NCPERS Graph Games

The National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) is being paid by sponsors looking to maintain a flawed defined benefit system for public employees to come out with anything to support the canard that these plans, without any practical oversight or discipline,  can survive. To that end NCPERS put out a paper that included this chart on the New Jersey pension system (one of the four worst in the nation per their report) purporting to show that even with modest or negative cash flow over the period from 1993 through 2016, asset values rose substantially and there is nothing to worry about.

As to a couple of lines in the chart (and one left out):

The value of assets looks suspect in those early years since a 2005 report of a Benefits Review Task Force (that happened to be chaired by incoming governor Phil Murphy) reported:

Then there is that consistently rising Benefit Payment line which seems to go from $0 in 1993 to almost $10 billion in 2016. I doubt that there was nobody being paid out of the New Jersey retirement system in 1993 but even assuming it was $2 billion in 1993 that would be a multiple of five. Projecting another 13 years would bring the annual payouts to $50 billion in 2029. If the asset value line stays in the $70 billion range (highly unlikely with the increasing obligations) it will only be because contributions would also be in the $50 billion range (again, highly unlikely).

Finally there is the line that NCPERS left out, though Fortune included it in their 2009 article on the public pension bomb.

 

48 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on November 21, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    Actuary Mary Pat Campbell also very negatively critiqued the NCPERS paper here:

    http://stump.marypat.org/article/862/public-db-pension-fund-managers-why-don-t-you-split-out-cash-flows

    Reply

  2. Every time I read these type of articles about public pensions, it seems to me that most states, cities, municipalities etc are all in the same boat in that the pensions are simply not sustainable and no matter how one slices it, the money will not be there for future public pension retirees except maybe police and fire……….so dumb question, why don’t the employees want the system reformed too give them better control over their retirement monies

    If it were me and I was hoping on a wing and prayer that I would have to rely on these corrupt bastards for my golden years…I think I would be asking a lot of questions and demanding that an accounting.

    Why are all publics, even part timers, forced into the pension system?

    Reply

    • Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 22, 2017 at 12:03 pm

      MJ changing states to a right to work state and letting a employee opt-out of the (joining the union)pension is one way to take charge of one’s retirement ….The SC will be making a ruling soon and it will be a game changer for pensions …

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on November 22, 2017 at 1:10 pm

        DD rethink that b/c most current right to work States are RED and their pensions are better funded?

        Reply

        • Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 22, 2017 at 1:24 pm

          I can only think of a few …Texas ,Idaho ,Florida ,Tenn , South Dakota ,and New Jersey’s biggest destination state … North Carolina

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 22, 2017 at 3:06 pm

            Ok that’s a start and what their pensions’ unfunded %?
            Maybe John can shed some light from previous blog posts?

          • Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 22, 2017 at 4:00 pm

            Texas funded 81%..Idaho funded 85%…Fla funded 86% …Tennessee funded 89%..South Dakota 93% ..North Carolina 95% …I see why so many NJ state workers move there …Seems to me NJ should become a RTW state

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 22, 2017 at 4:44 pm

            I’d agree if that also equates to the elected officials funding the pensions at the levels like the States you mentioned?

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 22, 2017 at 5:40 pm

            One other point DD, I know for sure FL offers DROP something, to my knowledge, NJ doesn’t?Can’t speak to the other States you mentioned and not sure if anyone else might know?

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 22, 2017 at 6:21 pm

            Typically available to Police, DROP Plans (obsessively to keep Officers working longer) are the singular most egregious taxpayer ripoff associated with Public Sector pensions ….. even when they DON’T rip us off (to an even GREATER degree) by credited a guaranteed rate of interest on Drop Account Balances FAR in excessive of the true market rate for “guaranteed” investments.

