patrick.net

bob2356 says

FortWayne says

And who elected Grey Davis to spike the hell out of pensions?

Last time I checked the 24 million voters of california, of which 2 million are union members, elect the governor. Do you have information to the contrary?

If 22 million non union voters allow themselves to be led around by the 2 million union voters then they get what they deserve. Pubic unions shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, but voters can elect people who will stand up to them if they wanted to.

Why don't you run for office and help straighten things out instead of bitching?

Uh... Not all 24 million voters vote. In fact during the Gray Davis election only 8.6 million people voted. So yeah 2 million voters is a big portion when compared to 8.6 million.

bob2356 says

I can't imagine why the public employees would mind contributing their retirement funds to california politicians vote buying schemes knowing it would be very unlikely to be paid back.

Well that happened in Vallejo and it's certainly looking like it may happen in Detroit too now right?

FortWayne says

Don't put it on stupid voters, voters voted for a good campaign slogan

Voters who vote for a good campaign slogan are by definition stupid voters. I rest my case.

spydah_hh says

Uh... Not all 24 million voters vote. In fact during the Gray Davis election only 8.6 million people voted. So yeah 2 million voters is a big portion when compared to 8.6 million.

You will be presenting what evidence that all 2 million union members voted? Get a life.

bob2356 says

spydah_hh says

Uh... Not all 24 million voters vote. In fact during the Gray Davis election only 8.6 million people voted. So yeah 2 million voters is a big portion when compared to 8.6 million.

You will be presenting what evidence that all 2 million union members voted? Get a life.

Umm.. You're the one who said 2 million not me.... I am just using your statement of 2 million as reference. Which I'll admit are both incomplete and wrong but hey since you want to throw numbers out there...

bob2356 says

Last time I checked the 24 million voters of california, of which 2 million are union members, elect the governor.

spydah_hh says

bob2356 says

I can't imagine why the public employees would mind contributing their retirement funds to california politicians vote buying schemes knowing it would be very unlikely to be paid back.

Well that happened in Vallejo and it's certainly looking like it may happen in Detroit too now right?

It's happened all over the country and all over the world. The whole thing is a scam. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926

Don't get smug just because you are not a public employee and have your nice secure IRA. Once things get bad enough in DC they'll be going after IRA's. There's just too much money there for politicians to resist.

spydah_hh says

Umm.. You're the one who said 2 million not me.... I am just using your statement of 2 million as reference. Which I'll admit are both incomplete and wrong but hey since you want to throw numbers out there...

No I said there were 24 million voters and 2 million union members. You made the statement that 2 million is a large portion of the 8.6 million votes for gray, implying all 2 million union members not only voted, but they all voted for gray, something I have to believe is very highly unlikely. I await your proof to back up your statement.

If people don't bother to go out to vote or are to lazy to bother to research the candidates and issues then they deserve whatever they get.

bob2356 says

Don't get smug just because you are not a public employee and have your nice secure IRA. Once things get bad enough in DC they'll be going after IRA's. There's just too much money there for politicians to resist.

Actually I work for the state thanks... Don't act like you know me either. Also do I agree with our pension plan? No, in fact I wish I could stop paying and place that $220 check into my hands and let me determine how I want to pay for my retirement (same for SS too). What's funny is the state contributes over $520 to my retirement per month and yeah they can keep that too as long as I get to keep my $220. I think that's a fair trade off don't you? But honestly i am not counting on it since i have over 25 more years til I am eligible to retire from the state, and who knows what f*k would happen til then.

Hell, I wish I wasn't obligated to pay $50 for union dues.

bob2356 says

No I said there were 24 million voters and 2 million union members.

You didn't quite say that either.

spydah_hh says

bob2356 says

No I said there were 24 million voters and 2 million union members.

You didn't quite say that either.

Thats exactly what I said. I'm still waiting for your proof that every single union member in CA voted for grey. Will I be waiting long?

bob2356 says

It's happened all over the country and all over the world. The whole thing is
a scam. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926

Don't get smug just because you are not a public employee and have your nice
secure IRA. Once things get bad enough in DC they'll be going after IRA's.
There's just too much money there for politicians to resist.

The ONLY reason that Detroit's pension is sunsustainable is because of the recent actions by the governor and the hyped/self-imposed bankruptcy. His actions made the ratio of payers into the system versus the number of retired go negative.
But is the ratio truly negative, or is it a BS figure, and yet the private managers continue to milk that pension for fees, commissions, and admin costs along with the state cutting off their funding.

These pension funds went from something reasonable and conservative, to something that is just another racket ran by Wall Street.

It's why those things were never unsustainable, and vanished long ago from the private sector.

FortWayne says

It's why those things were never unsustainable, and vanished long ago from the private sector.

Pension funds were and are completely sustainable. They vanished from the private sector for the same reason that companies cut pay and lay off workers. Because they can. Companies cut whatever they can get away with so more money flows up to the owners.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

It's why those things were never unsustainable, and vanished long ago from the private sector.

Pension funds were and are completely sustainable. They vanished from the private sector for the same reason that companies cut pay and lay off workers. Because they can. Companies cut whatever they can get away with so more money flows up to the owners.

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.

In CA I hear pension funds are pretending that they are getting 8% returns on their pension investments in order to keep it going... but reality is that they are sending huge bills to the cities every year. At some point we are not getting the service we are paying for in taxes if all the money is vanishing into locked up wall street funds courtesy of the unions... who only know how to cover behind union employment and protest occasionally hurting the cities economy.

FortWayne says

In CA I hear pension funds are pretending that they are getting 8% returns on
their pension investments in order to keep it going...

Hedge funds are crying about 8% returns and closing them up because they were used to around 30% returns. And those pensions are considered annuities, that coincidentally are sold by many different types of companies to the general public.

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.

The supposed worst pension in the country which is the Illinois Teachers Retirement System has never missed a payment since it's inception in 1941, and takes in more than double of what it pays out.
The useless and moronic funding percentages are ridiculous because not only do people retire at totally different times, but pre-funding some account decades before it is ever drawn upon is susceptible to numerous fees and costs, not to mention then you bitching about the high dollar amounts within those accounts.

Why don't you just admit the REAL reason that you and every other right wing extremist hate pensions is because; 1)you don't have one or anything that closely resembles retirement security, and 2) it's about throwing those retirement investments onto the private market(where they essentially already are) to be used and abused by parasitic humps like Mush that eat up most of the gains while accepting none of the risk.

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.