3 ms·

I'm a public employee. I don't cause the government to write its contract with me to be the way it is. It's negotiated between my union and the state Departme

by sykhic 8y ago

I'm a public employee. I don't cause the government to write its contract with me to be the way it is. It's negotiated between my union and the state Department of Education. It is then voted on by the legislative branch and signed by the governor. It's a long process. At no point am I or my fellow workers the ones making the promises. It costs money to run government. Employees need to be paid. We have had lay offs when budgets were constrained. The funding per pupil has steadily decreased the last 30 years and hence tuition has similarly increased. Our salaries relative to purchasing power has decreased over this time.

chrisdhoover 8y ago
The teachers union is a powerful lobby in California. By paying dues to your union you are supporting their efforts to lobby for the unfunded pensions. Teacher unions are also responsible for keeping bad teachers employeed. See NYC rubber rooms.
dunpeal 8y ago
> I don't cause the government to write its contract with me to be the way it is. It's negotiated between my union and the state Department of Education. Exactly. So one group of state government employees (your state's DoE) meets another group of state government employees (your union) and decide to give each other an incredible defined-benefit pension deal that nobody outside of government can even dream of. State government employees are giving each other dream pension plans, that are unsustainable and wildly over-budget even if they were well-managed (which generally they are not). You know why nobody outside government has defined benefit pensions? Because they were proven to be unsustainable decades ago. Yet government employees keep conferring them upon themselves. Then, when the inevitable deficit arises, as any economist would predict, you have a great solution: me and my peers in the private sectors should pay more taxes to bankroll your party! I hope this slow-motion trainwreck would be a wakeup call, but either way, know this: there is no amount of taxes that will prop up your unsustainable pension plans. State and local governments wasted billions mismanaging these funds, that are unsustainable even under the best management. Any more taxes you collect will just fuel this fire for a couple more years, before the inevitable next crisis arises. You can't fix fiscal irresponsibility with more money, because all that money (and no accountability) is what created fiscal irresponsibility in the first place! Your state government needs to start applying the same basic fiscal responsibility that every single business in your state is adhering to.
- sykhic 8y ago
  Pensions are not inherently unsustainable. They exist in the private sector in other countries and there are still some well funded private sector pensions in the U.S. They don't work well if they are not properly funded. Corporations got rid of pensions not because the concept is inherently unsustainable but because it's more profitable to do away with them. My pension plan is not a good one. You characterization of one group of state employees giving a dream set of benefits to another is not based in reality. Administration does not negotiate strongly with us the contract won't be approved by the legislature or signed by the governor. Our wages relative to buying power has not been going up or remaining steady. If pensions are inherently unsustainable then you must conclude that it is unsustainable for a society to care for itself.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > Pensions are not inherently unsustainable. Please read the link I posted above: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/10/demise-defined-benefit-plan.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/10/demise-d... Defined Cost pensions are sustainable. That's what we in the private sector have: 401k and Roth. Defined Benefit pensions aren't sustainable. That's why nobody outside of government has them, and the ones sponsored by the government suffer huge deficits and are slowly but surely edging towards bankruptcy.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > If pensions are inherently unsustainable then you must conclude that it is unsustainable for a society to care for itself. How do you figure? It is unsustainable for us to support all people over e.g. 60. But we can support the 5% over 60 who really need the support and can't look after themselves.
    - sykhic 8y ago
      Supporting that 5% who really need it would effectively be a means tested pension system. The point of a pension (retirement savings) is to prevent masses of destitute elders. The goal is to have a society in which masses of elderly are not left without means to live at a reasonable standard. That’s the purpose of a pension system. If the goal can be effectively accomplished in another way then I support it. I’m not personally tied to the notion of a pension system.
joshii 8y ago
Yes- governments do cost significant amounts of money to run and this is why we should be eliminating or at least severely curtailing government. People attack the free market as though the free market created the problems of poverty and a wealth imbalance when its actually big government and special interests that have done that via co-opting the government and people via socialist policies (emotional, yet largely misleading arguments)- ones that in practice benefit a small elite rather than the masses. And before you think I'm attacking the little guy or the poor any form of regulation has a cost that inhibits people from starting small businesses and that hinders competition and we go a lot farther than that frequently even to the point of granting monopolies such as has happened with telephone and cable TV and copyright and so on. All are wealth redistribution schemes- or a form of socialism for the elite. Socialism is causing the problem- but most don't understand that governments spending money means more is taken from ones pocket and spent in the most inefficient way possible and usually to some special interests benefit. You can't guarantee everyone a basic income for example without compromising the integrating of of the system and of efficiencies and undermining the incentives for people to work. Guaranteed education is hugely expensive at the lower levels particularly when it costs more to educate certain children than can be made back via taxation of these individuals. It would make more sense to provide certain groups welfare- or better let charity cover on-going costs. This doesn't mean that kids with special needs should abandoned. It just means we're not using our resources in the most effective way possible. Some children will never be able to enter the workforce no matter how much money is thrown at them. Other special education kids can be helped and attain a level of educational attainment that'll enable society to recoup the costs. Though more particularly we created a huge problem with guaranteed loans for higher education which has resulted in higher costs and hugely benefited an elite rather than those who the politicians claimed: ie the kids. Many students are being poorly served by higher education with degrees that provide no useful skills and huge debts. There are some degrees that are little more than hobbies. And I'm using a definition that the IRS would utilize here. That is if you spend money and you do not eventually make a profitable return your not operating a business- it's a hobby. Same thing applies to degrees.
randysavage 8y ago
Is there no level of personal responsibility involved? If the whole of my retirement was tied up in the promises of one entity... I have to imagine I'd be deeply concerned when my pension is underfunded. And underfunding is not new, there has been plenty of time to adjust on a personal level.

