added. Again, right direction. However, whole sale change will not happen with Brown, I agree. Especially with politicians likely reaping the benefits of previously uncapped pension plans.

indigenous says

What is the deal with that? Do teachers retire at 90% of their salary guaranteed in perpetuity transferable to their spouse?

Not to defend the union or JB but they are held somewhat accountable compared to federal employees.

The idea that JB will pay this down is dubious.

How does the spouse pension work. If a 90 yr old teacher marries a 20 yr old and croaks in a year, does spouse get the pension till they die too?

lostand confused says

How does the spouse pension work. If a 90 yr old teacher marries a 20 yr old and croaks in a year, does spouse get the pension till they die too?

I think that's how it works in the military, it's called surviving spouse benefits.

It was very important for a generation when women did not work. But as far as your example... a 20 year old will marry Warren Buffet for money, a 20 year old isn't going to marry a school teacher. But in theory they would get the benefits, yes.

casandra says

if adult school principals at LAUSD didn't make over 200k a year their pension would not be so much.

As a teacher, I'm no great friend of many admins, but fact is, they make WAY less than that. Closer to 120K for HS principals (paid the most) and they can make a bit more if they work summers.

They're actually probably underpaid if you consider their responsibilities.

And again I'm not saying that because I have any interest in being an administrator or because of any great fondness for many of the administrators I've worked with.casandra says

i think they will come out with some changes for CALSTRS in entirety instead of just throwing more money at the fund.

Throwing more money at the fund ?

You need to get informed. During the boom years of the stock market they didn't even meet their promised commitments to the funds, which was essentially not paying the agreed upon contractual compensation to teachers.

The least they could do is pay the money that they deferred paying.

Why don't you consider the percentage of budget that the state pays into Calstrs, versus what it paid 20 or 30 years ago.

Be careful of right wing ideologues that want to take over education so they make it look as if teachers are overpaid. What a joke.

If they paid the money that they owe to the funds, and or if they increased the rate that they pay in slightly, and members increase what they pay in (both by a fairly small amount), calstrs will be fixed.

The problem is that some don't want it to be fixed. They want to raid pensions. (see Mish)

JH says

However, whole sale change will not happen with Brown, I agree.

People who think wholesale change needs to happen are Mathematically challenged (no offense). Or maybe worse ? Why steal from teachers what they obviously deserve ? Are we a nation of sociopaths now ?

Teachers pay 8% of their salary directly into the funds each month instead of SS, and the district/state pays another 12%. This is simply the agreed upon compensation, which is NOT exorbitant. Put 20% of your salary away for 30 to 40 years, and you would have a good pension too.

It's called exponential growth.

Even without the growth, 20% for 40 years is 8 years of salary. Add to that the long term effects of compounding (exponential growth), and they are just getting back what they were paid, plus interest. Less in many cases.

humanity says

The problem is that some don't want it to be fixed. They want to raid pensions. (see Mish)

Unfortunately this is true. A pension is a smart system of money management because more people are always paying into it. Over multiple generations the pension fund becomes well endowed. Eventually, new employees would pay LESS into the fund to sustain it. Unfortunately, very few pension systems have been well managed AND all pension systems have become lightning rods. You have to pay in a lot to get a lot in retirement. STRS's 16% is pretty solid contribution, although PERS employees pay in more like 25% (employee+employer). With this much coming in, it is disturbing that they would possibly not be sustainable. Clearly somebody is 1) fucking with the money or 2) promising too much benefit in retirement.

humanity says

Be careful of right wing ideologues that want to take over education so they make it look as if teachers are overpaid. What a joke.

word

In Santa Barbara, members of the School District came over to the school library one day. The drove up in fleets of BMWs, Mercedes, SUVs. I said something in German, and then I saw these officials up in the Schoolyard.

Going to have to have their pensions like the median of private industry. Especially when private industry is getting outsourced, and we dont build nearly as much which can be taxed, since its tax and other revenues which fund public education.

And I cant get a University professor to collaberate on Tech, they are so comfortable that they say "Pay me $200/hr and I will help you write that grant".

humanity says

Put 20% of your salary away for 30 to 40 years, and you would have a good pension too. It's called exponential growth.

