| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2013/6/4-7/31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:54686 Activity:nil |
6/4 June 4th, never forget.
\_ I don't want to remember, but I'll always remember.
\_ clarify please?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_Massacre |
| 2013/3/22-5/18 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:54635 Activity:nil |
3/21 Suppose your parents move all of their asset to the child, can they
qualify for SSI (additional income)? Will the transfer of asset
trigger some sort of audit, questioning, and such? Has anyone
done this?
\_ You are headed for prison.
\_ i doubt it, i know people who live in million dollar
mansions (in their child's name of course) and getting
SSI and Universal Lifeline and such. just do it, the
government owes you.
\_ If you gift more than $11k, you have to file a statement with the
IRS. SSI is not based on your assets though, so the real answer is
no.
IRS. |
| 5/16 |
| 2013/1/15-2/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:54580 Activity:nil |
1/15 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/01/are_smart_people_ugly_the_explainer_s_2011_question_of_the_year_.html This explains why CSUAers are so smart. \_ I am guessing either you did not read the article or else you never met a CSUAer. |
| 2012/6/1-7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:54406 Activity:nil |
6/1 http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/05/what-matters-economic-mobility/2089/# |
| 2010/7/12-8/11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53882 Activity:low |
7/12 "Debt commission leaders paint gloomy picture"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_governors_debt_commission
"... everything needs to be considered . including curtailing popular
tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, ..."
Housing market is going to crash again?
\_ Doubt it, not with NSFW marketing tactics like this:
http://modelmayhm-6.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080824/00/48b0dd6ea15cc.jpg
\_ Probably not, but don't expect it to go up for a long
time. Medicare benefits are going to have to be cut,
it will be amusing to see which party decides to
break the bad news to seniors.
\_ Everything is going to have to be cut. Let's start with the
DoD. I bet they can get by on half of what they spend now.
My sister-in-law is in the Air Force Reserve and works in a
civilian (federal) job at an Air Force Base and the waste is
appalling. One example is that when she goes on training for the
military she gets paid for that AS WELL AS drawing her
regular full-time salary. So she volunteers for reserve duty
all the time because it doubles her pay. That practice could
easily be ended and would save taxpayers a lot of money.
\_ From Business Insider:
"In the United States, the average federal worker now
earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private
sector."
Also, did you hear about the city manager of Bell who
just resigned over his $800K annual salary? He's going to
be drawing $650K/year retirement from CalPERS.
\_ Sure, the average federal worker also has more education
than the average worker and works in a higher skill job.
What is the apples to apples comparison on salaries?
\_"One thing we do know about public sector employees in
general, if you try to guess what they should be paid
... on average they are overpaid," said John Matsusaka,
a political economist and USC professor in law,
business and politics.
\_ If Federal workers have more education and better
skills then why are they working for the government?
It is because the government pays better and is
viewed as more secure. The talented people need to go to
work in private industry to add to the tax base and not
for the government where they are a drain. My anecodotal
dealings with federal and state employees have not been
good. Sure, my bank is bad but the teller is making
peanuts compared to a government clerk and truthfully
doing a better job than the clerks in the windows of
most government offices. My sister-in-law (mentioned
above) is a good worker with a graduate degree and
some of her coworkers don't like her because she
makes them look bad. Certain items that were supposed
to be done same-day were queued up for four days when
she first started She worked off the queue and got one
of those "You're working too hard and raising
expectations" speeches from her coworker. Does that
surprise anyone who has had to deal with the IRS,
State Department (passports), Social Security etc.?
BTW, she is working for the Feds because it was the
best salary she was offered anywhere *BY FAR*, allowed
her to be paid double for her military duty (and
not get in trouble for going off all of the time
which many employers do not like), and had the best
benefit package, too. She just got a big fat raise,
too, (> 10%) for getting the department all caught up
(i.e., doing the job they should have been doing
all along). I am happy for her, but as a taxpayer I am
appalled.
\_ People at the NSA, CIA, FBI and Joint Chiefs are
highly educated, skilled, and gov employees.
\_ And yet they still lag behind their peers in
private industry. I know this because my
girlfriend's dad was in the DIA for many years and
her mom worked for NIH. Both of them are educated,
but like a lot of people in government it was more
about a paper education than a real one. The
government views a BA from Florida State with a
Master's from James Madison's night school in
Public Policy about the same as a BS from
Stanford and a Master's from MIT in Economics.
Example: the current CIO of the FDA has
a Master's Degree in Public Administration
from LSU and did undergrad at South Carolina.
This is pretty typical. Not that there aren't
people in government with degrees from
Harvard, but the typical upper level government
employee went to some directional state school
somewhere and then grad school at a place like
Santa Clara or Alcorn State or whatever. Joint
Chiefs consists of 6 people, so I don't think they
skew the mean upward. BTW, if you read the bios of
the Joint Chiefs you will find them surprisingly
undereducated in a conventional manner. (I am
sure they have extensive military training.) My
girlfriend's stepdad was career military with a
PhD in history from Yale. That was the exception
rather than the rule. He served as an advisor to
the Joint Chiefs and had connections to a lot of
the inner circle in DC. He said it is as much who
you know as what you know, which is why it is
called politics - and politics drives choices
for high level government jobs (many of which
are appointments) and also jobs for government
contractors to some extent (often worried more
about head count than actually fulfilling the
terms of the contract). I collaborate with a lot
of government employees and the military, too,
and let's just say I am not impressed by most of
them compared to our private industry and
academic partners.
