Phonier Actuarial Assets

It is called asset smoothing and public plan actuaries use it to pretend that their clients have more money in their funds so they can contribute a little less. They call it ‘actuarial’ (as opposed to ‘market’) value and in the latest set of Statutory Funded Ratios for their Retirement System New Jersey goes beyond what anyone ever did to phony up assets.

These are the figures that the state wants everyone to buy. The Actuarial Accrued Liability amounts are based on a 7% interest rate which is ridiculously high for a system so poorly funded. The real liability amount would be in the $250 – $300 billion range. On the asset side here are the options:

The state chooses to publicize the biggest number though it includes a value of the state lottery that the actuaries did not include in their calculations:

The lottery asset lie is fairly obvious to anyone who gives it any thought but if enough people are duped into believing it we may next have New Jersey putting a value on income tax revenue and  calling that as asset of the plans.

Voilà, an overfunded plan. Time to bring back COLAs.

36 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on December 30, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    If Christie’s drop of the 7.65% to 7% isn’t reversed once Murphy becomes Gov., it’s going to be a LOT harder to get the funding ratio’s up to the level that (even using the phony #s) would meet the criteria needed to bring back the COLAs.

    Reply

  2. Posted by SMH on December 31, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    For the record, one thing I have to agree with in principle, is that defined benefit pensions, particularly for public workers, are a problem because most governments can’t be trusted to run them properly. And the shenanigans above would all go away with a Defined Contribution system. Pay your 3% match and BAM, you’re done. Much more transparent, much less paperwork, much, much cheaper.

    I don’t have a dog in this hunt. My pension (knock wood) is set for life. But I agree with many prominent names in the industry that DBs should be reformed (Not “just” reduced) for present and future public (and private) workers. DBs have a definite advantage over DCs, not just for the worker, but for the employer and taxpayer as well, if managed correctly.

    Win/win/win.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………..
    Speaking of misdirection and deflection, I see a lot of articles, usually ersatz Libertarians, telling how DCs are a great advantage to the worker, because they are portable, more fitting for today’s mobile worker. And even Social Security should be privatized. (It’s for your own good.) If you think they are doing this for the “benefit” of the worker, I’ll find another bridge to sell you.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2017 at 6:37 pm

      SMH, The difference between you and I is that when you say …………… “because most governments can’t be trusted to run them properly”, you believe that to mean that gov’t should fully fund all that has been promised, no matter how excessive those promises and no matter how dire the consequences to taxpayers in the form of increased taxes and/or reduced services, while I believe that to mean that Gov’ts shouldn’t promise excessive wages, pensions, or benefits in the first place ……. with excessive measured against what comparably situated Private Sector workers get from their employers.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2017 at 7:19 pm

        And I should added………..

        Because virtually all Public Sector DB Pensions Plans ARE grossly excessive, they do need to be “reformed” …… meaning very materially reduced (think 50+% in “value”, by decreasing the formula-factors, increasing the age at which unreduced pensions can begin, and ending COLAS that are almost unheard of in Private Sector Plans) …… certainly for all current and new workers, and where financial circumstances so dictate, for the PAST service accruals for current actives and those already retired as well.

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on January 1, 2018 at 12:55 am

          So you disagree with Mary Pat Campbell. ..

          “I’m not quoting these to get snippy about the $100K club – after all, I make more money than that and I don’t think that these are necessarily excessive amounts.”

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 1, 2018 at 2:06 am

            Depends what she meant by “necessarily”.

            E.g., If those Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts, then they are fine.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on January 1, 2018 at 6:43 am

            Bingo!

            Some people see a very large pension and automatically assume it is excessive. A local school Superintendent retired with over $200,000 a year at age 72. About half his career was in administration. He was nationally recognized, and continues to work behind the scenes as a volunteer. To your average ($58,000 year) California wage earner, poring through the Transparent California data, he’s just another trough feeding moocher with a ridiculously excessive pension.

            Perhaps my favorite is the San Diego “librarian” with the $250,000 pension. She was the head librarian for one of the largest systems in the country. Over 33 libraries. I would assume a private sector job with the same responsibilities would have paid much higher wages… and a generous pension or severance deal. Also very cutsie when a “reformer” describes her as “a librarian who gets a million dollars every four years for not working”. (She is, in fact, listed in TA only as “librarian”, as I recall.)

