White House secretly passes currency controls
in [Design]
|
Prev: Single-Bit Sound Derivative Digitizer
Next: I will renew all of my works books. I am Isaac Newton, have you already drawn a comet on your eggs on Easter?
From: Joerg on 9 Apr 2010 11:51 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Apr 8, 7:38 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: [...] >>> You were referring to the Davis recall election in 2003? Wikipedia >>> doesn't mention the pension problem, but does refer to the - Enron- >>> generated? - electricity rip-off and the bursting of the dot-com >>> bubble. >> The electricity problem was also predictable because future cost hedging >> was prohibited. That had to go wrong. >> >> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >> >> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-... > > A "rather liberal-trending large newspaper" in the US isn't exactly > middle of the road. > > In any event it is a 2010 report, where your claim was that the > pension problem is the one that got rid of Davis in 2003. If you'd > read the report, you'd have noticed that the pension problem only got > urgent as a result of the consequence of the recent economic down-turn > brought on the the collapse of the US housing market. Pulling in the > pension problem plays well with right-wing nitwits, so newspapers can > be relied on to throw it in to flatter their more rabid readers. > No. It blew apart right after his last election and was a core reason for the recall. But for me I'll end the discussion here. You won't believe any source, it is thus a waste of time and I've got to work. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jim Thompson on 9 Apr 2010 12:12 On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:51:48 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bill Sloman wrote: >> On Apr 8, 7:38 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >[...] > > >>>> You were referring to the Davis recall election in 2003? Wikipedia >>>> doesn't mention the pension problem, but does refer to the - Enron- >>>> generated? - electricity rip-off and the bursting of the dot-com >>>> bubble. >>> The electricity problem was also predictable because future cost hedging >>> was prohibited. That had to go wrong. >>> >>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>> >>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-... >> >> A "rather liberal-trending large newspaper" in the US isn't exactly >> middle of the road. >> >> In any event it is a 2010 report, where your claim was that the >> pension problem is the one that got rid of Davis in 2003. If you'd >> read the report, you'd have noticed that the pension problem only got >> urgent as a result of the consequence of the recent economic down-turn >> brought on the the collapse of the US housing market. Pulling in the >> pension problem plays well with right-wing nitwits, so newspapers can >> be relied on to throw it in to flatter their more rabid readers. >> > >No. It blew apart right after his last election and was a core reason >for the recall. > >But for me I'll end the discussion here. You won't believe any source, >it is thus a waste of time and I've got to work. > >[...] Joerg, Are you not a religious person? Then you ought to know how shunning works. Use it :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: JosephKK on 10 Apr 2010 00:31 On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:29:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> > >[...] > >>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>> >>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>> >>> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >>> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >>> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >>> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >>> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >>> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >>> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >>> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >>> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >>> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >>> >> Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning >> that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after >> taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? >> Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what >> is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated >> about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? > > >As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". >$14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink >slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull >in such retirement, and neither will I. > >I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy >to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. > >However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. > >[...] So there you are in private practice, not able to manage $100k/year, net? Or not enough to have $100k/y left after buying a nice retirement and medical insurance? Ok, a city engineer is a rather high level position, typically in charge of several millions/y budget and responsible to get the most out of it. Are you saying that the pay is too much when compared to private engineers doing equivalent work? Or are you saying that you resent people who select a steady income of 75% of the going rate for a more stable long term position? Let's get honest and numerical about this.