Read my posts more carefully and you would see that I said exactly that earlier. My employer puts away 25% of my salary and it sure as shit better be there when I retire. Compounded that is a LOT of money, more than my friends and family who put a few 1000/yr into their 401k and then brag about their huge salaries.

FortWayne says

lostand confused says

How does the spouse pension work. If a 90 yr old teacher marries a 20 yr old and croaks in a year, does spouse get the pension till they die too?

I think that's how it works in the military, it's called surviving spouse benefits.

It was very important for a generation when women did not work. But as far as your example... a 20 year old will marry Warren Buffet for money, a 20 year old isn't going to marry a school teacher. But in theory they would get the benefits, yes.

The benefits are reduced for surviving spouse. I don't know how they work here, but when I was in Maryland and in a state program there you could choose your options. Upon retirement, you could choose a plan that gave your surviving spouse a paycheck, but this resulted in reduced benefit to you starting with day 1 of retirement. If you instead opted for the full benefit upon retirement, it would END the day you died. I only lasted one year there, so I didn't have to decide who was going first. haha

Entitlemented says

and we dont build nearly as much which can be taxed, since its tax and other revenues which fund public education.

But again, do the Math. Many seem to think these pensions come out of taxes. They do in a way, but only in the sense that that additional 12% needs to be seen as part of teachers pay, which averages a little over 50K in California. So add 7K for pension onto that salary cost along with health care and other costs.

Thanks goodness we don't have people saying that we can't afford to give health insurance to govt workers. I guess that's because health insurance isn't viewed as this pot of money that the uniformed think is coming right out of their pockets to pay lavish pensions.

In some countries, everyone gets a good pension, and you don't have this stupid pension envy.

JH says

The benefits are reduced for surviving spouse. I don't know how they work here, but when I was in Maryland and in a state program there you could choose your options. Upon retirement, you could choose a plan that gave your surviving spouse a paycheck, but this resulted in reduced benefit to you starting with day 1 of retirement.

That's my understanding in California too. I think it often works the same way with healthcare -- e.g. you can pay more to ensure your spouse is covered after your death.

JH says

After 40 years working at the same job, they can approach 90%. But those same employees have put away 8% with employee match of 8%...for 40 years.

JH says

STRS's 16% is pretty solid contribution

In addition to the 8% the teachers pay in, and the 8% the district pays in, the state pays another (average of 5.5%) in. So that's over 20% of teachers salary put away each year.

If you look at what this (the 5.5% of teacher salaries) amounts to as part of the state budget, it's not that much. What if teachers and the district paid 9.5% in, and the state paid say 6.5 - 7.0% (even in years that the stock market goes up !).

I wonder what the actuaries would find that amount of change would do to the funding level projections.

I know how we get better teaching.

Berate teachers as lazy & entitled. Tell them they are too stupid to do anything else that's why they teach. Lobby to have them constantly tested, drug-tested, and paid based of arbitrary performance measures. Have them testing their students and reporting data all the time. If they manage to run this gauntlet and make it to retirement, claim situations changed and snatch their pension out from under them.

That'll teach 'em!

humanity says

the state pays another (average of 5.5%) in. So that's over 20% of teachers salary put away each year.

I didn't realize the state kicked in that much on top, also. 23% is pretty hefty. Not many private employees are putting that much away toward retirement...which is why the envy exists.

In addition, the state/district/taxpayer is NOT kicking in the usual 6.2% for social security.

humanity says

If you look at what this (the 5.5% of teacher salaries) amounts to as part of the state budget, it's not that much

Right, and the break on social security helps. The problem is the payout burden. Ironically it's fine now; it's just the 30 year insolvency predictions that will scare voters into referenda to fuck over state employees.

humanity says

I wonder what the actuaries would find that amount of change would do to the funding level projections.

Unfortunately, actuaries do not have gregarious personalities of politicians, so you'll never hear them explain (loudly) that the problem can be solved with minor adjustments. And that the strs/pers could become sustainable models if they can get through the first big generation of beneficiaries.

JH says

Not many private employees are putting that much away toward retirement..

I think 3% is considered normal to semi-generous these days.

The funds should have invested more in AAA rated MBS.

It seems that one of the key differences is that public employees get a defined benefit retirement package where as private sector workers get a defined contribution retirement package.

The public sector gets 36% more average salary and 70% greater on benefits.