            Don’t Police whine that they “deserve” RICH pensions collectable at a young age WITHOUT actuarial reduction (often age 50) because their bodies are too worn down to be chasing crooks at that age. Well, if they can’t or don’t do that anyway, or if they move into administrative/training rolls, WHY should we grant such rich pensions at such a young age ………….. COMPOUND the financial impact on Taxpayers by granting them BOTH a pension payment (thru DROP) AND a salary at the SAME TIME?

            The Taxpayer’s in States/Cities that grant DROP Programs are being taken for FOOLS !

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 23, 2017 at 8:18 am

            And in the case of FL, being funded @86%. BTW, DROP is available to ALL FL public employees not just law enforcement. How appropriate, it’s Thanksgiving – what turkeys!

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 23, 2017 at 11:48 am

            We’ve established the, primarily RED, RTW States have done a much better job of funding their pensions. Now that begs the question; is it due to benefit levels and/or more consistent adequate funding? No opinion can factual answer the question nor will it solve the current problem. But a retro regression analysis, maybe by Mr. Alexander and/or TL, might provide honest insight into ‘how we got here’. I’m not an economist or a ‘know it all’ wanna be but picking one of the above States and comparing their benefit and funding level as well as their investment returns to, in this case, NJ is a good start!

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 23, 2017 at 10:13 pm

            No, police (and fire) don’t “whine”. That’s your own childish bias. They and the military have been recognized as stressful jobs since well before you were born. By retiring early they can keep a constant stream of new recruits coming in, and keep the average age lower. It is generally a “young man’s job. Get off your high horse and grow up.

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 23, 2017 at 10:46 pm

            Anonymous @ 11:48 am

            “We’ve established the, primarily RED, RTW States have done a much better job of funding their pensions.”

            I don’t think we’ve established that. For example, in your list, North and South Dakota and North, South Carolina are all RTW , but funding levels in North Dakota and South Carolina are much lower than their sister states.

            In…

            http://www.aei.org/publication/overpaid-or-underpaid-a-state-by-state-ranking-of-public-employee-compensation/

            You can compare wages, benefits, and total compensation in all states. I don’t think you will find significant correlation between benefit/compensation levels and funded status.

            South Carolina and Kentucky have very moderate compensation, AND very low funding levels. New York State has very generous pay and pensions (behind only Connecticut and Pennsylvania) and is near 100% funded.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 23, 2017 at 11:09 pm

            Quoting SM-Whatever ……………….

            “No, police (and fire) don’t “whine””

            They don’t whine about their (often difficult) job responsibilities, but when it comes to ANY and EVERY (even minor) challenge to their ludicrously excessive pension & benefits they certainly do so

            I’ve witnessed it first hand with dozens of officers surrounding 3 walls of a the council chamber ALL with arms crossed over their chests staring down the audience….. a DISGUSTING display if I ever saw one.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 23, 2017 at 11:25 pm

            Quoting SM-Whaterver (referring the Police Officers) ……….

            “By retiring early they can keep a constant stream of new recruits coming in, and keep the average age lower. It is generally a “young man’s job.”

            We don’t live in a financial vacuum when their exist unlimited money to fund whatever we please and all the “nice-to-haves”. We need to alloopcate available resources WISELY

            Sure it would be “nice” to let Police retire at young ages (with unreduced pensions) but its VERY VERY VERY costly to do so.

            All other things being EQUAL (e.g., pension formulas and other provisions) simply allowing someone to begin collecting an unreduced pension at an age 10 years younger DOUBLES the pension’s cost.

            Then factor in that Police Officer DB pension plan “formula-factor” are often DOUBLE that typically granted Private Sector workers …. and it doubles AGAIN … making it 4 times greater.

            And if the Plan includes COLA increases (now suspended in NJ) that ALREADY 4 times more costly Plan goes up by a another multiplicative factor or 1.25 to 1.35.

            *************************

            And SMH, SMA, SMD, S Moderation Douglas, Stephen Douglas or whatever you chooses to comment under today ……. YOU saying it ain’t true doesn’t make what I’ve just stated untrue.

