Unionarchy

According to njspotlight Montclair taxpayers have a problem with their public schools:

The Sunlight Policy Center sees a politician in Montclair as having a conflict of interest. I don’t.

In response, Montclair’s Mayor Sean Spiller, the No. 2 ranking officer in the NJEA with a fiduciary duty to represent the members of the NJEA, referred to the Sunlight Policy Center as “a neo-conservative, right-wing organization dedicated to attacking public education.” 

So what’s wrong with being neo-conservative or right-wing? And what idiot would be ‘against’ public education? Everyone should be educated (though not necessarily indoctrinated).

Mayor Spiller may be a fine bureaucrat for Montclair taxpayers in regard to issues not involving the NJEA but in this case his interest is clear and defined. How would you expect an executive of Planned Parenthood or the Family Research Council to handle public policies directly relating to their livelihood?

185 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on February 3, 2021 at 9:54 am

    Point well taken, Mr. Bury. Sunlight would just add that Mayor Spiller clearly does not even know what the term “neo-conservative” means. Sunlight takes no position on America’s interventions overseas. No doubt Spiller is just hurling a poll-tested epithet to try to avoid addressing his conflict of interest, but this is laughably and demonstrably false.

    Reply

    • Kind of like those medicare recipients using socialism as an epithet.

      I also do not see it as a conflict of interest. His interest is his job and that is proper. Pretending that it isn’t is the repulsive aspect of this story. If anything, Spiller should admit it and recuse himself from anything involving the NJEA.

      Reply

  2. Posted by PaulB on February 3, 2021 at 9:59 am

    No longer in NJ but I recall that municipal governments and the school boards were independent of each other. The mayor would then have no ability to control the superintendent or the decisions made by the board so his opinion (which is wrong) is just that and not a conflict with his job.

    Reply

  3. Posted by MJF on February 3, 2021 at 10:33 am

    Good teachers are a godsend, militant self serving teachers are societal poison. So cull the herd and it will be well.

    Reply

  4. Posted by Tough Love on February 3, 2021 at 12:17 pm

    IF appropriate safety precautions are in place (as measured by the precautions set up in other NJ schools that have already reopened), the the Town should set a date (no more than 1 week hence) after which wages stop and healthcare benefits end (you get sick/hurt during that period, and YOU pay 100%).

    And …….. make it VERY clear upfront that once settled, the lost pay will NOT be made up.

    Reply

  5. Posted by geo8rge on February 3, 2021 at 1:06 pm

    N.J. school district files suit to force teachers back to in-person classes, calls union opposition ‘illegal strike’

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nj-school-district-files-suit-to-force-teachers-back-to-in-person-classes-calls-union-opposition-e2-80-98illegal-strike-e2-80-99/ar-BB1dkAXg

    If there is a determination of an illegal strike, does that mean the district can fire the teachers?

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 3, 2021 at 1:40 pm

      If there is a determination of an illegal strike, does that mean the district can fire the teachers?
      No, BUT if the Court ORDERS the teachers back to work and they do not comply, then the Court can determine/rule in a contempt hearing they violated the Court’s Order then they could be spending some time in County … until they complied. To be fired under a teachers contract you have a two-five year “due process” process!

      Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on February 3, 2021 at 3:04 pm

      I don’t think you have to fire them, just “replace” them and stop paying those replaced.

      Reply

  6. Posted by MJF on February 3, 2021 at 1:40 pm

    Yeah ten years from now. Drawn into the Dem litigation trap. Just fire them all today.

    Reply

  7. Posted by Tough Love on February 3, 2021 at 1:44 pm

    Just read this ……. see the PERFECTLY Stated last sentence:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/opinion/2021/02/03/who-really-cares-federal-property-tax-deduction-well-off-suburbanites/4353277001/?utm_source=northjersey-Daily%20Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_briefing&utm_term=list_article_headline

    “Legislators are less likely to point out that, until 2017, the state of New Jersey, with the highest property taxes in the nation, also limited property tax deductions to $10,000. They are less likely still to note that much of the Democratic base doesn’t give a fig about this issue. The average New Jersey homeowner pays less than $10,000 in property tax and the state ranks in the bottom quartile of home ownership. And they are least likely to draw attention to the roots of high property taxes in the state’s balkanized and segregated municipalities overseen by a substantial infrastructure of state and local employees with defined-benefit pension plans and platinum health insurance.”

    Reply

    • Grab your guns and storm the Capitol in Trenton. Put an end to this tyranny of the defined benifit pension. Oh wait….didn’t work for the assholes in DC. Oh well, shut up and pay up I guess. 🤷‍♂️

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on February 3, 2021 at 7:13 pm

        No no no …… not Tyranny……….. just a financial “noose” around the Taxpayers’ necks.

        Oh …….. AND let not forget the OTHER “noose” …….. your FREE retiree healthcare benefits (costing over $35K annually just in premiums for family coverage …………… and often starting in your early 50s …………. that NOBODY in the private Sector gets .

        Reply

        • You’ve made tongue in cheek references about taxpayers grabbing their pitchforks. Lol.
          Who knew that we would’ve seen what we saw last month🤷‍♂️

          Reply

        • “$35K annually” sounds like an insurance/medical industry taxpayer ripoff.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 11:13 am

            No, Platinum+ Healthcare is VERY VERY expensive.

            And my EDUCATED guess is that the Retiree group is commingled with the Active-worker group to determine premiums that are not age-rated, and with claims costs rising with age the true cost for retirees would be much higher.

          • That’s incredible.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 4, 2021 at 1:57 pm


            Yep, sounds ALMOOST as stupid as the comments YOU POST (but you still win on stupidity!) alleging the “average” public sector Dork is paid the exact SAME as the private sector working class serf….

          • Don’t know what platinum healthcare is, but California pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage. For years my co-pays have been no more than $10 for doctor visits and $5 for prescriptions. That’s way short of $35,000.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 6, 2021 at 9:07 pm

            Don’t know what platinum healthcare is, but California pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage.
            STFU you lying hillbilly Stooge:

            CalPERS 2021 State Health Premiums (Actives and Annuitants)
            Effective Date: January 1, 2021
            PERSCare = Subscriber with 2+ dependents= 2,890.86
            Do the math Hillbilly= $2,890.86 x 12= $34,690.20
            TL, you schooled Hillbilly Boi like there is no tomorrow, now all you have to do is biotch slap this Hillbilly “lightbulb changer” back to the Deliverance mountains where he came from … Along with his inbreed cousin El Feo 🙂

            Click to access health-rates-in-state-2021.pdf

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 6, 2021 at 11:45 pm

            Rex,

            You are weird, but sometimes a hoot.

            Perhaps it’s your pet-food diet. 🙂

          • And…
            “…California (still) pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 7, 2021 at 1:03 pm

            Stephen,

            I looked at Rex’s link and I do see the Basis MONTHLY Premium of ………… “PERSCare = Subscriber with 2+ dependents= 2,890.86”.

            I guess Rex missed it, but there an even higher one …………… “Anthem Blue Cross Traditional = Subscriber with 2+ dependents = $3,172.83” ($38,073.96 annually)

            Are you just arrogant ……….. or just “unwell” ?

  8. Posted by geo8rge on February 3, 2021 at 5:33 pm

    There son has an Individual Educational Plan that requires one on one support. So the teacher refused to be in a room with exactly 1 kid?

    Reply

  9. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 3, 2021 at 5:56 pm

    😥😥😥
    Memorial ceremony for slain U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, NJ Native.

    Reply

  10. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/psaki-defends-bidens-vast-majority-comments-fbi-agents

    I read this article. I don’t think Biden meant any disrespect in his comments. None. He was trying to say the right thing and I think it came out Ok. I find no offense to it and think it is accurate. I think a better way to say it may be an overwhelming vast majority etc. but let’s not start a fight about that for heavens sake. What bothered me more is stupid comments like “why can’t they shoot in the legs instead of the heart” while gesticulating a gun with his hand. That is pandering. Nothing more. I think he is a pretty decent guy. Nothing great. But decent. And if anything right now, we need a boring president.

    Reply

  11. Posted by Tough Love on February 3, 2021 at 7:08 pm

    Interesting ……………..

    “Florida town completes legal review of Trump’s residency at Mar-a-Lago”

    Are Melania and Barron ALSO “employees” at Mar-a-lago ?

    Reply

  12. Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 1:14 am

    Re-opening Schools ………….. “The Teachers’ Unions’ Ransom Demand ”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/teachers-unions-ransom-demand/

    Reply

  13. Posted by MJ on February 4, 2021 at 6:45 am

    Ridiculous situation, these teachers should be ashamed of themselves and where possible fired and replaced. How is every other industry including airlines, Targets, Home Depots, restaurants, doctors offices, etc managing to safely stay open and provide state mandated safety protocols for staff and customers? Private schools have been open since September. If there is a Covid case, they close for two weeks, go remote, then return as usual.

    The CDC states that there is nothing to suggest that Covid-19 spreads in schools if safely precautions are taken nor do children pose any exaggerated threat of spread.

    I hope the taxpayers remember this when the BOE members are up for re-election or better yet recall them. Start voting out all of these morons. It’s going to have to be the parents who get these unions under control.

    I feel sorry for all of these kids. Most surely there will be regression and for some it will be worse than for others.

    Reply

    • It’s all very true. Many schools are open and they close if there is a flare up etc.
      in fact, all industries should be open for business and enough with the remote working due to the virus. Once the vaccine is readily available, I got my 2nd Pfizer shot yesterday, anyone who doesn’t choose to get should be left behind and all restrictions lifted, including masks. I don’t judge, you don’t want it that’s fine. But once it’s available to all, the countdown to no restrictions at all should begin in earnest.

      Reply

      • And stop telling me to get tested even if I don’t feel ill. Enough already with the doom and gloom PSA’s with the doctors at RJB etc.
        that’s right up there w stay safe, stay home. Alone together. Nope. Done with that. I’ll go out w my mask and socially distance but done w the nonsense.
        Can’t watch Ken Jennings on jeopardy without these goddamn psa’s. Sick of them. Same shit every night w it.
        Here’s ways To stop touching your face. Shut the fuck up already.

