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
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
#220 The problem is, unless we fix the California constitution, we can't afford the police and fire we have today. We must lay off large numbers at these prices, we should try to keep the best, and retire the rest. ====== What kind of fix to the California constitution do you think we should make? Reducing salaries is not pleasant, but not as unpleasant as laying someone who still wants to work. I much rather have my salary frozen, as it was last year, or even have a pay cut to prevent layoffs. One problem I see with your suggestion is that we probably cannot afford their retirement. All honest jobs, regardless of "status" or "prestige," are worthy of respect.— March 8, 2010 11:48 p.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
That "common sense approach to business and government" is, as I understand it, a bit like Japan's: business is always right and consumers are wrong. That seems like the Texas mentality to me. Correct me if I am wrong. ====== The City Journal article that I referred to on post #125 lays out fairly clearly the cost and effectiveness of government in both states. We have one of the highest gasoline taxes in the country yet our roads, particularly in Northern California, are atrocious. The roads in San Diego county are fairly good. We have a government of, by and for itself. I can't believe I am saying this, but I miss Willie Brown--at least he understood that you need to create wealth to keep government going. Some regulations are important and necessary. However, passing regulations that have minimal, if any benefits, except to ensure the perpetuity of the regulatory body creating it destroys jobs. Just look at the new diesel engine law that CARB has had to put on hold because of the devastating impact it was going to have on truckers and farm equipment. Or about the MTBE fiasco that poisoned the water supply and reduced gas mileage by 10%. Of course, the Bush administration forced California to use ethanol as a payoff to the corn farm lobby. We have a unique gasoline blend that no one else uses, which is one of the reasons we pay more for gasoline and everything else. More than half of the $1 billion to build a new refinery is for regulations and studies. I am not saying we do not need regulations, but how many consultants and bureaucrats do we need to employ at more than $100k/year? Even successful California companies often expand outside California because of the business climate here. Several years ago Intel said that they would not build another plant in California because of regulations and the uncertainty of energy supplies. Apple and Google are still expanding in Silicon Valley for programers and designers, but data centers and other jobs that go to less skilled workers are not being created here. The unemployment rate in Santa Clara county is surprisingly high. I would say the unemployment rates in both states are indicative of the business climate in each state. The insolvency of California is a pretty good testament that something, or many things, are not right. Texas also has many problems, but at least their budget is roughly balanced and more people are employed. Always assuming that business is right is wrong, but not as wrong as always assuming that business is always wrong.— March 7, 2010 11:49 p.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
So basically, if Dallas were nothing like Dallas is (humid & hot as hell in summer, wet and cold in winter, completely flat and mostly covered in concrete) you'd move there? ====== A city is a combination of natural and human environments. The natural environment in Dallas is, as you described it, less than ideal, with the exception that it is not that humid in summer--or at least on the occasions when I have been there. Austin, Houston and San Antonio are more humid. On balance, I happen to like Texans and their common sense approach to business and government. The wealthy in Dallas appear to be civic minded and have donated several hundred million dollarss to develop a superb arts district. The people in Dallas are very friendly, though not as friendly as in the midwest. Property taxes in Texas are about 3% of market value vs. about 1% in California because of Prop 13. Before Prop 13, taxes were 2-3% of the current market value. However, since the same house in a comparable neighborhood in Dallas is at least half the price of San Diego, property taxes are not as bad as it first appears. If you were to buy the same price house in Dallas as you sold in San Diego, then property taxes may become a financial problem, as well as cooling the huge home. The lower tax burden in Texas is because it has no income tax and sales tax rates are lower than here. No place is perfect, and the fact that I am still living in California says that, for the time being, I think this is still the best place to live--though no where near the great place that I grew up in, or even 10-20 years ago. Californians usually say that if they have to live in Texas, they would go to Austin; to which I reply: why would I want Texas weather, Texas natural beauty and California folks.— March 7, 2010 1:32 a.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
I, for one, would not miss Texas if it seceded... ===== The same thing can be said about California, or within California. If just the SF Bay Area, and I mean the cities on the bay, and LA county were not part of California, this would be a very different and much better state. Below is the link to an LA Times story and the original City Journal article comparing the government in California and Texas: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1… http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_california.… If the weather in Dallas were like California and, to a much lesser degree, the natural beauty, I would not hesitate to move there. If I were just finishing college, I probably would also go somewhere else where I could afford a house in a safe neighborhood.— March 6, 2010 4:07 p.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
The applicants for some of these jobs come from out of state and the large number of applicants is not just because of the large military presence, which in my opinion is a huge positive. Although a college degree is positive, I believe it is often overvalued. I will take a HS graduate with common sense and a positive attitude over someone with a "social sciene" degree that did not exist before the 1960s. Technical and scientific degrees can be much more valuable as long as the graduate can communicate and have interpersonal skills. Each job requires different skill sets. Poltical/social agendas have greatly distorted the quality of employees.— March 4, 2010 10:46 a.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
On #41 I should have said "Although I do NOT always agree with you, I appreciate and value your opinions.". That tends to be the case on non-financial matters. But civilized disagreements can be enlightening. On most 401k plans, the choices are limited. Mine is on a 2025 target fund.— March 4, 2010 10:25 a.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
Here's a question for the masses....how much do you think a police officer or a fire fighter should be paid...starting salary to maximum? I would be interested in hearing what a fair compensation is. Really. Please respond. ===== I especially want policemen and firemen to be well compensated to attract well-qualified individuals. It is not the easiest job and they actually provide society with many direct and indirect benefits, unlike the vast bureaucracies that are often used for political patronage. CARB is one such example and those who may want to know more about it can go to: www.killcarb.org One of the best ways to determine whether a wage is reasonable is by seeing how many qualified individuals apply for an opening. If you have more than about 5 applying for an opening, then you are probably paying to much. Whenever firemen positions are open to general public, you have more than 100 applicants for each job. That is an indication that compensation is not competitive. As SP said above and I referenced in the previous post, you have to include the value of all compensation and not just the basic salary. Even if you ignore the unethical spiking of the last-year's salary, when you include the value of salary and benefits, compensation in the top 5-10% of all jobs is probably too high. Top 25% would be reasonable.— March 4, 2010 1:06 a.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
The average comp package (salary + benes, including a $3 million pension) is $200K BEFORE any OT is included. ======= Including the total value of compensation, including the present value of the retirement annuity, is a very good point. Virtually no one, including most public sector employees, understand this. Most people believe fringe benefits are an entitlement and are not part of their compensation. Most employers, both public and private, rarely share the total compensation cost. When salaries between the private and public sectors are compared, the fact that private sector employees fund most of their retirement from their salaries and the public employees funds most of their retirement with money in addition to their salary is rarely made. This fact creates a bigger difference than is generally acknowledged because it is in the government's interest to understate the total cost to the taxpayer.— March 4, 2010 12:49 a.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
I would be careful how much you put into equities. I do believe that the Dow could wind up this year at 12,000, but will only be worth 8,000. I say that just because I think the liquidity flood will continue, both in the U.S. and Europe, and probably Japan, which may be the worst off of all countries. But look out for problems in 2011. And they could hit this year, possibly as early as April. Financial assets continue to ride up because of the liquidity, but the economy is not coming along. Big problems lie ahead. ===== Although I do always agree with you, I appreciate and value your opinions. Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment above. I do not see how current government policies, including near-criminal deficit spending and the prospect of significantly higher taxes, can lead to long-term economic prosperity. I have about 70% of the 401-k/IRA in equities and 30% in bonds/CDs. I wonder about the stability of many financial instruments and whether it is just a piece of paper with no real assets supporting it. I frankly do not what to do other than to not have any debt and keep fixed expenses as low as possible. You can enjoy life with variable expenses as long as the fixed expenses are well below your income. If we do not have more financial disasters and I can stay employed another 10-15 years, I should have a comfortable retirement because I save a significant percentage (>15) of my salary. This also means that when I was contributing to the traditional 401k, my take home pay was ~55% of gross. Last year, when I started contributing to a ROTH 401k, it dropped to ~45% and this year when I am doing a "catch-up" I am down to 35% of gross. I am not sure I am cashflow positive until I finish with the "catch-up" amount. Taxes are already ridiculously high. Not counting sales taxes and all the other hidden taxes, taxes are about 30% of my gross income, which is above average, but nowhere near the current definition of "rich" by the knaves in Washington.— March 4, 2010 12:38 a.m.
Work for a Government and Rake in Bucks
Response to #8 It sounds like your defined contribution program is doing OK; in my opinion. ====== I believe it is funded above the 80%(?) required by the Federal Government and may even be near 100%. A year or two ago the corporation with the biggest unfunded pension liability was Exxon; it had a $20-30 billion shortfall. Aside from the overly generous benefits promised to public sector employees, perhaps the biggest problem has been that in typical government fashion, the rules that apply to the private sector often do not apply, or allowed to be ignored, by the public sector. It is doubtful that this level of benefits would not have been given had conservative financial assumptions and fully funding the pensions had been required at all times. The actual cost to the taxpayer could not have been hidden so easily.— March 3, 2010 11:57 p.m.