The Next Bubble to burst - CA municipal employe salaries

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>skek and qwerty --- I have worked for a big 4 accounting firm for 9 years now, and we definitely still maintain a pension plan for all employees (fully vested after 5 years), in addition to a Firm match of the 401k plan. In the past few years there was some reallocation of the Firm contributions, where the contribution to the pension went down a little bit and the match to the 401k went up a little bit, to give the employee a bit more control over the retirement funding. Overall, though, it is going to leave me with a very healthy retirement. The pension is one of the key reasons I have decided to stick it out with the big 4 firm for a career. </p>
 
CK - sounds like your going for partner - with the money you will be making you wont even have to worry about your pension/401K. The partner pension is insane, where i was at it was 60% of the last three years average. I thought about sticking with it as well for the money/pension, but i didnt care too much for auditing.
 
<p>Skek, </p>

<p> Yep, I see alot of engineering companies still offering a pension. BUT at a very reduced rate, they do however offer very good incentives for you to contribute to your 401k (usually 2-5% free as well as matching from 4-8%). Its only going to get better as the Govt. is going to pour billions into military research.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
<p><em>>>I think you are using my political ideology (as expressed on other threads) to read more into my posts than was there</em>.</p>

<p>No, I pretty much say that to everybody who makes the "but the private sector isn't like that" argument. I can see the appeal of that reasoning (and it is ubiquitous), but I think it's flawed.</p>

<p><em>>>Also, a 401(k), even with a match, is a much, much different creature than, for example, the OC Sheriffs "3% at 50" plan</em></p>

<p>Yep, which is why I explained the difference between a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan. It's an important distinction. Increasingly, new public sector employees are getting DCPs and not DBPs. This is not universal, however. The federal government, for the most part, has switched to DCPs for its employees. </p>

<p>If you hate the OC Sheriffs' plan, then you must go nuts over federal judges' pensions. Once they meet the rule of 60 (or was it 50?), e.g. 50 years of age plus 10 years' service, or 55 years of age and 5 years' service, they can retire and receive their salary at retirement <em>every year for life</em>. And yet Chief Justice Roberts argues that federal judges are underpaid!</p>

<p>What sucks even more for long term state and local goverment employees is that they cannot contribute into social security. So if someone retired after 30 years of local government service, the only check that person gets is their pension.</p>

<p>If you want to line up against "double dipping," you and I will find some common ground. For example, if a senior level employee retires at 50, but then consults with the same public entity, or is hired by another entity so that the person is not truly retired, I don't think they should be allowed to start collecting their pension. Retirement should make way for people entering and moving up in the workforce, not as a means of a greater paycheck.</p>

<p><em>>>No, the real crime was for unions to demand and for governments to concede in the first place to pay future retirement benefits that everyone knew at the time that they couldn't afford. But the union bosses get to declare victory and keep their membership happy and the elected officials get to buy short term peace and leave the bill for a future administration/generation to pay.</em></p>

<p>Sort of. The real crime is the voters not voting out the officials whose decisions they disagree with and the pols who approve the deals. How many of the current members of the Board of Supes voted for the 3% at 50 plan and why are they still in office? My guess is because if the rank and file Sheriffs put out a mailer saying they support an opposition candidate, the current office holder might lose in the election. But rather than explaining this to us "simple minded" voters (in a no new taxes county!), they choose to cave to maintain their power. Remember the prison guards' union? (Although there is no amount of money you could pay me to take that job.)</p>
 
EvaLSeraphim >>> "you must go nuts over federal judges' pensions"



There is an important difference here, that is the FEDs can print money, so it doesn't matter how much they promise, they can always print more.



CA municipalities don't have access to the printing press. The politicians who sign off on these contracts, benefit progams have no control over their revenue and have promised away more then they will have in revenue in future years. Oh, and these politicians could not have gotten elected without the support of the public employee's unions so there is also a conflict of interest every time a union contract comes up for renewal. I have always been in favor of banning public employee unions from contributing to any local politicians with any contract authority over their union. Now the chickens are coming home to roost so to speak and there will be massive differences between what the politicians promised and what the cities have coming in. Hence, a bubble in municipal employee pay.
 
Another comment to the bloggers.



Repeatedly I see the comment "there is no amount of money you could pay me to take that job". This is just BS. CA has become populated by bunch of pansy wussies who expect to make money for nothing. Other states AZ, TX, NM have no problem finding people for jobs such as prision guards at much lower pay. I suspect that when the alternative to taking these jobs or flipping burgers or checkout at Walmart these jobs will fill in flash. Please keep these stupid comments to yourselves, they are as self serving as saying "well my Irvine condo is still worth $1 million because it's special"



Oh please....
 
skek



No I don't support Curry's proposal, not because I think it's right or wrong, but that the job the politicians ran for involved negotiating contracts and by giving this back to the voters, the politicians find a convenient way to abdicate their responsibility. The politicians who write the contracts should do so knowing what they have to spend and draw up contract for services appropriately. What I can't stand is the disconnect between the person with purse, often the legislative analyst, and the person spending the money freely, e.g. the legislator. Politicians should be held accountable for only spending within their means, if they overspend they should be penalized, I would amend the constitution to call for automatic expulsion from office.
 
<em>>>There is an important difference here, that is the FEDs can print money, so it doesn't matter how much they promise, they can always print more.</em>





I'm sure you realize that there is a downside to that. There is no such thing as free money.


<em>


>>CA municipalities don't have access to the printing press. The politicians who sign off on these contracts, benefit progams have no control over their revenue</em> <snip>





That's not true. Taxes (and the ever present "fees") are revenue. Of course, that has downsides, too. Also judgment bonds could be used to raise revenue under certain scenarios. (See <a href="http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2005/resources/res_13_3860_anl05.htm">here</a> for one example.) I'm not a fan, but it is one way of raising revenue.





<em>>>Oh, and these politicians could not have gotten elected without the support of the public employee's unions </em>





Hmm... I don't recall that Pete Wilson, Arnold Schwarznegger, or several other politicians were supported by the public employees' unions. Of course, the unions are not monolithic. So AFSCME may have been on one side and the prison guards on the other in a statewide election, for example. Locally, the same could also be true for AFSCME and the Sheriffs.


<em>


>>I have always been in favor of banning public employee unions from contributing to any local politicians with any contract authority over their union.</em>





Facially, that's pretty appealing. Would it also apply to anyone else seeking a contract from a local entity (such as a developer, or consultant installing a new IT system, etc.)?
 
<em>>>Repeatedly I see the comment "there is no amount of money you could pay me to take that job". This is just BS. CA has become populated by bunch of pansy wussies who expect to make money for nothing. Other states AZ, TX, NM have no problem finding people for jobs such as prision guards at much lower pay. I suspect that when the alternative to taking these jobs or flipping burgers or checkout at Walmart these jobs will fill in flash. Please keep these stupid comments to yourselves</em> <snip>





Sorry, no. The desirability of a job is highly relevant to how much pay is offered for the job.





Project much? I have put in my share of 80+ hour weeks. Also, this pansy wussie did time in retail for several years. With some exceptions, it was pretty fun - and it did not put me in personal danger. Frankly, standing behind an inmate, having him/her drop his/her pants, bend over, spread his/her butt cheeks and cough three times while I'm staring at his/her anus looking for contraband is not my idea of a good time. And there is no amount of money that I could be paid to do that. I am blessed to have skills that would allow me to start my own business or otherwise find acceptable employment. But hey, if you're interested, <a href="http://www.spb.ca.gov/jobs/vpos/index.htm">they are hiring</a> (run the term "correctional officer").
 
Oh, and these politicians could not have gotten elected without the support of the public employee's unions ---





In case your not paying attention, none of members of the various city counsels or board of supps could get elected without support of the local service employee's unions e.g. police, fire, etc.
 
I work in local government - most people (administrative positions...IT, secretaries, admin managers, accounting, etc) are overpaid relative to the private sector (in terms of work ethic, education and quality work experience). I would say government jobs that deal with public safety...police, fire, DA, etc are fairly paid (given the benefits).
 
<p>Alan, </p>

<p> What REALLY crummy jobs have you had? Me, I got to work out in the fields, yes, the fields, my father wanted me to see what real hard work was. But I realize some work just isn't for me. A buddy of mine collects cadavers for inspection.... uhhh... no thanks. Me, I've just about built some of the most horrible devices ever concieved by people. It was fun, and a challenge, it takes all kinds.</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
bix,



this thread is getting off topic. anyone can pontificate on what they think a job is truly worth and if the city/county is or isn't paying too much or that they wouldn't do that particular job...



the problem now is that there is a huge disconnect between city/county revenues and amounts promised to pay city/county workers in salary and benefits and this problem will be as great as the housing bubble.
 
<p>alan, </p>

<p> I agree, some of the unions I see here are extremely powerful and get there clientele quite nice deals. Again, far out of porpotion that what it should be. With budgets shinking there is not going to be enough to go around. Of course the people who do the least work (seinor managment) will stay and the worker bees will go. Qutie intersting times ahead.</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top