Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, unlike the few examples the right-wing loves to talk about, at the University we were required to make the same contribution to our retirement that the Univ made. The younger employees really hated it... especially those that never envisioned themselves retiring from the U. Although you could get your contribution back if you left before retirement, the interest paid on your money was lousy - less than you could receive in a passbook savings account at your bank. The interest rate (if they are still paying that rate) would seem pretty good now, but at the time it sucked.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip People think government workers are overpaid, but that is NOT the case. They pay well at the low end of the scale... the University committed itself to paying at least a "living wage" to all positions back in the 90's... $12.00 per hour. But professional positions pay FAR less than equivalent positions in private industry. The only way you make big money at the University is to be a Football or Basketball coach. Even the President was only making 400K per year at the time I left... a pittance for someone at the top of a billion dollar a year organization.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yep. I work in a department that has about 100 attorneys. It's the equivalent of a pretty good sized firm. With my experience and background at a private firm that size, I'd make at least twice what I do in salary and be on track to be a partner, if not one already. In reality, until we got a 2% raise Jan.1, we hadn't received any salary increase in five years. The city of Long Beach city manager makes something like $250K a year, give or take. Residents here are outraged that he makes so much. They've lost all track of reality. He's the equivalent of a CEO of a company that employs over 4500 people and provides an incredibly diverse group of services. He'd make millions at a private company that did the same unique things. But oh no, since the residents don't make that much themselves why should he? Unreal. They also get worked up over what's called the "$100,000 Club", Each year the local papers publish the full names, job titles and salary of every one who makes at least that much, without any regard for what the positions involve and what's required. As in "can you believe the Director of Human Resources makes $155K??" or whatever it would be. I would hope that person would, but people seem to feel applicants would line up to do that job for $50K. Yeah, right.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<They also get worked up over what's called the "$100,000 Club", Each year the local papers publish the full names, job titles and salary of every one who makes at least that much, without any regard for what the positions involve and what's required.>> I'm really surprised to hear they do that. Especially in CA, $100K just isn't all that much.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's a religion with them. It's like they're still stuck in 70's or 80's. On one hand, the local yokels make a big deal that many department heads or police and fire don't live in the city proper. Then on the other hand, they begrudge them the salary that would enable or allow them to buy here. And they refuse to see the irony.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder We have these neighbors who are constantly asking us for favors since they think we must be real connected with who's who in the city. One time this lady wanted us to intercede when the post office told her they were going to refuse to deliver mail because their small dog was always off leash when the mail man was around. We told her the post office was a federal department, but maybe she could contact the local city council member's office. "What???" she said. "You're the government worker, you work for me, you do it!" Now, that statement of hers had all kinds of wrong in it, so since we gave her the council phone number, we did nothing else, except call Animal Control, who came to take away the dog when it was crapping on someone else's lawn. She came waddling outside, but since the dog was already in the compartment in the truck, she had to go bail it out of dog jail at the shelter. We called Animal Control because we found out that she was one of the ones who left anonymous letters in our mailbox accusing us of leeching off the taxpayers. We'd had it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>"What???" she said. "You're the government worker, you work for me, you do it!"<< WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE!!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I never received comments like that, but heard more than my share about folks "leeching off the taxpayers". The University didn't even receive that much of it's funding from state support... about 20%. The rest came largely from research grants and tuition.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "ANYONE can learn how to spend what they have more wisely. " Generally, yes. But there are plenty of poor people have learned of necessity to do it about as well as you can. They can stretch a dollar from here to Timbuktu. Yet they still struggle. Don't forget what this story came from. It was about an ad hoc clinic set up in Knoxville for people who couldn't afford medical care. Chances are good that many of them were working poor – those who make just too much money to qualify for Medicaid but whose employers don't provide insurance. The ACA, of course, is designed to help people like this – in many cases by expanding Medicaid. But IIRC, TN's governor turned down the opportunity to do this. Perhaps if he hadn't done this, more of Tennessee's working poor wouldn't have to pinch so many pennies.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's exceedingly difficult for the poor to spend their money wisely when businesses have a vested interest in convincing them to spend money on things they don't need and on food that is full of empty calories and chemicals. Yes, you can teach someone to spend wisely. You can show them that the $3.00 bag of flour can make them a dozen loaves of $3.00 bread. But every single corner of their lives is filled with the amoral marketing departments who feed on their insecurity and fear with messages that are scientifically designed to break through common sense to push more product. It doesn't do Wall Street or Madison Avenue a damn bit of good if poor people go out on their porches and tell stories and sing songs and play games. Mattel and Hasbro don't want kids playing Army in the woods with sticks as rifles, or for girls to learn how to make their own dolls and their own doll clothes. Childhood has become commoditized and monetized, and poor kids are seen as lacking by kids whose parents by them the latest everything. The social and cultural pressures that we all face are designed to push the needs of commerce and money, not to satisfy the human need to connect. Yes, the poor can spend their money more wisely. As long as their city government doesn't increase taxes for stadiums for multi-millionaires to do their business in. As long as their national government doesn't spend a trillion dollars on a war against an enemy who never had the capability to attack us and to bring democracy to a country that is 20 times older than the US and that has never had it. As long as utility prices don't spike because the CEO wants to give the shareholders a 7% return instead of a 5% return this year. As long as the politicians don't vote in tax cuts for the wealthy, decimating the free lunch programs they relied on to feed their kids in school or the public health programs that gave them a free flu shot every year so they didn't have to miss work. If there wasn't class warfare in this country and a concentrated effort to redistribute wealth from the workers to the wealthy the poor would have a better chance of spending their money wisely. But today, as always, the deck is stacked against them. And today, for the first time in American history, the odds are that the poor will never be able to move up to the middle class and kids are more likely to be worse off than their parents.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>People think government workers are overpaid, but that is NOT the case.<< Check this out: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-300428--.html">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...8--.html</a> A few highlights: "After uncovering Newport Beach data on a tip from Jack Wu, a former Newport council candidate, it at first seemed like the practice of paying permanent, full-time lifeguards $100,000 to $200,000 – and allowing them to retire with 90 percent of their salary after working 30 years – was confined to Newport. But after further examination , it became apparent that high pay for this profession is common practice – at least in the Golden State." "In 2009, at least 55 L.A. County lifeguards earned more than $100,000 in pay, excluding benefits, according to the state Controller's Office web-based database on public employee pay." "These types of pension plans – defined-benefit – are practically extinct in the private sector, where workers rely on 401(k) plans, savings and Social Security to retire. One recently retired, 51-year-old former Newport lifeguard will collect $108,000 for life, despite investment market fluctuations or city balance sheets." If that isn't cushy, I don't know what is.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well good for you. You uncovered one of the few examples out there that folks love to trot out when bashing public employees. I can find a welfare mother driving a Cadillac too... doesn't prove anything. That is FAR from typical. Besides, NOTHING that happens in Orange County would surprise me much.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Because I'm an L.A. County employee, allow me to point out that we belong to LACERA, not CALPERS. The last time I checked my defined contribution plans, the rate of return we were getting was 17%.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And I'll second RT's post 52. I'm in two plans, the defined benefit and defined contribution. As I mentioned earlier, I put in not a small sum each month towards those two. Most retirees, and I plan on being one in about seven years, get about half of what they were last earning when they retired in a defined pension, give or take or percentage or three. The lifeguard examples are not the norm, and I'll also bet outside of public safety contracts, which lifeguards are, you will rarely see that. In my case, it will be 44% of my last earnings. It will of course be supplemented by the defined contribution plan, but those are the ones people seem to want to foist on government workers now. Also, as a county employee, I don't contribute to Social Security. In my previous career I did contribute but what I otherwise would have received upon retirement will be cut significantly due to my defined benefit pension. For some, it's wiped out entirely in certain scenarios. Those L.A. county lifeguards, members of LACERA, won't be getting any Soc Sec and will also of course be paying income taxes on that 108K as well, not at the rate at which the income was deferred but when they receive it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder One more thing- L.A. County has 11 different retirement plans in place at the moment, covering something like 500,000 people if memory serves. Of those plans, the ones that allow for $108K lifeguards in retirement are no longer available to new employees, and haven't been offered to anybody in quite some time. Those lifeguards in all likelihood began employment before 1985 or earlier. The plan that allows for that will die with the last affected employee. I will also stress the Public Safety aspect of those jobs, by which I mean police, fire and rescue groups, which include lifeguards. Their contracts are historically more generous, and justifiably so. But they're often the first ones people point to when talking about pensions. I started with the county in 2001, and the plan I'm in is what was offered from around the early 90's to about 3-4 years ago.
Originally Posted By hopemax Okay, what I found is that the lifeguards that are making that kind of money aren't the kids sitting on the beaches. Those people are paid $16-$22 an hour, for seasonal work. These are the "battalion chiefs" whose jobs are described as being similar to a fire chief's job. They oversee the training and hiring of seasonal staff, the dangerous rescues, and the typical management level stuff.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead ^^^But it's more fun to say that lifeguards are making $100K so taxpayers can get all angry and feel better not funding the things IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST to keep funding. I teach high school English. I'm supposed to get a step increase every year, because with increased experience comes increased pay, and you want to keep experienced teachers happy. But I haven't seen a step increase in four years. And people feel fine vilifying teachers. Because that's acceptable nowadays. There's an awful website here in VA where posters post all kinds of crap. Once people figured out how to work the freedom of information act, they find our salaries and post them with our names and positions (like RT was saying). It's always accompanied by comments like, why does an administrator make $120K?!? Why are there so many ESL teachers making so much?!? Remember that this is only for nine months of work!!! If you're looking for a reason why good teachers are leaving the profession, you've found one. Of many. I also love when people counter that teachers don't work hard because their son has a teacher who shows lots of movies. So they had a bad teacher. Lifeguards live like kings. They know everything. I'm also bitter because I have to grade papers and I'm procrastinating. Sigh.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And people feel fine vilifying teachers. Because that's acceptable nowadays.<< It's a bizarre time, isn't it. People slam teachers for having cushy jobs and talk about how dumb science is and how lazy poor people who work two part-time blue collar jobs are. Far right wingers: get help.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Of course teachers are being vilified by the conservative Republicans. An educated population that thinks for itself has more opportunity for upward mobility plus they tend to vote for more progressive candidates. Both are anathema to the wealthy robber barons who want to control government by weakening democracy and the middle class.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Because I'm an L.A. County employee, allow me to point out that we belong to LACERA, not CALPERS. The last time I checked my defined contribution plans, the rate of return we were getting was 17%." I did the above from memory. I was just able to access the website. The rate of return from 3/9/13 through 3/9/14 with my combined 401/457 was 16.17%.
