6 ms·

Using a similar argument, paying yourself exorbitant over-market compensation while cooking the books to avoid accounting for the true (and unaffordable) cost t

Using a similar argument, paying yourself exorbitant over-market compensation while cooking the books to avoid accounting for the true (and unaffordable) cost to your funders and auditors (the public, for Gov't) is a form of embezzlement. I think the truth lies somewhere between here, but the obligations probably can't reasonably be met, and probably never could.

ebbv 9y ago
Those workers didn’t decide their own pay and benefits. And frankly they aren’t ridiculous. They are very reasonable and frankly a joke compared to the compensation of executives and bankers who bribe politicians to undermine and kill worker benefits.
- delecti 9y ago
  Wealth inequality is certainly an issue, but it's not relevant to the issue being discussed. That there exists private sector executives whose salaries and benefits have more commas than most people can hope to make isn't relevant to pensions of an average worker.
pessimizer 9y ago
> paying yourself exorbitant over-market compensation It would be super-cool if the report was about this, but it's not. There's not a shred of evidence given that the compensation given to state workers was over-market.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  I don't know about over-market, but it certainly feels high in real terms. Divide the total pension liability by the number of households in the state, and you get something approaching $150,000 per household, or about 2.5x the state's median household income. That's a pretty big burden of debt to have sitting on the shoulders of every resident of the state. We've also got some pretty egregious cases to consider, which suggest that there aren't any guard rails around the pension system. The highest-paid pensioner in the state was able to retire at 55, and receives more than half a million annually. Plus the state's better-than-inflation 3% COLA.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Back when I was a kid, public sector jobs were known to pay less than private sector jobs, but offer stability and a pension. They're also one of the few sectors of our working economy readily represented by unions. My take on this is not that the public sector somehow struck it rich, but that the rest of us--those of us in the private sector--have had the screws put to us for a long long time, and that's why the public sector now looks fat and happy. They didn't strike it rich, we struck it poor.
    - bunderbunder 9y ago
      I'm not even sure about that. This is all anecdotal, but, the going rate for public jobs in my city is still quite low, and this does seem to have an impact on the quality of candidates they receive. Since they can't attract candidates as effectively (frankly, that nice pension plan isn't nearly enough to make up for the crummy salary relative to what I can earn elsewhere), they aren't getting as many opportunities to hire really ambitious people. This has repercussions that play out in all sorts of ways, but, being a tech guy, the one I am most aware of is that acquaintances complain that the city often relies overmuch on low-tech and highly manual procedures for accomplishing basic tasks, because nobody is really motivated to streamline them. That results in lower per-employee productivity, which, in turn, increases the headcount requirements. Which, I'm guessing, increases overall labor costs relative to what they could be otherwise. So it's not that the state's salary and pension costs are high because employees are well-compensated, it's actually something of the opposite.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Not true. Public sector salaries in places like Illinois are vastly higher than in other countries. Compare Illinois teacher and police salaries to the U.K. for an eye-opening surprise.
      - Frondo 9y ago
        You're saying that when I was a kid, some 30 or 40 years ago, public sector employees were paid better than private sector employees?

ebbv 9y ago

Those workers didn’t decide their own pay and benefits. And frankly they aren’t ridiculous. They are very reasonable and frankly a joke compared to the compensation of executives and bankers who bribe politicians to undermine and kill worker benefits.

delecti 9y ago
Wealth inequality is certainly an issue, but it's not relevant to the issue being discussed. That there exists private sector executives whose salaries and benefits have more commas than most people can hope to make isn't relevant to pensions of an average worker.

pessimizer 9y ago

> paying yourself exorbitant over-market compensation It would be super-cool if the report was about this, but it's not. There's not a shred of evidence given that the compensation given to state workers was over-market.

bunderbunder 9y ago
I don't know about over-market, but it certainly feels high in real terms. Divide the total pension liability by the number of households in the state, and you get something approaching $150,000 per household, or about 2.5x the state's median household income. That's a pretty big burden of debt to have sitting on the shoulders of every resident of the state. We've also got some pretty egregious cases to consider, which suggest that there aren't any guard rails around the pension system. The highest-paid pensioner in the state was able to retire at 55, and receives more than half a million annually. Plus the state's better-than-inflation 3% COLA.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Back when I was a kid, public sector jobs were known to pay less than private sector jobs, but offer stability and a pension. They're also one of the few sectors of our working economy readily represented by unions. My take on this is not that the public sector somehow struck it rich, but that the rest of us--those of us in the private sector--have had the screws put to us for a long long time, and that's why the public sector now looks fat and happy. They didn't strike it rich, we struck it poor.
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    I'm not even sure about that. This is all anecdotal, but, the going rate for public jobs in my city is still quite low, and this does seem to have an impact on the quality of candidates they receive. Since they can't attract candidates as effectively (frankly, that nice pension plan isn't nearly enough to make up for the crummy salary relative to what I can earn elsewhere), they aren't getting as many opportunities to hire really ambitious people. This has repercussions that play out in all sorts of ways, but, being a tech guy, the one I am most aware of is that acquaintances complain that the city often relies overmuch on low-tech and highly manual procedures for accomplishing basic tasks, because nobody is really motivated to streamline them. That results in lower per-employee productivity, which, in turn, increases the headcount requirements. Which, I'm guessing, increases overall labor costs relative to what they could be otherwise. So it's not that the state's salary and pension costs are high because employees are well-compensated, it's actually something of the opposite.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Not true. Public sector salaries in places like Illinois are vastly higher than in other countries. Compare Illinois teacher and police salaries to the U.K. for an eye-opening surprise.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      You're saying that when I was a kid, some 30 or 40 years ago, public sector employees were paid better than private sector employees?