            A favorite target in California is city managers who often make upwards of $200,000 with pensions 60%+ of salaries. These are arduous executive positions often filled by nationwide competitive searches. But to many “average” Californians, just another moocher.

            Ironically, in my local “reform” Facebook site, pensions such as these are the problem, (the “lightning rods”) and the “Rank and file” are the victims. They who, with benefits, earn far more than private sector clerk, unskilled labor, and others. And it is these lower level compensation packages that are driving up the comparative “average”.

            So, who is receiving “Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts”?

            According to Biggs, “Total compensation for bachelor’s degree holders is about even with private sector levels.” Anyone above that level is undercompensated, on average. (Yes, this is nationwide data, your state may vary.) And, according to SMH, a lot of your average public sector doctors, lawyers, managers, etc. (and Patrick Whalin?) Odds are, yes, he is probably in the “equal to, but not better” cohort. Not that that will save him when the cuts come.

            Yes, sorry, cuts will come, because someone(s) didn’t pay the bills. And the debts are getting larger.

            SMH

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on January 1, 2018 at 7:13 am

            Whether you believe Biggs, that nationwide, state workers earn 10 percent more in total compensation (23 percent in CA and NJ, and 34 percent more in NY), or believe the other researchers that public compensation is less than, or roughly equal to private …on average…, know that they all agree that the public sector “averages” are driven up mainly by the lowest level workers. It’s called wage compression, and it is common in all states and most OECD countries.

            Is this “equal”? No.

            Is it fair? Maybe. ..

            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.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 1, 2018 at 7:30 pm

            SMH,

            We’ve discussed this MANY times before …..

            At EVERY income level, from the lowest to the highest, Public Sector pensions are multiples (nationally, 3 to 4 times greater for non-safety workers, and 4 to 6 times greater for Safety workers) greater in value upon retirement than those of comparably-situated Private Sector workers. This relationship is undeniable, and has been accurately demonstrated many time here and elsewhere.

            Public Sector “benefits” (most importantly, Healthcare subsidies) while BOTH active and retired are MUCH more generous (described as “Platinum+” in NJ). Where the comparison goes completely off-the-walls is with retiree healthcare, where free or heavily subsidized healthcare is the NORM in the PUBLIC Sector, while near-ZERO subsidy is the norm in Corporate America today.

            The combined Public Sector “ADVANTAGE” from pensions and benefits is HUGE, in the neighborhood of 25% of pay (based on the AEI study).

            There is evidence that “cash wages” are somewhat lower (on average) in the Public Sector than in the Private Sector. Based on the AEI Study, nationally the Private Sector “wage” advantage is about 10%-of-pay.

            When we combine the roughly 25%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector PENSION & BENEFIT advantage with the roughly 10%-of-pay PRIVATE Sector WAGE advantage, NATIONALLY, we wind up with roughly a NET 15%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage …… which is consistent with Figure #6 in the AEI Study.

            The NJ-specific percentages are:

            A 4% PRIVATE Sector “wage” advantage and a 23% PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage.
            ***************************

            I’m sure you’ll keep up with the “spin”. The Public Sector workers/retirees (and their families) likely believe you …………. but few others.

          • Posted by SMH on January 1, 2018 at 10:28 pm

            Perhaps they will believe Mr. Biggs…
            Quoting Mr. Love…

            “E.g., If those Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts, then they are fine.”

            Quoting Mr. Biggs

            “Total compensation for bachelor’s degree holders is about even with
            private sector levels.”

            by your own logic, and Biggs data, they are “fine”. (your state may vary)

            “Professional degree holders such as doctors or lawyers” are even finer, as far as being easy on the taxpayer.

            ” total compensation for less-educated state government employees ” is not fine. The higher pensions and benefits in this group is driving the …entire… “average compensation advantage.”

            As it is written, so shall it be.

            It’s all copacetic, Mr. Love, we have all year, and I have the patience of a saint.

