Central States Lobbying

The bailout committee has been silent for months waiting for a Democratic Congress to come in but that does not mean Central States has not been telling their unions to get some coverage:
.

.

The Road Carriers Local 707 Pension fund was 12.91% funded as of September 1, 2013. Their MPRA application was denied and they went broke in 2017 with retirees taking, on average, a 60% cut with PBGC ‘loans’ picking up 75% of those reduced benefits.

What does this augur for the Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Plan?

By their own estimate the insolvency date is January, 2025 which, considering that the fund will now be investing “in low-risk bonds and cash-like holdings” and based on the most recent 5500 data, seems a bit optimistic.

105 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by El Gaupo on October 31, 2018 at 11:01 pm

    Interesting article in Forbes magazine on oct 30
    “The Dangerous Consequence of cutting public safety pensions”. Google it and Read it TL and then tell me that I’m full of crap when I say you’ll lose guys left and right without a decent pension. It is very time consuming and expensive to train police officers. And not very good for a town when they lose a qualified one because of compensation issues. You can talk all you want about 4X private sector pensions etc. maybe that is what it takes to have a great police force. Palm beach found out the hard way. Lost tons of guys when they went to a DC plan. So much so that they brought back the DB plan. Give me a good reason why that won’t happen here? Politicians #1 job is to provide a safe community for their constituents to live in. Above all else.

    Reply

    • Posted by El Gaupo on October 31, 2018 at 11:02 pm

      And this is Forbes magazine!!! Not NJ cops or some other pro union/police publication. The canary in the coal mine.

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 31, 2018 at 11:30 pm

      Quoting …………….

      ““The Dangerous Consequence of cutting public safety pensions”. Google it and Read it TL and then tell me that I’m full of crap when I say you’ll lose guys left and right without a decent pension.”

      What a load of crap………… Sure, WHILE there are OTHER Police Dep’t that still offer them to NEW workers, the first few Dept’s ending DB Plans for new workers will have hiring difficulties, but EVENTUALLY NO newPolice Officers will get DB Plans ANYWHERE (and the SOONER THE BETTER for Taxpayers) ……….. because being ALWAYS ludicrously generous, they are ALSO ludicrously COSTLY.

      The vast majority of Private Sector Corporations that offered them ………… most often with a “generosity” level 1/4 (or less) the value of the TYPICAL Police DB Plan ………………. have FROZEN them (and not for just NEW workers, but for the FUTURE service of all CURRENT workers) because they are just TOO DAMN COSTLY !
      ——————————–

      When NOBODY offers DB pensions, what are they going to do ……….. just REFUSE to work ? Sure, the average Cop (I Q=104 nationally …. Google it !) will opt to become a brain surgeon instead ………. lol

      Reply

      • Posted by El Gaupo on October 31, 2018 at 11:47 pm

        Uh…did you read the article?? How can you honestly say that you would have the same level of talent applying for the job (see teachers in red states) if the DB plan was eliminated? Yes you had transfers, but you also had early retirements galore. What happened when they froze/capped superintendents pay here? That’s right sweetie, they went to NY, didn’t take the positions etc. however you want to slice it school boards had so much trouble finding qualified folks that they rescinded the law and got rid of the cap!! Same would happen with police. You have no evidence to back up your position, so you go to YOUR old standby— attack what you perceive to be the inadequate intelligence of public sector employees. I.e the light bulb changer and IQ comments. (The IQ includes all the red states where they already can’t find qualified cops so they hire guys who barely finished high school cause they won’t oay them enough and most of the populace there has lower IQ). If you broke it down state by state, cops would probably be at least average and in most cases higher. Who is smarter TL, the guy who collects the six figure pension or the lady who bitches about it every day? Admit it, ya got NO rebuttal to this article in Forbes(not a pro union magazine by any stretch) NONE!!!! So you’re next play is insult, because you feel backed into a corner and you know your wrong!!! You’re all alone here. (Except for Stanley—and you can have him). This article is reason #1 why you won’t see any changes for the boys in blue. And rightfully so.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 1, 2018 at 12:08 am

          Heck, I really don’t see a lot of “talent” in those now working for local police…… and WITHOUT DOUBT nowhere even REMOTELY near the VERY VERY high level that might justify the ridiculously generous compensation (wages + pensions + benefits) in NJ.

          ————————————-

          ALL of the School Superintendents who replaced those who left were VERY competent (but likely less familiar with the peculiarities of a District new to them …. takes some time to get up to speed). The problem In NJ was that there ARE a few Superintendent with STELLAR records of achievement…….. and the wealthier towns started a bidding war raising their pay to ridiculous levels CAUSING the problem, which is why the Cap was instituted.

          Such bidding wars should be left to Sports superstars. It doesn’t belong in the Public Sector arena, even where a town can “afford it” BECAUSE those with the authority to make such HIRING decisions MOST OFTEN don’t give a crap what cost-conscious Taxpayer’s think.

          And the only reason the law was rescinded was because NJ’s Governor became the Public Sector Union-beholden, ass-licking Murphy.

          —————————————–

          Quoting …………………

          “If you broke it down state by state, cops would probably be at least average and in most cases higher.”

          Ok, so WHAT Private Sector occupations typically filled by persons …. of “average” intelligence ………. make anywhere even remotely near what we (the Taxpayers) are now forced to pay NJ Police ?

          Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 31, 2018 at 11:48 pm

      And P.S El gaupo,

      The Article you are referring to is NOT WRITTENT by a Forbes Staff member, but by Diane Oakley a “Contributor” ……….. meaning someone who Forbes has agreed to accept articles from (likely paid a small fee of course) when they have space to fill.

      And Ms. Oakley’s BIO (after the article says)………………

      “I am the executive director of the National Institute on Retirement Security, a non-partisan research non-profit in Washington, D.C. ”

      Translation ………… NIRS is a mouthpiece for the Public Sector Unions ……. hardly and unbiased source of information.

      Reply

      • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 7:08 am

        We will agree to disagree on ALL of the points that you have made.
        That article about a palm beach, retention issues in the new Camden county PD(actually not so new anymore and still having retention issues), red state teacher strikes and the NJ super cap being rescinded all things should not have happened in your world of light bulb changers. Your rebuttal is not accurate by any metric. Of course almost all cops are not brain surgeons. Neither all folks in finance(or whatever it is that you claim to do). Dumb point. And you honestly have absolutely no ideas what the day to day requirements and training are of even the cops in your local town. None. You act as if they got rid of all cops we would be on the bread line. And yet you think your smarter than me, or the average cop. You truly are a jealous, pompous ass. I post an article and you insult. Proof that you are indeed wrong. And it wouldn’t be the first time on this blog you were.
        You call me the epitome of greed. However, your ilk has done more damage to society than mine.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 1, 2018 at 11:52 am

          No matter how dug in your are in you beliefs, the now ludicrously level of compensations (wages + pensions + benefits) for Police (and with few exceptions, all other Public Sector workers) is not necessary to attract and retain a qualified workforce, is not fair to Taxpayers who pay for 85% to 90% of the total cost of your pensions & benefits, and is clearly unaffordable/unsustainable.