        Reply

  14. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 4, 2021 at 1:57 pm

    “$35K annually” sounds like an insurance/medical industry taxpayer ripoff.
    Yep, sounds ALMOOST as stupid as the comments YOU POST (but you still win on stupidity!) alleging the “average” public sector Dork is paid the exact SAME as the private sector working class serf….

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 7:07 pm

      LOL ………… the future of America.

      Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on February 4, 2021 at 8:47 pm

        Future? It’s the present. The “future” is chaos and anarchy brought to you by the likes of Dementia Joe, Commie Kamala, and their army of bots. And you thought Trump was bad? What a joke, and it has only just begun.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 9:08 pm

          That “Chaos” you speak of was ramped-up by an order of magnitude by President and chief misfit ……….. Donald J. Trump.

          Reply

          • No. The chaos was brought on by the far left enabling these people and absolving them of any consequences of their actions. This is the chaos that you speak off and we have seen it for far too long.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:42 am

            Ok, BOTH………. 🙂

          • Yes. Agreed. But I think the left is a little worse. Just barely though.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 5, 2021 at 12:55 pm

            No. The chaos was brought on by the far left enabling these people and absolving them of any consequences of their actions. This is the chaos that you speak off and we have seen it for far too long.

            ++++++

            Ok, BOTH………. 🙂

            +++++

            Yes. Agreed. But I think the left is a little worse. Just barely though.
            TL you surrender monkey, you are Koo Koo for CocoPuffs. The Antifa-BLM lunatics raged for 100+ STRAIGHT DAYS, are STILL RAGING today, ASSAULTED HUNDREDS of LEO and innocent bystanders, and caused BILLIONS of $$ in property damages. And you are trying to claim that was Trump’s FAULT? You sick demented TDS wingnut!

  15. Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 7:03 pm

    Article: “N.C. treasurer announces move to make state pension plan less risky for taxpayers”

    https://www.carolinacoastonline.com/regional/article_c65c2932-6633-11eb-8288-1f1410ad3f83.html

    Oh, so should the Taxpayers THANK YOU for INCREASING the amount of money they have to pony up for Public Sector pensions MUCH more generous (and hence costly) than anything Private Sector Taxpayers could even dream of getting

    This does NOTHING to reduce the Plan’s investment risk, and if you REALLY wanted to do something effective you would propose material reductions in future service pension accruals.
    ————————–

    This is the TYPICAL BS we hear from Union-beholden Politicians.

    Reply

  16. Yes?

    Reply

    • How about an “attaboy” for North Carolina?

      According to Pew, it has among the best funded pensions in the U.S.

      And still committed to improving sustainability.

      One more time (sarc), if one would insist on material reductions in future service pension accruals, one should justify that with reliable data, preferably from more than one source.

      Be that as it may, I still recommend Biggs study as a good starting point, and according to Biggs, North Carolina public workers are already about as close to private sector compensation as one can get, with only a one percent average public sector advantage.

      It appears that even police in NC are moderately paid.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/police-officer-salary-state/?sh=446c13c62010

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 12:30 am

        As I have stated before ………….. any DB pensions …… no matter how HUGE ….. can be fully funded IF (yes IF) you throw huge sums into it.

        But is that “fair” to Taxpayers ….. who pay for almost all of the cost of Public Sector pensions but get multiples LESS from their employers?

        Reply

        • Look at high profile cases like the officer killed in the Capitol. Only the fifth person to lie in State. I never knew that. Then multiple FBI agents shot, 2 killed.
          Mary Pat is dead on with her assessments of police pensions as a portion of the overall bill. Itty bitty. Smart lady telling truth.
          Police pay and pensions etc are right where they should be.
          Even the darn Senate voted 100-0 against defunding the police. On record as part of the Covid aid. 100-0!!!! Obviously the House would’ve have a few like AOC and Ilhan that are for it. Fuck them.
          AOC who I can honestly tolerate is really grandstanding here. If I was a Capitol police officer who just buried(cremated) three of my fellow officers, and I had to listen to AOC tell the world how an officer didn’t identify himself and had “such a look of anger and hostility” in his eyes and my aide didn’t know if she would have To fight him, etc., I would really grow to hate the woman. She has some case of look at me-ism that I’ve ever seen.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:04 am

            Quoting …………

            “Police pay and pensions etc are right where they should be.”

            SURE they are ………. from the point of view of a VERY materially over-compensated Police Officer.

            The idiots who call for “de-funding” the Police, and the subject itself, has NOTHING to do with the rampant over-compensation of Police Officers.
            ————————-

            And Mary Pat’s comment (that Police pensions are ” Itty bitty”) was in reference to their total impact on budgets, certainly not on the need for, or appropriateness of the pension-generosity-level afforded the individual Police Officer.

          • Mary Pat and Bury both have never to my knowledge indicated by any measure that they personally felt that police and /or fire were overcompensated or somehow don’t deserve to receive their pensions.
            I think she is more conservative than he is but I’m not sure. I think John just tries to shine a light on corruption as much as anything else.
            With the symbolic 100-0 vote it sends a message to progressives that defund the police is a horrible idea. Didn’t work in 2010 when Christie tried it for other reasons(although the left would have you beleive Camden was all about social justice) and it doesn’t work now.

      • N.C. pensions were/are apparently the opposite of huge, according to Biggs.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 1:07 am

          NOT true per Biggs Study Figure #3 …… NC shows 9%-of-pay for PRIVATE Sector vs 21%-of-pay for PUBLIC Sector.

          And for the value of NC Retiree healthcare benefits (per Figure #4) …… 1%-of-pay for PRIVATE vs 9%-of-pay for PUBLIC.
          —————–

          “apparently” you’re wrong.

          Source (take out the leading and ending “#”):

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

          Reply

        • You still want to insist that CA and NJ are 23 percent overpaid, but not recognize the one percent North Carolina total compensation advantage, which Biggs describes as “market level”? (Table 2, p. 59)
          And, of course, the 13 percent salary disadvantage?

          Could be. May be Biggs was wrong ten years ago, and more wrong today. Or may be you are ludicrously biased.

          North Carolina has reasonable pay and pensions, properly funded. Their taxpayers will probably end up bailing out New Jersey.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:21 am

            Stephen,

            I was simply CORRECTING your FALSE statement ……….. “N.C. pensions were/are apparently the opposite of huge, according to Biggs.”

            And it is FALSE (per the facts I included in the comment to which you were responding)..
            ——————————

            And while the Biggs Study shows only a 1% of pay Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE in NC, that 1% rises to 11% (per Figure #13 in the Biggs study) when the value of the MUCH greater Job security in the Public Sector is included …….. and very likely MUCH greater (than the 11%) today, given the MUCH GREATER impact of the pandemic on PRIVATE Sector employment.

            AND ………. that 1% or 11% Public Sector Total Compensation advantage in NC still omitted Police Officers, so again your statement (above) ………….

            “It appears that even police in NC are moderately paid. ”

            Is FALSE if by “paid” you meant Total Compensation because your Forbes link appears (from the level of the NJ figures) to exclude the VERY high incremental value of Police pensions & Benefits. And if by “paid” you only meant “wages”, then you are going against what YOU always call for ……….. that compensation comparisons must always be on Total Compensation basis.

      • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 12:51 am

        Quoting …………..

        “It appears that even police in NC are moderately paid. ”

        Paid in “wages” perhaps, but likely with MUCH higher Total Compensation than Private Sector workers (in jobs that required reasonably comparable education, expedience, skills, and knowledge) once their MUCH MUCH richer (than Private Sector )pensions & Benefits are included ………………. noting that Biggs Study excluded Police, who have MUCH greater than average wages, pensions, and benefits.

        Reply

      • ” Apr 29, 2020 — CHARLOTTE, N.C. — In a press conference Wednesday, the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Police … CMPD, like many law enforcement agencies across the country, has long had an officer shortage.”
        ————
        ” Red Springs dealing with shortage of police officers”
        ” “The young generation, they don’t look at longevity,” he said. “A lot of them are leaving because of more money.”

        Patterson said the department has struggled with staffing issues for about three years. But, he said, the staffing issue is not only a problem in Red Springs.

        “Every chief that I’ve talked to, they’re having the same issues across the state,” he said.
        —————
        ” GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) A nationwide shortage of police officers is causing a quiet crisis, leaving many Americans questioning their safety.

        9 On Your Side spoke to several local agencies about the drop in applicants.
        ——————

        May be we should cut their pensions? See how that works.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:27 am

          Solution ……….. eliminate that 13% lower Police “wages” in NC by shifting the money from the outsized (vs comparably situated Private Sector workers) Police pensions & benefits.

          The 1% is what in the correct place, so it would be unfair to NC Taxpayers to raise Police “wages” w/o lowering the now-outsized promised pension & benefits.

          Reply

      • Just fund the damn pensions you one trick phony.

        Reply

        • FYI, according to the wordpress tracker this was comment number 50,000. Thank you all for participating in these discussions. It helps me a lot.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:49 am

            John, I’m not sure “how” all of this discussion helps you, but I’m glad to hear that you find that it does. Thank you for making this Blog available.

        • Thank you right back. We owe you.

          Reply

          • Thank TL. She is good for at least half of them. 😉
            Hey Bury, can you give her a commemorative coin? Like one of those challenge coins. Biggest blowhard of the blog award maybe? Lol.
            Relax TL. Poking fun. I like you.

          • Posted by MJF on February 5, 2021 at 10:33 am

            Ditto

        • 50,000 posts is a big milestone. Maybe it should be given an appropriate font and featured as a banner, for a month or so. Subtitle;
          No, excessive pensions are not the root cause of underfunding.

          I wonder if Jack Dean knows about this?

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:37 am

          No, just promise Public Sector pensions with a generosity level that can be fully funded over the workers’ careers (using reasonably conservative, not “aspirationally optimistic” assumptions) with a level annual Taxpayer contributions EQUAL the 3% to 4%-of-pay that is all most Private Sector Taxpayers get from their employers ……… plus/minus any demonstrable difference in the value of Public vs Private Sector Wages and Benefits.

