patrick.net

FortWayne says

And you figure that how? Pension promises rely on ever growing economy become impossible in an economy that crashes every 10 to 20 years. At some point those pensions were reasonable, today they are bloated.

A pension simply promises a fixed payout--it does not require a growing economy. As such, it is not by definition unsustainable.

Pensions become unsustainable when companies/governments UNDERFUND them and use the money in other ways. They oftentimes then must make unrealistic expectations on investment returns to make it appear OK. The problem is not the pension. The problem is that the management made the conscious decision to UNDERFUND it.

tatupu70 says

A pension simply promises a fixed payout--it does not require a growing economy. As such, it is not by definition unsustainable.

Pensions become unsustainable when companies/governments UNDERFUND them and use the money in other ways. They oftentimes then must make unrealistic expectations on investment returns to make it appear OK. The problem is not the pension. The problem is that the management made the conscious decision to UNDERFUND it.

I tell you what, you put 5% of your salary away for 28 years into some investment just like pension funds do. And come back and tell me if you'll have magically saved for another 30 years of your final salary... including healthcare benefits and any other pension spikes.

Those guarantees are only good and sustainable if money grows on trees and no one spikes their pensions... In CA they were sustainable when pensions were 60% of final salary, not 100%. Today numbers just don't add up. Unions are killing the golden goose.

upisdown says

FYI, your ficticous 8%-8 1/2% number is some random pulling from someone's ass because not all pensions have the exact same number of contributing members, eligible but non-contributing members, and retired/collecting members. The diverse investments have diverse returns along with the payers to paid ratios, so they can NEVER all rely upon some predetermined returns standard.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night, those pensions are only good if there are money in the account. And with constant spiking, and theft by the union members those pensions are not sustainable. Not to mention the math doesn't even add up, and economy growth far less then what pensions are expecting to get... but I know in union entitlement system it's all about money growing on trees.

I'm in CA, and CA lucked out, Obama bailed out our state pension funds. But most other states... best of luck to you.

FortWayne says

I tell you what, you put 5% of your salary away for 28 years into some investment just like pension funds do. And come back and tell me if you'll have magically saved for another 30 years of your final salary... including healthcare benefits and any other pension spikes.

Obviously the pension funds aren't based solely on employee contributions. The company is supposed to contribute the majority of the funds--and that's why the pensions are underfunded. The management didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

FortWayne says

Those guarantees are only good and sustainable if money grows on trees and no one spikes their pensions..

No those guarantees are only good if management actually does what it promised. If they lie, then obviously all bets are off.

tatupu70 says

Obviously the pension funds aren't based solely on employee contributions. The company is supposed to contribute the majority of the funds--and that's why the pensions are underfunded. The management didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Especially when for a long time they contributed close to nothing because they didn't think contributing made sense. I remember all those CA union protests when they were told that they need to start putting money into their pensions...

FortWayne says

I remember all those CA union protests when they were told that they need to start putting money into their pensions...

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? The union pension contributions were automatically deducted from their paychecks. Management, on the other hand, willfully neglected their obligations.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

I remember all those CA union protests when they were told that they need to start putting money into their pensions...

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? The union pension contributions were automatically deducted from their paychecks. Management, on the other hand, willfully neglected their obligations.

I don't know how it was in other states, but in CA for a while there were no paycheck deductions toward pensions for many years. Economy was doing great, so unions decided that contributing to pensions was for chumps and stopped since their pension fund returns were more then enough with just "employer contributions alone". Then years later they started whining that there is not enough money in the fund, which they underfunded themselves.

Unions like to blame others, but it's all their doing out here in CA.

Here is an article for you tatupu, we were all there when this happened. I remember being outraged at Governor Davis when he screwed CA royally it was 1999.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703315404575250822189252384

CALPERS unions screwed CA out of money, it's why all our cities are broke, streets are crumbling. Unions are killing CA. They voted themselves very nice retroactive increases, by putting that cost onto the rest of us and our children.

FortWayne says

but in CA for a while there were no paycheck deductions toward pensions for many years.

link?

FortWayne says

Economy was doing great, so unions decided that contributing to pensions was for chumps and stopped since their pension fund returns were more then enough with just "employer contributions alone".