          Your long-fed entitlement mentality is a difficult thing to overcome.

          Reply

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 12:33 pm

            I feel no more entitled than you do dear…you feel entitled to decide what I should make. Fact is your not. Sorry. That’s why you resort to personal insults (on public employees, and me personally) I.e the epitome of greed. Hah. Such hypocrites.

          • TL is correct, PS pensions are a fraud.

        • Posted by MJ on November 1, 2018 at 4:51 pm

          El Gaupo, may I ask why you appear to have a problem with PS workers including police, saving for and taking responsibility for their own retirements just as everyone else does. I agree that towns and municipalities need to pay a living wage to cops and teachers but with the generous wages (after being in the job for awhile and making the next grade), generous health benefits, job security, generous sick time, plus cops are not having SS deducted from their paychecks…..so may I ask what you have against cops, teachers, etc saving for and planning for their own retirements?

          Now I have always maintained that the cops in Phila., Newark, Camden and the like deserve every penny they get including a pension

          I’d like to hear your thoughts.

          Reply

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 7:14 pm

            Let me first say that I do in fact put into a 457 plan at work. No match. Fine cause we get pension. And I also put into a Roth for me and my spouse.
            You are also correct that it takes a while to reach top pay or make rank. Our town is 14 years. Was 6 when I got hired. Hard to wait to age 40 to make top pay of your hired at 26.
            The health insurance is excellent. My wife is in the medical billing industry and her office loves the nj shbp. I also pay over $12,000 a year for them. Not chump change. I also have a Choi w between that great plan or a real shitty one. I will get them for fully paid for when I retire but in exchange no new hires will get retirement health insurance.
            Sick time is 12 days a year and we can cash them in at half pay at year end or career end. We also do NOT have short term disability. If i get hurt off the job I must use those days or not get paid.
            We also don’t get SS, hence the reason in part for a higher pension benifit.
            With all due respect MJ, (I respect your views. You are not just a blowhard like you know who) you would not be so quick to say after 20 or so years on the job—yeah your right take the pension away that I have been counting on all these years. Prospective changes I not opposed too. Not for guys about to pull the plug.
            Job security is relative. I don’t want to lose my job cause the mayors buddy needs a job and I hope you would not want me to lose it either without cause. That security is in place to prevent politicians from destroying families of police officers on a whim. I am in favor of sick time reform and disability pension reform without a doubt.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 1, 2018 at 11:04 pm

            El gaupo,

            Mind if I comment on what you just stated ?
            ——————————

            (1) Quoting …… “I also pay over $12,000 a year for them. Not chump change.”

            What financially MATTERS to Taxpayers (and by comparison with what they typically get in healthcare subsidies from their employers) is not what YOU contribute but what the TAXPAYERS must contribute towards the cost of your healthcare.

            The Total COST of Family coverage in the Private Sector is now about $25K/yr with the employee contributing about 30% (or 0.3x$25K =$7,500/yr). The employer is contributing the balance of ($25k-$7.5K) = $17.5K.

            Because your (Public Sector) healthcare benefits are WAY richer than those typically offered by in the Private Sector, the Total COST of Family coverage in the PUBLIC Sector is now about $35K/yr. Being a higher-paid worker, you pay larger % of the total cost than many other workers (that being the $12,000 you mentioned). Which means that the Taxpayers are contributing $35k-$12K= $23k/yr vs the $17K/yr subsidy that the Private Sector workers gets.

            Why are YOU “entitled” to any greater SUBSIDY from YOUR employer (the Taxpayers) than what Private Sector workers typically get from THEIR employers ?

            You aren’t. If you want coverage that is “richer” than that typically granted the Taxpayers, YOU (NOT the Taxpayers) should pay for 100% of incremental cost .

            (2) Quoting ……………. “I will get them for fully paid for when I retire but in exchange no new hires will get retirement health insurance.”

            When Private Sector Corporations change retiree healthcare benefits they almost NEVER restrict it to ONLY new employees. Sometime the more generous Corporations won’t change it for those within say 5 years of retirement age.

            Changes in the PUBLIC Sector ……… noting that it’s the Taxpayers, NOT the workers that pay more most (or all) of the cost of retiree healthcare in NJ ………. should be NO DIFFERENT, and there is ZERO justification for keeping retiree healthcare benefits in place for those with ONLY 5, 10, 15, or perhaps even 20 years of service………… on the Taxpayers’ dime.

            (3) Quoting …………….. “Sick time is 12 days a year and we can cash them in at half pay at year end or career end. ”

            I know of no Private Sector Corporation ANYWHERE in the USA (and I work with AMNY such Corporations) that allows its employees to accumulate ANY sick days to career-end for payout (at ANY %). In fact, with respect to “sick days”, in MOST companies it’s reset at the beginning of each year at zero, even if you used none in the prior year. Some let you carry them over for ONE year (for USE, if needed, but never for cashout).

            Why SHOULD YOU get more than that typically granted those (the Taxpayers) who are called upon to pay for YOUR benefits ? What make YOU so “special” ?

            (4) Quoting ……………… “We also don’t get SS, hence the reason in part for a higher pension benifit.”

            (a) You don’t get SS, but you ALSO don’t contribute, and as most know, for higher-paid workers (which certainly includes NJ Police), SS is a VERY lousy return on investment. The upshot is that you BENEFIT by NOT having to participate in SS ………. so can the BS.

            (b) And no, not getting SS is NOT even remotely justification to grant Police the Ludicrously excessive benefits that you get today..……. a MAJOR contributing factor being the COLLUSION between your Union/Association and our Elected Officials, with the former BUYING the favorable votes of the later with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions and election support. Taxpayers have more than sufficient justification to RENEGE on the 50+% (75% for Police) share of such ludicrously excessive pension (ADN benefit) “promises” that assuredly would NOT have been made in the absence of that COLLUSION

            (5) Quoting ……………. “Prospective changes I not opposed too”

            With about 2 years to go to retirement (per your commentary), how “nice” of you. Aren’t you throwing your shorter-service Brothers-In-Blue” under the bus”. Why shouldn’t YOU have to GIVE-BACK a large share of those never-justifiable/ludicrously-excessive pension & benefits that YOU have been promised …………. ESPECIALLY because to the extent that YOU share in the financial burden, the magnitude of the financial burden that would need to be imposed on those “shorter-service” Officers that follow you can be lowered.

            (6) Quoting …………… “Job security is relative. I don’t want to lose my job cause the mayors buddy needs a job and I hope you would not want me to lose it either without cause.”

            I don’t disagree with that at all. BUT …………. Police Associations are WAY to extreme in protecting the incompetent and sometime even those who they have substantive evidence to believe that they are dangerous and should NOT be Police Officers.
            ————————————————————-
            ————————————————————-
            Bottom line ……………… Mr. Bury has informed/intelligent readers that can’t be BS’ed by disingenuous commentary.