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 24, 2017 at 1:05 am

            S M Whaterver?

            YOU saying it’s true doesn’t make it true, either. Or relevant.

            Write a peer reviewed paper. Get a degree from a top University.
            Educate us. Educate yourself first.

            Say goodnight, Gracie.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 24, 2017 at 1:23 am

            SM-Whatever,

            But the difference between you and I is that when I SAY that the pensions & benefits now granted NJ Local Police are TYPICALLY 4 times greater in value upon retirement than those granted comparable-situated Private Sector workers (with equal education, experience, skills, and knowledge) …………. I DEMONSTRATE it for all to critique …………. as I did in detail about 2 weeks ago on this blog.

            And while I’m just a well-educated/fed-up NJ Taxpayer, you’re a retired CA Public Sector worker collecting one of these unnecessary, unjust, unfair to Taxpayers, and clearly unaffordable pensions………… who blathers away but demonstrates nothing (just a “believe me” …. like Trump).

            Who is move believable ?

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 24, 2017 at 2:03 am

            Don’t know…

            Who IS move believable ?

            Get it published in a peer reviewed article. If it’s good for Alexander, it’s good for you.

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 22, 2017 at 1:26 pm

          It will be a game-changer in that many workers would not join the Union, denying the Union of a major share of the funds it now uses to BUY the favorable votes of Elected Officials (on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits) with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions.

          Reply

    • Posted by NJ2AZ on November 22, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      my guess is there are two major driving factors behind pensioners burying their heads in the sand:

      First, you have the people who refuse to contemplate reductions because they are ‘owed’ what they were promised, realities be damned

      Second, i’m sure you have people who fail to see that future pain is imminent, so they likely aren’t anxious to agree to benefit cuts when the government still might ‘figure it out’ (good luck)

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 22, 2017 at 1:02 pm

        I believe there is another element at work……..

        The Unions are run by the older long-service employees. When you combine that (that they THEY are the real decision-makers) with the extreme back-loading of DB pensions (where 1/3+ of your total pension is typically earned in your last 5 years of service) they, being near retirement, have the MOST to lose if their Plans are frozen or if future service accruals are materially reduced.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm

          I should have added the following ………….

          Short of a bankruptcy, it will be a GREAT DEAL more difficult to reduce PAST service accruals vs FUTURE service accruals. Being older and long-service, those Union officials/workers are hoping to make it to the “finish line” (putting everything in the PAST-service column) BEFORE it all blows up.

          I doubt that they have much (if any) concern for the welfare of the younger lower-service workers.

          Reply

      • I think maybe you have the public workers used to having little if any accountability and less responsibility than private sector counterparts and the union provides the security in knowing that they can’t be fired or laid off regardless of the need, over bloated budgets, economy, etc.

        Way too many doing way too little for way too much IMHO

        Reply

  3. Posted by Tough Love on November 22, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    You know what Gov. Christie said on his Tuesday radio show?

    “He asserted that New Jersey would have “no fiscal problem at all” if public employees had the health and pension benefits of private-sector workers.”

    You know what else?

    He’s correct…………….. and with Public Sector “cash pay” VERY close to that of their Private Sector counterparts, there is ZERO (yes ZERO) justification for NJ’s Public Sector workers to receive pensions and benefits ANY (yes ANY) greater in value than those typically granted NJ’s Private Sector Taxpayers.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 23, 2017 at 12:56 pm

      Oh how you and CC love to have your cake and eat it too!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

        I have no idea what you mean.

        If a Public Sector worker’s wages is no less than that of their Private Sector counterpart, what justifies any greater Public Sector pensions or benefits.

        Do you believe that Public Sector workers are “special” and deserving of a better deal ….. on the Taxpayers’ dime?

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation on November 24, 2017 at 12:11 am

          What we have here (again) would make a good bumper sticker… Simplistic, and simply wrong.

