State pensions cost each resident $3000 per year (unemployed, income)

[jimhcom]

Report: Calif. Pensions Cost Each Resident $3,000 - cbs13.com (http://cbs13.com/californiapolitics/california.pensions.cost.2.1971337.html?source=pat rick.net#ctl00_ctl00_ContentModulesPlaceHolder_Pag eHeaderPanel - broken link)

This article states....
The cost of State pensions now cost each resident of California the equivalent of $3000 per year. The future costs could rise to $10000 per year unless changes are made. Think about that when you go to the polls.

[Bulldogdad]

A violent public reaction is the only thing that is going to get the people of the this state off their fat tit sucking asses and elect the right people to run this state. I for one support a France style revolt except for the opposite reasons less government spending. Even then who knows?

Keep it up you stupid assed Californians.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLVND6mJ5-U

[NewToCA]

While not disputing pensions are certainly an issue that both parties agree need to be addressed, let's also put the problem in perspective here.

This publication objectively analyzes the pension funding in multiple states, and finds California is in relatively good shape overall:

Pension liability: $454 billion
Percent funded: 86.89%
Employees in Pension Plans: 1,995, 169
California finds itself at the bottom of the list with the highest unfunded pension liability: $59.49 billion. Although the Golden State has the largest outstanding balance, it's still funded above the GAO-recommended 80 percent level. The state also has the highest amount of assets with $394.46 billion, with New York in a not-so-close second of $151.68 billion.

Pension Preparedness

[NewToCA]

I'll toss in something else too, from another objective analysis organization, the Pew Center on the States:

The Pew center said that Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and Oklahoma had, in essence, failed its new test because they made no meaningful progress on keeping their retiree benefit plans sound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/bu...omy/18pew.html


Again, California isn't on the "worst problem" listing.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I'll toss in something else too, from another objective analysis organization, the Pew Center on the States:

The Pew center said that Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and Oklahoma had, in essence, failed its new test because they made no meaningful progress on keeping their retiree benefit plans sound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/bu...omy/18pew.html


Again, California isn't on the "worst problem" listing.

As one of those despised California state retirees -- actually two of them counting my wife -- thank you for providing some balance and perspective. After many years with no COLAs combined with take-backs and furloughs while working and doing more with less, we're happy to be a part of the "problem."

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Report: Calif. Pensions Cost Each Resident $3,000 - cbs13.com (http://cbs13.com/californiapolitics/california.pensions.cost.2.1971337.html?source=pat rick.net#ctl00_ctl00_ContentModulesPlaceHolder_Pag eHeaderPanel - broken link)

This article states....
The cost of State pensions now cost each resident of California the equivalent of $3000 per year. The future costs could rise to $10000 per year unless changes are made. Think about that when you go to the polls.

It's not "per year". It's $3000, period. Their idea is that, if you make certain assumptions about projected dynamics of the number of retirees, retirement ages, return on income, etc. etc. etc. then the state pension fund is currently short $3000 per working age adult of being able to fulfill its all obligations. They have $205 billion in assets right now. Without seeing the full text of the article, I'll guess that the think tank says that they need to have $250 to $270 billion. ($3000 times the number of working age adult, depending on how they define working age adults.)

This is all obviously based on an enormous amount of handwaving and projections, so don't put too much stock into this number.

[eureka1]

Guess you folks don't keep up with the news much. Every union contract that Schwarzenegger has approved pursuant to the new budget contains BIG reductions in pension benefits for new hires. So you're excited over nothing.
.
Which leads to the next question: who will work for the State when salaries and working conditions are already substandard and now there are no pension advantages either. Next time you get miffed at a State employee who is new or less than competent,remember:you get what you pay for.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by eureka1

Guess you folks don't keep up with the news much. Every union contract that Schwarzenegger has approved pursuant to the new budget contains BIG reductions in pension benefits for new hires. So you're excited over nothing.
.
Which leads to the next question: who will work for the State when salaries and working conditions are already substandard and now there are no pension advantages either. Next time you get miffed at a State employee who is new or less than competent,remember:you get what you pay for.

There are 900,000 people unemployed in California at the moment, the majority would probably jump at the chance to work for the state even without pensions, and would probably do a much better job than the no loads we have now.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

There are 900,000 people unemployed in California at the moment, the majority would probably jump at the chance to work for the state even without pensions, and would probably do a much better job than the no loads we have now.

Doubtful! They'd be on a huge learning curve for quite awhile even for the most basic, entry level positions.

There are many very dedicated, educated and highly productive state employees who take their responsibilities seriously and have a great deal of personasl pride in providing excellent service and necessary research, enforcement, administrative and support functions.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Doubtful! They'd be on a huge learning curve for quite awhile even for the most basic, entry level positions.

There are many very dedicated, educated and highly productive state employees who take their responsibilities seriously and have a great deal of personasl pride in providing excellent service and necessary research, enforcement, administrative and support functions.

Good One! Have you ever considered professional comedy?
That is some funny stuff. LOL LOL