        • Posted by MJ on November 3, 2018 at 6:12 am

          El Gaupo, didn’t Stanley suggest that we get rid of most of the cops and police our own neighborhoods?? Or did I read something like that somewhere else?
          That way, cities and municipalities would safe lots of money, thus eliminating any retention or hiring issues 🙂

          IDK……

          Reply

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 6, 2018 at 2:56 am

            Haha. Yes he did say that. All cops dismissed and we “look out for neighbors”. I just imagine how that would go.
            If all me men were angels, that may actually work.

    • Posted by Stanley on November 1, 2018 at 11:17 am

      @Constable You should know this but I remind you that when people quit smoking they go through terrible withdrawal agony. Is that an argument for continuing to smoke? America has been living far beyond its means including how much they pay our boys in blue. I say we discontinue the sickness of overpaying a contingent here and there.

      Constable, everyone believes that his work is exceptionally difficult and requires exceptional abilities. Anyone with mid level intelligence can learn the work of police officer. Won’t you join in our effort to add rationality to how we compute police officer salary and benefit schedules? How about if I say please?

      Reply

      • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 12:35 pm

        So your comparing smoking cessation to my paycheck? You would fight hard to keep your salary and bennies at the highest possible level too. Hypocrite. And btw, since they haven’t really taught anything worthwhile in the last 100 years, don’t you think that cigarettes are not dangerous to your health? Since your stuck in 1920 my friend.

        Reply

        • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 12:37 pm

          You guys both whine and cry and comment on here, but you do nothing to change it. Like run for office. My guess is you are both such keyboard heros that no one really likes you too much to vote you in to any meaningful office. Go ahead TL. Run in the 4x better platform. See where that gets you.

          Reply

          • Posted by Stanley on November 1, 2018 at 6:33 pm

            Constable, you can’t blame a guy for having a little fun. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that a market economy that well balances supply and demand including labor offered for sale with offers to buy serves all who participate. Serves them very well. Who knows, if your pay and benefits more closely matched supply and demand, you might actually look around for something more suited for your high level of ability. Instead drawing the big bucks leaning on the ol’ shovel handle.

            As far as remedying the situation goes, it won’t happen. We can only look out for el numero uno the best we can and hope that when we are all on the ground kicking and screaming we aren’t close to the real rubble.

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 7:18 pm

            Very true. Very true. However you did NOT look out for numero uno when you CHOSE to serve this great country where folks can agree to disagree. I commend you for that. Many cops get into law enforcement for the same reason.

          • Posted by PS Drone on November 1, 2018 at 8:29 pm

            El Gaupo – I believe that LEO active compensation should fully reflect current combat conditions. So I generally have no problem with how much you and your brother officers make as currently active police. My problem is actuarial. A pension is supposed to be one leg of a three-legged support matrix: PERSONAL savings, SS and pension. Now if you are not covered by SS, then the pension has to cover both. But NOT to be received immediately after 20, 25 or 30 years of service and not at 70% to 90% of final year’s salary. It is retirement, not a lottery winning. That is why public sector employees draw such ire on this board. Not because of jealousy but because of concern about financial profligacy spawned by greedy unions and cooperative corrupt politicians.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 1, 2018 at 11:55 pm

            Ps Drone,

            Your logic is faulty when you say …………… “Now if you are not covered by SS, then the pension has to cover both.”

            That fails to account for the fact that El gaupo is not CONTRIBUTING to SS. At the VERY least (even BEFIRE we rightfully the ludicrous “richness” and hence COST of his promised pension AND benefits), we SHOULD ASSUME that he has saved and invested the 6.2% of his wages in every year of his career and assume that the accumulated sum IS indeed available to meet retirement needs ……. whether he actually DID SO is irrelevant. Doing other wise is unfair to taxpayers because THEY must indeed contribute that 6.2% annually.

            And the above applies REGARDLESS of the other 2 big/legitimate “problems” that you identified”

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 10:22 am

            TL. May God are you delusional. Even PS Drone is somewhat understanding as to an officers compensation package. I pay 10% into my pensions. My employer pays an average of 12%-15%. For a while it was nothing. (Only 2 years). That’s why Pfrs is in much better shape. Anyway, if I had paid into SS with my employer and my pension was lessened as a result. Both my and my employer pension contributions would go down. My employer pays a good deal into my pension, yes, however the amount they pay into a 457 match and SS equals zero!! You forget that. Sick pay: If I take a sick day they pay 1.5 X that amount to a guy on overtime. We can cash in for half pay because the towns want to limit “mental health days” that some folks take.
            MJ asked me for my take on things NOT you. Yet you answered with the same hackneyed bullet points. You are by far and away the most unreasonable person on here. Like I’m sure with 1.5-6.5 years to go, you’d be so quick to take food off of your kids plates and college funds to placate newer officers. That is the TOWNS job to see that they are fairly compensated in order to retain them. You ignore every single price of evidence presented to you. You’re a fraud. Lol. Never a nice thing to say, unless it is in complete agreement with your warped way of thinking. I couldn’t imagine you have dependents that you need to provide for. You wouldn’t be so willing to judge me for being the “epitome of greed”. lol. Beleive me I have been called much worse in my career. But I’ve never been called that. Haha. Only by you!!!
            I bet you can make cream sour just by looking at it. Lol.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2018 at 11:08 am

            Quoting ……………….

            “I pay 10% into my pensions. My employer pays an average of 12%-15%.”

            A level-annual total contribution of 10%+13.5% (using the midpoint of the noted range) = 23.5% of pay is woefully inadequate to fully fund your ludicrously excessive Police pension. A 65%-of-pay pension beginning in the mid-low 50s, the age at MOST officers retire today, would cost if valued using PROPER assumptions and methodology (similar to those required by Private Sector Plans or what Moody’s now uses to evaluate the health of pension Plans ……. NOT the absurdly optimistic ones used by Public Sector pensions), AND assuming the COLAs are NOT reinstated, about 45%-of pay ………. 45%-23.5%=21.5% SHORT of the Total being contributed today. And ALL of that 21.5% SHORTFALL is the responsibility of Taxpayers.

            What on earth justifies binding Taxpayers to an obligation (your promised pension) which when PROPERLY valued requires a best-estimate level annual TAXPAYER contribution of 13.5%+21.5%= 35% of pay, when today, MOST Private Sector workers get no more than their employER-paid-for share of the total SS contribution (6.2% of pay) plus Typically about 3%-of-pay into a 401K Plan ?

            And ON TOP OF that granting you FREE retiree healthcare benefits starting at an age in the mid-early 50s, with a total/expected premium cost totalling over $400,000 …………. ALL paid for by the Taxpayers, VERY VERY few of whom get ANY (yes ANY) employer-sponsored retiree healthcare benefits today.

            ————————–

            And WOW, all the lame “excuses” and twisted logic that follows in your comment in an attempt to justify some of crazy perks ……………
            ————————–
            I’m not unreasonable. I’m informed, intelligent, and don’t buy into all the BS responses.

    • You put an employment contract on ANY employee you PAY to train. If they QUIT within 5 years they pay back the training, pro-rated. Many LEagencies do it. The laughable notion that you need to pay $100K++ pensions at age 50 to GED cops who have an unskilled/semi-skilled job is laughable. Same with FF.

