Debating Pensions

There have to be thousands of debates going on prior to election day in this country and the various pension crises have to be mentioned in at least a few of them. Or at least that’s what I thought when I went searching for an easy blog post in the midst of the 5500 crunch (26 forms to go) but all I could find was one – from the 36th district race for state senate in Connecticut:

A $100 billion problem built up over 40 years is supposed to get solved by these tweakers who wouldn’t be out of place running for a senate seat in New Jersey.

181 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on October 14, 2020 at 10:40 pm

    Maybe one day there will be a challenger with the guts and character to look into the camera, ask listeners to PAY ATTENTION, and tell them that they are now being financially ripped-off because promised Public Sector pensions are mamy multiples more generous (and hence more costly) than what they get from their own employers, and that he ….. if elected … intends to put a stop to it, and going forward, grant Public Sector workers EQUAL, BUT NO GREATER pensions or benefits.

    Reply

    • https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/10/16/us/seattle-police-car-ablaze-with-officer-inside/index.html

      Sorry TL. Police deserve to be paid well and they deserve a pension. As it is, these cities are hemorrhaging officers from the rolls. You throw a burning piece of wood at an officer in a car you should get at least 20 years. If not more. NYC is dead. They’ve lost soooo many cops. Pichardo just quit. Due to DiBlasio. It isn’t a race thing. Minority cops are leaving too.
      Whether it is Biden or Trump. Law and order MUST return to these cities. Long prison sentences must return otherwise this will not stop. Biden has shown nothing to indicate that he will stop it.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2020 at 6:14 pm

        Quoting E ……….

        ” Police deserve to be paid well and they deserve a pension.”

        We’re never going to be on the same page on this

        Police (at least here in northern NJ where there are VERY few problems) deserve Total Compensation (the TOTAL of wages, pension, and benefits) EQUAL to but no greater than what a private Sector worker gets compensated in a job with similar risks and requires comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge …………. even though in a different job.

        On that measurement basis (which I believe to be appropriate and fair), you are now materially over-compensated.

        Reply

        • Ok. But what is that comparable job that you speak of?
          And where we truly disagree is the issue of a town being able to tell me what I make and/or screw me over financially (many towns already do politically as we have all seen, my town currently does NOT and supports us 100%-or close to it) versus having to collectively bargain. That is the real issue. Police have been very successful at keeping much of their benefits that others lost decades ago. However, we have also given up many things as well such as medical after retirement etc.
          I feel the police should be treated differently from ALL other public employees. When people start firebombing the Dpw and filming their every move, screaming in their face and shooting at them or their homes witb the kids inside then maybe I will advocate for more pay for them. In the meantime, Trump 2020.

          Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 18, 2020 at 2:12 pm

        Sorry TL. Police deserve to be paid well and they deserve a pension.
        GED government jobs, including GED Cops, do NOT deserve to be paid 3%-1%. OK El Feo. “Paid Well” does not = 1%er. Now pipe down junior.

        Reply

    • https://www.newsweek.com/police-officers-across-america-quit-homicide-rates-rise-americas-biggest-cities-1524648?amp=1

      Bizarre. Now is definitely NOT the time to be cutting pensions, don’t you think?
      Nypd cut the two planned recruit classes. You won’t see a new rookie for 3 years. Good luck combine that with the record retirements and the hesitation of police to do their jobs. .
      I’m sure there will be a long line of qualified young folk when Portland police bureau hires. Lol. Cmon. Anyone taking that job will either be stupid, a masochist, a pie in the sky liberal, etc. or a criminal.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2020 at 6:19 pm

        Quoting E …………….. “Now is definitely NOT the time to be cutting pensions, don’t you think?”

        In one sense, you are correct………… Public Sector pension should have been MATERIALLY reduced 15+ years ago …….. ALL the way down to what Private Sector workers typically get from their employers.

        P.S. You don’t work in Portland Or., so what they MIGHT deserve in (say in combat pay), has NOTHING to do with you.

        Reply

        • Trust me. If we had that shit here, we would see the same retention issues.
          You’re starting to get jealous again. Remember. Mary Pat says itty bitty. So relax and accept the fact that you live in area protected by competant men and women who have negotiated a fair contract with your elected representatives.

          Reply

        • But its not just Portland. And it’s not just police…

          “By the way, this year “something really bizarre is happening”, and some police and teacher systems have been showing much higher retirement rates than usual. This will likely lead to “actuarial losses”, which is beyond the scope of this blog post.”
          MPC

          Sorry, folks, it’s not the sinecure you think it is.

          And it’s not just retirements, it’s fewer new applicants.

          Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 18, 2020 at 2:13 pm

            And it’s not just retirements, it’s fewer new applicants.
            Right dork. Did you pull that BS out of your chair shaped, fat pimple covered ass like the rest of your BS????

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 16, 2020 at 9:03 pm

        “Now is definitely NOT the time to be cutting pensions, don’t you think?”
        Correct, the time was 25 YEARS AGO.

        Reply

        • Hmmm. What did TL happen to say to you in response to your pro trump rant? Oh yeah. Woof woof loser. 🤷‍♂️
          She’ll have Biden send you a xmas card. 🙄

          Reply

  2. How timely…

    @3:03 , Alex Kasser… “I also introduced an amendment to the state constitution that would require the full funding of pensions going forward, so that this crisis that we have could not be repeated,” 

    Ryan Fazio…
    “…we must increase employee contributions to their pensions and healthcare, to levels that are still below private sector levels, but are more fair and commensurate with a fair level of pay.”

    If you want compensation commensurate with the private sector, you will have to make –all– of your cuts to the lowest paid 30-40 percent of workers. (40-50 percent in Connecticut, because it is the outlier.)

    And– it still won’t be enough, unless you also ” require the full funding of pensions going forward”.

    Yes, it really is as simple as that. Simple… not easy.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2020 at 1:52 am

      Quoting Ryan Fazio…

      “…we must increase employee contributions to their pensions and healthcare, to levels that are still below private sector levels, but are more fair and commensurate with a fair level of pay.””

      Question: If the pay is fair, WHY should Public Sector pension & benefit contribution be ………… “still below private sector levels”?

      NO it shouldn’t . EQUAL: …… but NOT better !

      Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on October 14, 2020 at 11:44 pm

    President Trump will win 47 States; it will be a landslide victory like never before in our history.

    Reply

      • Posted by mrdenis@yahoo.com on October 15, 2020 at 4:18 am

        Voters should consider how much else regarding
        Harris/Biden has been hidden from them by Corporate
        Tech — that they have not been forced to admit.

        And what that says about the Democrat propaganda
        that has been masquerading as objective “news.”

        Reply

        • I wouldn’t even call it the Harris/Biden team. I would simply say the Harris team at this Point.
          She is getting more exposure than he is.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2020 at 5:46 pm

            I wouldn’t even call it the Harris/Biden team. I would simply say the Harris team at this Point.
            You HAVE to think that is what the Dim’s are HOPING and PRAYING the public believes too. That the Public KNOWS Sleepy Joe is going to hand off the football at the 12 or 24 month marker to “Comma” “LA” Hair” Ass” .
            .
            Listen, Sleepy Joe was a DIASTER in his 1988 Presidential run. A DIASTER. Not even in the top half. Not even in the top 3/4. He was in the bottom 25%, just like he was in law school (well, bottom 10% in LS!). Bernie was a FAR better candidate this election. Bernie was a candidate light years better than Sleepy Joe. The Dim Machine forced ALL the leading Dim contenders OUT so it was just Biden and Bernie. Had that not happened Bernie would have won. And Bernie probably had a better than 50/50 chance of beating Billary in 2016 if Deborah Wasserman Schultz had not rigged THAT elected in favor of Billary. Disgusting. But the Dim’s are only hurting their own party. They are shooting themselves in the foot, they are NOT putting the BEST candidate up, but the cronyism candidate, the one they can control. I am giving 10-1 odds that Trump cleans the floor with Sleepy Joe and his hair piece … You want any of that action El Feo 😎

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 9:10 pm

            Oh I like that, your calling Kamala …”“Comma” “LA” Hair” Ass” “.

            Sort of like calling you ….SH-ma-uk or Az–ha-ole

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴🐕 🐕 🐕 on October 21, 2020 at 12:07 am

            Oh I like that, your calling Kamala …”“Comma” “LA” Hair” Ass”
            Hell yeah, that is my own commentary 😎 I am hoping it catches on and I am credited with her new Nickname.
            .
            Wish I had come up with Sleepy Joe but Trump beat me to the punch 🙂

  4. ““I want you to use my words against me,”
    Lindsey Graham

    Reply

  5. Well, that went downhill fast.

    Reply

  6. Unfunded balances are not like a mortgage.

    MPC on unfunded balances.

    “But pensions aren’t a capital asset/expense. They’re an operational expense. They are for paying for current service by giving some money in the future, but the expense is incurred right now.

