Khan Academy: the Future of Taxpayer Reeducation? 386
theodp writes "Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has launched a website and gone social on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to educate taxpayers on why they must make good on pension promises to state workers. And, in addition to Squeezy the Pension Python, Gov. Quinn is enlisting the help of Khan Academy, the tax-exempt, future-of-education organization funded by tax-free millions from Google, Bill Gates, and others, to help convince taxpayers that a state-pension-promise is a promise. In the Khan Academy video commissioned by the Governor, Illinois Pension Obligations, Sal Khan concedes that the annual annuity payouts for IL state employee retirees do look 'pretty reasonable' — e.g., $43,591 for the average teacher, $117,558 for a judge — but goes on to argue that 'in all fairness, this was promised to these people,' who he speculates 'probably took lower compensation while they were working,' 'probably stayed in the jobs longer,' and 'probably sacrificed other things' to get these 'great benefits.' 'We're delighted to have his [Khan's] help in enlightening Illinois citizens about how the pension problem came to be,' said the Governor. Of course, not everything can be explained in one video — perhaps other contributing factors like 'pension spiking', lobbyists' maneuvers, sweetheart deals, creative job reclassification, golden parachutes, bruising investment losses, and other wacky pension games will be taught in Illinois Pension Obligations II!"
Can you add a few more links? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the Web, a medium based on hyperlinks [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:3)
Fixed [cheezburger.com] ! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Political Editing (Score:4, Insightful)
Captcha:defraud.
Indeed, this whole thing is sickening to anyone living in Illinois. We're broker than California, yet Quinn wastes millions to brainwash Illinois voters that it's the public employees' fault, after his two felonious predecessors wasted billions feeding their rich political cronies.
Living in Springfield, I have a lot of friends in state government. Illinois has fewer state workers per capita than any other state. Illinois is the 5th highest state in private company's salaries, but 7th in public sector salaries.
A Republican has surfaced wanting to run against Quinn, saying "the state employees have to take their lumps like everyone else." They already are, just like the rest of us. Some of them are handicapped, some of them earn so little they're eligibel for food stams. They go to state parks just like you, their taxes doubled just like yours did. They will lose the same services you do.
The Democrats and Republicans are ganging up together trying to destroy unions. Bye bye 40 hour work week. Bye bye vacations. Bye bye weekends. Bye bye living wages. The rich don't care if you starve.
Personally, I'm supporting the workers. They're getting fucked badly in this.
because everything on the internet is true? (Score:2)
if you think that everyone will believe everything they see on the internet i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you
Re: (Score:2)
lmfao
Commissioned studies are always doubtful (Score:2)
Not sure about Illinois (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be in jail. I don't know if Illinois has a similar problem, but I do know enough about politicians to think Governor Quinn is not telling the whole truth.
Re:Not sure about Illinois (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be in jail.
I know it's en vogue to bash the government without actually doing anything constructive, but when you do so with obviously false statements, it doesn't help your case. GM managed their retirement funds the same way. Which GM CEO is in jail? How's that working out for us?
And personally, I dislike the lie of "unfunded". They funded them. They just did so at an optimistic growth rate, that couldn't be sustained. From your link, "In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. " Note, after you get past the lies in the headlines and lies in the first few paragraphs to piss people off and get them hooked into the subject, the more true statements come out. The underfunding is close to 100 years old. It's been done by every politician by every party (even Libertarian) for so long nobody can remember any other way. The people knew about it, or are so dumb they couldn't vote anyway. I know as an elementary school student in the 1970s, I was aware (the year was 1979, and it was brought up as part of the politics around attacking Carter to set up for the 1980 elections). If a 5th grader had it figured out 30+ years ago, why is it all a big surprise now? The problem existed in 2000, but the economy was going good enough that nobody cared. But 10 years and a few wars later, and the economy is ill, and now it's an issue? You know why? Because the first person to blink gets all the blame. Both parties covered it up as long as possible, hoping it blew up when the other party was in power. Neither party tried to fix it, the only difference is that when it blows up under a Republican administration, they blame the unions, even if there aren't any unions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And personally, I dislike the lie of "unfunded". They funded them. They just did so at an optimistic growth rate, that couldn't be sustained.
They are called unfunded because any idiot with half a brain realized there wouldn't be enough money to pay at the end. Apparently you don't understand this.
At some level lawmakers are aware of this too, that's why they require CEOs to maintain their pension plans with at least some sanity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually at most recent count, the California unfunded liability problem is $884B, and headed upwards, and that is *just* the state employees - cities have similar or worse issues. San Francisco's pension gap is $4.4B, or put another way the taxpayers are on the hook $35,000 per household. The key problem being that the negotiated pension packages assume an 8-12% return on investment in CALPERS/SFERS/etc. No one can live up to that return consistently.
So now the question is how to handle it. Should the
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be in jail. I don't know if Illinois has a similar problem, but I do know enough about politicians to think Governor Quinn is not telling the whole truth.
Uh, CEOs do this sort of thing all the time. Go ask the employees of United Airlines how they're enjoying the pensions they worked for all those years.
At work they're switching from a defined benefit to defined contribution plan, and basically anybody who is in their late 30s is screwed. The old curve basically assigned all pension earnings in the last decade of employment, and the new curve makes it linear and lower overall. So mid-career employees didn't get the chance to earn more when they were young
Re: (Score:2)
However, at the end of each pay period the employer and employee should be completely even,
Isn't this how 401Ks are right now?
Re: (Score:3)
But those don't mismanage it as badly as the state of California. If they did, they WOULD go to jail. So they rarely get that bad, because they know. But our government does.
Public vs. Private? (Score:2, Insightful)
he speculates 'probably took lower compensation while they were working,'
A long time ago this was true. Public employees accepted lower salaries in exchange for job security, great benefits, and more holidays. But here in the wonderful 21st century, they kept all their bonuses AND get paid more.
When the economy is good, both public and private salaries rise. But when it's bad, the private sector has layoffs and wage freezes. But the government is working with your money, not their own, and has no problem
Re:Public vs. Private? (Score:5, Informative)
It's still true in many government jobs. I know some people doing government IT work, and they get paid a lot less than they could make in the private sector. They do it for a mixture of the benefits, and because they're big-data advocates who have sort of an ideological commitment to getting more government data online, so enjoy their jobs. Professors at state universities also have lower average pay than at private universities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're point is empty without mentioning bankrupt cities and states.
Just like private employees, you picked a wagon, now you're stuck with it.
Re: (Score:2)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
It's a well-known fact that Federal employees get paid much more than State employees.
Here we're talking about State employees, not Federal employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree with you that public jobs require different skill sets than private jobs, and perhaps significantly greater skill and education.
But I also worked at one point for an organization where people took pride in the long hours they worked, and pointed to that as a reason for the company's success. The organization had a lot of bureaucracy, and I surmise that if they streamlined their process, they would lose little or nothing, and free up a lot of time.
Therefore, I have a question for the general
Perhaps if politicians hadn't made bad promises (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You rarely see a politician claim to be an atheist. You know why? Because he will be voted out. If people voted politicians out the same way for stupid economic ideas, then we would have similar results.
So ultimately the fault belongs to the voters. It's our problem, and we're going to have to live with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel sorry for the teachers and other leaf-node employees who trusted unions to negotiate benefits for them and then those unions made deals with politicians for pipe dreams that could never become realized.
If we lived in a society where those politicians and reps could be sued by those teachers for outright fraud, then we wouldn't wind up in these kinds of situations. Government teachers love to talk about checks and balances, but somehow miss out on their retirement depending on an edifice with neither
The problem isn't the pension benefits (Score:4, Informative)
And if they promise the impossible? (Score:2)
And if unions convince a corrupt or incompetent legislature to make impossible promises? A corporation that did that would just go bankrupt and start over and the promise would have to be adjusted. This does happen. I think states have to have a similar option.
The Public Sector Needs to Stop (Score:3, Informative)
These exact same things happen in the private sector and you know what we do? We either put up with it or we move on to another job.
I'm so fucking tired of the public sector employees whining about their benefits dwindling while ALL sectors face the same problem.
Just so you know, I have THE WORST possible insurance provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN. I was already paying $500/month for the pleasure. Next year it goes up to $845/month. Am I whining? No, I'm looking for a new job.
Re:The Public Sector Needs to Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Public workers have been vigilant in defending their standards of living; maybe you could learn something from them.
Re:The Public Sector Needs to Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because the world is globalizing, and because of places like China, all unionizing will do us price us out of the marketplace.
I don't see union detroit doing all that great, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Public workers have been vigilant in defending their standards of living; maybe you could learn something from them.
Yeah, well, maybe those public employee legislators and judges could cut the private sector employees a break the next time some company wants to redefine their pension or do a mass layoff and the employees sue it in court. Unless you want private employees to form mobs I'm not quite sure what you'd have them do.