      Reply

      • Posted by El Gaupo on November 1, 2018 at 4:48 pm

        Evidence doesn’t back up your claim in areas that have high cost of living. No one will sign that agreement. Lol. I think I hear your mom calling from upstairs. Haha. Another keyboard loser

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 1, 2018 at 11:57 pm

          They sure would “sign the agreement” if all the towns smartened up and NOBODY offered a better deal.

          Reply

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 10:42 am

            Evidence to back up the statement? Or just the usual nonsense and hate filled venom you spew??
            Teachers majors are way down. That’s a fact, Jack. What makes you think that college kids would want to major in criminal justice if the compensation package offered by all the “smartened up” towns was what you say??
            Back it up w evidence.
            At least these other guys appear to have families and can understand the dynamic for wanting to have the compensation package that you have not be diminished.
            Personally, I think you need to go on a Nice long vacation. You need it. I know I do.

        • Evidence doesn’t back up your claim in areas that have high cost of living. No one will sign that agreement. Lol. I think I hear your mom calling from upstairs. Haha. Another keyboard loser.
          LAPD has had this employment contract for decades. Try again GED Wonder. A legend in your own mind.

          Reply

    • Posted by geo8rge on November 2, 2018 at 10:41 am

      “The Dangerous Consequence of cutting public safety pensions”. Google it and Read it TL and then tell me that I’m full of crap when I say you’ll lose guys left and right without a decent pension.”

      The unfunded liability is mostly owed to retired or near retirement active employees. There are no consequences for cutting pay and benefits to retired persons beyond losing votes and maybe lawsuits. The problem is the current system shortchanges working new hires in favor of nonworking retirees.

      Reply

      • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 10:45 am

        Maybe so. But the idea is that the new workers have decades to adjust. I.e find new employment, pursue a new career, get a second job etc. those options aren’t nearly as feasible for someone in their sixties.

        Reply

        • Posted by MJ on November 5, 2018 at 5:39 pm

          I hardly consider 20 years as decades….they have years to adjust so that would be 2 decades unless more than 20 years are required before retirement eligibility

          Reply

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 6, 2018 at 3:06 am

            25 is the minimum. The 20 and out option is only for officers hired prior to 1/18/00 and is very rarely used by those who qualify anyway as it provides for a much lesser benifit.

  2. Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 1, 2018 at 1:14 pm

    LOL. Has anyone ever seen Tough Love and junior Seesaw in the same room? Are they the same person? Check those avatars!

    “There are hundreds of applicants for every GED LEO opening. 90 percent of the people could do the job.”

    No, junior. 90% can’t do the job, and won’t, if the pay doesn’t make it worthwhile. Most cops don’t make nearly as much as El gaupo. That’s the way it works with all occupations. No, TL, you don’t get to decide. That’s up to the agency that is actually responsible (to the taxpayers) for providing security in each individual jurisdiction.

    https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-to-do-about-police-retention-problems-974770

    Personally, I wouldn’t take an LEO or firefighter job at any pay, and I am thankful for those who do.

    Put teachers on that list, too. People who think it’s easy have never tried it.

    Reply

    • Oh brother…. Stop goofing off….Get back to work with your co-workers, stop posting from work. Do your job… 😦

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2018 at 12:00 am

      Quoting SD/Earth……………….

      “That’s up to the agency that is actually responsible (to the taxpayers) for providing security in each individual jurisdiction.”

      No, ALL compensation is ultimately set by “politicians”…….. which IS of course the problem. The Unions BUY their generosity with Bribes disguised as campaign contributions.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Earth on November 1, 2018 at 1:21 pm

    Earth to Douglas:

    How many people have tried replacing a lamp 35 feet above freeway traffic, or working a high voltage lighting circuit in the rain? It’s not for everyone.

    Of course, the pay ain’t that great either.

    Reply

  4. Posted by MJ on November 2, 2018 at 6:56 am

    El gaupo, I didn’t mean to start an argument between you and TL I was simply asking the question as to why you think you should not have to properly plan for your own retirement. I see that you stated that you do contribute extra into a retirement account so I’ll guess that you use the funds that are NOT deducted for SS.

    I get it, you’ve been there for many years and this is what you and the wife are expecting in your retirement years. However, unless I missed it I didn’t read where you addressed the issue of others having the bulk of responsibility to pay for your pension and generous health benefits……….

    I think it’s a fair question considering that most people, even other public workers, will get nowhere near what you receive………just asking as I like to hear the viewpoints of all parties not just a select few

    Reply

    • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 11:10 am

      I think $12,000 is lot of money to pay for health insurance every year. If there was a cheaper decent plan I would take it. We have the really good one or a HD 8000 plan that sucks and runs about $9500 a year. I don’t set the cost of these plans and most choose what is best to cover my family. When you factor in my towns pension contributions, it is fair to point out that they pay $0 into my 457 and $0 into SS for me. TL likes to point out the I’m saving 6.2% and I am. But my pension contribution would not need to be 10% is my pay if it was lessened to allow me into the Sas program. I could then use the difference to lessen the blow of paying into SS. She seems to not deal well with people who disagree with her. She does not seem to me to be the primary breadwinner in her family, if she indeed has dependants. If she did, I don’t think she would be calling me “the epitome of greed” and expect me to take compensation cuts for new officers that the TOWN should be providing for.
      I’m also limited to 2% or less raises from here on out. Not so bad for me as I only have one more contract left but for a for a guy starting out, it is a different ballgame. She shouldn’t worry. The next generation of public employees will not enjoy a middle class lifestyle unless a spouse makes good coin. She is happy about that and then points the finger at me like it’s my fault. There are plenty of problems in a govt that is rife with abuse. For the most part, your suburban police forces are not one of them. Look at Camden county PD. They have had rentention problems since they were formed. She dismisses this and thinks that we are all born cops and will do the job no matter what. Lol.
      I’ve had enough of her and I like the idea of chilling w you on the beach with a bucket of brewskies better than listening to venom.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2018 at 11:16 am

        El gaupo,

        Did I “miss it”, or did you AGAIN dodge answering MJ’s question ………..

        “However, unless I missed it I didn’t read where you addressed the issue of others having the bulk of responsibility to pay for your pension and generous health benefits……….”

        Reply

      • Posted by MJ on November 3, 2018 at 8:20 am

        El Gaupo 12,000 a year for health benefits is a lot but not if you have minimal if any deductibles, 10.00 co pays for doctor visits, etc. 100% coverage for major medical (although being in LE I don’t have an issue with this one)

        As opposed to those paying the same or more per year through an employer and having 6,000 deductibles per family member, 50.00 co pays, co insurance payments for hospital, surgery etc.

        So in this sense I would say 12,000 a year for full family coverage is a relative statement depending on the fine print of your benefits……..

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2018 at 10:44 am

          See #(1) in my above comment time-stamped …….. November 1, 2018 at 11:04 pm ….. for a mathematical demonstration of why/how El gaupo’s healthcare benefit is “better” and MORE costly to Taxpayers than what they typically get from their employers …. even WITH him paying higher premiums.

