U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2019, 03:59 PM
 
2,323 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 2799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
They can promise anything they want to get the workers they need. There is a simple way out. The City of Detroit declared bankruptcy and shorted all of the pensioners. Easy peasy, one year of pain and then you start over with a new group of pensions. Promise them anything. You do not actually have to pay it.
It's not so dire where pensions would go to zero, but I could certainly see CA pensioners (as well as other states' pensioners) taking a 25% reduction in pensions at some point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2019, 09:36 PM
 
3,288 posts, read 5,312,167 times
Reputation: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
People on public pensions were promised these plans if they put 20+ years in and do a good job. They earned them and deserve to be paid. I know some personally who absolutely hated their jobs, but stayed so they could get their pension. I blame the cities for promising these people something that they knew would cause this problem later on. There is no way away around it, taxes have to be raised. It is not fair to people who are not getting a pension, which includes me, but then again life is not fair. It would be more unfair to screw these people over.
You make some valid points. I am a teacher in California, and what CalStrs or California State Teacher's Retirement System did was increased our percentages we pay into CalStrs. We now have to pay 10.25 % of our salaries into the system while our local school districts have to match it at 14%.

California teachers used to pay 8% of our salaries and school districts matched it at 8% respectively, while also being able to retire with 30 years of service as early as 55.

That is no longer the case especially when future retirement payout forecasts weren't looking good.

So what did the state do? The state changed the formula and teachers hired after 2011 have to work until age 62 to qualify for full retirement benefits while teachers like me hired before 2011 have to work until age 60 in order to retire with full benefits.

We can still retire early, it's just that when a teacher retires at 55, he or she won't get full retirement benefits, getting approximately half of his or her earnings instead of the 80 to 90% earnings at full retirement.

I can at least say that Calstrs has attempted to fix the growing retirement burden on CA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2019, 12:41 AM
 
26,433 posts, read 28,839,932 times
Reputation: 25357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
Cities in CA don't have their own "pension systems."
Not true. The City of San Jose has its own pension system and is not part of CalPers. I'm sure it's not the only one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2019, 01:34 AM
 
26,433 posts, read 28,839,932 times
Reputation: 25357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
People on public pensions were promised these plans if they put 20+ years in and do a good job. They earned them and deserve to be paid. I know some personally who absolutely hated their jobs, but stayed so they could get their pension. I blame the cities for promising these people something that they knew would cause this problem later on. There is no way away around it, taxes have to be raised. It is not fair to people who are not getting a pension, which includes me, but then again life is not fair. It would be more unfair to screw these people over.
This is a fair point, but not the whole story.

Pension benefits in many jurisdictions were increased during the dot com boom in 2000-2001. This benefitted a small number of (mostly Baby Boomers) people who paid relatively little for their pension benefits but got the best ever benefits package. This not only hurt the taxpayers, but also younger government workers.

Everyone KNEW in 2000-2001, the Baby Boomers were set to start retiring in a few years, and yet they increased the benefits anyway.

If they had just left the pension benefit formulas alone (as cities like San Francisco do--because any pension benefit increase in SF has to go before the voters. The unions knew even liberal San Franciscans weren't going to pass the benefit increases that were passed without voter approval elsewhere), pensions would be in much better financial shape.

https://calpensions.com/2018/03/19/p...p-bond-rating/

Last edited by mysticaltyger; 08-29-2019 at 01:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2019, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Boston
8,368 posts, read 2,455,877 times
Reputation: 5969
Federal government made pension adjustments starting in 1984 from the CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) to FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:39 AM
 
2,626 posts, read 690,722 times
Reputation: 4612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
They can promise anything they want to get the workers they need. There is a simple way out. The City of Detroit declared bankruptcy and shorted all of the pensioners. Easy peasy, one year of pain and then you start over with a new group of pensions. Promise them anything. You do not actually have to pay it.
In California, the cities of San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9. In those 3 cases, the courts have not ruled if they can lower already-earned pensions of current retirees. Indeed, the proposed reorganization plans did not attempt to get the court to rule on the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 10:17 AM
 
2,626 posts, read 690,722 times
Reputation: 4612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
It's very clear the people to blame are those who supported Unions' and other government workers' outrageous demands for unsustainable pensions.
Actually, it is all about bribery. In contrast to the private sector, in the public sector unions bribe elected officials with whom they negotiate union compensation contracts via campaign contributions & get-out-the-vote efforts.

And somehow this is legal.

But then again, those who might make it illegal (elected representatives) receive bribes from public sector unions to keep such bribes legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 10:58 AM
 
2,323 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 2799
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Not true. The City of San Jose has its own pension system and is not part of CalPers. I'm sure it's not the only one.
As I mentioned several times I said they "generally" don't. Over 95% of them are in Calpers. I worked for a public sector pension system for well over a couple of decades so I think I know what I'm talking about. LOL.

I attended hundreds of public sector retirement meetings in including probably a hundred CALAPRS (California Association of Public Retirement Systems) meetings over the 25 plus years I worked in the retirement area in a fairly high level position in a public sector system in California. I was intimately familiar with all facets of my own system as well as other systems because I interacted constantly with other systems as part off my job. I only say this to add some credibility to my comments.

For those that don't know, CALPERS is the largest system and state employees, as well as almost all city employees are under CALPERS. CALSTRS is another large system predominantly for teachers and other educators. UC has it's own system, etc. The Counties generally have their own systems set up by the "37 Act." In addition there are a number of other public sector systems that some of the "special districts" have that are their own systems.
Just a little background. Also, many of these systems are "reciprocal" with each other. So, for example, if you worked for one system for, let's say 10 years, and then left and retired 20 years later after working for another system, you would get two pensions. The first would be based on a formula for that system but instead of using your salary during the time you worked there 20-30 years ago, when you retire you get to use your "current salary" in the formula for the first pension from service credit 20-30 years ago. Anyway, I digress.

Last edited by Burkmere; 08-30-2019 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 05:28 PM
 
26,433 posts, read 28,839,932 times
Reputation: 25357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
As I mentioned several times I said they "generally" don't. Over 95% of them are in Calpers. I worked for a public sector pension system for well over a couple of decades so I think I know what I'm talking about. LOL. .
In terms of size, Los Angeles (California's largest city) & San Jose (California's 3rd largest) are pretty big exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 07:51 PM
 
2,323 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 2799
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
In terms of size, Los Angeles (California's largest city) & San Jose (California's 3rd largest) are pretty big exceptions.
Wrong.

Calpers Fund assets are roughly 400 billion.

LACERA is roughly 16 billion. That's 4% of Calpers.

City of San Jose is almost nothing... 5 billion give or take a billion or whatever. That's 1% for a total of 5% of Calpers total like I said just estimating that 95% of the cities (or of the Fund total) are Calpers Members. So, as I am now saying for the third or fourth time there are some exceptions....(that don't amount to anything really.

I just did a quick search so these numbers aren't exact but you get the idea.

Last edited by Burkmere; 09-01-2019 at 08:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top