HR1418 has a 93% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs even though the insurance industry which controls the information you get through most media outlets VERY, VERY MUCH wants to keep being regulated by state insurance departments who basically operate as their fraud prevention units in exchange for premium taxes (which is the prime reason states want to keep doing what they are ill-equipped to do).
For an understanding of why even a partial repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act would be a game-changer (and by far the most beneficial piece of legislation for the vast majority of Americans to come out of the Trump administration) here are the few sources I could find (basically me and youtube with nothing from any of those insurance-funded think tanks).
Repeal McCarran-Ferguson – March 24, 2009
Trumping Insurers – March 30, 2017
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by Tough Love on December 26, 2020 at 8:29 pm
Something to consider ………..
If Ins Co. Regulation shifted from State to the Federal Gov’t., would the States terminate the no longer needed State Ins, Dep’t employees ……. as would a Private Sector corporation ?
Or would they “bloat” other agencies (with unneeded employees) just to not piss off their Union benefactors?
—————-
While on that subject ……………
Several NYC Bridges just shifted to Cashless toll collecting. Are the now unneeded Toll Collectors workers being terminated …….. or the “bloat” noted above ?
Posted by A on December 26, 2020 at 10:06 pm
Public and private sector employment are influenced by different factors.
https://www.governing.com/work/Government-Falls-into-a-Recession-and-Job-Cuts-Soar.html
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 1:54 am
Stephen,
You’re always singing the same song (protect Public Sector worker jobs and their excessive compensation at all costs), with buzzwords* to make it appear sophisticated, in this case ………..”influenced by different factors”.
No Stephen, there is noting special going on, just your standard goal …………….”protect Public Sector worker jobs and their excessive compensation at all costs”.
—————————–
* A few of your others being …………..it’s a “policy decision” or the Public Sector is a “model employer”.
Posted by A on December 27, 2020 at 2:36 am
Didn’t read the article? Don’t believe it?
“A key driver of this broad-based weakness is austerity in the public sector. Since the recovery began in June 2009, the public sector has lost 728,000 jobs. However, to keep up with population growth over this period, public-sector employment should have increased by around 750,000. That means the total gap in public-sector employment today is around 1.5 million jobs. Nearly 30 percent of that gap has occurred in local government education, which is mostly public K–12 employment.”
https://www.epi.org/publication/years-beginning-great-recessions-shadow/
Yes, .”influenced by different factors”.
“…noting special going on,” boss.
LOL
Posted by Anonymous on December 28, 2020 at 4:20 pm
Not sure how to interpret your chart. Wouldn’t negative “job losses” equal job growth?
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 28, 2020 at 6:53 pm
“A key driver of this broad-based weakness is austerity in the public sector. Since the recovery began in June 2009, the public sector has lost 728,000 jobs.
Dougiee spewing his usual bullshit fraud. Dougiee is worse than seesaw EVER was….
Posted by A on December 26, 2020 at 10:10 pm
“Nearly a million jobs were lost in the public sector in April. Services are needed more than ever, but the resources to provide them are vanishing.”
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 2:26 am
Ok, lets do a comparison …………..
“US private payrolls drop by 20.2 million in April”: (2020) per:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/adp-private-payrolls-april-2020-drop-by-record-20point2-million.html
But .,…………
State & Local Public Sector employment compasses about 15% of all workers.
So for Public Sector workers to have been hit as badly as Private Sector workers they would have had to lose 15% x 20.2 Million = 3.03 million jobs.
The 1 Million the Public Sector jobs lost is lees than 1/3 of the 3 million they WOULD HAVE lost if they lost jobs at the SAME rate as in the Private Sector.
——————————
See Stephen……… number DO matter ……… and shoot down your BS and never-ending attempts to mislead..
Posted by A on December 27, 2020 at 3:39 am
Then apparently they are ”influenced by different factors”.
Private jobs lost due to decreased demand for services, transportation, and manufactured goods.
Meanwhile, “Nearly a million jobs were lost in the public sector in April. Services are needed more than ever, but the resources to provide them are vanishing.”
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 4:15 am
Now I get it ……………
When YOUR #s don’t support YOUR biased agenda …………….. then they must be ……….. “influenced by different factors”
Posted by A on December 27, 2020 at 5:03 am
Perhaps
If
I
Type
More
Slooooowly.
“influenced by different factors” means public sector worker lost jobs for different reasons. Not that their layoffs are “equal”. That’s your obsession.