            SMH, messenger. “Don’t tase me bro!”

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 1, 2018 at 10:41 pm

            SMH,

            We discussed the partitioning of NJ’s workers by income grouping before.

            And as I’ve stated (accurately) before………. from the standpoint of the FINANCIAL IMPACT UPON TAXPAYERS ……. Public/Private Sector compensation comparisons by income-specific-group DON’T matter.

            ONLY the impact of ALL groups taken TOGETHER matters.
            ****************

            But you know this. You’re just peddling more “spin”.

          • Posted by SMH on January 1, 2018 at 11:03 pm

            Lawd help us, more math?

            Mr. Biggs did that math for us also…

            “Our analysis finds that the average state pays salaries around 12 percent below those paid by large private-sector employers for similarly-skilled workers.” (p. 7)

            Not “nationally the Private Sector “wage” advantage is about 10%-of-pay.”
            Since you’re working backwards, tho, a 12 percent public wage deficit is the same as a 13.6 percent (not 10 percent) Private Sector advantage. Minor point.
            ……………..
            And, “In the average state, state government employees receive a total compensation premium of around 10 percent relative to private-sector employment.” (p. 9)

            Not ” NATIONALLY, we wind up with roughly a NET 15%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage …… ”
            ……………….

            May I remind you (and the gentle readers), that since, according to Biggs, total compensation for bachelor’s degree holders is about even with private sector levels, and compensation above that level is …less… than private sector peers, the entire “10 percent premium” for public workers is caused by the lowest level public workers.

            And…

            In all these calculations by Biggs …includes… the pensions and health benefits which, according to you, are 3 to 4, or 4 to 6 times greater. Which is why I have consistently said your math is moot.

            Quoting Mr. Love…”If those Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts, then they are fine.”

            According to Biggs, they …are… EQUAL (or lower). except at the high school education level.

            There is the fly in the ointment, go after the janitors and clerks.

          • Posted by SMH on January 1, 2018 at 11:15 pm

            Saints preserve us. Your comment at 10:41 is (still) asinine.

            Yes, we discussed this.

            “Public/Private Sector compensation comparisons by income-specific-group DON’T matter.”…

            Unless… you actually want to correct the problem, instead of just posturing and puling.

            You have roughly three groups of employees, the lower group earns much more than the equivalent private sector group.

            The middle group earns roughly the same.

            The higher group earns much less than private sector peers.

            Who you gonna cut?

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 1, 2018 at 11:20 pm

            Quoting SMH ………..

            “In the average state, state government employees receive a total compensation premium of around 10 percent relative to private-sector employment.”

            Why did you leave out the next sentence (which I’m quoting just below)?

            “However, because the most populous states tend to pay larger premiums, the average state government employee receives a slightly larger compensation
            premium.”

            The impact on Taxpayers (as a whole) is not based on the Public Sector “Total Compensation” from the average state, but each State’s differential weighted by the size of the State.

            When you look at the AEI Study Figure #6, nationally, the Public Sector “Total Compensation” ADVANTAGE is very close to 15%-of-pay …. as I stated above.

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

            But you knew that too …………. still just more “spin”.
            ***************

            And then back to the Bachelor’s degree income-split AGAIN. Reading comprehension problem? ………

            Read my earlier comment. Try concentrating this time (even a light-bulb-changer can do it).

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 1, 2018 at 11:23 pm

            Quoting SMH………….

            “Who you gonna cut?”

            I don’t care. Equal but not better ……….. for the group of all workers taken together.

          • Posted by SMH on January 1, 2018 at 11:33 pm

            I am not surprised

          • Posted by Seesaw Junior on January 2, 2018 at 3:49 pm

            Some people see a very large pension and automatically assume it is excessive. A local school Superintendent retired with over $200,000 a year at age 72.
            For every ONE 72 y/o superintendent with a $200K pension there are 1,000 GED/HS educated 50-55 y/o LE dumbo cops collectioning the same.

          • Posted by SMH on January 2, 2018 at 4:11 pm

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 2, 2018 at 4:13 pm

            SeeSaw Junior,

            To be fair, few if any Police in NJ are collecting $200K annual pensions, but many recent year Police retirees ARE collecting pensions of $100K annually.

