California and Bust

By Michael Lewis, in Vanity Fair

All our money is going to friggin pensioners. Total BS.

Our state government sucks.

Loved the pheasant story. I've always believed that a huge flaw in human behavior/thinking is the inability of the masses to see past the short term to plan for the long term. Hence all the bubbles/busts, debt crises, etc.

If you're reading this article and afterward are angry at the state of California, perhaps you should re-read the article. The issue isn't the politicians -- it's the voters designing a system (through ballot initiatives, legislation, and gerrymandering for fringe partisanship) which says you can have whatever you want, without paying for it.

You reap what you sow.

BearEatsTacos;583057 said:

---

If you're reading this article and afterward are angry at the state of California, perhaps you should re-read the article. The issue isn't the politicians -- it's the voters designing a system (through ballot initiatives, legislation, and gerrymandering for fringe partisanship) which says you can have whatever you want, without paying for it.

You reap what you sow.

---

I agree, the voters vote programs, but they do not want to pay for it.

BearEatsTacos;583057 said:

---

If you're reading this article and afterward are angry at the state of California, perhaps you should re-read the article. The issue isn't the politicians -- it's the voters designing a system (through ballot initiatives, legislation, and gerrymandering for fringe partisanship) which says you can have whatever you want, without paying for it.

---

There's enough blame to go around. Politicians, pension recipients, voters - they've all contributed. And California isn't really an outlier relative to the rest of the country. It's just bigger.

FingeroftheBear;583052 said:

---

No doubt there needs to be some kind of pension reform but from my perspective the real choker is the prison budget...$4,061,703,000 in 2007. That's more then higher education in CA and about $1bil more then pensions and there's no fund pool, just straight drain...and need to no social gain like jobs, mobility, feeding industry.

---

We absolutely need some other way for those who break our laws to "pay their debt to society" other than bankrupting society.

First thing would have been/should be to make California-grown marijuana legal (same restrictions as alcohol and cigarettes) and release everyone in prison being held on marijuana charges. That would save a few billion and produce jobs and tax revenue.

Many, many crimes could be dealt with through fines, property forfeiture or required labor on public projects--roads, levies, trails, highway, beach and park cleanup, or farm labor....

Prison should be for those who are a clear danger and need to be separated from society.

I'm of the opinion that the only way out of this mess will be for a governor to have the courage to take the state into bankruptcy. That process would set aside all the existing agreements and clear the way for establishing more reasonable state pensions, reduced pay scales and perks for prison guards and other state employees, suspension of interest on debts, and possibly a mandatory rewrite of the state constitution.

We might as well do it deliberately. We are headed there anyway. We can walk into it prepared to make the necessary adjustments or we can eventually get dragged into it kicking and screaming.

GldnBear71;583079 said:

---

I'm of the opinion that the only way out of this mess will be for a governor to have the courage to take the state into bankruptcy. That process would set aside all the existing agreements and clear the way for establishing more reasonable state pensions, reduced pay scales and perks for prison guards and other state employees, suspension of interest on debts, and possibly a mandatory rewrite of the state constitution.

We might as well do it deliberately. We are headed there anyway. We can walk into it prepared to make the necessary adjustments or we can eventually get dragged into it kicking and screaming.

---

I'm not that familiar with bankruptcy law, but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work. In a bankruptcies creditors get paid first. So pensioners would probably get paid first. Bondholders would get paid next. Currently running state services would probably be the last to get paid and therefore would be the most hurt. This outcome would probably just make the situation even worst.

calumnus;583077 said:

---

We absolutely need some other way for those who break our laws to "pay their debt to society" other than bankrupting society.

First thing would have been/should be to make California-grown marijuana legal (same restrictions as alcohol and cigarettes) and release everyone in prison being held on marijuana charges. That would save a few billion and produce jobs and tax revenue.

Many, many crimes could be dealt with through fines, property forfeiture or required labor on public projects--roads, levies, trails, highway, beach and park cleanup, or farm labor....

Prison should be for those who are a clear danger and need to be separated from society.

---

Good ideas. I'm all for using Prison Labor to rebuild our Infrastructure....but I'm sure they'll be crying for Health Insurance and faking injuries after awhile.

Our system depends on opportunity and wealth. Government is funded by taxes on this wealth. In the period after the war, the US economy grew enough to fund today and the future. In the mean time government and government interests became an entity in itself irrespective of funding . That's over, and now we will get the government we can afford. Not the worst thing.

On point. Better look at your city's, county's obligations are with pensions, and decide what you wish to do with your real estate? Simple, but serious. Education, prisons, welfare is not the problem that defines your future. Public employee pensions, as it relates to YOU is. Get smart.

What really gets me here is that I do not understand why well educated (UCBerkeley, I would assume) people would not get the picture. Here it is painted for you by numbers. Just paint the correct colors to the numbers and you have the picture. The way our state government works is not working. The way our local, county government works, is not working. If you like it vote YES, next time you get a chance. If you don't like it. STUDY, and learn, for you may find some solutions. Better people than me have tried to offer solutions. The power of the union $$$ has fought those solutions such that the state, counties, cities (California, Vallejo, San Jose) will go broke, under their solutions. If you think prisons, or immigrants, or energy solutions are the problem, you are miserably mistaken. Pensions for public employees will effect you negatively no matter what your age(presumably under 65). I am beyond it's effect, so am not selfish in this opinion. But you folks better use your smarts and stand up----so different from the 60s. Matter of fact, counter the 60s, but it is your world. What will you do with it?

GB54;583097 said:

---

In the period after the war, the US economy grew enough to fund today and the future. In the mean time government and government interests became an entity in itself irrespective of funding . That's over, and now we will get the government we can afford. Not the worst thing.

---

If that were all it was, but methinks there has been some overshoot...

Place all correctional officers inside maximum security prisons with the prisoners. Tell the group that only the last 10 survivors get out. Then get rid of the ten. Save billions.

bologna;583085 said:

---

In a bankruptcies creditors get paid first. So pensioners would probably get paid first. Bondholders would get paid next. Currently running state services would probably be the last to get paid and therefore would be the most hurt. This outcome would probably just make the situation even worst.

---

Bondholders are creditors too. Order of payments in the case of bankruptcy depends first on whether a creditor has a secured interest in specific assets of the borrower(*). If a creditor does, then that creditor can seize the specific asset and liquidate it to pay off the debt. After that seniority of creditors depends on whether the debt is stated to be senior, senior subordinate or subordinate. Most federal and state level debt does not make such a distinction, and thus is considered equal or pari passu in claims. In practice however once a debtor enters bankruptcy court they make a motion to the bankruptcy judge that they be allowed to pay creditors providing essential services first - the rationale being that by continuing a semblance of stable operations, the value able to be paid to other creditors is maximized in the long run. Such motions are generally granted. By such logic most bankruptcies seek to pay bondholders (who offer lending services) before pension recipients (who no longer provide any services).

Indeed, controlled bankruptcies to shed pension obligations while protecting bondholders is one of the most common sorts of bankruptcies.

(*) Although this was considered one of the only iron clad laws in bankruptcy, the federal intervention in the bankruptcy/restructuring of GM has showed this is not always true...

A couple of years ago I added up the combined deficits of the 48 states or so that were in the red (I think it was 2009, or estimates for 2010), and the total of a little over 120 Billion was pretty darn close to "supplemental" (meaning over an above DOD budget) spending on on the Iraq/Afghan war of 130 billion. Great example of direct opportunity costs. We could have put every state in the black, or built another crappy hospital to get blown up in Iraq.

CBO estimates war will cost 2.4 Trillion by 2017, Stiglitz and others say close to 3 trillion. 1.26 Trillion spent so far. Rumsfeld indicated before the 9/11 that DOD had about 2.3 TRILLION in unaccounted for budget funds.

Bush tax cuts cost about 2 TRILLION for first 8 years, extending them will cost another 3+. Medicare drug benefit was a couple hundred billion.

There is (or was) plenty of money if we just figure out how to allocate it. everyone ought to know you can have a war OR you can cut taxes. Doing both at the same time is suicidal, especially for a modern war that doesn't boost domestic productivity or employment. Feeding the prison industry is not very clever. As a transplant-Californian I am still amazed 3 strikes has made it this long. I'm betting Ken Burns' documentary on prohibition will give people some perspective on decriminalizing marijuana.

Still, Cal-STRS was doing ok until the stock market collapse - which was a function of greed and deregulation, not pension contracts. STRS and PERS have recovered some and certainly need reforms to avoid abuses, like the double dip so many UC admins enjoy, but most people don't realize that those workers pay into that fund and will not get social security potentially even what they paid into SSN before joining STRS. Demonizing teachers is a great deception. The problem is not people trying to have enough for a comfortable retirement (we aren't talking private jets here, GG), and of course if they couldn't take care of themselves, then it just creates a societal burden in a different way. Had all of these people taken the same hit to their private retirement accounts, the damage would have been far worse. If it's run right, and no one skims off all the money and runs away, being in a "ponzi" scheme can be very helpful.

When are the people of California and people on this board going to figure out that 2 + 2 = 4?

• In California that means vote in predominately democratic politicians for thirty years
  
  
• These politicians then accept the bribes (oops I meant contributions) from the public employee unions that get them elected and re-elected.
  
  
• Then the paid off politicians give the public employee unions unsustainable pensions, benefits and wages.
  

But for some reason the people of California keep voting for the same thing (see 2010 election) and of course getting the same results.

And it goes far beyond the unions of course, the environmentalists have hijacked our economy and haven't even considered giving it back even with unemployment of 12%. Watch out as business after business folds up and/or leaves the state....................or better yet, never even gets off the ground in our once fair state.

The only ways to account for these actions are greedy people voting their self interest (i.e. we must have over 50% of voters now fattening themselves from the public troughs of state and local government provided jobs, pensions, benefits, assistance etc. or ideologues unwilling to look at the consequences of their political philosophies and votes due to blind hatred of what they assume to be the opposing view.

edit: I have no love lost for republicans in CA but even Willie Brown said in his SF Chronicle column that his party went way, way, way overboard paying off the public employee unions.

Now we need someone with the guts to take on these issues and it starts with the citizens thinking more about the economic future of our state than their political party or ideology.

Arnold actually tried this early on but was emasculated by the combined weight of the public employee, nurses and teachers unions going after him in our predominately democratic registration state. As we all know he became a girlie man after that and helped bring us the further debacle of A.B. 32. It is easy to forget that he helped reform workers compensation abuses and crippling to employer premiums early on before becoming a non-entity after being taken down by the unions.

NVBear78;583155 said:

---

When are the people of California and people on this board going to figure out that 2 + 2 = 4?

• In California that means vote in predominately democratic politicians for thirty years
  
  
• These politicians than accept the bribes (oops I meant contributinons) from the public employee unions that get them elected and re-elected.
  
  
• Then the paid off politicians give the public employee unions unsustainable pensions, benefits and wages.
  

But for some reason the people of California keep voting for the same thing (see 2010 election) and of course getting the same results.

And it goes far beyond the unions of course, the environmentalists have hijacked our economy and haven't even considered giving it back even with unemployment of 12%. Watch out as business after business folds up and/or leaves the state....................or better yet, never even gets off the ground in our once fair state.

The only ways to account for these actions are greedy people voting their sel interest (i.e. we must have over 50% of voters now fattening themselves from the public troughs of state and local government provided jobs, pensions, benfits, assistance etc. or ideologues unwilling to look at the consequences of their political philosophies and votes due to blind hatred of what they assume to be the opposing view.

---

We have problems fo sher...but not certain what your solution is....yeah, maybe we should vote for better Democrats, Republicans or perhaps Independents to curb greed, unemployment and keep ideologues in check?

BTW...you misspelled "then", ""contributions", "self" and "benefits" but hey, I booze it up and post too...brothers from a different mother. :beer:

GO BEERS!

BeachyBear;583026 said:

---

All our money is going to friggin pensioners. Total BS.

Our state government sucks.

---

Sometimes things are not what they appear to be.
Two possible solutions which could relieve the problem are:

1. Remove the Three Strikes Law which puts a heavy burden on the prison system (which currently draws more state funding than higher education).

2. Decriminalize minor drug offenses. Marijuana. Which further adds to the burden and expense of the crinial justice system.

3. Change the tax laws allowing for less than 60% majority for passage. California hit the impasse which is currently facing the US in that a minority of the population can prevent and block efforts by the majority to deal sensibly with deficits and budgets et al. (not that more taxes alone will solve the problem; but they can form part of a balanced approach to solving the problem.)

"Hey, Joe, we've got to increase our complaints about the poor weight training equipment that we have to work with here. Hell, I'm here for a five years so we'll
need updated equipment real soon!"

GivemTheAxe;583164 said:

---

Sometimes things are not what they appear to be.

---

Indeed. You appear to think it is okay for public employees to get @20% raises over the course of a 3 year contract when the private sector is flat; for firefighters to start their career at 45, work 5 years, then be able to retire with the same salary; for the state prison psychologist to make 800K; lifeguards in OC to make 100K, etc.