Unions don't get to make those decisions. Unions don't control their pension funding. I think this has been explained multiple times to you.

FortWayne says

CALPERS unions screwed CA out of money, it's why all our cities are broke, streets are crumbling. Unions are killing CA. They voted themselves very nice retroactive increases, by putting that cost onto the rest of us and our children.

CALPERs is not run by the union. Is that where you're confused?

tatupu70 says

CALPERs is not run by the union. Is that where you're confused?

And who cut that umbilical cord?

FortWayne says

And who cut that umbilical cord?

It was never run by the union.

FortWayne says

tatupu70 says

CALPERs is not run by the union. Is that where you're confused?

And who cut that umbilical cord?

There never was an umbilical cord, calpers has always been a state agency. You really live in CA and don't have a clue how your own state government works? I went to school in Texas and there is a required semester of Texas government. Does California have different educational priorities or did you sleep through that semester? How in the world do you vote on issues concerning state government?

bob2356 says

There never was an umbilical cord

Please dismount that unicorn you are riding in your dreams Bobby.

FortWayne says

Please dismount that unicorn you are riding in your dreams Bobby

FW--you really need to take a second and do a little research into CALPERS.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

but in CA for a while there were no paycheck deductions toward pensions for many years.

link?

Oh I can provide one for you...

This is just Bart workers mind you. The average state worker contributes about 5%-10% of their salary to their pension plans. Which means the government must find a way to come up with the rest of 90%-95%.

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/03/bart/

The dispute

BART workers have not had a raise in five years. They say that they have taken a hit during the financial crisis, which decimated government coffers, and now they are trying to make that up. Management, meanwhile, is more concerned with having employees contribute to rising health care and pension costs. Workers pay $92 per month for health insurance, regardless of how many dependents are on the plan. They do not contribute to their pensions, and they do not receive social security benefits.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

Please dismount that unicorn you are riding in your dreams Bobby

FW--you really need to take a second and do a little research into CALPERS.

Unions don't manage the pension funds but they do have collective bargaining power for pay and benefits, yes including pension benefits.

So if they don't like what they see well you know they'll just shut sh*! down.

spydah_hh says

Unions don't manage the pension funds but they do have collective bargaining power for pay and benefits, yes including pension benefits.

Of course they do--that's the whole point of a union.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Unions don't manage the pension funds but they do have collective bargaining power for pay and benefits, yes including pension benefits.

Of course they do--that's the whole point of union.

Which makes them part of the problem don't you think?

Also I did a little editing on that post you just quoted.

spydah_hh says

Which makes them part of the problem don't you think?

Not in my opinion. If you want to speak ONLY of public workers--then you have a point. But private unions are very good at curbing management's ability to cut workers' pay and benefits to nothing while executives/owners pay/benefits continue to grow.

FortWayne says

bob2356 says

There never was an umbilical cord

Please dismount that unicorn you are riding in your dreams Bobby.

How is it you have internet access but not wikipedia or google?

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Which makes them part of the problem don't you think?

Not in my opinion. If you want to speak ONLY of public workers--then you have a point. But private unions are very good at curbing management's ability to cut workers' pay and benefits to nothing while executives/owners pay/benefits continue to grow.

I am speaking of public worker-unions. Honestly, I don't know too much about private unions to be honest I think they're a different breed than the public ones. I think we had this conversation before.

Besides private unions, they're NOT harming citizens unlike the public unions do (see BART for example). If they were to harm someone it would be the company mainly (see GM or the big 3 car companies). But like I said, when I am speak of unions I am always talking about public unions and besides, private unions are pretty much a dying breed.

FortWayne says

Whatever makes you sleep better at night, those pensions are only good if there
are money in the account.

Can't you read? Between the investment returns and the paying(non-retired) members of the pension, it will stay afloat, similar(not exactly like) to the way social security is funded.
Detroit's problem now is if the pension there is for the city only and not included in with other municipal employees of the state in one combined fund. If that is the case(Detroit has their very own pension) the governor just made it worse(along with not sending state money due to Detroit) by reversing the ratio of payers to paid, and they will have to rely upon investment returns.