          It’s a specious argument, one of many.

          In the first place, your statement should read…

          If an (average) Public Sector worker’s wages is no less than that of their (average) Private Sector counterpart, what justifies any greater Public Sector pensions or benefits.

          Then spend some time studying the growing income inequality in the U.S. It is not a good thing. The “free market” may be very efficient, but it is heartless.

          Yale professor and economist Robert J. Shiller, who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2013, believes that rising economic inequality in the United States and other countries is “the most important problem that we are facing now today.”

          (He’s published and peer reviewed and all that jazz.)

          Governments have several ways to affect income distribution, like progressive taxation and regulations of hiring and firing practices to address issues such as discrimination.

          It shouldn’t be surprising that government compensation would be more egalitarian than in the private sector. Not AVERAGE.

          Monique Morrissey…

          “The national pattern that public-sector workers with college degrees are compensated somewhat less and those without college degrees are compensated somewhat more than their private-sector counterparts holds true for Connecticut as well. The more compressed pay structure—with top and bottom pay closer together—reflects the fact that people are drawn to public service for nonpecuniary reasons and that government employers have an interest in setting a higher floor on compensation than private-sector employers, some of whom pay poverty-level wages and pass health care and other costs onto government programs. Because public-sector workers are more likely to have college degrees, public employers—and taxpayers—are getting a bargain while ensuring a decent standard of living for less educated workers.”

          Average/smaverage.

          The average New Jersey resident has one testicle and one ovary.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 24, 2017 at 1:32 am

            Wow,

            Been here before ………… The Private Sector does not owe the Public Sector a better deal …. or an obligation to address income inequity….. or an obligation to provide the lowest paid Public Sector workers a level of “retirement security”. not also granted Private Sector workers by their employers.

            It owes Public Sector workers (on average when compared to comparable Private Sector workers) no more than EQUAL total Compensation (wages + pensions + benefits). And no matter how you try to deflect, mislead, omit, and lie, the studies clearly show ….. and even MORE SO in CA andn NJ ….. that Public Sector Total Compensation far exceeds that of comparable Private Sector workers.

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 24, 2017 at 6:06 am

            For that matter, the government does not “owe” an obligation to address income inequity….. or an obligation to provide the lowest paid Private Sector workers a level of “retirement security” via the progressive income tax, or the progressive Social Security benefit, or various means tested food, housing, and medical subsidies, to which you would consign low level public workers, in lieu of pensions and medical insurance.

            I don’t see how someone ostensibly in the “finance” industry does not understand or recognize the misuse of “average” data when analyzing compensation comparisons.

            In Biggs nationwide data, the average 10% public advantage would completely disappear if you remove all those workers with less than a college education. The entire “average” public advantage is driven by the lowest 40% of workers. Without them, the other 60% are either roughly equal in total compensation, or significantly underpaid.

            Privatize those jobs, or just reduce the pensions and benefits in that cohort, to “private sector level”, and your alleged 10% “advantage” at the national level, and your alleged 23% advantage in NJ and CA, are gone. Your precious “average” public sector compensation would be EQUAL, or LESS than the private sector.

            I don’t foresee the moral or political impetus to lower the benefits for those already at the bottom of the spectrum, and privatization would surely reduce the compensation of the lowest cohort, but not necessarily the cost.

             It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

            Does your boss know you’re still playing with the computers?

            Wow,

            SMH

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 24, 2017 at 8:58 am

            SM-Whatever.

            Yes, we should “privatize” Public Sector jobs, but not just the lower level jobs, all but Police, and Police should be granted “Total Compensation” consistent with what those in the Private Sector (in jobs with reasonably comparable risks and with reasonably comparable education, experience, skills, and knowledge) typically receive from their employers.