    Just like when I go out to a fancy restaurant and put that tab on my credit card. I usually pay off my balance in full each month for credit cards, because I use them to pay for my current, operational expenses like groceries, the energy bill, my Amazon habit. If all I did was keep charging operational expenses to my credit cards and not paying off the balance, I’d be accruing debt like the unfunded liability in public pensions. The credit cards don’t expect me to pay off all the balance all at once, but I don’t need to be still paying for today’s meal at Per Se for the next thirty years.

    That’s the unfunded liability, in analogy: a large credit card balance. Living beyond your means. Saying that you’ll pay for current expenses by future income… somehow.”

    Somehow…

    Normal costs of pensions are an operational expense. If you think the unfunded balance is because the pensions in your state are too high, think again. There just isn’t that much difference in generosity. Pensions in New Jersey or Illinois or Connecticut are not twice as high as Wisconsin. Wisconsin and New Jersey pensions are about the national average. Illinois and Connecticut slightly higher.

    Wisconsin has shared risk. Fine, it looks like their contributions have increased from 5 percent of salary in 2000, to 7 percent in 2020 (shared, 7 percent for employer an 7 percent for the worker.)* I don’t see any shared risk in the form of reduced pensions, but apparently a few times, pension COLAs were reduced, temporarily.

    *One of the reforms under Scott Walker, as I recall, was discontinuing the practice of employers picking up the workers 7 percent. There is that.

    But the biggest factor in Wisconsin is the requirement to fully fund the pension. Every year.

    It’s the difference between contributing consistently 7 percent of wages, year in, year out… or paying this:

    For essentially the same damn pension.

    “If all I did was keep charging operational expenses to my credit cards and not paying off the balance, I’d be accruing debt like the unfunded liability in public pensions. “

    Reply

    • A and TL. Bedfellows when it comes to Trump. Lol. Mortal enemies otherwise. (Figuratively speaking of course😏—remember we just found out yesterday that because a Senator said that sexual preference is offensive that we are according to the dictionary, no longer allowed to say that). Lol but Pence was mansplaining. Right? How dare he like the rest of the world, call Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez by the moniker AOC.
      It’s a joke. One of the other female senators asked Barrett if she ever sexual abused/harassed anyone. Could you even imagine if a conservative white make senator asked that question of Keegan, or Sotomeyer?
      Let’s stop grading females on a curve. They sure as heck can stand on their own two feet. I have two daughters. Both smart. One is in the running for valadictorian. She sure as hell DOES NOT need any help to beat Out ANY MALE. She can stand on her OWN two feet without a helping hand. Save the MeToo shit for cases of abuse, discrimination etc. and stop witb the mansplaining bullshit.
      Metoo—-fucking silent on rapists etc being called out as long as they are BIPOC and victims of police brutality. What a fucking joke. Have a great day.

      Reply

      • Amy Barrett: “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference & would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”

        She apologized (kudos) for referring to sexual orientation as a “preference”.

        But…

        It’s best I’m retired, and maybe should be cloistered. I could get shot for not being current on the latest rules. I thought the fact that she did not, would not discriminate was the salient point there. It certainly didn’t seem like an intentional slight.

        I also didn’t realize there was –that– big a difference between “colored woman” and “woman of color” (Kamala Harris).

        Back in the day, I was riding with a female coworker, and made some remark about the boss bitching at another worker. She told me, firmly but politely, that using “bitch” as a verb is denigrating to women, because it implies women are chronic complainers. I apologized, and asked her to remind me if I said it again, because it was a common expression I had heard and used for years. Mea culpa.

        Reply

        • Of course the point was that she would not discriminate. The dems grasping at straws, because my ALL accounts she is more than qualified to serve they just hate that she leans right, so they point out the word preference in that context is offensive. Honestly, that is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say that they were offended by that use of preference.
          I don’t like grapefruit. I do like bananas. I prefer bananas. I won’t eat grapefruit. Tomorrow morning I can’t make myself like to eat grapefruit. Sorry. I don’t see the use of the word as offensive in the context that Barrett used it.

          Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 18, 2020 at 1:13 am

          Back in the day, I was riding with a female coworker, and made some remark about the boss bitching at another worker. She told me, firmly but politely, that using “bitch” as a verb is denigrating to women, because it implies women are chronic complainers. I apologized, and asked her to remind me if I said it again, because it was a common expression I had heard and used for years. Mea culpa.
          Now THAT’S irony! Because Dougie is the biggest biotch around ….

          Reply

      • Posted by MJF on October 15, 2020 at 10:35 am

        Congrats to your daughter, that’s worth more than your pension…

        Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 15, 2020 at 12:15 pm

        I have two daughters. Both smart. One is in the running for valadictorian.
        Well, they sure as hell didn’t get any of that brain power from YOU El Feo, Mr “Vala[e]dictorian” 🤐

        Reply

  7. Sincere apologies to Mary Pat Campbell, if I took you out of context somehow.

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 15, 2020 at 4:52 pm

      Just apologize to ALL of us Dougie, because you take everything out of context you stupid Ass Clown moron. But I mean that in a “good way” 😎😎

      Reply

  8. Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2020 at 7:54 pm

    Trump radically misstated the relationship between catching Covid and mask-wearing………

    Trump stated that 85% of people who wear masks get Covid. That’s clearly false. The correct statement is that of those who got Covid, 85% wore masks.

    Clearly that 2 statements are not the same.

    Now did Trump …..

    (a) not understand the difference and mix them up, or

    (b) Know the difference but intentionally state it incorrectly believing that it would help his goals (re-election)
    —————————————————–
    Either way he is unfit for Office (for this and MANY MANY MANY other reasons).

    Reply

  9. Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2020 at 8:46 pm

    I’m watching both the Trump & Biden roundtables.

    Just saw this headline pop up ………..

    “In dueling town halls, real duel is with Trump and his moderator”

    That’s EXACTLY what’s happening, mainly because he won’t directly answer of the host’s questions and goes off on a tangent and his standard braggadocio.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2020 at 9:31 pm

      And a similar headline …………..

      “Trump spent the entire town hall sparring with Guthrie, who wouldn’t let him evade questions”

      Reply

  10. Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2020 at 12:40 am

    Included in a Fact Check article of the 2 roundtables ……….

    “Trump campaign senior adviser Mercedes Schlapp tweeted during Biden’s town hall that watching it “feels like I am watching an episode of Mister Rodgers Neighborhood.” ”

    lol ……… and watching Trump was like watching the movies “Clockwork Orange” and “Silence of the Lambs”

    Reply

  11. Posted by NJ2AZ on October 16, 2020 at 12:12 pm

    Hey El Guapo, i’m seeing Uncle Joe says y’all should just shoot guys in the leg? whaddya think about that? lolz

    Reply

    • Saw that. That was months ago.
      Not taught that way. Center of chest(mass).
      Hard enough under stress to hit a guy there. Much less a leg. Lol. Dumb comment from a guy just trying to appease the left. Nothing more. His son Beau wasn’t taught that way and neither is ANYONE else.

      Reply

      • Stupid comment. So, criminal aims for center mass but cop has to aim for leg. And then when he misses, crucify him.
        At least he doesn’t want us to shoot the gun out of his hand. 🤣

        Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 16, 2020 at 2:38 pm

          You shoot to stop, and you can substitute “kill” for stop, or the “5X” ….

          Reply

          • Yes. We are taught to shoot center mass to stop. Not kill.
            Deadly force to be used when an officer reasonably beleives it is necessary to protect him/herself or a third party from death or serious bodily injury.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 16, 2020 at 8:57 pm

            Yes. We are taught to shoot center mass to stop. Not kill.
            Deadly force to be used when an officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect him/herself or a third party from death or serious bodily injury.

            Like I said, if you’re shooting the 5X then you’re shooing to kill; and you can “spin” that anyway you want to. As for death and GBI, you can shoot a FLEEING FELONY suspect, in the back even, if you can articulate they were/posed death or GBI to anyone in the future. Tennessee v Garner (cop shoots teenage kid with no violent history, or suspected felony, in back as he was fleeing-obvious NO-NO. Compare to fleeing suspected murderer or rapist, fleeing back shot OK).

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 16, 2020 at 8:59 pm

            Shoot to stop, 5X= Shoot to Kill

        • Posted by NJ2AZ on October 16, 2020 at 3:12 pm

          c’mon man! all the time in the movies i’ll see a hero strategically wing a dude in the shoulder or knee from 50 yards with a snub nosed 38 while the other dude is running, and all they need to do is put like a napkin over the wound and the guy is fine 10 minutes later.

          are you telling me that is not accurate? 😉

          Reply

          • About as accurate as folks with AR -15 and other accurate long guns aiming and shooting multiple rounds at people with no cover and never getting hit.

          • Yes. You may shoot a fleeing individual in the back if you reasonably believe they will cause death or serious bodily injury to someone if they escape. (Man murders wife, run away from cops with gun, bloodied body left behind, says my kids are next. Deadly force acceptable).
            And yes, the idea is to stop but reality is it is a kill shot for sure. Hence, officers can shoot multiple times until the threat stops. We were actually taught (I’m sure the PC crowd stopped it) in the academy that when someone is using or about to use deadly force they are “temporarily suspending their right to live”.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 1:48 pm

            Quoting E …..

