No, San Jose not struggling to retain city workers — just police

No, San Jose not struggling to retain city workers — just police

City HallIn the comments sections of news pages and blogs throughout California in recent days — including Cal Watchdog — I’ve seen claims that San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s aggressive pursuit of pension reform had backfired spectacularly, causing the wealthy city to suffer a brain drain as disaffected employees left for places where their skills are more appreciated and appropriately compensated.

This seemed preposterous. As a reporter and then a columnist and editorial writer in California since 1990, I have gotten to know dozens of city officials in Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, Orange County and now San Diego County. They all say the same thing: There is genuine market demand for cops and in niche categories like city managers and elite planners. But that’s it. For rank-and-file workers, there is no market demand. This is reflected by the relatively small turnover in the public sector vs. the private sector.

This view isn’t just driven by the anecdotes I’ve encountered over the years. It’s exactly what the research of Steve Frates of the Rose Institute of Local Government showed. In 2008, he told me that the idea that public employees must get regular pay hikes and sweetened benefits is an “urban myth” and that the statistical evidence is overwhelming that except for police officers, market demand isn’t an issue in retaining public employees, as I wrote at the time. Nothing has changed since.

Account doesn’t back up claims of those who cite it

So I looked at the linked articles and did a Nexis hunt as well. And guess what? San Jose fits the historical norm. All the claims of the San Jose brain drain seem to be based on one article, by a San Jose news site sponsored by San Jose tech interests. And guess what? It quotes a union-allied politician as warning about a brain drain. But the reporter who wrote the story, as opposed to the politician she quotes, only says the city faces a problem keeping cops — the same story as always.

“Councilman Don Rocha wants to amend the city’s pension reforms to solve what he deems a more pressing problem: employee retention…. [The] District 9 councilman urges the city to re-work the disability retirement policy, lower the eligible retirement age and consider appealing the pension overhaul voters approved as Measure B in 2012. Maybe, he said, City Council should put a measure on the November ballot to give voters the option of amending the city charter. His entreaty goes before the Rules and Open Government Committee this week. …

“For one, he noted, he and his colleagues failed to anticipate the retention problem. Since pension reforms upped the retirement age, cracked down on disability pensions and knocked new hires down to a lower benefits tier, San Jose has struggled to keep enough police officers on staff. Rocha said city leaders should have foreseen this problem.

“’At this point, we see clearly that while rising pension costs may be a threat to service delivery, so too is an inability to recruit and retain, both in the public safety and federated workforce,’ he stated. ‘When I have to tell residents that we can’t investigate their home burglary, or that it will take six months to repair a streetlight, it’s not only because of pension costs, it’s also because people don’t want to work here.'”

California has the second highest rate of people unable to find full-time work — the U-6 rate kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that many economists think is the most telling data on workforce participation. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeee, San Jose can’t find streetlight repair people.

 

 

 

70 comments

Write a comment
  1. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 8 April, 2014, 16:45

    LOL…as if there is some sort of MARKET for gov employees. Good one!

    There is NO market for gov trough feeders. NO ONE in the real world wants them or needs them. They will torpedo any private sector company with their laziness, greed and overall sense of entitlement, especially the low skilled HS educated cops and firewhiners, who have the biggest case of entitlement ever seen on the face of this planet.

    Reply this comment
  2. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 8 April, 2014, 18:52

    Alot of anger in your posts little buddy……we all knew this post would bring out the 2 red meat eaters of cwd rant spittle fame.

    I hope your high degree of frustration has not impacted your “life” too much. I need to go back and rest some more aftyer my vacation! Blog on girl!

    Reply this comment
  3. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 8 April, 2014, 18:56

    Teddy

    He was beat bad my someone in authority…..probably the high school football snack stand manager……when he was on career building work release from alternative school!

    Reply this comment
  4. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 8 April, 2014, 19:23

    Its too early to tell how Measure B has affected San Jose–there is already talk of reform or partial repeal. Wait until five years passes, then you can tell us what affect Measure B had on San Jose.

    Reply this comment
  5. Chris Reed
    Chris Reed 8 April, 2014, 21:35

    Same old, same old. Facts presented, facts ignored, names called.

    Reply this comment
    • S & P 500
      S & P 500 9 April, 2014, 14:22

      Actually it’s not the same old–I’ve started reading Cate Long’s posts about Puerto Rico, the “Greece” of the U.S. That territory has no cash in its pension fund and is now paying pensions from the general fund. It also just issued some high risk, high yield bonds, some of which were purchased by Illinois. Another academic who is writing about pensions is Stanford Prof Josh Rauh, who points out that it is extremely misleading to quote pension costs as a fraction of spending, and not revenues, since a lot of municipal spending is financed with debt.

      http://kelloggfinance.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/pensions-in-muniland/

      Reply this comment
      • Rex the Wonder Dog!
        Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 April, 2014, 14:05

        Feds finance spending with debt, but not states or muni’s unless they’re floating bonds, which do not account for that much.

        Reply this comment
  6. Not True
    Not True 9 April, 2014, 07:24

    San Jose has seen a flood of people retiring (from the general employees pension plan, not the safety plan) much earlier than they used to. With so many boomers eligible to retire, or nearing eligibility, Measure B was catastrophically stupid.

    In 2011, there was a mass exodus of retirees. They retired at a much younger age than was typical in prior years. Having people going out earlier COSTS A LOT OF MONEY, for both pensions and retiree health!

    But, at least the few remaining employees are working in a very nice city hall!

    Even if you are excited about the prospects of stealing from workers, Measure B was still a total disaster by any measure.

    Reply this comment
    • S Moderation Douglas
      S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 07:55

      Thanks, NT. I’m sure Chris feels much better now with an actual response to his article.

      Actually the same thing has been happening with other local governments and the state. Although SJ might be more catastrophic than most because of B.

      And yes, its true. Lack of raises (or actual cuts like in SJ), furloughs, cuts in pensions, etc. HAVE affected hiring and retention in the public sector and it will get worse as the economy improves.

      Reply this comment
    • Tough Love
      Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 09:00

      Defined benefit pension formulas create a timeline where at some service duration/age, the incremental value of additional pensions accruals (looked at from a present value standpoint) is worth less than retiring and starting to collect one’s pension *.

      So, retiring “early” does NOT necessary cost the city more money. It depends upon whether that retirement date is before or after that crossover point. The “cost” might actually be less (even far less) although pension outflows from plan assets may be advanced to earlier years. Advancing payments is a “cash flow” issue, but NOT a “cost” issue ….. and a problem ONLY in plans so poorly funded that they will likely fail anyway.

      * The service years/age crossover at which it’s beneficial to retire is typically 10 years earlier (more for safety workers) in PUBLIC than Private Sector Pension Plans. This pension design (along with higher formula factors and COLA increases) is a major reason why Public Sector Plan are ALWAYS multiples more generous and hence MUCH more costly than Private Sector plans ….. and why they are so unfair to Taxpayers called upon to pay for all but the 10-20% of total Plan costs (INCLUDING investment earnings thereon) actually paid for by the workers’ own contributions.

      Reply this comment
    • Rex the Wonder Dog!
      Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 April, 2014, 14:06

      They retired at a much younger age than was typical in prior years. Having people going out earlier COSTS A LOT OF MONEY, for both pensions and retiree health!

      Thank you Captain Obvious. Why the retirement age for all troughers should be age 68 like SS requires.

      Reply this comment
      • Tough Love
        Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 14:38

        Retiring early does ADD to the promised pension benefits so it doesn’t “cost” more. It simply advances payouts (to earlier years) that would otherwise generally be larger (but for fewer payout years) if retirement occurred later. The “cost” doesn’t increase.

        Net Active + Retiree healthcare costs do increase if the Retiree receives subsidized retiree healthcare (as the generally do … but shouldn’t because the Taxpayers don’t get such subsidies from there employers) and the retiree is replace with a new “Active”.

        Reply this comment
  7. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 09:30

    “Taxpayers called upon to pay for all but the 10-20% of total Plan costs”

    Taxpayers pay for 100%. Salary + pension + healthcare. Ultimately it all comes from the taxpayer.

    The question is, and has always been, does the taxpayer get his money’s worth?

    In most cases, the answer is “yes”.

    ” Roughly equal” total compensation.

    Reply this comment
    • Tough Love
      Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 10:06

      S. Moderation Douglas, Well, you are correct that all Public Sector compensation originate from taxation.

      As to the question ….. “does the taxpayer get his money’s worth” …. I believe that if can be demonstrated that if the “Total Compensation” (cash pay + pensions + benefits) of a Public Sector worker is more than very marginally greater than that of a Private Sector worker in a comparable job (of if not directly comparable, a jobs with similar risks, educational and experience requirements, and skill sets), then Taxpayer’s are NOT getting their money’s worth …… not because the worker is ineffective, but because Taxpayers are paying too much for the service provided.

      I have demonstrated that to be the case many times, my latest demonstration of Taxpayers NOT getting their money’s worth as follows:
      ———————————————————————-
      In California the typical recent Pubic Safety retiree’s pension starts at just about $100,000 and is COLA adjusted thereafter. By looking at a table of life annuity factors, such a single life immediate annuity has a value or cost upon retirement of just about $1.8 Million (18 times the annual pension). One way to judge if that is reasonable (or “appropriate and fair”) is to answer the question … What would be the necessary INCOME LEVEL (or Final Average Salary … FAS) of a Private Sector worker with the TYPICAL Private Sector DB pension (for the few Private Sector workers lucky enough to still be covered by such a pensions) to obtain a pension from his/her employer with the SAME $1.8 Million “value” upon retirement ?

      Assume the CA safety worker has the typical 3% of final average pay per-year-of-service pension factor, had a final average salary of $111,111, 30 years of service and retired at age 55… resulting in the starting pension of $111,111 x .03 x 30 = $100,000. Next, let’s assume the Private Sector worker’s DB pension formula is 1.25% per year of service (a quite typical formula), is NOT COLA adjusted (routine in PRIVATE Sector Plans), and has a full unreduced retirement age of 62 (with a 4% reduction in pension payout for each year of age that you retire begin collecting your pension before age 62).

      For a given Final Average Salary (FAS), this Private Sector worker’s annual pension (P) is given by the formula P = (FAS x 30 x .0125)x (1-((62-55)x.04)), with the latter part of that formula being the adjustment for early retirement at age 55. Shortening that formula, we have P = (FAS x 30 x .0125) x 0.72.

      From above, we saw that the Safety worker’s pension (being COLA-increased) has a lump sum “value” of 18 times the annual STARTING pension. With no COLA increases, the lump sum “value” is only 13 times the annual pension. Therefore the Lump Sum “value” of the Private Sector worker’s pension is given by 13 x P, and since we are SETTING that value equal to the $1.8 Million value of the safety worker’s pension we have $1,800,000 = 13 x P, and solving for P, we have P= $1,800,000/13 = $138,462. This Private Sector non-COLA-increased annual pension of $138,462 can be looked at as being mathematically equivalent to an otherwise identical pension starting at $100,000 that includes 3% annual COLA increases (i.e., the Safety worker’s pension).

      Now since we know the annual Private Sector worker’s annual pension “P”, we can plug it into my above formula of P = (FAS x 30 x .0125) x 0.72 to solve for FAS. Doing so we have, $138,462 = (FAS x 30 x .0125) x 0.72, from which

      FAS = $138,462/(30 x 0.0125 x 0.72) = $512,822

      What this shows is that a Private Sector worker (with a TYPICAL DB pension formula and provisions) would need to have a final average salary of $512,812 to generate a pension from his/her employer with the SAME $1.8 Million “value” as the TYPICAL Safety worker pension …. or $512,822/$111,111 = 4.62 times the Safety worker’s salary.

      And for the skeptics that say …. this can’t be correct …. we can just reverse the order of calculations and SHOW that this $512,822 PRIVATE Sector salary is indeed necessary to generate a pension with a “value” equal to that (the $1.8 Million) of the Public Sector Safety worker … as follows:

      (a) Private Sector worker’s Annual (non-COLA-increased) pension = $512,822 x 30 x 0.0125 x .72 = $138,462
      (b) Lump sum value (using the 13 times life annuity factor applicable to non-COLA-increased pensions) = $138.462 x 13 = $1.8 Million

      While most reasonable people would suggest that (give the nature of the occupations) Safety workers should receive pensions equivalent to Private Sector workers with salaries say 10% or 25% or 50% greater than they, I find it incredulous to believe that ANYONE would feel it appropriate to provide the TYPICAL CA Safety worker retiree with a pension equivalent to that of the Private Sector worker making over $500,000 annually. Taxpayers (who pay for all but the 10-20% of Total Coat Public Sector pensions typically paid for by the worker’s own contributions and the investment earnings thereon) simply cannot afford anything even remotely close to this level of generosity.

      And to preemptively address the anticipated comeback ………… the 4.62 times greater CA safety pension is NOT a function of the Officer’s final pay. It would remain 4.62% even if the officer’s final pay (and hence starting pension) were 10%, 20% or even 50% lower.

      The 4.62 time greater CA Safety worker pension results from the MUCH richer Formula and MUCH more generous “provisions” as follows:

      (1) Benefit from the richer “formula” of 3% vs 1.25% = 3.00/1.25= 2.40 greater
      (2) Benefit from only the CA safety worker getting COLA increases = 18/13 = 1.3846
      (3) Benefit from no CA Safety worker pension reduction for full (unreduced) retirement at age 55 = 1.00/0.72 = 1.3889

      The above beneficial ratios are multiplicative, giving the overall advantage of 2.40 x 1.3846 x 1.3889 = 4.62 times.

      Reply this comment
      • S Moderation Douglas
        S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 10:10

        You lost it at “assume”.

        GIGO

        Reply this comment
        • Tough Love
          Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 10:24

          No, Apparently YOU never had “it”.

          Reply this comment
          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 10:39

            Getting back to the article. When the rubber hits the road, San Jose IS having retention problems with their police force.

            No matter how many spread sheets TL “assumes”, if you want cops, you have to pay the going rate.

        • Tough Love
          Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 11:08

          S. Moderation Douglas, Hopefully, that will be a temporary problem.

          I believe that CA will eventually reverse the insane/absurd (and grossly unjust to Taxpayers who get no such “protection” from prospective Plan changes) “California Rule” so that prospective pension service accruals can be materially reduced. And I believe it WILL happen because there will no other options to prevent massive Plan failures.

          Once that rule is reversed, many cities will rapidly reduce future service accruals and Police City-hopping for better pensions will diminish rapidly. They will ALL settle at a much lower accrual level.

          Reply this comment
          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 14:05

            Or maybe California will *continue* to negotiate salary and benefits on a case by case basis, instead of ham handed and clearly unconstitutional (and counterproductive) laws like Mayor Reed did.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 17:02

            S. Moderation Douglas, Hopefully, in 2016 Major Reed’s proposal will amend CA’s Constitution and put an end to the judicially-created abomination know as the “California Rule”.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 17:25

            He couldn’t get backing in 14. He won’t get any in 16.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 17:43

            S. Moderation Douglas, That’s only because the CA AG is an In-The-Union’s-Pocket Democrat.

            Quite amazing how she twisted the wording to accommodate the desires of the Unions ….. and the In-The-Union’s-Pocket judge who ruled on Reed’s challenge) wasn’t even phased by the intentionally weird (and grammatically improper) initiative wording to keep the words “for future Service” at the end of the description.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 18:59

            AG Harris wasn’t the reason the proposition was dropped. She was just a convenient excuse. If Reed had financial backing he would still be going hell bent for leather.

            Even if the ballot language were untrue, throw enough money at it and it will go away.

            The unions aren’t a boogie man, they’re a straw man. They are useful for distracting the public from the real problems.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 19:35

            S. Moderation Douglas, So the Unions AREN’T the problem ?

            If I recall two County Safety worker Unions sued to repeal the recent CA Statewide law restricting end-of-carer pay (and hence pension) “spiking”.

            Their only rationale … well, everyone who retire before us got away with it, so we’re entitled to do so too.

            Really ? Insatiable Greed ?

            And you say that the Unions AREN’T the problem ?

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 20:03

            People can sue for anything and everything. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

            There are a lot of greedy people out there.

            There are lots of paranoid citizens. They are not all Ted Kaczynski.

            There are a lot of investment advisors. They are not all Bernie Madoff.

            There were also a couple of California transit unions that sued because federal law superseded PEPRA and required such changes to be NEGOTIATED in their particular cases. They were successful because, well, that’s the law. Its the way we do things in America. There have also been hundreds of *greedy* unions that negotiated give backs in their pay and pensions.

            Because they did not give back enough to satisfy TL does not make them greedy by definition.

            “Powerful Public Employee Unions” is an oxymoron.

            They just don’t have as much power as you give them credit for.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 20:12

            S. Moderation Douglas, You carefully avoided addressing my specific example of over-the-top Union greed and a to-hell-with-the-taxpayers attitude.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 9 April, 2014, 21:52

            And you didn’t address the fact that unions, in hundreds of contracts,”gave back” pay and benefits in NEGOTIATED contracts. It’s not “greed” just because they didn’t give as much as TL wanted.

            Nor is it “to hell with taxpayers” attitude.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 22:50

            S. Moderation Douglas. It’s not what they “give back” that matters because they can (and ARE) be starting from a point so generous that even after the givebacks, they are Still ridiculously excessive.

            What matters is the Public Sector worker’s “Total Compensation” (cash pay + pensions + benefits) in similar occupations. When that comparison is done PROPERLY, the Public Sector worker ALWAYS comes out far ahead, roughly getting equal cash pay, but multiples greater pensions and benefits.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 10 April, 2014, 07:43

            Ell oh ell

          • Rex the Wonder Dog!
            Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 April, 2014, 14:08

            TL and Dougie need t get a room 🙂

      • Don in Sac
        Don in Sac 9 April, 2014, 23:09

        Interesting analysis TL. Since most privet sector employees have a defined contribution plan, it would be interesting to know how much one would have to save to get the same retirement. Social security would have to be included(but not until 62+) and the typical employer match being 3% for the 401k. Also return on investment. Gets complicated.

        Reply this comment
        • Tough Love
          Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 07:33

          Quoting Don in Sac …. “it would be interesting to know how much one would have to save to get the same retirement.”

          That’s easy to answer. Since the “Lump sum” value at retirement of the officers starting pension of $100,000 with COLA adjustments thereafter is (using the annuity factor I described in my long mathematical demonstration above), 18 x $100,000 = $1.8 Million, that’s the amount a Private Sector worker would need to have saved in a DC plan to have a retirement of equal value.

          But don’t forget that the officer likely gets free or heavily subsidized retire healthcare with a lump sum value upon retirement at age 55 of $300K-$500K assuming family coverage. It would be very rare for a Private Sector worker to get such coverage today, and since the workers have rarely paid for any of this, rightfully this $300K-$500K should be added to the $1.8 Million for an Apples-to-Apples comparison.

          Reply this comment
        • S Moderation Douglas
          S Moderation Douglas 10 April, 2014, 08:14

          Don,

          First, forget about trying to get the same retirement as safety workers. The $100,000 pensions TL almost exclusively refers to are the outliers. They are less than three percent of public retirees.

          If you would like to retire like a CalTRANS worker or DMV clerk, you’ll need 25k to 30k a year, plus SS of about 15k. (That’s retiring in mid 60s, NOT 50 or 55)

          Here’s what “Money” magazine, and most other retirement advisors say:

          ” Many financial planners recommend that you save 10% to 15% of your income for retirement, starting in your 20s.”

          Most state workers (not safety) have historically had about 5% of income withheld, with roughly a 10 to 15% employer match. It varies over time.

          I recall one major retirement advisor say to save 10% if you want to be secure in retirement, 15% if you want to be comfortable, and 20% or more if you want to vacation in Europe occasionally.

          If, as most studies say, a private sector worker earns 10% more than an equivalent public sector worker, and all you save for retirement is 3% to match your employer in a 401(k), it won’t be enough.

          Reply this comment
          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 09:44

            Quoting … “most studies say, a private sector worker earns 10% more than an equivalent public sector worker”

            Baloney … provide your sources … emphasis on the word “most”.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 10 April, 2014, 11:33

            Sorry, I meant to say ALL peace officers retire with $100,000 a year.

            Uh, except the ones who don’t. Like most of the ones outside major metropolitan areas.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 11:43

            S. Moderation Douglas, Sorry, still waiting ……

            You said, Quoting … “most studies say, a private sector worker earns 10% more than an equivalent public sector worker”

            Baloney … provide your sources … emphasis on the word “most”.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 10 April, 2014, 11:56

            http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/slp_20-508.pdf

            “The results suggest that state and local workers in the aggregate have a wage penalty of 9.5 percent.”

            If you emphasize “most”, your web search probably works as well as mine.

            I’m sorry,there really isn’t much disagreement on this point. The numbers are taken straight from BLS data. Even The Heritage Foundation agrees on the raw numbers. They just disagree on what is called the “proper” way to discount benefits.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 12:15

            S. Moderation Douglas. Sorry, but that’s one, not “most”, and not even two …. and the single source is fron the extremely left-leaning (Public Sector Union-friendly) Center for Retirement Research.

            Still waiting for the “most” sources ….

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 10 April, 2014, 12:24

            Keep waiting.

            Stay thirsty, my friend.

          • Tough Love
            Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 13:20

            S. Moderation Douglas,

            Can’t back up your statement ?

            Those who can DO, those who can’t just BS and lie.

          • Rex the Wonder Dog!
            Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 April, 2014, 14:14

            The $100,000 pensions TL almost exclusively refers to are the outliers.
            Totally false Dougie- it is the AVERAGE. Actually the average is far higher. Read, learn, educated yourself, for once. So I don’t have to keep schooling you and Teddy 🙂

            CHP compatriots get 3 percent of pay for each year worked – six times as much – once they hit 50, thanks to uber-generous retirement formulas approved by state lawmakers in the halcyon days of 1999. So the CHP officer who retired last November will pull down $125,079 a year in retirement checks, according to data from the giant California Public Employees Retirement System.
            http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/public-531890-pension-retirement.html

  8. Shelby
    Shelby 9 April, 2014, 09:45

    San Jose is just among the the first of employers to reduce pensions for current employees. The next 6 years will be ugly as CalPers ramps up retirement contributions for employers by 50%. The employer cost for safety employees will exceed $75,000.00 per year for many employers.

    Reply this comment
    • S & P 500
      S & P 500 9 April, 2014, 14:06

      Things will get ugly, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a gold mine for public employees. As Mayor Reed has stated, there are things a city can do if it can’t reduce pensions–such as layoffs and furloughs. I’m more interested in how K-12 teachers will react when CalSTRS demands more money from their school districts. Maybe they’ll stop dreaming about having budget cuts to their schools restored.

      Reply this comment
      • Tough Love
        Tough Love 9 April, 2014, 16:12

        Notwithstanding the the Teacher’s Union’s politically correct rhetoric, budget cuts impacting “education” take a FAR lower priority than maintaining the size of and funding of their own pensions.

        Reply this comment
  9. Berryessa Chillin'
    Berryessa Chillin' 9 April, 2014, 15:30

    Tough Love: thanks for the informative comment.

    Reply this comment
  10. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 10 April, 2014, 08:16

    Quoting Douglas– the brightest poster out here–

    “Taxpayers called upon to pay for all but the 10-20% of total Plan costs”
    Taxpayers pay for 100%. Salary + pension + healthcare. Ultimately it all comes from the taxpayer.
    The question is, and has always been, does the taxpayer get his money’s worth?
    In most cases, the answer is “yes”.
    ” Roughly equal” total compensation.
    TL– Still missing the point— well….

    er…

    alot of points!

    Reply this comment
  11. Queeg
    Queeg 10 April, 2014, 08:59

    If you don’t like stuff…..just move on. This site has too many whiners and trolls. Why do you get so stressed about nonsense….unbelievable!

    Reply this comment
  12. Tough Love
    Tough Love 10 April, 2014, 09:36

    Ah … I see that the circus of Public sector worker/retiree entitlment-mentality quacks has joined the discussion …

    Reply this comment
  13. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 10 April, 2014, 14:41

    Total CalPERS Fund
    Market Value
    Reflects market value, as of market close on 4/9/2014.
    $288.4 Billion
    —————————–
    I love it!!!!!!! Chew on that DOOMERS……

    Reply this comment
  14. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 10 April, 2014, 14:45

    Tough Love says:
    April 10, 2014 at 9:36 am
    Ah … I see that the circus of Public sector worker/retiree entitlment-mentality quacks has joined the discussion …
    ————————–
    It’s always fun to come antagonize you circus chimps with facts! Especially you TL, the king monkey of all!!!

    Reply this comment
  15. Queeg
    Queeg 10 April, 2014, 22:11

    Toughie

    Starting out nicely….typical doomer vitriol…..oh….spare us!

    Reply this comment
  16. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 12 April, 2014, 09:33

    Apparently Tough Love is now ghost writing for Jon Ortiz.

    A classic example of “TL math”:

    “Let’s take a miscellaneous employee, a common classification that covers everyone from DMV office staff to local school custodians. Say the employee retires at age 55 after 20 years of service with a final salary of $92,200.”*

    No wonder taxpayers are teed off. Keep printing this crap and people start believing it.

    If you can find me ONE custodian who makes anywhere near $92k, I will kiss your butt on the Capitol steps and give you half an hour to draw a crowd.

    *The State Worker: New pension plans differ greatly from ‘classic’ models

    Reply this comment
    • Tough Love
      Tough Love 12 April, 2014, 12:02

      Didn’t write nor ever saw that quote.

      But here’s a fact …..

      Take ANY CA Public Sector worker and find a Private Sector worker doing a reasonable comparable job and with the SAME pay, SAME age at retirement, and the SAME years of service …..

      When you compare their pensions, the value at retirement (considering BOTH the richness of the pension “formula” and the generosity of it’s “provisions” such as COLA increases and young full retirement ages) of the Public Sector worker’s pension will always be AT LEAST 2x greater than that of the Private Sector worker, MOST OFTEN 3x-4x greater, and for safety workers, 4x-6x greater.

      And I DEMONSTRATED the latter (for Safety workers) in my above comment time stamped April 9, 2014 at 10:06 am.

      You never demonstrate anything … just blather away. You’re almost as bad as the circus clowns … Ted, Queeg, and NTHEOC.

      Reply this comment
  17. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 13 April, 2014, 12:41

    If it works with ANY public sector worker, then use a Caltrans Equipment Operator or maintenance supervisor, who make $47,000 to $54,000 a year, and use the miscellaneous formula. Round it to 50k to make the math easier

    The numbers you use, even if your math were valid, leave the reader with the impression that $100,000 retirements at 55 are typical. They are not. They are a very small minority of public workers.
    ……………………………
    ” You’re almost as bad as the circus clowns … Ted, Queeg, and NTHEOC.”

    Thank you. That is my aspiration. I have much to learn.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

‘Unsafe handguns’ now the target of Dems

April 3, 2013 By Katy Grimes The many gun control bills being pushed through the Capitol are concerning. But many

L.A. Times, Sac Bee: Political process success=real progress. Groan.

What defines the success of a state: the welfare and happiness of its people or its ability to pass a

Seniors troubled by forced changes in CA health care

A massive 2008 study of more than 300,000 Americans found that the elderly tended to be happier with their lives