            Example………… we DON’T need to pay $135K annually (in base pay to the lowest rank Police Officer and after only 5-7 years of service …… as is now commonplace in NJ and VERY clearly MORE than what a similarly situated Private Sector worker typically receives in cash wages …….. than then layer ON TOP OF THAT a pension and benefits that are 4 times greater in value upon retirement than that granted those comparable Private Sector workers.

            It’s an unnecessary and outrageous financial abuse of NJ’s Taxpayers.

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm

            “… than then layer ON TOP OF THAT a pension and benefits that are 4 times greater in value upon retirement than that granted those comparable Private Sector workers.”

            ” I have demonstrated numerous times (with details/formulas/assumptions shown) that Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY 2, 4, even 6 times (for Safety workers with COLA-increased pensions) greater in value upon retirement than those typically granted (comparably experienced, educated, skilled, and knowledgeable) private Sector workers who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service.”

            What mindless drivel ……………. from the pulpit of Tough Love.

            If you want credibility, write a clear paper detailing your unique demonstration* and submit it to a well-respected professional economics journal for peer review as part of the acceptance-for-publication process. Who knows, perhaps very early one morning years from now you’ll get that very special call from the Nobel Committee.

            *with verifiable data.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 24, 2017 at 6:22 pm

            SM-Whatever,

            Don’t need to. I put a full demonstration of the 4 times greater NJ Local Police pensions out (on this Blog about 2 weeks ago) with all it’s detail for anyone so inclined to review, ask questions, criticize, or add to. And a shorter version getting to the same 4 times (and HIGHER if pensions are COLA-increased) in an above comment (time-stamped November 23, 2017 at 11:25 pm) and pasted below to give you ANOTHER opportunity to make a fool of yourself with additional denials

            I know there are several actuaries (in addition to Mr. BURY, the site host) who read this blog and I welcome their comments.

            What have YOU put out for examination. Nothing of substance, just denials, misstatements, omission of important facts, and lies.

            **********************************************************

            Re-pasted from above:

            Quoting SM-Whaterver (referring the Police Officers) ……….

            “By retiring early they can keep a constant stream of new recruits coming in, and keep the average age lower. It is generally a “young man’s job.”

            We don’t live in a financial vacuum where their exists unlimited money to fund whatever we please and all the “nice-to-haves”. We need to allocate available resources WISELY

            Sure it would be “nice” to let Police retire at young ages (with unreduced pensions) but its VERY VERY VERY costly to do so.

            All other things being EQUAL (e.g., pension formulas and other provisions) simply allowing someone to begin collecting an unreduced pension at an age 10 years younger DOUBLES the pension’s cost.

            Then, factor in that Police Officer DB pension plan “formula-factors” are often DOUBLE that typically granted Private Sector workers …. and it doubles AGAIN … making it 4 times greater.

            And if the Plan includes COLA increases (now suspended in NJ) that ALREADY 4 times more costly Plan goes up by another multiplicative factor or 1.25 to 1.35.

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 24, 2017 at 11:04 pm

            “What have YOU put out for examination.” ?

            Actual empirical data, nationwide, showing average compensation of equivalent private and public sector workers where the private sector wages are 53 percent higher, and after accounting for the pensions and benefits, the private sector total compensation is still 31 percent higher.

            And, toward the middle income level, private sector workers earn 22 percent more than equivalent public workers.

            But, aha!, In this case, the higher public pensions actually bring the public compensation HIGHER than the private compensation. 2 percent higher, which Biggs considers insignificant.

            The demonstrable fact that public workers can, and often do, have higher pensions, yet lower, or nearly equal total compensation at many levels makes the comparison of pensions moot.

            In other words, you cannot compare pensions outside the context of total compensation.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 24, 2017 at 11:22 pm

            Quoting SM-Whatever … light-bulb-changer, and apparently, a real idiot.

            I “put out there” the SPECIFICS showing exactly what I assert …. that NJ Local Police pensions & benefit are 4 times greater in value upon retirement than that granted the Private Sector worker with equal education, experience, skills and knowledge.