            “Man murders wife, run away from cops with gun, bloodied body left behind, says my kids are next. Deadly force acceptable

            I’m just curious…………….

            (1) how about if he leaves out words ….. “my kids are next”

            (2) what about if he’s only running AWAY WITH A GUN, but with no blood showing, and not saying anything ?

            ————–
            I’m guessing that under (2), unless the Officer saw the suspect shoot the wife, the officer killing him would be in deep Sh** but likely get off w/o charges IF the gun he was carrying was proven to be the murder weapon AND the evidence made it highly likely that he was the shooter.

            But (1) is unclear to me if the Officer did not see the suspect shoot the wife

          • If you reasonably beleive that the individual did and will again use deadly force, completely justifiable.
            Without the facts to support that belief, the officer would need to see the offender make a furtive move, disobey commands to show hands etc. usually they can support those facts. As I said, in those cases, the suspect who uses or begins to make a move towards using deadly force is temporarily suspending their right to live.
            Comparable job that has that responsibility?

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 8:22 pm

            E,

            We seem to be on the same page as to when it is reasonable to use deadly force.

            As to your question ………… Comparable job that has that responsibility?

            Excluding combat military who get paid WAY less than police, none in the Private sector. It does appear perplexing that the LEOs that face the lowest risks (by working in places like northern NJ) get paid so mush more than LEOs in high crime areas.

            I don’t know HOW MUCH incremental monetary compensation is appropriate for having a risk that (in norther NJ) you are unlikely to use even once over your career. However, if we look at your total compensation package (wages, pensions value of pension and retiree healthcare benefits, etc.) over your working career, I’d guess that it is somewhere in the range of $1 to $2 Million more that what a Private Sector worker in a (obviously non-police) job requiring comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge gets in total compensation over the same period.

            That $1 to $2 Million range seems absurdly too large to me. PERHAPS 10% of it is reasonable.

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2020 at 6:27 pm

          Remember that scene from the movie “Shooter” when Mark Wahlberg shot off then other guy’s trigger finger ?

          Reply

          • Posted by NJ2AZ on October 16, 2020 at 6:32 pm

            My favorite bogus movie shot is still Roger Murtaugh “it’s just been revoked” from lethal weapon 2. Perfect head shot from distance at an elevated target with the 2″ revolver 😂

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 17, 2020 at 12:09 pm

            “Revoked!”

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 17, 2020 at 12:18 pm

            OK NJ2AZ, this is my All-Time Fav one-liner movie clip, we call it “Bubble Gum” 😎😎😎😎

        • Posted by MJF on October 16, 2020 at 6:57 pm

          Close in the hog stopper is a good round. 270 grain copper hollow point. whoosh.

          Reply

      • Posted by MJF on October 16, 2020 at 6:45 pm

        Snipers are a different breed. Love those peeps. They are dumping the .50 cals and going back to the good old .308.

        Reply

    • Shoot to kill?

      Jacob Blake shot 7 times close range. Dead? No, awaiting trial.

      Paul Slater shot 5 times in the face and neck (close range, 38 special). It slowed him down, but didn’t kill him. Sentenced to 10 years.

      LOL, I just verified the story and found… “Although he told the judge he has six kids and never meant to hurt anyone,…”

      Mercy of the court?

      Reply

  12. I’ll still vote for him, but Lord, I wish he hadn’t said that!

    Reply

  13. Back to “Debating Pensions”

    Everybody’s doing it. Conflating terms. You cannot debate pensions if everyone is speaking a different language.

    Andrew Biggs…
    “Moreover, at the time, pensions were a small portion of government budgets: in 1972, pension benefit payments were equal to only 3.6% of state and local government budgets.”

    NASRA Issue Brief:
    State and Local Government Spending on
    Public Employee Retirement Systems (2019)
    “Based on the most recent information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau,
    4.7 percent of all state and local government spending is used to fund pension
    benefits for employees of state and local government.”

    You could say pension costs increased by 30.5 percent, or 101 basis points in the last 50 years, but that would be wrong, or meaningless, or both. Or worse.

    The huge increase in pension –costs– (state and local contributions to the pension funds) does not mean that pension –benefits– (payments received by retirees) increased by that amount. Not even close.*

    Is there a reliable, accurate, unbiased source that compares the changes over the last two decades?

    *And if benefits (received) did not increase, or increased only marginally, guess what? Pension cuts is –not– where you will realize savings.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 6:59 pm

      Stephen Douglas,

      If you are trying to suggest …….. being YOU*, it wouldn’t surprise me …………. that in the 47 years from 1972 to 2019 the % of State & local budget only increased from 3.6% to 4.7% ………..on an identical Apples-to-Apples basis ……… I’d say you have outdone yourself this time in extraordinarily misleading comments.

      * YOU = a mouthpiece for the Public Sector Unions, a man who loves and supports everything Union & Public Sector, and someone with a to-hell-with-the-taxpayers attitude.

      Reply

  14. Thank you sir, and, no. That’s the point.

    “pension benefit payments”

    and “spending used to fund pension”

    Are not the same thing, and should not be compared a tall.

    Unfortunately, that kind of thing, and many others, are done all the time. Sometimes, unintentionally.

    Likewise

    “portion of government budgets”

    and “percent of all state and local government spending”

    are not necessarily the same thing, either.

    What I’m trying to suggest here is just what I said… “You cannot debate pensions if everyone is speaking a different language”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 8:02 pm

      Quoting ……..

      “Are not the same thing, and should not be compared a tall.”

      lol ……………. just thought I’d throw one of this slip-ups back at you.

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 8:05 pm

      Quoting ………….. ““You cannot debate pensions if everyone is speaking a different language””

      I agree. And you cannot debate pensions w/o having accurate facts ………. for, example, NOT the fantasy/”aspirational” pension “costs” that are presented to Taxpayers by our self-serving Elected Officials.

      Reply

      • True, the aspirational pension costs, “ARCs”, with 20/20 rear vision were too low, for most states, ergo the typical 70 percent funded ratios. And, for those states like Connecticut, which shorted even those inadequate ARCs, the result was even worse.

        But…

        “The cost of paying for benefits earned this year (again, the “normal costs”) is slightly under $300 million.”

        Even if the realistic normal cost were doubled (spoiler, they would not be) that would be far cheaper than the $1.5 billion paid in 2016.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 9:37 pm

          Quoting …………

          “The cost of paying for benefits earned this year (again, the “normal costs”) is slightly under $300 million.”

          While I don’t know what group of pensions is included in this $300 Million ….. one State? All States? Local Plans as well ? ………………. it doesn’t matter. The key point is that pension LIABILITIES (not ASSETS with are almost always significantly lower) should be discounted using an interest rate consistent with a methodology similar to what Moodys uses in it analysis (now roughly 4%).

          That means that if you are ONLY addressing a Plan’s normal cost (which applies to accruals ONLY in the current years) using that 4% for the assumed earnings on assets is likely also ok. However, once we move to calculations including past service accruals (wherein almost all Plans have significant unfunded liabilities) earning 4% on ASSETS (that are lower than LIABILITIES) is insufficient to generate investment income EQUAL TO 4% of LIABILITIES. You might need 5% 7%, 10%, even 15% (or more).

          Reply

        • The point is, that $300 million is just the appetizer. I expect the Connecticut taxpayers would be ecstatic if that’s all they had to pay.
          Mr. Fazio wants to cut down overtime and increase employee contributions. Fine, we still have a main course of $1.5 billion.

          You’re like a Chihuahua nipping at the ankles. Take a bite out of that $1.5 billion arse. That’s where the money is. If Connecticut (and Illinois, and Kentucky and whoever had paid the full ARC for the last twenty years, they wouldn’t have those pesky catchup payments now.

          Even better if Alex Kasser… “I also introduced an amendment to the state constitution that would require the full funding of pensions going forward,…” were implemented.

          Full funding, not full ARC. Connecticut will be lucky if they can recover from the current underfunding without a bailout. Of course, there are other states in worse condition, and for much the same reason.

          Reply

  15. Fazio…
    “Forty states in the past 10 years have reformed their existing pension programs in order to make it solvent or affordable. Connecticut was not among them,”

    Meh, forty states, or more, reformed their pensions (and Connecticut was one), but few reformed them sufficiently to make them “solvent or affordable.”


    “The cost of paying for benefits earned this year (again, the “normal costs”) is slightly under $300 million. When combined with the cost of those decades of deferred payments and other shortfalls, however, the cost for us in 2016 was more than $1.5 billion.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2020 at 11:05 pm

      Everything you present is based on the Taxpayers accepting that paying for all that has been promised is the just and right thing to do …………. WITHOUT appropriately asking and discussing whether those VERY generous (and hence VERY costly) promised pensions were necessary, just, fair to Taxpayers, affordable, and granted w/o a conflict-of-interest by Elected Officials beholden to the Public Sector Unions for PAST and hoped-for FUTURE campaign contributions.