But the whole point was to drive the city into bankruptcy anyway, and some serious exagerating was done(massively inflating existing debts) to somehow show that debts were never going to be repaid. Don't worry, the show isn't close to being over because of a constituional clause.

FortWayne says

Not to mention the math doesn't even add up, and economy growth far less then
what pensions are expecting to get.

Funny though, the common theme here used to be that it was smarter to put your money in the stock market and rent. Now you claim that your BS 8% return is useless or something.

I know, you're just playin' the game.

upisdown says

Can't you read? Between the investment returns and the paying(non-retired) members of the pension, it will stay afloat, similar(not exactly like) to the way social security is funded.

Most of the pensions for public employees at least are from investment returns. Those who are working and paying into their pensions only pay about 5%-10% of their income into their pension (some don't even pay any at all but still receives a pension). So in this sense, it isn't nearly close to what SS is like.

So when it all goes down, the economy is in a recession, investments tank, exactly how do you keep up with your promise?

For example, as a state worker I pay about 10% of my income into my pension (the state pays a lot more). However, i am promised that for every year that I worked I receive 2% of my highest gross paid income. Which means if I worked a lot of over time making nearly double what I make on average in one year, the state is going to use that income that I made as my base income for retirement. For officers or should I say correctional officers it's different, they get 3%.

So if we use an officer stand point in 30 years they will make 90% of their highest gross income for the year. And let me tell you the base pay for a maxed out officer is about 75k, however; officers (and even nurses) tend to work a lot of OT and can easily make over 120k a year in OT. So when that officer retirees he'll make about 120k a year after retirement (he won't have to pay certain fees after he retires) and best of all he can collect his money when he's 55.

So once again how can the state determine if investments will continue to rise high enough in order to pay for promises in the future?

Like I said before, they can't which is why the system is unsustainable.

spydah_hh says

Most of the pensions for public employees at least are from investment
returns. Those who are working and paying into their pensions only pay about
5%-10% of their income into their pension (some don't even pay any at all but
still receives a pension). So in this sense, it isn't nearly close to what SS is
like.

LOL, above you made a similar claim that you worked for the state, but yet you left out the employer contribution that coincides with the employee contribution(you claimed that the state pays $520 p/month above).

If you work for the state you would've included that amount, unless of course you were trying to be misleading, or you don't actually do work for the 'state' but claim that you do to somehow legitimize your argument.

spydah_hh says

For example, as a state worker I pay about 10% of my income into my pension
(the state pays a lot more). However, i am promised that for every year that I
worked I receive 2% of my highest gross paid income. Which means if I worked a
lot of over time making nearly double what I make on average in one year, the
state is going to use that income that I made as my base income for retirement.
For officers or should I say correctional officers it's different, they get 3%.

Bullshit, not only does your convoluted mythical formula not have a way to adjust out for the peaks and dips, averaging is nowhere in there at all.

Matter of fact, why don't you prove that formula with a link.

spydah_hh says

So once again how can the state determine if investments will continue to
rise high enough in order to pay for promises in the future?

Like I said before, they can't which is why the system is unsustainable.

2 things blow your statement away............history and reality.

And, if you think that it's soooooo unsustainable, how f-n stupid are you to continue to not only work there, but to continue to pay into a system that YOU claim has no future for you to collect back at least what you paid into it?

By law, you can get a refund of your contributions, that is if you really worked for the 'state'.

upisdown says

And, if you think that it's soooooo unsustainable, how f-n stupid are you to continue to not only work there, but to continue to pay into a system that

You could have asked the Mayor of San Jose, CA the same question...

He to as mayor and contributing to the system called it.. "unsustainable"

Yet.. to his credit in ubber Lib Santa Clara County.. he has backing..

I can assure you he is not some Right wing or Left wing nut case...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-29/san-jose-pension-crush-spurs-bid-to-ease-california-pacts.html

upisdown says

spydah_hh says

Most of the pensions for public employees at least are from investment

returns. Those who are working and paying into their pensions only pay about

5%-10% of their income into their pension (some don't even pay any at all but

still receives a pension). So in this sense, it isn't nearly close to what SS is

like.

