quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

My "original OP" included a link to a quite lengthy article that discusses potential solutions.  Obviously you didn't read it.  Your choice, but don't pretend to know my position on things.

You are correct about one thing, I don't want my taxes raised, particularly for the sole purpose of paying public pensions.  Greed is still greed, regardless of the size of the ambition that drives it.  I am not putting this in bumper sticker speak for you, but the article you didn't read puts it this way :

The problem, he explains, pre-dates the most recent financial crisis. “Hell, I was here. I know how it started. It started in the 1990s with the Internet boom. We live near rich people, so we thought we were rich.” San Jose’s budget, like the budget of any city, turns on the pay of public-safety workers: the police and firefighters now eat 75 percent of all discretionary spending. The Internet boom created both great expectations for public employees and tax revenues to meet them. In its negotiations with unions the city was required to submit to binding arbitration, which works for police officers and firefighters just as it does for Major League Baseball players. Each side of any pay dispute makes its best offer, and a putatively neutral judge picks one of them. There is no meeting in the middle: the judge simply rules for one side or the other. Each side thus has an incentive to be reasonable, for the less reasonable they are, the less likely it is that the judge will favor their proposal. The problem with binding arbitration for police officers and firefighters, says Reed, is that the judges are not neutral. “They tend to be labor lawyers who favor the unions,” he says, “and so the city does anything it can to avoid the process.” And what politician wants to spat publicly with police officers and firefighters?Over the past dec­ade the city of San Jose had repeatedly caved to the demands of its public-safety unions. In practice this meant that when the police or fire department of any neighboring city struck a better deal for itself, it became a fresh argument for improving the pay of San Jose police and fire. The effect was to make the sweetest deal cut by public-safety workers with any city in Northern California the starting point for the next round of negotiations for every other city. The departments also used each other to score debating points. For instance, back in 2002, the San Jose police union cut a three-year deal that raised police officers’ pay by 18 percent over the contract. Soon afterward, the San Jose firefighters cut a better deal for themselves, including a pay raise of more than 23 percent. The police felt robbed and complained mightily until the city council crafted a deal that handed them 5 percent more premium pay in exchange for training to fight terrorists. “We got famous for our anti-terrorist-training pay,” explains one city official. Eventually the anti-terrorist-training premium pay stopped; the police just kept the extra pay, with benefits. “Our police and firefighters will earn more in retirement than they did when they were working,” says Reed. “There used to be an argument that you have to give us money or we can’t afford to live in the city. Now the more you pay them the less likely they are to live in the city, because they can afford to leave. It’s staggering. When did we go from giving people sick leave to letting them accumulate it and cash it in for hundreds of thousands of dollars when they are done working? There’s a corruption here. It’s not just a financial corruption. It’s a corruption of the attitude of public service.”  (emphasis added)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Your original OP layed it out there like there isn't a ready solution. I don't care that you don't want your taxes raised. The problem isn't going to go away without that happening. Unless, you want to cancel out all the pension obligations which would only create another problem. Try to think past the problem to the logical solution.

Yes the gov't needs to do as in days past and employ a vast amount of people to help the unemployement.

Yes companies should be smacked over the nose with a newspaper like a bad dog so that they realize that they reside in the USA and not in any other country. Not being patriotic and doing what is best for your Countrymen first is what they have been all about. That needs to change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

My "original OP" included a link to a quite lengthy article that discusses potential solutions.  Obviously you didn't read it.  Your choice, but don't pretend to know my position on things.

You are correct about one thing, I don't want my taxes raised, particularly for the sole purpose of paying public pensions.  Greed is still greed, regardless of the size of the ambition that drives it.  I am not putting this in bumper sticker speak for you, but the article you didn't read puts it this way :

The problem, he explains, pre-dates the most recent financial crisis. “Hell, I was here. I know how it started. It started in the 1990s with the Internet boom. We live near rich people, so we thought we were rich.” San Jose’s budget, like the budget of any city, turns on the pay of public-safety workers: the police and firefighters now eat 75 percent of all discretionary spending. The Internet boom created both great expectations for public employees and tax revenues to meet them. In its negotiations with unions the city was required to submit to binding arbitration, which works for police officers and firefighters just as it does for Major League Baseball players. Each side of any pay dispute makes its best offer, and a putatively neutral judge picks one of them. There is no meeting in the middle: the judge simply rules for one side or the other. Each side thus has an incentive to be reasonable, for the less reasonable they are, the less likely it is that the judge will favor their proposal. The problem with binding arbitration for police officers and firefighters, says Reed, is that the judges are not neutral. “They tend to be labor lawyers who favor the unions,” he says, “and so the city does anything it can to avoid the process.” And what politician wants to spat publicly with police officers and firefighters?Over the past dec­ade the city of San Jose had repeatedly caved to the demands of its public-safety unions. In practice this meant that when the police or fire department of any neighboring city struck a better deal for itself, it became a fresh argument for improving the pay of San Jose police and fire. The effect was to make the sweetest deal cut by public-safety workers with any city in Northern California the starting point for the next round of negotiations for every other city. The departments also used each other to score debating points. For instance, back in 2002, the San Jose police union cut a three-year deal that raised police officers’ pay by 18 percent over the contract. Soon afterward, the San Jose firefighters cut a better deal for themselves, including a pay raise of more than 23 percent. The police felt robbed and complained mightily until the city council crafted a deal that handed them 5 percent more premium pay in exchange for training to fight terrorists. “We got famous for our anti-terrorist-training pay,” explains one city official. Eventually the anti-terrorist-training premium pay stopped; the police just kept the extra pay, with benefits. “Our police and firefighters will earn more in retirement than they did when they were working,” says Reed. “There used to be an argument that you have to give us money or we can’t afford to live in the city. Now the more you pay them the less likely they are to live in the city, because they can afford to leave. It’s staggering. When did we go from giving people sick leave to letting them accumulate it and cash it in for hundreds of thousands of dollars when they are done working? There’s a corruption here. It’s not just a financial corruption. It’s a corruption of the attitude of public service.”  (emphasis added)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Your original OP layed it out there like there isn't a ready solution. I don't care that you don't want your taxes raised. The problem isn't going to go away without that happening. Unless, you want to cancel out all the pension obligations which would only create another problem. Try to think past the problem to the logical solution.

Yes the gov't needs to do as in days past and employ a vast amount of people to help the unemployement.

Yes companies should be smacked over the nose with a newspaper like a bad dog so that they realize that they reside in the USA and not in any other country. Not being patriotic and doing what is best for your Countrymen first is what they have been all about. That needs to change.

So what you are proposing is that every firefighter and policeman in San Jose is upper middle class at worst and  upper class at best? Yeah. I believe that. fuck me. Your "article" is as full of shit as you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

quote:

Jesus fucking christ I give you the fucking solution pages ago and you keep talking around it like it doesn't exist. Thats the solution. Simple. Easy ...No, you'd rather bitch and moan about people that are "getting" something that you aren't

Again, if you live in a house even after divorce in one of the fastest growing markets in the country you ain't hurting. Hence, you got no clue. Wake the fuck up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet


Yes, you did give me your proposed solution.  Raise taxes.  I pointed out to you that CA has a law in place that makes it very difficult to do that, and that voters are unlikely to remove that law just to pay pensions, in light of the other problems the state is having.  The more likely solution is Chapter 9. 

quote:

The particular issue that sweet is discussing is about government unions having used their political influence for years in order to get better and better "pension" deals, so that it is now to the point that it is unsustainable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArizonaBossMan

California keeps electing nut job leftists...

Arnold and pete were nut job lefists???

more and more government, more benefits for government workers...

When the population of arizona begins to grow to the size of california you also will have an increase in public sector employment.

it is an unsustainable model. Why any businesses continue to remain in california is a mystery to me.


Because they are the 10th. largest economy in the world....people start bussinesses there to make money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

The particular issue that sweet is discussing is about government unions having used their political influence for years in order to get better and better "pension" deals, so that it is now to the point that it is unsustainable.

These union people have a contract with their employer and you seem uncomfortable with the employer living up their end of the contract. May we apply the same standards to executives who recieve large defered compensation packages?

quote:

The problem is a pension scheme that allows someone to retire at 45.

quote:

The "jackpot" remark refers to the common practice of retiring, and then taking a private sector job. You can call it something else, if you want.