Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 11-02-2014, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,809,938 times
Reputation: 15838

Advertisements

California public pensions $198 Billion Short | The Sacramento Bee

Quote:
Chiang added the various California public pension systems to his already large fiscal database. One chart reveals that their “unfunded liabilities” – the gap between assets and liabilities for current and future pensions – exploded from $6.3 billion in 2003 to $198.2 billion in 2013.

Read more here: California public pensions $198 Billion Short | The Sacramento Bee
And that assumes a 7.5% real rate of return. Yeah, right.


I think in another thread people were pointing out that various trends are unsustainable. I believe this trend is also unsustainable. I wonder when the $ h i t will hit the fan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2014, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,696 posts, read 24,894,730 times
Reputation: 18944
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
California public pensions $198 Billion Short | The Sacramento Bee



And that assumes a 7.5% real rate of return. Yeah, right.


I think in another thread people were pointing out that various trends are unsustainable. I believe this trend is also unsustainable. I wonder when the $ h i t will hit the fan.
It won't.

Look at bankruptcy cases, pensions are left intact. The problem going forward is mostly solved. By law pensions have to be funded now. The legacy issue from decades and decades of mismanagement, however, remain and will remain. The excrement hitting the fan won't be dramatic. It will just look like what we're used to, higher taxes and less services. It's not really that the services are less but that we're now today paying the cost of providing the services 10, 20, and 30 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2014, 11:44 AM
 
26,176 posts, read 21,445,991 times
Reputation: 22766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It won't.

Look at bankruptcy cases, pensions are left intact. The problem going forward is mostly solved. By law pensions have to be funded now. The legacy issue from decades and decades of mismanagement, however, remain and will remain. The excrement hitting the fan won't be dramatic. It will just look like what we're used to, higher taxes and less services. It's not really that the services are less but that we're now today paying the cost of providing the services 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

Pensions may stay intact through bankruptcy however benefits can and often are reduce, sometimes greatly so I'm not sure what intact means but the underfunding amount should certainly be a concern for calpers covered folks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,696 posts, read 24,894,730 times
Reputation: 18944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Pensions may stay intact through bankruptcy however benefits can and often are reduce, sometimes greatly so I'm not sure what intact means but the underfunding amount should certainly be a concern for calpers covered folks
I don't disagree, especially since CalPERS has been complicit in not requiring contribution increases when it really should have and just figuring it could make it up with above-market returns. That was kind of a timing issue in that they didn't want to mandate higher contributions at the height of the recession, but we're mostly through that. It does set a bad precedent, however.

Pensions don't really get reduced in municipal bankruptcies though. Just look at Stockton or Vallejo. Doesn't mean they can't voluntarily cut their benefits as was done in Detroit's case. Bankruptcy courts beating up on unions is a Breitbart myth, really. It's typical Conservative talking head stupidity. Huzzah for the judicial activism; God damn lawbreaking judicial activism. Anyway, it doesn't really occur in reality so counting on a bankruptcy judge to solve the pension problem by going berserk on pension benefits just isn't realistic. Realistic is higher taxes and fewer services. Maybe the unions play ball and agree to cuts (frequently happens), but they're not going to eat shirt.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top