      Based on what comparable Private Sector workers get from their employers (BOTH in pensions/401Ks AND on a Total Compensation basis), there is clearly ZERO justification for such extraordinarily generous pensions and hence ZERO justification for Taxpayers to be forced to fully fund them.

      To take it one step further, I would wager that in almost all States, and even in NJ with it’s very lower contributions, taxpayer contributions over the years, together with investment earnings on those contributions would have be sufficient to fully fund a pension that was EQUAL in generosity in all years to what comparable Private Sector workers typically get in retirement security from their employers (typically about 4%-of-pay into a 401K Plan and no more). And rarely ANY employer contribution towards retiree healthcare benefits, the polar opposite of the heavily subsidized/free retiree healthcare benefits granted NJ’s Public Sector retirees.

      The Taxpayers aren’t cheapskates in not paying enough. It’s the Public Sector Unions/workers/retirees (in collusion with NJ’s self-serving Elected Officials who have enabled it) who are MOOCHERS in demanding and having been granted WAY too much.

      NJ’s Taxpayers should refuse to fund that which was never justifiable.

      Reply

  16. That’s not the way it works, sir. You can present your one study claiming that the average public worker is overpaid. I can cite a dozen that disagree.

    The one study you do have states that, while the average public worker is over compensated, many, if not most are either paid equally, or even paid less than their private sector counterparts. In order to get the savings (in normal costs) Mr. Fazio wants, all, or nearly all the reductions will, by definition, need to come from the lowest paid workers. As Willie Sutton said, “That’s Where the Money Is”

    In order to get the real savings, as Alex Kasser says: “… require the full funding of pensions going forward, so that this crisis that we have could not be repeated,” 

    That’s a win/win.

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 18, 2020 at 1:21 am

      That’s not the way it works, sir. You can present your one study claiming that the average public worker is overpaid. I can cite a dozen that disagree.
      You are such a fucking tool Dougie. So much BULLSHIT comes out of those fat greedy fingers typing a legion of lies on a daily basis that your ass is getting jealous …..

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2020 at 1:42 pm

      Stephen Douglas,

      I see you’re continuing with the BullShit.

      So tell us the name of …. NO, give the readers a LINK to……… each of those dozen studies.

      I don’t believe you can find even one that will show that Public Sector workers (when taken together as one group including all income levels*) are not totally compensated (in wages + pensions + benefits) MORE that their Private Sector counterparts.

      * while making Public/Private Sector compensation comparisons split BY INCOME LEVEL provides interesting information, what FINANCIALLY IMPACTS the Taxpayers is the net Public/Private Sector differential when including ALL (yes ALL) income level groups ….. no matter how much you protest doing so because it doesn’t support your biased agenda.

      I do recall your having quoted a study from Jeffrey Keefe (now Professor Emeritus of Rutgers). Am I surprised you would pick him? Not at all, it being VERY hard to find someone so wrong** ……. he believes that the VALUE of the of the pension accruals granted Public Sector workers in a given year is properly measured by the amount of the contributions made in that year. Think about that …… wouldn’t that mean that in the years in which NJ contributed nothing, that the value of that year’s pension accruals is nothing? Really ?

      ** Dr. Andrew Biggs has repeatedly given Jeffrey Keefe’s writings quite the beat-down due to their being (in his words) ……”replete with errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations”. HERE is a link to one such beat-down:

      Click to access Biggs%20Reply%20to%20Keefe%20review.pdf

      By the way, I do agree that fairness would require that most reductions in compensation come from Safety workers (Police, Fire, corrections, etc.) and the lower 50% (income-wise) of Public Sector workers. Why? Because those groups are the ones in which Public Sector workers have the greatest compensation advantage over their Private Sector counterparts.

      I have brought up Police compensation on this Blog MANY times, so I won’t add to it here, but suffice it to say that they are VASTLY overcompensated by any and every reasonable metric …. partly due to a pension SO GENEROUS that to fully fund it (using appropriate assumptions and methodology) over their working career requires a level annual contribution (as a % of pay) that is about 10 times the 4% of pay (into a 401K Plan) that is all most Private Sector workers typically get in retirement security contributions today.

      As to the lower paid. You (and some others) feel that such Public Sector workers DESERVE the generous wages, pension, and benefits they now get because they need those wages to live on now, and also need the pensions & benefits to “retire with dignity”. While those are nice goals, the are ONLY SO when equally applied to ALL workers, not just those in the Public Sector. The Private Sector, wherein 85% of all workers are employed, rightfully sets “market-rate” compensation, NOT the Public Sector wherein only 15% of all workers are employed, and where compensation decisions are encumbered by the underhanded deal-making and collusion between the Public Sector Unions and our self-serving Elected Officials.

      There is ZERO justification for compensating that lower 50% of all Public Sector workers more than what that same position (or one comparable) would be compensated in the Private Sector …….. doing so being nothing but abuse of the Taxpayers.

      If such lower paid workers in the Public sector do not have sufficient income (both while working and in retirement) to meet life’s basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc.) then they should have to to the SAME as Private Sector workers/retirees must do in a similar situation ……. seek help from Social Services.

      Bottom line ……… Public Sector workers/retirees do NOT deserve a BETTER DEAL ….on the Taxpayers’ dime.
      ——————

      And FWIW, Taxpayers SHOULD FULLY fund pensions, but ONLY when those pensions are NO MORE VALUABLE than what Taxpayers typically get in retirement security from their employers ……. and of course via comparing Total Compensation, not just pensions.

      Reply

  17. Tough Love is slowly coming around. It’s inevitable. Biggs’ data is clear, and verified by other researchers. The “average” statistical overpayment of public workers is entirely a product of benefits accrued by the lowest paid public workers. Many, or most, public workers, even factoring in their higher benefits, are –not– overpaid.
    Private sector employers cannot afford to pay higher wages for much of it’s menial labor. About half of U.S. welfare goes to lower paid full-time (or more) private sector workers.
    Government doesn’t work that way. There is a floor on compensation.* Everywhere. Possibly TL will come to understand that, or at least tolerate it. Resistance is futile.

    Then he can go back to his original pet peeve… suburban police.

    In the meanwhile, governments will have to make meaningful reform to keep pensions sustainable. Acera type controls combined with low interest loans (or bailouts). It’s gonna happen.

    *If it makes you feel better, there are still some lower paid government workers who are also recipients of various social welfare programs. Ask me how I know.

    Reply

  18. Serendipity!

    As it happens, when you posted your screed, I was still writing mine. You don’t need no stinking’ LINKS. If you would reread Dr. Biggs’ paper again, (highly recommended), you would see that at every step, he cautions the reader of the inherent flaws of his, or any other study. Take them all with a grain of salt.

    ” (when taken together as one group including all income levels*) “… ignores one of the most significant features of Biggs study. While state by state comparisons “provides interesting information”, concerning the relative generosity, it is not useful for developing reforms within each state.

    It has been some time since we discussed the biggest difference in Biggs’ results and all others.

    Munnell uses a 6.23 percent discount rate, and concludes The estimated difference nationwide is about 4 percent in favor of private sector workers.
    Remember, Biggs nationwide data shows an average 12 percent public worker wage deficit that becomes a 10 percent total compensation advantage.
    Biggs discounts public pension benefits at 4.3 percent, which is the average yield over the past decade on 20-year Treasury securities.

    payments
    costs
    value

    We already know the difference between increasing benefit “payments” (hint, they are decreasing, not increasing) and pension “costs” (the huge “unsustainable” increases, where they occur, are due to past underfunding, plain and simple.) What Biggs and Munnell and others, are describing is the increased value of the pensions.

    Of course, there is a difference in cost of an annuity purchased with a 6 percent rate vs. 4 percent.

    But DB retirees are not purchasing an annuity today, they earned it over a twenty to thirty, or more, year period.

    One more advantage of the shared risk feature of public pensions. It’s not a bug, It’s a feature.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2020 at 4:23 pm

      Quoting Stephen Douglas ………….

      ” You don’t need no stinking’ LINKS. If you would reread Dr. Biggs’ paper again, (highly recommended), you would see that at every step, he cautions the reader of the inherent flaws of his, or any other study.”

      And WHY do I ask for LINKS to your dozen studies ………… because you shown time and again that you cannot be trusted.

      And while Dr. Biggs cautions about a lot of things in THAT study, he DID conclude that in both our home States of CA and NJ Public Sector workers (when taken as one group encompassing all income levels) has a 23%-of-pay Total Compensation ADVANTAGE ……… didn’t he ?.
      —————

      And then ………when you have nothing of substance in response …….. you try throwing in the kitchen sick of irrelevancies to confuse and distract the readers.

      Sorry, but it ain’t working.

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 18, 2020 at 5:53 pm

        Sorry, but it ain’t working.
        ==
        It’s NEVER worked. Dougie is a Progressive Surrender Monkey … And I mean that in a good way 😎😎

        Reply

        • I wish the actual progressives would surrender. Market starting to factor in a Biden win. Watch what happens between a Biden declared win and Inauguration Day. Massive sell offs as investors “get outta dodge” (like money cops have done) before being walloped with capital gains tax increases.

          Reply

    • Correction…

      1) “…a 23%-of-pay Total Compensation —average— ADVANTAGE…”

      2) Overpayment at the lowest cohort is relevant. It is substantive. (Not sick.)

      3) The discount rate used to determine present value is not irrelevant.

      4) It is you who is misleading by oversimplifying the distribution of compensation.

      5) The root cause of underfunding is not excessive pensions, although pension reforms may necessarily include reductions in the most extreme cases.

      Police and firefighters are lightning rods for the pay/pension critics. Overtime, due to the nature of the job, often results in higher annual pay. Early retirement is expensive. You can advocate for later retirement, but your opponent is not (just) the unions. It is hundreds of years of precedence and experience.

      “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

      You ain’t got it.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2020 at 8:44 pm

        Responding ……..

        #1 ….. I agree

        #2 ….. I agree

        #3 ….. That get’s tricky. The discount rate is relevant in some aspects, but not in others. It primarily impacts the TIMING of funding contributions.

        #4 ….. LOL go ahead, “educate” us as to my oversimplification. But PLEASE, leave out the “it’s a policy decision” crap this time.

        #5 ….. The ROOT CAUSE of the under-funding sure-as-hell IS ludicrously excessive pension generosity. Go ahead, explain your position to the readers in the context of NJ Police pensions which require (to fully fund them over the Officer’s working career) a level annual contribution of about 10 TIMES the 4%-of-pay (into a 401K Plan) that is all Private Sector workers typically get in retirement security from their employers.today. And FYI, it’s only about 5 TIMES for Non-safety workers.

        Reply

        • We are itty bitty in terms of the budget. And we seem to be the scourge of the racial issues we have. Leave the cops pensions alone. It’s not gonna change again. You may as well support the men and women in blue or else you WILL lose a lot more in the future, when that unarmed violence interruptor can’t quite get the job done.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 8:32 pm

            Your ludicrously excessive pension is also “itty bitty” in terms of …..

            * the County budget

            * the State budget

            * the national budget

            * Bill Gates’ budget

            * Jeff Bezos’ budget

            * the Bergen County Sewer Authority Budget …………… but stinks even more.
            ————–

            I do support the men in Blue … as long as “support” does NOT include being Ok with, or paying for the current ludicrously excessive promised pensions and benefits.

            I Support, respect, assistance from Citizens where needed and appropriate, a FAIR wage, FAIR retirement security (via a DC Plan), and FAIR benefits.

            With FAIR meaning COMPARABLE to what a Private Sector workers in a job that requires comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ….. AND taking into account the unique risks and responsibilities associated with being a LEO.

            Our divergence seems to be in that very last part. Right now, those unique “risks and responsibilities” are costing Taxpayers an incremental $1 to $2 Million over your career. I believe a FAIR incremental amount (especially in a quiet/low-violence area like northern NJ) is about 1/10 of that range.

      • “…about 10 TIMES the 4%-of-pay…”

        Irrelevant. Most private workers don’t receive any retirement from their employers. Who are you comparing to?

        If one private sector employer does contribute a four percent match, and another doesn’t, the second employer typically pays higher wages to be competitive. Same deal with the five times for non safety workers. In and of itself, both comparisons are totally invalid.

        It is universally recognized that public workers receive a larger proportion of their compensation as benefits rather than wages. Of course the employer contributions will be higher. Its a specious argument. Always has been, always will be.

        Don’t worry, it will come to you, in due time.

        https://i.chzbgr.com/full/2593940224/h74C7496B/slowly-iz-turn-step-bi-step-eench-by-eench

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 12:49 am

          What am I comparing the Police pension to?

          NJ Police pensions, to fully fund then (using assumptions and methodology identical to that required by the US Gov’t of Private Sector DB pension in their valuations) over the Officers’ working career, requires a level annual 40% of pay VS the 4% of pay that is all Private Sector workers typically get in retirement contributions (into a 401K Plan).

          That’s 10 TIMES greater. Even a retired light-bulb-changer (you) can do the math.

          Irrelevant …… my ass.

          And then you go into that …..”It is universally recognized blah blah blah” ….. crap again.

          Really ? You got nothing better than that ???

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 1:06 am

            If you brain doesn’t “get it”, factor in that NJ Police Officer “wages” ALONE (as well as Benefits ALONE) are greater than that of private Sector workers in jobs requiring comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge. Hence it’s NOT an apple-to-oranges comparison ….. AT ALL.

          • “…private Sector workers in jobs requiring comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge.”

            s/b, Google “nationwide shortage of police officers”

            Current officers retiring or leaving in record numbers, fewer New recruits.

            It is what it is.

            Also teachers nationwide. And this…

            CalPERS got 10,000 calls about retirement as California leaders talked about pay cuts.

            “In June, 10,266 state and local government workers called the California Public Employees’ Retirement System with retirement questions, an increase of 66% from the month before, according to data kept by the system.

            “What it is” is, every day, people are just saying “No, thank you, sir.” Ludicrous pensions or not.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 19, 2020 at 2:32 am

            Google “nationwide shortage of police officers”

            Google “Dougie is a Progressive Surrender Monkey” and you get just as much bullshit/propaganda 😎😋😋

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 12:13 pm

            STephen,

            Northern NJ isn’t Portland.

            HUNDREDS of qualified applicants still apply for each open Police position.

          • Fine, google “new jersey police shortage”, even before clovid. Even before riots. “…private Sector workers with comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge” have other options.

            But that’s OK, ignore it. You’ve had a burr under your saddle for years about police, but you almost invariably cite Bergen County and the like. They are the outliers. Good for them. Someone has to do it, but across the country, and even in New Jersey and California, most police earn much less, and retire comfortably, not lavishly.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 6:12 pm

            ZERO Police shortage or hiring issues in northern NJ ….. don’t follow elsewhere.

            P.S. Any “burr under my saddle” is insignificant when compared to the burr messing with your brain.

          • Viva northern New Jersey.

  19. They are just voting with their feet.

    We have met the enemy.

    Reply

  20. Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 6:40 pm

    Stephen Douglas,

    Suggested reading (below) ……….. essentially how the Greedy Public Sector Unions, Workers, and Retirees, enabled by the Elected Official they have BOUGHT, have bankrupted Chicago.

    They’re not alone. NJ* isn’t far behind, and neither is CA (although CA, via it’s well-oiled methods of screwing it’s Taxpayers, may be able to put off that day of reckoning a bit longer).

    * Thankfully, NJ its doing MUCH better (than CA) in NOT forcing it’s Taxpayers to actually fund these ludicrously excessive pension/benefit promises.

    ———————–

    https://americanconsequences.com/but-my-pension/

    Reply

  21. Are you sure? What are the normal costs of NJ pensions for the last twenty years? (hint, the normal costs haven’t increased that much.) From the graph, it appears the normal cost is easily below $500 million.
    Generously, $500 million times 20 is $10 billion.

    How much has NJ contributed in just the last five years? Ballpark, it looks like over $15 billion.

    Someone with the actual data could verify it, but it looks like you just outsmarted yourself.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 8:38 pm

      Clearly you must be a “genius” to be able to determine solely from that graph that ………….. “it appears the normal cost is easily below $500 million”.

      I know of no other light-bulb-changer OR ACTUARY that could do so.

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 19, 2020 at 11:41 pm

        I know of no other light-bulb-changer OR ACTUARY that could do so.
        ==
        Monkey Boy posts so much BS it spins my head ….

        Reply

  22. Possibly psychotic, but that’s another story.

    I was actually guided by the other graph (Burypensions 10/11/2020) showing the ARCs from 1995 on. The ARC in 99 & 2000 was only $500 million, and only then because of shorted contributions the previous two years. and, you know, big data changes very slowly.

    Also, on page 40 of the CAFR: “The State contributed $2,479.2 million to the pension trust funds in State fiscal year 2018. It was composed of $323.1 million of normal cost and $2,156.1 million of accrued liability.”

    But, I’m not sure if that $323 million included all the pension systems, or just a portion. Error on the safe side.

    Hey! It’s your state, aren’t you curious how much you really saved?

    Find the data.
    Do the math.
    Wash your hands.
    Wear your mask.
    We love you!
    (Quoting Seth Myers.)

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2020 at 11:26 pm

      Quoting ……………

      “Hey! It’s your state, aren’t you curious how much you really saved?”

      NO. Given that ALL of NJ’s Public Sector DB Pension Plans are ludicrously excessive (even when evaluated on a Total Compensation basis), unnecessary, unfair to Taxpayers, and unaffordable …….. I believe that there is zero reason for Taxpayers to contribute anywhere near what it would take to fully fund such promises.

      Taxpayers should CONTINUE to fund AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. And if/when the Public Sector moochers finally agree to hard freeze all future accruals, only THEN should taxpayers come to the table and be willing to “discuss” how much of PAST services we (the Taxpayers) should fund, and how much should be “erased” (NEVER being justifiable).

      Reply

  23. ” Taxpayers should CONTINUE to fund AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.”

    But, sir, it’s already too late. New Jersey has has already spent more in the last five years. Than they would have in the last twenty, IF they had fully funded every year.

    Pretend it isn’t so; see how that works out for ya. That’s like, the polar opposite of pension reform.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 20, 2020 at 12:38 pm

      Quoting …………… “But, sir, it’s already too late. ”

      LOL …. you’re working under the assumption that the workers/retirees will be paid in full, as promised. I’m not.

      It’s only “too late” for the Public Sector workers to “realize” (via real money paid) the theft that has been perpetrated upon NJ’s Taxpayers, by actually having them set aside sufficient money to actually be able to pay the ludicrously excessive pensions & benefits.that have been promised.

      I call that a SUCCESS (for NJ’s Taxpayers), in NOT having been forced to pay for something that was NEVER necessary, just, fair to Taxpayers, or affordable. It’s CA’s Taxpayers that have truly been suckered ………. so far, NJ’s Taxpayers having avoided that.

      One day that’s going to sink into the head of your State’s Taxpayers, and they’ll revolt at be FORCED (as they now are in CA) to actually fund such absurdly generous Public Sector pensions & benefits.

      Reply

    • No, sir. I am talking about today. The total amount actually contributed between 2000 and 2020.

      IF, NJ had contributed the full ARC every year, the total of twenty year payments would have been less.*

      “…SUCCESS (for NJ’s Taxpayers), in NOT having been forced to pay…”

      “SUCESS” is an illusion, or delusion. Look at the graph. Do the math. It’s paid. The money is gone. Water under the bridge. Even if you don’t pay another penny.

      *Even more so, if NJ had required “full funding”, like NY state.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 20, 2020 at 3:01 pm

        Quoting Stephen Douglas …………

        “IF, NJ had contributed the full ARC every year, the total of twenty year payments would have been less.*”

        Such statements show how little you understand about finance.

        Why? Because the comparison you described fails to account for the fact that all the money the Taxpayers did NOT pay (vs paying the full ARC) in that 20 year period, stayed in the Taxpayers’ pocket for THEM to invest and earn investment income (or spend as they pleased.).

        You should stick to where your work-expertise lied …. changing light bulbs.

        Reply

      • “Nevertheless, she persisted.”

        I am aware of the concept, sir, it is the magnitude in question. If you would rather not know, that’s up to you.

        Don’t find the data.
        Don’t do the math.
        Don’t wash your hands.
        Don’t wear your mask.
        We don’t love you!

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 20, 2020 at 6:11 pm

          Stephen,

          Not only do you NOT have sufficient details to makes such calculations (with any degree of reliability), but I would be astonished if you have either the knowledge or know-how to do so.

          To repeat ……..

          You should stick to where your work-expertise lied …. changing light bulbs.

          Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 20, 2020 at 7:06 pm

            You should stick to where your work-expertise lied …. changing light bulbs.
            Stick a fork in Dougie, b/c he is finished! Bitch slapped again!

  24. Yes, it is a dilemma.

    There is no need for me to even try. I am convinced for now by the preponderance of articles by Pew, by Ed Mendel, and others. Extreme underfunding is caused by failure to contribute sufficiently. That’s where the correlation is, not with the comparative generosity of pensions.

    And, of course, if you do the math, I wouldn’t believe you anyway. Ask me why.

    For the next hour, though, I’ll stick to my other area of expertise, pool cleaning, before it gets too dark.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 20, 2020 at 10:30 pm

      Quoting …………..

      “Extreme underfunding is caused by failure to contribute sufficiently. ”

      Wrong, as usual. The ROOT CAUSE of the pension mess is CLEARLY the ludicrously excessive GENEROSITY (and hence COST) of such promises. The lack of full funding is not the CAUSE of the problem, but a CONSEQUENCE of that true root cause ….. ludicrously excessive pension generosity.
      —————-

      And WOW, expertise in TWO areas …… changing light bulbs AND pool cleaning.

      With those on your resume, have you considered applying for the Chairmanship of the FED ?

      Reply

    • CLEARLY, as always, very passionate. Not very convincing.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 21, 2020 at 11:30 am

        Some people are so biased that “convincing” them is impossible, even when the truth is staring them in the face, much like politics in America today.

        Reply

      • I agree.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 21, 2020 at 2:44 pm

          Re your above comment …………”CLEARLY, as always, very passionate. Not very convincing.”

          I’m sure you realized that my (above) response was telling to look in the mirror, not through the window.

          Reply

        • And now we disagree again. Of course I realized that. I find it incredible that you do not see your own bias.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 21, 2020 at 5:05 pm

            lol. Give that some thought. Who would it seem has more reason to be biased?

            Me, a Private Sector worker who beyond paying taxes, has no personal or family connection to the public Sector, or you a retired CA Public Sector worker.

            I strongly advocate for reductions in Public Sector pensions & benefits of sufficient amount to erase the current Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE, now 23%-of-pay in NJ and CA. I do so because, unlike most, I fully understand the VERY HIGH generosity (and hence VERY HIGH cost) of the current pension/benefit promises, and how enormously unfair they are to Taxpayers who are now responsible for all but the 10% to 20% of total Plan costs actually paid for via worker contributions, and because I believe DB Plans (of the form most commonly granted) are unworkable in the PUBLIC Sector given the overriding/self-serving interests of our Elected Officials. AND because I think “fairness” is appropriate and mooching is wrong.

            You want to make sure the big taxpayer contributions keep flowing in to assure your pension (although given your age and current CalPERS assets, I don’t see that as a real threat). At least one regular commentator thinks you are paid to act as a mouthpiece for the Public Sector Unions. While I don’t know if that is true, your commentary (loving everything “Union”and “Public Sector”), certainly suggests that you may indeed be.

          • lol. How could you possibly think I haven’t already given it a great deal of thought?

            Correct, due to my age and CalPERS current balance, I am relatively safe. Relatively. I won’t be surprised if at some point in the future there are reductions, particularly in retiree healthcare, but possibly even in pensions. And, yes, I am strongly in favor of pension reform.

            What state taxpayers wouldn’t envy Wisconsin, whose pension costs have only increased a few percent in two decades, with “average” pension generosity (similar to New Jersey’s.)

            Of course you are biased. Totally anti-union and obviously disdainful of all public workers. For the record, I have no connection, financially, or otherwise, with any union. Since I moved, ten years before retiring, they haven’t even had my address.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 21, 2020 at 8:53 pm

            Quoting …….

            “Of course you are biased. Totally anti-union and obviously disdainful of all public workers. ”

            Not anti-Union ……. anti-mooching and PUBLIC Sector Union (they have ZERO consideration for the Taxpayers, the vast majority of whom get MUCH less).

            Not AT ALL “disdainful of all public WORKERS.” ….. only their excessive compensation (in their pension & benefit components……. almost always FAR in excess of any lower amount in wages).

          • Yes, totally biased. Unions are doing what unions are supposed to do. They are not nearly as powerful as you dream. And public workers are greedy, lazy clock watchers who couldn’t handle a private sector job. (There’s A reason for “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Most public workers have spent more time in the private sector than public.)
            Please don’t try to pretend you are not biased.

            And you are totally wrong about public sector compensation. You just can’t admit it. It feeds your bias too well.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 21, 2020 at 11:08 pm

            Stephen,

            Oh, so I’m the one who is “wrong” about Public Sector compensation ?

            Then how come I’m the one that provides proof/specifics ……… Biggs AEI Public/Private Sector State-specific compensation study …… you know. the one, showing the 23%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector TOTAL COMPENSATION (wages + pensions + benefits) ADVANTAGE found in figure Figure #6 Page 67) here:

            Click to access -biggs-overpaid-or-underpaid-a-statebystate-ranking-of-public-employee-compensation_112536583046.pdf

            And you respond with gibberish, claiming that you have 12 studies that claim otherwise …..but when challenged to provide LINKS to such studies, what do you do ?

            Fold you hand !

          • I will respond with a compliment.

            I highly recommend Biggs and Richwine 2014 study. Always have, always will.

            If “23 percent” is the most salient point you got from that study, you are a fool.

            https://assets.bigcartel.com/product_images/221707072/in-your-heart-you-know-im-right-TEE_mockup_Front_Flat_Solid-Black-Triblend.png?auto=format&am

          • Fold you hand?

            If your company hires a consultant to do salary comparisons with similar positions in your area, and he recommends you cut everyone’s pay by 23 percent, I hope you would toss his keester out the window. Try for at least two bounces.
            We both likely know that Connecticut is a special case; the outlier. The highest relatively compensated workers in the nation.
            Wages alone are about as high as private wages (on average).

            Nationwide, in 2008-2012, the average wage for state workers was 12 percent lower than equivalent private workers. We now can deduce that that average was skewed by the highest paid workers. After benefits are added, the national total compensation was 10 percent higher than private. That doesn’t mean. We can reduce all compensation by 10 percent. Averages can mess you up.

            Yes, you are wrong about public sector compensation. Mostly because you are biased.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 22, 2020 at 1:08 pm

            Stephen,

            You’re still not be honest about what I’ve said …….. so I’ll make it clear:.

            (1) Public/Private Sector compensation comparisons should be on a TOTAL COMPENSATION basis (wage + pensions + benefits).

            (2) Police, and likely somewhere between 50% to 75+% of Non-Safety Public Sector workers are totally-compensated more than their Private Sector counterparts on an apples-to-apples basis (hours worked, productivity, etc,)

            (3) The PRIMARY sources of the over-compensation (in #2) is MUCH greater-in-value retirement security (DB pensions in the Public Sector vs in most cases 401K Plans in the Private Sector) and benefits (primarily healthcare subsidies both while active and in retirement).

            (4) Even the lowest income workers in the Public Sector DON’T “deserve” greater compensation than their Private Sector counterparts ….. and forcing the Taxpayers to foot the bill. Social Service should be the backstop where necessary (NOT artificially increasing compensation), just as it is in the Private Sector.

            (5) The overall Public Sector Total Compensation advantage (e.g., the 23% of pay in NJ and CA per Biggs) which UNJUSTLY and negatively impacts Taxpayers should be eliminated, primarily via reductions in promised retirement security and benefits. I am NOT recommending a 23%-of-pay across the board Public Sector compensation reduction.

          • (1) Sure, no problem.

            (2) Police, yes, and somewhere between 35% to 45% of non-safety. IMHO.If you want to eliminate early retirement for police and fire, you will have a very long row to hoe.

            (3) Agreed.

            (4) Another long row, “We’re gonna need a bigger hoe.”

            (5) The constant refrains, ones which I have been consistently responding to, is “ALL public workers are overcompensated.” and “At least 50 percent reductions in future accrual.” That sounds like across the board reduction.

            ————————————–
            “eench by eench…” I think you are slowly coming around.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 22, 2020 at 8:31 pm

            Stephen,

            Re your #5 response …………

            Then you have a comprehension problem. Re-read my above #s 1, 4, and 5.

  25. Did he just say “Wrong about public sector compensation.” ?

    Yes. Totally wrong.

    https://yankeeinstitute.org/policy_paper/unequal-pay-public-sector-compensation-in-connecticut/

    Andrew Biggs: excerpts, (with my comments)*
    “Public employee pay and benefits in Connecticut are a matter of concern and debate for policymakers, employees and citizens.”

    “Often discussions are carried out via anecdotes or selective use of facts and figures rather than a comprehensive view drawing upon the best analytical methods and data available.” (As a non-economist, I think you can do much better.)*

    “Third, this update analyzes employee salaries at different parts of the wage distribution, (Salaries, not benefits.)* whereas the 2015 study looked only at the average employee. Finally, the study relies on more recent data, spanning the years 2014 to 2018, the most current data available.” (“different parts of the wage distribution…” is crucial.)*

    “Multiplying the 137,522 non-teacher state and local government employees by an average annual compensation premium of $20,263 implies that state and local government employees in Connecticut receive approximately $2.8 billion annually in compensation over and above what similar workers receive in private sector jobs.”

    “At the 95th percentile the state and local employee salary penalty reaches 11.4 percent, while at the 5th percentile state and local employees receive salaries 10.0 percent higher than those paid to comparable private sector workers.”

    (To be clear, using Biggs 2014 data, for lack of any here, “10 percent higher” of $33,854, is $3,385. A “penalty” equal to 11.4 percent of $97,865 is over $11,000. A “10 percent advantage” is far less an 11.4 percent penalty.)*

    “It is not a simple matter to calculate the public sector compensation premium or penalty paid at different wage levels.”

    “The reason is that certain benefits are proportional to earnings while other benefits have a more-or-less fixed dollar value.”

    “At this time, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis has not released lower-level NIPA data that would make it possible to determine the fixed versus variable components of public and private sector compensation in Connecticut.”

    (Not simple. But ignoring these premiums “at different wage levels” clearly falls under the “selective use of facts and figures” mentioned in the first paragraph. I think we deserve better.)*

    Why?

    “Multiplying the 137,522 non-teacher state and local government employees by an average annual compensation premium of $20,263 implies that state and local government employees in Connecticut receive approximately $2.8 billion annually in compensation over and above what similar workers receive in private sector jobs.”

    (I hope you are not implying Connecticut should reduce the compensation of every employee by $20,263 (or, reducing each by 28 percent) annually, that could mean…
    A. The currently highest paid employees, already under compensated relative to the private sector, would be even more under compensated.

    B. The lowest paid workers would –well, actually– still be overpaid.)*
    —————————————
    An Inconvenient Truth

    All across the country, there is a floor on public sector compensation. It is not a coincidence. Most of your $2.8 billion savings in Connecticut would necessarily need to come from these workers. That’s what “the best analytical methods and data available” says. Cut or don’t cut, just understand where and why.

    “…the median Connecticut state or local government employee receives total compensation that is approximately 28 percent higher than is paid to comparable private sector workers.”

    “28 percent” is 100 percent misleading. We can do better. It is irresponsible, or worse, to tell the government and taxpayers of Connecticut, or any other state they can save $2.8 billion without saying where those savings –must– come from.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 22, 2020 at 1:58 am

      Stephen Douglas,

      What do I see?

      Disjointed comments …….. fragments of much longer commentary not shown. A desperate attempt to create a window for the easily swayed to jump through. A sliver, picked with biased intent, means nothing.

      You STATED that you had a dozen studies that countering my LINKED Study from Dr. Bigss that showed MUCH greater Public Sector total Compensation (23%-pf-pay greater in both NJ and CA).

      Then stop BSing the readers with this fragmented crap and GIVE us LINKS (yes LINKS) to those dozen studies.

      Reply

  26. You don’t need no stinkin’ links. Your own link says everything you need to know. Your 23 percent average advantage is driven by the lowest paid workers. That’s where the money is. That’s where the cuts are needed, if you dare.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 22, 2020 at 1:13 pm

      Quoting Stephen ………… “You don’t need no stinkin’ links” *

      * to those dozen supposed Studies disputing Biggs finding of a significant Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE.

      lol ,……. YES, I would like to see then … IF they really exist.

      You see, you stuck your foot in your mouth with another lie, and now you’re being called out on it. PROVIDE the links.

      Reply

  27. Gotcha?

    A: “You can present your one study claiming that the average public worker is overpaid. I can cite a dozen that disagree.”

    TL: “…..but when challenged to provide LINKS to such studies, what do you do ?

    Fold you hand !”

    Quoting Moi…

    LOL “That’s not the way it works, sir.”

    I did not respond with gibberish. I responded with the subject you prefer to avoid, the relative advantage/disadvantage at various pay levels.

    You have already conceded the concept because, frankly, the evidence is clear.

    You have already agreed that these overpayments are what is driving the “23 percent average.”

    And you insist that there is no reason public workers should be compensated more than private, for similar work.

    You should agree that, if these lower paid workers benefits and/or wages were reduced to private sector equivalents, the 23 percent, or whatever “average” advantage would be gone. That is axiomatic.

    Problem solved. Win/win, except…

    You surely know as well as I that it cannot, will not be done. What a conundrum!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 22, 2020 at 8:35 pm

      Stephen,

      YOU, re-quoting YOURSELF …………

      “You can present your one study claiming that the average public worker is overpaid. I can cite a dozen that disagree.”
      ——————————-

      Not stop trying to distract and stop bullshitting us ……….. Provide LINKS to each of those dozen studies.

      Reply

    • No. Live with it.

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 22, 2020 at 10:10 pm

        No, they do NOT exist you Progressive Surrender Monkey 😎

        Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 22, 2020 at 11:40 pm

        Stephen,

        Don’t you mean ….NO, I can’t provide those dozen LINKS because they don’t exist ?

        Not true? PROVE me wrong and PROVIDE the links.

        Reply

  28. That’s not the way it works, kids.

    Reply

  29. Mea culpa and I apologize.

    I actually haven’t yet found a dozen. It was a pointless effort in the first place because we both know you have already seen and discounted the most prominent (some listed below).

    And more importantly, we both knew that, in spite of your occasional denial (backpedaling), the crucial difference is not in the average difference in compensation, but in the very disproportionate advantage at the lower end of the public pay scale.

    Do you want to fix it (reform it), or do you just want to kvetch?

    We know that the overcompensation is concentrated in the lowest paid cohort of public workers.
    (Do not believe me. Biggs is crystal c!ear on this.)

    You insist there is no justifiable reason these workers should receive more, mainly in pensions and healthcare. Ergo, here is where cuts must be made.

    Math tells us that, if total compensation for this cohort is reduced to the level of equivalent private sector worker, the “average” public sector premium, be it 23 percent (New Jersey) or 2 percent (Vermont), will disappear. Total overcompensation (what really matters to the taxpayers) corrected. According to you, the taxpayers should be happy

    Is the problem solved? No. Because you just cannot do it. It is morally and politically impossible.

    Public pension reform is necessary. It is critical. If you cannot or will not be honest about the facts, it is doomed to failure.

    Pro forma

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nirsonline.org/reports/out-of-balance-comparing-public-and-private-sector-compensation-over-20-years/&ved=2ahUKEwj6uJjsncvsAhVMVs0KHfrYB9UQFjACegQIIhAB&usg=AOvVaw3xFrB1Qm9wBXMV-n3JJF64

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://crr.bc.edu/briefs/comparing-compensation-state-local-versus-private-sector-workers/&ved=2ahUKEwj6uJjsncvsAhVMVs0KHfrYB9UQFjAWegQIFhAB&usg=AOvVaw0uf0b9kt7Adl9OZkCw8vcX

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.epi.org/publication/public-sector-workers-are-paid-less-than-their-private-sector-counterparts-and-its-much-worse-in-right-to-work-states/&ved=2ahUKEwiq2OPznsvsAhVJOq0KHQ_NA_w4ChAWMAB6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw1fbTNgVAHp0napwpxB3mDr

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2010/The-Truth-about-Public-Employees-in-California.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwif-tCQpsvsAhVPcq0KHQdpAT04KBAWMAd6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw1G14OhnAQuSa6tCfTc13Dd

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2020 at 7:40 pm

      Quoting Stephen Douglas ………….

      “I actually haven’t yet found a dozen”

      Ok …. so you LIED. After all, you DID say …..”I can cite a dozen that disagree.””
      ——————————–

      Quoting ……….
      “And more importantly, we both knew that, in spite of your occasional denial (backpedaling), the crucial difference is not in the average difference in compensation, but in the very disproportionate advantage at the lower end of the public pay scale.”

      and your next few paragraphs.

      No, Stephen Douglas, it’s BOTH. That 23% Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE in NJ and CA includes everyone, at ALL income levels, as it should, because THAT is what financially impacts the Taxpayers and rightfully should be and needs to be ELIMINATED. And as I’ve clearly stated, even the lowest compensated Public Sector workers deserve NO MORE (on the Taxpayers’ dime) than the compensation granted comparable Private Sector workers. If it’s a “policy decision”, it’s one taken buy conflicted/corrupted Elected Officials BOUGHT with Public Sector Union campaign contributions.
      —————————

      I’ll take a look at your FOUR (NOT the 12 you stated you had) later. I’ll bet that IF (yes if) likely in some MINOR way they do support your decision, that the source is questionable/not-believable.

      And how many did you have to hunt through before you found these FOUR ….. a few hundred ? With the others CONFIRMING that it’s the PUBLIC Sector that is compensated more.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2020 at 7:50 pm

        Stephen , Just opened your first link above.

        Laughable as soon as I saw it was from NICRS, a well-know mouthpiece for the Public Sector Union/worker/retirees. Wanting to re-affirm that for myself, I looked at NICRS “Leadership Members”. Of the four listed, three of them include………

        National Association of State Retirement Administrators
        National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems
        National Council on Teacher Retirement
        ——————————————————–
        Blatantly Pro Public Sector …….and hence a totally biased/unreliable source.

        Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2020 at 8:23 pm

        Stephen,

        I’m STUNNED (to say the least) that you linked (your 3-rd link above) to an article from Jeffrey Keefe, especially after recent commentary (on THIS blog article and timestamped above at October 18, 2020 at 1:42 pm) on this clown*. I won’t paste all of it here, but suffice it to say, Dr. Andrew Biggs stated that Jeffrey Keffe’s writings were …

        ”replete with errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations”

        Give this some thought ………… This clown (Jeffery Keefe) believes that the VALUE of the of the pension accruals granted Public Sector workers in a given year is properly measured by the amount of the contributions made in that year. Think about that …… wouldn’t that mean that in the years in which NJ contributed nothing, that the value of that year’s pension accruals is nothing? Really ???
        —————————

        I don’t think you could have find ANYONE more biased, unreliable, and lacking in credibility.

        Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2020 at 8:29 pm

        LOL, and then ANOTHER link (your 4-th) AGAIN fro this clown Jeffrey Keefe.

        Readers…….. I suggest you scroll up and read Dr. Bigg’s full commentary on Jeffrey Keefe work included in my above comment time-stamped at October 18, 2020 at 1:42 pm. Dr, Biggs ripped everything he did/stated to shreds.
        —————————————

        Are you kidding me? Crap from this guy is supposed to support of your position? Wow.

        Reply

      • And Dr. Morrissey ripped everything Biggs did/stated to shreds.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2020 at 10:46 pm

          Was distracted on more important stuff ….. will get to that (I promise).

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2020 at 1:51 am

          Oh, I forgot ……….. you gave of 4 of the 12 studies you stated you had, 3 of the 4 being “garbage” (as I noted above), and the 4-th I haven;t yet looked into (next week).

          That said ………. that only 4 of the 12. When can we expect to get LINKS to the other 8 ……… or were you just lying ??

          Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 24, 2020 at 3:45 pm

        Stephen , Just opened your first link above.

        Laughable as soon as I saw it was from NICRS, a well-know mouthpiece for the Public Sector Union/worker/retirees. Wanting to re-affirm that for myself, I looked at NICRS “Leadership Members”. Of the four listed, three of them include………
        Yikes, what a LAUGH. No wonder Dip Shit Dougie used it ….🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

        Board of Directors

        Richard Ingram
        NIRS Chair
        Former Executive Director
        Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois

        Dana Bilyeu
        NIRS Vice Chair
        Executive Director
        National Association of State Retirement Administrators

        Hank H. Kim, Esq.
        NIRS Secretary/Treasurer
        Executive Director and Counsel
        National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

        Kristen Doyle, CFA
        NIRS Board Member
        Partner & Head of Public Funds
        Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting

        Janis Elliott
        NIRS Board Member
        Retirement Board
        Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems

        Kelly Fox
        NIRS Board Member
        Chief, Stakeholder Relations and External Outreach
        CalPERS

        Brian Guthrie
        NIRS Board Member
        President
        National Council on Teacher Retirement

        Michael Hairston
        NIRS Board Member
        Senior Pension Specialist
        The National Education Association

        R. Dean Kenderdine
        NIRS Board Member
        Executive Director
        Maryland State Retirement and Pension System

        Gerri Madrid-Davis
        NIRS Board Member
        Director, Financial Security and Consumer Affairs, State Advocacy & Strategy, Government Affairs
        AARP

        Andrew Sherman
        NIRS Board Member
        Senior Vice President, National Director of Public Sector Market
        Segal

        Brian Tobin
        NIRS Board Member
        Fire Chief
        Daisy Mountain Fire & Medical

        Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 23, 2020 at 8:53 pm

      TL… “That 23% Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE in NJ and CA includes everyone, at ALL income levels, as it should, because THAT is what financially impacts the Taxpayers and rightfully should be and needs to be ELIMINATED.”

      A… Eliminate or reduce benefits of the lower 30-40 percent of public workers to private sector level, and the 23 percent “average” advantage will be gone. (Or become a slight public sector penalty.)
      “…what financially impacts the Taxpayers” will be ELIMINATED.

      The remaining, unreduced public workers will remain either roughly equal to, or under compensated.

      You should be happy; “And as I’ve clearly stated, even the lowest compensated Public Sector workers deserve NO MORE (on the Taxpayers’ dime) than the compensation granted comparable Private Sector workers.”

      Done.

      Taxpayers should be happy; the 23 percent average advantage is gone, or negative.

      Done.

      Without touching the upper or mid level public employees.
      ———————————–
      Thing is,

      A. I told you the links were useless because you have already read several and dismissed them.
      (Pardon my French, but what the f*ck makes you think Biggs or Richwine are not biased?)

      B. Biggs is all the information you really need, if you get away from fig. 6 on page 67. Fig. 4, page 60 will tell you exactly where to cut.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2020 at 10:52 pm

        Quoting …………….

        ” Eliminate or reduce benefits of the lower 30-40 percent of public workers to private sector level, and the 23 percent “average” advantage will be gone. ”

        All things factored in ….. income level, hours worked, measurable productive output, etc. I’d guess that it’s not really 30 to 40% but closer to 75% of all Public Sector workers that are compensated materially more than their Private Sector counterparts.

        And no, I do not have a source for that % …. just my observation/opinion.

        You should try being so above-board, Stephen.

        Reply

  30. So, you don’t believe Biggs.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2020 at 12:15 am

      Perhaps I missed it Was that quote attributable to Biggs?

      If so provide a LINK to those words.

      Reply

    • I do not have a source for that % …. just my observation/opinion.

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 25, 2020 at 8:40 pm

        I do not have a source for that % …. just my observation/opinion.

        ==
        So useless, like the majority of your comments … 😫

        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: