Ray T. is old
paul
7th 1939.
Don Freeman
> I didn't know Ray was 73. According to Google he was born on February
> 7th 1939.
Well, if he was born in 1939 he isn't. 73 that is. Old still applies,
though get back to me in 10 years and I will deny I ever said that.
--
-Don
bozo
showoff
David Kaye
>I didn't know Ray was 73. According to Google he was born on February
>7th 1939.
Lots of old folks are doing stuff. Jerry Brown is 71; Willie Brown is 75.
Bill Wattenburg is 73; Reverend Cecil Williams of Glide Church is 80. Larry
King is 76.
This makes Ray Taliaferro at 70 a kid.
gvk2
Keith Richards is gonna be 66 in December but he doesn't look a day
over 72
Heck, 70 is gonna be the new 65 when it comes to retirement.
10 and 15 years from now, and there are gonna be lots of 70-somethings
working because they need to due to the collapse in investments and
the inability of Social Security to keep paying as well as they do
today.
Of course, hard working SF city employees will still be able to retire
at 55 with plush pensions.
Or Oakland City employees where if you work from age 23 to age 60,
you can retire with 100% of your full highest years salary...for life.
or work from age 25 to just age 55 and you can retire with 81% of your
highest years salary. Of course typical mid level jobs pay about
$65,000 so you can easily retire from Oakland at age 55 with well over
$52,000 per year.
Oh, the city? sure 40 million deficit, but got to keep those pensions
plump and the city workers happy.
David Kaye
>Keith Richards is gonna be 66 in December but he doesn't look a day
>over 72
Gotta hand it to Keith. Remember a few years ago when he got a concussion or
something after falling out of a palm tree? How many people in their 60s can
climb palm trees? My hat (especially my fedora) is off to him.
>Heck, 70 is gonna be the new 65 when it comes to retirement.
One of my customers is 85 and writes books about being a longshoreman on the
docks of San Francisco in the 1930s, union organizing, etc. His books have
been used as textbooks in universities for years. The guy knows more about
computers than many people half his age. And he certainly knows the ins and
outs of publishing, a very tough field.
>10 and 15 years from now, and there are gonna be lots of 70-somethings
>working because they need to due to the collapse in investments and
>the inability of Social Security to keep paying as well as they do
>today.
I was at a forum the other day about aging. Turns out that the various life
extensions actually extend the "middle years" of life, contrary to Dr. Dean
Edell's fears that people would be spending more time in nursing homes.
>Of course, hard working SF city employees will still be able to retire
>at 55 with plush pensions.
You read about the people with the plush pensions. You don't read about the
people who quit, get fired, or haven't had a contract that provides for plush
pensions, which is most of the city workers. I know. I have friends who
won't be getting much when they retire.
The exceptions always make the news. Remember that.
Don Freeman
> gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, hard working SF city employees will still be able to retire
>> at 55 with plush pensions.
>
> You read about the people with the plush pensions. You don't read about the
> people who quit, get fired, or haven't had a contract that provides for plush
> pensions, which is most of the city workers. I know. I have friends who
> won't be getting much when they retire.
>
Nor to you hear about how these "pampered" city employees who took these
jobs, that payed less then their private sector counterparts, did so for
the promise of decent retirement benefits.
--
-Don
Travis James
>
> You read about the people with the plush pensions. You don't read about the
> people who quit, get fired, or haven't had a contract that provides for plush
> pensions, which is most of the city workers. I know. I have friends who
> won't be getting much when they retire.
>
> The exceptions always make the news. Remember that.
If there are enough exceptions that the city budget is being squeezed at
an unprecedented growth rate by pension liabilities (which are typically
underfunded), then it's noteworthy to call out the public pension system
as a whole.
I don't know about SF. Where I live, it's a fact and no one has the
stomach to say where it's coming from (mostly police and fire in aggregate).
Don Freeman
Public Safety units usually have a different contract then the rest of
the city workers. With a much more generous retirement benefit, but
then if you were putting your life on the line every day you might
deserve to expect a little extra when you retire.
--
-Don
Bob Hope
============
I don't feel old.
I don't feel anything until noon.
Then it's time for my nap.
============
-Bob "thanks for the mammaries" Hope-
David Kaye
>Public Safety units usually have a different contract then the rest of
>the city workers. With a much more generous retirement benefit, but
>then if you were putting your life on the line every day you might
>deserve to expect a little extra when you retire.
Indeed, there are a lot of jobs I would take (and have taken) including
hauling trash, cleaning toilets, and canning tomato catsup at Hunt's. As far
as I'm concerned those jobs are far more desirable than being a cop or
firefighter because I never had to worry about whether I'd make it home at the
end of my shift without major injury or being dead.
Don Freeman
spamtrap1888
> On Nov 24, 1:47 pm, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
> > paul <paulse...@att.net> wrote:
> > >I didn't know Ray was 73. According to Google he was born on February
> > >7th 1939.
>
> > Lots of old folks are doing stuff. Jerry Brown is 71; Willie Brown is 75.
> > Bill Wattenburg is 73; Reverend Cecil Williams of Glide Church is 80. Larry
> > King is 76.
>
> > This makes Ray Taliaferro at 70 a kid.
>
> Keith Richards is gonna be 66 in December but he doesn't look a day
> over 72
>
> Heck, 70 is gonna be the new 65 when it comes to retirement.
> 10 and 15 years from now, and there are gonna be lots of 70-somethings
> working because they need to due to the collapse in investments and
> the inability of Social Security to keep paying as well as they do
> today.
Sixty-six is the new 65. My war baby aunt had to wait an extra year to
collect her full Social Security check. The younger half of the
boomers will have to wait till they're 67.
spamtrap1888
Never drive a cab, then. Cab drivers are much more likely to be
homicide victims than cops.
Travis James
everyone backs off. Police and fire compensation (including pension and
health) are untouchable.
Here's a list (of many) for dangerous jobs. Cop: 10, sanitation worker: 9.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html
David Kaye
>Sixty-six is the new 65. My war baby aunt had to wait an extra year to
>collect her full Social Security check. The younger half of the
>boomers will have to wait till they're 67.
Social Security -- something them liberals thought up. I doubt any
rightwingers are giving their Social Security checks back to the government.
David Kaye
>And therein lies the rub, wave the "could be dead any day" flag and
>everyone backs off. Police and fire compensation (including pension and
>health) are untouchable.
Would you be a cop or a firefighter, assuming you could pass they physical?
spamtrap1888
I have to correct myself. According to the referenced BLS report, cops
were slightly more likely to be homicide victims last year than were
cab drivers ( 39 vs 37 deaths per 100K).
Note that cab drivers do not get any big pensions after 20 or 30
years. Nor do they automatically get to carry a gun.
gvk2
>
> You read about the people with the plush pensions. You don't read about the
> people who quit, get fired, or haven't had a contract that provides for plush
> pensions, which is most of the city workers. I know. I have friends who
> won't be getting much when they retire.
>
> The exceptions always make the news. Remember that.
No, you are wrong. Or at least you are wrong in the following way.
Example. We are often told that the average state worker on a PERS
retirement is only making about $2,000 per month or about $25,000 per
year.
Well, that is true, but they leave out a something that allows them to
distort the true picture.
That state worker, under the PERS plan, only worked 19.9 years to get
that pension.
A working life can be expected to be from age 22 to age 67 according
to how Social Security operates.
So if you work only 20 years of those 45 years, you can hardly expect
to receive a full normal pension.
In truth, the average person who in fact works the full 40 years will
end up with a pension of over $50,000 a year.
Compare that for those particular public employees to that of the
typical private sector employee.
Its not even close. Each city and agency is different.
For example, for years, San Francisco vested employees with lifetime
medical benefits in retirement if they worked just 5 years. That is
plain crazy.
