101–110 of 191 posts
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.
Since UCB gets state funding, this may make the professor and his pension a part of the very problem he (the professor) is complaining about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is a GOP strategy called "starve the beast", and Paul Krugman has been writing about it for years: http://www.google.com/search?q=starve+the+beast+krugman
So there is a left wing version of playing chicken with the budget as well, but it doesn't have a catchy phrase to describe it. Maybe "Binge the Beast"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, you don't thing that a State (especially California, the startup capital of the world) in a serious budget crisis has anything to do with entrepreneurs that may be attempting to start their own businesses in such a climate?
Although I've unfortunately added to it, I don't think on the whole HN discussions on the subject have been particularly enlightening, partly because, unlike with technical topics, HN posters don't generally have expertise or particularly unique insights into this area. We just have a mix of libertarian-leaning and social-democratic-leaning people arguing with each other (with a moderate majority for the libertarians…
The "job losses" graph is basically trash, since there are far more private sector workers than public sector workers. Better would be to rate it by percentage. I'm slightly shocked that the WSJ would print it (the graph, not the article).
Here's the real data which is still striking, eg private is 2x the rate of public: Job losses June 2008 to June 2010 State government Statewide: -8,800 / -3.3% County government Statewide: -18,500 / -5.1% City government Statewide: -14,100 / -4.9% Private sector Statewide: -1,200,000 / -9.3% Via http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/23/government-jo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a feeling those graphs are more than a little fishy - the bottom one especially. Retirement costs went up ~5X from 2000 to 2010? And they'll go up by the same from 2010 to 2020? I call BS.
Its not BS at all. Many states have problems with this. And if you even get close to state budgets at all which very rarely do citizens do, you will see this problem in more than just a few states and cities and even counties...
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…
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.
I have a feeling those graphs are more than a little fishy - the bottom one especially. Retirement costs went up ~5X from 2000 to 2010? And they'll go up by the same from 2010 to 2020? I call BS.
1. Increased promises to the public sector workforce.
2. The need to make up shortfall in the funding due to market declines.
3. The need to make up shortfall because the funding was insufficient to begin with, owing to accounting ... creativity.
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.
I think this is a game theory problem. CEOs (looking at you, GM) and politicians up against tough unions have an easy out with no "cost" to themselves. They pass the buck by placating unions with pension concessions so all seems well during their tenure. Long after they've collected their bonuses or enjoyed reelection, someone else gets to deal with the unsustainable consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is disorienting. What is your recount of what happened in the California Energy Crisis involving Enron? Can you tell me which of those points are questionable, please?
I actually changed my mind, after thinking about your points and refreshing myself on the relevant history. I agree that your portrait of the situation is worth reflecting on, and not that much of an ad hominem . I wish you would have elaborated on your statements instead of just dropping them off, though.
If I mentioned his lack of credentials it would've been ad hominem. His credentials being bodybuilder champion, action hero actor, and marrying into a well connected family. Ouch, now I did it!