Live data from Hacker News

Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

online.wsj.com

11–20 of 191 posts

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#11
About 25 years ago in California, Orange Country went bankrupt and public employees had to do "give backs" of (if I remember correctly) about 1/2 of their retirement funds and other concessions.

I think that this will be the model for the future, but a state levels.

It may not seem fair to change the rules on public employees, but effectively the rules have changed for private employees because the economy at federal, state, local, and personal levels will keep getting worse.

When I was younger, I worked with techs working for the federal government and they received much lower salary, but a retirement. Now, they tend to make equivalent salaries and have more job security. I am as disgusted with unions lobbying Congress as I am with corporate lobbyists.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#13
post #5

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

(2008) WSJ Editor's Resignation Is Criticized By Committee

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120949530982953531.html

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#14
post #8
post #5

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

Where's the source of the 2nd graph being wrong? It's labeled as billions and the article mentions "This year, retirement benefits—more than $6 billion—will exceed what the state is spending on higher education." That statement is in agreement with the graph.

Yes, but the graph has it at $6,000 billion, i.e. $6 trillion.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#15
post #8
post #5

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

Where's the source of the 2nd graph being wrong? It's labeled as billions and the article mentions "This year, retirement benefits—more than $6 billion—will exceed what the state is spending on higher education." That statement is in agreement with the graph.

[deleted]

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#16
That first graph is insane, yet believable.

Here in Chicago, there have been a few layoffs of city personnel, but mostly furlough days. City workers are forced to take 24 unpaid days this year. So our public/private graph probably looks the same.

Comments reflect my personal views and not my employers, etc.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#17
post #14
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the source of the 2nd graph being wrong? It's labeled as billions and the article mentions "This year, retirement benefits—more than $6 billion—will exceed what the state is spending on higher education." That statement is in agreement with the graph.

Yes, but the graph has it at $6,000 billion, i.e. $6 trillion.

Ah yeah good catch...

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#18
post #5

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

Not to mention the first graph would be far more useful if it displayed relative job losses rather than absolute.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#19

Can someone confirm that indeed 80 cents of every tax dollar goes to pensions?

From the article:

roughly 80 cents of every government dollar in California goes to employee compensation and benefits

So that's salaries as well as pensions (and salaries will be making up the lions share of the 80%).

To quote Felix Dennis "Overhead walks on two legs".

Post reply on HN