          THAT Stephen, is called EQUAL …….. on a Total Compensation basis.

          Reply

        • Seriously, it’s deferred compensation. Delayed gratification. Lower salaries while working in exchange for an adequate retirement. Should be the new paradigm. Good for the individual, good for the economy.

          Win/win.

          Pension reform means making pensions sustainable, not …necessarily… by reduction.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 12:25 pm

            Quoting ………………

            “Seriously, it’s deferred compensation. Delayed gratification. Lower salaries while working in exchange for an adequate retirement. ”

            Good, then KEEP the NC wages at 13% LESS so that they can have the Greater (and Offsetting) pension and benefits.

            But because they should NOT be Totally Compensated MORE than their Private Sector counterparts, if they want to erase that 13% lower wages, then have have to GIVE UP 13%-of-pay in deferred compensation.

            Why ? Because they “deserve” EQUAL, but NOT greater Total Compensation.
            ———————————

            Stephen,

            What you are trying to justify is GREATER Public Sector Total Compensation. And when I call you out on all the false statements and illogical/fabricated justifications, you tend to fall back on your Plan “B”, just GIVING-UP tying to justify it and simply calling the greater Public Sector Total Compensation ………….

            * A “Policy Decision”

            * Public Sector is a Model Employer

          • *But sir, it is.
            *It is.

            I did not make the policy decision, I just observed it through Biggs and many other sources. Again, the floor on public sector compensation is nearly universal. Google it. It’s viral. It’s world-wide. It goes back decades, or more. If you insist on changing it, you will need to understand how it began, and why it persists. Just stating your opinion won’t cut it. The burden of proof is on you.

            Likewise for early safety retirement. Its expensive, no doubt. It is also nearly universal. Not just in this country. Why?

            It won’t help.

            Keep Calm and Carry On

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 1:44 pm

            Stephen,

            Any why is that ?

            Is is NOT because the Elected Officials who decide on the wages, pensions, and benefits granted to Public Sector workers are beholden to (and OWNED by) the Public Sector Unions?

            Are those Elected Officials NOT afraid of the very real threats of the Union working AGAINST their reelection if they don’t support the Union’s agenda?

            Do the Elected Officials NOT want (and need) the Union campaign contributions to fund their re-election campaigns ?

            Do the Elected Officials not want (and need) the supportive block-voting of the Union membership when they go along with the Unions agenda ?
            —————-

            The whole structure stinks.

          • Sez you…

            Union Derangement Syndrome is strong in you.

            1. The floor was there long before the unions.

            2. Unions …may… be the largest single contributors, but are massively outspent by conservative (largely anti-union) aggregate donors.

            3. Most elected officials are likely not even aware of the existence and/or extent of subsidization of …some… public workers. I was not, until recently.

            4. It appears to have evolved “naturally”, simultaneously, in thousands of jurisdictions. Globally.

            5. ” That’s the way it’s always been.” Is not justification to continue existing “public policy”, but it is reason to be cautious about changing it.

            6. If the alternative to retiree healthcare and pensions for some ” overpaid” public workers/retirees is Medicaid and other social programs…
            A. Do a cost/benefit analysis to avoid unintended consequences.

            B. Consider other social factors like, say, for instance, ” government as model employer” for one. (I did not originate that phrase, or that phenomenon, don’t shoot the messenger.)

            Similar arguments for early safety retirement. The status quo is clear. The burden of proof of your opinion is on you.

          • “Just fund the damn pensions you one trick phony.”

            That is officially a classic, now.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 3:10 pm

            No Stephen,

            Don’t over-promise and the pension bills get a GREAT DEAL smaller, and hence easier to fully fund.

            The ROOT CAUSE of the problem is grossly excessive PUBLIC Sector Pension/Benefit generosity ……………. multiples greater than what comparable Private Sector workers get from their employers, and with the Taxpayers called upon to pay for almost all of it.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 3:25 pm

            Too bad Stephen ……….. our resident light-bulb-changer and wanna-be pension expert doesn’t like hearing the TRUTH.

          • I CAN’T HANDLE THE HUBRIS !

            Too bad there’s no meme for that… yet.

            You claim law enforcement pensions are excessive.
            We all know safety employees do not typically die within five years of retirement. (Most of us. There are still some holdouts.)
            We all know public safety is not the most dangerous job.
            That’s the truth. I can handle that.
            There are maybe questions about effectiveness and liability of aged street cops. And human resource efficiency questions about assigning them desk jobs.

            But, IMHO, there are clues in the somewhat parallel field of military retirement.
            “Thinking about Military
            Retirement: An Analysis
            for the 10th QRMC ”
            John T. Warner, March, 2008.

            “The purpose of the compensation system is to help attract, retain, train, sort, motivate, and separate personnel. The current system relies heavily on three elements of compensation to achieve these goals: basic pay, housing and food allowances, and retired pay.” (p.5)

            “Attract and retain. The system must be able to attract and retain the requisite number of people who have the ability to do the tasks required by the organization.”

            “Sort. The higher the position within the organization, the more performance or productivity depends on the ability of the person filling the position. As a result, the system must be able to sort people by ability and fill the upper-level positions with the most able personnel. The system must avoid adverse selection, whereby the organization loses the more able, and retains the less able, personnel.”

            “Separate. At some point, all personnel—including the most productive—must leave the organization. When people reach that point, the system must encourage them to leave voluntarily and on good terms.”

            (p. 3)

            “Sort” and “Separate” may be the basis for early retirement, especially “20 and out” at half pay for those who will never be suited for upper level positions.

            In my humble opinion, again, eliminating early retirement, or making it less desirable by unwise reductions, may have undesirable consequences. If you know of any studies on this outside the military, I would be interested to see them.

            Like the floor on public workers compensation, this is expensive, but may be justifiably so.

            Hubris: “I know more about everything than anybody.”

            https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsR3f95BGIiA&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiHpP_K7dPuAhWSW80KHZLUCxAQtwIwAHoECAEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Pg5njsbdKhokkrqtVcLdv

            Personified.

            On steroids.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 8:33 pm

            Stephen,

            Your opinion is hardly “humble”

            It’s illogical, lacking in common sense, devoid of accurate/complete facts …….. and clearly biased in favor of anything/everything benefiting Public Sector Unions/workers/retirees even when blatantly unreasonable, unnecessary, and financially abusive to Taxpayers.

            But enjoy your “fantasy”.

          • ” If you know of any studies on this outside the military, I would be interested to see them.”

            In the meantime, the military has a lot at stake, and lots of money to spend, studying recruitment and retention and readiness. My “opinion” is just to consider how others handle pay and pensions and why.
            Do you think military pay and pensions are blatantly unreasonable, unnecessary, and financially abusive to Taxpayers?

            1. Don’t reinvent the wheel.

            B. Just fund the damn pensions you one trick phony.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:05 pm

            Stephen,

            What your doing now is called DISTRACTION.

            The Compensation of Public Sector workers, including Police, and ESPECIALLY Police in quiet Bedroom communities like those in most of NJ should NOT be determined by comparison to those in the military, but to the MUCH more similar group of Private Sector workers whose jobs require reasonable comparable levels of experience, education, skills, and knowledge.

            ———————

            Taxpayers should RESIST fully funding these unnecessary, unjust, unfair to Taxpayers, and ludicrously excessive Public Sector pensions (AND Benefits) by every and all possible means. Starve them until they die.

            The absurdly generous benefit levels need to be materially reduced and for the future service of all CURRENT (NOT just NEW) workers.

          • More opinions. Again with the “reasonable comparable levels of experience, education, skills, and knowledge”, which is immeasurable, or it would have been done already.

            More reasonable is supply and demand. Like North Carolina, and most other states. Potential applicants are choosing other vocations. When they can, cities are …increasing… pay to attract new blood. Decreasing pensions is not a winning strategy. And early retirement is here to stay.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2021 at 11:43 pm

            Stephen,

            “reasonable comparable levels of experience, education, skills, and knowledge”, is ony “immeasurable” …………. when you have the intellect of say (wait for it) …………….. a light–bulb-changer.

          • You don’t know jack. Someone with E’s age, education, experience, etc., could be a truck driver or a real estate broker. A puppet, a pauper, a pirate, a poet, a pawn or a king.
            Cut the vague generalities. Whip out that spreadsheet and tell us how much he should be making, +/- 5 percent. Sorry, sir. Too many variables. The invisible hand says how much he will make. And the invisible hand is fickle as all get out. Thank heaven you don’t get to be the decider.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 6, 2021 at 2:15 pm

            I sure can recognize a PHONYwhen a see one ………. especially one so obviously biased and lacking in the background, subject, knowledge, know-how, and skills to know what they are talking about.
            You should stick to commenting in the area of your career-choice and expertise …. ………. changing light bulbs.
            ———————-

            lol …….. “too many variable”.

            With you, no analysis, no matter how thorough and accurate could EVER be sufficient …… because you don’t want to accept the truth …… that the ROOT CAUSE of the Public Sector pension/benefit mess is grossly excessive generosity.

          • So, whip out the spreadsheet and tell us how much E should be earning.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 6, 2021 at 8:56 pm

            The invisible hand says how much he will make.
            STFU Dougiee, you stupid surrender money 🐒🐒🐒
            The invisible hand AMOUNT OF BRIBES….. errr… “campaign contributions”… says how much he will make.
            There ya go Monkey Boi, I fixed it for you….

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 6, 2021 at 9:23 pm

            I don’t need a spreadsheet to give my opinion as to appropriate compensation for someone in E’s position..

            Per his own statements, his base wages are now about $155K. To be fair, in the comparison, we should deduct from that the employer’s share of SS which for 2021 maxes out at $8,853.60 (6.2% of $142K) giving $146,146.40 (call it $146K).

            While my feeling is that it’s likely on the high side given what I see comparably educated, experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable Private Sector workers get in wages, because I don’t really know those specifics for E, and because of his long service and supervisory role, and the unique risks associated with Police work, let assume it’s reasonable ……. but more likely higher that those comparable Private Sector workers, than lower.