Wages and compensation are also increased or decreased for different reasons. Look at the graph. In a recession, private sector workers lose jobs more quickly (Also lower wages faster.)
But their recovery is quicker also.
“Since the recovery began in June 2009, the public sector has lost 728,000 jobs. However, to keep up with population growth over this period, public-sector employment should have increased by around 750,000. That means the total gap in public-sector employment today is around 1.5 million jobs.”
Different factors.
Posted by boscoe on December 26, 2020 at 8:47 pm
Happy New Year to you too….
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 28, 2020 at 12:34 am
TY boscoe! Rex now forgives you for saying the unkind words about him 💖
Posted by MJF on December 26, 2020 at 11:31 pm
The cost of medical care could be reduced from 3T$ to 1T$ overnight if you got rid of the federally mandated monopolies and the insurance industry participation. Who is going to yank 2 trillion dollars of profit and salaries out of the economy? It’s an unfortunate consequence of smashing the manufacturing base into atoms and replacing it with a “service” economy. That has yielded nothing more than ballooning debt.
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 2:07 am
Quoting ……………. ” Who is going to yank 2 trillion dollars of profit and salaries out of the economy?”
You are correct., When you allow group such a Pharmacy benefit managers to create a HUGE (but basically unneeded) industry ….. with tons of money for lobbyists, all but impossible to reverse course and get rid of it
Speaking of which ……….. most intelligent LEOs know that they are vastly overcompensated (some by 50%) ……. but fixing that now is near impossible.
After a while, they either start BELIEVING that they’re appropriately (not overly) compensated, or at least making us THINK they believe they are, and challenging even the most minor of pull-backs (or slow-down in increases).
Posted by MJF on December 27, 2020 at 12:21 pm
Yup. As the seas build against the great ship of debt we’ll see what gets tossed over the side to keep it afloat.
Posted by A on December 27, 2020 at 5:11 am
Nice segue. Now you have LEODS too. (Don’t look it up.)
It’s gonna be a long year.
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 3:17 pm
Don’t think LEOs are overcompensated ? The data from your State of CA proves it overwhelmingly.
The Vastly overcompensated LEOs in NJ would give their right arms for the pensions of LEOs in CA …………… 90% COLA-increased vs 70% Non-COLA-increase after 30 years.
Those 2 difference just about DOUBLES the value (and hence cost) of the pension.
Posted by Tough Love on December 28, 2020 at 2:05 pm
I’m going to do something here that you’ll rarely see Stephen do, correct my own error.
I was re-reading these comments and quickly realized … whoa, that’s not correct.
Above, I stated that CA’s COLA-increased 90%-of-pay pension has double the value of NJ’s non-COLA-increased 70% of-pay pension. The correct relationship is that the CA Plan is 64% greater. The 90% vs 70% increases the value of the CA Plan by 90/70=1.286 (or 28.6%), and the inclusion of a 2% annual COLA increases the value of the CA Plan by 27.7% (determined via Ed Ring’s Pension Analysis spreadsheet). These impact of these 2 CA Plan advantages over the NJ plan are multiplicative, giving the CA plan an overall advantage of 1.286 x 1.277 = 1.642 (or 64.2%).
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 28, 2020 at 9:22 pm
Who gives a rats ass what the COLA ratio is, these uneducated GED chumps are making $200K per year before over time, NOT counting their time off (add in another 25%!), add in OT and time off and they are 1%-3%er’s….
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 5:27 pm
“… whoa, that’s not correct.”
The COLA for CalPERS is actually 2 percent… or CPI increase, whichever is smaller. “Whichever is smaller” has been the norm since 2008.
I quickly realized…
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 28, 2020 at 9:27 pm
Posted by A on December 28, 2020
The COLA for CalPERS is actually 2 percent… or CPI increase, whichever is smaller. “Whichever is smaller” has been the norm since 2008.
More bullshit from thee BIGGEST BULLSHIRT of all time. Per CalTURDS own mouth Dougiee [the clown]~! Damn, my hand is getting sore from spanking the shit out of DOugiee here 🤣 multiple times per day !
“Contracted COLA Provision
Your contracted COLA Provision determines your COLA limit. Most state retirees and all school retirees contract for a 2 percent COLA Provision, and public agencies can contract for a 3, 4, or 5 percent COLA Provision. The COLA Provision is compounded to calculate the COLA limit per year.”
