Charles, you are misrepresenting the article.

http://calwatchdog.com/2014/04/08/no-san-jose-not-struggling-to-retain-city-workers-just-police/

My facts are not biased:

(1) I’m not using the “average” safety pension (many with shorter service). I’m using that of the most recent retirees with 30 years of service for an apples-to-apples comparison with a similarly situated Private Sector worker. And, if you read my above comment time-stamped April 3, 2014 at 11:40 am, I demonstrated that their salary is not relevant. The 4.62 TIMES greater pension derives SOLELY form a MUCH richer pension “formula” and MUCH richer “provisions” (COLA and young full retirement ages). The same multiple results regardless of the wage level used.

(2) The workers own contribution (INCLUDING investment earnings) accumulated to retirement are RARELY sufficient to buy more than 10-15% of a safety worker’s pension. It’s a minor item which would STILL leave the Taxpayer-paid-for share of the Safety worker’s pension 4 TIMES greater than the comparable Private Sector worker’s pension. There is ZERO justification for this burden being foisted upon Taxpayers.
(3) No “education-level” adjustment is needed as this demonstration specifically compares a Public and Private Sector worker making the SAME pay, retiring at the SAME age, and having the SAME years of service. It’s the Public Sector pensions that come out as the grossly excessive element by any reasonable metrics
(4) CA Safety workers do not receive SS but also do not pay for it. At the higher income levels we are addressing, it has been shown time and again that SS is a LOUSY deal for Private Sector workers and they would be better far better off w/o it and being paid that extra income to invest on their own …. as are CA Safety workers.
(5) Public Sector Safety positions (Police, Fire, Corrections, etc.) indeed involve “risks” that the typical Private Sector worker does not encounter, and it is indeed a difficult task to come up with a premium (in pay and/or benefits) commensurate with that risk. While I do not have a definitive suggestion as to how much that premium should be, we should factor into that discussion the degree of incremental Police/Fire related risks relative to other high risk occupations, and look to the compensation afforded those in more risky occupations for guidance. While surprising to some, Public Sector safety occupations do not find themselves on the US Gov’t Bureau Of Labor Statistic’s list of the 10 deadliest jobs. From a 2013 Forbes article, the list of the 10 most dangerous occupations is as follows:

1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

(6) By stating the low $27,984 “average” pension of “all” CA retirees it’s YOU who is biased and clearly trying to mislead. I’m sure you know how that “average” is brought down by:
(a) short career workers with smaller pensions averaged in
(b) part time workers with lower pay and hence low pensions averaged in
(c) Retirees of long ago who retired on much smaller wages and lower pension formulas, with much smaller pensions averaged in
(d) the 50% share survivorship pensions of beneficiaries of deceased retirees averaged in.

It is FAR most appropriate to compare the pensions of Public and Private Sector workers who RECENTLY retired after a 30 year career as I did … but that wouldn’t fit in with your agenda to minimize the enormity of the financial problem our Cities find themselves in … with the ROOT CAUSE being the grossly excessive pension and benefit promised Public Sector workers by our self-interested elected officials bought-off with Public Sector Union money.

The City managers are in similar pension Plans.

ALL Public Sector Union/workers work TOGETHER (colluding with the elected officials that they have BOUGHT-OFF with campaign contributions and election support) to keep (and enhance) the gravy train running smoothly

I read the article. The situation is similar in other cities. When Brown signed PEPRA, Stockton, as well as many other cities, I’m sure, hurried to fill as many police vacancies as they could, to get them under the OLD rules.

They said they just couldn’t compete without decent pension incentives.

The city manager of Hot Springs said “I would not venture to say they are overpaid,What I would say is that we can’t pay them.”

But, the dog and donkey show, with special guest Tough Luck, know better than ALL the experienced city managers.

I don’t need to read, Charlie!

The feeders are paid five times higher than the people they serve.

The dog and donkey show has spoken!

RURG

See my earlier comments to you …….

Charles, With the exception of police, ALL of their “employes” should be outsourced ….. ENDEDING any future growth in pensions and benefits, which is the ROOT CAUSE of the City’s distress.

Once that’s done, fire the police and buy the services from the county.

Quoting …”There are not enough qualified candidates.”

Sure …. as defined by Union/politician vested interests DETERMINED to say ALWAYS come to that conclusion.

If ALL the applicants had the intelligence of an Einstein, the strength of a Schwarzenegger, and the determination of a Musk …. those vested interests would STILL say there were not enough “qualified” candidates.

It’s all BS and one cogs in the game-plan to keep Public Sector wages, pensions, and benefits greater than necessary or justifiable.

Your “facts” are biased and incorrect. Your formula plugs in random numbers all skewed to demonstrate your point.

First, the average State saftey pension in CA is $53,748 as of 2011. Look it up at Calpers.

Second, your “payout” completely ignores the portion of public pensions that are funded by the worker. In fact employees contribute between 8-12% of total pay towards their pensions.

Third, you discuss only pension not total compensation. A better look would be the compensation between similarly educated public/private workers. Studies consistently find that, when adjusted for education, public workers make less.

Fourth, you completely ignore the fact that most California state employees do not receive Social Security, whereas private sector employees do. This is a huge discrepancy in your comparison.

Fifth, you discount the nature of the work. Our public safety workers deal with crime, drugs, murders, assaults, as well as policing “white collar” crimes by private sector companies. This is an extremely important role, and should not be minimized.

Sixth, you only take the highest strand of California workers. In fact the average pension in California is only $27,984 according to Calpers. Again demonstrating your bias.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Read the article SeeSaw. Facts speak for themselves. If wages and benefits are cut,services will suffer. Please read my comment also in the referenced article. Thank you for your efforts.

Charles

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2014/04/02/don-rocha-calls-for-reforming-measure-b-pension-reform/