\_ you know anecdotes may be interesting but
you cant really aggregate them into some
theory/general pattern. i'm sure i can
match you anecdote for anecdote ... i know
princeton english majors who worked at
investment banks and didnt know how to do
anything except dress well and schmooze.
maybe thy could calculate a simple NPV but
for anything complicated they would keep
calling my friend when he was home with the
flu [friend = berkeley EE/Business undergrad].
talking about "the govt" and "the private
sector" is ridiculous. walmart, google, the
federal reserve, the port of oakland, NIH,
dmv, el burrito restaurant, nsa ... covers
a lot of different ground. it might be worth
asking a question like "does the nsa get
second rate number theory/algebra people
compared to mit/princeton/berkeley" or
us army corps of engineers" vs "bechtel"
in civil engineering chops.
\_ Better to ask:
Why are government agencies from the TSA to
the DMV to the IRS to the SEC to UC so
incompetent and difficult to do business
with? Private business is not always
competent and pleasant to deal with, but
it's clear who gets more work done --
and cheaper. Government is full of
clerks earning $50K/year to shuffle
paper who answer to nobody.
\_ I never have any problem dealing with
government agencies, perhaps you are
just a difficult person.
\_ Government jobs are more likely to be in an
office and require computer skills that the
office and require computer skills than the
average job. Are you really this clueless?
\_ My wife just switched jobs from HUD to Citi and
almost doubled her salary. -one anecdote
\_ Did she work just as hard then as she does now?
\_ Yes, she is like that. She was a rock star
at HUD and just average at Citi though. She
left because it takes five years to get a
promotion at HUD and the pay is less.
\_ Cutting the home mortgage deduction might lead to an armed
revolution. You have a better chance of me accepting an income tax
increase than destroying the value of my home. Like Prop 13,
the mortgage deduction is sacred.
\_ Frankly, the mortage deducation is stupid, it's basically just
an indirect bank subsidy. But, yeah, I admit it would
be hard to eliminate now. What about a slow ratcheting down
over 40 years? Just rachet down the amount you can deduct a
little each year. That way the current owners can pay off their
mortgage before it affects them, and the new buyers just have to
work it into their math before buying. -R homeowner
\_ But opponents of the politicians suggesting it could scream
about ending the deduction without mentioning the fine points.
It's the impact on politics, not actual homeowners, that makes
things like the mortgage deduction and Social Security ("the
political third rail") difficult to withdraw.
\_ People don't really take up their guns for things like home
interest deductions. But they would go to the ballot box and
throw all the bums out. |
| 2010/3/29-4/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53764 Activity:low |
3/29 I'm curious what you think of the health care reform bill. I voted
for Obama and I really hate it. It doesn't really address the
problem, which is health care _costs_. This bill seems like a
shell game.
\_ I agree it doesn't address the root cause, but it's a start. The
good news is that we have our third major entitlement (SS, Medicare,
ObamaCare) signed into law, and that's not going away anytime soon.
Of course, this is exactly what most Republicans feared.
\_ How is Obamacare any different from Medicare? We already had that
entitlement. The government isn't going to pick up the
tab for those currently uninsured or those who can barely
afford insurance. I find the bill completely unnecessary and
toothless.
\_ Any real solution would have been blocked by the "Blue Dog"
democrats, and there are two real solutions: 1) properly regulate
the insurance industry, which is pretty much impossible since
the insurance industry regulates Congress or 2) extend Medicare
to all, which would kill off most of the health insurance industry.
The hope is that we can slowly creep towards solotion #2.
\_ What about (further) regulating pharmaceutical companies and
tort reform? Big pharma and expensive malpractice insurance
are killing us.
\_ Tort reform would at best be a drop in the bucket.
\_ Are you kidding? Do you know what, say, a ob/gyn pays
in malpractice insurance? And he passes that cost on
to you and your HMO.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/mnt7zo
"That puts litigation costs and malpractice
insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.
That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the
tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of
the tail."
\_ I don't believe this guy and even he admits that
defensive medicine costs could drive the cost
up to 5-10% of costs. 5% of a trillion dollars
(or whatever we spend) is a _lot_ of money to
piss away!
\_ I trust him way more than I believe you. In any
case, shaving off a few percentage points of
the total cost would be nice, but it is the
growth rate that is going to kill us and legal
costs as a percentage of overall medical costs
are not increasing.
\_ So, as a percentage of medical costs, what
is increasing the most and what is increasing
the fastest?
\_ "We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to
further reduce costs." --POTUS
\_ So what exactly are the merits of this bill? I don't see a
point. All it does is shift more of the outrageous costs of
health care onto young working people who probably can't afford
big increases at this time.
\_ Actually this bill calls for pretty big cuts in the growth
of Medicare, so it is going to shift some of what is currently
being spent on oldsters on younger uninsured. No political
act can do anything about our changing demographics though.
\_ We can let people pay for their own (and their
parents' own) health care and demographics be damned.
Demographics are only an issue b/c of these politics.
\_ Yes, we could just let all the oldsters eat catfood
and die due to lack of basic medical care. But we
decided a long time ago that we didn't want to be
a society like that. Especially now that we have taken
a bunch of people's tax dollars and put it in the
Trust Fund, we have a committment to follow through
Trust Fund, we have a commitment to follow through
on providing Social Security funding, which we can
definitely do. We don't not have a comittment to
definitely do. We don't not have a commitment to
definitely do. We do not have a commitment to
provide open ended heroic medical care to people in
their last years of life though. We also cannot
afford it either. This is going to be a tough political
battle to fight though, since there are so many Baby
Boomers and they think they are entitled to it all.
\_ I can let my parents eat catfood and die due
to lack of basic care and you can choose to do
otherwise. I agree, though, that the Boomers
have certain expectations that we cannot meet.
My mom-in-law has had three mostly-unnecessary
surgeries (there were other treatments available
and she never sought any other medical opinions)
at taxpayer expense and it infuriates me given
that her generation is the one that had a lot
of opportunity. Her retirement income is, after
tax, not much less than my after tax income.
I realize not everyone that age is so fortunate
to have such a great retirement, but give me a
break. She wastes money on all kinds of shit,
including at the casino. I should not pay for
her surgeries while she gets excited about how
it only cost her a $30 co-pay.
it only cost her a $30 co-pay. BTW, a common
statement by Boomers is "I paid into the system
my whole life and I _deserve_ to take out of
it." Yeah, well, I paid in my whole life and I
will probably be able to take less out because
of greedy Boomers who are taking out more than
they put in. |
| 2010/3/2-12 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53735 Activity:nil |
3/1 My sister works for the county and pays into CalPERS instead of
Social Security. This year she got a second (private sector) job
which paid more than her government job and paid into Social
Security. Does she have to contribute to both retirement plans?
That seems like a waste. I STFW and cannot find the answer.
\_ You don't pay into CalPERS if you don't have a public sector job.
In fact, I don't think you *can*. Most likely, she can either roll
her CalPERS over to an IRA or leave it as is. In 2007, I considered
rolling over my old CalPERS investments to an IRA, but decided the
guaranteed 6% was a good thing (additional diversification). I'm
not sure how my 401k/IRA's have done since 2007, but last year I
was glad that I had some of my retirement in a relatively stable
investment.
\_ Maybe I am not making myself clear. She has a public sector job
(works for the county). Through that job she contributes to
CalPERS and does not pay Social Security. Last year she got
a second job in the private sector. (She's a nurse.) She
made more at that job than at her 'regular' job and she paid
a lot of money into Social Security. She wants to know if
she can get that Social Security money back, since she
doesn't need SS as she has CalPERS. It's not an insignificant
amount of money: about $7K.
\_ No, she can't.
\_ Sheesh. One is a Ponzi scheme and one is a Wall Street confidence
game. They are totally different. Try Wikipedia before bothering us. |
| 2009/12/29-2010/1/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53608 Activity:nil |
12/26 http://www.dailynews.com/ci_14086516 I'm all for keeping compliance as it is the law, but why are some people against background check? Why would it be racist, esp. if you do the check to every single employee? |
| 2009/11/10-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53516 Activity:low |
11/9 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-unemployed-cities-2009-11#15-san-francisco-california-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-unemployed-cities-2009-11#7-san-jose-california-14 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-unemployed-cities-2009-11#5-los-angeles-california-16 Most unemployed cities in America \_ The actual city of San Francisco has quite a bit lower unemployment rate, he must be using the metropolitan area (and the one that includes Oakland, not the one that includes San Mateo) \_ How about San Jose, is that including Gilroy? \_ are you a moron? San Jose - Sunnyvale - Santa Clara |
| 2009/10/28-11/3 [Finance, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53477 Activity:low |
10/27 SAT score and family income:
http://www.businessinsider.com/sat-scores-and-family-income-2009-10
\_ Is there any 3D charts showing three variables (income, race, SAT
score)? I wonder whether race or income is a bigger factor. Of
course race and income are not completely independent, but I'm
wondering about different income and same race vs. same income and
different face.
\_ I'm sure race is a big factor. However, no one is stupid to
publish it and be called a racist, like that guy in Bell Curve.
It would be the Satanic Verses equivalent to your career
these days.
\_ I think race is a complete non-factor. You don't really
believe some races are smarter than others do you? |
| 2009/9/14-21 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53361 Activity:nil |
9/14 Does anyone have the controversial book Bell Curve? I know
it has the political incorrect [and perhaps flawed] data that
shows certain race have higher IQ than other race and I'm
wondering how smart Russians are relative to white Americans
and East Orientals. I can't seem to Google for this information.
The only thing I got is the following:
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml#part3
\_ from the URL(book): "East Asians typically earn higher
IQ scores than white Americans, especially in the verbal
intelligence areas."