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/retirees/cost-of-living/cola
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 10:34 pm
“Consumer Price Index (CPI)
CPI determines the rate of inflation, and is compared annually. We use the CPI at the time of retirement to calculate what your value of money should be when we adjust for COLA. CPI is determined by the BLS and, by law, it is the official measure used by CalPERS to calculate COLA.
The 2019 annual CPI is 765.836 and the rate of inflation is 1.81%.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/retirees/cost-of-living/cola
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 11:22 pm
“Your contracted COLA Provision determines your COLA limit.”
“…limit…” would have been a sufficient clue for most people.
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 5:46 pm
I’m going to do something here that you’ll rarely see Stephen do…
Internet “math” and questionable assumptions.
Posted by Tough Love on December 28, 2020 at 8:11 pm
Math has little to do with the Internet, and NOTHING to do with the changing of light bulbs.
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 28, 2020 at 9:30 pm
Math has little to do with the Internet, and NOTHING to do with the changing of light bulbs.
Oh SNAP!!! TL and Rex, tag teaming the shit out of Dougiee 👏👏👏
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 11:45 pm
“questionable assumptions”
Posted by Tough Love on December 28, 2020 at 11:59 pm
Please IDENTIFY …. very specifically …… those “questionable assumptions”.
Posted by A on December 27, 2020 at 4:18 pm
Ask E about that right arms thing. Would he have to give up all his right arms?
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 5:10 pm
“…………… LEOs in NJ would give their right arms ……… ”
LEOs – plural
their- plural
“arms” ……. not “arm” ………. is correct.
——————————–
CA’s students should be glad you chose light-bulb-changing instead of being an English teacher.
Posted by Tough Love on December 27, 2020 at 9:28 pm
That you Stephen ?
Posted by E on December 28, 2020 at 8:08 am
I kinda like my right arm. I’ll keep it and the $125,000 or so pension I’ll get. I could in fact buy some mannequin arms, and give those right arms for it. 🤷♂️
Florida I think is 90% too although I may be mistaken. I really concern myself with what I get.
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 8:47 am
That was then. This is now. As I understand, most recent LEOs don’t get 90 percent because they don’t work 30 years, and new officers get even less. Start at age 25 and retire at 50… you get 50 percent. Retire at 55, about 75 percent.
The grass is always greener over the septic tank.
Posted by Tough Love on December 28, 2020 at 12:49 pm
No Stephen, “then” is still “now” for all the Officers who were already employed when the changed were implemented ……… because the changes DIDN’T apply to them, and they will continue to accrue pensions benefits (for about 20 MORE years) and retire on the SAME ludicrously excessive pension formulas that I identified above.
And when compared to ANY from of retirement security granted Private Sector workers, the Public Sector DB pension formulas/provisions even AFTER the pension changes (in both CA and NJ) remain “ludicrously excessive”.
We BOTH know that, but you (being a mouthpiece for and supporting everything Union & Public Sector Worker/Retiree), won’t admit it.
Posted by A on December 28, 2020 at 3:09 pm
Over 60 percent of all CalPERS active members are now PEPRA employees.
Over 50 percent of safety employees.
They all are paying higher contributions, and required to wear hair shirts.
Many of the safety workers are out of state transfers and were required to give up their right arms.
Private sector workers are irrelevant. Their compensation is influenced by different factors. If past experience an indication, private sector workers wages will increase faster than public (see Biggs, April 2019), so the “ludicrously excessive pension formulas” (that you identified above) will be based on a lower FAS.
Posted by Tough Love on December 28, 2020 at 8:13 pm
What a “hair shirt” ?
Posted by geo8rge on December 27, 2020 at 8:42 am
Repeal of McCarren Ferguson will raise costs?
According to the video insurance companies are lowering prices by forming ‘trusts’ that discuss prices the Insurance Trust will pay for dental procedures, for example. These prices result in dentists getting paid less. It is not clear what the enforcement method is from the video. So this will raise insurance costs?
Doesn’t consumer reports represent consumers not providers?
Consumer Reports hails passage as being good for providers who feel pressured into contract terms that benefit insurers.
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/ahip-protests-repeal-antitrust-exemptions-health-insurers
Consumer Reports claims McCarren Ferguson must be repealed to allow those providing Covid Vaccines and care to charge higher amounts. I find this reasoning surprising from an organization that supposedly represents customers not providers.
Click to access Antitrust-COVID-4-CR-letter-4-29-20-FINAL.pdf
Posted by E on December 27, 2020 at 11:09 am
The NFL is now expanding not only the playoffs but adding a 17 th game over 18 weeks next year. More $$ for DraftKings. Just wait and see. Although I had under 50.5 for the dolphin game last night. Boy was I pissed about the last FG after the long pass and face mask penalty.