From: Joerg on 10 Apr 2010 11:38 JosephKK wrote: > On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:29:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >> [...] >> >>>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>>> >>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>>> >>>> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >>>> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >>>> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >>>> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >>>> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >>>> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >>>> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >>>> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >>>> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >>>> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >>>> >>> Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning >>> that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after >>> taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? >>> Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what >>> is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated >>> about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? >> >> As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". >> $14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink >> slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull >> in such retirement, and neither will I. >> >> I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy >> to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. >> >> However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. >> >> [...] > > So there you are in private practice, not able to manage $100k/year, net? > Or not enough to have $100k/y left after buying a nice retirement and > medical insurance? ... In private practice you generally can't. Certainly not if you must buy your own gear. In my case I also work on volunteer things, at zero Dollars. But even if I wouldn't, $100k after all costs, taxes and whatnot would wipe out family life. Plus you still would never be able to achieve a plum retirement. I know a lot of private practice guys and none of them can't. Unless they are lawyers or dentists. Not engineers. > ... Ok, a city engineer is a rather high level position, > typically in charge of several millions/y budget and responsible to get > the most out of it. Are you saying that the pay is too much when compared > to private engineers doing equivalent work? ... Yes, that's what I am saying. This was just one example of many. Undoubtedly you have noticed the ruckus of steep raises at the capitol that people bestoed on their staff days or on the last day before leaving office, during a time where CA has no money. This is symptomatic. It's not "their" money so spending is easy, right? There have been examples in the paper where an open position got throusands of applications during non-recession times. That would be a clear sign that something in the compensation ain't right. > ... Or are you saying that you > resent people who select a steady income of 75% of the going rate for > a more stable long term position? > Let's get honest and numerical about this. The 75% is wrong. It was probably correct at one time but it no longer is. Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with lower tax burden are not? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: JosephKK on 11 Apr 2010 00:00
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:38:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:29:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>>>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>>>> >>>>> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >>>>> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >>>>> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >>>>> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >>>>> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >>>>> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >>>>> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >>>>> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >>>>> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >>>>> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >>>>> >>>> Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning >>>> that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after >>>> taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? >>>> Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what >>>> is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated >>>> about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? >>> >>> As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". >>> $14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink >>> slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull >>> in such retirement, and neither will I. >>> >>> I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy >>> to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. >>> >>> However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. >>> >>> [...] >> >> So there you are in private practice, not able to manage $100k/year, net? >> Or not enough to have $100k/y left after buying a nice retirement and >> medical insurance? ... > > >In private practice you generally can't. Certainly not if you must buy >your own gear. In my case I also work on volunteer things, at zero >Dollars. But even if I wouldn't, $100k after all costs, taxes and >whatnot would wipe out family life. Plus you still would never be able >to achieve a plum retirement. I know a lot of private practice guys and >none of them can't. Unless they are lawyers or dentists. Not engineers. > Time will tell, in due time i am going to find out the hard way, by seeing if i can pull it off. > >> ... Ok, a city engineer is a rather high level position, >> typically in charge of several millions/y budget and responsible to get >> the most out of it. Are you saying that the pay is too much when compared >> to private engineers doing equivalent work? ... > > >Yes, that's what I am saying. This was just one example of many. >Undoubtedly you have noticed the ruckus of steep raises at the capitol >that people bestoed on their staff days or on the last day before >leaving office, during a time where CA has no money. This is >symptomatic. It's not "their" money so spending is easy, right? But that is a bit of a different problem, and does not affect engineers in public employ. Not that it is right anyway. > >There have been examples in the paper where an open position got >throusands of applications during non-recession times. That would be a >clear sign that something in the compensation ain't right. > That also does not affect engineers compensation. Nor is it right. > >> ... Or are you saying that you >> resent people who select a steady income of 75% of the going rate for >> a more stable long term position? >> Let's get honest and numerical about this. > > >The 75% is wrong. It was probably correct at one time but it no longer is. You are entitled to your opinion. > >Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax >rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with >lower tax burden are not? Jeorg, you were right here watching it happen. The liberals in Congress mandated more loans to "disadvantaged" people, and got them. Then the liberals in Sacramento awash in a surplus in 2004 and 2005 mandated permanent entitlements that were clearly unsustainable. The bubble went phsssssh in 2007 and now we have massive deficits. The big difference for California is magnitude of the bubble and resultant jump in entitlements being much bigger. By the way, fannie and freddie are still making more of those funky loans. |