|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 23, 2009 9:02:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 23, 2009 9:35:27 GMT -6
Does it come easy for you to decry the work of others that will do more actual "work" and perform more good for society in general in one year... than you will do in your entire career? Just trying to find out the mind of a "conservative". On the Illini OT board, a mainstream conservative/frequent poster suggested people that were $130k+ underwater on their mortgages - first sell the house at the current value, rent an apartment, then take out a 30 yr mortgage for their house value delta. ------because that would mean "honoring their word". mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=169&f=2621&t=3957417&p=3I'm just trying to figure out what angle you guys are coming from. I know 7 members of the military (fwiw, 5 are conservative) that are eager to finish up the final years of their 20... then get the hell out. How does their (or that of the NYPD/FDNY) fulfilling their end of a needed and dangerous obligation not require reciprocity. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying things are OK and shouldn't be looked at. I'm saying that selectively laying things at the feet of the Union --- or the employee is quite disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Feb 23, 2009 9:43:34 GMT -6
This is indeed a tough one. I have to agree that if there is anybody that deserves full pension benefits I would take the NYPD and the FDNY over the UAW everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I don't see how anyone can blame the cops or firefighters they aren't doing anything against the rules but obviously some pensions is better then no pension which is where they will all be at if things don't change. 20 years seems pretty short to get full benefits for life, but like Socal said I also couldn't imagine doing what those guys do on a daily basis for 20 years.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Feb 23, 2009 9:47:23 GMT -6
20 years seems pretty short to get full benefits for life, but like Socal said I also couldn't imagine doing what those guys do on a daily basis for 20 years. If they can even make it to 20 years.... Sometimes I think that they should get full benefits after 10 years, but only in the high-risk areas (south-central LA for instance). |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 23, 2009 10:10:45 GMT -6
20 years seems pretty short to get full benefits for life, but like Socal said I also couldn't imagine doing what those guys do on a daily basis for 20 years. If they can even make it to 20 years.... Sometimes I think that they should get full benefits after 10 years, but only in the high-risk areas (south-central LA for instance). I'm not sure you could ever quantify high-risk actions. Take my uncle that retired from the Coralville police force (he's 62 now). He's been stabbed 3 times, had a few bones broken, been spit at & bled on by insane people & drug users... not a lot of fun. (edit: this doesn't even count the accidents, deaths, and other "general" police work) During an injury in the late 80's, they had to fuse three vertebrae. Unfortunately this caused a degradation/almost complete disintegration of the middle one. X years and many surgeries later, he is on a supply of heavy duty narcotics that would be the envy of any heavy duty user. But all those drugs end up doing, is smoothing things so he doesn't pass out from the pain anymore. Instead it's a shooting pain where his knees almost/do buckle. Yet he considers himself fortunate. As anywhere between 25% to 40% of the homeless are vets like himself, and don't have access to medical care. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Feb 23, 2009 10:14:49 GMT -6
Ok, make that 10 years regardless of assignment.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 23, 2009 10:20:47 GMT -6
Does it come easy for you to decry the work of others that will do more actual "work" and perform more good for society in general in one year... than you will do in your entire career? Just trying to find out the mind of a "conservative". On the Illini OT board, a mainstream conservative/frequent poster suggested people that were $130k+ underwater on their mortgages - first sell the house at the current value, rent an apartment, then take out a 30 yr mortgage for their house value delta. ------because that would mean "honoring their word". mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=169&f=2621&t=3957417&p=3I'm just trying to figure out what angle you guys are coming from. I know 7 members of the military (fwiw, 5 are conservative) that are eager to finish up the final years of their 20... then get the hell out. How does their (or that of the NYPD/FDNY) fulfilling their end of a needed and dangerous obligation not require reciprocity. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying things are OK and shouldn't be looked at. I'm saying that selectively laying things at the feet of the Union --- or the employee is quite disingenuous. Do you include sleeping in the fire station and donut runs as "work?" I'd say that my job, which has a "life expectancy" rate of approximately 2 years is about 1000 times harder than being a beat cop on the Upper East Side. I am not "selectively laying things at the feet of the Union." I am uniformly laying it at the feet of the union, our elected officials and management of companies 2 decades ago. During a negotiation, the union obviously seeks the best deal it can get. The City, County, State, business, etc. counters with a deferred defined benefit expansion. This is the problem. In every case, you are pushing the problem from the date of the negotiation into a decade or two decades into the future. Only a very simple mind sees it as a liberal or conservative issue - it is an issue where our elected leaders are trying to usurp economic laws - it can't be done. The net present value of a lifetime annuity paying close to $100k per year for a 20 year veteran of the NYPD who is 42 years old is in the ballpark of $3 million. That's essentailly $150k a year added to his salary during the 20 years that he worked. It is categorically not sustainable and as someone who is under 40 years old, you should be scared shitless of the liabilities that the government has imposed on you and your fellow taxpayers. Once the government runs out of other people's money to spend, what happens then? |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 23, 2009 10:29:42 GMT -6
This is indeed a tough one. I have to agree that if there is anybody that deserves full pension benefits I would take the NYPD and the FDNY over the UAW everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I don't see how anyone can blame the cops or firefighters they aren't doing anything against the rules but obviously some pensions is better then no pension which is where they will all be at if things don't change. 20 years seems pretty short to get full benefits for life, but like Socal said I also couldn't imagine doing what those guys do on a daily basis for 20 years. To the extent we need to pay these people more money to do the jobs, we should do so. Agreeing to pay unionized employees large pensions simply kicks the can down the line and makes your compensation/political problem somebody elses problem (i.e. later taxpayers, politicians, stockholders, management). It's a gutless and cowardly thing to do and shouldn't surprise anyone when it leads to problems down the road. Nobody has a problem with paying cops or firefighters "hazard" pay (i.e., in order to attract the right kinds of people, we need to pay them more than they would make in a riskless profession). It's just the hidden pension benefits that are a problem. |
|