            Go ahead………. show the readers what’s not correct. Don’t yabber, SHOW them.
            *************************
            And don’t change the subject or the group to which my demonstration applied…. I demonstrated such SPECIFICALLY fir NJ’s Local Police Officers.

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 25, 2017 at 12:28 am

            Q. Where, exactly or approximately, did you find a “Private Sector worker with equal education, experience, skills and knowledge.”

            A. You didn’t. You “assumed” one out of thin air.

            So you have an imaginary answer to your hypothetical question.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 25, 2017 at 1:50 am

            SM-Whatever,

            It’s really simple ………… given the education, experience, skills, and knowledge that the Typical NJ Local Police Office brings to the table, and often being paid (in base pay alone) $135K after only 5-7 years, they are in MOST cases paid more in “wages” than Private Sector workers with identical job attributes. There is zero justification for ANY greater pensions & benefits let alone ones that are 4 times greater.

            It makes little difference what that Private Sector jobs entails (noting that Local Police work in NJ is far less dangerous than many far lower-paying Private Sector jobs). It’s the attributes each brings to the table …….. if equal in magnitude, even while different in specifics, the compensation should be reasonably similar.

            Concentrate, even a light-bulb-changer should be able to understand it..

          • Posted by S Moderation on November 25, 2017 at 2:25 am

            We then, don’t mind me. Sounds like you’re solid. Write a clear paper detailing your unique demonstratio and submit it to a well-respected professional economics journal for peer review as part of the acceptance-for-publication process. Who knows, perhaps very early one morning years from now you’ll get that very special call from the Nobel Committee.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 25, 2017 at 2:58 am

            Good Night Sm-Whatever,

            I feel like I’m arguing with a 12 year-old.

  4. Posted by S Moderation on November 25, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    Please grow up. We get it. You think police are overpaid. And your “demonstrations” are designed for maximum shock value. Sometimes, it even works. Where I come from, police (and fire) earn a little more than the average salary and they have a decent retirement. And most folks are not upset by that.

    They generally aren’t bothered by the fact that a policeman earns more than a roofer, who has higher job risks And, initially, similar education requirements.

    I still don’t know where you get your private sector equivalent of a police officer. Joshua Rauh mentioned that, since there is no real private sector comparison to police work, the only proper way to value it is what can be reasonably negotiated. A couple of years ago, you did your math “demonstration” backwards (1… Why not? 2… What’s next?) and determined that, in order to get the SAME pension value at retirement as a California police officer, a private sector worker would have to earn over $500,000 when working (4.62 times the policeman’s wages). Seriously, a brain surgeon (your words)…

    Quoting Mr. Love:
    “Good example …… but you forgot to mention that the likely Pubic Sector employee would be a Police Officer, and the Private Sector worker a brain surgeon (really !).”

    Really !

    You are comparing a hypothetical police officer to an imaginary brain surgeon. And you feel like you are arguing with a twelve year old?

    …………………………..
    Quoting Mr. Love…

    “And don’t change the subject or the group to which my demonstration applied…. I demonstrated such SPECIFICALLY fir NJ’s Local Police Officers.”

    Your fairly consistent mantra is that public sector workers have pension value at retirement 2-4 times higher than typical private sector workers, or 4-6 times for safety workers.

    My fairly consistent response is that, except for whatever shock value you think you can glean from that statement, it is moot, irrelevant, meaningless, and misleading. Ignoratio elenchi… (true, but irrellevent… also called “missing the point”)

    What I have “put out for examination” is that your demonstration is meaningless because evidence shows that EVEN WITH pensions 2-4 times higher, many public workers still have equal, or lower, total compensation than equivalent private sector workers.

    Not all public sector workers. Studies consistently show that…

    At the more highly educated, professional level, public sector workers on average have lower total compensation than equivalent private sector workers.

    At the lowest educated, unskilled labor level, public sector workers have much higher total compensation than their private sector peers.