            And very importantly …… AND one of the primary reasons why such pensions are ludicrously excessive ………. is that they can begin collecting that pension at age 55 with no actuarial reduction. A $100K annual pension that begins at age 55 is quite close in value to a $200K pension that begins at age 65 ….. which is the Normal Retirement Age for most Private Sector pensions.

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 2, 2018 at 7:46 pm

            Unfortunately, it helps to demonstrate things so that those who look to mislead & deny (such as SMH) have a harder time doing so.

            Social Security uses the following adjustment process for early retirements (quoting from the SSA website):

            “In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month.”

            While a SS Participant cannot retire 10 years earlier than their Normal Retirement Age (NRA), if we used the SS early-retirement adjustment formula quoted above, a Private Sector worker with the typical NRA of 65 who chose to retire and begin collecting benefits at age 55 would get a 0.01x[(3x12x5/9)+(7x12x5/12)]=55% REDUCTION in their otherwise-calculated Formula Benefit.

            That means that the Private Sector worker (and then only IF their pension formula is as rich as that typically granted Police) whose Plan has an NRA of 65 would have to have formula-calculated annual pension of $100,000/(1-0.55)=$222,222 to be able to begin collecting $100K at age 55.

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 3, 2018 at 2:15 pm

            Taking the discussion (in my above 2 comments) a bit further ……….

            I left off (above) with the Private Sector workers needing a formula-calculated annual pension of $222,222 to actually RECEIVE $100,000 annually if he/she elects to retire and begin collecting that pension at age 55 (the SAME age at which the Police officer can retire and receive his/her $100,000 pension WITHOUT any reduction).

            The NJ Police Officer (retiring at age 55 with 25 years of service) gets a pension of 65% of Final pay (implying a per-year-of-service “formula-factor” of 0/65/25 = 0.26 or 2.6%). That means that if his pension is $100,000, his final pay was $100,000/0.65 = $153,846 (certainly not unreasonable in many areas of NJ for those with 25 years of service, and most often retiring not as a Patrolman, but as a Sargent, Lieutenant, or Captain).

            That Private Sector worker (lucky enough to be among the few still participating in a DB Plan in Corporate America) is in a Plan which likely has a per-year-of-service “formula-factor” of 1.5% (vs the 2.6% for the Police Officer). This means that to get a $222,222 formula-calculated pensions (BEFORE the early retirement adjustment) he would need to have pensionable wages of $222,222/(25 x 0.015) = $592,592.

            So where does us leave us ?

            For two NJ workers, one a NJ Police Officer and one a Private Sector worker, both under DB Plans typical of the Sector in which they work, and with both working 25 years and retiring at age 55, for the Police Officer to retire and collect a $100,000 pension beginning at age 55 he would need to have a final salary of $153,846, while the Private Sector worker would need to have a final salary of $592,592 or 3.85 TIMES that of the Police Officer.

            That 3.85 times is a measure of the difference in “generosity” between the Police Officer’s Pension Plan and the pension Plan typically offered the Private Sector worker (for the few that still get them at all).

            Yes, the above is only a comparison of their pensions, not Total Compensation (which would also include wages and benefits). There is no question WHATSOEVER that Police benefits (especially healthcare both while active and in retirement) are MUCH more generous than those granted Private Sector workers, and in NJ, it would be VERY difficult to argue that police wages (now often $135+K annually for the lowest rank Patrolman with just 5 years of service) are not AT LEAST as great (and likely greater) than those of Private Sector workers with comparable education, experience, skills, and knowledge.

            This being the case (greater benefits and likely greater wages), and with EQUAL “Total Compensation” as the appropriate goal, there is ZERO justification for ANY greater pensions …….. let alone ones that are 3.85 TIMES greater in generosity than that of the Private Sector worker.

          • Posted by SMH on January 3, 2018 at 3:11 pm

            A whole new journey around the sun. 365 opportunities to repeat…

            “You cannot discuss pensions outside the context of total compensation.”

            You are so hung up on your esoteric math that you can’t see the bigger picture.

