Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Union-Tribune Warns Union of 40 Percent Wage Slash, Healthcare Cuts; Teamsters To Resume Campaign To Cut Paper's Circulation
Ooops, I mistyped last night. That should read $20/hr.— February 26, 2008 6:27 a.m.
Union-Tribune Warns Union of 40 Percent Wage Slash, Healthcare Cuts; Teamsters To Resume Campaign To Cut Paper's Circulation
Don, sorry, but a back step line firefighter makes $24/hr. You keep calling for the city to cut firefighter benefits because the city cannot afford them. Apparently the UT has taken that same stance with it's labor force. Now you cry that the UT is being unfair. My point is not how little firefighters make. My point is that packagers and all other workers should be brought in line with good benefits, pay and retirement rather than CEO's taking all of the money for themselves.— February 25, 2008 10:13 p.m.
Union-Tribune Warns Union of 40 Percent Wage Slash, Healthcare Cuts; Teamsters To Resume Campaign To Cut Paper's Circulation
In post #20 Johnny Vegas wrote: SDFD FF can make up to $250K per year with OT, and they also have multi million dollar pensions/benefits-so where did you get the $20 an hour figure??? It is clearly WAY off base. _________________________________ Johnny... A (as in one) firefighter made $250K four years ago. That individual was the sole person budgeted for a special project that should've had four people on it, so he got a lot of OT. No one has made that since. Get over it. The $20/hour figure is for the line firefighter. A top step firefighter makes $60K/year. $60K divided by 52 weeks divided by 56 hours per week equals $20.60 per hour. That's where the $20/hr figure came from.— February 25, 2008 9:43 p.m.
Union-Tribune Warns Union of 40 Percent Wage Slash, Healthcare Cuts; Teamsters To Resume Campaign To Cut Paper's Circulation
Don, if the bottom 50% were making more, the increase in taxes would pay for city workers. There are several problems with city financing. Two of the biggest are that SD does not tax enough, and it gets less back in taxes from the state than other cities. Those are structural problems that need to be fixed by the politicians, rather than from the hides of workers. By bringing city workers down, you bring all workers down. You're working towards the lowest common denominator, not the other way around. The best lid for CEO pay may be shareholders themselves. I'm not sure that government could effectively tax folks enough. As has been pointed out, Warren Buffet pay less a percentage in taxes than his secretary. (Sorry, executive assistant) You write that the government could cap CEO pay when production is overseas. Why just production? CPA firms are now exporting tax return preparation to the Far East. Newspapers are exporting reporter's jobs as well. Perhaps CEOs should be paid the scale where the majority of their workers live. We both know that will never happen. Exporting jobs makes the shareholder more profits, so stocks and thus CEO pay rise.— February 25, 2008 11:50 a.m.
Union-Tribune Warns Union of 40 Percent Wage Slash, Healthcare Cuts; Teamsters To Resume Campaign To Cut Paper's Circulation
Don, you hit the mark when you wrote, "The highest-paid (CEOs, Wall Street nabobs) rake in entirely too much.", but you missed when you wrote, "In San Diego, and elsewhere, government employees have excessive salaries and benefits." Rank and file firefighters only make about $20/hr in this town. And yes, that's top step. The long schedule and overtime are the only reason that they do OK. I'd dare say that a firefighter has a little more training than a "packager", justifying the extra pay. The city has cut medical benefits by thousands of dollars/year and cut pay in the past few years. So where am I going with this? We all need to crusade to bring the average workers pay and benefits in line with government workers, not the other way around. That will be difficult because many gov't jobs can't be exported, while private jobs can be. The political will has to be found to keep CEO pay in line and distribute wealth to the working class. In his song, "Ordinary Man", Peter Hames wrote: "The owner says he's sad to see that things have got so bad, but the Captains of Industry won't let him loose, he still drives a car and smokes a cigar and still he takes his family on a cruise. He'll never lose." I think that about sums it up.— February 25, 2008 10:40 a.m.
San Diegans for City Hall Reform pushes more authority for mayor
Don, actuaries are like lawyers -- they're basically hired to say what you pay them to say. That's why the contract calls for a mutually agreed upon actuary. It really shouldn't be all that big of a deal, no? One of the actuaries you're speaking of is Rick Roeder. As I recall, the city is suing him for providing erroneous information. That confuses things as well. Are we to believe his report on DROP but not his other reports? POSC at artificially low rates (but not as low as the 5 cents on the dollar that Johnny Vegas claims -- more like 66 cents on the dollar) will impact DROP and the system as a whole. That's why I've come out in these blogs against POSC at low rates. However, that's a function of POSC, not specifically of DROP. And Johnny, the taxpayer never makes up 100% of the shortfall. More than half the money that goes into SDCERS is not taxpayer money OR employee money. It's investment gains. So sorry, but it's not "100% taxpayer liability" scam you portray. DROP is complicated, which is why I'm trying ferret out all of the details of it. Once again, I have a vested interest in making sure that the city stays solvent. But -- many actuaries have said that DROP in and of itself is not the devil reincarnated. So -- how do we change the system to make it revenue neutral if it isn't now? But first you have to prove that it isn't revenue neutral. Again, why won't the city simply come up with an actuary in concert with the union to fix the problems?— February 23, 2008 10:08 p.m.
San Diegans for City Hall Reform pushes more authority for mayor
Don, you'll note that above I acknowledge the money put in SPSP when I wrote, "the taxpayer is NOT funding DROP, except for a very small SPSP percentage" in post 48. The savings of DROP to the city is the 13.65% weighted average that goes into the average retirement account minus the 3.05% that goes into SPSP. Obviously, DROP is complicated. That's why I'm asking the questions. Even the city's own actuary says that it can be beneficial. If it is not now, why not? What has to be changed? You state that the city must make up the difference between what SDCERS pays and what it earns. For the past ten years, the average earning of SDCERS have been just over 10%. The system pays 8%. That's a net gain of 2% on what is now around $250 million dollars. That's a lot of dough. About $5 million. There were certainly years in there in which there was a negative net gain. So do we reduce the guarantee percentage? Do we simply tie interest to what the system makes -- thus writing off any gains to the system? My apologies about saying that you got retirement and a lump sum. I thought you had said that... obviously not.— February 23, 2008 4:04 p.m.
San Diegans for City Hall Reform pushes more authority for mayor
Don, BBH/Johnny Vegas doesn't even come close to explaining how DROP is a scam. That's all the two of you can do is pout that you didn't get it. Your biggest argument against DROP is that people get two different chunks of money. Big deal. You said yourself that you get a retirement and got a buyout. That's the same deal, except that in your case the buyout was company funded. The DROP is not 'company' (read taxpayer) funded. Let me repeat that -- the taxpayer is NOT funding DROP, except for a very small SPSP percentage. Should I not get the money in my 401K even though not a penny of taxpayer money went in there? Oh no! I'll get three checks not two! Oh wait! I have an IRA, too. And mutual funds. And stocks. What a scam! Please... get real. No one -- not you, not Rider, not DeMaio, not Eric Bruvold has ever shown numbers proving DROP costs the city money. Nor have you shown that it costs the retirement system money. Meanwhile actuaries have stated that DROP can be beneficial. So let's see it. Show me the numbers. If changes need to be made to DROP to make it profitable for both the city and SDCERS simply tell me what they are. You argue that city employees retire too early. That 'early' retirement is funded by us placing more of our money into the system. It's also funded by putting more city money into the system -- assuming that the city puts in their share. Retiring at 40 wouldn't be too young if it was funded correctly. You've also agreed that 67 is too old to be a line firefighter in most cases. You've suggested that we put those folks who can no longer do that job into other jobs. OK, what other jobs? Are we going to create 700 jobs just for broken down firefighters? And another 2500 jobs for broken down cops? Again... that would cost the city a lot more in the long run. More in additional jobs, more in worker's comp, more in disability, etc. So -- Social Security isn't really an option. Heck, you state that SS is a Ponzi scheme, yet want city workers to join it. That makes no sense.— February 23, 2008 11:05 a.m.
San Diegans for City Hall Reform pushes more authority for mayor
That still doesn't explain WHY it costs the city money. You've simply explained the basic mechanics of DROP. The $400 million figure was based on how much money has come and gone from DROP accounts in SDCERS. However, even Richard Rider agrees that money in DROP accounts is the retiree's own money -- not city money. So explain to me WHY DROP is not cost neutral. That's all you can do is make a value judgment that city employees should not be allowed to save their own money in an account that draws interest. I'm not interested in your value statements -- you have your values, I have mine. I want numbers on how DROP cost both SDCERS and the city money. I'd also like to see a link to the study that says DROP cost $400 million.— February 22, 2008 8:07 p.m.
San Diegans for City Hall Reform pushes more authority for mayor
Don, you still haven't explained in financial terms why DROP is bad. You and all the other pundits resort to terms like, "double dipping" and "scam" but are completely unable to illustrate why. I'm dying to see that, especially as folks like Esuchanko say it can make money for the city. So go ahead... explain it.— February 22, 2008 5:36 p.m.