            So given that (in my opinion) he is certainly NOT underpaid in wages, and because I believe equal Total Compensation in comparable (in education, experience, skills, and knowledgeable) Public/Private Sector jobs is the appropriate goal, I believe that he should get retirement security benefits with a annual cost EQUAL to what a comparably paid Private Sector worker gets from their employer.

            The private Sector employee typically gets a DC Plan with about 4% of pay into a 401K Plan. With $146K in wages the (current year) annual contribution is $5,840. E’s DB pension is MUCH MUCH more expensive. For those retiring with 25 years of service at age 50, the level annual Taxpayer share of the cost is about 40% of pay. While the actual cost is not level (being higher at the tail end of the career) it’s appropriate to look at the level annual %-of-pay to fully fund the promised pension over the employee’s working career). AND ……to do so with reasonably conservative assumptions similar to those used in the valuation of Private Sector DB Plans, and NOT the “aspirationally optimistic” assumptions commonly used in the valuation of Public Sector DB Plans.

            So where are we for retirement security ? The Private Sector worker gets 4% x $146K = $5,840 while E gets 40% x $155K = $62,000. E’s advantage is $62,000-$5,840=$56,160 in just this one year.

            For Active worker (family) healthcare coverage, the Private sector worker pays about 30% of a Plan whose total cost is about $25K or $7,500, with employer paying the $17,500 balance. For Active worker (family) healthcare coverage, the Public Sector worker (with wages at E’s level) pays 35% of a Plan whose total cost is about $35K (because it’s “Platinum+” level) or $12,250, with employer paying the $22,750 balance. E’s advantage is $22,750-$17,500=$5,250 in just this one year.

            For retiree healthcare, I’ll use the results from Biggs compensation for NJ (in his Figure #4). In the Private Sector the employer contribution has a value (on average) of about a level annual 1% of pay, while in the Public Sector it’s about a level annual 10% of pay. A 9% of pay or .09 x $155K = $13,950 advanatge.

            While I’m sure there are a few other difference (of smaller magnitude) in the compensation in the of the Public vs Private Sector worker, but let’
            s just add these up.

            On an apples-to-apples basis, E’s Total Compensation package is $146,000 + $62,000 + $22,750 + $15,500 = $246,250 vs the COMPARABLY educated, experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable Private Sector worker (even though in a different occupation) getting only $146,000 + $5.840 + $17,500 + $1,550 = $170,890.

            That $246,250 – $170,890 = $75,360 ADVANTAGE has ZERO justification, ALL coming form ludicrously excessive pension/benefits.

            The is no justification for E being Totally compensated ANY more than the $170,890 that his Private Sector counterpart likely earns.
            ——————————————————

            Now I know that you Stephen don’t give a shit …….. no level of reasonable analysis or demonstration being sufficient to overcome your extreme bias, your support for everything Union and “Public Sector”, and your disdain for the Taxpayers upon whom all the bills are foisted.

          • What a waste.

            ” You don’t know jack. Someone with E’s age, education, experience,  etc., could be a truck driver or a real estate broker.”

            Wage compensation in the public sector. We talked about the floor in public-sector compensation. (A lot!) It is real, for better or worse, and it results in some public workers earning much more than equivalent private sector workers.

            Now you’re looking at the ceiling. I can tell you, anyone can tell you, that E’s $150,000 plus salary is way above average for his “human capital”. The average is probably less than half that, in either the public or private sector. Good for him. We can’t all be average.

            I can also assure you that there are tens of thousands of private sector workers with similar age, education,  ethnicity, experience, etc., who earn much more, in salary alone, than E’s calculated $246,250, making all your assumptions and math and benefits moot. You don’t have to be a doctor or lawyer or engineer.

            In California,  probably in New Jersey or Connecticut also, you may find average police salaries near $150,000 in the major metropolitan areas, and salaries half that in the Central Valley or northern California. Go to Redwood City; a ” small town”… between San Francisco and San Jose, and tell them they should not compensate safety employees at over $200,000/year.

            They will tell you to mind your own damn business… and fund the pensions, you one trick phony.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 7, 2021 at 12:53 pm

            Stephen,

            Rarely is anything you say responsive. No difference here.

            I answered you query. and you respond with more of your same weak rationalizations in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

          • “I answered you query.” …with irrelevant bullshit math.

            Total compensation…

            Anecdotal evidence. FWIW

            The wife was a bookkeeper at a local small business (under 200 employees) responsible for payroll, among other things. The top three executives each earned salaries of over $400,000/year. Plus bonuses. Her supervisor (4 person department) earned over $100,000, with no college degree. That was ten years ago.

            This was not rocket science. It was produce supply. A subsidiary of Sysco.

            The wife had a three percent 401(k) match plus stock options. Not great but not bad.

            Averages are interesting, but they don’t tell the whole story. With line workers, truck drivers and office staff, the average pay was probably under $50,000/year. Less than the average public worker in California. I know that some of those truck drivers had college degrees. They might have been in the same age, education, ethnicity, etc. cohort as the three execs, or E.

            That does not make E overpaid. Or underpaid. In the real world, there are sales people, mid level managers, etc. making over $250,000/year. And doctors and lawyers making under $100,000. The invisible hand.

            1. If Redwood city “needs” to spend over $200,000/year total to attract and retain safety workers, your math will not dissuade them.

            2. If Sysco is able to keep average wages under $50,000 (perhaps subsidized by SNAP and EITC), they will.

            3. Safety workers will still overwhelmingly have (expensive) early retirement long after you and I have shuffled off this mortal coil.

            4. DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER

            That’s not rationalization, sir. That’s real life.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 7, 2021 at 2:47 pm

            Stephen,

            As before, just unrelated meaningless kitchen-sink throw-ins in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable…………. granting of Public Sector workers with “wages” that are much likely MORE (than LESS) than their Private Sector counterparts, pensions and benefits with a value 5 to 10 times greater in value (and hence cost) than those granted those same Private Sector counterparts..

            —————————-

            Quoting …………… “DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”

            Let’s correct that:

            “DON’T GRANT LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE PENSIONS & BENEFITS AND THE BILLS ARE A LOT SMALLER”

          • Meaningless until your cops start retiring and you can’t replace them.

            And even you must admit…

            “DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”

            is a lot snappier than that other contrived “LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE” jargon.

            Work on your delivery… and your logic, then get back to us.

            Isn’t there a game on today, or something?

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 7, 2021 at 3:37 pm

            Quoting …………. “Meaningless until your cops start retiring and you can’t replace them. ”

            Lol ……….. where I live ?????

            You’re completely uninformed. Sure, from the group of 100-300 that would be applying for that position ? Likely would go to a relative of a Local Official or someone now on the force.

            Go read about the HUGE fight and multiple lawsuits going on about the hiring of the Paramus, NJ Mayor’s son as a Paramus Police Officer.

  17. Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 8:44 pm

    YES !!!

    “House votes to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from committee assignments”

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/politics/house-vote-marjorie-taylor-greene-committee-assignments/index.html

    About time one of the Trump-supporting CRAZIES had to pay a price for their dum-ass actions (and words).

    Reply

    • I agree with you TL. IMO the idea that someone who denies 9/11 or that a plane hit the Pentagon on that day is wholly unfit to be a lawmaker in this great country. As I’ve said, we are just smarter here in NJ

      Reply

  18. Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2021 at 9:05 pm

    “N.J. public worker pension fund and taxpayers hit hard by workers’ comp ‘loophole,’ report says ”

    https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/02/nj-public-worker-pension-fund-and-taxpayers-hit-hard-by-workers-comp-loophole-audit-says.html

    NOBODY in NJ Gov’t cares one bit about the impact of their decisions on the State’s Taxpayers.

    Reply

  19. E…….I believe AOC qualified him as a “white officer” who had a look of hostility and rage or did I make that up?

    I feel for you white guys in all walks of life, it’s not going to get any easier for y’all.

    Reply

    • I can’t find it but I didn’t look too hard. She did say that is was scary not knowing if the officer was there to help or harm her. Cmon. Shut the fuck up and get over yourself. Like the GOP woman who believes 9/11 was a hoax, if you don’t believe that the police were there to ensure your safety and instead felt like they were there to harm you, perhaps you too are unqualified to lead

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on February 5, 2021 at 1:46 pm

        “… if you don’t believe that the police were there to ensure your safety and instead felt like they were there to harm you, perhaps you too are unqualified to lead”
        See EG, here you are WAY OFF BASE, by a country mile. You have never, ever lived in a poor, destitute, minority community in a major metro area, where the PoPo view their poor minority constituents as the “enemy” in a domestic “war”. And they treat them as just that, an “enemy combatant”. In many cases they don’t give a rat’s ass about these people. They just want to do their 8, 10 or 12 hour shift and get the fuck out of Dodge. The way the PoPo interact, treat and respond to people in such communities is vastly different from middle class communities; and light years different from upscale communities. I once had a good one-on-one chat with well known lawyer Gerry Spence, where I specifically asked him about a specific person that committed a specific crime against the PoPo (I knew the backstory because he wrote about it in one of his books). I asked WHY this guy reacted the way he did, and why would ANYONE act/re-act the way he did. Spence told me straight up words to this effect: “We all grow up in different backgrounds and in different environments, and those backgrounds and environments will determine our outlook, and reactions, in life, including towards the PoPo”. That was not verbatim, but that was the essence and core of his comment. This guy reacted the way he did based on prior mistreatment/misconduct of the PoPo against him and his community in the past. The way you are raised, and where you are raised, is going to have a major impact on your view of, and interaction with, the PoPo, and everything else in life. Trust me when I say this, from first hand experience, the way the PoPo treat the poor in the ghetto areas is light years different from middle class and wealthy America. And until you have experienced such mistreatment, or are even aware it exists, you should not make your blanket, off base, generalized comments about how the PoPo are everyone’s BFF everywhere in America …

        Reply

        • She has been a congresswoman for over 2 years now. She sees the Capitol police every day she works out of DC. This isn’t the South Bronx. They have a specific job and know most if not all of the legislators enough that they know their name and especially know AOC. I fully understand the attitude that folks in the ghetto have towards police. However, I also think that the timing of her comments, considering the fact that one of the officers had lost his life protecting her and others lives during the insurrection, was poor. She turned this as she does lots of things into a racial or gender issue.
          I personally do Not think that if a black or “brown” officer had looked at her with “anger in his eyes” or whatever else she said that she would’ve ever went public with it.
          So IMO, it was poor timing considering that this man’s colleague was lying in state and being eulogized by Schumer and Pelosi et al after losing his life trying to protect her.
          Tell me I’m wrong….anyone disagree with my assessment of AOC in this particular instance?