          Reply

    • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 11:15 am

      I also pay for others retirement as well. Both thru my property taxes and when I use foods or services. When you and I go to the doctor, his bill that we pay includes money that will be used for his bennies and 401k contribution. Same with a bill at a local restaurant. Your bill for the food includes those costs. Well yes you can go to a different place to eat but it will be the same there. My boss just happens to be the municipal government. Still just a regular joe trying to do right by my family.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2018 at 5:45 pm

        More DIVERSION and GIBEISH.

        And repeating ……………………..
        —————————————————-

        Did I “miss it”, or did you AGAIN dodge answering MJ’s question ………..

        “However, unless I missed it I didn’t read where you addressed the issue of others having the bulk of responsibility to pay for your pension and generous health benefits……….”

        Reply

        • Posted by MJ on November 3, 2018 at 6:23 am

          TL…….it is true that those with secure retirement packages tend to spend more money on trips, restaurants, consumer based products, etc thus keeping people employed.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2018 at 10:52 am

            Sure it’s true, but if Public Sector pensions/benefits were LOWERED by 50%, with that 50% reduction resulting in an equal decrease in the dollar amount of taxes charged to a town’s residents, would those residents not have an equal INCREASE in net funds available for THEM to spend …………… “on trips, restaurants, consumer based products” ………. INSTEAD OF the Public Sector workers now granted excessive retirement packages ? And wouldn’t the net impact on the economy be at/near zero …….. while assuredly helping address a HUGE pension problem ?

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 4, 2018 at 12:50 am

            “secure retirement packages” also tend to even out business cycles. They are economic stabilizers, like Social Security and unemployment insurance. Without these stabilizers, recessions would go deeper, faster. You’re welcome.

            401(k) plans are actually destabilizing, because of their dependence on the market.

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227464548_The_macroeconomic_stabilisation_effects_of_Social_Security_and_401k_plans&ved=2ahUKEwiu3qqe9rneAhWvmOAKHfoaCPMQFjARegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1JQuJiwIUfE5Q4WztTvSc9&cshid=1541306689757

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2018 at 1:07 am

            Quoting Stephen Douglas…………….

            ““secure retirement packages” also tend to even out business cycles. They are economic stabilizers, like Social Security and unemployment insurance. Without these stabilizers, recessions would go deeper, faster …… ”

            What a load of self-interested BS. Nothing but MORE of your trying to JUSTIFY the unjustifiable ………. the ludicrously excessive pensions & benefits granted Public Sector works ……. with spacious arguments.

            ——————————–

            And, sorry MJ, if you DON’T like my calling out such OBVIOUS self-interested BS when I see it, then don’t read it.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm

            You say “self-interested BS”, Moderation* says “I don’t make up the answers, I look up the answers.”

            You say police and fire retire too early and are too expensive.

            Moderation says, hmm… Safety, and military employees, not just in NJ, not just in CA, but in every state and most, if not all OECD countries, retire earlier than most private sector workers. Safety workers, in fact, sometimes have a mandatory retirement age, which, since 1986, has been illegal for most occupations. I wonder why? We now know it’s not because they have a shorter lifespan, and die “five to ten years after retiring.” What’s up with that?

            The non-disability military retirement system has evolved since the late 1800s to meet four main
            goals.
             To keep the military forces of the United States young and vigorous and ensure
            promotion opportunities for younger members.
             To enable the armed forces to remain competitive with private-sector employers
            and the federal Civil Service.
             To provide a reserve pool of experienced military manpower that can be called
            upon in time of war or national emergency to augment active forces.
             To provide economic security for former members of the armed forces during
            their old age.

            Congressional Research Service
            Military Retirement:
            Background and Recent Developments
            Kristy N. Kamarck
            ——————————————-
            Y’all may agree to disagree with that, but try to come up with a better answer before you advocate increasing retirement age in NJ, while it is the norm everywhere else. (And yes, it is expensive.)

            Now, where were we?

            You may also disagree with the economists who say that programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, …and… Defined Benefit Pensions are stabilizers to the economy as a whole in recessionary as well as inflationary cycles, or that 401(k)s or IRAs are destabilizing, because they depend on current market fluctuations.

            But try to come up with something better than “Neener, Neener, Neener.” That’s so third grade. Are you …sure… you work in the financial sector?

            * Disclaimer… “Moderation” (S Moderation Douglas) may be the same as Stephen Douglas/Earth/Etc. Or maybe the avatars are lying.

          • Posted by Earth on November 4, 2018 at 2:12 pm

            Earth to Douglas:

            Was that another spacious argument?

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2018 at 2:51 pm

            SD/Earth ……………

            yaada, yaada, yaada …………….. just MORE attempt at EXCUSES to justify the unjustifiable.

          • LOL!

            ” just MORE attempt at EXCUSES to justify the unjustifiable.”

            You say potato, I say potahto…

            You say ” just MORE attempt at EXCUSES to justify the unjustifiable.” Moderation* says “I don’t make up the answers, I look up the answers.”

            “Neener, neener, neener” is not a relevant argument.

          • Maybe… ” we need a pause form this discussion, so how about an article about the EXTREME liar residing in the White House:”

            https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

            Not really relevant, but it’s cathartic.

    • El gaupo, I didn’t mean to start an argument between you and TL I was simply asking the question as to why you think you should not have to properly plan for your own retirement.
      Because El Dorko has that rare, highly contagious disease that affects all (and ONLY) public employees: “ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY”

      Reply

  5. Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2018 at 11:24 am

    You’re right MJ, we need a pause form this discussion, so how about an article about the EXTREME liar residing in the White House:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/donald-trump-lies/index.html

    Reply

    • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 1:08 pm

      See MJ. You didn’t ask for the pause. I did. But it would KILL her to ever say “your right El gaupo”.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2018 at 5:46 pm

        You’re WRONG El gaupo …………. no matter how hard you try, your ludicrously excessive pension & benefits can NEVER be “justified”.

        Reply

        • Posted by El Gaupo on November 2, 2018 at 9:49 pm

          I don’t need to justify them in your mind. You don’t get to decide my compensation, that includes my pension. Checkmate…game over. Move on babycake….

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2018 at 1:03 am

            And repeating ……………………..
            —————————————————-
            Did I “miss it”, or did you AGAIN dodge answering MJ’s question ………..

            “However, unless I missed it I didn’t read where you addressed the issue of others having the bulk of responsibility to pay for your pension and generous health benefits……….”
            Reply

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 3, 2018 at 1:55 pm

            Which question are you referring to? Is MJ asking about whether the cops should have a pension at all? Or whether the pension is just too high for …some… cops?

            MJ…
            “El Gaupo, may I ask why you appear to have a problem with PS workers including police, saving for and taking responsibility for their own retirements just as everyone else does.”

            MJ…
            “Now I have always maintained that the cops in Phila., Newark, Camden and the like deserve every penny they get including a pension”

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2018 at 5:31 pm

            MJ asked El gaupo ……………………

            ” I didn’t read where you addressed the issue of others having the bulk of responsibility to pay for your pension and generous health benefits……….”

