But overall, I agree with your implications,…up to a point. This article begins with sensationalized anecdotal evidence, like “every time I go to the grocery store, the woman ahead of me buys steak, lobster, and caviar, and carries it out to her new Eddie Bauer Navigator while talking on her Obama IPhone. 

(actually, where I shop, they will carry the groceries out and load them in the car for her.)

And “CalPERS is going to hike employer contributions by 50 percent”?

With the state, pension costs are less than two percent of the budget.  So a fifty percent increase will amount to less than one percent, and that will likely be offset by other bargaining concessions. MOST state workers take home pay is less than it was in 2007.  Many did receive a three to five percent increase in salary, PRECEDED by a three to five percent increase in employEE retirement deductions. Many employees are now enjoying the increased pension costs WITHOUT the concurrent “raise”. 

The fifty percent increase will hit cities and counties harder, because employee costs are a MUCH higher percentage of their budgets. However, even at that level, bargaining concessions will in many cases reduce the effects of the CalPERS increases. 

Now to disagree: 

 “The total amount of monies sent to PERS per employee is normaly 18% of their income.”

Today, for most miscellaneous state employees, that may be close…for the employers share. That would be in addition to the eight to ten percent paid by the employee. 

For safety and fire, the PERS costs are MUCH higher.  Think thirty percent or more.  However, keep in mind that government saves (usually) the 6.2% normally sent to Social Security, and, again, higher payments to PERS are often accompanied with other bargaining concessions. 

Note that the new changes in pension law caused some cities to fill empty positions before the change date in order to attract and retain qualified officers. 

#2.
The total amount of monies sent to PERS per employee is normaly 18% of their income. So when your talking about paying 90% it is 90% of 18%. Newport beach firefighters currently pay 9% of the 18%. The problem is that the FIRE industry (Financial, Insurance, Real Estate)the caused the worst financial collapse since the great depression killed the stock market and PERS returns. That caused PERS to increase the % needed from the municipalities. It is now at about 22% this year.

#3.
For Seven years, thats right (7 years) the cities in CA did not have to send any mony, ZERO, because PERS was Super Funded (more money than they new what to do with)Stocktons financial planners spent that found money and didn’t save it for the day when rates would increase. Hmmmm, there are those pesky financial guys again.

I don’t see the economic significance here. Money is fungible, so with respect how badly the taxpayers will be soaked it’s irrelevant how it’s allocated between employee and employer. If the employee cut goes up, you can bet that future union contracts will cover it, so that’s no panacea.