Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 191 posts

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#31

Post by muzz »

dminor wrote: post #18
jumby wrote: 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.

Yes but then it wouldn't make the (largely political) point that he wanted to make.

The comparison itself seems odd. If the state's private sector loses 1.2M jobs, should the public sector shed a proportional number of employees i.e. teachers, firemen, policemen, prison guards, etc?

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#32

Post by tomsaffell »

pg wrote: post #20

I have a feeling these graphs do more to explain the problems that Berkeley professor wrote about ( http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students... ) than the explanations he proposed.

He being the Berkley professor, if I read right. (I had to read it a few times to parse..)

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#34

Post by LargeWu »

alecco wrote: post #24
alecco wrote: post #6

As a foreigner, this is like bizarre fiction. * Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder champion now politician * Governor of nearly bankrupt California * A state scammed out of 40 to 50bn by Enron and pals * AS career was supported by Enron (from Forbes) * Writing an opinion column on Fox owned WSJ against state pensions My sympathies to all californians. The world owes you so much.

Your down votes signal you read those facts and it upsets your beliefs. I didn't write this for people who agree with my point of view. I wrote this for you. Thank you.

You're probably getting downvoted because you seem to be implying, without real evidence, that California is bankrupt because Arnold was complicit in cheating California out of billions because of shady dealings with Enron.

These are the sorts of allegations that one would typically see in a political forum populated by partisans and hacks. Downvoting is just HN's way of saying this sort of discussion belongs elsewhere.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#35

Post by maxawaytoolong »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #3
robryan wrote: post #2

Who's lending California this money now? It seems quiet a risky deal.

It's not that risky. The most likely outcome is simply that the fiscally responsible states will be forced to bail California out.

Except aren't there only like 3 "fiscally responsible" states? I don't think Wyoming and North Dakota are going to be able to pull off such a bailout.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#36

Post by noahlt »

muzz wrote: post #31
dminor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes but then it wouldn't make the (largely political) point that he wanted to make. The comparison itself seems odd. If the state's private sector loses 1.2M jobs, should the public sector shed a proportional number of employees i.e. teachers, firemen, policemen, prison guards, etc?

His point isn't that the public sector should shed a proportional number of employees, but that the collective income of private sector taxpayers has decreased, yet they are forced to sustain public-sector pensions with that decreased income.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#37

Post by yummyfajitas »

jordanb wrote: post #27
mark_l_watson wrote: post #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…

It's worth observing that: 1) Orange County went bankrupt by cooking the books. After the scandal broke, their treasurer went to jail. 2) The Republican administration turned a blind eye to the Democratic treasurer's malfeasance because it was allowing them to keep taxes very low, which was making their government very popular. 3) The government refused to raise even a temporary tax to avoid bankruptcy, as that posit…

...low level employees who had no part in the high level corruption,...

The low level employees didn't vote for and join unions which helped that Dem treasurer to get elected? They didn't push for overly generous pensions and non-transparent accounting?

They must have behaved very differently than contemporary unions.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#38

Post by muzz »

noahlt wrote: post #30
dminor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Forgive my ignorance -- what does "relative job losses" mean, and how does it differ from "absolute job losses"?

I think he means as a percentage rather than absolute number. I doubt the state even has 1.2M public sector employees; this CNN article indicates 240,000 so even if every single one was fired it would still make the graph look like the public sector wasn't cut enough: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/08/news/economy/california_pay_...

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#39

Post by stanleydrew »

noahlt wrote: post #30
dminor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Forgive my ignorance -- what does "relative job losses" mean, and how does it differ from "absolute job losses"?

Relative meaning take the ratio of jobs lost to total jobs in each sector and compare.

Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future

#40

Post by yummyfajitas »

maxawaytoolong wrote: post #35
yummyfajitas wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that risky. The most likely outcome is simply that the fiscally responsible states will be forced to bail California out.

Except aren't there only like 3 "fiscally responsible" states? I don't think Wyoming and North Dakota are going to be able to pull off such a bailout.

Perhaps I should have said "less fiscally irresponsible".
Post reply on HN