The items you discuss are irrelevant as long as the public employee compensation is given at irrational and unsustainable levels.

tequila4kapp;583189 said:

---

1) for firefighters to start their career at 45, work 5 years, then be able to retire with the same salary; 2)for the state prison psychologist to make 800K; 3)lifeguards in OC to make 100K, etc.

---

Complete inaccuracies or half truths.

1) The article actually stated: "A prison guard who started his career at the age of 45 could retire after five years with a pension that very nearly equaled his former salary."

What formula is Mr. Lewis using to arrive at this statement? The 3% @50 formula is the top formula used in California and if a Guard made 150,000.00 a year as the base salary used in calculating the pension it would work out as: 150,000 x 3% x 5 years = 22,500.00 annual pension. Please. This is far from the "very nearly equaled his former salary".

2) From Bloomberg: "The doctor, whose salary last year was $235,740, collected a total of $777,423, data released by Controller John Chiang show. The total includes a settlement of back pay owed to the doctor, said Nancy Kincaid, a spokeswoman for the court- appointed office that oversees California's prison medical system. ... Earlier data released by Chiang's office erroneously showed that a chief psychiatrist for the prison system topped the list with a 2010 compensation of $838,706. A Chiang spokesman, Jacob Roper, cited a data entry error for the mistake."

3) OC sells the fun and saftey of its beaches. It's 14 full-time lifeguards are career public service officers (akin to fire-fighters) and train and oversee a staff of over two hundred part-time employees. If OC wants to put 22 year olds in charge of their beaches, I'm sure the savings will just come out on the back end in lucrative civil lawsuits filed by the families of drowning victims.

And to add to your joy, ECRI, a highly respected economic forecasting firm with an excellent record for recovery/recession calls, called a new recession http://www.businesscycle.com/yesterday.

93gobears;583203 said:

---

Complete inaccuracies or half truths.

1) The article actually stated: "A prison guard who started his career at the age of 45 could retire after five years with a pension that very nearly equaled his former salary."

What formula is Mr. Lewis using to arrive at this statement? The 3% @50 formula is the top formula used in California and if a Guard made 150,000.00 a year as the base salary used in calculating the pension it would work out as: 150,000 x 3% x 5 years = 22,500.00 annual pension. Please. This is far from the "very nearly equaled his former salary".

2) From Bloomberg: "The doctor, whose salary last year was $235,740, collected a total of $777,423, data released by Controller John Chiang show. The total includes a settlement of back pay owed to the doctor, said Nancy Kincaid, a spokeswoman for the court- appointed office that oversees California's prison medical system. ... Earlier data released by Chiang's office erroneously showed that a chief psychiatrist for the prison system topped the list with a 2010 compensation of $838,706. A Chiang spokesman, Jacob Roper, cited a data entry error for the mistake."

3) OC sells the fun and saftey of its beaches. It's 14 full-time lifeguards are career public service officers (akin to fire-fighters) and train and oversee a staff of over two hundred part-time employees. If OC wants to put 22 year olds in charge of their beaches, I'm sure the savings will just come out on the back end in lucrative civil lawsuits filed by the families of drowning victims.

---

1. Irrelavant. It is still a public employee benefitting from a ludicrous system. See the 2006 SD Trib article which notes that 1 out of every 10 prison guards (@2400) made >100K. That obviously involves OT. But still, considering a person can apparently work 5 years, retire at 50 and collect nearly their full salary, this is a huge problem. Even if you think the compensation is justified, the retirement package is completely unsustainable because the state will be on the hook for nearly 30 years of retirement payments. Absurd.

2. Good catch.

3. "According to a city report on lifeguard pay for the calendar year 2010, of the 14 full-time lifeguards, 13 collected more than $120,000 in total compensation; one lifeguard collected $98,160.65. More than half the lifeguards collected more than $150,000 for 2010 with the two highest-paid collecting $211,451 and $203,481 in total compensation respectively." They can also retire at age 50 with 90% of their salary (again - the state will pay that benefit for nearly 30 years).

For what it is worth, my dad was a union worker until retirement. My spouse is a union employee at a state instituation in Oregon. The point being this: I am not a knee-jerk anti union person. CA's system is off the charts absurd. If you really think these CA employees deserve this level of total compensation or that it is sustainable for the state to pay them then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

tequila4kapp;583225 said:

---

1. Irrelavant. It is still a public employee benefitting from a ludicrous system. See the 2006 SD Trib article which notes that 1 out of every 10 prison guards (@2400) made >100K. That obviously involves OT. But still, considering a person can apparently work 5 years, retire at 50 and collect nearly their full salary, this is a huge problem. Even if you think the compensation is justified, the retirement package is completely unsustainable because the state will be on the hook for nearly 30 years of retirement payments. Absurd.

---

This a still an innacurate statement. There was a clear error in Mr. Lewis's calculation of California public safety pensions.

Re-read what I wrote: "What formula is Mr. Lewis using to arrive at this statement? The 3% @50 formula is the top formula used in California and if a Guard made 150,000.00 a year as the base salary used in calculating the pension it would work out as: 150,000 x 3% x 5 years = 22,500.00 annual pension. Please. This is far from the "very nearly equaled his former salary".

Five years get's a pension upon retirement, but it does not get you a pension anywhere near the former salary.

The city of SF also has the same arrangement btw.

BearEatsTacos;583057 said:

---

If you're reading this article and afterward are angry at the state of California, perhaps you should re-read the article. The issue isn't the politicians -- it's the voters designing a system (through ballot initiatives, legislation, and gerrymandering for fringe partisanship) which says you can have whatever you want, without paying for it.

You reap what you sow.

---

Finally, someone who gets it! I've been saying this for years. It started with Prop 13 and hasn't stopped since. The voters of this state have passed one misguided, poorly-worded, SPECIAL-INTEREST proposition (and that includes 13) after another since then, mostly based on 30-second ads paid for by said special interests promising the world. Voters asked for government by proposition and now they have it. Like the results?

I'm all for pension reform, but go after the small percentage of abusers who make the headlines. Most retirees do not have lavish pensions. The other thing that needs to change is the tax system which relies too much on property taxes. It would also be nice if CA could receive more than $0.79 on the dollar back from the feds in federal tax redistribution since I'm tired of watching bible belt and southern states use the extra money they receive (some upwards of $2 for every dollar) to lure business from this state with that extra money. It's obvious that these states do not have this incentive money in their own tax bases, so you know damn well where the money is coming from.

NVBear78;583155 said:

---

When are the people of California and people on this board going to figure out that 2 + 2 = 4?

• In California that means vote in predominately democratic politicians for thirty years
  
  
• These politicians then accept the bribes (oops I meant contributions) from the public employee unions that get them elected and re-elected.
  
  
• Then the paid off politicians give the public employee unions unsustainable pensions, benefits and wages.
  

But for some reason the people of California keep voting for the same thing (see 2010 election) and of course getting the same results.

And it goes far beyond the unions of course, the environmentalists have hijacked our economy and haven't even considered giving it back even with unemployment of 12%. Watch out as business after business folds up and/or leaves the state....................or better yet, never even gets off the ground in our once fair state.

The only ways to account for these actions are greedy people voting their self interest (i.e. we must have over 50% of voters now fattening themselves from the public troughs of state and local government provided jobs, pensions, benefits, assistance etc. or ideologues unwilling to look at the consequences of their political philosophies and votes due to blind hatred of what they assume to be the opposing view.

edit: I have no love lost for republicans in CA but even Willie Brown said in his SF Chronicle column that his party went way, way, way overboard paying off the public employee unions.

Now we need someone with the guts to take on these issues and it starts with the citizens thinking more about the economic future of our state than their political party or ideology.

Arnold actually tried this early on but was emasculated by the combined weight of the public employee, nurses and teachers unions going after him in our predominately democratic registration state. As we all know he became a girlie man after that and helped bring us the further debacle of A.B. 32. It is easy to forget that he helped reform workers compensation abuses and crippling to employer premiums early on before becoming a non-entity after being taken down by the unions.

---

Unions represent their employees interests so what else should they be doing? Odd how you don't complain about the special interests who back one misguided proposition after another on the state ballots.

Californians voted for government by proposition starting 30 years ago or so. The system that is now left is broken and beyond repair. It's now a revolving door due to term limits and some good legislators have to leave after 2 terms. It's ironic since voting IS term limits, and if you are too stupid to keep voting in the same jerks you should be stuck with them. Besides, the new legislators are just new pawns for the special interests that back them. And that goes far beyond the stereotypical "union-backed" Democrats, but to every legislator regardless of political affiliation. With this current system, they just move on to another office to extend their limits further and become true career politicians.

And to the union demonizers, I'll leave you with this great email I got a while back:

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401K's, took trillions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico and then took full taxpayer-funded tax credits to pay for the clean up, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid NO taxes? Yeah, me neither.....

...the covenant between state workers and the government for 70 years or so was that "I will work for peanuts compared to the private sector because of generous benefits and a good pension." Were there abuses, of course. One has to look no further than the CHP or the CDC for that. And, yes in today's economy people are like beaten dogs, fearful of losing their jobs and will work for peanuts with NO benefits, so I am sure we can get plenty of people to work those jobs in the non-professional classes. And you and I will then get the air, water, roads, environment, and support those types of people will produce, or as someone pointed out we want it all without paying. I am just saying don't lay the blame on the State workers here as it is on all of us for causing this.

Maybe the real answer is to take all of our illegal immigrants and instead of having them pick grapes, have them go to work at Caltrans for $3 an hour with no benefits....now that is an idea whose time has come!

:headbang

93gobears;583241 said:

---

This a still an innacurate statement. There was a clear error in Mr. Lewis's calculation of California public safety pensions.

Re-read what I wrote: "What formula is Mr. Lewis using to arrive at this statement? The 3% @50 formula is the top formula used in California and if a Guard made 150,000.00 a year as the base salary used in calculating the pension it would work out as: 150,000 x 3% x 5 years = 22,500.00 annual pension. Please. This is far from the "very nearly equaled his former salary".

Five years get's a pension upon retirement, but it does not get you a pension anywhere near the former salary.

The city of SF also has the same arrangement btw.

---

Poor reading comprehension on my part. After all these years I'm still a product of the CA public school system

The person is getting pro-rata share of the benefits based on a 90% at 50 years of age system, which is still too much and isn't sustainable.

Thanks for the link. Michael Lewis makes everything interesting.

...excluding the prison guards, which have manipulated the system and by the way strongly backed the 3 Strikes Law in order to increase the prison population and thereby increase their numbers, the 3% was put in there for public safety workers, i.e. those most at risk of dying on the job like the CHP. It was placed in there with good intentions...how do you attract someone to a job where they can die for a crummy salary? That was the reasoning and once again remove all the benefits of being a police or fireman and in a good economy no one will take those jobs if safer and better jobs can earn the same money. And by the way, all other State workers only earn 2% a year.

Some of this is just more of the same too...the Republicans hate the unions not because of this, but because they know that they are the last decent contributor to the Dems...destroy the unions, destroy the Dems funding and since big business and the elites have plenty of money for Arnold and his crew that is the real logic behind some of this.

tequila4kapp;583279 said:

---

Poor reading comprehension on my part. After all these years I'm still a product of the CA public school system

The person is getting pro-rata share of the benefits based on a 90% at 50 years of age system, which is still too much and isn't sustainable.

---

Why are we whining about paying more in taxes to support the retirement of public servants who risk their lives every day of their working career, when we are paying a football coach 2 million a year to keep us amused? Just sayin'...

BearsLair72;583293 said:

---

...excluding the prison guards, which have manipulated the system and by the way strongly backed the 3 Strikes Law in order to increase the prison population and thereby increase their numbers, the 3% was put in there for public safety workers, i.e. those most at risk of dying on the job like the CHP. It was placed in there with good intentions...how do you attract someone to a job where they can die for a crummy salary? That was the reasoning and once again remove all the benefits of being a police or fireman and in a good economy no one will take those jobs if safer and better jobs can earn the same money. And by the way, all other State workers only earn 2% a year.

---

Every cop and firefighter I’ve ever known – and I’ve known a few – are virtually identical to the firefighter in the article. They were drawn to the profession as a calling and, at least when they started, really had no motivation related to compensation. I will say that dynamic changed for many of them and they came to care deeply about issues related to benefits designed to address the risks of the job after having been in the job a while. The benefit serves no real purpose in attracting people to the job and it probably doesn't do much to keep people in the profession (by the time people care they are in the job long enough that practical considerations make career changes unlikely).

Want to be shocked?

A list of the salaries and benefits for Alameda city employees for 2008. Keep in mind that most of these people do not have a university degree. Also keep in mind that the City of Alameda now pays nearly 78% of it's general fund towards police and fire. Here is also, an associated article regarding City of Alameda salaries, plus benefits.

Some more numbers. The number one reason for a Firefighter dying on the job is heart attack. The last Alameda city firefighter to die on the job was in 1993. During the last ten years California (a state with a popluation of over 36 million people) lost on average 20 firefighters (state, county and city) per year to "on the job casualties."

Is it a dangerous job? I guess it depends upon where you work. Does it warrant the pay? Absolutely not.