In Europe when companies do these kinds of things the government simply tells the company that they aren't permitted to do it, and that their property would be fined/seized and their profitable pro
Promises, promises... (Score:5, Insightful)
'in all fairness, this was promised to these people,'
It's easy to promise money, especially when it's not your own money.
That is the nature of Government; it confiscates resources under threat of violence and then squanders them. Government is a bad company that won't go out of business because it can force you to pay for goods and services even if you don't want them or even if you know they won't be fulfilled.
In Layman's Terms... (Score:2)
You don't hear about studies that go the other way (Score:2)
Commissioned Studies do not always take the side of the politicians that created them. Those politicians down play or bury studies they don't like; the ones that go their way are promoted. There are bad and good studies and you can find bad scientists to back creationism or smoking too. If their data is openly published one could investigate it... or if they have projections if those come out accurate (thinking of the recent election, where most the mainstream was dead wrong and none lost their jobs.)
A promise is a promise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should politician's promises about pensions be any different than any of their other promises?
Bad move khan (Score:2, Interesting)
At the same time there is factual data that some may want to hide because of embarrassment that has educational value. So the hard question is the motivation of the offense not the offended. People living in Quebec were offended when a magazine recently
health care should not be tied to jobs (Score:2)
health care should not be tied to jobs that is a big part of costs of employing people.
New union / Old Union (Score:2)
I have no illusions (Score:2)
I have no illusions about my retirement as a teacher. Like most teachers, I'll work until I drop dead or get shot by some drug-addled shave-head over some girl with tattoos, enough shrapnel in her face to imitate a 50's Dodge, and holes in her earlobes big enough to drive an SUV through who probably won't grace me with her charming presence that particular day. Neither of these two could possibly benefit from an education, because they will have so ruined themselves that Walmart will consider them an iffy e
If you don't hold it.. (Score:2)
This isn't your father/grandfather's economy anymore and the idea of working at the same factory for 50 years isn't realized anymore. Whether that is a good/bad thing is irrelevant. Because of this, we need to go away from social security, pensions, 401(k)s and insurance tied to work. Ins
Can't make good on everything. Time to choose. (Score:3)
Sorry, but between pensions, social security, and a giant medicare squeeze under way it will not be possibly to meet all of the empty promises that have been made over decades.
Someone is going to HAVE to lose out, to not get all of what they promised. The coming fight is who is going to be left holding the bag.
Honoring Pension Promises (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to have to say this about Illinois Governor Quinn.
I don't think Illinois Governor Quinn intends to honor any promises made to Illinois retirees. Typically, retirees took below market wages for decades in exchange for promises of a decent pension with cost of living (COLA) increases to partially compensate for inflation, and paid health insurance. Employees had to accept hefty deductions for the pension itself and additional deductions to fund a COLA. The State was supposed to match those contributions. In addition, many employees were asked to forgo eligibility for Social Security. This was so the State wouldn't have to kick in their required Social Security contribution.
I've read the legislation Quinn and his allies have been trying to run through. He wants to sock retirees with the full cost of health insurance, and make them forgo their COLA. Some of these retirees are making less than $12,000 annually, and may not be able to keep their homes if Quinn's proposals go through. Governor Quinn asked the families of retirees to talk to them over Thanksgiving dinner. My kids told me that I should not agree to give up any part of my retirement benefits. They weren't sure they could afford to support me. They said I should not trust Governor Quinn.
It turns out that the State hasn't been making their matching contributions, and in some cases the State may actually have side-tracked employee deducted contributions. In addition, the State of Illinois has been promising tax breaks to wealthy corporations - promises they can't make good on if they have to pay what they owe retirees.
Re:School::politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it really a good thing for Khan to be involved in politics?
From the description, it sounds more like civics than politics.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The civics of, say, giving teachers in Portland a pension at 105% of the income they retired at, per year, with "PERS" that essentially bankrupted the education system?
There's a (not necessarily too) fine line between education and indoctrination.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
It is even better when you consider the first thing cut at EVERY company in times of trouble is the pension funds.
What I don't understand is why we keep letting the people we work for control our medical and retirements.
If you are under 40 chances are your going to work for 6-10 different major companies in your life. You don't go down the street and work at the local factory for 50 years anymore.