This data is not specific to teachers but I would think it parallels what the teachers get, if not understate the facts.

The data is from the BLS:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-59.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

The other factor to be considered is that Calif is I think 48th out of 50 in scholastic scores.

This is because the union members do no have to worry about what the market place wants.

indigenous says

The public sector gets 36% more average salary and 70% greater on benefits.

I call this type of comparison apples and oranges.

Let's compare 2 things:

The shoe size of NBA basketball players vs. general population.
The compensation paid to Bay Areans vs. American average.

Public sector positions are tilted towards clerical and skilled, with degree requirements predominating.

When you compare the salary of for example public sector teachers vs. private, how does that turn out? Dr. at a University teaching hospital, or one in private practice? Or say public sector programmer/analysts vs. private. You need to compare apples to apples.

Yeah. You might find it's not so rosy a picture as you wanted to paint.

Relevant:

http://www.epi.org/publication/pm173/

Just once I'd like people to read one of my posts, and say "I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT, THANKS!"

humanity says

Teachers pay 8% of their salary directly into the funds each month instead of SS, and the district/state pays another 12%.

This is not only legal, but also the smartest thing the Teacher's Union has been doing with it's members paychecks over the years. The only possibly way to screw it up would be a declining income or population base from the State? Or, if maybe the retirees don't contribute to the fund?
Or, worse yet, it's not a fund and the contributions are tossed into the State's treasury in exchange for an IOU?
Maybe that is what JB is concerned about?

FortWayne says

But as far as your example... a 20 year old will marry Warren Buffet for money, a 20 year old isn't going to marry a school teacher. But in theory they would get the benefits, yes

I don't know. Marrying a 94 yr old teacher one step from the grave for a year or two and receiving 8-10k a month for life-now that seems like a sweet deal?? maybe at that age most people don't think long term.

Vicente says

Public sector positions are tilted towards clerical and skilled, with degree requirements predominating.

My conjecture leans toward the government being the employer of last resort, consequently hiring people who are unemployable in the free market.

The government may have a more educated work force, but the question is does their job description require that education? Also this is not data for teachers so it applies across the spectrum of public employees.

The overarching reason public sector workers make more money is because of collective bargaining, this is by far the reason.

Again in Cali test scores are 48th out of 50. This demonstrates incompetence. You will say the testing is not uniform from state to state, I say it is not that skewed, especially when you consider the pay level, then you will say Calif is more expensive, it is not that skewed, then I will say why do a growing number of parents home school or go to a private school.

Which is the real point whenever you require application it separates the wheat from the chaff. This touch stone is not used in the public sector which allows for gross incompetence. This is where you see 48th out of 50 test scores or a constitutional law professor who demonstrates his disdain for it at every opportunity.

carrieon says

The only possibly way to screw it up would be a declining income or population base from the State?

Conservative estimate: those teachers pay into a fund that would be worth $2M at retirement. Agressive estimate: $3M. All they get is (a little less than) their salary until they die. If my retirement nest egg is $2M, then on 5% interest, that's $100k/year. Few teachers are at that level, so where does the $2M go once they die? The teachers are hosed because that should go to their surviving family members. For all of you who think pensions are a scam, they are. Just not the way you think they are. Teachers are forced to pay into the system and do not get the assets at the end...only the interest. This is why the states still have these programs. They will become cash cows if handled properly; much like rental properties

The only way to screw it up is to cancel it.

indigenous says

Again in Cali test scores are 48th out of 50. This demonstrates incompetence.

So pay the teachers 36% less and cut their benefits by 70% to match your seriously flawed comparison. That'll boost testing scores.

indigenous says

The overarching reason public sector workers make more money is because of collective bargaining, this is by far the reason.

By this logic, it is the reason CEO and other executive pay grows in leaps and bounds. Puleezz

JH says

So pay the teachers 36% less and cut their benefits by 70% to match your seriously flawed comparison. That'll boost testing scores.

No, just privatize the whole system. The good teachers will make more money. The grade school teacher imo would because she is a good teacher by nature and would be in demand.

But as I recall many people should not be teaching as they don't have the people skills that create understanding, rather they are pedantic, and mostly just brainwash and are really a liability.