I beg to differ. Almost all of my East Asian TAs I had at
Cal had very very low communication skills."
\_ "White Americans" are not a race. Most are a mixture of all sorts
of ethnicities. For instance, many more people have Jewish
blood in them that you would think. The populace is pretty far from
its English origins.
\_ Bell Curve said that intellegence is in this order:
1) Jews
2) Orientals
3) White Europeans
4) Mongrel races (Mexicans, Arabs, etc)
5) Mud people (Negroids, Australoids)
Not sure where Russians fit in here, probably 3, but maybe 4.
\_ How about the Persians since they're not Arabs?
\_ Based on what I read on publications with a bunch of east European
and Russian-sounding last names, Russians and Jews tie.
\_ When did Adolf get a Soda account?
\_ Here is my personal un-proven belief:
- Intelligence is correlated with individual's genetics.
- Ingelligence is not correlated with race's genetics.
- In general, culture is correlated with race. Within the US, this
is still true among first-generation immigrants, but to a lesser
extent among later generations.
- How hard-working you are is correlated with culture.
- Income is correlated with intelligence.
- Net worth is NOT correlated with intelligence.
- One's "achievement" or social status is correlated (among other
things) more with net worth than with income.
- Chance of immigration to the US is correlated with achievements.
Of course, all the above only apply to averages over large
populations. Indiviaual cases vary. |
| 2009/7/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53184 Activity:nil |
7/22 Freepers plotting overthrow of the US government
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts
\_ so they make Hillary president?! Makes no sense |
| 2009/5/23-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53038 Activity:low |
5/23 Public opinion is basically pathological
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/everything-is-unpopular.php
\_ Yeah, voters are stupid.
\_ I'm disheartened that the most popular program to cut is the
space program. I think most people assume it gets a lot more
money than it does. As this article says, its budget is tiny
relative to the size of the federal government. I think if people
realized what DoD spent they would realize it has to be #1 on the
list. Either that, Social Security, or Medicare. Choose. My dad
(who gets Social Security) said that if he were a person under
40 he'd lobby hard to reduce it given that we pay in and may never
see that money again. I think most people would find defense
most palatable.
see that money againm but I think most people would find defense
see that money again but I think most people would find defense
cuts more palatable.
(Pie chart of government spending: link:tinyurl.com/oanezb
\_ They want stuff and don't want to pay for it. Nothing new to
see here. This is, however, why welfare programs are broken. |
| 2009/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:52769 Activity:kinda low |
3/30 The fascist bargain goes something like this. The state says to the
industrialist, "You may stay in business and own your factories. In the
spirit of cooperation and unity, we will even guarantee you profits and
a lack of serious competition. In exchange, we expect you to agree
with--and help implement--our political agenda." The moral and economic
content of the agenda depends on the nature of the regime. The left
looked at German business's support for the Nazi war machine and leaped
to the conclusion that business always supports war. They did the same
with American business after World War I, arguing that because arms
manufacturers benefited from the war, the armaments industry was
therefore responsible for it.
It's fine to say that incestuous relationships between corporations and
governments are fascistic. The problem comes when you claim that such
arrangements are inherently right-wing. If the collusion of big
business and government is right-wing, then FDR was a rightwinger. If
corporatism and propagandistic militarism are fascist, then Woodrow
Wilson was a fascist and so were the New Dealers. If you understand the
right-wing or conservative position to be that of those who argue for
free markets, competition, property rights, and the other political
values inscribed in the original intent of the American founding
fathers, then big business in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and New Deal
America was not right-wing; it was left-wing, and it was fascistic.
What's more, it still is.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
You aren't Humpty Dumpty you know.
\_ You really can't see the difference between companies asking for
handouts and governments forcing companies (at gunpoint) to hand
over control?
\_ So all those conservatives who argue for more jails, more government
intrusion into people's bedrooms, harsher drug laws, etc are all
actually liberal left-wingers?
\_ The words "liberal" and "conservative" have multiple meanings.
Media like to talk about it as if there are only two basic
political "sides", which ignores libertarian vs. authoritarian
and ignores the basic orthogonality of economic vs. social policy.
Left and Right are two sides of the same "powerful central
government" coin. I think the problem is that loose confederacies
can't compete militarily with powerful empires.
\_ dude, what is wrong with you? if GM doesn't like it, it can always
leave and let the market take its course. It would be my personal
preference anyway.
\_ Honest question here: Is this move better for GM or just
punitive?
\- speculating from a generic perspective, i think these
cases of "we need to retain the insiders because they are
the only ones who can clean up" are bogus in the cases
such as AIG and probably in this case as well. i think
the familiarity is more than offset by people's inability to
recognize/admit their mistakes, they have incentive to cover
up mistakes etc. what would we have to give rick wagoner
beyond his $28m pension for this not to be punitive? paging
ken lewis ... April will be the cruelest month ... BofA
annual meeting in a month and CalPERS is is going after them. |
| 2008/11/22-12/1 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:52079 Activity:moderate |
11/22 Pension gap divides public and private workers:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm
At what point do we Just Say No? Making more money *after*
retiring seems like an issue. I say this as someone with family
who retired from the military who makes more now than when active.
Ridiculous.
\_ Come back when you stay at your crappy public sector job for 20+
\_ have you ever served?
\_ Public sector do not get stock options, generally do not get
bonuses, they do not get 401k matching, they do not have ESPP
options [there are obscure exceptions], they dont have crazy
expense accounts, they get most of their income on W-2, so their
tax loopholes are limited [compared to say 1099 people]. Sure
there are lame public sector employees and there is fraud and
corruption, but it's silly to focus as a class on military or
say CALPERS pensions. Take a look at something like the finance
industry which actively conspires with its elites by structuring
compensation [moving income to cap gains], paying for what is
clearly private income as corporate expense [car leases, club
memberships, subsidized loans], helping individual incorporate etc.
[yes, i know there are some exception to the above]. You might
looking at how LLNL is doing under public vs private management
(when Bechtel took over, people were basically kicked out of
CALPERS) ... $280M in cost overrruns and the lab continues to
deteriorate. Note also: the quality of "public employee/govt
worker" is quie different at a UCB, the National Labs, or the SEC
vs say the Port of Oakland.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Schedule
Can you honestly say that these employees are overpaid? I am
a mid-level manager in a Fortune 500 company and I make more
than the Undersecretary of the Navy. This is nuts. Low level
employees, like bus drivers and mechanics, are probably overpaid
in the civil service sector though. We need stronger unions in
the private sector, obviously.
\_ I think people are missing the point here, which is that we
are paying certain people more to *not* work than to work.
That makes absolutely no sense. So for 20 years of good work
\- are you against paid sick leave? how about
employer subsidized health care? how about
employeer subsidized health care? how about
dependent coverage ... i mean that's paying for
people who dont even work for you. the person
missing the point is you, and the point is
"net present value" (of benefits) in this case
[although really there are a few other points ...
risk and return, at will employment vs public sector
terms, and to some extent "the sanctity of contract".
\_ "net present value" is too effing high. Only in your
socialist utopia does someone make more money at
retirement than when working.
\- do you understand the difference between when
money is "made" and when it is "paid"?
the issue is *length of service* i.e. the
amount of time over which you are earning the
money, not the age/time you are collecting it.
there is nothing magically different between
your pension being 99% of your income and 101%.
there is a big difference between whether you
earned it after 20 yrs or 40 yrs or whether
you are gettign paid at age 55 or 65.
these people get 20-30-40 years of paychecks at, or for more
than, the wage they retired at?! That's a sure way to
bankruptcy. I am in private sector and I make more, but at
age 65 I will get jack shit and that's the way most of
industry is. Why should Uncle Sam do any different?
\_ Because those people took lower-paying jobs partly because
of the retirement benefits and job security. A simple
choice of how to run your business, if you're one of the
people who thinks government should run like a business
(it shouldn't). -tom
\_ The jobs are not really that much lower-paying. You
might have a point if they were all working for 50% of
market rates, but the reality is that government
workers are paid pretty well. We've already been over
that.
\_ we've "been over that", you mean, back when you
made ridiculous assertions that were flatly contradicted
by the data you were presenting? -tom
\_ You mean when I showed you that tree trimmers for
LA County were making $70K or something like
that? That workers in SF were routinely making
over $100K? That crazy sysadmin pulled down
something like $120K? The DWP workers pull down
big bucks? Please rely on the actual data
and not your faulty memory and perceptions.
Here's a good start: the link I just posted,
which no one bothered to read.
\_ Data points with no context are meaningless.
The link you just posted is a USA Today story
with an editorial slant and similarly
context-free numbers. -tom
\_ How about the UC article some other kind person
dug up? You are always rationalizing. Get your
head out of the sand and WAKE UP!
\_ The UC article doesn't say anything about
compensation relative to the private
industry. And I agree that people shouldn't
be able to retire and come back to work
full time at the same salary; in fact,
it's against UC policy to do so, and
the article says they're going to
crack down on the very small number of
cases where it has happened. -tom
\_ Those ES level government workers I gave you the wiki
link to are making 50% or less what they would make
for similary responsible jobs in the private sector.
\_ 20 years is an extreme exaggeration, except for the military
you don't retire after 20 years and even there you only make
50% of your active duty salary. You don't make your case
stronger by exaggeration, you just make yourself look
misinformed.
\_ Actual data: If I were to retire from UC at age 50,
with 24 years of service (I started working here at
age 26), I would get less than 30% of my final
salary. -tom
\_ Actual data: read the article
\_ Your confirmation bias is showing. -tom
\_ I'm the one who is biased? Check out how
your UC colleagues are doing.
\_ Did you read the article I posted?
\_ Yes, and it said nothing about retiring at 20 years.
You just made that part up.
\_ How long do you think a police chief worked
who retired at age 46? Certainly not 30 years.
WTF should someone 46 years old be retired and
making $125K/year for the rest of his life to
sit on his ass at taxpayer expense? He might
make more money not working than he did when
he worked over the course of his life. We
can't afford those excesses for civil servants. He
can collect when he's 65 like everyone else.
Getting full salary at that time would be more than
generous. I'd support him getting HALF his salary
at age 65. To get a raise when retiring at age 46
is beyond the pale. He should still be contributing
to society in some way at that young age and
not sitting on his ass cashing checks from the
public.
\_ Once again, you're using one anecdote from
an article with an editorial slant and
with no context, and suggesting that the
issue is meaningful and widespread. It's
not. Aren't you suspicious when the article
says it will "boost his retirement benefit to
*as much as* $125,000 a year"? Why the
qualifier? [Here's why--they're not telling
you the whole story.] You'll believe what
you want to believe, go ahead, but you really
are demonstrating complete cluelessness here.
-tom
\_ http://fireflystudio.com/acton/circle/index.html
"Bill Fenniman retired in January 2007 after 27
years in law enforcement, the last 17 as Chief
of Police in the City of Dover NH." 35% more
than your claim of 20 years, it turns out.
And it turns out that he is contributing.
I hope to retire at 50 on my 401k and savings,
who are you to tell me I can't? I will probably
contribute to society in some way afterward,
but that is my business, isn't it?
\_ 401k and savings is your money. Do as you
wish with it. Not the same as getting
free checks for life starting at age 46.
\_ A worker's pension belongs to that
worker just as much as his 401k does.
-tom
\_ Of course. And how many employers
are contributing enough money to
their 401k plans such that you are
guaranteed to maintain your full-time
salary after you retire? Not many.
The government is paying A LOT more
than market for this. I've been
in the workforce 13 years and
there's barely 1 year worth of
my current salary in my 401k and that
counts my money plus my employer's
very generous 8.5% contribution.
(Most 401ks match a lot less than
this.) I read that the average
employee has about $100K in his 401k.
This dude is getting that each year
guaranteed forever starting at age 46.
As a taxpayer, I feel ripped off.
BTW, EBRI says that the average 401k
balance of someone in their 60s with
30 years of tenure is $190,593.
link:tinyurl.com/2a8a35
\_ If you don't understand why you
can't compare 401k balances
directly with pensions, it's not
worth wasting any more time on
you. -tom
\_ You can't compare directly,
but you can compare.
\_ So you took the gamble of a private
sector job with higher pay and
lower benefits, it hasn't worked out
that well for you, and now you are
upset that others who took the
safer route are doing better? What
a piece of work you are! What is
the value of 15k + 7k employer
is the value of 15k + 7k employer
match invested yearly for 27 years
at a 10% (average stock market)
gain? Here, I will make it really
easy for your: $2.8M. I bet you want
to privatize social security, too.
Am I right?
\_ Most people "take the gamble"
of a private sector job
with roughly THE SAME pay
as the government and end
up worse for it. Another
way of stating this is that
the average person in the
private sector is receiving
less compensation than the
average person in the
public sector. You cannot
count the $15K, because that's
my own money and you should
be aware that $7K is hardly
the average. So your $2.8M
number is bogus. Yes, I do
want to privatize SS, but
that's neither here nor there.
\_ you keep asserting that
public sector employees
are compensated more, but
asserting it over and over
doesn't make it true. -tom
\_ You are full of it. I showed
you the BLS stats that proved
that private and public
sector pay, including benefits
was similar, but you ignored
it.
\_ Stop stomping my edits. As I
was saying, I showed you the BLS
data that public and private
sector workers are paid similary
including benefits and you
ignored it.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/5klnuo
CA says it pays lower
than other public
sector employees and
yet even its salaries
are comparable (and
sometimes even lead) the
private sector.
Salaries, not total
compensation.
\_ ...when you compare the
state maximum to the
private sector median.
\_ Did you read why
the State did that?
\_ yes. the
justification is
ridiculous. -tom
\_ That is not how I read
Table 4. All above average
private sector paying jobs\
pay lower than market rate
when working for The
State (and most below
average paying jobs are
higher, why might that be
do you think?) Managerial
jobs are particularly low
paying.
\_ Sure, and how many
Americans are CFOs
and MDs?
\_ And programmers and
accountants, and
engineers and
nurses and ...
\_ Why don't they just work
for the government then,
if they pay is the same
and the benefits higher?
\_ Most people, like MOTD,
are laboring under the
impression that those
jobs pay less.
\_ you think that
"most people" are
incapable of
reading job
postings which list
job descriptions and
salary ranges? -tom
\_ Contract law only applies to private
sector employees? |
| 2008/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51539 Activity:nil |
10/15 What. The. Hell.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93R8IE00&show_article=1 |
| 2008/10/2-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51349 Activity:moderate |
10/2 What is it like to date a Republican?
\_ Dated a TAIWANESE Republican. Great sex, but some side effects.
Always thinks she's right. Very stubborn. She's never wrong, and
you're always wrong. Materialistic. Always talks about money.
Complains about job all the time. Wants more money. Plays stocks
a lot. Talks about stocks all the time. Great sex. Always talks
about herself. High maintenance. Talks too much. Talks about
stocks and $$$. Complains about work. More righteous than
anyone else. Wants more tax cuts. Does not care about anyone
else except herself. Fuck mass transit and homeless and
social programs, the government should spend more money on
ME ME ME. Wants more tax cuts. Does not care about war as long
as it doesn't affect her tax rates. Votes Republican all the
time because it's GOOD FOR TAIWAN, so nothing else matters!
And low tax, oh my! Republicans are GOOD. Who cares about faggots
and minorities, lower tax is good for me! Me me me. $$$. See,
she's totally self absorbed & selfish & annoying. My advice is
that to be happy with someone like this, you too should be a
Republican and use her until she's no longer of value to you.
\_ Great sex. Annoying arguments. Overruse of cloying personal care
products by your SO.
\_ Annoying sex. Great arguments. Crappy food.
\_ Why crappy food? I thought southerners ate better and
took better care of themselves. SOUTHERN BELLES, MAN.
\_ Have you ever been to the south?
\_ I've never been to the south. In fact, like many
people here, I've never left Northern California.
people here, I've never been outside of N Cal.
The only real reference I have is Sweet Alabama.
Please tell me about the South. -pp
\_ Well the Republican I dated wasn't from the South,
but classic Southern food isn't exactly known for
being healthy.
\_ There's usually an inverse correlation between
something that tastes good and something that
is healthy.
\_ Spoken like someone who knows nothing
about food.
\_ The key word is: usually.
\_ You beat me to it.
\_ I have. Women there (men, too) from the upper classes
\_ I heard Southern pussies are bigger. Whether that's
environmental or genetic is still debatable.
http://csua.com/?entry=34794
\_ Southern men are just more well-endowed.
are more put together. They dress up more often and
wear makeup everywhere they go. This is in stark
contrast to people in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic who
are boring and plain-looking. I am not sure where
to classify Texans, but there are lots of hotties in
Texas, Florida, and Georgia.
\_ And generally chubby, you forgot that part. MOTD
boob guy would like it there.
\_ And you forgot that dim like them chunky. Dim
\_ I was visting family, sorry.
\_ And you forgot that dim like 'em chunky. Dim
likes 'em Texan size. Dim like JACKIE JOHNSON.
Dim like LA and suburban homes. Bigger IS better. |
| 2008/9/22-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51255 Activity:nil |
9/22 If you would like to call your senator or representative about the
$700B bailout (the one where Congress would give Hank Paulson sole
discretion on what to spend it on), but are not sure what to say:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=62163
(I left messages over the weekend with Mike Honda, Boxer, and
Feinstein. I also said that bank transparency needs to happen
SIMULTANEOUSLY with any money disbursement. How in the hell do you
have any negotiating power when you give the money first and negotiate
later on reform measures?)
\_ Look how well it worked in Iraq!
\_ also see: -op
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080922006376/en |
| 2008/9/21-23 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51253 Activity:nil |
9/21 Obama's Social Security Whopper
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160179
\_ if you say so |
| 2008/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51252 Activity:nil |
9/21 700 fucking billion? Really? With no fucking oversight at all?
What the fucking hell? And people think the Democrats are tax and
spend?
\- Wall Street Welfare Kings in Pink Cadillacs having out of wedlock
children with their mistresses in Mayfair! |
| 2008/9/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51235 Activity:nil |
9/18 it would have been pretty awesome if Grover Norquist and his demonic
minions had managed to privatize Social Security and had let everyone
invest their SSI funds in the open market.
\_ Why is that? |
| 2008/9/16-19 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51192 Activity:nil |
9/16 <DEAD>retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubnews/SocialSecurityAndWorking.jsf?SelectedSegment=LivinginRetirement<DEAD> Why Social Security fucks everyone up. Earn too much? Get nothing! \_ Your reading comprehension is poor. You don't get nothing, you just get reduced benefits. That Vanguard page doesn't mention that your later benefits are actually increased because of working later. \_ You are right, we should let Morgan Stanley run Social Security, they will do a good job of protecting our retirement money. |
| 2008/9/6-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51078 Activity:nil |
9/6 http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Courseyvalue.html \_ Screw polar bears. |
| 2008/8/23-29 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50947 Activity:nil |
8/23 Social Security is fine, will be for the forseeable future.
Thank God we didn't let Wall Street get its hand on it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/43p3pz
\_ Of course, this fails to mention that David Walker was Comptroller
General of the United States and head of the GAO. Or that he
resigned to get the message out.
\_ What form is this trust fund stored in, and what will be the
effecft of drawing it down? --jwm |
| 2008/7/25-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50688 Activity:nil |
7/25 Are these the kind of Conservatives that liberals should be paying
attention to? I think I am going to buy the book. -liberal
http://preview.tinyurl.com/64v8oy
\_ I dunno, it looks pretty wishy washy to me. |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50628 Activity:low |
7/18 Best caption evar!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545
\_ the "Enlarge" link is pretty good, too.
\_ Totally appropriate. However I'm a liberal and I'm suppose
to feel sorry for these guys and I'm suppose to want to
get our government to mandate exercise for those who are
obese. On the other hand, I don't feel sorry for them.
What is wrong with me? -liberal
\_ Being fat cows may largely be genetic, but spending
$350/mo they spend on food and electricity?
$350/mo on food and electricity?
\_ Huh? Where do you get $350?
\_ No, wanting the government to mandate exercise if fascist, not
liberal--unless the two terms are the same.
\_ Are you one of those Compassionate Conservatives I keep hearing
about?
\_ Food in general is obviously not out of reach enough |
| 2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:50587 Activity:nil |
7/15 My mom's fixed annuity is maturing and we're wondering what we
should be doing with it. She's 70 and we gotta put the money
where it is safe (no stock market, no 401k). What are some good
choices to make now, considering that the US economy is failing
and the banking industry is fubar?
\_ I would buy another fixed annuity with enough of it so that
annuity + SS = bare bones enough to live off of, put half the
rest into a CA Muni ladder (or bond fund, if you have less than
$1/4M to do this right) and buy an index fund with the rest.
She is still too young to get 100% out of the market. What is
wrong with an annuity?
\_ I thought if you have over $3000 then you're not eligible
for SS? Or is that something else?
\_ I think this is related to SSI (Supplemental Security
Income) for low income, not the Retirement SS. SSI allows
a higher paycheck from the government.
\_ No, even Warren Buffett gets SS. It is for everyone who
has contributed for at least five years. Maybe you are
thinking of the bankruptcy code. I think you are allowed
to keep a car worth $3000 in a bankruptcy.
\_ Ok so I tried to Google for Social Security but it seems
complex, is there a SS for Dummies web site? Thanks!
\_ http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561113_2/Social_Security.html
Courtesy of Bill Gates |
| 2008/6/25-7/14 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50373 Activity:nil |
6/25 Home owning Baby Boomers generally screwed
http://csua.org/u/lsr
\_ This describes my parents to a T. We are all screwed, actually,
but the Boomers are screwed more. |
| 2008/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50182 Activity:moderate |
6/6 Did you guys get a load of Obama's victory speech? This guy really
does think he's the messiah.
"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own
limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of
the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and
fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that
generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our
children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for
the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the
rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was
the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our
image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was
the time - when we came together to remake this great nation..."
Good thing he's facing it with profound humility, what the heck would
he be saying if he wasn't?
\_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Orange
\_ Unlike poster below, your value-add is zero.
\_ But identical to poster above.
\_ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html
Everyone says things like this when they win. Did you just start
following politics this year?
Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and
common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens.
Together, we will work to make all our public schools excellent,
teaching every student of every background and every accent, so
that no child is left behind.
Together we will save Social Security and renew its promise of a
secure retirement for generations to come.
Together we will strengthen Medicare and offer prescription drug
coverage to all of our seniors.
Together we will give Americans the broad, fair and fiscally
responsible tax relief they deserve.
Together we'll have a bipartisan foreign policy true to our
values and true to our friends, and we will have a military equal
to every challenge and superior to every adversary.
Together we will address some of society's deepest problems one
person at a time, by encouraging and empowering the good hearts and
good works of the American people.
This is the essence of compassionate conservatism and it will be a
foundation of my administration.
\_ And thus we see how the R's have become the D's of a few years
ago.
\_ ...what language is this, and what does it mean in English? |
| 2008/6/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50149 Activity:low |
6/4 In Venezuela, ratting on neighbor is the law
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flavenez0603sbjun03,0,4071658.story
\_ Hugo Chavez: proving at every turn that scumbaggery knows no
ideological boundaries.
\_ Yeah, he's totally breaking new ground as far as communist
strongmen go...
\_ Funny. Actually, he made several improvements to the country
and he continues to do so; he's also not breaking any ground
on the Civil Liberties front.
\_ Name those improvements. He's a thug like all other thugs.
I hope you don't tell us how he made the trains run on
time.
\_ He nationalized a corrupt oil industry and funneled
at least some of the money to improving conditions for
the poorest Venezuelans.
\_ Wow, so a corrupt politician cum dictator took
property away from corrupt businesses and tossed some
breadcrumbs to the peasants. Yay! He's my friend
now!
\_ I dunno how corrupt the foreign investment of
infrastructure part of the Venezuelan oil industry
was that he nationalized. It looks like he has
embarked on a poorly planned program of massive
socialism to placate the masses and buy their
votes to keep himself in power, without thinking
of the further economic consequences. and I'm a
bleeding heart American liberal.
\_ From Wikipedia:
"By the end of the first three years of his presidency,
Chavez had initiated a land transfer program and had
introduced several reforms aimed at improving the
social welfare of the population. These reforms
entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the
implementation of a free, government-funded health
care system; and free education up to the university
level. By December of 2001, inflation fell to 12.3%
the lowest since 1986,[38] while economic growth was
steady at four percent.[39] Chavez's administration
also reported an increase in primary school enrollment
by one million students.[39]"
And that's about it for the good. You're right: he is a
thug. That his thuggery happened to also involve some
social improvements doesn't change that. On the plus
side, he didn't suspend the constitution after the ppl
voted down his Chavez-for-life proposal. On the minus
side, hell, just about everything else. |
| 2008/5/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49999 Activity:nil |
5/19 What a dumb ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs
\- meritocracy in action! also:
\- meritocracy in acton! also:
http://tinyurl.com/6xt6cj
\_ What does Acton have to do with this? |
| 5/16 |