by sykhic 8y ago

chrisdhoover 8y ago

The teachers union is a powerful lobby in California. By paying dues to your union you are supporting their efforts to lobby for the unfunded pensions. Teacher unions are also responsible for keeping bad teachers employeed. See NYC rubber rooms.

dunpeal 8y ago

> I don't cause the government to write its contract with me to be the way it is. It's negotiated between my union and the state Department of Education. Exactly. So one group of state government employees (your state's DoE) meets another group of state government employees (your union) and decide to give each other an incredible defined-benefit pension deal that nobody outside of government can even dream of. State government employees are giving each other dream pension plans, that are unsustainable and wildly over-budget even if they were well-managed (which generally they are not). You know why nobody outside government has defined benefit pensions? Because they were proven to be unsustainable decades ago. Yet government employees keep conferring them upon themselves. Then, when the inevitable deficit arises, as any economist would predict, you have a great solution: me and my peers in the private sectors should pay more taxes to bankroll your party! I hope this slow-motion trainwreck would be a wakeup call, but either way, know this: there is no amount of taxes that will prop up your unsustainable pension plans. State and local governments wasted billions mismanaging these funds, that are unsustainable even under the best management. Any more taxes you collect will just fuel this fire for a couple more years, before the inevitable next crisis arises. You can't fix fiscal irresponsibility with more money, because all that money (and no accountability) is what created fiscal irresponsibility in the first place! Your state government needs to start applying the same basic fiscal responsibility that every single business in your state is adhering to.

sykhic 8y ago
Pensions are not inherently unsustainable. They exist in the private sector in other countries and there are still some well funded private sector pensions in the U.S. They don't work well if they are not properly funded. Corporations got rid of pensions not because the concept is inherently unsustainable but because it's more profitable to do away with them. My pension plan is not a good one. You characterization of one group of state employees giving a dream set of benefits to another is not based in reality. Administration does not negotiate strongly with us the contract won't be approved by the legislature or signed by the governor. Our wages relative to buying power has not been going up or remaining steady. If pensions are inherently unsustainable then you must conclude that it is unsustainable for a society to care for itself.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Pensions are not inherently unsustainable. Please read the link I posted above: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/10/demise-defined-benefit-plan.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/10/demise-d... Defined Cost pensions are sustainable. That's what we in the private sector have: 401k and Roth. Defined Benefit pensions aren't sustainable. That's why nobody outside of government has them, and the ones sponsored by the government suffer huge deficits and are slowly but surely edging towards bankruptcy.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > If pensions are inherently unsustainable then you must conclude that it is unsustainable for a society to care for itself. How do you figure? It is unsustainable for us to support all people over e.g. 60. But we can support the 5% over 60 who really need the support and can't look after themselves.
  - sykhic 8y ago
    Supporting that 5% who really need it would effectively be a means tested pension system. The point of a pension (retirement savings) is to prevent masses of destitute elders. The goal is to have a society in which masses of elderly are not left without means to live at a reasonable standard. That’s the purpose of a pension system. If the goal can be effectively accomplished in another way then I support it. I’m not personally tied to the notion of a pension system.

joshii 8y ago

Yes- governments do cost significant amounts of money to run and this is why we should be eliminating or at least severely curtailing government. People attack the free market as though the free market created the problems of poverty and a wealth imbalance when its actually big government and special interests that have done that via co-opting the government and people via socialist policies (emotional, yet largely misleading arguments)- ones that in practice benefit a small elite rather than the masses. And before you think I'm attacking the little guy or the poor any form of regulation has a cost that inhibits people from starting small businesses and that hinders competition and we go a lot farther than that frequently even to the point of granting monopolies such as has happened with telephone and cable TV and copyright and so on. All are wealth redistribution schemes- or a form of socialism for the elite. Socialism is causing the problem- but most don't understand that governments spending money means more is taken from ones pocket and spent in the most inefficient way possible and usually to some special interests benefit. You can't guarantee everyone a basic income for example without compromising the integrating of of the system and of efficiencies and undermining the incentives for people to work. Guaranteed education is hugely expensive at the lower levels particularly when it costs more to educate certain children than can be made back via taxation of these individuals. It would make more sense to provide certain groups welfare- or better let charity cover on-going costs. This doesn't mean that kids with special needs should abandoned. It just means we're not using our resources in the most effective way possible. Some children will never be able to enter the workforce no matter how much money is thrown at them. Other special education kids can be helped and attain a level of educational attainment that'll enable society to recoup the costs. Though more particularly we created a huge problem with guaranteed loans for higher education which has resulted in higher costs and hugely benefited an elite rather than those who the politicians claimed: ie the kids. Many students are being poorly served by higher education with degrees that provide no useful skills and huge debts. There are some degrees that are little more than hobbies. And I'm using a definition that the IRS would utilize here. That is if you spend money and you do not eventually make a profitable return your not operating a business- it's a hobby. Same thing applies to degrees.

randysavage 8y ago

Is there no level of personal responsibility involved? If the whole of my retirement was tied up in the promises of one entity... I have to imagine I'd be deeply concerned when my pension is underfunded. And underfunding is not new, there has been plenty of time to adjust on a personal level.