            El gaupo doesn’t appear to want to answer that question.

          • TL @ 1:03 am

            And repeating ……………………..
            —————————————————-
            Did you ever address MJ’s comment………

            “Now I have always maintained that the cops in Phila., Newark, Camden and the like deserve every penny they get including a pension”

            Yes, we know your opinion on El gaupo, but what about Camden?

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2018 at 5:45 pm

            SD,

            Not sure Phily is a “crime-ridden City …… the Temple shooting was an anomaly by a nutcase (perhaps emboldened by Trump’s violence-endorsing rederick)

            Newark has a small minority of dangerous areas (especially at night) but MANY that are not (at all) …….. so should we give “more” ONLY to Policethat patrol the really bad areas? I’m sure ALL the Police would demand “me too” (even though NOT justified).

            I don’t know much about Camden NJ (in Southern NJ), but have read that it is indeed crime ridden ………. so the Police do deserve incremental compensation, but ONLY an incremental amount that reflect the incremental risk (with MORE than that likely ALREADY reflected in their VERY generous pensions & benefits……. because you measure the high-crime-associated-incremental amount from what their current total compensation justifiably SHOULD BE in the absence of high-crime, NOT what they actually get today, which is likely much higher). Of course measuring that increment would indeed be difficult, if doable at all possible with any degree of accuracy.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 5, 2018 at 7:08 pm

            Not the point, exactly. Did El guapo say his wages were around $150,000? So pension at 65 percent would be roughly $97,500?

            Median police pay in Bergen county seems to be about $135-140k still giving a pension over $87,000.

            Median police pay in Camden county, though, is roughly $85,000, (for officers with median service of 18 years) which would give pension of $55,000.

            Would we still call that excessive?

            https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/how_much_is_the_median_cop_salary_in_your_town.html
            ————————————————
            “It’s a phenomenon that’s been in place for a while, according to Joseph Hannon, a municipal arbitration lawyer at the firm Genova Burns.

            Wealthier communities usually have smaller police forces and enough money to afford highly-paid officers, even if those places do not see much crime.”
            ————————————————-
            How about it, MJ and TL. Or anyone… Even forgetting the crime rate for now, is $85,000/year with a $55,000 pension unreasonable?

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 6, 2018 at 2:11 am

            SD,

            If you are correctly comparing apples-to apples (certainly NOT clear) ……. that on a COMPARABLE-basis it’s $135K-$140K vs $85K average wages, that is indeed a BIG difference (and especially with the higher crime in Camden). E.g the COUNTY of Camden is NOT the same as the TOWN (City ?) of Camden which is the one with high-crime. And the Bergen COUNTY Police Force (a COUNTY Police force) has a wage-scale higher than those of the low-crime TOWNS …… and it would not be appropriate to compare Camden to a single (higgest-paid) outlier in Bergen County.

            IF your figures are true AND apples-to-apples (which I doubt)), the wages SHOULD BE increased commensurate with the “risk”, but STILL, the taxes assessed it’s residents must remain an amount that they can tolerate. And pension and benefits STILL deserve to be NO GREATER THAN what a comparably situated Private Sector worker would typically get if retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME (now higher) wages, and the SAME years of service.

    • Posted by MJ on November 3, 2018 at 6:20 am

      Sorry TL, I’m not a Trump hater….not a fan either but I’m just not going to hate everybody that you disagree with……and are we really to believe any news outlet…….hate, hate, hate, leads to more anger and resentment and at least I am not going there with you!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2018 at 10:58 am

        I hope we wind up with a split congress (1 House Dem and 1 House Rep) via the midterms.

        While many in BOTH parties are NUTS (and increasingly aggressive/brazened under Trump), at least both sides will know that they will FINALLY have to compromise if anything is to be accomplished ………..

        Reply

        • Posted by PS Drone on November 3, 2018 at 4:30 pm

          Which would mean they will accomplish nothing. Just what we need.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2018 at 5:28 pm

            Well it’s not working very well with both Houses under the Reps.

            And Dems holding both might well be worse …… with MORE Social PROGRAMS WE CAN’T AFFORD (ALA Bernie Sanders ideas)

          • Or tax cuts we can’t afford, which will “pay for themselves”.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2018 at 6:30 pm

            SD,

            Wow, another thing we AGREE on ……….. Trump’s tax cuts, almost all of which solely benefited ONLY business owners and the very wealthy were outrageous !

  6. Posted by MJ on November 4, 2018 at 8:45 am

    Stephen Douglas…..to answer your question, I don’t necessarily have a problem with cops getting pensions however I do feel that the current formulas are over the top and need to be reformed in order to sustain them………since cops do not have SS taken from their checks lots of extra money to save and invest as El Gaupo points out he puts into a retirement account (I’m guessing that’s where the extra money is coming from)

    I also think, and again just MHO, that bedroom cops and seashore town cops deserve no where near the pension and health benefits that urban and city cops deserve only because the nature of the job is so much different……little to no crime whatsoever in these small towns, petty stuff at best, etc. and yes I know because I researched many of these towns.

    As far as salaries, if you want to retain cops in any of these positions then a living wage must be paid according to cost of living in that particular area. Just no way around that as they have families, mortgages, car payments and bills to pay like most others.

    As far as health benefits, the 12,000 a year that El Gaupo says he pays into for a cadilac family plan is peanuts compared to what other same salaried private workers pay for a much crappier plan…….thats’ why I wanted to know the particulars of his plan, not to be nosy, but just to understand what he is paying for that he thinks is a lot of money…….not to mention he gets to keep those benefits for his wife and himself and possibly any eligible children upon his retirement

    Again, just MHO and thoughts………I like to clarify and I do appreciate El Gaupo’s willingness to share exactly what his town offers and pays for as opposed to assuming and guessing……

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2018 at 2:12 pm

      From El gaupo ‘s comments, he CLEARLY falls into the category of “bedroom community”, working in bucolic Northern NJ, and I agree with you that …………….

      “bedroom cops and seashore town cops deserve no where near the pension and health benefits that urban and city cops deserve only because the nature of the job is so much different”

      The current compensation (including pensions & benefits) is patently absurd and nothing but un unjustified financial rape of the Community’s Taxpayers.

      Reply

    • Do you agree with MJ then that:

      “Now I have always maintained that the cops in Phila., Newark, Camden and the like deserve every penny they get including a pension””

      The same formulas, I assume, but with much lower pensions due to the lower pay?

      Reply

      • Do you, TL?

        Do you agree with MJ on Camden cop pay?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2018 at 7:52 pm

          SD/EARTH,

          Pasting my response to a similar question above ………..

          ——————————

          SD,

          Not sure Phily is a “crime-ridden City …… the Temple shooting was an anomaly by a nutcase (perhaps emboldened by Trump’s violence-endorsing rederick)

          Newark has a small minority of dangerous areas (especially at night) but MANY that are not (at all) …….. so should we give “more” ONLY to Police that patrol the really bad areas? I’m sure ALL the Police would DEMAND “me too” (even though NOT justified).