            First, it’s an invalid comparison. If only 15 percent of private workers have DB pensions, as opposed to 85+ percent of government workers, what is the point of comparing at all?
            “My extant pension is bigger than your extinct one.” ?

            Second, it is already commonly understood that, in addition to being more likely to have a pension, public pensions are usually a higher proportion of pay than private. (Can you say “deferred compensation?)

            Third, you seem to have a preference to comparing police pensions to …whatever… when no one else can definitively find an occupation comparable to law enforcement. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and we are all free to be amused by your intransigence.

            Fourth, interesting that you can dictate your own assumptions, and come out with an answer to two decimal places. (And not consistently, at that.)

            https://californiapolicycenter.org/public-sector-reform-requires-mutual-empathy/

            Especially fond of the line “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 !).” (Tough Love at 7:59)

            The math has been done… by experts, based on actual data, even though they do not agree. They all agree that at the lower levels, total compensation in the public sector is higher than private. At the higher levels, compensation level is lower. In the middle, compensation is “just right”.

            The Goldilocks rule. And for those public workers who are “just right” or have lower total compensation, pensions and benefits are tautologically NOT excessive, let alone “grossly excessive”.

            As stated by a wise guy…

            “Depends what she meant by “necessarily”.

            E.g., If those Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts, then they are fine.”

            (Posted by Tough Love on January 1, 2018 at 2:06 am)

            So where does us leave us ?

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 3, 2018 at 3:45 pm

            SMH,

            Do you even read the comment BEFORE jumping in with your standard…

            ““You cannot discuss pensions outside the context of total compensation.”” ?

            I SPECIFICALLY addressed Total Compensation in the last 2 paragraphs because I knew you would bring it up.

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

            Quoting SMH……….

            “First, it’s an invalid comparison. If only 15 percent of private workers have DB pensions, as opposed to 85+ percent of government workers, what is the point of comparing at all?”

            No it’s not invalid because the other 85% of Private Sector workers who DON’T get DB Plans (but often get 401Ks instead), get LESS (often MUCH less) than those that do …..

            If I made a comparison using the 85% of Private Sector worker who don’t get DB Plans, the Police Officer’s ADVANTAGE would be even GREATER than the 3.85 times demonstrated above.

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

            Quoting SMH,

            “Second, it is already commonly understood that, in addition to being more likely to have a pension, public pensions are usually a higher proportion of pay than private. ”

            My above comments (starting as a response to a comment from SeeSaw Junior) addresses Police Officers, and in NJ Police Wages ALONG are GREATER, not less than comparably educated, experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable Private Sector workers. With greater pay & Benefits, there is ZERO justification for ANY greater pensions.

            ************************************
            Quoting SMH,

            “Third, you seem to have a preference to comparing police pensions to …whatever… when no one else can definitively find an occupation comparable to law enforcement.”

            I always speak of workers in the 2 sectors with comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge. Sure Police work entails risk, but per the US Gov’t BLS police are even on their list of the most dangerous occupations. Sure there are pockets in NJ (Camden, parts of Newark and Patterson) that can be very dangerous, but those areas constitute less than 5% of NJ. Most are bedroom communities with little crime and VERY VERY little violent crime. In most areas, the biggest “risk” an Officer faces is being hit by a car while on a traffic stop, and he does, he’s likely being VERY careless.
            ******************************

            Quoting SMH …

            “Fourth, interesting that you can dictate your own assumptions, ”

            I put my assumptions (and the full calculations) out there specifically so that they CAN be questioned. If any readers feel they are unreasonable, please tell me which and why. Nothing to hide.

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

            Quoting SMH …

            “Especially fond of the line “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 !).” (Tough Love at 7:59)”

            I have no idea what you mean, but interestingly, based on my above demonstration…… that the Private Sector worker would need to have a final salary of $592,592 to get the SAME $100K annual pension at age 55 as the Police Officer making $153,846 ………. the Private Sector worker would likely HAVE TO BE a Brian Surgeon to be make such high wages.

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

            And then you go to your usual fallback, income-level specific compensation comparisons…………. clearly to move the focus away from the financial abuse of the Taxpayers via these ludicrously excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits, which when added to wages results in grossly excess Public Sector Total Compensation.