          Reply

  20. Posted by MJ on February 7, 2021 at 8:15 am

    E…..she described the cop as a “white man in a black beanie” Does it really matter what color he was? Google it your self as I don’t like to post references as everyone has their own set of standards. I’ve read it more than once though that she definitely stated he was “white” and hostile looking

    Feel for you white bros……..it’s only going to get worse

    She’s made a few good points in her short political career but otherwise a horse’s ass IMO. Scary that most likely the House and Senate will eventually be replaced by people like her and most likely they won’t be ‘white males”

    Reply

  21. Posted by Tough Love on February 7, 2021 at 3:45 pm

    Hey Stephen, speaking of you being clueless I just have to repeat the above sequence of comments ……………

    —————————————————————————
    From Stephen Douglas:

    Don’t know what platinum healthcare is, but California pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage. For years my co-pays have been no more than $10 for doctor visits and $5 for prescriptions. That’s way short of $35,000.
    —————————————————————————-
    From Rex:

    Don’t know what platinum healthcare is, but California pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage.
    STFU you lying hillbilly Stooge:
    CalPERS 2021 State Health Premiums (Actives and Annuitants)
    Effective Date: January 1, 2021
    PERSCare = Subscriber with 2+ dependents= 2,890.86
    Do the math Hillbilly= $2,890.86 x 12= $34,690.20
    TL, you schooled Hillbilly Boi like there is no tomorrow, now all you have to do is biotch slap this Hillbilly “lightbulb changer” back to the Deliverance mountains where he came from … Along with his inbreed cousin El Feo 🙂
    Click to access health-rates-in-state-2021.pdf
    ——————————————————————————-
    From Tough Love (responding to Rex):

    You are weird, but sometimes a hoot.
    Perhaps it’s your pet-food diet. 🙂
    ———————————————————————————
    From Stephen Douglas

    And…“…California (still) pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage.”
    Posted by Tough Love on February 7, 2021 at 1:03 pm
    ———————————————————————————-
    From Tough Love

    Stephen,
    I looked at Rex’s link and I do see the Basis MONTHLY Premium of ………… “PERSCare = Subscriber with 2+ dependents= 2,890.86”.
    I guess Rex missed it, but there an even higher one …………… “Anthem Blue Cross Traditional = Subscriber with 2+ dependents = $3,172.83” ($38,073.96 annually)
    Are you just arrogant ……….. or just “unwell” ?

    Reply

  22. Awesome. Thank you. Now we know how much platinum healthcare costs.

    And…“…California (still) pays a max of $1,585 per month for family coverage.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 11:21 am

      Do you realize that the $$$ being addressed is the maximum PREMIUM amount the employee pays for health insurance?

      If you did understand that, then why are you insisting that it’s lower than it actually is ….per Rex’s link above ?

      If you are trying to address the $$$ associated with something else, what is it … e.g., what is your $1,585 referring to ?

      Reply

  23. Because that is how much the state (taxpayer) pays.

    a. The State shall contribute $609 per month for coverage of an eligible employee. (Party code one)
    b. The State shall contribute $1,223 per month for coverage of an eligible employee plus one dependent. (Party code two)
    c. The State shall contribute $1,585 per month for coverage of an eligible employee plus two or more dependents. (Party code three)

    Click to access mou-20200701-20210630-bu12.pdf

    P.37

    If the employee chooses a more expensive plan, he pays the balance himself.

    “The employer health benefits contribution for each employee shall be a flat dollar amount equal to eighty (80) percent of the weighted average of the Basic health benefit plan premiums for a State active civil service employee enrolled for self-alone, during the benefit year to which the formula is applied, for the four Basic health benefit plans that had the largest State active civil service enrollment, excluding family members, during the previous benefit year. For each employee with enrolled family members, the employer shall contribute an additional flat dollar amount equal to eighty (80) percent of the weighted average of the additional premiums required for enrollment of those family members, during the benefit year to which the formula is applied, in the four Basic health benefit plans that had the largest State active civil service enrollment, excluding family members, during the previous benefit year. The established flat dollar amount(s) shall be increased or decreased as appropriate pursuant to the formulas above on January 1, 2021. The established dollar amount(s) shall not be increased or decreased in subsequent years without a negotiated agreement.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 12:52 pm

      Seems that $$$ amount is only applicable to this one group …………..

      “2020-2021 Agreement Between The State of California and International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) covering BARGAINING UNIT 12CRAFT AND MAINTENANCE”
      ————————–

      But at least we now understand that you are only talking about the share paid by the employER.

      When myself and other have been referring to $35K as the cost of family healthcare coverage in NJ, it is referring to the TOTAL (ee +er) Premium, and is VERY expensive (about $10K MORE than Family coverage in the Private Sector) because the PUBLIC Sector Plan (often referred to as Platinum+ due to it’s VERY high generosity) has very full (all-encompassing) coverage, low deductibles, low copays/coinsurance, and for drugs coverage, very low employee copays.

      Reply

  24. Usually, Kaiser HMO premiums have been below that 80 percent average and I paid no excess premiums. For a few years in the eighties, their premiums were higher and I paid about $30 a month. When I married, I dropped state insurance and went as a dependent on my wife’s employee plan because they had the same Kaiser plan with no employee monthly contribution.

    Always been satisfied with the HMO. Cancer surgery and four days in the hospital cost me $10. Another $10 for two prescriptions when I was discharged.

    I just wondered how much better care you get by paying another thousand (platinum) or more out of your own pocket every month.

    May be…

    ??

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 1:02 pm

      Quoting ………….

      “Always been satisfied with the HMO. Cancer surgery and four days in the hospital cost me $10. Another $10 for two prescriptions when I was discharged.

      I just wondered how much better care you get by paying another thousand (platinum) or more out of your own pocket every month.”

      —————————-

      Your out of pocket is WAY lower than what it would be in almost all Private Sector Employer-sponsored Group Plans.

      The employee in the Private Sector paying “way more” has nothing to do with better healthcare, it has to do with Public Sector workers simply getting a better deal than their Private Sector counterparts and making Taxpayers pay for it.

      There are valid reasons for having the employee pay reasonable amounts in deductibles and copays/coins. It’s called “having some skin in the game” and reduces unnecessary medical care service…….. e,g. insisting on a costly MRI when you fall and hurt your knee. If you were responsible for a few hundred $$$, you might take some Advil and wait a few days.

      Reply

    • https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/03goodgrief-140922072838-phpapp01-thumbnail-4.jpg?cb=1411372092

      The friggin’ union cabal/cancer crap is gonna give you heart failure.

      Kaiser: “Preventive care is key to how we practice medicine. It can help avoid some health issues and catch others before they become serious.”

      No co-pay for annual physicals, and you can’t get an MRI “on demand”.

      As it happens, in 2009, I had extreme chest pains Thanksgiving evening. Annual first aid training at work taught us that a leading cause of death from heart attacks is denial (” it’s probably just heartburn”).

      CT scan showed it was “only” a hematoma. A damaged blood vessel had leaked about a pint of blood inside my chest cavity around the heart. The ER doctor recommended immediate surgery, urgent. Fortunately, the more experienced heart surgeon said the bleeding had stopped, temporarily, and immediate surgery could do more harm than good. “Go home and wait a few days”

      (Don’t take Advil. It’s an NSAID and can slow blood clotting (healing).)

      As it happened, the CT scan also showed an early stage asymptomatic tumor on my kidney, resulting in the aforementioned four day hospital stay.

      I can’t imagine that Platinum healthcare could have done any better.

      Reply

  25. “Seems that $$$ amount is only applicable to this one group …………..”

    I’m not trying to blow smoke up anyone’s skirt. Just making the point that taxpayers do not pay for platinum healthcare.

    FWIW, yeah, they are not all the same. The largest group, I believe, is unit 4, “office and allied”, SEIU

    Click to access mou-20200102-20230630-SEIU.pdf

    (P 172-176)

    “The State shall contribute $1,518 per month for coverage of an eligible employee plus two or more dependents (Party code three).”

    This I had not heard before, p. 178

    Unit 17 only,

    ” If the monthly cost of any of the State’s benefit plans (health, dental and vision) in which an employee elects to enroll exceeds the State’s maximum allowance amount as set forth in subsection A (1) above, the employee shall pay the difference on a pre-tax basis. If there is money left over after the cost of these benefits is deducted, the remaining amount will be paid to the employee as taxable cash.”

    Also, page 178, if the employee does not enroll in a state health plan (has to certify he has coverage elsewhere), he can receive $130/month in lieu of coverage.

    TMI? also, I do recall reading in the past that some safety employees have higher insurance allowances.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 2:16 pm

      Quoting ………….

      “I’m not trying to blow smoke up anyone’s skirt. Just making the point that taxpayers do not pay for platinum healthcare.”

      But in NJ (and likely, most other States) Taxpayers do (UNJUSTLY*) provide a greater contribution towards the cost of PUBLIC Sector worker healthcare benefits than what PRIVATE Sector workers get from their employers ……….. and it is BECAUSE Public Sector healthcare benefits in NJ are MUCH more generous (Platinum+) than those granted Private Sector workers by their employers.

