Where does all that money collected by outrageous taxes, fees, fines, and costs go in California? (San Jose: contractors, compensation)

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Which comment leads me to believe that all the "experts" on state service, operations and finances/fiscal issues have never experienced them from the "inside" yet are not loath to pontificate about them ad nauseum as if they have first-hand experience. Interesting!

Yes it certainly is interesting and curious isn't it?

[momomanno]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Its a great theory. Fly in the ointment is, according to you, the best people won't work in government because the pays too low. But if we pay them any higher then people complain we lose efficiency. Sounds like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Only place toturn for excellent advice on management is experts offering it free on internet forums. All makes perfect sense doesnt it?

No, that's not the fly in the ointment, actually. The fly in the ointment is that in a government job you get relentlessly paid and promoted based on factors not related to performance. Therefore, performance is nearly irrelevant and therefore anyone who was interested in getting ahead based on performance would immediately ignore a government job. In contrast, government jobs have almost built-in job security, built-in raises, and built-in pensions and benefits. So it would obviously and naturally attract people who don't care about performance and want guaranteed comfort.

I hope this clarifies the world for you.

[momomanno]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

The only thing clarified is that you haven't followed your own line of thought in this response. You say up to 90% of government can and should be eliminated as inefficient total waste as the government fails to put the best people in charge.

It's odd because you tried to portray my position as a "Catch-22" and then I explained how your portrayal of it was false and then you re-wrote your original claim, almost as if you lacked basic functional literacy in English.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Without public sector unions fighting for the common man

are you kidding me? advocacy groups fight for the common man but not public sector unions nor the private sector unions. all unions work for their own benefits and not for the common man


if they truly for the common man, there would be no Calpers and every employee would be contributing to the SS and 401k or IRA.


everybody knows all these projected deficits are about pension liabilities. if they are really for the common man, they would acknowledge that this situation is unsustainable and need to be addressed by them too

[msgsing]

Yup. Lots of it goes to pensions. Relative worked 30 years in LA riding around in a golf cart issuing tickets on expired parking meters. Started out of high school and did 30 years. Honest work but obviously not rocket science. Last salary per year 120k. Yearly pension check 72 k. And she's in her early 50's.

[Ultrarunner]

Sustainability is the real crux of the issue.

Where will the money come from or is it really just another giant Ponzi Scheme?

I've noticed a distinct difference in "Pension" families vs not having a pension...

Not much reason to save a lot for a rainy day when Income is guaranteed.

I think looking back we will see the a post WWII period that was truly unique in history.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by msgsing

Yup. Lots of it goes to pensions. Relative worked 30 years in LA riding around in a golf cart issuing tickets on expired parking meters. Started out of high school and did 30 years. Honest work but obviously not rocket science. Last salary per year 120k. Yearly pension check 72 k. And she's in her early 50's.

So you are saying that a Los Angeles DOT Traffic Officer earns 120k a year? That's weird because transparent California shows the highest paid employee max salary of that position at 62K or just about half of what you are claiming. Maybe your relative lied to you?
'traffic officer' search results | Transparent California

[momomanno]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Sustainability is the real crux of the issue.

Where will the money come from or is it really just another giant Ponzi Scheme?

I've noticed a distinct difference in "Pension" families vs not having a pension...

Not much reason to save a lot for a rainy day when Income is guaranteed.

I think looking back we will see the a post WWII period that was truly unique in history.

There are two issues:

The pragmatic issue is sustainability. The philosophical issue is whether it's right, sustainable or not.

It could be sustained, of course, since it is always possible for 95% of the people to sustain 5%. The question then moves to whether it is right. The people who receive the pensions say yes and so therefore, since it is right to them, then it must be sustained at all costs. Then you have people saying "why, if you just gave a bit more ..." and showing pictures of some old lady and going "do you want Aida Mae to go hungry??" Meanwhile, they conveniently leave out the part about how you already pay hundreds of billions of dollars for pensions and benefits and Aida Mae has been getting her pension for 30 years.

The fact is that the vast majority of people live and survive without a pension. But for some odd reason, if you present that scenario to government employees or unions workers, it's like a death sentence like "what?? Here, take this gun. Go ahead, shoot me now! Do it!" But they have no problem in literally bankrupting your entire state. It's like "what, you don't want your state bankrupted? Well, I guess you could always pay more taxes ..."

[momomanno]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So you are saying that a Los Angeles DOT Traffic Officer earns 120k a year? That's weird because transparent California shows the highest paid employee max salary of that position at 62K or just about half of what you are claiming. Maybe your relative lied to you?
'traffic officer' search results | Transparent California

You shouldn't have posted that because you just destroyed yourself. Let me demonstrate with the first listing.

George E Gonzalez: Regular pay: $62,758, OVERTIME PAY $114,809, Total pay: $183,125

Don't believe me? Click on his profile, it expands to show it. Bonus: that page states that "total benefits only includes health benefits. Retirement benefits were not provided." In other words, his total listed pay plus benefits is actually an understatement of what he gets. Total pay with benefits are listed as $194,549. And he's a traffic cop. So he makes more than many doctors, lawyers, and engineers in America. And he's one guy in one city in California.

[maiamom]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So you are saying that a Los Angeles DOT Traffic Officer earns 120k a year? That's weird because transparent California shows the highest paid employee max salary of that position at 62K or just about half of what you are claiming. Maybe your relative lied to you?
'traffic officer' search results | Transparent California

Wow, that list is truly astonishing. With overtime most of those officers make close to 6 figures and then get an equally-huge pension for 30+ years. No way can the pension fund (especially in this era of low interest rates) generate enough of a return to cover all of those employees entering retirement.

And I decided to click around at other jobs and I am speechless. I never knew you could make more than most doctors just by getting a government job. I now know the salaries of some of my friends and relatives who still whine how tough their jobs are. I don't think they understand how others are compensated outside of their government job.