JH says

By this logic, it is the reason CEO and other executive pay grows in leaps and bounds. Puleezz

Yes that is apples to lizard tails, IOW stupid.

The unions have leverage CEOs do not.

Keep in mind that CEOs are appointed by the company, the company knows what the costs are, they are not going to pay astronomical money for somebody who cannot do the job or they will fire them when they realize they made a mistake. E.G. how much money does a Steve Jobs make the company? Conversely they realize their mistake with a John Sculley and fire him because he does not make the company money.

With union members not so much...

indigenous says

No, just privatize the whole system.

The answer to everything that doesn't work.

indigenous says

The unions have leverage CEOs do not.

You have to be shitting me. I hate unions too, but c'mon.

YJH says

You have to be shitting me. I hate unions too, but c'mon

Only if they crony up with the state. JH says

The answer to everything that doesn't work.

Showing your true colors with that comment...

sbh says

You are such an irredeemable idiot.

Your comments are not arguments. You just hoover in the ad hominem level.

sbh says

indigenous says

My conjecture leans toward the government being the employer of last resort, consequently hiring people who are unemployable in the free market.

You are such an irredeemable idiot.

Yes, he is, and a troll, which is why I have him on ignore.

He believes in markets too. And yet he believes public school teachers are overcompensated with benefits that are too high. And yet the job market somehow brings them only incompetent people that are not employable "in the free market." (what?)

That's right.

Evidently, the private sector job market is part of ""the free market."

Whereas the public sector job market is this place that only unemployable morons go, to get jobs that pay better than the the jobs in the "free market."

I guess you have to register with the government as one of the unemployables to get on the list of people that are informed about the secret closed market listing of awesome jobs with better pay and benefits than in the free market private sector.

I think that what they need to do is somehow include the listing of public sector jobs in the market place, so that the market can do its job. The better pay and benefits that supposedly now exist in the public sector should bring the more talented people in to teaching, and the problems will fix themselves.

So yeah. I'm for making public sector jobs available to all and listed and advertised out in the open. Let's finally bring public sector jobs in to "the free market" of jobs!

marcus says

Yes, he is, and a troll, which is why I have him on ignore.

Along with 35 others, IOW a troll is anyone who Macus/Humanity does not agree with.marcus says

He believes in markets too. And yet he believes public school teachers are overcompensated with benefits that are too high. And yet the job market somehow gets them only incompetent people that are not employable "in the free market." (what?)

That's righ

They hire Marcus, clearly not very particular...

Being that Marcus is a teacher, I can see why the state is 48th out of 50.

This is not to say I don't value real teachers as they are invaluable.

But they have the opposite characteristics of a Marcus type

THen again, maybe I'm confused about what the free markets means.

Maybe what the free market means is that it's free on the exploitation by employer side. IF you privatize education and lower the pay and benefits, I'm sure you can get some people to take those teaching jobs. I guess somehow it brings out the more talented people, because you know, it's the private sector job market, where all the competent people get their jobs. That leaves more profits for Haliburton once it gets in to education and those sweet government contracts.

The key is that that govt money doesn't go to the bottom and the workers that actually do the jobs. It needs to go to the high level managers and the shareholders. This is how American exceptionalism works.

marcus says

THe key is that the pay doesn't go to the bottom and the workers that actually do the jobs. It needs to go to the high level managers and the shareholders. This is how American exceptionalism works.

The key is meritocracy, literally the antithesis of the collective bargaining zombies.

carrieon says

The only possibly way to screw it up would be a declining income or population base from the State? Or, if maybe the retirees don't contribute to the fund?

Actually over 20% of salary contributed to the fund provides enough, if the govt honors it's side of the deal, regardless of population shrinking.
Retirees aren't supposed to contribute to the fund.

But what has happened is that at the federal level, we don't tax enough (relative to what we spend) and more gets pushed to state and local. So, state and local govts are hurting, and they can't print money, and the powers that be start sending out the message that we can't afford to pay worked what we always have.

Struggling people buy this, and say "YEAH, Fuck those lazy workers doing public service work."

Meanwhile the ultimate result is going to be to lower pay for everyone.

Because, newsflash: Government jobs are not only a part of the job market, they are a very big part of the job market.

Priorities people !!

WHo knows. Maybe one day your grandchildren will be wanting a decent job with decent pay.