          I don’t know much about Camden NJ (in Southern NJ), but have read that it is indeed crime-ridden ………. so the Police do deserve incremental compensation, but ONLY an incremental amount that reflect the incremental risk (with MORE than that likely ALREADY reflected in their VERY generous pensions & benefits……. BECUASE you measure the high-crime-associated-incremental amount FROM what their current total compensation justifiably SHOULD BE in the absence of high-crime, NOT what they actually get today, which is likely MUCH higher). Of course measuring that increment would indeed be difficult, if doable at all possible with any degree of accuracy.

          Reply

  7. Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 4, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    Thanks, MJ. TL is apparently worried the question was being ignored. But I see two questions.

    One is the amount of wages. I really don’t think it’s tied much to the stress or danger. Just like private companies, say an accounting firm. If one company is successful enough, they can outbid smaller firms to get the caliber of workers they want. Our local paper had a story about neighboring cities “pirating” experienced cops from lower paying valley cities. I don’t know how you could stop that practice, or if you would even want to. But it ends up with a big disparity in police pay. And with bigger pay comes bigger pensions.

    Don’t know what to say about healthcare. John has had several articles about the cost in NJ. Possibly highest in the nation? I believe costs are a lot lower in CA, partly because all public workers and retirees are in the same pool. Costs for elderly are basically subsidized by younger, and even those seem to be less than in NJ. What’s up with that? As for retiree healthcare, the cost to me was nothing, for dual coverage. And I think CA still pays less than NJ. “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated”?

    The other question was, why shouldn’t public workers be responsible for their own retirement and healthcare, just like (most) of the private sector? Let the experts argue that out. In the opinion of many, 401(k)s are just not working, not just for the individual, but for the economy as a whole. Another case where the chickens will come home to roost in the near future. My link above (12:50 am) is one of many discussing the stabilizing effect on the economy of DB pensions, and the destabilizing effect of 401(k)s. Ironically, if 401s were actually adequately funded for most people, the effect on the economy would be even more destabilizing.

    Face it, DB pensions, public or private, are deferred compensation. They equalize income and expenditure over the lifetime of the recipient, and that’s a good thing.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2018 at 2:21 pm

      I agree that 401K Plans (alone) are NOT working very well (for most workers …… especially for the lower income groups), but THAT issue should NOT be confused with a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE, unnecessarily overcompensating Public Sector workers (when measured by comparison to what similarly situated/comparable Private Sector workers get) by granting them greater Total Compensation ……. with the increment over those of comparable Private Sector workers almost always traceable to MUCH more generous (and hence MUCH more costly) DB pensions & benefits.

      Reply

    • Meh, not the point, in this instance.

      I searched this point because I have seen various other references to economic stabilization as per SS and other programs (including DB plans), on the macroeconomic system. I actually haven’t read the study, just the précis. I hope to look at some of the other articles on this point. We are talking here not about personal retirements, but about reducing the highs and lows of recessionary cycles. (Which, we hope, is better for all workers, because it reduces unemployment.)

      But yes, the inadequacy of 401(k) and IRA products (for most workers …… especially for the lower income groups) is an additional problem. Face it, most lower income groups have no IRAs, and most middle class IRAs are inadequate. Can’t remember where I read the phrase… “401(k)s work best for those with incomes over $200,000. But then, almost everything works best for those with incomes over $200,000.”

      Conclusion:
      “Moreover, we find that Social Security has a net negative effect on household consumption, while 401(k) retirement accounts seem to work in the opposite way. This effect stabilises consumption levels in times of expansion and increases them in recessions. Nonetheless, the destabilising effect of 401(k) plans on consumption is twice as strong as the one attributed to Social Security.These results suggest that Social Security acts as an automatic stabiliser, as do DB plans, disability insurance, unemployment compensation, Medicare and federal income taxes. On the other hand, 401(k) plans are found to be significantly destabilising. These results highlight a significant problem with 401(k) retirement plans and, in fact, any retirement plan dependent on financial markets.

      (PDF) The macroeconomic stabilisation effects of Social Security and 401(k) plans. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227464548_The_macroeconomic_stabilisation_effects_of_Social_Security_and_401k_plans [accessed Nov 04 2018].”

      Reply

    • Posted by MJ on November 4, 2018 at 4:37 pm

      Stephen….it may be true (I did not research this myself) that DB pensions equalize income and expenditure over a lifetime but that still begs the question of how much is too much for communities and taxpayers to bear the burden of given that many towns, municipalities and states are teetering on bankruptcy and insolvency……….it may be considered deferred compensation but when salaries are generous enough then is so much deferred compensation still needed?

      I guess we can all go round and round about it……..

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2018 at 11:40 pm

        SD/EARTH must think readers are stupid.

        The financial impact on Taxpayers comes from “Total Compensation” …… the sum of wages, and the taxpayer paid-for portion of pensions, and benefits (primarily healthcare BOTH while active AND in retirement).

        It does not matter ………….. with respect to the financial impact on Taxpayers ……. one bit how those components are divided up among the pieces or if the allocation by component DIFFERS from what is commonly used in the Private Sector. ONLY the Public Sector total vs the Private Sector total matters, and with VERY few exceptions Public Sector “Total Compensation” MATERIALLY exceeds that of comparably situated Private Sector workers (taken as ONE group …. which IS what FINANCIALLY MATTERS …….. and NOT focusing in individual occupations or income groups).

        And, per Andrew Biggs AEI State-Specific Public vs Private Sector compensation study, the PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE in CA (SD’s home State) and in NJ is 23% of pay (rising to 33%-of-pay if the true value of the MUCH greater PUBLIC Sector job security is included).

        And ……… the 23% and 33% PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE noted above would assuredly have been materially HIGHER had the AEI Study not excluded Safety workers (Police & Fire) who have MUCH higher than “average” Public Sector wages and the RICHEST pensions & Benefits.
        ——————————–

        Reply

        • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 5, 2018 at 12:01 am

          I don’t think …all… the readers are stupid.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2018 at 2:23 am

            Yeah, but apparently ENOUGH of them to continue posting your wrong/misleading/woefully-incomplete commentary ………. always trying to hoodwink/fool readers in the direction of supporting your incorrect/biased “agenda” that little (if any) greater Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE really exists, and that Public Sector pension REFORM needn’t necessary include Pension accrual REDUCTIONS.

            Sorry buddy but it DOES, and AT A MINIMUM (and only as step #1, with FURTHER action needed in many distressed State & Local Public Sector pensions Plans), ending ALL COLA-increases, significant increases in the retirement age, and VERY material reductions in the accrual rate for all CURRENT (not just new or not-yet-vested) workers.

            And as I have pointed out and demonstrated numerous times, the ROOT CAUSE of the pension mess is NOT the lack of full-funding, but ludicrously excessive Public Sector pension “generosity”, ALWAYS 3 to 6 times greater in “value upon retirement” than that typically granted comparably-situated Private Sector workers. VERY generous pension benefits are VERY costly, and hence VERY difficult to “fully fund”, and the lack of full-finding is not the CAUSE of the pension mess, but a CONSEQUENCE of the real underlying ROOT CAUSE ……. grossly excessive pension “generosity”.
            ——————————————

            How’s THAT for “toning it down a notch” ?

