Posted on 12/11/2014 7:15:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
When the November election was still a long way off, Sacramento-area streets were already plastered with campaign signs for a little-noticed political race: candidates are running to serve on the board of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, better known as CalPERS. While not as high-profile as the statewide and congressional races, these seats are arguably of equal importance to Golden State taxpayers. CalPERS, the largest state pension fund in the country, not only manages more than $257 billion in assets, but also loves to use its political muscle to prod corporate America into “socially responsible” (read: leftist-friendly) investing.
Sacramento, as the state capital, is Public Employee Central, so the race has become heated and costly. The campaign signs that caught my eye promised “pension security” and were paid for by the Service Employees International Union. This election is a touchstone for the entire pension issue in California—and, per usual, it doesn’t look good for the taxpayer.
In short, the people who benefit from CalPERS have complete control over it. Those who pay the tab have little if any say. Six of the board seats are set aside for various groups of CalPERS “members”—for example, one for retirees who receive pensions, one for eligible current state employees, and so on. Then there are three members appointed by the governor and the legislature, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of California’s public-sector unions.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Bottom line, the public defined benefit programs became underfunded when they allowed public sector workers to retire at 50 or 55 AND bump up pensions artificially by boosting their last 3 years.
The math just doesn’t work. WHY it happened is also a crime, wimply liberal pols allowed the unions to boost these future benefits in exchange for smaller annual wage increases - a ponzi scheme for votes.
Well, the median price home in SF is $1 mil. So how is a firefighter supposed to buy a home; send his/her child to school and do all those other things we do in life on $65k.
(Your figure of 1/2 of 175K=87.5 K (salary and benefits) Benefits are about 25% of the total, with the remaining being salary..roughly $65 K before taxes which in CA are big factor. The taxes alone on a $ 1 mil house are nearly $12k/year)
I realize $65k is a great salary in most areas of the country, but everything is relative.
Who says SF firefighters actually have to live in SF?
If the city wants to make residency a condition of employment, the city can pay them more.
Otherwise, they can live further inland where real estate is less outrageous.
United Airlines mechanics at SFO live several hours east and charter buses to take them to and from work.
Come to Illinois, where it has been deemed unconstitutional to do any belt-tightening whatsoever as pertaining to pension liabilities.
I can read....I realize that was the entire state, however, I used SF as an example. I could have used LA County. SF and LA are the largest fire departments in the State. Firefighters in the North Counties make far less....
Also, you would be very hard pressed to live in the nine Bay Area counties ( a common term used there) and survive on $65K. For example, the average home in Sunnyvale, CA, (about 30 miles south) is far north of $1 mil and Marin to the North is even higher. Out to the East (inland), towards Livermore are also closing in $1mil,( if not already there)...
I guess you could drive the five hours to Nevada and live there?
Now that you mention it, if the firefighters work two 24-hour shifts per week, for example, two 10-hour commutes per week from Nevada would be about average for CA.
I guess that could work....
Median income for the overall population in CA is about $55000 per year; why should firefighters get triple that?
Sue the Democrat Party. They are the ones that made the promises, and they have lots of money. Democrats pay $50,000 each to watch Obama eat.
If that is what a city and the citizens are willing to pay, then yes. I don’t begrudge anyone, who is willing to run into burning building, an above average compensation.
Now as to the others like librarians, clerks and mechanics employed by a city, I feel they should be paid the same wage as those in private business. They should not be given government pensions or other tax payer largesse.
There will be no sadness in me if Cali pensions collapse. I have some high-living Cali transplant LIBs I know who could use some suffering to remove their arrogance and condescension.
I agree and they should be paid more....as much as any fire fighter. If we did pay them more, maybe we would be less likely to waste them in dubious endeavors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.