If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Good news: Your government job in an urban shiathole comes with a pension that you'll someday use to retire somewhere far away. Bad news: Your pension is being raided to keep the urban shiathole afloat   (bloomberg.com) divider line 114
    More: Scary, stimulus plan, Detroit, unsecured debt, Stockton, emergency managers, public sector, Vallejo, pensions  
•       •       •

6545 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 11:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 02:59:16 PM  
 
2013-06-18 03:01:55 PM  

Fizpez: The program has a long view on assets vs. liabilities - our required contribution was recently increased from 11 to 14% of our gross salary (let that sink in for a second)


BTW, I put 15% of my salary in 401(k), and have been for many years.
 
2013-06-18 03:07:07 PM  

Ninja Otter: Fizpez: The program has a long view on assets vs. liabilities - our required contribution was recently increased from 11 to 14% of our gross salary (let that sink in for a second)

BTW, I put 15% of my salary in 401(k), and have been for many years.


Yeah that's about what it takes - but when I hear people complain about "lavish" benefits or pensions they always assume that those participating have contributed nothing and are simply milking the system for every penny.  We (wife and I) are probably combined to about 15% of our pay - my pension deduction is automatic so no thinking there, make sure we get the max match on her 403b and the rest is divided up into a couple of Roth accounts.  I could be wrong but last I read of those actually saving for retirement (which excludes the millions who arent) the average rate is somewhere around 4-6%.
 
2013-06-18 03:20:27 PM  

Fizpez: Ninja Otter: Fizpez: The program has a long view on assets vs. liabilities - our required contribution was recently increased from 11 to 14% of our gross salary (let that sink in for a second)

BTW, I put 15% of my salary in 401(k), and have been for many years.

Yeah that's about what it takes - but when I hear people complain about "lavish" benefits or pensions they always assume that those participating have contributed nothing and are simply milking the system for every penny.  We (wife and I) are probably combined to about 15% of our pay - my pension deduction is automatic so no thinking there, make sure we get the max match on her 403b and the rest is divided up into a couple of Roth accounts.  I could be wrong but last I read of those actually saving for retirement (which excludes the millions who arent) the average rate is somewhere around 4-6%.


There really are some crappy 401K plans out there though that have very few options on mutual funds and you're better off just going up to the match and then IRA'ing after that.
 
2013-06-18 03:45:28 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: You Are All Sheep: So I'm curious, how many large or fairly large cities have majority non-white citizenry and are doing well financially?

San Francisco is doing fine.
non-white is the majority there.

same for San Jose


It helps to have a high concentration of trust-fund babies and Internet brazillionaires.
 
2013-06-18 06:29:14 PM  

Fizpez: Ninja Otter: Fizpez: You know what happens when the project returns don't meet the expected outlays?  They change the contribution rates and retirement guidelines - but they do it on a timescale that allows people to make adjustments.

The problem is two-fold. First, there's an incentive to promise more than you can actually give, as that's someone else's problem. The thieving CEO may be long-gone by the time it's clear that not enough money was set aside. Second, what if the company goes bankrupt? Contribution rates don't matter if there's no one to contribute any more.

http://www.barlettandsteele.com/journalism/time_retirement_2.php

There's the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, basically government backing of pensions; it's running massive deficits.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-16/business/35505545_1_pb gc -premiums-pension-plans-troubled-pension-funds

The pension fund is NOT controlled by the company and the participants - a third party oversees the entire fund - in short, it is managed like a mutual fund.  There are fairly rigorous guidelines about how the fund may invest regarding risk and the "defined" part of the benefits set the investments target goals.  The program has a long view on assets vs. liabilities - our required contribution was recently increased from 11 to 14% of our gross salary (let that sink in for a second) over the next 3 years because projections for fund assets 30 years from now showed a liability debt - all of this was done before the market improved.

it's quite possible to have a defined benefit plan - but it can not be seen as some sort of piggy bank to be raided whenever those involved need some quick cash.


What happens if the company goes bankrupt? Are those considered company assets or are they protected by being the assets of an independent company? If they're not company assets then is the company prohibited from raiding the funds? If they are company assets can the company raid the funds?

I'm curious - I really don't know. Sorry if this is common knowledge or if you've posted an answer to this already but I didn't see it. The only time I've had a pension available as an option was when I was in the Marines and I only served for eight years. Due to the time spent trashing my knees and back I'm qualified for some disability funds (something like 1500 a month I think, I am not sure) but I have no need for the funds and haven't applied. They, the funds, are surely more useful if they're applied elsewhere. I have no need for them and would feel horrible if I took them.

hasty ambush: However both pay and benefits have grown exorbitantly


Hmm... Are you sure about that? I don't want to be That Guy® but I'm afraid I have to... Do you have a citation? My understanding was that State employees are essentially suffering from wage stagnation to a greater extent than even those in the private sector. I'd like a citation that included more than a single state and more than a few specific jobs if you have one. I'd be interested in reading about this.

The only way I can see your statement as being partially true is the cost of healthcare insurance (a typical benefit for State employees). The cost of insurance has gone up (hardly the fault of the State employees I don't think) a great deal and is cited as one of the reasons that pay has not increased in the hearings that I've monitored and the reports that I have read. Defining exorbitantly is going to be difficult but I'm reasonable, I think, so I'd like to see a citation if you have one.

I do ask that you keep in mind when you're judging the employees that they're not in control of the insurance costs and that's something we, as tax payers, promised them in return for their labor. They get greater job security, a pension, and insurance at a "reasonable" cost for themselves and their family (where applicable). They don't really get paid that well other than a few cases where, and I'd agree, they get paid far more than they want. State college administrators and coaches for their sports teams are a couple of examples where I think they get paid too much but, percentage wise, that's a drop in the bucket. But, alas, I digress - I'd really like to see some numbers.

I still highly recommend taking State work and double dipping on the pensions if you can get away with it. The benefits and pension are a beautiful thing from what I have seen. It's not that it is good for society but I'll be damned if it isn't good for the worker.
 
2013-06-18 06:47:35 PM  

UnspokenVoice: hasty ambush: However both pay and benefits have grown exorbitantly

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I don't want to be That Guy® but I'm afraid I have to... Do you have a citation? My understanding was that State employees are essentially suffering from wage stagnation to a greater extent than even those in the private sector. I'd like a citation that included more than a single state and more than a few specific jobs if you have one. I'd be interested in reading about this.



img.fark.net

img.fark.net

img.fark.net


Link
 
2013-06-18 07:11:47 PM  

hasty ambush: UnspokenVoice: hasty ambush: However both pay and benefits have grown exorbitantly

Hmm... Are you sure about that? I don't want to be That Guy® but I'm afraid I have to... Do you have a citation? My understanding was that State employees are essentially suffering from wage stagnation to a greater extent than even those in the private sector. I'd like a citation that included more than a single state and more than a few specific jobs if you have one. I'd be interested in reading about this.


[img.fark.net image 517x303]

[img.fark.net image 619x381]

[img.fark.net image 580x360]


Link


Thank you but I'm still not sure that the evidence backs up your claim.

The first chart includes benefits which we can agree have gone up a great deal but that's due to the increased costs of health insurance I understand.

The second chart confirms what I just said - benefits have gone up because the costs to provide those benefits have gone up. I think it's absurd (and I'm not "not on your side" or anything) and I'm guessing you do too.

The third chart is meaningless except to show that it is expensive.

Your statement was that pay had gone up (and benefits but I think we've already established benefits have - I mentioned that in when I replied earlier) exorbitantly. That doesn't seem to be the case - you'll notice that benefits have gone up 135% (using your second chart). I think you'll find that's where the money is going and not into higher pay rates. Those are using the numbers you provided.

The state workers I know haven't had a raise in a long time and this is something that's often debated and talked about which is why I questioned it. The cost for those workers have increased and there's no arguing that benefits have become more costly but it doesn't appear (even with your numbers) that pay is increasing at any great rate. As for the cost of benefits, well, that's hardly the fault of the workers I don't believe and I'd not begrudge them that.

Another one of the things I noticed is that your second chart points to a real problem, that is that businesses are providing fewer and fewer benefits. The pink line scales along in a fairly linear fashion while the blue line stops increasing and decreases. The pink line is how it should be - there should be growth. The other is private business screwing you over by no longer providing benefits.

So, what can we take from this? Well, for starters businesses are screwing their workers and our government is wasting money and probably paying too much for benefits. The health insurance costs are absurd. But it still doesn't look like (again, using your numbers from your charts) the pay that the employee gets is actually going up a great deal and certainly not exorbitantly.
 
2013-06-18 11:09:16 PM  

Pension plan raided to balance the budget?  Where's the Florida tag?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-18 11:14:42 PM  
Corporation raids pension fund: burn the executives at the stake.

Government raids pension fund: tax the ungrateful people more.

Never mind the decades of corruption and mismanagement that led to this point for the later.
 
2013-06-19 12:15:20 AM  

Alleyoop: Pension plan raided to balance the budget?  Where's the Florida tag?

[img.fark.net image 217x144]


Florida's pension is fully funded, scrub.
 
2013-06-19 10:55:28 AM  

Shryke: Alleyoop: Pension plan raided to balance the budget?  Where's the Florida tag?

[img.fark.net image 217x144]

Florida's pension is fully funded, scrub.


Probably one of the things that brought it to Scott's attention. Dismantling pension trusts is his avowed specialty.
Might want to check it a little more closely.
And I'll give you some dandy odds that your funding is walking out the door.
 
2013-06-19 03:08:20 PM  
If you made your money helping to create and perpetuate the conditions that lead to this shiat hole.
Well then your money should have to stay here. No pension dollars following you to a sunny red State .

Ya I said it. Keep your civil servants socialist ass in your own homeland.

//coming down south to vote and bullshiat.
 
2013-06-19 08:31:02 PM  

Shryke: Florida's pension is fully funded, scrub.


Well DUH.  Florida's pension plan is one of the best, if not THE best, in the nation.  Even after being raided for the past few years by Scott.  But if you want to listen to a real scrub...
"Today, you can't rely on (the retirement fund for public employees), it's not funded."
 - Rick Scott on Tuesday, March 6th, 2012
 
Displayed 14 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report