State pensions cost each resident $3000 per year (Santa Barbara, Davis: 2014, to buy)

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

And, in keeping consistent with my quoted post, how much of that (as a %) is already funded?

According to CALPERS they have about 200b in assets up 50b since 2009.
So since they are so financially stable, it should be no problem then to cut the taxpayers lose, and no longer hold them liable for shortfalls in the system. So long as the members are willing to do that, the rest of us will stop criticizing. Until then, we have every right to.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

What do you have against Kentucky? I was stationed there years ago and drove the length of it last year. It's a lovely state.

I'm sure it's a lovely state if you attend church every Sunday.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

According to CALPERS they have about 200b in assets up 50b since 2009.
So since they are so financially stable, it should be no problem then to cut the taxpayers lose, and no longer hold them liable for shortfalls in the system. So long as the members are willing to do that, the rest of us will stop criticizing. Until then, we have every right to.

My reading of CALPERS website shows a methodology to negate the short term impacts of the markets. Though they certainly experienced the same problems all investors recently faced, the markets have somewhat bounced back.

Meanwhile, you have every right to criticize, and all public employees are subject to the criticisms. However, the analysis still shows their compensation is equal to the private sector.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Majin

I'm sure it's a lovely state if you attend church every Sunday.

Might not hurt you to try. However, I found it lovely when not attending church as well. Great Sunday brunches at the Officers Club followed by a nice drive to expolore the beauty of the state.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

My reading of CALPERS website shows a methodology to negate the short term impacts of the markets. Though they certainly experienced the same problems all investors recently faced, the markets have somewhat bounced back.

Meanwhile, you have every right to criticize, and all public employees are subject to the criticisms. However, the analysis still shows their compensation is equal to the private sector.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...uHiXQQ&cad=rja


CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY disagrees with you.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...uHiXQQ&cad=rja


CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY disagrees with you.

And who are they? Looking at the Center itself (CCPP), the staff seems to be quite small, mostly just the writings of UC Santa Barbara visiting professor Dr Lanny Ebenstein.

http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/


Ebenstein is one of those Austrian economist, a disciple of Friedrich Hayek. He has written extensively about Hayek, and Milton Friedman too. He is also a member of the CATO Institute. CATO is a libertarian think tank, so this is consistent with his written papers.

As you well know from all of your past discussions, this is the school of economics that is the basis for much of the libertarian view of life, with minimal government and maximum free market (disagreeing with items such as Social Security, Medicare or minimum wage).

While that school of economic philosophy certainly is a legitimate participant in discussing alternative ways to proceed, they clearly have an agenda too. The links I provided to you had detailed and specific objective analysis of pension funding levels and employee total compensation, while the CCPP paper had a listing of salaries for some public employees in Santa Barbara, and then a lot of opinions.

So, to summarize, I don't see a depth of past papers and analysis from CCPP that indicates deep comprehensive and critical thinking on the subject of public employee compensation. Nor do I see extensive and detailed critical analysis of California public employee compensation.

I'll stick to both the Pew Center for the States and the University of California Institute for Research on Labor and Employment analysis on this topic, unless you have something specific, detailed and critical indicating how and why they are incorrect.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

And who are they? Looking at the Center itself (CCPP), the staff seems to be quite small, mostly just the writings of UC Santa Barbara visiting professor Dr Lanny Ebenstein.

California Center for Public Policy


Ebenstein is one of those Austrian economist, a disciple of Friedrich Hayek. He has written extensively about Hayek, and Milton Friedman too. He is also a member of the CATO Institute. CATO is a libertarian think tank, so this is consistent with his written papers.

As you well know from all of your past discussions, this is the school of economics that is the basis for much of the libertarian view of life, with minimal government and maximum free market (disagreeing with items such as Social Security, Medicare or minimum wage).

While that school of economic philosophy certainly is a legitimate participant in discussing alternative ways to proceed, they clearly have an agenda too. The links I provided to you had detailed and specific objective analysis of pension funding levels and employee total compensation, while the CCPP paper had a listing of salaries for some public employees in Santa Barbara, and then a lot of opinions.

So, to summarize, I don't see a depth of past papers and analysis from CCPP that indicates deep comprehensive and critical thinking on the subject of public employee compensation. Nor do I see extensive and detailed critical analysis of California public employee compensation.

I'll stick to both the Pew Center for the States and the University of California Institute for Research on Labor and Employment analysis on this topic, unless you have something specific, detailed and critical indicating how and why they are incorrect.

And the PEW center is a left leaning organization supporting global warming theories and ever expanding government. Of course none of this really matters, or will change the fact that the public are finally beginning to pay attention to what government is doing, and the days of public employees exploiting the system is over.
The retirement system is not solvent on it's own resources, and neither the government or the taxpayer are in position to underwrite it. Lobby all you want but excessive public pensions are toast.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Lobby all you want but excessive public pensions are toast.

Not until all of us currently receiving them and still working who were /are eligible for them are dead!

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

And the PEW center is a left leaning organization supporting global warming theories and ever expanding government. Of course none of this really matters, or will change the fact that the public are finally beginning to pay attention to what government is doing, and the days of public employees exploiting the system is over.
The retirement system is not solvent on it's own resources, and neither the government or the taxpayer are in position to underwrite it. Lobby all you want but excessive public pensions are toast.

Nobody is lobbying for anything, except objective analysis of employee compensation and accurate pension funding status .

Excessive pensions would never be sustainable in the long run, the question is what constitutes an excessive pension.

One view is a pension that isn't self supporting from the existing financial underpinnings (and I agree with this perspective), while another is "if I don't have one, they can't have one", which I believe is the perspective of many folks.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not until all of us currently receiving them and still working who were /are eligible for them are dead!

You cannot squeeze water from a rock, the money is not there to fund current liabilities, and the system will not be bailed out. Pensions may not go away, but like Social Security, there is no way the full payments can be made. Expect cuts going forward.