Posted on 08/13/2020 8:44:09 AM PDT by lasereye
I am waiting to see what happens to public employees’ pensions. They already have massive unfunded liabilities and it’s only a matter of time in which such people are told that you might as well forget about seeing a dime from them. All of this not dissimilar from what happened in the Soviet Union and East Bloc.
The poker hand is in Biden’s election. Make the other 49 states bail out Calif.
California public employees’ pensions are insanely bloated. They are bloated because the unions and California democrats have engaged for decades in a game of overpromising, corrupt accounting, and kicking the can down the road. This has been done in plain sight. The only innocents in the room are those few who have tried to blow the whistle and call for reform. But the political system in California is corrupt. It knew exactly what it was doing, it knew that it was not sustainable, and it is now demanding a federal bailout.
No bailouts. We should not be paying off crooks and thieves out of pity for the mess they knowingly created.
Write down California’s public employee pensions to whatever level is actuarily sustainable. If that means cutting them by 50 percent, so be it. California public employees will still be getting a better pension than most of the serfs whose taxes are paying for their inflated salaries and benefits.
Lake Berryessa!
And the number one reason was to make sure independent contractors weren't falling through the tax crack.
Bingo!!!
Are you The Zodiac?
“California public employees’ pensions are insanely bloated”
Not just CA. MY wifes family are 90% firefighters in Ohio-nepotism at its finest.
Her cousin few years back retired as Fire Chief at 130,000 per year pension. He is 56 or 57. He just started another job for the state in arson control $90k per year.
The coward cop in Parklands retirement was 110k per year
I work routinely with law enforcement investigators here in Kommifornia and they all brag about the fact that they can retire with a full pension then move to another municipality or to a state position and collect a double or even triple pension after just a few years on the new job. These loopholes need to be plugged.
Teachers do the same thing. Retire at age 53 then go teach at another school.
Gov’t employees should have to work until age 62 before collecting pension.
“I am waiting to see what happens to public employees’ pensions.”
Wailing and gnashing of teeth!
Perfect.
1.) At the macro-level it is a deterrent to all businesses looking to operate in CA. Business owners must wonder are they to be chosen as a winner or a loser in the future. The only way to insure that you are a winner is that you pay lobbyists, who in turn pay off politicians. Effectively this is a protection racket being run by government. It is worse that the old mafia's protection racket because the mob never had the force of law, as in legislation, on their side.
2.) This decision deters entrepreneurship. Risk is at the heart of entrepreneurial endeavors. The magnitude can always be measured on the personal level. There is an opportunity cost associated with business decisions. You must forego something when deciding on another. The little Uber driver is an entrepreneur, running his own business. He made decisions to not do something to be an Uber driver. He may have left a job for instance. Choices such as these have consequences, and now everyone involved is feeling the pain because of something they could not control. Uber, the company, is an entrepreneurial endeavor itself. It created a new business model. While ride services are not sexy, Uber chose that line of business over others. They took investor's money to develop business in CA. And now those who used their hard earned capital to invest in an entrepreneurial venture will feel the pain, or perhaps not achieve as high of an ROI that could have been possible. This is through no fault of their own. The bottom line, CA messed with people's personal choices and now the people have to feel the pain. Which leads to:
3.) CA's decision deters investment.
4.) While my personal assessment of making money in the gig economy is rather negative, I have recognized through my daughter's friends that it is about much more than making money. If taken seriously, it is running a small business. This is perhaps the most valuable thing that Uber and Lyft offer drivers. It's an education in business. There are fundamental lessons that can be learned and latter applied to other business startups. This is another play on stifling entrepreneurship, but in a different manner. It takes away very valuable learning experiences. Fewer people will have the experience of failure, or maybe success, that aids in starting a new business. Failure in my estimation is probably more important that success. Bottom line, this means fewer small businesses in CA because one of the avenues to gaining experience to start a business is now gone. This also means fewer businesses in the future that would hire employees. Read that as unemployment.
5.) Another problem with CA's decision is that it at it's core anti-competitive, which in turn is anti-capitalistic. In economic terms, pure competition relies on a.) many competitors b.) delivering a homogeneous product or service, with c.) perfect information (knowledge of supply/demand, prices, etc.) There is more to this, but I will spare you the econ lesson. What is important to know is that Uber and Lyft increased competition and that is a good thing. For years government sold concessions, licenses, etc. to taxi drivers/companies. Taxi companies had a monopoly or in some cases an oligopoly. CA's decision takes it right back to that. So besides being bad Econ 101, what impact does that have? After all, maybe some of those Uber drivers could drive taxi. The problem is government created monopolies that in turn delivered an inferior product at a controlled price - controlled by some government regulatory body. Bottom line, that is bad for consumers - they get an over-priced, piss poor product. Increased competition leads to better products and services, at better prices to meet the needs of more consumers. In this case, citizens of CA. They should be hopping mad, but I doubt they will be given their record of voting for the Rat bastards.
I feel it's important to point out the bright side of CA's decision. If you're a lazy ass government employee in CA you're still sitting pretty on the side that gets to pick winners and losers. (That is dripping with sarcasm for the slow folks, since so many don't have a sense of humor.)
I’m sure there’s a huge exception for H1B contractors.
California’s stupid law is a disgrace, but there’s really nothing “entrepreneurial” about an Uber driver. Uber is nothing more than an app for gypsy cabs, when you think about it. A real entrepreneur would build on this model or come up with an entirely new idea.
I measure angles in radians.
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.