            As I stated many times, what financially impacts taxpayers is the NET result form ALL income groups COMBINED.

          • Posted by SMH on January 3, 2018 at 4:54 pm

            “As I stated many times, what financially impacts taxpayers is the NET result form ALL income groups COMBINED.”

            That rightly should be the equivalent of the “80% Pension Funding Hall of Shame”

            “If those Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts, then they are fine.” (Tough Love)

            And they are not …negatively… impacting the taxpayers at all.

            And the public doctors and professionals? They are a boon to the taxpayers.

            What kind of financial “professional” lumps all these workers into one “average”?

            By definition, any “financial abuse of the Taxpayers” can only come from those whose total compensation is actually higher than the private sector.

            Yes, we know you have “said it many times”. No matter how many times you say it, it ain’t right.

            But keep saying it. Maybe by this time next year Rex the Wonder Dog can explain it to you.

            SMH

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 3, 2018 at 6:42 pm

            SMH,

            Wow, I VERY clearly demonstrated (showing all the steps of the calculation and all of the assumptions for clarity and transparency) that in order for a Private Sector worker to get the SAME $100,000 annual pension TYPICAL of a recent NJ Police Retiree (with 25 years of service and retiring at age 55), the Private Sector worker would need to be earning NOT the same final salary as that of the Police Officer ($153,846), but that of a Brain Surgeon ($592,592) ……….. and you go off the walls, grasping at straws, and repeating irrelevant nonsense.

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

            Quoting SMH…

            ““If those Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is EQUAL to their Private Sector counterparts, then they are fine.” (Tough Love)”

            Yes, that’s correct. Did you NOT notice the word “If” at the beginning of that sentence. THAT is the problem, Public Sector pensions are part of a Total Compensation package that is NOT equal to their Private Sector counterparts, but MUCH greater ……… 23%-of-pay greater in BOTH our home States of CA and NJ.

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

            And then back to the SAME old crap again, trying to divert the reader’s focus to compensation comparisons for income-specific groups, and away from that which really impacts the Taxpayers.

            I’ll say it again (perhaps one day it will sink in) …….. what financially impacts NJ’s taxpayers is the NET result form ALL income groups COMBINED, the split by income group being irrelevant.

          • Posted by SMH on January 3, 2018 at 8:04 pm

            I’m sure we have exceeded the quota of “he said/he said”.

            I hope that if, someday, your boss tells you that your productivity is well above average, but, unfortunately, another employee has brought the overall average down, so he will have to reduce both your salaries, you will understand his logic.

            (Or lack thereof.)

            SMH

          • Posted by Tough Love on January 3, 2018 at 8:17 pm

            SMH,

            I’m VERY sure that if in your State of CA, it was the Private Sector that had a NET (on average for all workers combined) 23%-of-pay Total Compensation ADVANTAGE, CA’s Public Sector worker/retirees would be screaming bloody murder about how unfair that is, demand wage/pension/benefit improvements to “catch-up”, and wouldn’t give a hoot about how that advantage was split by income group.

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 31, 2017 at 9:33 pm

      Hopefully TL won’t ‘drop the ball’ in 2018 like the various governments did with their employees DBP!!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2017 at 9:41 pm

        I’m well aware that my commentary likely has little (if any) incremental impact today …… not sure why I bother.

        Not so true a while back, when far fewer were aware of the financial tsunami heading their way. Most are at least half-way there (in the educational process) today.

        Reply

  3. Posted by Unanimous on December 31, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    Good-bye 2017, we knew ye well.

    Reply

  4. Posted by George on January 3, 2018 at 8:57 am

    On the issue of fake assets:

    Real pensions bought fake bonds from fake Native Americans

    Pension Funds Sue US Bank For $25M Tribal Bond Fraud Loss
    https://www.law360.com/articles/957159/pension-funds-sue-us-bank-for-25m-tribal-bond-fraud-loss

    Hedge fund Index claims 6% 2017 return.
    https://www.hedgefundresearch.com/family-indices/hfrx

    Reply

Leave a Reply to George Cancel 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: