A City That Isn't Broken
Sandy Springs, GA -- a fiscally accountable city that outsourced almost everything...at half the price they would have paid if government were running things. Via reason.tv:
(Doesn't that woman seem Thatcher-esque? We should try to have her cloned.)
Back to the details of Sandy Springs, they say in the video that they have police, but "no pension storm on the horizon."
The assumption that we should be paying huge sums of money in pensions to government employees after retirement really needs to be rethought. Your thinking on that? What is fair, considering how police officers and firemen have dangerous jobs? Or should that even be taken into account?
The assmption that has been wrong about pensions is that they should be continuously funded by taxpayers AND not subject to budget planning like any other expense.
Somehow, debate about pensions goes my way instantly if I say, "Suppose you run a landscaping business. How many people should you PAY to SIT AT HOME? How many people CAN you pay, regardless of how wonderful an employee they were for the 20 years they worked for you?"
Yes, Virginia, you have to charge more for your services to pay these people. Duh.
Another assumption that is plain wrong is that a government pension should continue, no matter what. If a company goes broke, Pfffbt!, there goes anything they can pay - and it's not like the world dies because the company's widget output is lost. But as Flint, MI has demonstrated with a loss of police coverage, fully funding pensions at the cost of police coverage hurts people, and badly - more so than a loss of pension payments.
In both public and private sector, the argument should not be about other people's money - it should be about the need to continuously monitor performance of the paying agent.
Radwaste at August 8, 2011 2:03 AM
The problem isn't just the police or firemen - the problem is the union pile-on mindset that pegs other workers' wages and bennies to these high-risk positions. There is no reason on earth why sanitation and office workers should have their compensation package linked to people doing completely different work.
Ultimately, this mindset leads to the situation in Greece - where hairdressers get an allowance because they deal with "hazardous chemicals".
Ben David at August 8, 2011 3:57 AM
Hi, my name is Hey Skipper, and I am a government pension recipient.
As a result of 20 years service in the military.
The problem is that some occupations have a concomitant up or out aspect: age has an inescapable impact on ability. So, past a certain point, if you do not get promoted past the occupational rigors, you have to leave.
As a military officer, the rank structure resembles a pyramid, and if you don't make it past certain points, you are done.
Which means there will be some people who are more or less forced to leave their occupation -- fire fighter, police officer, fighter pilot -- due solely to age.
IMHO, they have earned some sort of pension for their service.
IMHO, they should be putting aside part of their income each year in anticipation of that fact.
Because, lord knows, the government sure the heck won't.
401k plans are the answer; guaranteed benefit plans (of which I am a beneficiary) are the devil's work.
Hey Skipper at August 8, 2011 4:42 AM
> In both public and private sector, the
> argument should not be about other
> people's money
Far, far too late for you to pretend to be principled.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 5:05 AM
Seriously, Raddy, that is just cocksuckingly pathetic. Golly, here you are with a bold new set of principles regarding righteous compensation, and there applicable in both the public AND private sectors!!! Because you understand how competitive markets have been crying out in this moment of crisis for new metrics, because capitalist competition has been so weak without govermental regulation....
Is there any, ANY boundary to your self-regard?
Fucking ludicrous.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU .
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 5:12 AM
Gotta say, the sheer reeking, density of that bolus of bullshit is a great-eye opener for a week like this, which —FOR NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES- is likely to be a horrible time.
Maybe it will prove helpful to have been bitch-slapped to consciousness by one of the multitude of grotesquely self-interested zombies who're choking this machinery with all the muscle they can muster.
* — "the need to continuously monitor performance of the paying agent. - *
But gosh, Mr. Entitlement Teatsucker, How could we ever compose such an arrangement?
Aha! I have it!
Compe-fucking-tition.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 5:28 AM
Read those words again!
"continuously monitor performance of the paying agent."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 5:30 AM
Being a convenience store clerk in downtown Detroit is also a very dangerous profession, yet I don't see Seven-Eleven offering sweet pension plans to their workers.
Being a firefighter, police officer, or a teacher is a noble thing to do, to be sure. It used to be that public-sector jobs paid far, far less than private-sector jobs. Job security, good benefits, and a retirement plan were the things offered in exchange for taking a job that paid less than you would make if you took your talents elsewhere.
That's not the case anymore. Public-sector jobs now pay as much, if not more, than many comparable private-sector jobs, in addition to completely ridiculous job security (I worked as a contractor in a federal agency, and you would not believe - or maybe you would! - the stuff I saw: workers who spent 8 hours a day watching TV online at their desks and sleeping; workers who mysteriously never materialized for work; workers who harassed their underlings, etc).
These people worked for the feds because they wouldn't have been able to hack it in a work environment where keeping your job is tied to productivity. A lot of the offices are extremely overstaffed, as well - they hired people to do certain tasks that disappeared when they were automated, but no one's ever fired. Which is another gripe - there are a lot of processes that could be streamlined, but they're not, because then that job function would disappear.
The argument that public workers are sacrificing so much and deserve the benefits that are bankrupting states doesn't hold water anymore. The current system is unsustainable.
Choika at August 8, 2011 6:21 AM
> The argument that public workers are
> sacrificing so much and deserve the benefits
> that are bankrupting states doesn't hold
> water anymore.
You don't understand Choik! It's the "paying agent" who needs to have their "performance continuously monitored"! Can't you see?
...Because if the people who actually create wealth ever catch on to what's actually happening, a lot of entitlement teatsuckers are going to have to park their exotic motorbikes, and have their value measured without pity.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 6:29 AM
Government employees should get similar style retirement benefits to current public sector employees.
The government matches funds contributed into a 401k up to three to six percent of wages depending on rank, danger, etc.
Cat at August 8, 2011 6:34 AM
I worked for two companies that offered pensions. When they got to be too expensive, the plans were terminated. I will get the benefits that were vested, but nothing more.
The decisions I made where to work, and to stay with those companies was made in consideration of all the benefits. If i don't like it, I can always quit.
What I thought was unfair was the Carter era change to the military retirement system. You had guys who had served half a career, or more, forced out with nothing. They can't just quit - they had to stay until their enlistment contracts were up, despite being unilaterally renegotiated.
For everybody else, it's a job - and that includes police and firefighters and teachers. They can't make you stay when things change.
MarkD at August 8, 2011 6:47 AM
1) Hey Skipper - here in Israel career soldiers can pension out in their mid-40s. Most go on to a new, lucrative second career, often using their security skills and connections from the army - while pulling down 30-40 years of government pension income. My heart bleeds borscht for them.
2) Yes Yes Yes to contributory retirement accounts for government workers. This is similar to the successful approach of individual health care accounts - money goes into private, managed investment instead of coming from a government slush fund.
Ben David at August 8, 2011 6:54 AM
My ex-husband works for the NYPD. I'm not insulting the many good officers and as far as being a cop goes, I'm not insulting my ex. He grew up in a cop family and he wanted to be like his uncles who were perceived to be brave and strong which was reason number one he took the test. It was not for any noble reason. He wanted, like most little boys, to grow up and be an action hero.
Reason number two was because his uncle drilled into his head that he could retire at 40 with a pension. NYPD gets paid crap. Its not a great salary to raise a family on. That being said, he is past his 20 years because he found a position that offers lots of overtime thus building his pension potential. He has always put into a deferred pension plan and had close to $100K in that. He also has full medical and dental. He recently bought a condo in Florida on the Intercoastal that he visits while enjoying his massive vacation time.
Reason number two was the big incentive that made him leave his union construction job for the union police job.
My younger brother who lived to drink and party and was going nowhere in his mid 20's took the police test at my ex-husband's insistence. He went from the NYPD to Nassau County Police Department which are among the top paid in the country. My brother who was floundering in life now works 13 days a month, kept whatever time he accumulated in the NYPD, will have an even nice pension and supports his family in a very nice lifestyle in an affluent area. His wife trades in her Range Rover every two years. My brother is also a good cop, but there's not much danger where he works.
Kristen at August 8, 2011 7:25 AM
Offtopic—
(Or is there any other topic?)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 7:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/08/a_city_that_isn.html#comment-2408545">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]There is no other topic. They're all related.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2011 7:27 AM
http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-london-riots/
Lisa Simeone at August 8, 2011 7:49 AM
I've been fascinated by this place for a long time. It's pretty much the ultimate expression of "I've got mine, fuck you." It's a group of well to do white people telling the poverty stricken folks who surround them to go fuck themselves. Typical of Reason-style libertarianism, the piece leaves out the heavy influence of fundamentalist Christians in these events.
So what we have is a group of affluent, white, vaguely racist union-busting dickheads who don't feel any responsibility to the community at large. Let 'em eat cake!
Josh Olson at August 8, 2011 7:55 AM
1) Hey Skipper - here in Israel career soldiers can pension out in their
I've also met soldiers in the USA who went on to lucrative private careers after their service.
biff at August 8, 2011 8:26 AM
> affluent, white, vaguely racist union-
> busting dickheads
Olson's a Korean name, right? Just got back from the DMV. I arrived a half-hour before they opened, and was 117th in line. I was the 8th white guy. If there's anything, anything that these years are telling us, it's that these hoary postures about racism are all fucked out. I mean, "union-busting"? Truly? Are you a hundred and twenty years old?
Lisa—
Yeah?
One tires of hearing that nothing's being done for the little people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 9:29 AM
. . . Mr. Kalotay is talking about a type of complex financing that big banks have pushed on state and local authorities in recent years. The arrangements are typically made when borrowers want to exchange variable-rate debt for fixed-rate obligations.
These deals are lucrative for the banks, but many of the issuers don’t seem to understand them. Mr. Kalotay told the S.E.C. that excessive fees charged by banks had cost issuers, and therefore taxpayers, $20 billion over the last five years. Real money, in other words, that could have been used in other ways by states and towns short on cash.
There’s much for banks to love about these deals. Because there is no central market for interest rate swaps, prices of swaps are shrouded in secrecy. Banks can mark up costs significantly, often without their clients’ knowledge.
. . .the Boca Raton deal contained $800,000 in undisclosed fees, equal to roughly 3.8 percent of the loan. Another independent company confirmed this amount . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/business/wall-streets-tax-on-main-street.html?src=recg
Lisa Simeone at August 8, 2011 9:37 AM
"big banks have pushed on state and local authorities in recent years"
"These deals are lucrative for the banks, but many of the issuers don’t seem to understand them"
Lisa, the people elected state and local authorities who can be pushed around by big banks. Oh, and the issuers (the state and local authorities) don't seem to understand the deals. You blame the banks.
Dave B at August 8, 2011 9:57 AM
hey olson fuck, ya I git mine alright, been out of work for 2 months now thankls to this fucked up economy. I have 32 years of IT experience that has become worthless thanks to the US imprting 150,000 Indians a year because of an IT "worker shortage". There was no worker shortage, Bill Gates and LArry Ellison just decided IT workers were making too much money, so they lobbied the congress critters to expand the H1B program. I have no pension other than the 401K's I contributed to, unmatched. Fuck your general tone and attitude, and fuck you.
ronc at August 8, 2011 9:58 AM
One more from the Lisa piece:
Consider the link in item #5:
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 10:02 AM
Lisa, please please try to see the big picture for once in your life. Those big bad banks were screwed by the Barney Franks and Bill Clintons of the world who decided we were not allowing everyone the "american dream" of home ownership. They were pushed into changing the whole mantra of qualifying for a home loan. Many are still sitting on billions of dollars in reposessed properties that they cannot sell for 40 cents on the dollar. These assets are still on their balance sheets. That they have become creative back at the government is really no surprise. Believe it or not, business exists to like, you know, make money, duh!
ronc at August 8, 2011 10:03 AM
"I've been fascinated by this place for a long time. It's pretty much the ultimate expression of "I've got mine, fuck you." It's a group of well to do white people telling the poverty stricken folks who surround them to go fuck themselves."
I can't blame them. For years Sandy Springs residents' tax monies got sucked into the City of Atlanta, where they had no say. (They are both in Fulton County, and at one point Sandy Springs wanted to separate into the old Milton County.)
Good on Sandy Springs.
Nice stereotypes, Josh Olson.
lsomber at August 8, 2011 11:09 AM
"I've been fascinated by this place for a long time. It's pretty much the ultimate expression of "I've got mine, fuck you." It's a group of well to do white people telling the poverty stricken folks who surround them to go fuck themselves."
I wonder what bomb-throwing Josh has actually done for the country and the community? Besides complaining about others not doing enough.
MarkD at August 8, 2011 11:55 AM
The problem in the sub-prime crisis was that the pardigm shifted, but no one realized it until it was too late.
Mortgage loans had always been "safe" loans to this point for lenders. The interest rates were low so they weren't very profitable, but the default rates were also low. And there was collateral that could be seized and sold in the event of a default. Mortgage banking was definitely not "sexy."
The historic default rate on mortgages was less than 1%. So, when brokers turned mortgages into financial instruments that could be sold and traded, no one imagined anything had changed.
But it had. Government regulations "loosened" the credit requirements banks were allowed to apply to mortgage loan applications and restricted pricing (basing interest rates on credit worthiness and amount of downpayment).
Banks were required to provide no money down loans and accept stated income with no verification ("liar loans"). Originally these new regulations were intended to help the poor gain access to home ownership. But speculators also used them to purchase rental property (claiming on their applications that they would live there to get a lower rate).
Fannie and Freddie couldn't purchase these new loans fast enough. So, investment banks turned them into financial instruments and began trading them. Banks were happy about this because it turned an onerous government regulation into a profit center ("make the loan and sell it") and because mortgage banking was gaining sex appeal.
The ratings agencies had been sloppy. They didn't understand the underlying reasons why the historic default rate was so low and didn't bother to find out. So the new instruments got rated highly. They were mortgage loans, after all. Boring, boring mortgage loans.
But, historically, mortgages required a minimum of 10% downpayment and interest rates were based on a combination of credit worthiness and amount of downpayment. People didn't default because they would not only lose their primary residence, but also the money they had put into it (the downpayment).
With these "loosened credit requirement" loans, however, there was no downpayment to lose and, often, the house was not the primary residence (despite what was said on the application).
So, people weren't desperate to hang onto the property and were willing to let it go when it became a burden. Foreclosure became nothing more than a higher level of bankruptcy.
Populist politicians pressured banks to "forgive" all or part of a mortgage loan without telling them how to get back the "forgiven" money, leaving banks sitting on billions of dollars of devalued assets.
And, if we don't do something soon to correct this, foreclosure will become just another financial trick. And because of that, mortgage interest rates will soar and thirty-year mortgages will be a thing of the past.
Conan the Grammarian at August 8, 2011 12:42 PM
Time to eliminate all pensions for all public employees, civilian or military.
Time bombs, and taxpayers can't afford it anymore.
BOTU at August 8, 2011 12:43 PM
"Far, far too late for you to pretend to be principled."
You're an idiot, Crid, who has been blinded by your presumption that your thoughts are so brilliant they are to be regarded to the exclusion of anything else.
You said you knew about my job. (No.) Now, you get (apparently) mad because - get this - I said you should be looking at how even MY pension is administered.
I'm amazed you can even spell "principled", as far as you have come from being even basically honest -- and the apparent hard-on you have for a job you still know nothing about. You're arguing about things you've made up!
But hey, you just keep on whining. See how that works for you.
What I say, folks, is simply that if a company or government body offers a pension as compensation for working there, you should pay attention to that when you have a stake.
And if you see someone objecting to that - well, they're missing a few fries from their Happy Meal.
Radwaste at August 8, 2011 2:23 PM
Iso,
"For years Sandy Springs residents' tax monies got sucked into the City of Atlanta, where they had no say."
That's generally how it works. If we all had a say in where our taxes went, they wouldn't go where they're needed. Personally, all mine would go to needy co-ed nymphomaniacs in the 323 area.
Mark,
"I wonder what bomb-throwing Josh has actually done for the country and the community? Besides complaining about others not doing enough."
I'm not sure how pointing out that this is yet another example of the rich hoarding resources to the detriment of everyone else constitutes bomb-throwing, but if you can look at the country right now and say that protecting the assets of the wealthiest Americans at all costs has served us well, you have a lot more to worry about than any imaginary bombs I might throw through your window. Can you actually offer a thoughtful argument in favor of what these creeps are doing, or is ad hominem the only tool in your box?
Josh Olson at August 8, 2011 5:17 PM
I think that certain jobs like firefirgther and police should come with a good inurance program.
Pensions not so much. Just about a moth or two ago the local police unions spent a few hunndered thousand to play ads asking people to call the goveners office to save their pensions "we're there when you call, will you support us now?"
What I'm sure no member of the public realized what they were being asked to protests agaisnt was an ammendment to the police retiremnet program which suggested that police contribute 10% to their own retiremnt fund as opposed to the 0% they were currently contributing.
Regarding Vets, and speaking as one, I think we should support them. They have no choice but to go where they are ordered.
My knee is shot, I'm missing half a lung, last time my knee gave out I fell off a ladder and damn near broke my ankle. Due to the scar tissue in my lung I can work as a chef like I'd wanted and with the bum leg I can no longer work any labor intesive jobs. Hell I spend to long doing yard work at any one time and I need a cane or a leg brace to get up my stairs
If you want to change the set up so vets are on their own after getting shot and blown up, thats fine - let them know they'll get jack shit in the way of support from those whos freedoms they put their lives on the line to protect and watch how quickly they stop signing up.
lujlp at August 8, 2011 5:35 PM
Josh, you're pathetic. You drop in, insult the folks who comment here, then get mad when you're challenged. I'm a racist? Look at my wife and say that again.
Again, it's easy for you to be generous with my money. Personally, not that it's any of your business, I am a long way from even Obama's characterization of rich.
This country has had ten percent of my life, and more of my money. Ball's in your court, kid. The Marines are looking for a few good men. If that's too much for you, the Red Cross could use some help.
Put up, or go away. I don't care.
MarkD at August 8, 2011 5:57 PM
> I said you should be looking at how even MY
> pension is administered.
Yeah! It's great that you say things like that. We imagine you going for motorbike rides in the near-Southern gloam of August, the humid summer air flowing through the gaps in your helmet, thinking: I am really in tune with the man on the street! And by encouraging him to pester the guy who signs my check, rather than facing competitive performers myself, I have demonstrated my heartfelt solidarity!
It would be fun to be economically untouchable, with a guaranteed safety net, so that your (readily translated) daydreams (see above, 5:28am) can be so brusquely ignored.
To enjoy that insulated comfort, one might have to set aside every shred of dignity one ever had...
But that's not hard for most people in your position.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 6:10 PM
> this is yet another example of the rich
> hoarding resources
Resources? Wealth and ambition can't be hoarded: You can always make more. This isn't zero-sum.
How old are you? Have you met that guy Chang?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 6:13 PM
OK, I'll be the techie to ask the question.
What the fuck does having 32 years of IT experience have to do with anything?
What relevance does knowledge of technology that far out of date have to do with technology that is in many cases only a few years old and existing within the context of a youth oriented culture?
If you really have that much IT experience then you ought to know almost all your knowledge becomes obsolete every few years. All your application knowledge is replaced almost yearly. Hell I'm an I.T. guy, I've worked in Helpdesk, Information Assurance, and now work in Network Management, I've been doing this for 12 years. And everything is constantly changing.
If you can't find a job, the problem probably isn't the economy, the problem is you're looking for a job in an economy that just doesn't exist anymore. You're looking like its the 90s tech boom and every brat with a pony tail and an idea was getting venture capital thrown at them with pitch forks.
The fact is you have to do one of two things:
Either create your own work, i.e. start a business and contract yourself out, this means lots of networking, and probably starting off small with places like elance.com, (which has some heavy earners on it, I've found a few contractors there).
OR
Looking for work in positions that require new skill sets that are not as widely spread yet, that means updating your outdated certifications. Why would I care about your A+ cert from 10 years ago when I can hire somebody who got it just last week, you're probably treating your long term industry experience as an asset, to an employer, it is likely a liability. You need to change your expectations, and market yourself with updated knowledge and a positive and energetic attitude.
Robert at August 8, 2011 6:13 PM
Oh, this may be the tweet of the year!
| iowahawkblog David Burge
| If the fed govt cut as much as the Dow today
| it would be $220 billion smaller.
| 3 hours ago
Wouldn't it be great if that money came out of RADDY'S paycheck? Har! Ha-ha!
(Just kidding, Radster! It's just pretend, and you fucking well know it. Your income couldn't be safer, buddy!)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2011 6:26 PM
Hey Skipper is right. The reason for generous pensions for military, police, firefighters, and other rigorous professions is to get old people out of the work force. When WW II started the US found the military was clogged with ancient company and field grade officers who had no idea how to fight the axis powers. I think Eisenhower was a Captain when the war started. To prevent that in the future, the early retirement and 'up or out system' was developed. In any individual's case, it may not be fair, but it is best over all for the system.
ken in sc at August 8, 2011 6:30 PM
"If you want to change the set up so vets are on their own after getting shot and blown up, thats fine - let them know they'll get jack shit in the way of support from those whos freedoms they put their lives on the line to protect and watch how quickly they stop signing up." ~lujlp
I think that brings us back to the point/ question with which Amy started this discussion regarding publicly funded pensions for police officers and firemen.
Michelle at August 8, 2011 6:40 PM
Pensions and disability are two seperate things.
How about the desk jobs are manned by the 'retirement' age cops and firefighters?
WHy pay an able bodied 20yr old to file papers and stock shelves and man the evidence room when a 60yr old guy can do the same job while freeing up the able bodied guy to walk a beat?
lujlp at August 8, 2011 6:54 PM
Robert, you sound like the problem with it management. Certifications and training don't mean squat if you have limited experience actually DOING THE WORK. The vast majority of IT resources aren't worth the air they consume because they cannot reason and use logic, which is the backbone of a good IT resource. And BTW. I have contracted as a sole proprietor for the last 20 years, and my expertise is very current, so try again asshole.
ronc at August 8, 2011 9:12 PM
Hey Ron,
Sorry about your job situation. I don't know if your skills are virtualizable or not, but if they are, oDesk is a good marketplace online; we do a lot of business via their platform, and I think it has a lot to offer. Good contractors there command solid hourly rates.
I'd like to see modest pensions (combined with 401k options) for police and firefighters and genrous benefits for those injured in the course of their duties. I think that balances out some compensation for their public service without creating perverse incentives. And all government employee unions should be Walker-used.
Christopher at August 8, 2011 9:54 PM
Sorry. That last sentence should have ended with "Walker-ized" after the governor. Effin autocorrect.
Christopher at August 8, 2011 9:57 PM
Ron - if you want to stay in IT, your only option is to become the outsourcing.
Small companies need IT services, but can't justify keeping someone on staff. You fill that need for enough small companies in your town, and your cat will be ass-deep in Friskies.
I speak from experience on this one.
brian at August 9, 2011 5:03 AM
MarkD,
" You drop in, insult the folks who comment here, then get mad when you're challenged. I'm a racist? Look at my wife and say that again."
Come again? I haven't insulted anyone here, haven't gotten angry, and didn't call you a racist. Are you, perhaps, conflating me with someone else?
"Again, it's easy for you to be generous with my money. Personally, not that it's any of your business, I am a long way from even Obama's characterization of rich"
You might want to talk to an accountant. I'm NOT a long way from Obama's definition of rich. I'm over it. And I assure you - you pay a much larger chunk of your income to the fed than I do. Why on earth would you be angry at the people who want me to pay more and you to pay less?
"This country has had ten percent of my life, and more of my money. Ball's in your court, kid. The Marines are looking for a few good men. If that's too much for you, the Red Cross could use some help."
I'm not even sure what this means. Are you suggesting that if I don't join the armed forces, I'm not a fully contributing member of society? That's just bizarre.
Josh Olson at August 9, 2011 8:41 AM
OMG DUDE!! Are you http://tinyurl.com/thisJoshOlson
???
Flynne at August 9, 2011 9:14 AM
Or http://tinyurl.com/perhapsthisJoshOlson ?
Flynne at August 9, 2011 9:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/08/a_city_that_isn.html#comment-2411357">comment from FlynneThat's him.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2011 9:20 AM
Which one, the first???
Flynne at August 9, 2011 9:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/08/a_city_that_isn.html#comment-2411416">comment from FlynneSorry, deadline, have to be fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Olson
And I only identify him because he, like me, posts under his own full name, which I respect. (I understand that everyone can't, but in the Internet manners chapter I'm working on now, I write about at least posting AS IF you're posting under your own full name if your job or whatever doesn't allow that.)
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2011 9:50 AM
I got ya, Amy. And as I've said on here before, if you remove the 'F' from my name, you get my real first name. I have no problem posting under my own name, either, except that when I'm at work, I'd rather they weren't aware of it.
Mr. Olson, I just want to say thanks for doing a Jack Reacher movie, and I can't wait to see it! Lee Child is a great writer, and I've read most of the Reacher series. Excellent stuff!
Flynne at August 9, 2011 10:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/08/a_city_that_isn.html#comment-2411463">comment from FlynneHe's very talented and a good guy.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2011 10:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/08/a_city_that_isn.html#comment-2411489">comment from FlynneAnd Flynne, I know who most of the regular commenters here are...it's usually people who are exceptionally nasty and low-blow who post under assumed names.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2011 10:23 AM
If you think you should pay more in taxes, you're free to do so. The IRS will be happy to assist you in that.
=========================
Because it never works out that "rich" people pay more and middle income people pay less. It always works out that middle income people get hit harder by tax increases than anyone else. Rich people and high-income people can afford to shelter income. Middle income people can't.
Because class warfare is not beneficial to any society. Demonizing the "rich" only creates rifts that tear a society apart.
=========================
Personally...
...I'm upset with people who think the government should ajudicate fairness in outcomes for society without considering differences in work ethic, delayed gratification, and innate ability.
...I'm upset with the people who think it's okay that half of society contributes nothing to its maintenance while eagerly voting for people who promise to seize even more from the other half.
...I'm upset about having a national legislature that blithely passes laws to subjugate the rest of us, but exempts itself and its cronies from those laws.
...I'm upset that class warfare seems to have replaced honest debate on every issue.
=========================
I have never heard of Lee Child, but I'm going to head over to Amazon and check him out.
Conan the Grammarian at August 9, 2011 10:44 AM
...I know who most of the regular commenters here are...it's usually people who are exceptionally nasty and low-blow who post under assumed names.
So true, Amy, so true. Our resident Butthole is a case in point.
Because class warfare is not beneficial to any society. Demonizing the "rich" only creates rifts that tear a society apart.
Agreed. But what do we do about teh people who perpetuate the demonizing??
Personally...
...I'm upset with people who think the government should ajudicate fairness in outcomes for society without considering differences in work ethic, delayed gratification, and innate ability.
...I'm upset with the people who think it's okay that half of society contributes nothing to its maintenance while eagerly voting for people who promise to seize even more from the other half.
...I'm upset about having a national legislature that blithely passes laws to subjugate the rest of us, but exempts itself and its cronies from those laws.
...I'm upset that class warfare seems to have replaced honest debate on every issue.
Absolutely agree! But again, how do we fix this??
I have never heard of Lee Child, but I'm going to head over to Amazon and check him out.
I think you'll like him.
Oh and Mr. Olson? Please tell me it won't be Tom Cruise playing Reacher!! No WAY he's tall enough!! I'd pick Liam Neeson over Cruise any day! Liam was terrific in "Taken". He could use a few more pounds to play Reacher, though. But Cruise?? Not on his best day!
o.O
Flynne at August 9, 2011 11:04 AM
lujlp, I understand that disability and pensions are two different things, generally speaking, in the private sector. I looked online here:
http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/pension/vetpen.htm#1
and from what I've read, it appears to me that they may be one and the same for veterans. Is that what you're getting at?
I understand that military personnel do not get to pick where or when they go or who they fight, generally speaking. It is my understanding that in the absence of a draft, they do get to determine whether they enlist and under what terms. Is this not so?
Are the benefits to having a public military comparable to having a public police force and fire companies? Is there a difference that has employing a public military and its expenses be compelling even as the military also pays for mercenary fighters, to whom it does not owe military benefits?
Switching tracks only slightly - Pensions are deferred payment. The lead time ideally allows the paying organization to invest in the present in order to be able to pay that predictable expense in the future. It is possible that some of these deals go through not because being able to make the payments is likely, but because the people in office would rather defer the problem of payment until it's someone else's problem. If this is untenable, it is (ideally) up to each community to vote out of office the people who make bad deals, and it behooves pension holders to ensure that the money is invested in a way likely to fund the pension (Enron comes to mind - teachers in one school district had their entire pension fund invested solely in Enron).
~Sorry to comment and then disappear from the conversation last night. Didn't see that coming. I am however going to log off now and go run about 20 miles, for the first time. So I'm just saying now that I'll check back, but maybe not until tomorrow.
Michelle at August 9, 2011 1:08 PM
"So what we have is a group of affluent, white, vaguely racist union-busting dickheads who don't feel any responsibility to the community at large"
"Come again? I haven't insulted anyone here, haven't gotten angry, and didn't call you a racist. Are you, perhaps, conflating me with someone else?"
MarkD at August 9, 2011 1:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/08/a_city_that_isn.html#comment-2412034">comment from MarkDI'll paraphrase Bastiat: Because we don't think government should do something doesn't mean we think it shouldn't be done at all.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2011 1:11 PM
It is my understanding that in the absence of a draft, they do get to determine whether they enlist and under what terms. Is this not so?
Terms are non negotable, infact the government can at is discresion unilaterally change the terms. Just look at Iraq and afganistain, thousands of soilders trained to be mechanics and cooks and file clerks with only the most rudementery of training and skill retention programs were pulled of their agreed upon jobs and turned into infantry troops. Let me tell you career infantry did not like that. But as I said if you wasnt to ax the VA benifits, make sure Johnny understands after he comes marching home he will have to pay for his own MRI's and counseling and surgery. My guess is you wont have a whole lot of people signing up for the privilage to get fucked over by the people whos lives they protect.
Is there a difference that has employing a public military and its expenses be compelling even as the military also pays for mercenary fighters, to whom it does not owe military benefits?
There are two differences, money - mercs get far more. The argument could be made that they are cheaper in the long run, but if you slash the necrotic buracracy that starngles the VA system it would probably be cheaper.
Second problem with merc is, look at what happaned to every society that relied on them. By their very nature they work out side the law, plausable denyability, second the are only as loyal as their pay checks, and if your enemy offers them more money there is no rational reason they wouldnt accept it.
Some societies deserve to fail, if no one is willing to fight to preserve our way of life, and the few who are willing are treated like crap by the rest of us - whos going to protect us when were inevitably invaded?
lujlp at August 9, 2011 7:04 PM
Ben David, biff:
Full disclosure: I retired in my mid-40s, and have a lucrative second career (airline pilot).
There are two fundamental issues here. First, whether some occupations deserve some amount of income following retirement. IMHO, police, fire fighters and the military do, because they are subject to age discrimination that would be illegal anywhere else. IMHO, that age discrimination is completely justified because the nature of these occupations mean most people simply cannot do them well enough after hitting the mid-40s.
Additionally, most of those in the military have significant demands put upon them alien to almost everyone else: frequent forced moves (something like 15 in my 20 years), remote duty stations, long deployments, long work hours, etc.
Thankfully, we got rid of the draft. But that means that the military has to offer sufficient compensation to obtain the kind of people it wants. Retirement at 20 years is one of those elements of compensation. (BTW, it is worth noting that only 16% of those in the military stay at least 20 years. The remaining 84% get nothing at all when they leave.)
Michelle brings up the second important issue:
Eggzactly. Had the entities approving the pensions also funded them properly, their real cost would have been apparent at the time of approval.
Which is why pensions should be funded through mandatory 401k participation. Salaries will have to go up, because the pension compensation in lieu of salary (which is part of the total compensation package presumably required to get the kind of people needed) will have to be included as salary up front.
So the overall costs of employment may not change much, but the employees won't be left holding the bag, and taxpayers won't get faced with sticker shock.
—
In deference to Amy, and because there I have no work related reason not to, I will post under my real name from here on out: Jeff Guinn, currently living in Anchorage, AK.
Hey Skipper at August 9, 2011 7:19 PM
Also I have no problem posting under my real name - I've taken no measures to hide my online name from my 'real' identity.
Its just when I started hanging out on the web as a young teenager in the early 90's you werent supposed to give out your real name.
I've been using it for more than half my life, and its as real an expression of my identity as my name.
lujlp at August 9, 2011 7:26 PM
I remember being told in freshman economics that Adam Smith suggested that the court system should be privatized, arguing that private judges would have to be known for fairness for both parties to agree to hire them. We all laughed tolerantly at Uncle Adam's foolishness, but in recent decades there's an explosion in private arbitration because people want avoid the the cumbrous, inefficient legal system (and extortionate lawyers' fees).
Charles Perry at August 10, 2011 7:44 AM
lujlp, thank you.
Charles Perry - your point, more so - I think the demand to choose an arbitrator known for fairness is so strong that the market for arbitration prevails even over what can be extremely high arbitrators' fees, and the possibility of still paying to go to court when one party appeals the arbitrability of a matter, or even the award, in a court of law.
Michelle at August 10, 2011 5:01 PM
"We imagine you going for motorbike rides in the near-Southern gloam of August, the humid summer air flowing through the gaps in your helmet, thinking:..."
I'm betting "we" do no such thing, because, yet again, you're just making things up.
I'm sorry you got fired, or you saw Uma in town and she ignored you, or the clinic said it won't work any more, or whatever else has made you so bitter. But my position is simply not what you assert.
Have a cuppa and calm down.
Because objecting to the idea that stakeholders should pay attention to pension terms is just not rational. That's what you've done.
Radwaste at August 12, 2011 5:27 AM
Leave a comment