LOL, above you made a similar claim that you worked for the state, but yet you left out the employer contribution that coincides with the employee contribution(you claimed that the state pays $520 p/month above).

If you work for the state you would've included that amount, unless of course you were trying to be misleading, or you don't actually do work for the 'state' but claim that you do to somehow legitimize your argument.

Sorry but I do work for the state.

Quite frankly if you don't believe me it's not like I really care. Why don't you go ask other state workers who are part of the SEIU or bargin unit 4. Or even ask correctional officers about their pension plans. They'll tell you the same as I just did.

upisdown says

spydah_hh says

So once again how can the state determine if investments will continue to

rise high enough in order to pay for promises in the future?

Like I said before, they can't which is why the system is unsustainable.

2 things blow your statement away............history and reality.

And, if you think that it's soooooo unsustainable, how f-n stupid are you to continue to not only work there, but to continue to pay into a system that YOU claim has no future for you to collect back at least what you paid into it?

By law, you can get a refund of your contributions, that is if you really worked for the 'state'.

I work there because it's a full-time job that pays me pretty well. Yeah I don't agree with the pensions but hey I am not going to say no to a pretty well paying job. But to be honest I am not counting on my pension to be there when I retire which is why I am making my own nest egg.

Hell I am not even counting on Social Security when I retire because honestly that's not doing well either, but yet I am forced to pay into it.

Yes, I do get a refund for my contributions if I decide to leave the state job.

upisdown says

Matter of fact, why don't you prove that formula with a link.

Here you go :).

http://seiu1000.org/2012/08/the-state-worker-will-pension-changes-pr.php

First, let's look at a concrete example of how pension reform will affect benefits, courtesy of a legislative analysis.

Currently, a miscellaneous-category worker, let's say a city hall employee, receives a $43,000 annual pension at age 63, assuming 30 years of service and a highest-year salary of $60,000.

An employee hired under the new proposal doing that same job for the same pay for as many years would receive a $36,000 yearly pension at age 62.

So if you do the math you'd see that under the newly hired proposal doing the same job for the same pay for 30 years, the worker will receive 60% (2% per year) of his pay check. Since his highest salary was 60k (even though he average 43k over his entire working career) we take the formula of $60,000 x 60% = $36k annual pension.

This does not include Social security, add that and he'll be making more in retirement than what he averaged while working.

Which is the exact math I just stated in my previous post. Once again this is just for a file worker. Officers get 90% of their pension but I think newly officers after 2011 or 2012 get about 75% of their pensions which is still a lot.

So ONCE AGAIN... How can the state promise me 60% or others 75%-90% of their paychecks after retirement when they don't know how they markets will rise or fall? Not to mention we only contribute 5%-10% if anything into our pension?

Like I said, they can't and it makes the system unsustainable.

Also I didn't even get into health care benefits. If you work for the state more than 20 (I think it's 20) or 25 years you get full medical benefits paid for you and your spouse.

spydah_hh says

Which is the exact math I just stated in my previous post. Once again this is
just for a file worker. Officers get 90% of their pension but I think newly
officers after 2011 or 2012 get about 75% of their pensions which is still a
lot.

Why do you keep referring to other positions/jobs like cops and clerks instead of your own? LOL, I get it, you're just playin' the bloggin' game.

spydah_hh says

So ONCE AGAIN... How can the state promise me 60% or others 75%-90% of their
paychecks after retirement when they don't know how they markets will rise or
fall? Not to mention we only contribute 5%-10% if anything into our pension?

So once again, you literally have to be the most brain-dead or laziest and most unemployable person, and yet continue to endlessly bitch about YOUR pension, that you were fully aware of when you were hired, and claim that it's unsustainable along with Social Security. Then your newest claim is that because of your thoughts of the (un)sustainability of not ONLY your pension but Social security, you claim to be "making your own nest egg".

You're so full of shit you stink. Payroll tax deductions for SS AND a pension, and then you think those 2 deductions are useless and (supposedly) set aside more, in one of THE, if not THE, most expensive cost of living states in the country!!!