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 5, 2018 at 5:28 am

            It is not valid to compare pensions outside the context of total compensation

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2018 at 12:16 pm

            Stephen Douglas/EARTH,

            Got a reading-comprehension problem too ? The MUCH richer/costly Public Sector healthcare benefits, and the multiples-greater Public Sector pensions FAR FAR outweigh the Private Sector’s small “wage” advantage (mostly found in a few highly professional/PHD occupations), resulting materially greater Public Sector TOTAL COMPENSATION in all be a VERY few States (and even in those few, by very small %s)

            Source: Figures 6 and 13 in the Andrew Biggs AEI Study …………

            https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-biggs-overpaid-or-underpaid-a-statebystate-ranking-of-public-employee-compensation_112536583046.pdf

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 5, 2018 at 2:05 pm

            Good source, read it again. Twicetimes. You’re obsessed with only one aspect of the study. By far, the most important concept and data in this paper is wage/benefit compression. The floor on public sector compensation, and the ceiling.

            At the top end, it is not a “small” wage advantage, unless you call $58,000/year (59%) for professionals a “small” advantage. And… $35,000 a year (20%) more in total compensation is not a small advantage. Taxpayers, what could you do with an extra $35,000 a year? (Table 4, page 60)

            And ten percent of all state workers is not “a few highly professional/PHD occupations”. (Table 1, page 58)

            Once again, you are completely ignoring the 60 percent of state workers with Bachelor and Masters degree level positions, who Biggs (he’s a PhD, you know) classifies as roughly equal in total compensation. Why? Got a problem with equal?

            60 percent of state workers nationwide. Not overpaid. Not overcompensated. Not greedy. Not sucking at the public teat.

            You don’t even need a spreadsheet. Just look at Table 4. The two cohorts with less than a college education are driving the “average” advantage. Remove those two groups, and there is no public sector advantage. None.

            It may take a while for you to understand, or admit this, but don’t give up.

            For better or worse, public sector compensation is redistributive. In every state and most developed countries.

          • Stephen Douglas/EARTH,
            Got a reading-comprehension problem too ?

            Yes, he does, but is an essential element of his “Entitlement Mentality”

  8. Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 4, 2018 at 11:56 pm

    ” If your ambition is to maximize short-term gain without regard to the long-term cost, you are better off not knowing the cost. If you want to preserve your personal immunity to the hard problems, it’s better never to really understand those problems. There is an upside to ignorance, and a downside to knowledge.”

    California, and probably many other states have low-balled the required contributions. They are paying more now on the unfunded liability than on the normal cost, and actuarially they aren’t paying enough on either, so the debt keeps increasing, and the costs keep rising. Yeah, bankruptcy is in the future for many. I can’t see how they hope to dig out. And NJ, Illinois, Kentucky, etc. are unfunded on steroids because they didn’t even keep up with the low-balled ARCs. Does that mean either deferred compensation is too high, or salaries generous enough? You don’t have enough information to say for sure. Some people have said that Bergen County is too high, in both wages and benefits, but Camden is OK. Where do you draw the line, and who gets to draw it?

    If we get a concensus that Camden, for instance, is not overcompensated, does that mean their pensions should not be cut, either for accruals going forward or cuts for current retirees? Not necessarily, “fair” is irrelevant when there is no money. You need actual pension reform. You need it yesterday.

    Reply

  9. Posted by MJ on November 6, 2018 at 7:07 am

    SD…I don’t think that 55,000 a year salary is all that much at all especially if that is the average salary of tenured police in Camden, Newark and the like. Actually I think it is on the low end……..Cops in bedroom communities making 150,000 a year I see as waaaaay too much for the nature of “crime” in the higher end areas……..as far as the pension after 25 years I do see that as an unsustainable issue but again SS is not being taken out so police have that money to invest on their own to supplement a smaller pension

    The idea isn’t too over compensate police regardless if the town can afford to or not….the idea is to be good stewards of the tax revenues so that money does not have to be borrowed to essentials that the town will need such as road repair, building upgrades, etc……because I know in our my town they have borrowed billions and that bill will be coming due very very soon!

    Again we can all go round and round and in the end I stand by who cares if they get it or not certainly not me and if the police and public workers are that confident that for the rest of their lives they will be receiving these benefits I say more power to them!

    UGH and as for me I think I am done with this post…..

    Reply

    • MJ…

      “SD…I don’t think that 55,000 a year salary is all that much”

      Actually, I said $55,000 was a pension, commensurate with an average salary of $85,000. But you are correct, they are both likely on the low end.

      We can’t all be average.

      Reply

      • Posted by El Gaupo on November 6, 2018 at 6:10 pm

        Let’s all leave it with this quote
        “Got a problem with equal?”

        Let it go TL. Let me have the last word for a change. A bet you can’t do it….

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 6, 2018 at 9:02 pm

          Not happening …………. at least not until ALL of N’s Public Sector DB pensions are frozen (ZERO future growth) for the FUTURE service of all CURRENT as well as new workers …………. and replaced with a DC Plan with a taxpayer-contribution very close to what Private Sector workers typically get in 401k-contributions from their employers. Yes, it will mean that Public Sector workers will have to save a LOT more of their own money ……….. just like those of us in the Private Sector must NOW do.

          It is likely the Taxpayers and those still working will have to pony up more to pay for PAST-service accruals (and if the market crashes, perhaps those already retired as well). I’ll accept that we must do so ………… as long as we end ALL further DB Plan accruals.

          Reply

          • Posted by El Gaupo on November 6, 2018 at 10:37 pm

            S5 will prevent any detrimental changes to PfRs. Since you can’t control yourself…..go ahead, have the last word. I honestly think we’ve beaten this to death.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 7, 2018 at 2:36 am

            El gaupo, we’re NOT at a traffic stop where you’re holding the Summons book and I’m trying to be pleasant, say the correct thing (a good excuse, play dumb, say “I’m sorry, I won’t do it again”), be nicey-nicey, and hope I don’t get a summons.

            In THIS forum we’re EQUALS ……. and I DON’T take my marching-orders from YOU.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 7, 2018 at 11:44 am

            Some are more equal than others.

        • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 6, 2018 at 11:00 pm

          LOL

          https://ibyc.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/4/2/2042640/5545226.jpg?573×212

          No matter how you shake and dance, some public workers will make less than the private sector. Some will make the same. Some will make more.

          We can’t all be average.

          Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 6, 2018 at 8:54 pm

      Quoting MJ ……………………….

      “The idea isn’t too over compensate police regardless if the town can afford to or not….the idea is to be good stewards of the tax revenues so that money does not have to be borrowed to essentials that the town will need such as road repair, building upgrades, etc”

      THAT stated the issue PERFECTLY !

      Reply

      • Posted by Stephen Douglas on November 6, 2018 at 11:18 pm

        Some police earn less, some earn more. They can’t all be average. Who gets to decide? In the meantime, why not work on actual pension reform?

        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: