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.
Also, I think that these "retirees"(as many still work after retiring from these jobs) should at least pay about a quarter of these costs, as that would make a difference in terms of this burden.
All of the upstate cities have issues but syracuse is on top. The pay-go system exacerbates the problem.
Quote:
The skyrocketing costs of health insurance for public retirees are digging New York’s state and local governments into a big financial hole, and Syracuse is leading the way, a new report says.
The report by E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, says the state and its cities, counties, towns and villages guarantee generous health care benefits to their employees but only fund them on a “pay as you go” basis. That means they pay the amount they owe to retirees each year, but do not add any money to the pot for future obligations.
Quote:
Syracuse leads all the state’s cities in the gap between what it has promised future retirees and what it has saved to pay the costs. Combining the city and the school district, the unfunded obligation to current workers and retirees amounts to $1.5 billion over the next 30 or so years, or $11,200 for each man, woman and child in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
Also, I think that these "retirees"(as many still work after retiring from these jobs) should at least pay about a quarter of these costs, as that would make a difference in terms of this burden.
Ahhh- so it's not a problem for Syracuse *generally* but in the public sector. COMPLETELY different. I think we can agree that, by and large, the government doesn't do the greatest job of proper regulation AND the funding of its programs.
I protested only because your posts seemed to imply that CNY companies had some sort of crazy problem with providing/paying for healthcare. And now, I'm glad to see you explain, more fully, that it's a problem with the public sector. A problem that is hardly specific to Syracuse.
Ahhh- so it's not a problem for Syracuse *generally* but in the public sector. COMPLETELY different. I think we can agree that, by and large, the government doesn't do the greatest job of proper regulation AND the funding of its programs.
I protested only because your posts seemed to imply that CNY companies had some sort of crazy problem with providing/paying for healthcare. And now, I'm glad to see you explain, more fully, that it's a problem with the public sector. A problem that is hardly specific to Syracuse.
Did you completely miss the part of the article that said that Syracuse was in the worst shape in the whole state, or did your "Syracuse is great" censor completely filter it out?
Here is the pertinent paragraph again:
Quote:
Syracuse leads all the state’s cities in the gap between what it has promised future retirees and what it has saved to pay the costs. Combining the city and the school district, the unfunded obligation to current workers and retirees amounts to $1.5 billion over the next 30 or so years, or $11,200 for each man, woman and child in the city.
That’s well above the obligations of other cities, including Buffalo ($9,008 per capita), New York City ($7,386) and Rochester ($4,606), McMahon reported.
Did you completely miss the part of the article that said that Syracuse was in the worst shape in the whole state, or did your "Syracuse is great" censor completely filter it out?
Here is the pertinent paragraph again:
You've already stated the facts, regarding the public sector. Why should I stress them further? I have no problem admitting weaknesses in Syracuse, just won't also assign to it [implied] problems that don't actually exist.
Exaggerating the truth isn't a great way to make a point.
You've already stated the facts, regarding the public sector. Why should I stress them further? I have no problem admitting weaknesses in Syracuse, just won't also assign to it [implied] problems that don't actually exist.
Exaggerating the truth isn't a great way to make a point.
Don't worry proulxfamily, I don't think you have a "Syracuse is great censor" I think you KNOW Syracuse is great!
I find it interesting how anytime a Syracuse resident disagrees with chopchop then we are wearing rose colored glasses yet if one of us gives him facts disputing him then he ignores it. For some reason he can't seem to get the concept that we know the problems Syracuse and NYS have, yet have a difference of opinion on what issues are truly problems and what it would take to solve them.
Personally, I believe those who are invested in the area and pay the taxes have a much better idea of how to change Syracuse for the better rather than outsiders who have nothing invested in Syracuse and more importantly want nothing to do with Syracuse in the future.
You've already stated the facts, regarding the public sector. Why should I stress them further? I have no problem admitting weaknesses in Syracuse, just won't also assign to it [implied] problems that don't actually exist.
Exaggerating the truth isn't a great way to make a point.
The truth is, Syracuse has a higher per-person unfunded pension cost than any other city in the state.
It's not my fault you choose to ignore the facts of the article. Just don't insinuate that I am exaggerating something because you don't want to believe it.
While I get the issue, I think what people are saying is that the public sector is only a small part of the workforce. I think if the public sector dominated the workforce, then it would be much more alarming, but most people work for small to medium businesses that are privately owned. That's just a fact too.
My substitutions/additions in bold, to correct your post.
By saying "syracuse" i was implying the "public sector" Considering the hemorrhaging of private-sector and manufacturing jobs from the area over the last several decades, it should have been a given, but next time I will be more specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
While I get the issue, I think what people are saying is that the public sector is only a small part of the workforce. I think if the public sector dominated the workforce, then it would be much more alarming, but most people work for small to medium businesses that are privately owned. That's just a fact too.
Can you you back that statement up. All I've read in the news the last few years are stories like Syracuse China closing up, the crucible factory laying off works, issues with Magna/NPG etc. I don't read nearly enough stories about the public-sector being trimmed down to match.
There has been a trend nationally for more union jobs to be in the public-sector, rather than the private one:
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.
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.