Posted by NJ2AZ on December 28, 2020 at 11:08 am
and i’m here still hoping that *maybe* Arizona will figure out some form of sports betting by 2022 😦
Posted by E on December 28, 2020 at 11:15 am
Hit BIGGG with Green Bay last night!!!! $$$$$$$🤑🤑
Buffalo will cover for sure tonight too.
Posted by NJ2AZ on December 28, 2020 at 1:42 pm
way to rub it in!
the problem out here is we have to come up with something that also keeps the tribal casinos happy. I’m not sure we’ll ever have something like draftkings or sports book legal. BEST case scenario if they pass anything, i’ll have to drive 20 minutes to place a bet in person…which thinking about it is probably for the best lol
Posted by NJ2AZ on December 28, 2020 at 1:43 pm
*draft kings or fan duel (or any online sports book)
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 28, 2020 at 2:56 pm
El feo and NJ2AZ, just TWO WORDS (and a few emoji’s):
Art Schlichter 😢😢
Posted by NJ2AZ on December 28, 2020 at 3:26 pm
i joke about the danger, but i’m wired to never gamble with money i can’t afford to lose.
Id probably bet like $20/week on a 3 or 4 team parlay just for the fun and thats it.
Posted by E on December 28, 2020 at 9:33 pm
Same. Mostly $20 and under. Way up since it became legal. $$.
Rex thinks anyone who places it get will soon lose their home. It’s entertainment. Just like i can have a few drinks a week and not worry about becoming an alcoholic.
I also voted to legalize weed here in NJ. 🤷♂️
Like I said, buffalo will cover tonight. Looking good so far. More $$ for E.
Posted by A on December 29, 2020 at 12:58 pm
To whom it may concern.
“If you say that someone is wearing a hair shirt, you mean that they are trying to punish themselves to show they are sorry for something they have done.” (Collins English Dictionary)
That does not apply to me, and I can safely predict, not to El Gaupo either.
Also, “Public and private sector employment are influenced by different factors.” is not just buzzwords.
Search using words “public vs private pay and business cycles”. There are a dozen, or dozens of articles, books, studies, “opinions” etc., describing pay and employment/unemployment increases and decreases. Some very recent and local to U.S., and some from late nineties (yes, its history, learn it or suffer.) And some from other OECD countries, because we do not live in a vacuum.
Search or not. Your choice, your loss.
Basically, private sector wages and (un) employment levels are driven by market forces. Good old supply and demand, and they can be very volatile. Public employment and wages are determined by political factors (yes, “policy decisions”) and primarily try to equalize public and private pay. Believe it or not. And they are highly dependant upon revenue. Taxes. The reason you see public wages frozen for years due to lack of funds. 2007-2012 as the latest example.
Trouble* is, public pay is much less volatile, private unemployment increases rapidly at the start of a recession, and private wages decrease simultaneously (supply and demand, again).
*Trouble, in this case, may be a feature, not a bug. Because policy decisions react more slowly, public employment keeps the recession from spiralling downward. Some displaced private workers are able to move to the public sector at the start of a recessionary cycle (and public workers move to private sector during recovery, when private wages are increasing and jobs more plentiful.)
There is data documenting this. There are opinions and theories, often contradictory. But there is no doubt that the public sector “advantage” increases/decreases over normal business cycles (even more so during “the greatest recession” of 2008.)**
Case in point, looking at the employment graph @ 2:36 this blog, the sizable decrease in private sector employment was accompanied by a decrease in wages. Public sector wages were more stable. Public wages were also more “stable” during the recovery period. This is just one business cycle, although an unusually large and long one. See Biggs’ 2019 data over two business cycles (1998-2017)…
“Over twenty years, average private sector wages rose by 15 percent above inflation while state and local government pay rose by 8 percent and public education by 5 percent.”
The other interesting feature of that graph is the drop in private employment and wages from 2008-2012 was much greater than the more stable public sector decrease. And this period is exactly when Biggs derived his data showing the public sector advantage. What would his “advantage” be had he included the recovery portion of the cycle, or the two business cycles from 1998-2017?
**Such volatility should put an end to the claim that “big data changes slowly”
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 29, 2020 at 2:21 pm
Public employment and wages are determined by political factors (yes, “policy decisions”) and primarily try to equalize public and private pay.