We really need to pull the companies we work for out of those equations. it will be a nice break for them and it will be better for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh - I'm over fifty, and that working at a single factory for fifty years didn't happen. That was my FATHER's generation, not mine! Need I remind you that the steel industry was pretty much dismantled, and outsourced way back in the 1980's? Automotive industries followed suit soon after.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I'm in my mid 50s and I've had the honor of working at a couple companies for 5 years, but most jobs I've had since moving up to the Silicon Valley lasted on average from a year and a half to two years. At one level I get your point. Business today won't keep anyone on long enough to get a pension. This is however leading to a real problem. I and a significant number of my friends went to great length to prepare for our retirement only to see the greedy banking industry obliterate our savings by hijacking the economy. On the other end, what threatens to be runaway inflation caused by printing dollars in an effort to fake the world into eating our debt, threatens to turn whatever little is left into rolls of something squeezably soft (ask Mr. Whipple.)
I'm a boomer on the back end of the boom, but I have no illusions that there are a lot of converging forces that threaten social security and I don't want to have to depend on Social Security or Medicare to survive. What I see is a growingly hostile environment for the graying and gray, and I could imagine a society that marginalizes its aging members, even perhaps helping them leave the world in large numbers to accommodate those who are younger. I also see another possible trend that is equally frightening. Breakthroughs in technology and medicine dramatically increase lifespan and more important vital lifespan. With fewer and fewer young people taking science and technology as professional directions, Those of us with these skills may be pressured (using a number of means) to remain part of the workforce into what might have otherwise been our dotage. This would actually be just fine with me, if the gray didn't somehow become part of a marginalized class. Keeping us around as a slave class to stoke the machine keeping the young'uns in Big Macs and Mood Enhancers, isn't my idea of a utopian society.
We live in such uncertain and disruptive times, that its difficult to see ahead and make sane plans for the future. Even for those of us who have "made it", there are real concerns about what the future will bring. Our economy and the government manipulating it are utterly unsustainable. Our society will change, either in a planned and intelligent fashion or a catastrophic failure. In any case, There's no guarantee that current wealth will survive an economic reboot. Its time for all of us to begin looking at the obvious trend in technology, society and the environment and begin working to build a workable present and optimal future. Part of this includes giving up on the "I'm gonna cut me a slice" mentality. Managing for personal freedom and civil rights is profoundly American, that should continue, but now its time for us to also be responsible citizens of the world and work towards a world we can all live in together with the maximum happiness and opportunity for personal success and fulfillment.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't doubt the elderly will be squeezed on benefits. If you told me that the average person lost money on Social Security, I wouldn't be surprised either. I do know this. I'm 30. I believe folks my age will be lucky to see pennies on the dollar for Social Security and Medicare. Whether it is true or not, this is virtually a universally held belief for folks under 40.
I don't believe anyone wants to hold the elderly as a slave class, nor do I believe that will happen due to demographics. The young are statistically more likely the ones to become the economic slave class unless they basically refuse to pay for other folks' promises. Therein lays the interesting issue.
I always had an issue with philosophical and extremely popular notion of passing debt onto the next generation. Thankfully under most circumstances, for individuals, debts are null and void when an estate is settled. But not for governments. Tax revenue shortfalls have been solved by inflating the money supply and borrowing. We have a huge debt that will eventually come due. The last handful of generations have known this and done very little to do with it. I wouldn't be screaming "the young are trying to screw over my generation" when the young are looking at bleak economics, overpriced education, poor job market and several trillion dollars of debt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The two Bush Presidents dug holes in the wealth of children unborn, and the damage to the future by the later Bush won't even be fully appreciated in my lifetime, other than I know what's left of society is threadbare and broken all over. So the bloody horror that is the Bush debt is something you and I will suffer as long as we live.
By the way, you overestimate the power of your generations ability to shape social policy in the current paradigm. More and more corporations are at the center of massive socia
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Informative)
Let's attempt to be honest here. Each and every presidency since I became aware of politics has left behind a debt greater than the presidency before it. The only exception was Clinton. As much as I despise the man, Clinton, and as much as I despise his "greatest" achievements, as much as I despise Clinton's politics (both of them, actually) his presidency did SOMETHING right.
But, yeah. Two wars. That put a huge freaking hole in what I'll laughingly refer to as a "budget". Tax cuts for the people who would have paid the lion's share of his wars? That was just adding insult to injury.
Re: (Score:3)
If only there were some way that Obama could have eliminated those pesky Bush tax cuts. Oh, yeah, he could have eliminated them by doing... nothing. That's right, all he had to do was wait for them to expire and the Bush tax 'problem' would be gone. But he wanted to get re-elected, so he kept them in place so that he wouldn't be seen as a tax-and-spend liberal.
And if only there were some way we could put Obama in charge of the military so that he could order all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Informative)
That was my FATHER's generation, not mine!
NO IT WASN'T. Median job tenure in the 1950's was LOWER than it is today. "Lifetime employment" never applied to more than a small minority. Yet even today, most people spend a median of 21.4 years [nber.org] as their longest job tenure. In 1969 the figure was 21.9 years, nearly the same. This "lifetime employment" myth is an example of the "golden age meme" but things really weren't any better back in the "good old days".
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And, somehow....they have to be honored, I mean, people worked their whole lives and are dependent on that as their means of retirement.
That being said, it is ludicrous to not IMMEDIATELY stop offering this to new-hires. I mean, we obviously can't afford for this to carry on.
I can't understand why starting say, today, that this type of deal that states and the feds can no longer afford be stopped, halted immediately f
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is that such a bad thing? I work for the state of oregon and I'm under pers. The idea is we pay into that pension fund - they re-invest it (making more money) and pay it out.
I already take a 20k a year pay cut for working for the state - 105% seems reasonable for doing that.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't you. its a private sector that continues to squeeze the average worker until he and his family bleed. When they look over at you and see you not bleeding their response is what makes you so special. Worse when the economy is broken and state economies are on or over the verge of collapse, private sector worker begin to see it as y'all being greedy (and your unions) rather than pinning the responsibility for the problem where it belongs with powerful and wealthy men who have used the American Economy as their own piggy bank. All they have to do to succeed, is pit us against one another so we don't notice their hand in our pockets and purses. Honestly, you aren't the problem.
Re:School::politics (Score:4, Interesting)
You and the rest of us, I've watched my income literally shrivel from a high in 2001 of over $100,000 to under $20,000 last year. Between the gutting of personal wealth at the hands of Corporate America on the one side and the desperate attempt by Government to keep itself alive by printing money on the other, the middle class is being completely squeezed out of existence. This is a profound shift in the nature of what America is. It was a bastion of personal freedom, open markets, and governance postulated on a Constitution ensuring the rights and freedom for all. Over the last 30 years we've morphed into something different and deeply darker. We've become a nation of Corporations owning and operating a subsidiary Government whose purpose is to tighten the grip on human rights and freedom to make absolutely certain that those same corporations can and do squeeze every last penny of value from the American Public, and ultimately set them to labor endlessly for the benefit of a shocking few. These are neither men of wisdom or dignity. For the most part I see despots, sociopaths and men crazed by wealth and power living in some coke and hooker daze of hubris and self worship. This thing is broken and I pray that we can fix it without burning the whole thing down to the ground. I'll be honest and say I have deep concerns.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. The Civics lesson is that when the government enters into a contract with an individual that it cannot then decide later on that it doesn't liked the contract and legislate to undo it. No matter how silly the pension agreed by some chicken shit politician who thought they could kick the can down the road to someone else.
There's a wonderful irony that republicans want to fight government tyranny by getting the government to unilaterally change the terms of binding legal contracts entered into by itself
Actually, no. (Score:5, Informative)
The Civics lesson is that when the government enters into a contract with an individual that it cannot then decide later on that it doesn't liked the contract and legislate to undo it.
Why not?
There's this thing in the world called bankruptcy. It's a backdrop to contract negotiation. It basically says that if I make a contract with you that is so bad that you can't sustain the contract, you get to get out of honoring the contract.
Just because, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, a group of employees managed to convince a politician to give them a contract that no reasonable party could expect to be maintained doesn't mean that now, 20 years later, we can't say, "That was ridiculous. It's going to bankrupt the state and we have to undo it."
Illinois is a particularly good (bad?) example of this. Many years ago teachers convinced politicians to set up a state-paid teacher retirement system. And they put in things like a formula where the school districts pay into the system based on the salary of the teacher that year, but the retirement payments paid to the teachers (and administrators, superintendents and others are in the same plan) are based only on the highest-paid 4 years of each participants career.
I'll give to 15 seconds to figure out what happened.
That's right, unions and administrators all started negotiating contracts where the school district gave participants huge raises in the 4 years before their retirement. Didn't cost the school district much in retirement plan contributions (they're only paying the higher rate for the last 4 years of a 30-year career) and the participants get a huge benefit - a much larger pension for the remaining 20 to 40 years of their lives.... paid for by the state aka the taxpayers.
When you get down to it, it's just a short step away from a conspiracy to steal money from the taxpayers of the state, and at some point the taxpayers are going to put a stop to it.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Informative)
Taxpayers that are struggling to feed their families and find jobs for themselves and maintain their workforces shouldn't have to pay for cushy retirements.
Then they should have voted for politicians better at negotiating contracts, and got what they deserved. The taxpayers are only paying for what was promised by their elected representatives. If there's a problem, the taxpayers need to reexamine their choices for representation.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxpayers that are struggling to feed their families and find jobs for themselves and maintain their workforces shouldn't have to pay for cushy retirements.
Then they should have voted for politicians better at negotiating contracts, and got what they deserved. The taxpayers are only paying for what was promised by their elected representatives. If there's a problem, the taxpayers need to reexamine their choices for representation.
Also expect to pay me a shitload more money if you take away my pensions. As a teacher I gave up jobs that would pay $60,000 a year for a job that pays $40,000 a year. Besides a change the only other reason why I would voluntarily do so is because of retirement being taken care of. If you bitch and whine how it is so unfair that I get that and you don't keep in mind your IT jobs pay A LOT MORE so you can afford to save more.
I will quit and go back into IT as well as many other teachers if you take our pensions away. That was the deal you made upon we agreed to work for less. Who in their right mind would sign up for $70,000 to $100,000 of debt to train for a job that pays $35,000 a year with no pension otherwise? You simply wont find any qualified teachers or any other public servants otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I immediately suggest that everybody takes you up on that offer. The public school teachers know what they and their education is truly are worth, that's why they send their kids to private schools disproportionately [hotair.com] (of-course given their public salaries, looks like they are in a much better position to be able to afford it.)
sig [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The teachers want it to be about teaching, but there are violent felons in their classes, and they are constrained from taking any reasonable actions to control unruly students.
There are studies that show what "causes" good outcome
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Interesting)
You're quire obviously trolling, but I'll explain anyways. He didn't say he took a shitty job. He said he took a job whose compensation package traded immediate income for a stellar retirement package. It's no different than taking a slightly lower paying job anywhere else for alternate benefits (like free gym memberships, free snacks at work, extra vacation, flex time, etc.).
If the state doesn't want to foot the bill for the extra benefits, they will be stuck paying the increased income required to attract anyone decent. It's on the state that they chose not to bank the income difference to pay for the pensions. Quit making this out like the teachers are to blame.
Re: (Score:3)
The taxpayers are often represented by people who are otherwise owned by someone else and certainly won't be there in 20 years, let alone foot the bills.
Sounds more like you are wanting to blame the teachers for your shortcomings. You don't hold your politicians accountable, so you grumble at anyone receiving any benefit from their actions. It's your fault you don't hold your politicians accountable.
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're retroactively making it shittier. The fact that there's a pension of a certain size was part of their pay--they received some of their pay in salary and some in pension benefits. Retroactively deciding that they don't get it the pension is no better than retroactively taking $25 out of their salary every month, except that since the salary is already in their pocket and the pension isn't it's a heck of a lot easier to take away the pension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd have a point if only taxpayers were allowed to vote.
In practice, those that collect tax money from tax payers vote for their own representatives that promise to make taxpayers give them more money.
Taxpayers can vote for better p
Re: (Score:3)
You'd have a point if only taxpayers were allowed to vote.
The number of non-taxpayers is tiny. You are at most, once removed from the costs of education. You are either directly taxed for education (it's a separate line item on my tax bill, for education explicitly), or you pay about as directly as any indirect tax there is (you are a renter, and you pay the tax to your landlord in the form of increased rent, which he then explicitly pays).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should have voted for politicians better at negotiating contracts, and got what they deserved.
You seem to miss the obvious. The pensions being paid out right now today were negotiated 40 years ago, several decades prior to the birth of some of the people now paying for them.
This is why the pensions are out of control. Its really easy for the government to kick the can down the road and make promises for unborn people.
If your pension was not funded all these years, then you are responsible. You had the chance to vote to make sure that it was funded. You had the chance to influence your union to
Re:School::politics (Score:4, Interesting)
Now you're talking about fair... I get it, I really do. However, the mess we're in on every front was 100 years in coming with the exception of the triggering events caused by the idiots in the Whitehouse from 2000-2008 and the greedy buggers on WallStreet who precipitated a disaster constructed purely out of greed and self serving. There's nothing strange about the government spending the money of future generations. We have only recent paid off the VietNam war and we'll certainly be paying off the two Bush wars from colonies on Mars. Double digit inflation in the 70s put folks on fixed retirement incomes in the real danger of starving to death (it became a cliche' of the times, folks were reduced to eating dog and cat food.)
So if you're going to tie retirement payout to economic conditions, then by all means make the public sector pay wages comparable to the private sector so we can assure that good teachers are made available to our children While you're at it, put a tight rein on administrators wages and compensation, cut back on that waste see how much difference it makes in about 10 minutes.
In the end this is all moot. The problem isn't teachers are greedy. The problem is that the wealth has been sucked out of the middle class and its sitting in banks in Caribbean and Netherlands to avoid state and federal taxes so its not supporting the government and its not moving the economy, its just being hoarded and we are all feeling the shocking vacuum of American wealth. If that money were plowed back into the economy, there would be tremendous new wealth and nobody would be complaining about teachers or firemen. They only stand out in relief because the workers of the private sector have been bled, and we want those guys over there getting benefits to suffer the way we are. That's not however a sane conversation, that's an indignant five year old screaming because they aren't getting any. The problem is with the people holding the purse. The greedy bastards who've taken the wealth and then stashed it in banks in the Caribbean and Netherlands to avoid taxes. So that money sits, not supporting the government or feeding the economy. It just contributes to the growing economic vacuum in the United States and we all get just a little bit hungrier. So anyone who doesn't support taxing the rich needs to consider that there will soon be insufficient wealth left here to sustain a viable economy... The printing of money is just slight of hand to hide the fact that the wealth has already been pumped out. It would behoove us all to turn this around.. supply side has had this effect before. Perhaps now would be a good time to reinstate Glass-Steagall, implement a progressive flat tax (no dodges or loopholes) and end the Corporate entity as we know it.
Its time for a more free market, separation of business and state and making representation/public service a normal part of everyone's life experience. Take away the professional politicians. Oh... and we need to have IBM train Watson to handle business and financial law in this country to take the element of personal greed, self serving and idiocy out of the equation. As we get closer and closer to a working AI, place more and more government functions under its control, with the purpose to optimize and enhance human success, happiness, abundance and growth. We need to begin removing the darker aspects of primate behavior from our systems of governance and economy.
Re: (Score:3)
It was the voters and politicians at the time that are responsible.
You did in fact say "Then they should have voted for politicians better at negotiating contracts, and got what they deserved. The taxpayers are only paying for what was promised by their elected representatives."
I guess what you meant to say was "The taxpayers are only paying for what was promised by someone elses elected representatives."
The fact is that this years representatives represent those eligible to vote this year. They should not be considered to represent a child born 2 years from now, a c
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the elected politicians have very little power and leeway to do this, because of the powerful state and federal workers' UNIONS.
It is one reason we should probably not allow unions for public workers. It is ok for th
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:School::politics (Score:5, Informative)
Except that a big part of this retirement INCLUDES payments and contracts made instead of social security. These employees don't get SS, these ARE their retirement payments.
These pensions were part of their *compensation package* by contract when they were hired, and just because the state of IL didn't set the money aside like they were supposed to, it doesn't mean they aren't obligated to honor the contracts. It would be no different from the Federal government saying "ok, we don't have enough money for social security even though you paid into it for 40 years, so too bad".
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should honor existing contracts, but public pensions should be abolished going forward. They are immoral:
1. You are putting future generations on the hook for current spending. Not fair to the taxpayers.
2. History shows that, if they can get away with it, politicians will underfund the pensions. Not fair to the employees.
Regarding #1, I can actually buy the justification that future generations benefit from the spending as well... but mostly for things like infrastructure. Most government employe
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should honor existing contracts, but public pensions should be abolished going forward. They are immoral:
1. You are putting future generations on the hook for current spending. Not fair to the taxpayers.
2. History shows that, if they can get away with it, politicians will underfund the pensions. Not fair to the employees.
Pensions themselves are not immoral. Those who abuse them may be, though.
But I agree that *most people* (not just politicians) just want to kick the important issues (not just pensions/social security) down the road. But it's not that hard to fix (in theory) - just *require* by law that pensions be fully funded. But if they can't make that happen, I suppose replacing them with a joint employee/employer funded IRA would at least guarantee the money is available...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the same body of government that can make the funding mandatory can, 10 years down the line, undo the law. This has happened repeatedly in NJ, for instance. Now they are in the hole something like $50 billion. So, yeah, technically I agree that the pension itself isn't immoral - but I think you have to be either lying or stupid to expect future politicians to keep it funded.
Re: (Score:2)
True, if a simple majority can change the law retroactively it's useless. Suppose it would take a constitutional amendment for it to happen. But given the last bonehead attempt to amend the IL constitution over pension benefits (CA 49) good luck with that, IL...
Re: (Score:2)
If things keep going that's exactly what is going to happen at the federal level. We're going to to wake up one day and congress is probably going to say, "Well no more money, too bad. You all are SOL. We sold you a bill of goods all those years ago. I mean it sounded so good back in the 1930's when most people were dead by age 65."
I mean when the government fails to honor it's contracts whom do you turn to? What recourse do you really have?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean it sounded so good back in the 1930's when most people were dead by age 65.
Not saying this won't happen some day, but the above wasn't really true when you look at the real statistics. The ~60 year life expectancy in the 30's was largely due to infant mortality. If you only look at those who lived past age 21 (ie. started paying *into* SS) it's a *lot* higher.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html [ssa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool (Score:4, Funny)
Go to Somalia, the politicians won't tell you what to do.
But - but - but - If I move to Somalia, no one will protect me from the warlords or fix the potholes in my street.
You see, I'm not anti-government - I love all the things government provides. I'm just anti-responsibility. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Somalia doesn't have a government that controls the whole territory, but it does have government. "Warlord" is just another term for "dictatorial government that isn't a member of the United Nations".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pensions don't fix potholes. Pensions don't keep the peace either. Pensions don't help anyone who needs anything from government.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know that people came to USA to escape their own tyrannical governments in the past?
Yes, and now people are leaving the US to get away from its tyrannical government.
While you say: go back to Somalia, I expect some of them will say: you should go back to Somalia prior to the conflict that ended its communist regime.
The question is what does a place without an oppressive government look like? It looks like a warzone dominated by warlords and pirates. That's the libertarian ideal (well, at least the logical end of it, if not the fictitious utopia).
I think it just may happen in our lifetimes (unless Barry decides to drop a missile from a drone on some of our heads), that USA will be split at least once, and I can imagine a southern State or two, that may like that idea and will be willing to try it out.
Cause a missile from Mitt is so much better than a missile from Barry?
I don't dispute the US is headed to a civil war. Though I expected it to be more a country-wide class thing, rather than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at what the tax rates are telling you, if you're productive in the West, they don't want you. Sure, if you're on welfare the US (or Western Europe) is great! But if you're productive there's greener pastures.
Re: (Score:3)
The reduction in traffic alone in some places would be worth it. :) And we'd be sending them to the EU most likely. It's a win/win.
We owe the pensioners. That money should not be in grubby gov't hands but in the pensioners hands either in a retirement fund or in a group fund run by the people who own the money. In so many cases where the company, in this case gov't made a promise instead of paid in cold hard cash the employees get screwed when the company tanks. Now that gov't has tanked there the employees
Re: (Score:2)
Don't sell the fuck out to political parties and destroy your credibility.
Sometimes saying nothing sells out to a political party and/or destroys your credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't sell the fuck out to political parties and destroy your credibility.
He wasn't paid by the governor to produce these videos.
If Khan would like to go over these issues, do it in a political science course, do it in a history course...
Khan academy is no longer just about math. They've been expanding into many difference topics [khanacademy.org].
...but do it in the past tense as a learning resource.
Are you kidding me??? Do you also think school history/civics/geography/political science teachers should stay out of current events as well? Do you seriously want high school kids not to learn about the latest wars/conflicts the US is in, the results/statistics of the latest US elections, or the meaning behind some of the latest newspaper headlines regarding
Re: (Score:2)
749,894 are part of the government pension systems (per the article).
There 8,133,370 [mytimetovote.com] within voting age. Well, about a little under 10%. I guess it's plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
s/ere /ere are/
Re:taxpayer re-education (Score:4, Informative)
These pensions, like Social Security, were supposed to be funded by the employees themselves and their employer. The employees paid their part of the pension "payroll tax", but the state didn't (and probably spent a lot of the employee contributions).
It's no different from you expecting SS payments when you retire, since you *paid* for them over your working career.
That said the government clearly screwed up, they should have raised taxes and cut spending earlier, so it wasn't such a disaster by now. It's a shitty situation for the taxpayer, but not unexpected if you were paying attention for the last 20 years...
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what the Greeks thought they didn't have to face. This was about two decades ago.
Needless to say, they now have to "face the music" or call it their problem , and have a taste of what the real world is like.
They aren't merry making now, are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation vs. CPI spread is the long term plan. 'Fixes' SS and most pensions.