      I demonstrated this in my above comment (timestamped February 6, 2021 at 9:23 pm) and pasted below:

      “For Active worker (family) healthcare coverage, the Private sector worker pays about 30% of a Plan whose total cost is about $25K or $7,500, with employer paying the $17,500 balance. For Active worker (family) healthcare coverage, the Public Sector worker (with wages at E’s level) pays 35% of a Plan whose total cost is about $35K (because it’s “Platinum+” level) or $12,250, with employer paying the $22,750 balance. E’s advantage is $22,750-$17,500=$5,250 in just this one year.”
      ———————————————————–

      * There is ZERO justification for Taxpayers to be forced to contribute more towards the cost of PUBLIC Sector worker health insurance than what THEY get in healthcare insurance contributions from their employers. To the extent that Public Sector worker health insurance coverage is more generous (which it assuredly is in NJ) than that granted their Private Sector counterparts, THEY (the Public Sector workers) should have to pay for 100% of the incremental cost.

      EQUAL, but not better ………. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

      Reply

    • A pound of flesh.

      No more, no less.

      Reply

  26. “What more do you get with Platinum healthcare, a happy ending?”

    Oh the irony. Three years ago, my Kaiser Medicare Advantage program began paying for a gym membership. ( Preventative healthcare.) This year, they notified me that my coverage would include free transportation to any medical appointment, including lab tests. (Maximum 24 per year, dang it.)
    And if I require any overnight stay in the hospital, they will deliver free meals to my home for up to three days.

    A pound of flesh. No more, no less.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 3:55 pm

      Quoting …………..

      “This year, they notified me that my coverage would include free transportation to any medical appointment, including lab tests. (Maximum 24 per year, dang it.)
      And if I require any overnight stay in the hospital, they will deliver free meals to my home for up to three days. ”

      Kaiser isn’t a CHARITY. The cost for those benefits is backed into the premium. It’s fluff that Private Sector Plans typically don’t include …….. because the Corporate employer doesn’t want to pay for it, and neither does the employee ….. while in Public Sector plans, those benefits can be included with the cost unjustly foisted upon the Taxpayers. Business as usual.

      Reply

  27. EQUAL, but not better ……….

    Seriously, sir, I think you might be taking this EQUAL thing too far.
    Too many unknowns.

    A public worker might be paid the same as a private worker in Stockton, but paid less in San Jose. He might be paid the same in 2007, but paid less in 2010. Don’t let it get you down. And, especially, don’t let it get …me… down.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 9:02 pm

      Per Biggs ……….. Public Sector worker Total Compensation is 23% greater than that of their Private Sector counterparts in both CA and NJ.

      And that 23% rising to 33% with the greater value of job security in the PUBLIC Sector factored in.

      And had Police/Fire/Corrections (who have the highest wages, pensions, and benefits of all Public Sector workers) NOT been EXCLUDED from Biggs’ study, that 23% and 33% would assuredly have been materially HIGHER.
      —————–

      Sorry Stephen, but Pubic Sector workers (taken as a group) are MATERIALLY over-compensated when compared to their Private Sector counterparts.

      FUTURE service DB pension Plan accruals for all CURRENT (not just NEW) workers must be materially reduced, and ALL Public retiree healthcare subsidies should be fully phased out over a VERY few of years ……… noting that Private Sector workers RARELY get ANYTHING in retiree healthcare subsidies from their former employers.

      Public Sector workers/retirees are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …..on the Taxpayers’ dime.

      Reply

  28. Posted by Anonymous on February 8, 2021 at 9:46 pm

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 8, 2021 at 10:01 pm

      I agree…………

      It won’t be easy to break the unseemly/taxpayer-betraying/self-serving grip of the Public Sector Unions and our Elected Officials to unjustly enrich Public Sector workers at the expense of Private Sector Taxpayers.

      Reply

  29. What the hey! It’s a free country. Go ahead and hold yer breath.

    Reply

  30. Nothing goes on forever. It’s constantly changing. A lot of states increased pensions in the late 90s. Most states have been reducing pensions and/or increasing employee contributions since 2008. The difference in wages is constantly shifting. Not enough for you? Too much for others.

    Luckily, many states have learned a lesson and are increasing the sustainability of public pensions as we speak.

    The total compensation difference swings back and forth, and balances out over time.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2021 at 2:12 pm

      ALL of your conclusions are biased, misleading, and plain wrong…………

      (1) Yes, several States have made reductions in their pensions since the HUGE/RETROACTIVELY APPLIED pension increases of the very later 1990s and early 2000’s …………… but with VERY few exceptions they apply only to NEW workers leaving all workers EMPLOYED before the reductions STILL accruing pension benefits are the higher unnecessary/excessive/unaffordable rate … for perhaps 25 MORE years. It’s patently outrageous.

      The reductions (a) should have been MUCH greater, and (b) the reductions should have applied to the FUTURE service of all CURRENT workers, just are they routinely do in Private Sector Plan changes.

      (2) Quoting ………… “The difference in wages is constantly shifting. Not enough for you? Too much for others. ”

      Yes “wages” do, but on a “Total Compensation” basis ……….the basis that BOTH of us agree is the correct one ……….. PUBLIC Sector workers in CA and NJ have a 23%-of-pay ADVANTAGE (33% with the MUCH greater value of Job Security in the PUBLIC Sector factored in).

      (3) Quoting ……… “Luckily, many states have learned a lesson and are increasing the sustainability of public pensions as we speak. ”

      Sure, but at what cost? The modest lowering of valuation interest rates just INCREASES Taxpayer (but not the employee) contributions to pay for what are (by every reasonable metric) grossly excessive pensions (AND benefits). Why is that reasonable, appropriate, or FAIR to the Taxpayers called upon to pay for almost all of the cost of Public Sector pensions & benefits ….. but don’t themselves get anything even remotely as generous.

      ———————————–

      Stephen,

      All of your comments just reinforce your function as a “mouthpiece” for the Public Sector Unions/worker/retirees, and with a to-hell-with-the-Taxpayers attitude.

      Reply

  31. Quote… “… PUBLIC Sector workers in CA and NJ have* a 23%-of-pay ADVANTAGE (33% with the MUCH greater value of Job Security in the PUBLIC Sector factored in).”

    Quote… “Sure, but at what cost?.. yadda, yadda, yadda… grossly excessive pensions (AND benefits)”

    According to your 23% source, there are, or were, 18 states which were/are already at market level (and one below market level)
    at what cost? Those states, on average, do not have excessive pensions. making the pension fund more sustainable would reduce the cost over time. Win/win… good for the workers and the taxpayers. Kentucky, are you listening?

    Even in the infamous CA and NJ, (and CT) many of the workers are average or below in total compensation, predicated on “guaranteed” pensions. Guaranteeing the sustainability is the least we should do.

    Pension reform is good for …everybody…

    S/B “had, maybe”

    I still highly recommend Biggs’ study, but to base your proposed “material reductions” on one study is the height of hubris.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/El-7JnJX0AEqab7?format=jpg&name=small

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2021 at 5:51 pm

      Quoting Stephen Douglas ……………………

      “According to your 23% source, there are, or were, 18 states which were/are already at market level (and one below market level)”

      The above if a PERFECT example of how you mislead, often by omitting material facts.

      As YOU are aware, THIS is my EXACT source of the 23%-of-pay Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE in CA and NJ ….. Figure #6 in the Biggs study linked below (but w/o the leading and ending “#”):

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

      FIRST, I see only 8 (of the 50 States) where the PUBLIC Sector has a Total Compensation DISADVANTAGE, and the average amount of that DISADVANTAGE is only about 3%-of-pay.

      The other 42 States show a PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE, and with an average ADVANTAGE of between 10% and 15% of pay (with CA and NJ showing the 23%).
      ————————–

      When you VERY CLEARLY mislead like this ……………why should anyone believe anything you say ?

      Reply

    • Table 2, page 59

      “Total Compensation Categories”

      “Market level”

      Kansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Georgia, West Virginia,
      Mississippi, South Dakota, North Carolina, Vermont,
      Colorado, Washington, South Carolina, Kentucky,
      Idaho, Arizona, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah

      Just fund the damn pensions you one trick phony.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2021 at 7:57 pm

        LOL …………. Biggs Study Table #2 defines “market rate” as Public/Private Sector Total Compensation within a range -5% to +5%………. meaning the States for which the Public Sector Total Compensation is within the range of from -5% to +5% of Private Sector compensation.

        Sure, seems you CHOSE Table 2 because the Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE looks a lot smaller (and from fewer States) than when you dig into the DETAIL that backs-up your Table 2 ………. which is indeed Study Figure #6.

        And again, Figure #6 (from which Biggs Table 2 was derived) shows (as I stated above):

        “FIRST, I see only 8 (of the 50 States) where the PUBLIC Sector has a Total Compensation DISADVANTAGE, and the average amount of that DISADVANTAGE is only about 3%-of-pay.

        The other 42 States show a PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE, and with an average ADVANTAGE of between 10% and 15% of pay (with CA and NJ showing the 23%).”:
        ————————————

        You ALWAYS seem to mislead ……………. and you did so again here.

        Reply

      • Figure 6 also shows 10 states which have an advantage of 5 percent, or less, as per the Table 2 designation of “market rate”; +/- 5%.

        Without going through the archives, I am sure we have covered this more than once.

        It’s not rocket surgery.

        Reply

  32. Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2021 at 12:38 am

    Indeed we have………………

    8 States with an average of 3% greater PRIVATE Sector Total Compensation

    vs

    42 States with and average of 10%-15% greater PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation.
    —————————————–

    DON’T OVER-COMPENSATE AND THE BILLS GET A GREAT DEAL SMALLER.

    Reply

  33. Are you sitting down? Let me finish the paper and coffee and I will get back to you with more bonehead math.

    Reply

  34. Sorry, good coffee.

    It occurred to me that those 18 states (and there are 18) combined have about the same population as the seven “large premium” states.

    May be true, but it didn’t seem worth pursuing.

    It does seem interesting, though, that the states considered “overpaid” are the ones with high population density/Metropolitan/high cost of living/high average wage/(Democrat?)/coastal states. Why?

    And really, who cares about South Dakota?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2021 at 3:21 pm

      Bottom line …………… an OVERWHELMING, indisputable, and material over-compensation of Public Sector workers .

      You know ……….. that pesky 23%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage CA and NJ.

      Readers ……………… how much MORE would YOU have for YOUR retirement needs if YOU had and ADDITIONAL 23%-of-pay EVERY YEAR to save and invest over your entire career ………………… an extra $500K, $1 Million, perhaps $2 Million for some ?

      Well THAT, is an appropriate way to look at how much PUBLIC Sector workers are (on average ………… including ALL of them) unjustly taking for YOU !

      Reply

    • The readers probably gave up about 50 posts back. Here’s who you’re preaching to.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2021 at 3:47 pm

        Stephen,

        As Jack Nicholson Stated ……………. “You Can’t Handle The Truth”
        ————————

        And Yeah, I particularly liked THIS part……………….

        Readers ……………… how much MORE would YOU have for YOUR retirement needs if YOU had and ADDITIONAL 23%-of-pay EVERY YEAR to save and invest over your entire career ………………… an extra $500K, $1 Million, perhaps $2 Million for some ?

        Well THAT, is an appropriate way to look at how much PUBLIC Sector workers are (on average ………… including ALL of them) unjustly taking for YOU !

        Reply

      • The devil is in the details.

        ” (on average ………… including ALL of them) ”

        Is your way of concurring that there are hundreds of thousands of public workers who do …not… have an ADDITIONAL 23%-of-pay EVERY YEAR.

        That is the truth, and I can handle it.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2021 at 7:46 pm

          No Stephen

          What that means is that if you count EVERY single NJ Public Sector worker, (while recognizing some hove MORE than a 23% of-pay Total Compensation advantage, some have LESS, and some have a DISadvantage), the compilation of all the + and – from EVERYONE is equivalent to EVERYONE of them getting a 23% more in pay.

          I would have thought that even a light-bulb-changer would have understood that. Maybe you SHOULD try a few basic Math classes.

          Reply

        • “and some have a DISadvantage”*

          More truth. You’re on a roll.

          “The report concluded that that federal government might save money by adjusting compensation based on these findings. “Overall,” the report says, “the federal government would have reduced its spending on wages by 3% if it had decreased the pay of its less educated employees and increased the pay of its more educated employees to match the wages of their private sector counterparts.”

          * and others are in the middle, roughly equal total compensation. Don’t forget about them.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2021 at 11:07 pm

            Your diverting again (and we’re NOT falling for it) ……………..

            23%-of-pay greater Total Compensation in NJ and CA ……….. not the Federal Gov’t.

          • No, sir. It is you who are diverting again. (And I think you know it.)
            ………………….
            Whether it is the federal or the state (or almost any economically developed country), the principle is the same.

            CBO…
            “Overall, the federal government would have reduced its spending on wages by 3% if it had decreased the pay of its less educated employees and increased the pay of its more educated employees to match the wages of their private sector.”

            Biggs:
            ” Connecticut state government employee receives total compensation between 25 and 46 percent higher than a similar private sector worker employed by a larger firm. Were state government employees paid at market rates, total annual compensation costs to the budget would be between $1.4 and $2.5 billion lower.”

            By “market rates”, Briggs means exactly the same thing as the CBO; reduce the pay of the lower educated, and increase the pay of the highest.

            Biggs:
            ” These results do not imply that every Connecticut state government employee is “overpaid.” As discussed above, the measured compensation premium is an average and does not preclude the possibility that any given state government employee receives a fair market compensation package or potentially even receives less than he or she might in the private sector. ”
            ………………
            It is also true that this 25 to 46 percent higher compensation (in Connecticut) is mostly the result of pensions and OPEBs.

            Enter David Crane…
            ” California provides health insurance to retired public employees and their dependents, spending upward of $9,000 per recipient per year on OPEB…”
            ” A 53-year-old retired Oakland police officer with a $90,000 annual pension, a spouse, and two kids could get $22,000 per year in federal and state insurance subsidies, yet Oakland is paying for all of that family’s health insurance.” (A family of four with an annual income of more than $150,000 qualifies.)

            It is thee who is misleading by insisting on the averages. “23 percent” is tru(ish) but irrelevant. It does not tell us how to correct the problem. Take from the poor and give to the rich. That solves the math. (And then subsidize the poor through social welfare programs.)

            What ?

            True but irrelevant. ..

            “Unequal pay” is a public policy decision.

            Just fund the damn pensions.

          • Or…

            The other way…

            Edward Ring, California Policy Center:

            “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.”

            The right wing doesn’t know what the left wing is doing.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2021 at 11:14 am

            Stephen, NOTHING new in your above 2 comments. You’re still trying to “explain away” the 23%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation ADBANTAGE in BOTH CA and NJ.

            Yes that 23% is the average of the ADVANTAGES or DISADVANTAGES from each worker, but when added up we get to that 23% ………… and THAT is what unjustly, unfairly, and NEGATIVELY impacts PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers..

            How I described the 23%-of-pay ADVANTAGE in an earlier comment is CORRECT, Read it again, and perhaps concentrate this time:

            “What that means is that if you count EVERY single NJ Public Sector worker, (while recognizing some hove MORE than a 23% of-pay Total Compensation advantage, some have LESS, and some have a DISadvantage), the compilation of all the + and – from EVERYONE is equivalent to EVERYONE of them getting a 23% more in pay.”

          • True!

            And you can eliminate that 23 percent advantage by

            “…decreased the pay of its less educated employees and increased the pay of its more educated employees to match the wages of their private sector.” (CBO)

            It is axiomatic.

            Once the compensation is matched for ALL workers, the average advantage will be gone.

            Eat your heart out. To get rid of that 23 percent advantage, you will have to hit the least educated group of public workers. Hit them like a ton of bricks. As Willie Sutton said, that’s where the money is.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2021 at 1:52 pm

            Stephen,

            Well, first of all, it’s NOT just the lowest income Public Sector workers, but a large swath of the middle income, and some of the highest compensated (including all Safety workers ….Police, Fire, Corrections, etc.).

            And to repeat, there is ZERO justification to compensate even the lowest compensated Public Sector workers more than what the identical job would pay in the Private Sector …………… no matter how hard, and how often you argue otherwise.
            ————————————————————————-
            Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal (often a MUCH MUCH MUCH better & hence costly deal) ………… on the Taxpayers’ DIME!

          • NOTHING new in your comments.

            Do you want to save taxpayer’s money or not?

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2021 at 3:51 pm

            Sure I do …………. tell us how NJ’s Taxpayers can save REAL money associated with their Public Sector pension & benefits.

            And Note-To-Stephen…….. advancing the funding of (by say a lower valuation rate) DOESN’T “save” a dime. It would just make it more likely that the workers would actually get the ludicrously excessive promised pensions. That’s NOT saving anything ….. just firming up the Taxpayer ripoff.

            So tell …. HOW can we save REAL money.

          • I’m glad you asked that question.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2021 at 8:30 pm

            Stephen. You stated ………….

            “Do you want to save taxpayer’s money or not?”

            We’re waiting, so TELL US, lest the readers see than your a DIMWIT, not a BRIGHT-LIGHT ………. no pun intended to those working in the field of changing-light-bulbs.

            Tell us how NJ’s Taxpayers can save REAL money associated with their Public Sector pension & benefits.

          • Rhetorical question

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2021 at 10:42 pm

            We’re still waiting Stephen ……………

            If you’re not lying ……. and not just a mouthpiece for the Public Sector Unions ………..that you SUPPORT pension reform (as you stated in many comments), then STEP UP. Outline your “pension reform” ………. keeping in mind that the ONLY way to save REAL money ……… is to provide something of LESS value.

            So WHAT are you suggesting we TAKE AWAY or REDUCE? And keep in mind, doing it only for NEW employees hired after the change, saves SQUAT for decades. The changes MUST include the FUTURE service of all CURRENT employees.

            Step UP …………… we’re waiting.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2021 at 11:10 pm

            Common Stephen, don’t “cave” on us ………….. STEP UP !

            You don’t want people to think you’re a DIMWIT instead of a BRIGHT LIGHT.

  35. If you didn’t get the hint, you won’t understand the answer.

    Love, thou art a bitter blogger, and you would rather have an excuse than an answer.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 3:12 am

      Have it YOUR way Stephen.

      No proposal for REAL (money saving) pension reform ………. NOTHING, NADA.

      So it looks like you really are a DIMWIT instead of a BRIGHT LIGHT.
      ——————————–

      Reply

  36. Invariably…

    1. You ask a question.

    2. I give an answer.

    3. You call me a liar.

    Not a winning strategy.

    Talk to Wisconsin. Call them a liar. Or North Carolina. Good pensions, low costs, sustainable.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 12:25 pm

      Stephen,

      Oh, perhaps I MISSED SEEING your answer to my question ……………

      “How NJ’s Taxpayers can save REAL money associated with their Public Sector pension & benefits.”

      So would you you mind pasting your original (apparently invisible) response ?

      Reply

  37. A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

    Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

    The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

    So the rowboat went on.

    Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

    To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

    So the motorboat went on.

    Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

    To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

    So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

    Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

    To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

    ———————————

    The answer has always been right under your nose.

    1. DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER

    2. Just fund the damn pensions you one trick phony.

    May be you need pictures…

    Reply

  38. If this had been done twenty years ago (thirty for New Jersey), you would have no unfunded liability and much lower required annual contributions.

    Do it now, for E’s children and grandchildren.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 1:17 pm

      Was there a proposal SOMEWHERE in those last 2 comments on …………

      ““How NJ’s Taxpayers can save REAL money associated with their Public Sector pension & benefits.””

      I just keep “missing it”

      Perhaps Stephen is typing that part in invisible ink.
      ——————————–

      Note-to Stephen ……………

      As I stated earlier………. INCREASING FUNDING is NOT a proposal for REAL $$$ savings. It just firms up the likelihood that the ludicrously excessive promised PUBLIC Sector pensions will actually be paid ………. via unjustly sucking even MORE money from the betrayed and beleaguered Taxpayers.

      Reply

  39. Often in error, never in doubt.

    Quoting…
    “INCREASING FUNDING is NOT a proposal for REAL $$$ savings. It just firms up the likelihood that the ludicrously excessive promised PUBLIC Sector pensions will actually be paid.”

    Despite your constant haranguing, I am saying your premise is invalid because the public pensions are …not… ludicrously excessive.

    “INCREASING FUNDING”, along with other pension reform, not only “firms up the likelihood that the … promised PUBLIC Sector pensions will actually be paid…”*, it also assures that contributions will be paid in the year that the pensions are earned, rather than passed on to the next generation, as New Jersey taxpayers are now paying for today’s workers …and… the previous generation(s).

    This blog surely has a very small audience in North Carolina, where they do …not… pay over 30 percent of payroll in employer contributions.

    https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/2019/07/statepensionv2/fig3_650px.png?mw=1820&hash=140F27A318BB50E181B33C1928AC8A26

    *yes, I left out two superfluous words.

    If New Jersey were …consistently… paying less than ten percent of payroll per year, your rants would fall on deaf ears.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 2:38 pm

      Oh godie, lets address this one by one …………..

      (1) Quoting ……………..

      “Quoting…
      “INCREASING FUNDING is NOT a proposal for REAL $$$ savings. It just firms up the likelihood that the ludicrously excessive promised PUBLIC Sector pensions will actually be paid.”

      Despite your constant haranguing, I am saying your premise is invalid because the public pensions are …not… ludicrously excessive.”
      ———————————
      Stephen …………even if the pensions were not excessive ……. INCREASING the FUNDING doesn’t SAVE any more …….. it just firms up the Plan’s financial status.

      Even a light-bulb-changer should be able to understand that.

      (2) Quoting ………………

      ““INCREASING FUNDING”, along with other pension reform, not only “firms up the likelihood that the … promised PUBLIC Sector pensions will actually be paid…”*, it also assures that contributions will be paid in the year that the pensions are earned, rather than passed on to the next generation, as New Jersey taxpayers are now paying for today’s workers …and… the previous generation(s).”

      Sub-quoting from the above …………… ” along with other pension reform”.

      So Stephen, we’re STILL waiting. Exactly WHAT is your proposal for REAL ($$$-Saving) pension reform ?

      Reply

  40. REAL SAVINGS !!!

    You missed the boat, Love. You ignored the helicopter. REAL SAVINGS are a myth based on your warped view of pensions and benefits. You have a one dimensional view of a three dimensional world.

    You can ignore policy decisions. You can mock them. But you can’t make them go away.

    Quoting, part one…
    “And to repeat, there is ZERO justification to compensate even the lowest compensated Public Sector workers more than what the identical job would pay in the Private Sector…”

    May be it’s that invisible ink, Love. Because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. The entire economically developed word disagrees with you.

    Quote, part two…
    “…………… no matter how hard, and how often you argue otherwise.”

    No argument here. I’m just telling you how it is. Feel free to fight it. Tilting at windmills should be fun, too. Go for it.

    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5223ea14e4b0a07a98940ec0/1494470460737-M4WTBACSJND2XN5JR6FU/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kBxX7QcyDclQBhYCHwbxl9YUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8PaoYXhp6HxIwZIk7-Mi3Tsic-L2IOPH3Dwrhl-Ne3Z2cYSQx44Ke2W_Sil3mM9rjxDy3bM_ekv-qrbBkbvMWLYxb27qhdBlCJwccbVYQTp-/image-asset.jpeg?format=1000w

    Reply

  41. You fancy yourself as a teacher.

    You flatter yourself.

    Your logic is faulty.

    Your assumptions are not valid.

    Your data is inadequate.

    Your opinions are biased. (Very)

    Your demeanor is abysmal.

    Your feet stink and you don’t love Jesus?
    (Jimmy Buffet)

    Get back to work-at-home. Somebody has to pay for E’s pension.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 4:44 pm

      We’re still waiting …………..

      You have stated MANY times that you support “pension reform”.

      Reform means SAVING the Taxpayers money, NOT throwing-in even MORE of the Taxpayers’ money to fund pension promises that are ROUTINELY of a value (and hence COST) 5 to 10 TIMES greater than what Private Sector workers typically get in DC Plan 401K contributions from their employers………. with DB Plan of the type still commonplace in the PUBLIC Sector, LONG GONE in the PRIVATE Sector due to their VERY VERY high cost.

      So TELL US ………… what are your $$$-Saving Pension Reform proposals ?

      Reply

  42. Posted by A on February 12, 2021 at 2:54 pm

    REAL SAVINGS !!!

    Quoting Helen…
    “Reform means SAVING the Taxpayers money…”

    Negative. Reform means making pensions reliable. Otherwise they are not pensions, just promises.

    “SAVING the Taxpayers money…” is illusory.

    After all these years, you are still labouring under the delusion that public compensation can be materially reduced with no negative effects. High on opinion, low on data.

    REAL PENSION REFORM will even out the wild swings in yearly “costs”. It would have saved YOU, today and properly done could save your grandchildren. The first step in solving a problem is (correctly) recognizing it.
    The burden of proof is on you.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 7:30 pm

      Yes Stephen, what’s needed is REAL Taxpayer $$$-savings from REAL pension reform, NOT just firming up the financially precarious financial position of these ludicrously excessive pensions by making PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers ….. who don’t get anything even remotely like them ,……… put MORE of THEIR money into funding them.

      Quoting ……………. ““SAVING the Taxpayers money…” is illusory.”

      Not “illusory”, just VERY VERY difficult.

      Why? Because the Elected Officials that indeed CAN put REAL $$$-Savings reforms into place WON’T do so because they accept the Unions’ Campaign-contribution BRIBES NOT to so do.

      Reply

  43. Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 7:33 pm

    I’m pretty sure we are going to hit 200 comments on this one ………….

    Because Stephen Douglas, this Blog’s resident PUBLIC Sector Union mouthpiece is DETERMINED to protect the Public Sector Union “turf” ……….. don’t give and INCH, no matter how excessive, how unjustified, how unfair to Taxpayers, and how unaffordable these pensions (AND benefits) have become.

    Reply

  44. Heck, I thought you were holding out to be post number 10,000.

    We’re “still waiting” for convincing evidence of “how excessive, how unjustified, how unfair to Taxpayers, and how unaffordable these pensions (AND benefits) have become.”

    So far, you’ve been as successful as Trump’s attorneys. I have no turf to protect. No dog in this hunt. CalPERS has enough assets to pay pensions for forty years, even with no further contributions. If they do go bust, anyone with an IRA or 401(k) will go down too, it will be Armageddon or WWIII. Savants like Ed Ring and minions will be trying to cap the pensions because they assume large pensions are not earned, while protecting mine to “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.”

    The Right Wing doesn’t know what the Left Wing is doing.

    Reply

  45. 10,000 S/B 100,000

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 12, 2021 at 11:19 pm

      Quoting Stephen Douglas ……………

      “We’re “still waiting” for convincing evidence of “how excessive, how unjustified, how unfair to Taxpayers, and how unaffordable these pensions (AND benefits) have become.”

      I’ve posted such many times, but let’s just do it again for the infamous 3%@50 COLA-increased CA Safety-worker pension Plan under which MANY MANY CA Safety workers are STILL accruing this LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE pension benefit ………… and will continue to do so for perhaps 20 MORE years.

      Using Ed Ring’s “Pension Analysis Model” Excel Spreadsheet that can be found (in Blue) in the 1-st sentence of the 3-rd paragraph of THIS link (after removing the leading and ending “#” symbols):

      #https://californiapolicycenter.org/a-pension-analysis-tool-for-everyone/#

      Use Sheet1 and hit “enable editing” at the Top of the Page

      Enter the following spreadsheet inputs (in the Yellow-Highlighted cells. Don’t touch the Non-Yellow cells as they are Formula-Driven Cells, as opposed to Non-formula Input Cells):

      Age Begin working ………. 25
      Age at Retirement ……….. 55
      Life Expectancy …………….85
      % COLA Growth/Yr ……….2%
      % Merit Growth/Yr ………….3% (included impact of periodic promotions)
      Pension formula/Yr …………3%
      Fund Return % ………………4%
      pension COLA %…………….2%
      Final Salary ……………………$100,000 (but doesn’t matter. ANY salary gives the same result because everything is relational)

      Notice that I haven’t (YET) given you an input for the % of Salary to pension (cell D:8), because THIS is the cell that you want to SOLVE FOR . The result tells you the level annual total (employee + Taxpayer) pension contribution expressed as a %-of-pay that is required to fully fund the worker’s pension over his/her working career (i.e., by the year he/she retires). The INPUT for this cell (D:8) for which the Green-Highlighted cell becomes zero, is 70.9%.

      The goal of the Spreadsheet is to get the Green-Highlighted cell to zero, which means that all of the pension’s accumulated assets are exactly exhausted at the time the workers dies.

      You can test things by changing any of the above YELLOW-Highlighted Cells (ONLY). For example, if you ONLY changed the Life Expectancy to say 80, the GREEN-Highlighted Cell goes to $683,095, meaning that there is THAT amount of money (associated with THIS one person’s pension) REMAINING at the time he is expected to dies (now age 80). What you want to do here is figure out what input value (different than the 70.9% now in cell D:8) will get that Green-Highlighted cell back to zero. The answer is 61.7%. You can determine that by trial and error (just keep testing input values for cell D:8 …. in the same direction ….. as the Green-Highlighted cell gets closer and closer to zero), or MUCH quicker using Excel’s “Goal Seek” function found under the “Data” and then “What If Analysis” tabs.
      ————–
      Back to the analysis, the evidence, and the demonstration …………….

      The above Spreadsheet shows that with my above-noted Inputs, a level annual TOTAL Employee + Taxpayer contribution of 70.9% is necessary just to fully fund the NORMAL COST (i.e., with nothing allocated towards amortizing existing underfunding) of the 30 year worker with CA’s COLA-increased 3%@50 pension. Assuming the employee contributes 10% of pay annually, that leaves the remaining 60.9% of pay as the Taxpayer’s annual contribution…………… over 15 TIMES greater than the 4%-of-pay into a 401K Plan that is all most Private Sector workers get in retirement Security from their employers today.

      Does that sound reasonable, justifiable, and fair to Taxpayers, or is it “ludicrously excessive” ?

      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: