I don't know what the combined contribution rate is into that retirement fund. But say between employee and employer it is similar to the 15% or so in Social Security. The only way to possibly make that work after say 30 years of vesting for the average 15 or so years of life left for the pension is to aggressively invest the monies. But there are a couple of rubs here- the government holds companies to tight pension funding rules (one of the big reasons 401K's came into being), but the governments themselves are some of the worst pension pikers around. They divert contributions to other programs, and often don't fully fund their portion, figuring "pay as you go" will handle it. Then they get political and socially correct in their investments (as well as taking care of their allies so to speak) resulting in suboptimal investment results. Another thing hurting pensions ironically enough is low inflation and federal reserve initiated artificially low interest rates. Yep, it will get worse when these fed actions and manipulations fall apart -shortfalls and bubbles bursting (we haven't seen that before now have we!).
If I pay you to kill someone, and you do it, do I not have some guilt? I have no doubt money changes hands in the permit granting and inspection processes. The way some places are built could never be actually inspected. I remember my friend's house in suburban Atlanta, 5 years old, very nice from the street, but put together very carelessly.
I suspect the CA lawmakers suffer from that old boomer disease of white mans guilt/save the world. Race to the bottom, but they smile as they got theirs when the getting was good.
How much of an annuity fund would I need to build up to pay out that for the rest of my life (once I take an artificially early retirement) compared to what those beneficiaries receive? What's the average payout for 15+ year full time workers? I suspect this stuff makes UAW excesses look like preschool activities.
Fortunately, I bought my place before all that nonsense happened and there really wasn't much of a housing bubble in the Philadelphia market to begin with.
I know many would like to show the average Pension Check in CA. I know personally a teacher that only went back and taught for 7 years and retired. She gets over $1000 per month. I also worked with an AT&T retiree that had 18 years with Bell and got a big fat $207 per month when he reached 65. Public retirements are way out there compared to private pensions, profit sharing and 401Ks.
How anyone can look the other way on 15,000 CA civil servants retiring at $100k to $600k per month PLUS a Gold plated health Care plan is beyond real logic. That is several $BILLION per year out of the tax payers pockets. Anyone paying taxes in CA need to take a long look at getting out while the getting is good. There are states with some sort of budget control. CA has a totally brain dead legislature and Governor.
It was when the budget matched reality. They thought they had the revenue, obviously.
I don't think it's really much of a surprise that this has occurred. If inflow matched outflow, it was only during good times, which everybody knows is not a constant. The other issue is that it is codified in legal agreements, which means no flexibility for the government when things go south, and it means those decimated taxpayers are on the hook. Hardly a fair or reasonable system in my book.
For companies offering pensions as opposed to governments, they companies either fund the pensions or it drives them into BK. Certainly the UAW gold plated retirements were one reason the D3 all accelerated down the tubes. But at least the private-industry approach corrects itself one way or another. What about government? I don't think we know where it all ends up yet. But it undoubtedly will cause the majority to have a lower standard of living, while the retirees are fat and happy.
But it undoubtedly will cause the majority to have a lower standard of living, while the retirees are fat and happy.
That is true for the public employee retirees. US poor schmucks in the private sector are on edge with our retirement funds. I watch our Teamster plan very close and we are far from out of the woods after the 2008 market crash. Fortunately we don't have a lot of fat cat retirees like CA sucking our fund dry.
We bailed the UAW workers out as payback for the election. Chapter 11 would have gotten decent contracts out of the UAW. Not just the new hires. It would have cut the retirees some and they would be on MC like the rest of us old timers. It would have forced GM to be competitive without huge subsidies. Jeep would have survived along with Dodge that builds the best PU trucks in the industry. Purely political and further burden on the tax payers. That also goes for bailing out the banks. I don't buy the BS too big to fail.
A very convoluted bankruptcy that denied people their constitutional rights. Bondholders were screwed and UAW came out smelling like a rose. Non union workers were screwed over big time. That was not a legal Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Then little over the last 5 years has been above board and legal.
it had to be a quick Chap 11 and it wasn't convoluted at all. Also it allowed GM to split into two corporations, the profitable side and the one with the turkeys.
I thought it was pretty well done, given the cards that every party was dealt in the first place.
When Mr. Gregory at Forbes is finished ranting, let's ask him if he'd buy a car from an automaker 3 years into a Chapter 11. Obviously not, so without an accelerated Chapter 11, you are pretty much killing GM off the "legal" way.
As for "buying off" UAW members, most union households voted for Romney nationally.
Only 18 percent of American households have a union member.
The premise just doesn't stick unless you want to localize it---then if the premise is that politician used his influence to bring more money to a certain State---well now really, what politician on earth doesn't do THAT?
I think there is a bit of irony in American Airlines BK. For years it seems like American went around buying out other airlines and then spitting out their employees, TWA, Reno, Air Cal... Each airlines employees seemed much better treated in the Delta Northwest and United Continental mergers. The American BK will be very political, just wait and see. The light bulb just went on at the Justice department that they've allowed too much airline consolidation without any consideration of long term effects. Now they think they'll make amends by limiting American US Air. Frankly, the cat's already out of the bag. I think the only way to now get improved air service is by allowing foreign carriers the right to serve routes within the US. Make them set up US domestic facilities though, similar to the auto transplants. Competition works! There a few unique issues like allowing military use of all airlines in times of emergency, but they aren't really going to be showstoppers I don't think. And require Europe and Asia to open up to our carriers. I think that after initial adjustments and a few shakeouts, the remaining US carriers would actually end up stronger while customers will end up better served.
I think there is a bit of irony in American Airlines BK. For years it seems like American went around buying out other airlines and then spitting out their employees, TWA, Reno, Air Cal... Each airlines employees seemed much better treated in the Delta Northwest and United Continental mergers.
I think an alternative way to look at it is that unlike United and Delta, American tried hard to NOT go into BK. The militant unions at AA fought hard to preserve their gold-plated salaries and benes. Their competitors went BK and decimated those salaries and benes. The AA unionized employees, who originally were happy to support their new CEO, later decided they hated that same CEO, who held on for better part of a decade to keep AA out of BK. But AA was competing now against airlines that had gone through BK and had much lower structural costs, and AA continued to decline financially and in the marketplace due to high costs. So AA is the last major to go BK. And now the Feds don't want another merger, when they allowed all of AA's competitors to merge and become strong. So in essence, AA has been screwed by trying to do the right thing (just as Ford has that same danger).
On the other hand, as a passenger, the AA/US merger would undoubtedly reduce choice and raise fares. So I can see both sides of this.
Yeah, that's another pov I've heard before. Although I think more than a few at AA would say the holdout was more about the senior exec's trying to protect their stock options and the like. Of course, some see the Ford holdout as driven by the Ford family's desire to preserve their special stock class that allows them to control the company with a minority equity stake. Speaking of AA, have you ever seen the service at an airline tank so fast? A few years back they were way ahead for business travelers, but now they may well have the surliest employees and lousiest service of them all. Very sad.
Well, are you going to include "professional" unions in there as well? You know, the ABA, AMA, AICPA, ADA, NSPE, NEA, PAOB, and all the other groups with dues paying members who lobby on behalf of their members.
I don't know if any of those except the NEA is considered a labor union. The NEA is the largest labor Union in the USA. The Teamsters (IBT) are the largest private sector union. 4 of the top 5 are public employee unions. Not a good thing for America. I think they have the most negative impact on labor Unions.
The ABA has about 410k members and the AMA 215k. So small potatoes compared to the two teachers unions with almost 5 million members. The teachers have a history of spending big bucks to keep their control of the school districts and local, state and Federal elections.
That is why I always choose an Osteopathic Doctor (DO) over the AMA Medical doctors. While virtually the same. The DO to me has more integrity and not as well protected by the AOA as the MD by the AMA.
The teachers have a history of spending big bucks to keep their control of the school districts and local, state and Federal elections.
Ha! The county I live it is decidedly conservative. A conservative thinking school board was elected 4 years ago and they started to implement major reforms:
They stopped negotiating with the local teachers union and sent out contracts to teachers individually. Sign the contract to continue working, or else see ya.
Promoted charter schools.
Promoted schools competing with each other for enrollment. Schools have developed specific curricula (science, arts, etc.) to bring kids to them.
Vouchers - currently being challenged in court, it would allow parents to take the per pupil funding from the state (about $4500) and use it at whatever school they wanted - public, private, religious, whatever.
As you can imagine, the teachers (and some parents) went nuts. School board elections earlier this week saw a grass roots campaign promote a 'teacher and kid friendly' slate of candidates. Serious money was spent - on both sides (upwards of $800K, I've heard).
The incumbent conservative slate was all 4 open positions. So, the reforms continue and the teachers stay angry.
Next up? Taking the district out of state wide testing.
That sounds like a great place to live. Give the children a shot at a decent education. I am all for vouchers. I don't believe charter schools run by religious groups should be funded by the state. Vouchers basically give parents back their tax money to educate their kids as they see fit. In spite of spending about $25k per student per year in CA we have about the lowest scores in the nation.
Union Teachers hate vouchers because it is competition. They like a closed society where they are the rulers. My ex wife left public schools and spent her last 21 years teaching in a Christian school. She made about 1/3rd the money. But felt she was making a difference, and was working with parents that really cared about their children's education.
Kentucky passed so-called "Education Reform" back in 1990. We got socked with higher property taxes and the schools are still mediocre. We sent our son to a small private school so he would receive a decent education. When the politicos start talking about more new taxes for "better schools" I think of the money I already paid for a better education.
One other thing- more than a few of my son's classmates had parents who taught in the public school system; what does that tell you?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
more than a few of my son's classmates had parents who taught in the public school system; what does that tell you?
Sounds like they don't like what they are forced to teach. But don't want to give up their FAT Union wages and pensions.
My grandson is in a very good private school in Indiana. Without a full scholarship my daughter would not be able to afford the $12k tuition per year. She does a lot of volunteer work as well at the school. Many of the teachers work there to get their children a better education. Sadly most parents don't give a RIP, until their kid ends up in jail.
By the way KY is near the top of my list of states to move to. We just spent a couple weeks looking at property in the Western regions. I really like the area.
Average teacher's pension in California is $3,300. They do not get SS, of course.
the problem is not that these public sector people have pensions, the problem is that in the private sectors many pensions went into risky 401ks.
Sidenote: Kentucky population is one of the lowest in the country in terms of cumulative education per person and the 5th highest poverty level. (source WSJ 10-15-2012). Good for retirees, maybe but not for the workin' man.
the problem is not that these public sector people have pensions, the problem is that in the private sectors many pensions went into risky 401ks.
Well you can blame that on the ERISA amendments passed in the 1990s. Screwed me out of an early retirement. It is about 1500 pages. We ordered it and read a lot of it that pertained to our Teamster Pension. Basically it forced most companies to dump their defined pension plans and let the employees go into a 401K. And some companies like Enron pulled a fast one on their employees leaving them with nothing. We had both which is good.
There you go with those phony average pension figures pushed by the Unions. What they don't tell you is many people on CALPers retired with only 5 years in the plan, thanks to ERISA. And that pulls the average waaaay down. A Teacher with 40 years will knock down over $100k with a gold plated HC plan. I am not close to that with 37 years in the Teamsters, and NO HC plan. Even with my SS pittance after paying in 46 years.
CA is not good for workers or retirees that do not have a pile of money or a high paying government job.
Average teacher's pension in California is $3,300. They do not get SS, of course.
My wife's SIL retired from LA City at 62 years old with 80K/year pension AND healthcare. They chose the plan where if she dies before her husband, he still gets her pension and HC until he dies. She could have gotten 20% more (putting her right around 100K, with HC, if they didn't choose the second-to-die option for her husband.
the problem is not that these public sector people have pensions, the problem is that in the private sectors many pensions went into risky 401ks.
The problem is not that the pensions are not risky, the problem is that the pension risk is not borne by the pensioners, but by the same people who already have to rely on their own risky 401Ks. So the average [non-permissible content removed] is bearing the burden of their own retirement risk + that of the public employees', too.
The problem is not that the pensions are not risky, the problem is that the pension risk is not borne by the pensioners, but by the same people who already have to rely on their own risky 401Ks. So the average [non-permissible content removed] is bearing the burden of their own retirement risk + that of the public employees', too.
There-in lies the problem. I would love to have a risk free pension. Just not possible in the private sector. So why is it so for the Public employee Unions? My SIL's Dad retired 20 years ago from the Santa Ana fire dept and is at $107k per year with HC. They get COL increases. That would be nice to have.
A friend of mine's parents, a grade school teacher and a state park worker, both retired at 58-60 after long 25+ year careers with the same employer. This is in lower cost old fashioned WA state. Their combined pension is virtually 6 figures, plus HC and COLA. How much of an annuity fund would I have to build up to give me that much money for the rest of my life if I retired at 60? And how much less did they put into their winning lottery ticket? That's what gets me the most.
There's going to be huge and possibly dangerous private sector resentment about this in the not too distant future. Once the early Xers hit retirement age and see what a mess exists, it won't be pretty.
Most unions serve a purpose to protect workers against greedy business people. Some are more like cooperatives that join forces to share in the cost of promoting their products. Then some are just leeches on the tax payers. Those are the ones I would like to do away with.
Milk is at the heart of a big battle over Organic farming. Horizon and Organic Valley are duking it out in court. So much for one big happy organic family.
The key question is how many years did they teach. My SIL went back and taught a total of 7 years before she could not take anymore of the little criminals in Kindergarten. I am sure her retirement brings down the average. If the average worked 40 years and only got $3300 a month I would say that is low. I don't think that is close to reality. It is hard to get honest answers from the sources at CALPers and CALStrs.
Yep but most don't do that. I think you're contradicting yourself, or at least presenting two conflicting arguments about public sector benefits. If teaching in California is such a cushy gig, then why would people leave early? If it's so intolerable, then why complain that the pension is so enticing?
As you yourself know, you can make very good money fishing in Alaska, but would you risk it?
Auto unions pay a decent wage because the work sucks, can be dangerous, and is generally mind-numbing. The people who 'cash in' have gritted their teeth long enough, while others bail early.
I chose my own road, and you, yours, I think, but my high school buddy stayed in the same post office for XXXXXX years. Yeah, he has more retirement money than me, but he's brain dead.
If teaching in California is such a cushy gig, then why would people leave early? If it's so intolerable, then why complain that the pension is so enticing?
I don't recall saying it was a cushy job. It is a good paying job once you get tenure and the protection that comes with it. Many cities in CA pay their teachers close to $100k a year AVERAGE. Starting pay like the current UAW contract is poor. For teachers I would raise the bottom pay and lower the top pay to maintain the budget. Then phase out the public employee pensions and put them on SS/MC like the rest of US. Give matching funds into a 401K so they can see how the rest live. My job was not cushy when it was 40 below zero and I was out splicing a cable some brain dead Eqpt operator cut off. I liked the money and time off. About all you can hope for in this life. My pension is good. Sadly the Feds screwed that up for the younger generations. Unless of course you are on the public dole.
100K? No way. I checked some of the richest counties in CA and it's nowhere near that, even with a PhD and going all 13 steps up the ladder. Even La Jolla has a median salary of "only" $55K.
Start salary in Marin County for someone with a BA is $39K so you're right about the low end anyway.
The public dole isn't cushy either, though it might be stultifying.
It seems to me that union wage scales and pensions are basically related to rewarding endurance.
I can't find it now. I read a newspaper article a couple years ago stating the average teacher in a district up near Sacramento made $93k. With benefit package that is way over $100k per year. Whenever we negotiated our contract, it was always the total dollar amount discussed. One year we took a dollar cut to have it added to our pension plan. Not sure who gave you your figures for average teacher. But I would say this is much closer to accurate. As you can see administrators are really over paid.
The average teacher salary last year was $68,531, up 1 percent from 2011, according to new state figures. The average superintendent salary last year, excluding part-timers, was roughly $167,000, also up 1 percent from 2011. Last year saw far fewer teacher layoffs than previous years.
As you can see administrators are really over paid.
Compared to what, football coaches?
One of our members hanging out in Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous just started working for GM in Canada. Maybe we can entice him over here to shed some light from the inside.
Their combined pension is virtually 6 figures, plus HC and COLA. How much of an annuity fund would I have to build up to give me that much money for the rest of my life if I retired at 60?
I think the Canadian auto workers split with the UAW long time ago. They could see the US autoworkers were killing the goose laying the golden egg. I am happy to see swcman has a job building GM drive trains. I don't consider that any different than Mexico auto workers building our vehicles. Neither one puts food on the table of US workers.
When it comes to looking out for their own, I think Australia does the best job of any country that I know of. Canada is much like the USA.
Not sure what you mean by "overpaid". How could you possibly determine that?
Well that is just too simple of a question. The answer is the same as my statement that teachers in CA are underpaid to start with. That being based on my being a tax payer and a parent. Their value to me is not as much as they are being paid. As Steve mentioned they are not even in an over paid league with tax paid College coaches. Evaluating our whole CA University system, it is flooded with over paid worthless individuals. Of course it is your prerogative to defend their out of the stratosphere pay. But I don't consider your opinion as valid as I do mine. ;-) Hope that answers your question.
Maybe they are suffering from isolationism. It is a very fine art which most governments fail at eventually. Looks like they are tired of subsidizing an unprofitable business. I wish we had leadership that looks out for the tax payers like the new Aussie government.
Joe Hockey is embracing a new framework: putting the interests of Australian taxpayers and a lower-cost economy before the interests of an uncompetitive automotive multinational. It is new terrain for a treasurer, but justified by the industry's deterioration. This decision is less about cars and more about achieving a modern and competitive economy.
The local industry's market share has fallen below 15 per cent. Ford is departing; only Holden and Toyota are left. Total industry support is estimated at between $500 million and $1 billion yearly.
The message from the company to government is summarised by a senior minister: "They want a further $200m to $300m each year in perpetuity. That's extortion."
The price of keeping General Motors making cars in Australia is untenable. Holden must suspect this; the Abbott government will know it. The task required of Abbott, Hockey and the cabinet is to act on existing reality rather than construct a phony reality
Comments
I suspect the CA lawmakers suffer from that old boomer disease of white mans guilt/save the world. Race to the bottom, but they smile as they got theirs when the getting was good.
How anyone can look the other way on 15,000 CA civil servants retiring at $100k to $600k per month PLUS a Gold plated health Care plan is beyond real logic. That is several $BILLION per year out of the tax payers pockets. Anyone paying taxes in CA need to take a long look at getting out while the getting is good. There are states with some sort of budget control. CA has a totally brain dead legislature and Governor.
I don't think it's really much of a surprise that this has occurred. If inflow matched outflow, it was only during good times, which everybody knows is not a constant. The other issue is that it is codified in legal agreements, which means no flexibility for the government when things go south, and it means those decimated taxpayers are on the hook. Hardly a fair or reasonable system in my book.
For companies offering pensions as opposed to governments, they companies either fund the pensions or it drives them into BK. Certainly the UAW gold plated retirements were one reason the D3 all accelerated down the tubes. But at least the private-industry approach corrects itself one way or another. What about government? I don't think we know where it all ends up yet. But it undoubtedly will cause the majority to have a lower standard of living, while the retirees are fat and happy.
That is true for the public employee retirees. US poor schmucks in the private sector are on edge with our retirement funds. I watch our Teamster plan very close and we are far from out of the woods after the 2008 market crash. Fortunately we don't have a lot of fat cat retirees like CA sucking our fund dry.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/02/06/american-airlines-sho- ws-the-corruption-of-obamas-gm-bailout/
Can you imagine GM and Chrysler dealers trying to sell cars three years into a bankruptcy?
I thought it was pretty well done, given the cards that every party was dealt in the first place.
When Mr. Gregory at Forbes is finished ranting, let's ask him if he'd buy a car from an automaker 3 years into a Chapter 11. Obviously not, so without an accelerated Chapter 11, you are pretty much killing GM off the "legal" way.
As for "buying off" UAW members, most union households voted for Romney nationally.
Only 18 percent of American households have a union member.
The premise just doesn't stick unless you want to localize it---then if the premise is that politician used his influence to bring more money to a certain State---well now really, what politician on earth doesn't do THAT?
I think an alternative way to look at it is that unlike United and Delta, American tried hard to NOT go into BK. The militant unions at AA fought hard to preserve their gold-plated salaries and benes. Their competitors went BK and decimated those salaries and benes. The AA unionized employees, who originally were happy to support their new CEO, later decided they hated that same CEO, who held on for better part of a decade to keep AA out of BK. But AA was competing now against airlines that had gone through BK and had much lower structural costs, and AA continued to decline financially and in the marketplace due to high costs. So AA is the last major to go BK. And now the Feds don't want another merger, when they allowed all of AA's competitors to merge and become strong. So in essence, AA has been screwed by trying to do the right thing (just as Ford has that same danger).
On the other hand, as a passenger, the AA/US merger would undoubtedly reduce choice and raise fares. So I can see both sides of this.
Be kind of nice to see Virgin or Ryanair at more ticket counters now that you mention it.
In topical news, she crossed the picket line when the pilots struck in '85 (she belonged to some flight attendant's union at the time).
It would be interesting to see some breakdowns of unionized workers in this country, and where the UAW fits in. Something like:
Total unionized (private sector)
Total unionized (public sector)
and then breakdowns in descending order of size for each.
http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/top-10-labor-unions-4190.html
Ha! The county I live it is decidedly conservative. A conservative thinking school board was elected 4 years ago and they started to implement major reforms:
They stopped negotiating with the local teachers union and sent out contracts to teachers individually. Sign the contract to continue working, or else see ya.
Promoted charter schools.
Promoted schools competing with each other for enrollment. Schools have developed specific curricula (science, arts, etc.) to bring kids to them.
Vouchers - currently being challenged in court, it would allow parents to take the per pupil funding from the state (about $4500) and use it at whatever school they wanted - public, private, religious, whatever.
As you can imagine, the teachers (and some parents) went nuts. School board elections earlier this week saw a grass roots campaign promote a 'teacher and kid friendly' slate of candidates. Serious money was spent - on both sides (upwards of $800K, I've heard).
The incumbent conservative slate was all 4 open positions. So, the reforms continue and the teachers stay angry.
Next up? Taking the district out of state wide testing.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
Union Teachers hate vouchers because it is competition. They like a closed society where they are the rulers. My ex wife left public schools and spent her last 21 years teaching in a Christian school. She made about 1/3rd the money. But felt she was making a difference, and was working with parents that really cared about their children's education.
One other thing- more than a few of my son's classmates had parents who taught in the public school system; what does that tell you?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Sounds like they don't like what they are forced to teach. But don't want to give up their FAT Union wages and pensions.
My grandson is in a very good private school in Indiana. Without a full scholarship my daughter would not be able to afford the $12k tuition per year. She does a lot of volunteer work as well at the school. Many of the teachers work there to get their children a better education. Sadly most parents don't give a RIP, until their kid ends up in jail.
By the way KY is near the top of my list of states to move to. We just spent a couple weeks looking at property in the Western regions. I really like the area.
the problem is not that these public sector people have pensions, the problem is that in the private sectors many pensions went into risky 401ks.
Sidenote: Kentucky population is one of the lowest in the country in terms of cumulative education per person and the 5th highest poverty level. (source WSJ 10-15-2012). Good for retirees, maybe but not for the workin' man.
Well you can blame that on the ERISA amendments passed in the 1990s. Screwed me out of an early retirement. It is about 1500 pages. We ordered it and read a lot of it that pertained to our Teamster Pension. Basically it forced most companies to dump their defined pension plans and let the employees go into a 401K. And some companies like Enron pulled a fast one on their employees leaving them with nothing. We had both which is good.
There you go with those phony average pension figures pushed by the Unions. What they don't tell you is many people on CALPers retired with only 5 years in the plan, thanks to ERISA. And that pulls the average waaaay down. A Teacher with 40 years will knock down over $100k with a gold plated HC plan. I am not close to that with 37 years in the Teamsters, and NO HC plan. Even with my SS pittance after paying in 46 years.
CA is not good for workers or retirees that do not have a pile of money or a high paying government job.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My wife's SIL retired from LA City at 62 years old with 80K/year pension AND healthcare. They chose the plan where if she dies before her husband, he still gets her pension and HC until he dies. She could have gotten 20% more (putting her right around 100K, with HC, if they didn't choose the second-to-die option for her husband.
the problem is not that these public sector people have pensions, the problem is that in the private sectors many pensions went into risky 401ks.
The problem is not that the pensions are not risky, the problem is that the pension risk is not borne by the pensioners, but by the same people who already have to rely on their own risky 401Ks. So the average [non-permissible content removed] is bearing the burden of their own retirement risk + that of the public employees', too.
There-in lies the problem. I would love to have a risk free pension. Just not possible in the private sector. So why is it so for the Public employee Unions? My SIL's Dad retired 20 years ago from the Santa Ana fire dept and is at $107k per year with HC. They get COL increases. That would be nice to have.
There's going to be huge and possibly dangerous private sector resentment about this in the not too distant future. Once the early Xers hit retirement age and see what a mess exists, it won't be pretty.
Milk is at the heart of a big battle over Organic farming. Horizon and Organic Valley are duking it out in court. So much for one big happy organic family.
http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/tag/organic-dairy/
As you yourself know, you can make very good money fishing in Alaska, but would you risk it?
Auto unions pay a decent wage because the work sucks, can be dangerous, and is generally mind-numbing. The people who 'cash in' have gritted their teeth long enough, while others bail early.
I chose my own road, and you, yours, I think, but my high school buddy stayed in the same post office for XXXXXX years. Yeah, he has more retirement money than me, but he's brain dead.
I don't recall saying it was a cushy job. It is a good paying job once you get tenure and the protection that comes with it. Many cities in CA pay their teachers close to $100k a year AVERAGE. Starting pay like the current UAW contract is poor. For teachers I would raise the bottom pay and lower the top pay to maintain the budget. Then phase out the public employee pensions and put them on SS/MC like the rest of US. Give matching funds into a 401K so they can see how the rest live. My job was not cushy when it was 40 below zero and I was out splicing a cable some brain dead Eqpt operator cut off. I liked the money and time off. About all you can hope for in this life. My pension is good. Sadly the Feds screwed that up for the younger generations. Unless of course you are on the public dole.
Start salary in Marin County for someone with a BA is $39K so you're right about the low end anyway.
The public dole isn't cushy either, though it might be stultifying.
It seems to me that union wage scales and pensions are basically related to rewarding endurance.
The average teacher salary last year was $68,531, up 1 percent from 2011, according to new state figures. The average superintendent salary last year, excluding part-timers, was roughly $167,000, also up 1 percent from 2011. Last year saw far fewer teacher layoffs than previous years.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html
Compared to what, football coaches?
One of our members hanging out in Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous just started working for GM in Canada. Maybe we can entice him over here to shed some light from the inside.
Roughly speaking, a bit more than $2million.
When it comes to looking out for their own, I think Australia does the best job of any country that I know of. Canada is much like the USA.
Well that is just too simple of a question. The answer is the same as my statement that teachers in CA are underpaid to start with. That being based on my being a tax payer and a parent. Their value to me is not as much as they are being paid. As Steve mentioned they are not even in an over paid league with tax paid College coaches. Evaluating our whole CA University system, it is flooded with over paid worthless individuals. Of course it is your prerogative to defend their out of the stratosphere pay. But I don't consider your opinion as valid as I do mine. ;-) Hope that answers your question.
Last I heard, Australia was in danger of losing most if not all of its auto industry. New Government Bailout for Australian Auto Industry (industryweek.com)
Must be those darn union workers down there.
Joe Hockey is embracing a new framework: putting the interests of Australian taxpayers and a lower-cost economy before the interests of an uncompetitive automotive multinational. It is new terrain for a treasurer, but justified by the industry's deterioration. This decision is less about cars and more about achieving a modern and competitive economy.
The local industry's market share has fallen below 15 per cent. Ford is departing; only Holden and Toyota are left. Total industry support is estimated at between $500 million and $1 billion yearly.
The message from the company to government is summarised by a senior minister: "They want a further $200m to $300m each year in perpetuity. That's extortion."
The price of keeping General Motors making cars in Australia is untenable. Holden must suspect this; the Abbott government will know it. The task required of Abbott, Hockey and the cabinet is to act on existing reality rather than construct a phony reality
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/end-of-the-road-for-handouts-- to-an-ailing-industry/story-e6frg74x-1226756138133#