You're not only an idiot, but a (poor)liar too. Keep going though, the more that you post, the dumber that you look along with the holes in your make-believe story get bigger.

upisdown says

Can't you read? Between the investment returns and the paying(non-retired) members of the pension, it will stay afloat, similar(not exactly like) to the way social security is funded.

It doesn't. Every year they take millions from the cities and the state for the shortfalls they are facing... thanks to some prop passed with Gray Davis. And cities are starting to fall apart because of that.

And if we see history, it always ends up the same when money runs out.

upisdown says

Funny though, the common theme here used to be that it was smarter to put your money in the stock market and rent. Now you claim that your BS 8% return is useless or something.

Put down the pipe

upisdown says

You're not only an idiot, but a (poor)liar too. Keep going though, the more that you post, the dumber that you look along with the holes in your make-believe story get bigger.

Wow.. lol mad much? I like how you claim you know me and then throw personal attacks against me after I give you facts and links. But hey you don't want to believe I work for the state that's fine with me. I honestly don't care if you do or don't believe me. I mean why would I go out of the way to prove a sad little man like you throwing person attacks on someone you don't even know.

Got to love the internet.

spydah_hh says

Wow.. lol mad much? I like how you claim you know me and then throw personal
attacks against me after I give you facts and links. But hey you don't want to
believe I work for the state that's fine with me. I honestly don't care if you
do or don't believe me. I mean why would I go out of the way to prove a sad
little man like you throwing person attacks on someone you don't even know.

Got to love the internet.

The only state that you work for is.......Utopia. I've referred to your lack of using your own job for stats and you've yet to reveal what that job, category, or whatever is. FSW0000001?(fake state worker #1)LOL

Not only that, a quick and simple little bit of browsing at the CALPERS website(s) proves your numbers wrong, not to mention that they don't coincide or add up.

Like I said before, you claim to work for 'the state' to somehow legitimize your BS argument against the CALPERS pension. Then the lies got bigger and worse. Not only are you a liar, but f-n lazy too. Stick to blogging, it suits your talents and contribution to society well.

What, no response?? LOL

C'mon, everybody wants to know how you make pension contributions(at the real rate, not yours), Social Security payroll, and STILL manage to "make your own nest egg on "about $19 bucks an hour". Are you related to Buffet or Trump?

I can keep going if you would like. Heck, I just might even dedicate a whole thread to your lyin' BS.

The only BS going around here is you. Why don't you go get a life or something. Funny that you constantly troll the forums. There is no point in talking to you as whatever it is I have to say you won't believe anyway.

spydah_hh says

The only BS going around here is you. Why don't you go get a life or
something. Funny that you constantly troll the forums. There is no point in
talking to you as whatever it is I have to say you won't believe anyway.

I fugured that you would take the default 'victim routine' position, and right on time too.

You do know that the SEIU local 1000, bargaining unit 4 contract is easily accessible from either CALPERS or numerous other places, right?

And, appaerntly you didn't know that the highest pension contribution percentage for unit 4 is 9%, not 10%, right. And apparently your math skills didn't manifest themselves when you claimed that your pension contribution of $220.00 per month(at YOUR BS rate of 10%) is equal to a gross monthly income of $2200.00, and that's if they deduct it first, if not then you would earn more. But that doesn't quite pan out to "about $19.00 per hour" that you claimed to make back on November 3rd of this year.

I could go on and on about your claims of cost of living adjustments of 3 of the last 6 years, that is easily proven another lie by you by the public access of every contract since you've supposedly been employed by 'the state', according to you, since 2007.

Really, at this point why bother to prove what level of bullshitting liar that you are, when it is a proven fact already from YOUR own words.

bgamall4 says

BTW, apparently, the swaps are too severe and the judge may hit credit providers worse than pensioners in the Detroit case.

I kind of wonder what'll happen to CA counties. I've read about it few years ago, many borrowed at an interest rate that is supposed to be like a time bomb. I'm expecting some cities to go bankrupt in next 10 to 20 years... it's hard to tell who should pay the bill... should it be the banks that gave out sour deals, or the unions who spent the money...

I just don't like what I've seen out there. Seems like taxpayers are pretty much screwed by the banks either way.