Shit Dougiee, will you please, just once, stop posting your BS lies?????? I know it is hard, but shit, this is ridiculous. Just STFU!
Posted by A on December 29, 2020 at 4:53 pm
Tough Love…
“No Stephen, “then” is still “now”…”
Now and then, there’s a fool such as you.
Pensions by their nature are a long term commitment. In some cases, Stein’s Law is valid. Many states seriously underestimated ARC requirements and, even paying 100 percent of “required” contributions, are falling farther and farther behind.
May be, they can be saved by actual pension reform, as Biggs says, do it right or don’t do it at all.*
But a handful of states, you know who you are, not only underestimated their ARC, but then almost entirely abdicated their responsibility to meet even those low-balled standards. Say hello to Herbert Stein. Or federal bail-outs conditioned on reform.
The increased safety pensions in California were not, as some pundits STILL claim, a 50 percent increase. SB400 also increased miscellaneous pensions from 2%@60 to 2%@55. For a 37 year employee retiring at age 62, that increased the pension by about 3 percent. Ask me how I know. What’s done is done, pensions for both Safety and misc. employees have reverted to …below… pre-1999 levels. ( 2.7%@57 & 2%@62 respectively) Contributions have increased for new and legacy employees. Spiking has been eliminated. Other provisions have changed Even without the California Rule, it is not justified to reduce pensions the retirees …and… CalPERS have been anticipating for the last 20 years. (IMHO)
*Ironically, they may be saved by the profligate states, the canary in the coal mine. When the checks stop coming, or are reduced, for the worst states, that may be the impetus for universal reforms. (Not holding my breath, though.)
Posted by A on December 29, 2020 at 5:21 pm
Are pensions excessive?
Edward Ring, California Policy Center…
“Hence there are two distinct virtues to defined benefit plans, both based on the fact that these plans allow large numbers of participants to pool their (longevity) risk.”
” And because risk in a defined benefit fund is shared across generations of workers, during eras when investment returns are low, existing workers guarantee extra cash coming into the plan to keep it solvent, and during eras when investment returns are high, surpluses are fed into the pension fund that can also be used to make up the shortfall during lean years.”
Well, close enough. Biggs based his “Public sector advantage” on data from 2008-2012. The big difference between his calculations and Munnell, and others, was the use of a 4% discount rate. Munnell used 5.+ percent. Big difference. But what of those of us who began working in 1970? With 20/20 hindsight, I would have been better off investing my pension contributions (and my Social Security contributions) on my own. No, I am not complaining. If I had a chance to redo, I wouldn’t change anything. The pension system is doing it’s generational risk sharing quite well. And what happens in the next twenty years? Hypothetical question… I will be dust by then, but it is entirely possible those “overpaid” LEOs will be eating dogfood.
Reform the damn pensions. It’s a win/win.
Posted by Tough Love on December 29, 2020 at 7:08 pm
Stephen. just about everything you say (or quote) doesn’t stand up under review……………
Quoting …………
“Are pensions excessive? Edward Ring, California Policy Center…
“Hence there are two distinct virtues to defined benefit plans, both based on the fact that these plans allow large numbers of participants to pool their (longevity) risk.””
That last sentence has NOTHING to do with whether DB pensiona are excessive ……. NOTHING.
Quoting …………
“” And because risk in a defined benefit fund is shared across generations of workers, during eras when investment returns are low, existing workers guarantee extra cash coming into the plan to keep it solvent, and during eras when investment returns are high, surpluses are fed into the pension fund that can also be used to make up the shortfall during lean years.””
Baloney. The worker contributions don’t go up (they remain the SAME) during periods of low (or negative returns). Hence there is no “EXTRA CASH”: coming in to help offset those losses. ALL of the losses are passed along to he Taxpayers for additional contributions from THEM.
Quoting ………….
“The pension system is doing it’s generational risk sharing quite well. ”
Yes, but it’s generations of TAXPAYERS (not the employees) upon whom ALL the “risk” is unjustly forced. Because the workers take ZERO risk, the rate at which their DB Plan liabilities should be discounted is rightfully the long term rate on high grade Corporate Bonds, now not even 3% vs the 7% to 7.5% most Public Sector Plans use today. And they do so to make the VERY generous promised Public Sector DB pensions APPEAR must less costly than they truly are.
—————————————————————————————–
And look at those piddly PEPRA “reforms” in CA. Let’s compare the Normal Cost (NOT including anything to amortize past service unfunded liabilities) of the lowered CA Safety worker pension formula of 2.7% at 55 to the 4%-of-pay (into a 401K Plan) that is all most Private Sector workers get in retirement security from their employers.
I’ll use Ed Ring’s Pension Analysis spreadsheet.
Inputs:
Age hired =25
Age retired =55 (30 years of service)
Age died = 83 (28 years in retirement)
Investment earnings rate =4%
Salary pattern (for taxpayers annual contributions pattern)= 5% total annual increases from ALL sources
Post retirement COLA =2%
Result ……….. To fully fund the above worker’s pension during his/her working career, requires a level annual TOTAL (employee + Taxpayer) contribution of 60.6%-of-pay. Deduct the roughly 10%-of-pay that Safety workers contribute, and that still leaves taxpayers with a level annual contribution of 50% of pay ….. vs the 4% of pay that is all THEY typically get.
Calling that BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS would be a HUGE UNDERSTATEMENT
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 29, 2020 at 7:55 pm
and during eras when investment returns are high, surpluses are fed into the pension fund that can also be used to make up the shortfall during lean years.”
MORE DOUGIEE BULLSHIT.. Hey Einstein, Google the “13th Check”, or “The Waterfall” for when the pension systems exceeds their 7% discount rate… You Progressive Surrender Monkey!
Posted by Tough Love on December 29, 2020 at 8:11 pm
Thought you never used such words ?
Posted by Tough Love on December 29, 2020 at 8:21 pm
The surpluses in good years never stay. They invariably get sucked-up by pension enhancements, often granted RETROACTIVELY ………… or like you stated, as 13-th checks, etc.
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 31, 2020 at 4:37 pm
The “surplus” in “good years”?? Hahaha … 🙂 WTF RU talking about ?…There is NEVER a surplus because ANY amount that exceeds the discount rate is GIFTED out via the infamous “13th Check”.
Posted by A on December 29, 2020 at 9:04 pm
Mr. Ring doesn’t understand pension reform either.
“Impose a ceiling on pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that pensions are supposed to ensure retirement security, not lavish affluence. Similarly, establish a floor for pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that employees at the low end of the pay scale are nonetheless entitled to retire with an income sufficient to live with dignity. Assuming the pension ceiling is realistic, the savings from establishing a ceiling for benefits will greatly offset the costs of establishing a floor on benefits.”
I don’t think he really cares about public pensions. He gets paid to bust the unions. He and Robert Fellner. Pension envy is just a means to an end. AFP is bankrolling Transparent California and California Policy Center. Now they want to turn it into a cash cow. TC is so full of pop-up adds its almost unusable. Now they’re asking for donations, too.
Chutzpah
Real pension reform. Not that phony reduction scrap.
Posted by Tough Love on December 30, 2020 at 12:41 am
What you call “Pension Envy”, I call ABUSE of the Taxpayers due to the unnecessary & unjustified generosity of Public Sector pensions ……. and clearly MUCH more generous than necessary to offset any lower Public Sector wages ……… and especially when factoring in the also, MUCH greater value of Benefits in the Public Sector.
The Public Sector Unions (via their BUYING of our Elected Officials with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions) are FAR FAR worse than the groups you mention, those mostly doing their best to expose the THIEVERY going on in Public Sector employment.
Posted by Tough Love on December 30, 2020 at 1:00 am
Smart Taxpayers look to Transparent California and California Policy Center to expose Public Sector CRAP like this in YOUR home State of California.
Article: “Report: Los Angeles seeks $3.9 billion coronavirus bailout despite increased spending, debt”
https://highlandcountypress.com/Content/In-The-News/In-The-News/Article/Report-Los-Angeles-seeks-3-9-billion-coronavirus-bailout-despite-increased-spending-debt-/2/20/63512
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 31, 2020 at 4:42 pm
I don’t think he really cares about public pensions. He gets paid to bust the unions. He and Robert Fellner.
oe Dougiee BULLSHIT! Anyone who points out the FRAUD in the public pension scam is a “union buster” … Right Surrender Monkey 🐒🐒🐒
Posted by A on December 29, 2020 at 7:33 pm
LOL, Never saw that coming!
Happy New Year
Posted by Tough Love on December 29, 2020 at 7:37 pm
Stephen,
Nor am I “shocked” at your response.
You see, it’s not “Internet Math” (no such thing even existing), it’s just MATH (and an Excel Spreadsheet) …….. something they evidently don’t include in the light-bulb-changer curriculum.
Posted by A on December 29, 2020 at 8:34 pm
Internet math is specious. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. Like statistics… Lies, damn lies, and internet math. You’ll see, someday.
I won’t always be around to help you.
Posted by Tough Love on December 29, 2020 at 10:34 pm
Like I stated above …………. there is no such thing as “internet math” ……… tends to be an excuse employed by the insecure who never properly learned math.
Posted by Tough Love on December 29, 2020 at 10:36 pm
By the way, such people use a lot of buzzwords and often quote others in their attempt to appear educated.
Sound familiar ?
Posted by A on December 30, 2020 at 11:03 am
“@BrianKempGA should resign from office,” Trump said in a tweet. “He is an obstructionist who refuses to admit that we won Georgia, BIG!”
“Also won the other Swing States,” Trump claimed, continuing a series of false claims he has made since President-elect Joe Biden was projected as the winner nationally.
———————————
Keeps repeating the same thing over and over with no evidence.
Sound familiar ?
“Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society”
Buzzwords
Posted by Tough Love on December 30, 2020 at 12:37 pm
Public Sector Unions are INDEED ………. “a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society”
Take another look at the article I linked above (and again just below). Is ANY of this reasonable, necessary, or fair to the Taxpayers forced to pay for it ?
It all traces back to the Unions’ owning CA’s Elected Officials.
https://highlandcountypress.com/Content/In-The-News/In-The-News/Article/Report-Los-Angeles-seeks-3-9-billion-coronavirus-bailout-despite-increased-spending-debt-/2/20/63512
Posted by A on December 30, 2020 at 3:49 pm
WOW !
“Take another look at the article I linked above (and again just below). Is ANY of this reasonable, necessary, or fair to the Taxpayers forced to pay for it ?”
Yes. Yes it is.You are not as bad as the dog… yet. But you are gaining on him.
Sensationalism. In one of the highest income cities in the nation, the employees earn more than average for the country. Surprise, surprise, suprise. (sorry, no time for images :))
And some made much more than most, “20,000 city employees’ average pay exceeded $147,000” I am sure they did, but why not add that the average pay for all 72,000 employees is $82,000. Average total compensation, 111,000. It’s high, for the nation as a whole, but not as dramatic as the highest 25 percent of employees.
“Firefighter Donn Thompson took home $486,674 in pay with $359,416 in overtime.” That’s an exception and an anomaly, or vice versa.
1. There is a problem, and controversy, of cities relying on OT for safety because it is (questionably) cheaper than hiring more employees.
2. His regular salary is (only?) $127,000?
You are looking at the extremes (lookin “for”?) and you will find them. They are the ones that make the papers. Often as not, you will likely find there are reasons for the outliers.
Last line of the article…
““Los Angeles’ financial problems stem mostly from unfunded retirement obligations that have accumulated over the years,” TIA notes. Of the $64.3 billion in retirement benefits promised, $7.9 billion in pension and $2.8 billion in retiree health care benefits remain unfunded.”
DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER
Posted by Tough Love on December 30, 2020 at 8:14 pm
OR, as the better informed know……………
DON’T OVER-PROMISE AND THE BILLS ARE A GREAT DEAL SMALLER
———————————
P.S. We know you can’t be trusted with accurate data………….
Quoting… “And some made much more than most, “20,000 city employees’ average pay exceeded $147,000” I am sure they did, but why not add that the average pay for all 72,000 employees is $82,000.”
I’d bet that your $82,000 (which is already very high as an average) includes part time and non-full-year employees. Care to provide a linked source so that we can see for ourselves.
Posted by A on December 30, 2020 at 8:50 pm
DON’T OVER-PROMISE AND THE BILLS ARE A GREAT DEAL SMALLER
And some states still won’t pay. There is no correlation between lower pensions and full funding.
Posted by Tough Love on December 30, 2020 at 9:04 pm
Well……… I’d bet a boatload of money that if Public Sector pensions were reduced to the level that would have an annual cost to Taxpayers EQUAL to the 4%-of-pay that is all most Private Sector taxpayers get in retirement security contributions from their employers, that EVERY single State, County, City, and Town in America would be jumping for joy for the opportunity for FULLY fund such a Plan EVERY year.
Very high GENEROSITY –> Very High COST –> Very DIFFICULT to fully fund
Posted by A on December 31, 2020 at 12:54 am
Here’s a pregnant idea. That report came from Open the Books. Apparently the $147,000 average is the average of all employees who made over $100,000.
“the nonprofit watchdog’s CEO Adam Andrzejewski details a laundry list of taxpayer money spent on high and numerous city employee salaries.”
Perhaps one of us* could notify Mr. Andrzejewski that, if saving taxpayer money is the goal, they should start by reducing the compensation of those who made well under $100,000. As Willie Sutton (probably never) said, “because that’s where the money is.”
Tell Bethany Blankley too, and Forbes magazine. May be they haven’t read Biggs.
*That would be the “one of us” who actually believes the lowest paid public workers should be consigned to Social Services. Give them Dr. Biggs CV.
Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2020 at 1:09 am
Stephen……………
Are you trying to say that CA’s Safety workers AREN’T over-compensated (total of wages + pensions + benefits)?
If so, by what “measure” or by comparison to WHAT ?
———————————
I say that they are, by comparison to the Total Compensation of Private Sector workers in jobs (even though different than those of Safety workers) that require comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge, AND including a “reasonable” premium for the risk associated with such jobs (noting that MANY Private Sector jobs have greater MUCH risk AND pay MUCH less)
Posted by A on December 31, 2020 at 1:47 am
Sayin’ what we both agree, that the lowest educated public workers earn much more than equivalent private sector workers. Do you or do you not have a problem with EQUAL?
Biggs didn’t compare safety workers. Josh Rauh wouldn’t either. Who do think you are?
“If so, by what “measure” or by comparison to WHAT ?”
Exactly! Where is your data for the equivalent of a cop? Show me the data.
Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2020 at 11:57 am
The Biggs Study didn’t include Safety workers because they have no Private Sector equivalent.
That doesn’t mean intelligent people cannot determine the experience, education, skills, and knowledge to effectively do their job. Isn’t such knowledge part of the thought process behind hiring decisions … what level of such qualities (and others) that the applicant has now, and an evaluation of the applicant’s likelihood of improving upon them?
Surely their are MANY private Sector occupations with reasonably comparable requirements with whom the compensation of Safety workers can be compared.
Then add a REASONABLE premium for the unique risk associated with Safety-worker occupations.
—————————-
They (and of course YOU, being a mouthpiece for everything Union & Public Sector) oppose such because they VERY clearly expose the high level of excessive compensation.
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 31, 2020 at 4:33 pm
The Biggs Study didn’t include Safety workers because they have no Private Sector equivalent.
That doesn’t mean intelligent people cannot determine the experience, education, skills, and knowledge to effectively do their job.
Bullshit-how many times do I have to repeat this fact. GED Cop is equivalent to the construction “trades” in the private sector….
Posted by A on December 31, 2020 at 12:25 pm
Surely.
And what of all those lower level employees that we have actual empirical data showing their huge compensation advantage? Whatever happened to EQUAL? Begin at the beginning. Start at the bottom. Lots of “savings” there.
Tough Love… Still… giving lip service to taxpayer savings.
Still… A one trick phony.
Happy New Year
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on December 31, 2020 at 6:47 pm
I hate the bullshit pics and cartoons DOugiee posts, except THIS one. That horse is killing me 🙂 👍
Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2020 at 6:51 pm
Quoting …………….
“And what of all those lower level employees that we have actual empirical data showing their huge compensation advantage? Whatever happened to EQUAL? Begin at the beginning. Start at the bottom. ”
And what ……. ? Really …. as thought I haven’t answered this many times before.?
I’ve been VERY clear. There is ZERO justification for Public Sector workers to be Totally Compensated (wages + pensions + benefits) ANY more than their Private Sector counterparts ……….. at ANY income level. And if that Total Income is insufficient for the Public Sector worker to provide for life’s basis needs, they should seek out assistance from Social Services ………. just like a Private Sector worker in such circumstances must do now..
And the “one trick pony” thing seems to fit YOU perfectly ….. your one-trick being your laser-focused support of everything Union and Public Sector, and with a “to hell with the Taxpayers attitude.
Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2020 at 7:06 pm
Happy New Year Stephen.
Perhaps in the new year your will have a revelation ……. and realize that Public Sector workers AREN’T deserving of a better deal (a MUCH better deal … as is the case now) than their Private Sector counterparts …… and with the cost of that excess being forced upon the Taxpayers.
Posted by A on December 31, 2020 at 6:54 pm
One
Trick
Phony
Posted by Tough Love on December 31, 2020 at 7:09 pm
You said “No-trick” …. yes, “No-Trick”, like those who choose a career that includes changing light bulbs.