Currently many public employees have been bumped up to 2.5 to 2.7
percent for each year worked. Oakland is 2.7% and they made that 35%
leap from 2.0% in 2002....PLUS......they insanely made it
retroactive, thinking all their investing would average well over
what it ever will. IN the end, the citizens will have to make up
the difference and public services will suffer greatly to keep
pensions in the highest category.
BTW, those above figures are NOT for public safety workers who get
even more...at 3.0% per year.
How come a Oakland city employee should be able to retire at age 55
or 60 with a 100% pension for life?
And don't give me that total myth that they should get a great pension
because they accepted so much less during their working life. That
concept is totally dated and has been proven wrong in study after
study. Now, they get equal and often greater pay during their working
life, PLUS the huge pensions and benefits.
Don't forget the benefits.
Example, the average benefit package in the Golden Gate Bridge
District is over 67% of salary.
A typical worker is getting over $21 per hour....NOT IN PAY, just in
benefits alone.
Don't get me started.....
gvk2
>
> Nor to you hear about how these "pampered" city employees who took these
> jobs, that payed less then their private sector counterparts, did so for
> the promise of decent retirement benefits.
>
> --
Sorry, that myth is so dated, yet still put forth by public employee
unions.
Several studies have found that currently the average job category
pays MORE, not LESS, in the public sector than in the private sector.
And that is only looking at salary. The benefit packages in the
public sector are totally way greater than in the private sector.
AS I told David in my example, the average Golden Gate Bridge Dist
employee receives 67% of his salary in benefits.
That amounts to over $21 per hour just for the benefits before we even
begin to count pay.
Same for most public agencies.
Very few are ever under 50% benefits. Most cities and counties in
this area run from 55% to 68% benefits as a percent of salary.
Benefits almost unheard of in the private sector except for the very
top star employees.
You really need to update your awareness of current public employee
salaries.
I suppose you are aware that over 9,000 SF City & County employees
made over $100,000 plus benefits last year.
More than 1 in 3 SF employees made over 100 grand plus benefits.
Same for Oakland.
Travis James
think of that profession, though in hindsight, blending stats education
with some form of criminology and on-the-job investigation could make
for an interesting career.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what the upper bounds of a city or
county budget should be allocated to police and fire, but there's your
answer nonetheless.
leansto...@democrat.com
Not to mention the benefits are not taxed.
The schmucks that pay their own health insurance do it with after tax
dollars.
Stratum101
> I didn't know Ray was 73. According to Google he was born on February
> 7th 1939.
They say the ability to do sums is the first thng to go.
BayAreaBroadcast
>
> I was at a forum the other day about aging. Turns out that the various life
> extensions actually extend the "middle years" of life, contrary to Dr. Dean
> Edell's fears that people would be spending more time in nursing homes.
>
Heard Dean Edell mention that he would not want to live to be 100.
Not sure what he meant. Maybe it was the nursing home scenario. But it
sounded like he wouldn't
want to live to be a 100 even with a good quality of life...
And what are these new life extentions that supposedly extend the
middle years?
David Kaye
>And what are these new life extentions that supposedly extend the
>middle years?
Sanitation. Healthy diet. No smoking. Treatment of diseases. A little
alcohol from time to time. A little aspirin from time to time. That sort of
thing. There are no magic bullets so far, according to the life extension
scientist.
Don Freeman
I'm not sure what your point is. Were we not talking about government
jobs and their pensions? The other jobs on your list are all from the
private sector.
--
-Don
Don Freeman
>
> And don't give me that total myth that they should get a great pension
> because they accepted so much less during their working life. That
> concept is totally dated and has been proven wrong in study after
> study. Now, they get equal and often greater pay during their working
> life, PLUS the huge pensions and benefits.
>
And one of those studies might be...
Granted I am only working from anecdotal evidence, but I went from the
public sector to the private with the same job description. My starting
salary in the private sector was 10% higher then then my last year of
service in the public sector. I now get 3-5% pay raises each year, with
annual bonuses (unheard of in my public sector job) of 5k - 8K. I went
from living from paycheck to paycheck to being able to afford a nice
place to live and being able to invest in my own retirement.
--
-Don
Don Freeman
> On Nov 24, 2:51 pm, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> You read about the people with the plush pensions. You don't read
>> about the people who quit, get fired, or haven't had a contract
>> that provides for plush pensions, which is most of the city
>> workers. I know. I have friends who won't be getting much when
>> they retire.
>>
>> The exceptions always make the news. Remember that.
>
>
> No, you are wrong. Or at least you are wrong in the following way.
>
> Example. We are often told that the average state worker on a PERS
> retirement is only making about $2,000 per month or about $25,000 per
> year. Well, that is true, but they leave out a something that allows
> them to distort the true picture. That state worker, under the PERS
> plan, only worked 19.9 years to get that pension. A working life can
> be expected to be from age 22 to age 67 according to how Social
> Security operates. So if you work only 20 years of those 45 years,
> you can hardly expect to receive a full normal pension.
I am only going to disagree partially with you there,
The early retirement age of 55 (and sometimes 50) years of age is too
early to start offering retirement distributions. That should be
changed for anyone coming into the system.
But I think you are incorrect about the years of service. Again with
the anecdotal evidence: the private sector employers that I am familiar
with offer retirement after only 5 years of service (vetting). You just
can't get any distribution until after 62.5 years of age (same as Social
Security).
--
-Don
Don Freeman
> On Nov 24, 3:18 pm, Don Freeman <freem...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>
>> Nor to you hear about how these "pampered" city employees who took these
>> jobs, that payed less then their private sector counterparts, did so for
>> the promise of decent retirement benefits.
>>
>> --
>
> Sorry, that myth is so dated, yet still put forth by public employee
> unions.
>
> Several studies have found that currently the average job category
> pays MORE, not LESS, in the public sector than in the private sector.
>
As stated in a prior post, that has not been my experience. Please
point me to one of your studies. I don't mean that sarcastically, I am
interested and will read it with an open mind.
--
-Don
Don Freeman
>
> They say the ability to do sums is the first thng to go.
>
I'd heard that memory was one of the first three things to go, I just
can never remember what the other two were.
(maybe ability to spell?)
--
-Don
gvk2
>
> But I think you are incorrect about the years of service. Again with
> the anecdotal evidence: the private sector employers that I am familiar
> with offer retirement after only 5 years of service (vetting). You just
> can't get any distribution until after 62.5 years of age (same as Social
> Security).
I am not talking about the years required to "vest", but the
compensation that you eventually get.
Show me some private sector firms where the average employee gets 2.7%
of "highest years salary" for each year worked, along with
considerable benefits for life.
Show me a private firm wherein you work 5 years and get health care
benefits for life. (See San Francisco)
You don't seem so aware of the realities of many/most public employee
compensation contracts.
Most likely because it is NOT reported in the news.
Did you know that Golden Gate Bridge employees get their salary plus
another 67% of their salary in tax free benefits?
Meaning they get well over $20 per hour in tax free benefits in
addition to their salary.
Don Freeman
> On Nov 25, 9:08 am, Don Freeman <freem...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>
>> But I think you are incorrect about the years of service. Again with
>> the anecdotal evidence: the private sector employers that I am familiar
>> with offer retirement after only 5 years of service (vetting). You just
>> can't get any distribution until after 62.5 years of age (same as Social
>> Security).
>
> I am not talking about the years required to "vest", but the
> compensation that you eventually get.
Direct quote from your post:
"For example, for years, San Francisco vested employees with lifetime
medical benefits in retirement if they worked just 5 years. That is
plain crazy."
>
> Show me some private sector firms where the average employee gets 2.7%
> of "highest years salary" for each year worked, along with
> considerable benefits for life.
>
> Show me a private firm wherein you work 5 years and get health care
> benefits for life. (See San Francisco)
>
> You don't seem so aware of the realities of many/most public employee
> compensation contracts.
Having worked for two, and have had investigated many others for job
possibilities I would say I have a better awareness then you think. You
say "many/most" when you only bring up San Francisco as a reference. SF
(and Oakland) are notoriously generous and are not the norm nor are they
anywhere close to it. Try basing your argument on mid-sized cities and
you will get a whole different picture.
--
-Don
gvk2
> And one of those studies might be...
>
> Granted I am only working from anecdotal evidence,
I could dig up tons of stuff but here is one example.
Please realize these are national figures.
Bay Area figures are much higher than those seen in this article.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-04-09-compensation_N.htm
"A full-time government worker receives benefits worth an average of
$27,830 per year. A private worker's benefits are worth $16,598."
Please note, for many, if not most, public Bay Area agencies, that
annual benefit package averages way over $36,000 per year.
In places like the Golden Gate Bridge Dist., BART, and others it
averages over $40,000 per year.
As we saw in the BART strike negociations recently the compensation
package for the typical station agent or train operator was over
$115,000 per year.
In recent news from Oakland where they were debating the issue of
raising parking meter rates to raise X million dollars, several city
council persons were quoted as saying, "if we lose a million
dollars, we'll have to lay off 10 employees"...
Very common for the cost per employee to be $100,000+ per employee.
That is typically made up of a salary of about $63,000 and benefits of
about $37,000 (59% of salary)...
BTW, that typical Oakland city employee works a 37.5 hour week, get
holidays the private sector never sees and substantial vacation with
pay from year one.
He/She can also retire at age 55 while those on Social Security are
now going to be required to wait until age 67 to get full benefits.
I won't even go into the work load required in the typical public
sector vs private sector, or the job security.
I could give you example after example, city after city.
You may be able to cite a example or two where a private sector
employee gets better compensation, but seldom will the entire
compensation package equal what that same employee receives over a
lifetime.
When you get a chance to see the real facts inside of some
organizations you will be shocked.
Do you ever study the SF Chronicle Data page? or the San Jose Merc
data base on public employee salaries?
Example...BART... their lowest paid employee in their HR department,
is a receptionist. Salary $51,800. Benefit package about $35,000
annually. Total cost of 1 receptionist $86,000
Now, do you really think the typical receptionist in the private
sector is getting $86,000 a year in his/her total package?
Mind you, that was the lowest paid person.
BTW, I am aware of this on a personal basis.
My brother is a retired police sergeant. My sister, a retired
teacher, my mother still getting my dads extremely generous pension
after 31 years. Many of my cousins and uncles on firemens pensions,
and on and on with friends etc.
Now, there was time decades ago when the myth was true.
Wages were lower and pensions were a smaller percentage of working
salary.
That is when the "get less now" for security and a better pension
later made sense and was fair.
Recently in the past 30 years a public employee union have
mushroomed, the tables have switched completely.
Local, and state legislators have given those employee groups
everything they could afford during the "fat" years, then when normal
and dismal years come along we still have to pay the full fare...and
will continue to do so for decades to come.
The percent of employee costs grows as budgets shrink.
In the future cities etc are going to pay a terrible price for the
pensions they have saddled us with.
All city programs will suffer as we struggle to pay past worker's
excessive pensions.
I often cite a Oakland City park ranger. He has made in excess of
$250,000 a year in each of the last two years.
But you say, oh, he must be a great employee.
Right, a few years ago he cost the city a $400,000 settlement for
sexual harassment (plus lawyer fees) but was not fired or demoted.
Soon he'll be retired and living in luxury.
You really don't know what goes on. Newspapers seldom report much of
the abuse.
example..Golden Gate Bridge District "Gift shop" clerks..
You know, sell post cards to the tourists.
Base pay $45,000 a year. Benefit package over $30,000 per year
Cost to employee one retail gift shop clerk, over $75,000 a year.
Compare that to the typical employee working in a typical SF gift shop
selling tourist stuff.
A "stock clerk" in the same visitor center, also $44,000 a year plus
benefits.
On and on and on.
Jim Bianchi
> On Nov 24, 3:18�pm, Don Freeman <freem...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nor to you hear about how these "pampered" city employees who took these
>> jobs, that payed less then their private sector counterparts, did so for
>> the promise of decent retirement benefits.
>
> unions.
>
> Several studies have found that currently the average job category
> pays MORE, not LESS, in the public sector than in the private sector.
>
> And that is only looking at salary. The benefit packages in the
> public sector are totally way greater than in the private sector.
> AS I told David in my example, the average Golden Gate Bridge Dist
> employee receives 67% of his salary in benefits.
> That amounts to over $21 per hour just for the benefits before we even
> begin to count pay.
> Same for most public agencies.
Fine. Only last I heard the GGB district is NOT a city, county, or
state employer. They may serve the public, in the same way NASCAR can be
said to serve the public (by supplying something the public wants), but
neither are 'public agencies' in the usual sense of that term.
--
ji...@sonic.net
Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have /usr/bin?)
Jim Bianchi
> On Nov 25, 8:58�am, Don Freeman <freem...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>
>> And one of those studies might be...
>>
>> Granted I am only working from anecdotal evidence,
>
> I could dig up tons of stuff but here is one example.
> Please realize these are national figures.
> Bay Area figures are much higher than those seen in this article.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-04-09-compensation_N.htm
>
> "A full-time government worker receives benefits worth an average of
> $27,830 per year. A private worker's benefits are worth $16,598."
>
> Please note, for many, if not most, public Bay Area agencies, that
> annual benefit package averages way over $36,000 per year.
> In places like the Golden Gate Bridge Dist., BART, and others it
> averages over $40,000 per year.
Again, sir, the GGB Dist is NOT (repeat NOT) a 'public agency' as is
the Oakland Bay bridge, or BART.
> As we saw in the BART strike negociations recently the compensation
> package for the typical station agent or train operator was over
> $115,000 per year.
<major snippage>
> example..Golden Gate Bridge District "Gift shop" clerks..
> You know, sell post cards to the tourists.
>
> Base pay $45,000 a year. Benefit package over $30,000 per year
> Cost to employee one retail gift shop clerk, over $75,000 a year.
> Compare that to the typical employee working in a typical SF gift shop
> selling tourist stuff.
>
> A "stock clerk" in the same visitor center, also $44,000 a year plus
> benefits.
Note, I'm NOT arguing w/your numbers. I'm only pointing out that
using pay rates and compensation figures for GGB employees to support your
contention that 'public service' jobs (firefighters, BART, etc) receive more
overall benefits than jobs in 'private agencies' won't quite get it.
Eric Weaver
> Fine. Only last I heard the GGB district is NOT a city, county, or
> state employer. They may serve the public, in the same way NASCAR can be
> said to serve the public (by supplying something the public wants), but
> neither are 'public agencies' in the usual sense of that term.
>
My knowledge of this stuff is small and murky, but they are a "Special
Tax District" like unto a school district or a sewer district. In that
they get their money from the counties in addition to tolls, and have
(if I'm not mistaken) elected trustees, they are to some extent a public
agency... I believe Brits might use the term "QUANGO".
David Kaye
>said to serve the public (by supplying something the public wants), but
>neither are 'public agencies' in the usual sense of that term.
Actually, yes the GGB district is a public agency. Its directors are
appointed by the board of supervisors of its member counties.
David Kaye
> Again, sir, the GGB Dist is NOT (repeat NOT) a 'public agency' as is
>the Oakland Bay bridge, or BART.
BART board members are elected from the counties in the BART district by the
people of those counties. GGB district board members are elected by the
supervisors (and sometimes mayors) of those counties in the GGB district.
BART and GGB are very similar government agencies.
Since you didn't choose to get the facts yourself, here is a link to a page
that explains how many members come from which counties and how they're
selected: http://goldengate.org/board/members.php
Jim Bianchi
Fine. But the GG bridge STILL is not a public (city, county, or
state owned or run) facility.
David Kaye
> Fine. But the GG bridge STILL is not a public (city, county, or
>state owned or run) facility.
Yes it is, just as much as BART is. End of story.