    Between those two extremes, there is (by logical deduction) a large cohort of of public workers whose total compensation is roughly equal to the private sector.

    The two more highly educated groups, even though they may have more generous pensions, are not overpaid, as they earn less than, or equal to, equivalent workers in the private sector.

    Or, as Juvenal says…
    ” you are just wrong about the comparison of public sector and private sector total compensation (except at the level which requires no education–sorry for giving them benefits other than Medi-Cal).) ”

    Reply

  5. Posted by Tough Love on November 25, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    Quoting SM-Whatever …….

    “We get it. You think police are overpaid. And your “demonstrations” are designed for maximum shock value. Sometimes, it even works. Where I come from, police (and fire) earn a little more than the average salary and they have a decent retirement. ”

    No, my (VERY accurate and VERY easy to follow … and challenge, if you can) demonstrations are not put out there for “shock value”. They are “put out there” to EDUCATE Taxpayers as to the enormity of the financial rape being perpetrated upon them the the Unions working in collusion with our Elected Officials that enable this travesty.

    And as to CA having a “decent” retirement, THAT has to be one of the biggest understatements I have heard all year. In every aspect CA Police pension are richer (MUCH richer) than those granted NJ Police, and THEY still get annual COLA-increases (currently suspended in NJ).

    That 4 times greater in “value upon retirement” Police pension in NJ is ROUTINELY 6 times in CA.

    Nobody believes you BS,

    **********************
    The ONLY States/Cities stupider than CA are those that also include DROP PlLans (an absurd, unnecessary, and enormously costly benefit layered on top of ALREADY ludicrously generous pensions).

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation on November 25, 2017 at 3:42 pm

      “Ignoratio elenchi”… sometimes called “true, but irrelevant.” actually is irrelevant even if it is NOT true. (ergo, I don’t even try to disprove the “math”, it is irrelevant.)

      Wiki- “I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy… For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud’, you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’” … The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one…”

      Quoting Mr. Love: October 26, 2015

      “Sorry BH, but the grossly “generosity” of Public Sector pensions is undeniable. THAT must be addressed.
      Funding shortfalls are not the CAUSE of the pension mess we are in, but are a CONSEQUENCE of the Root Cause …. grossly excessive “generosity”.

      Quoting S Moderation Douglas: October 28, 2015

      “Sorry, but the grossly “generosity”, whatever that is, is ….not…. undeniable.
      That is still just an opinion.”

      You can solve this once and for all…
      If you want credibility, write a clear paper detailing your unique demonstration and submit it to a well-respected professional economics journal for peer review as part of the acceptance-for-publication process. Who knows, perhaps very early one morning years from now you’ll get that very special call from the Nobel Committee.

      As a bonus, I believe there is a substantial cash award that goes with the Nobel. Plus, I’ll buy you a beer.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 25, 2017 at 3:50 pm

        YOU claim it’s irrelevant BECAUSE your a retired Public Sector worker sucking at the Taxpayers teat with a pension whose generosity level was NEVER necessary, just, fair to Taxpayers or affordable ….. and don’t want it derailed.

        It CERTAINLY relevant to those (the betrayed and beleaguered Taxpayers) being suckered/forced to pay for it.

        We understand your ilk well.

        Reply

  6. Posted by S Moderation on November 25, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    Write the paper. Get the Nobel. I’ll wait for the movie.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 25, 2017 at 4:52 pm

      I suggest calling the Blog’s new Preacher (Tim A.). Have him refresh his thanking you for your “thorough research” and your valuable “citations”, while his “Managing Director” title at this one-man shop looks to convince readers (and hopefully future CLIENTS, of course) of his “economist” training …. that you seem to have fallen for ………… hook, line, and sinker.

      Reply

  7. Posted by Earth on November 25, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    Earth to Mr. Love:

    Neither irony or sarcasm is argument.

    Samuel Butler

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: