S5 Votes on Monday

The bills up for a vote by the New Jersey Senate on Monday were posted on the legislatiure’s website (full list of bills at the bottom of this blog).

On that list is….

S5 Sca (1R) Transfers management of PFRS to Board of Trustees of PFRS.
2nd Reading in the Senate
 

Identical Bill Number: A3671
Last Session Bill Number: S3040   (1R) A99 Sweeney, Stephen M.   as Primary Sponsor
Kean, Thomas H., Jr.   as Primary Sponsor
Bucco, Anthony R.   as Co-Sponsor
Oroho, Steven V.   as Co-Sponsor
1/9/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee
2/1/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
2/1/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
2/5/2018 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd ReadingIntroduced – – 51 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – SSG 2/1/18 – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Reprint – – 50 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – SBA 2/5/18 1R – 3 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Fiscal Estimate – 2/22/18; 1R – 5 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Committee Voting:
SSG  2/1/2018  –  r/Sca  –  Yes {5}  No {0}  Not Voting {0}  Abstains {0}  –  Roll Call
SBA  2/5/2018  –  r/favorably  –  Yes {11}  No {1}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}  –  Roll Call

The bill will pass (or else it would not make the agendas) but what does it really mean for the New Jersey retirement system? I see three main areas of impact that I will explore in detail in my next blog:

  1. Asset value adjustments
  2. Return of COLAs
  3. New actuary for PFRS

.

.

Senate
    Monday, March 26, 2018 – 2:00 PM
    Senate Chambers
Voting Session:  

Bill Abstract   Current Status LDOA  

A839 Offshore drilling for oil-concerns 2RS 3/5/2018
A1212 Greenhouse Gas Initiative-clarify intent 2RS 2/26/2018
A2041 Econ Redevel Growth Grant Bond Finan Act 2RS 2/22/2018
A3382 Prop. taxes, anticipated-make pymts. 2RS 3/13/2018
S5 PFRS-transfers mgmt. to Bd. of Trustees 2RS 2/5/2018
S104 Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act 2RS 3/13/2018
S121 Discrim. claims conceals-bars certain 2RS 3/5/2018
S122 Garden St. Film & Digital Media Jobs Act 2RS 3/13/2018
S250 Airports, cert.-prov. tax cred. elig. 2RS 3/5/2018
S258 Offshore oil exploration-concerns 2RS 3/5/2018
S347 Minorities, women-constr. training 2RS 3/5/2018
S374 Minority, Women owned finan. instit-svcs 2RS 2/26/2018
S376 Police, FF surviving spouse-tuition benf 2RS 3/5/2018
S396 St Invest Council memb-forbid cert votes 2RS 2/26/2018
S430 Real estate lic., cert.-concerns 2RS 3/13/2018
S482 Gestational Carrier Agreement Act 2RS 3/13/2018
S483 Hepatitis C testing-hospitals offer 2RS 3/5/2018
S497 Child abuse-cert statements allowed 2RS 3/12/2018
S534 Litter-generating products-definition 2RS 3/5/2018
S545 Emp discrimination-proh use, cred report 2RS 3/5/2018
S559 Worker’s wages-concerns emp. inquires 2RS 3/5/2018
S606 Electric veh. charging infra.-plan 2RS 3/5/2018
S611 Greenhouse Gas Initiative-participate 2RS 2/26/2018
S699 Student finan assist prog-concerns 2RS 3/13/2018
S700 Higher Ed. Citizenship Equality Act 2RS 3/13/2018
S785 Correction officers-req. police training 2RS 3/5/2018
S868 Sch election-concerns candidates/ballots 2RS 2/26/2018
S880 Pol. party committee chair-concerns 2RS 2/26/2018
S976 Revised St. Med. Examiner Act 2RS 3/13/2018
S1036 Person’s death, police custody-concerns 2RS 2/5/2018
S1082 Vineyards, wineries-prov cert. tax cred. 2RS 2/26/2018
S1146 Dementia-incl. notation on med. records 2RS 3/5/2018
S1229 Judges, Gov. cabinet off.-incr. salary 2RS 2/26/2018
S1242 Boil water notice-req. w/in one hour 2RS 3/5/2018
S1335 Emerg med tech cert card-MVC accept Id 2RS 3/12/2018
S1496 Mercury relays, switches-prohibits cert. 2RS 3/5/2018
S1570 Bus, owned by cert. persons-assist. prog 2RS 3/5/2018
S1739 Co. correction officer-rename 2RS 2/26/2018
S1793 Clean Veh. Task Force-estab. 2RS 2/15/2018
S1840 Econ Redev Growth Grant Bond Fin Act 2RS 2/22/2018
S1870 Child Fatality Bd.-racial desparities 2RS 2/26/2018
S1894 Breakfast after the bell prog.-req. 2RS 3/5/2018
S1895 Sch Lunch, Breadfast Prog-submit report 2RS 2/22/2018
S1896 Sch. lunch, student denied-report req. 2RS 2/22/2018
S1897 Summer meal prog.-expands 2RS 3/5/2018
S1918 Pub, resides cert fed prop-req enroll 2RS 3/13/2018
S1971 Prop. taxes, anticipated-make pymts. 2RS 3/13/2018
S1974 Candidate elective pub off-email address 2RS 2/26/2018
S2247 Hosp., cert.-concerns charitable assets 2RS 3/13/2018
SCR29 Huntington’s Disease Parity Act-urges 2RS 3/5/2018
SCR96 Hagedorn Gero-Psych. Hosp.-reopen 2RS 2/15/2018
SJR34 Drunk & Impaired Driv. Comm.-estab. 2RS 2/26/2018
SJR56 Israel, State 70th anniversary-recognize 2RS 2/26/2018
SJR57 Sikh Day-desig. April 14th SSG 2/22/2018
SJR58 Sikh Awareness and Appreciation Mo-April SSG 2/22/2018
SJR63 Prof Social Work Mo-desig March each yr. 2RS 3/13/2018
SR47 Youth Art Month-March 2RS 2/22/2018
SR66 Mortgage escrow pre pymts-urges 2RS 3/13/2018

45 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by marbs on March 22, 2018 at 3:02 pm

    Does this bill pertain to both State and Local PFRS or just Local as the State is not mentioned in the statement as it pertains to contributions.

    Reply

    • It applies PFRS which includes both state and local employers. The state is still in a ‘ramp-up’ period for their contributions so it will be interesting to see if the unions keep accepting the state’s IOUs once they get to make the rules.

      Reply

  2. Posted by Retired police on March 22, 2018 at 4:31 pm

    Excellent the trustees will do a much better job.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 22, 2018 at 5:07 pm

      The Union-majority will in short order beging to make changes that will screw the Taxpayers royally.

      How ANYONE can be given the authority to set THEIR OWN pension benefit level (and THEIR OWN contribution level) and send someone else the bill is beyond comprehension ……… and preposterous.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2018 at 5:58 pm

        Lol!!!!!!

        Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on March 22, 2018 at 6:17 pm

        Nothing is preposterous in NJ. Particularly when the benefit goes to the public sector and the bill to the private sector.

        Reply

        • Posted by El gaupoi on March 22, 2018 at 6:32 pm

          The ONLY enhancement I see is a return of the COLA. That’s is the whole reason for this bill. Well, half the reason. The other being that the pensioners want the funds separate from TPAF (the first to go after the judges). As a pfrs member, I welcome this bill. We would be smart to allow cola to return only if there is a giveback. For me, I think there should be a minimum age required to collect a pension. 55-58. Somewhere in there. I believe the plan will be to give COLA back to those who retired before 1990 first. Whatever it is, it will be phased in and not given right away. It will probably not be exactly what it was before, the benifit will be less. The other enhancements are not anything that was even on the radar screen and will never come into fruition. The cola is much more important to cops/fire because we do not get SS. I know I don’t.
          The senate version will pass. I think the assembly version is just a smokescreen. I could be wrong. Stranger things can happen. I still would NOT expect cola back for 5 years. And even then it will be smaller adjustments.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 22, 2018 at 7:26 pm

            The “ONLY” ????

            Adding a COLA increase provision to an otherwise identical Plan w/O COLA typically increases the Plan’s cost by 25% to 35% depending on the age at retirement and the generosity of the COLA benefit.

            NJ’s Plans are near insolvent now, INCLUDING the LOCAL PFRS when valued using appropriate assumptions. It would be outrageous to reinstate COLAs until the Plans are near 100% funded using when using the SAME assumptions/methodology required of PRIVATE sector Plans in their valuations.

  3. Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2018 at 9:40 pm

    In all fairness the towns don’t want cops to stay around past their eligibility for retirement. It is why some towns are offering to pay fully the medical plan cost for active employees who retire. In exchange for getting rid of the benifit for new hires.
    If you can replace a $150,000 52 year old Sergeant with a $35,000 Tier 3 new hire, you would do it. 15 steps to top pay, etc. The kicker is the town is paying upwards of 22% or so of that $150,000 for pension costs for the 52 year old. They would only be paying 22% of the $35,000 or so for the rookie. In fact the 22% may be a little less for a Tier 3 hire. From a pension solvency point of view, the $150,000 guy is still paying in $15,000 plus he is not collect his $100,000 pension yet. It saves the pension $115,000 a year on average every year he stays. Times that by say 3,000 guys or so (about 8% of actives) who would otherwise retire a few years ealrier and you have close to a half a billion dollars a year. Divide that number by the amount of retirees(45,000 give or take) and you are just over $10,000 a year per retiree for COLA. Give the retirees a modest amount(.6 X SS raise) and return the rest to the fund so the next year the taxpayers don’t have 22% to pay. Maybe only 18% or so and so on. WIth more TIer 3 guys cmon in, the benifits will be somewhat easier to pay. Of course the rub is that these guys will be hanging on in a job they don’t want to do anymore and getting paid 5X a rookie salary.
    TL, put your opinions aside for a moment and tell me the math doesnt make sense from a pension solvency point of view. Also keeps old cops (80 year olds) off of food stamps

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 22, 2018 at 11:36 pm

      There are SO MANY incorrect and relevant-unstated facts in your comment, it’s hard to know where to begin:

      (1) What the town is now contributing (as a % of pay) is not relevant because it vastly understates the true cost of the Police Officer’s promised pension. Even W/o COLA (EVER) NJ’s Police pension formula would require (for the typical Officer who retires with 25 Years of service in their mid-early 50s, a total (employee + employer) level Annual Contribution of just about 45% of pay ….. and that would rise to about 55% if COLAs are reinstated.

      (2) Most newly retired Officers still elect Family Healthcare Coverage, and elect Plans so generous that the total annual cost today (and riding each year by 5% to 10%) is between $30K and $35K annually. Deduct what THEY contribute annually, and the balance is paid for by the Town’s taxpayers. As such (for an early 50s retiree), the Taxpayer cost of providing retiree healthcare coverage to it Police Officers in many cases approaches $500K ………. when notably, VERY few Private Sector Corporations are offering ANY retiree healthcare subsidy to new retirees.

      (3) You seem to be forgetting that the Officer continues to earn additional pension credits (I believe up until 30 years of service in NJ, but at a lower rate after 25 years of service) even after they are first eligible to retire, and those additional credits further increase their pension.

      (4) It does NOT help that the higher-paid Officer’s annual pension contribution is larger than that of the lower paid officer. Not one Officer’s annual contribution (regardless of their wage level) comes even remotely close to paying for even the ADDITIONAL pension accrual associated with an additional year of service.

      (5) Even when an Officer is eligible to retire, their pension’s “value” (think in term of lump sum value) increases each year by MORE than the forgone amount that they would have collected in pension benefits had they instead retired…. until service years are maxed-out.

      (6) Once Officers reach the point where there is no additional service credit (again, I believe that to be 30 years in NJ), the only element of their pension formula that would contribute to a greater pension is a salary increase …. or of course some sort of “special” deal made with the Town’s Elected Officials. With 30 years of service, the pension is 70% of final wages, so it would have be a VERY substantial wage increase for it to make financial sense to forgo collecting 70% of your prior year’s wages in pension benefits.

      (7) While the math can be confusing, DB Final Average Salary Pensions are highly “back-loaded” (in terms of the benefit payable, and hence the increment cost to pay for that additional benefit), and while 45%-of-pay might be the true “best estimate” cost of his/her pension when expressed as a LEVEL Annual %-of-pay, the ACTUAL incremental value of a NJ Police Officer’s pension in say year 24 when he/she will retire after 25 years is often closer to 75%-of pay. With the officer contributing only 10%-of-pay (even though it is 10% of a far greater salary than that of a rookie) it’s still costs the Taxpayers far MORE in incremental pension costs in that year for the 24-year-of-service Officer than for the rookie.
      ————————————–

      As I have stated (to Steven Douglas’s chagrin) many times, the ROOT CAUSE of the problem is that NJ’s Public Sector Police pensions (as well as those for non-safety, but to a smaller extent) are LUDICROUSLY excessive……….. being 3.5 to 4 times greater in value upon retirement than the pensions granted the lucky few Private Sector Taxpayer who still get them and who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service.

      What’s needed is NOT pondering questions such as …. are we financially better off getting rid of the older guy and hiring a rookie ……. but to have all Officer’s participate in Social Security/Medicare, reduce their pension’s per-year-of service “formula factor” to 1.5%, increase the minimum age at which an unreduced pension can begin being collected to 62 (for Police ONLY), and institute a PROPER early retirement actuarial reduction of 5% for EACH year of age before age 62 that one elected to start collecting their pension.

      Reply

      • Posted by El gaupoi on March 23, 2018 at 12:34 am

        Smoke and mirrors. Most cops are hired by 25. I am looking to have the officers stay a few years past 30 instead of going at 30. Yes a promotion would skew my analysis. Otherwise my numbers are generally spot on. You did not dispute the nearly half billion savings due to the minimum retirement age. Tier 3 guys max out at 65% of final 3 years average. And have a cap on creditable compensation.
        And finally, while I advocate 57 or so as a retirement age, 62 is too old. Not for a command level position but for a guy still humping calls absolutely. No way should a guy that age be forced to fight/physically control folks 40 years younger than them and in the prime of the physical life.
        Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Same old copy and paste crap.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 12:56 am

          If a Police Officer is …..”still humping calls” ……. after 20 years, he’s is likely mediocre (at best), or minimally competent, and certainly NOT the “best and brightest” we are so often told we must pay for.

          Reply

          • Posted by El gaupo on March 23, 2018 at 9:04 am

            Which is why you don’t want those folks staying till 62. Look, I made rank but I don’t look down on guys who didn’t and think they are minimally competent. Some aren’t good test takers and some have side businesses and don’t really invest what they should. For whatever reason.
            I think your pension analysis is laudable. Right or wrong it is an objective analysis and one that on the surface you do with blinders on. However, what I truly think is beneath you are the comments you make about police work without really knowing what you’re talking about. Have you ever gone on a ride along? Or attended a civilian police academy? If no that’s fine. But when you make comments about minimally competent or high school degree etc. it reinforces that you have no idea how to do the job. Perhaps when you have processed a domestic violence arrest for 5 hours and have made sure you didn’t forget one of the 20 forms you need to fill out, otherwise you can be held personally liable, the. You can talk to me about how smart you need to be. When I see you next to me at a fatal mv crash with serious charges pending, about to spend the next 8 hours analyzing crush data, skid marks, momentum analysis, angles of impact, perception/reaction time etc. then I would value your opinion more. I don’t know what you do for a living, except that it appears to be in finance. I certainly don’t ridicule the profession with dopey comments like— snake oil salesman, selling crappy funds to people, idiots losing my money etc. (btw I am strictly a vanguard fanboy). Point I’m trying to make is that— for right or wrong— I hold you to a higher standard than the other folks on here who just have an ax to grind and spout their mouth. Maybe I was wrong to do that. Anyway. Peace out

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 1:03 pm

            El gaupo,

            I will leave you with only one last question ………

            Given the level of NJ Police “wages” (alone), which I believe are more likely to be higher (than lower) those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ……… what justifies the current structure wherein Police pensions have* a value upon retirement that is 3.5 to 4 TIMES that of that comparable Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service …… and with all of the Police Officer’s pension contributions, accumulated to the date of their retirement (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that VERY rich pension ……… and then layer ON TOP OF THAT a retire healthcare subsidy that may approach $500K that VERY few in the Private Sector get any longer ?

            * via their pension “formula” and the pension’s “provisions”, such as a very young age at which an unreduced pension can commence

          • Mr. Love…

            “If a Police Officer is …..”still humping calls” ……. after 20 years, he’s is likely mediocre (at best), or minimally competent, and certainly NOT the “best and brightest” we are so often told we must pay for.”

            Sidewalk Superintendent.

            Same guy who thinks it’s some kind of scam to have a black and white posted at a highway construction zone.

            Clue number one… Please look up the “Peter Principle.”

            Clue number two… Please look at any organizational chart. There is not room at the top for everyone. Not even room enough in the middle. Some very good police patrolmen will be humping calls until they retire, even after 30 years or more.

            Clue number three… It’s really OK if you don’t know what you’re talking about, but it’s rude, crude, and socially unacceptable to be so boorish and insulting about it.

            IMHO

          • Ooophs…

            should be “so damn boorish and insulting about it.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 6:08 pm

            Stephen Douglas,

            I know more about pensions than you by an order of magnitude….. not boorish , not insulting, and yes, just my “opinion”.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 23, 2018 at 9:50 pm

            So you say, ad nauseum.

            You are so convinced of your biased premise that you often post your “beliefs” without so much as a simple fifteen minute web search to verify

            It’s not bad enough that you are so often factually wrong, but you are also emphatically wrong and yes, insulting. Then, rather than an apology, just a flimsy excuse, and another insult.

            IMHO

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 10:18 pm

            Stephen,

            My Biased premise ? Really? My recent comments (especially those traded with you) have focused on 2 comparisons:

            (1) NJ Police pensions are TYPICALLY 3.5 to 4 TIMES (5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) greater in value upon retirement than those of similarly situated (in wages, age at retirement, and years of service) Private Sector workers who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge, and

            (2) Per the AEI Study, NJ (and CA) when workers at all income levels are taken together*, Public Sector workers have a 23%-of-pay Total Compensation ADVANTAGE (rising to 33% if the incremental value of the greater Public Sector job security is included, and assuredly even higher if Police/Fire workers with far higher than average wages and the richest pensions had not been excluded from the AEI Study)

            * And IT DOESN’T matter that the Public/Private Sector Total Compensation differentials varies by income level, because what FINANCIALLY IMPACTS THE TAXPAYERS is the NET differential from ALL WORKERS TAKEN TOGETHER.

            ——————————-
            Very simply …….. even a light-bulb-changer should be able to follow along.

            So who’s the “biased” one, me, a well informed Private Sector NJ taxpayer who fully understands and is fed-up with the HUGE ripoff being perpetrated upon Citizens like me by the Public Sector Unions and our Union-BOUGHT Elected-Officials, or YOU, a CA Public Sector retiree now collecting one of these pensions, and protesting anything but the most financially immaterial changes?

          • An order of magnitude?

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 11:21 am

            El gaupo

            “Which is why you don’t want those folks staying till 62.”

            Mandatory retirement age for NJ State Police is 55. For California Highway Patrol it’s 60, and for FBI, recent articles say 57 is the mandatory limit. Earlier retirement is obviously the main reason for higher police pension costs, and there has been a lot of argument lately about delaying retirement, or at least delaying the pension.

            But early retirement for police and military have a long history, and is common around the world. Has anyone researched how and why this is? There are a lot of opinions. No, police don’t have shorter average life expectancy. And yes, there are other dangerous or strenuous jobs. (Air Traffic Controllers have mandatory retirement at 56.)

            Has anyone seen serious research on early retirement reasons and costs? TL likes scholarly, peer reviewed, published studies.

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 12:59 am

          And “smoke and mirrors” ? Go ahead, tell me what I stated above that is not accurate. Honestly, I doubt that you even UNDERSTOOD half of what I stated.

          Reply

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 23, 2018 at 3:55 pm

            “…which I believe are more likely to be higher (than lower) those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ………”

            There have been so many things that you have “believed” so strongly as to be rude and insulting, that turned out to be “alternative facts”. Why should anyone “believe” anything you say that is not backed up by verifiable empirical data?

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 6:11 pm

            Stephen, Humor us. For the moment, just assume that NJ Police wages are no lower than those of Comparable Private Sector workers.

            THEN, answer the question I posed above. Here it is again:
            —————————————————
            Given the level of NJ Police “wages” (alone), which I believe are more likely to be higher (than lower) those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ……… what justifies the current structure wherein Police pensions have* a value upon retirement that is 3.5 to 4 TIMES that of that comparable Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service …… and with all of the Police Officer’s pension contributions, accumulated to the date of their retirement (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that VERY rich pension ……… and then layer ON TOP OF THAT a retire healthcare subsidy that may approach $500K that VERY few in the Private Sector get any longer ?

            * via their pension “formula” and the pension’s “provisions”, such as a very young age at which an unreduced pension can commence

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 23, 2018 at 8:32 pm

            “those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ………”

            “that comparable Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service …… ”

            aye, there’s the rub

            You seem so certain of the first, but your evidence is nothing more than CAPS LOCK. Many more experienced than you say it is difficult to find a private sector benchmark to compare to police.

            From hearsay, and a quick web search, it seems that early retirement for police is not just a New Jersey thing, but very common in most developed countries, and has been for a long time. Even twenty and out with half pay exists in many other countries for police, and the military. (And, last I heard, for NYC sanitation workers.) I have seen a few debates (arguments) about how and why this should be, nothing really definitive, but there should be, IMHO, a corollary to Carl Sagan’s Maxim…

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

            You “should” have extraordinary evidence before you unilaterally halt a near universal policy (earlier retirement).

            Yes, it is expensive. But maybe there is a good reason for that.

            In other words, you’re way to simplistic and dogmatic.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 8:40 pm

            Stephen Douglas,

            STILL beating around the bush, but you refuse to answer a very simple question. Might that be because THERE IS no good answer. But please, try again …………….. repeating the question:

            Given the level of NJ Police “wages” (alone), which I believe are more likely to be higher (than lower) those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ……… what justifies the current structure wherein Police pensions have* a value upon retirement that is 3.5 to 4 TIMES that of that comparable Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service …… and with all of the Police Officer’s pension contributions, accumulated to the date of their retirement (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that VERY rich pension ……… and then layer ON TOP OF THAT a retire healthcare subsidy that may approach $500K that VERY few in the Private Sector get any longer ?

            * via their pension “formula” and the pension’s “provisions”, such as a very young age at which an unreduced pension can commence

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 23, 2018 at 11:26 pm

            Your mantra.

            “similarly situated (in wages, age at retirement, and years of service) Private Sector workers who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge,”

            Who are these workers? How much do they earn? Who determined their comparability to police? Where are the data?
            ————————————-
            And ignore the “Total Compensation differentials varies by income level…” because they don’t fit your bias, even though they show that many public sector workers =are= undercompensated. Not “demonstrated” using assumptions, but verified by actual empirical data.

            Yes, Mr. Love, you have more BS by an order of magnitude….. a veritable fount of misinformation.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 11:49 pm

            Stephen,

            You’re trying to turn my comparison into something that it’s not.

            I’m simply saying lets compare the pensions of 2 people (one Public and one Private Sector) using the pensions formulas applicable to the NJ Police Officer and the TYPICAL pension now granted the lucky few Private Sector workers who still get them and who earn the same wages, have the same years of service, and retire at the same age.

            The result CLEARLY show that Police pensions are 3.5 to 4 times greater in value upon retirement.

            It doesn’t matter … “who these workers are”. I chose Police Officer’s because most informed people would agree that Police wages ALONE are likely NOT lower than those of Private Sector worker with similar education, experience, skills, and knowledge ………. to get you off your soapbox that comparing Pensions alone is not sufficient.

            It certainly IS appropriate to compare JUST PENSIONS when there little to no difference in wages.

            You just cannot handle the very clear result ……… that NJ Police pensions (AND benefits) are LUDICROUSLY excessive.

            And that (pension formulas being even richer in CA) Police pensions are even MORE LUDICROUSLY excessive in your home state of CA.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 11:53 pm

            So AGAIN Stephen, instead of repeated skirting the question, ANSWER the question (below) …………….. What justifies it?

            ——————————-

            Given the level of NJ Police “wages” (alone), which I believe are more likely to be higher (than lower) those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ……… what justifies the current structure wherein Police pensions have* a value upon retirement that is now 3.5 to 4 TIMES (rising to 5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) that of the comparable Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service …… and with all of the Police Officer’s pension contributions, accumulated to the date of their retirement (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that VERY rich pension ……… and then layer ON TOP OF THAT, a retire healthcare subsidy that may approach $500K that VERY VERY few in the Private Sector get any longer ?

            * via their pension “formula” and the pension’s “provisions”, such as a very young age at which an unreduced pension can commence

          • “Stephen,

            You’re trying to turn my comparison into something that it’s not.”

            Yes, sir. I am trying to make it meaningful, which it ain’t.

            You are trying to compare a NJ public safety employee to a non-safety private sector employee who you ASSUME to have “no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ………”

            Circular reasoning. By assuming the factors going in, you can guarantee any outcome you want. If your aim is to use this as evidence to reduce the pensions of police, tell it to dah judge. He/she will tell you the same thing Douglas says…

            Show. Me. The. Data. Assumptions are not evidence.

            Josh Rauh, and others, say “Attempting to benchmark the compensation of, say, public safety officials to private sector employees is obviously problematic.”

            Not problematic for Mr. Love, apparently. Just assume it away.

            Josh Rauh’s statement was not just about police…
            “I am, however, skeptical that comparability of individual and job characteristics in the public and private sector has been or really can ever be achieved.”

            Comparison of public/private wages and compensation is just not as simple as you would like.

            Comparing just non-safety employees is problematic. The GAO compared five studies by professional economists and got five wildly different conclusions.

            https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-12-564

            So, excusez-moi if I don’t accede to your self proclaimed “order of magnitude” knowledge.

            Yes, I know you still say your demonstrations just compare pensions, which are excessive in the public-sector.

            I still say it is invalid to compare pensions outside the context of total compensation.

            Don’t be invalid.

          • Earth to Mr. Douglas:

            Chill, Stephen. It’s 3 AM in New Jersey.

            Give it a rest.

          • Sorry…

            LOL

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 1:39 pm

            Quoting Stephen Douglas ……………….

            “You are trying to compare a NJ public safety employee to a non-safety private sector employee who you ASSUME to have “no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ………””

            Ridiculous.

            It has been well publicized, Police Officers (and ESPECIALLY applicable to the 95++% of NJ that has VERY little violent crime) are not even on the BLS list of the most dangerous occupations, with many far LOWER paying occupations such as roofer, construction worker, farmer, truck driver, etc. being far MORE dangerous.

            Police Officers are not geniuses. There are WITHOUT QUESTION, many Private Sector workers who make VERY similar “wages” as Police Officers and who (even though in a different field) have equal or greater education, experience, skills, and knowledge, many of whom are in jobs with no less risk.

            There is zero reason for the Police Officer’s pension (AND benefits) to be more than VERY marginally greater than that of the(COMPARABLE) Private Sector worker I described above. And if NJ Taxpayers (in non-Public-Sector-worker-familys) were asked the question as how much greater Police pensions should be than those granted a COMPARABLE Private Sector worker, some would say 10%, some would say 25%, a small percentage would say 50%, but nobody would suggest anything even remotely close to the situation in NJ RIGHT NOW …… Police pensions 3.5 to 4 TIMES (rising to 5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) greater in value upon retirement.

            ——————————————–

            Your refusal to acknowledge the outrageousness to the current structure does not lessen it.

          • I forgot. You are an order of magnitude smarter.

            Than anyone, apparently.

            Do you not agree that police should retire somewhat earlier than non-safety employees? It is debatable, for sure, fiercely debatable, sometimes, but, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is a long-standing practice, and not just in this country. And it is expensive, no doubt. Doesn’t take a math whiz to figure that if you have two separate workers earning equal wages, even if they retire with the same pension. (It’s my assumption now, so I say they each have FAS of $100,000 and pension of $65,000.)

            If our LEO can retire at 50, and lives to be 80, he has 30 years to pay into his pension and 30 years to draw it out.

            Our non safety worker may retire at 55 with the same pension. He pays in for 35 years and only draws for 25. That alone is a big advantage to the LEO,

            But…

            No matter how you piss and moan, those workers are not equal. Bedroom communities aside, education, knowledge, and risk go only so far. Strap on a gun. Break up a bar fight or domestic dispute. Successfully arrest and convict a psycho felon, then spend the rest of you career/life wondering if he will come back for revenge. Your uniform is a target. Kill or be killed, as they say, an officer makes a split second decision on adrenaline that twelve jurors may take two days to calmly decide whether said officer should be punished. No problem? No problem for you, that officer can be replaced with a GED applicant… in your world.

            ” risk, experience, education, skills, and knowledge”… add responsibility. Put it in all caps.

            “some would say 10%, some would say 25%, a small percentage would say 50%”?

            As El gaupo says…
            “Your duly elected representatives feel otherwise.”

            Perhaps they don’t have your “order of magnitude”, but they do have the responsibility to maintain a well qualified police force.

            Your constant copy/paste is solely for inflammatory purposes. You “say” it doesn’t matter what FAS you use, but always fall back on $150,000. That is not typical, even for NJ. Especially if you are talking about patrol cops, not the upper echelon.

            And “RIGHT NOW …… Police pensions 3.5 to 4 TIMES (rising to 5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) greater in value upon retirement.”

            Is much more inflammatory than stating that, in New Jersey, typical patrol officers earn an average of $80,000 a year, and typically retire with a final average salary of $100,000, at age 52, with a $65,000 pension.

            Some people say that it is invalid to consider pensions outside the context of total compensation.

            I believe, of those two paragraphs above, even if they were both true, the first would cause a furor in many taxpayers. The second… not so much.

            Because… you are comparing ONLY the pensions.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 5:17 pm

            Quoting Stephen Douglas ………… “I forgot. You are an order of magnitude smarter. Than anyone, apparently. ”

            Lying again, or extremely exaggerating ? It’s quite a habit for you.

            My exact statement to you (quite a bit narrower than yours) was …

            “I know more about pensions than you by an order of magnitude….. not boorish , not insulting, and yes, just my “opinion”.”

            ————————-

            And the rest of your comment? The same tired and old BS ……….. you refusal to acknowledge that when comparing NJ Police to COMPARABLE Private Sector workers,. the Police pension is 3.5 to 4 TIMES (5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) greater in value upon retirement ….. and there is simply ZERO justification for it (or anything even remotely close to it).

          • Because… you are comparing ONLY the pensions.

            Your comparison is invalid and misleading. The math is not worth proving or disproving.

            The logic is pass/fail. And you failed.

            You have proved, to your satisfaction, that the public pension is greater. I never denied the public pension is greater (in some cases).

            You claim, ipso facto, that because the pension is greater, even MULTIPLES greater, it is excessive, even LUDICROUSLY excessive.

            Moderation says, as evidenced by the data compiled by Andrew Biggs, and others, that there are in fact many cases where the public pension is greater, but total compensation is less, than the private sector. There are many cases, in fact, most cases, where the private sector worker has NO pension, and still earns a higher total compensation than said public worker.

            With your order of magnitude you have apparently stumbled upon fact in search of a meaning. Congratulations, you fell for it. If nothing else, it gives you a chance to keep repeating the $150,000 figure.

            Fair enough. It gives me a chance to respond.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 8:02 pm

            Quoting Stephen ………….. “Because… you are comparing ONLY the pensions.”

            When Police “wages” are equal to or greater than COMPARABLE Private Sector workers …. as they OFTEN are …… is appropriate to compare just PENSIONS., and when doing so, NJ Police pensions are 3.5 to 4 TIMES (rising to 5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) greater in value upon retirement.

            No matter how many time, that REMAINS the PROPER comparison and RELATIONSHIP.
            ——————–

            NJ’s Taxpayers should simply find a way to refuse to pay for this thievery, and here’s a statrt…………. for every $1 in increased pensions and benefits that result from Senate bill S5, the Police Retiree healthcare subsidy should be reduced by $1 PLUS a bit more …. as a penalty for being “moochers”.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 10:36 pm

            “Attempting to benchmark the compensation of, say, public safety officials to private sector employees is obviously problematic.”

            “since there is no real private sector comparison to police work, the only proper way to value it is what can be reasonably negotiated.”

            You keep repeating this “COMPARABLE Private Sector workers…” stuff. What the experts are telling you is there is no easily definable comparable private sector work.

            Another bad day at the office. I HATE Mondays.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 10:42 pm

            Stephen,

            You know being a “moocher” yourself” doesn’t mean you have to support the “moochers” that follow you. In fact, supporting the newer crop of “moochers” may lead to the undoing of your own pension.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 11:19 pm

            I’m good, thanks. I can call them like I see them.

            Moderation, it’s not just a name, it’s a way of life

  4. Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2018 at 9:43 pm

    Of course my above pitch was COLA reinstatement in exchange for a minimum retirement age.

    Reply

    • Posted by El gaupoi on March 23, 2018 at 12:37 am

      Look, you will have 5 management appointees and 7 union ones. Outside of cola u need 8 to give a benifit or reduction.
      You will get 5 votes for min retirement age. Then you will get the retired guy voting for it and 2 other older but close to retiring age guys from the pd/fd to go along.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 1:10 am

        A benefit enhancement is so ENORMOUSLY valuable, I can EASILY envision one of the Govenor’s appointees being BRIBED (with real cash under the table) to go along with the Union votes.

        There is ZERO (yes ZERO) justification to allow anyone other than the NJ Legislature to transparently approve ANY pension enhancement or employee contribution reduction…………… and MUCH better would be to require an affirmative Taxpayer vote to do so.

        You CANNOT be trusted.

        Reply

  5. […] « S5 Votes on Monday […]

    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: