I hate health insurance changes

[Princess Dolly]

Originally Posted by familyoffive

Take a look at the "public servant/service" salaries, benefits and pensions for California state, county and local governement employees. After that, look at the salaries for the city managers and attorneys within California. You will be shocked to see what public employees are being paid!

Yes, some big wigs draw bigger salaries. This is not the case with rank and file public employees.

[familyoffive]

Originally Posted by Princess Dolly

Yes, some big wigs draw bigger salaries. This is not the case with rank and file public employees.

Not true for California. We are talking serving firefighters who are making $150,000 + per year with the overtime. You should see the number of early retired public safety employees, full pensions and medical. Ever wonder why there are so many thousands of applicants for each one opening?

[sbell111]

Originally Posted by npmommie

Without getting political, I will say healthcare costs for massachusetts have increased, and it is due to the mandates and the reform here.
the idea was to reduce costs, yes, but it didn't work out that way.

This thread has gotten far from the OP and is brushing hard against the forum rules, but studies that I have seen show Massachusetts' cost rise at a lower rate than other states. Therefore, it's hard to argue that the changes didn't work. Perhaps different changes would have done it better, but it would be very hard politically to make the big change that would actually solve the problem.

[sbell111]

Originally Posted by familyoffive

Not true for California. We are talking serving firefighters who are making $150,000 + per year with the overtime. You should see the number of early retired public safety employees, full pensions and medical. Ever wonder why there are so many thousands of applicants for each one opening?

Good grief. Just because some public employees in some areas of the country get paid well doesn't mean that overall public employees are paid at the same level as those in the private sector.

[npmommie]

Originally Posted by sbell111

This thread has gotten far from the OP and is brushing hard against the forum rules, but studies that I have seen show Massachusetts' cost rise at a lower rate than other states. Therefore, it's hard to argue that the changes didn't work. Perhaps different changes would have done it better, but it would be very hard politically to make the big change that would actually solve the problem.

I dont know what or where you are reading that but our health care costs are well above other states and rising faster.
Its why our govenor Just signed some new legislation to address all of this.
Cant talk anymore since it will get political. But it IS a result of our health care reform here.

[familyoffive]

Originally Posted by sbell111

Good grief. Just because some public employees in some areas of the country get paid well doesn't mean that overall public employees are paid at the same level as those in the private sector.

Isn't your statement true for everyone, both public and private?

[Hannathy]

Originally Posted by sbell111

Good grief. Just because some public employees in some areas of the country get paid well doesn't mean that overall public employees are paid at the same level as those in the private sector.

Well in my state they are doing better than the private sector, so it isn't just California. and I know of at least 2 other states that it is true. (and there are more)

[allison443]

Originally Posted by Callie

My sister will be repaying her. But they cannot seem to get loans because my mom makes too much money. Same with my college.
Also she has quite a bit of money tied up in investments for retirement that she refuses to touch

I don't think there is such a thing as "making too much money to be eligible for loans". There is an income limit for government-subsidized loans, but you can still get unsubsidized loans if your income is above the limit.
Everyone in college is eligible for the Stafford loan (although with a higher income the loan would be unsubsidized.) You and your sister could get loans with your mom as a co-signer for example. Not saying you should do that, but the option is there

[tvguy]

Originally Posted by sbell111

Good grief. Just because some public employees in some areas of the country get paid well doesn't mean that overall public employees are paid at the same level as those in the private sector.

According to a Pew study, the average public sector worker has compensation (salary and benefits) that are 26% higher than the same person in the private sector. So yes, since that is an average, half the public workers don't make 26%, and half make 26% more or greater.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=542

[Colleen27]

Originally Posted by familyoffive

Take a look at the "public servant/service" salaries, benefits and pensions for California state, county and local governement employees. After that, look at the salaries for the city managers and attorneys within California. You will be shocked to see what public employees are being paid!

I'm sure it varies from state to state, but I've found that generally speaking the only way public employees on whole stack up favorably is by biasing the sample by failing to control for age or education.

But when people talk about lower pay in the private sector they're generally not thinking of politicians/elected officials. They're thinking of the "rank and file" govt employees because they're the ones being hit hard with this change in approach to public employee benefits - the city manager is still making a good living, but the teacher and the CPS case worker and the IT guy maintaining the city computers are getting pinched. They all settled for lower wages than they could have earned with a comparable education and many of them did so specifically because the benefits compensated for the lower pay. When I went from private sector to public I took a 30% pay cut because the benefits at the time (late 90s) were worth it. Now those benefits are less generous and far more expensive, but the pay gap is just as significant.

[familyoffive]

Originally Posted by Colleen27

I'm sure it varies from state to state, but I've found that generally speaking the only way public employees on whole stack up favorably is by biasing the sample by failing to control for age or education.

But when people talk about lower pay in the private sector they're generally not thinking of politicians/elected officials. They're thinking of the "rank and file" govt employees because they're the ones being hit hard with this change in approach to public employee benefits - the city manager is still making a good living, but the teacher and the CPS case worker and the IT guy maintaining the city computers are getting pinched. They all settled for lower wages than they could have earned with a comparable education and many of them did so specifically because the benefits compensated for the lower pay. When I went from private sector to public I took a 30% pay cut because the benefits at the time (late 90s) were worth it. Now those benefits are less generous and far more expensive, but the pay gap is just as significant.

As an example, the new pension rules going into practice for California state employees are for new hires only.

[Colleen27]

Originally Posted by familyoffive

As an example, the new pension rules going into practice for California state employees are for new hires only.

That's how it was done here initially too... But between hiring freezes and layoffs and people delaying retirement until they can recover some of their lost 401k/IRA balance in the market it wasn't enough, so cuts were extended to existing employees. A lot of older workers faced the choice between retiring before they were ready and losing the benefits that they'd worked 30+ years for and counted on in their retirement planning, and younger workers saw the value of their non-wage compensation plummet.

[familyoffive]

Originally Posted by Colleen27

That's how it was done here initially too... But between hiring freezes and layoffs and people delaying retirement until they can recover some of their lost 401k/IRA balance in the market it wasn't enough, so cuts were extended to existing employees. A lot of older workers faced the choice between retiring before they were ready and losing the benefits that they'd worked 30+ years for and counted on in their retirement planning, and younger workers saw the value of their non-wage compensation plummet.

I'm not sure that we are on the same topic here. The California government employees do not have 401ks, they have pensions that are almost completely funded by the taxpayers. Pensions are a rarity in the private sector these days.

[ilovemk76]

Originally Posted by Colleen27

That's how it was done here initially too... But between hiring freezes and layoffs and people delaying retirement until they can recover some of their lost 401k/IRA balance in the market it wasn't enough, so cuts were extended to existing employees. A lot of older workers faced the choice between retiring before they were ready and losing the benefits that they'd worked 30+ years for and counted on in their retirement planning, and younger workers saw the value of their non-wage compensation plummet.

The private sector has had the same thing happen to them. Do you really think that raising the taxes on the private sector is the answer? If so, then you are misinformed.

[Swan4Me]

Originally Posted by RitaE

That doesn't make sense. Your sister being able to qualify for Grad Student loans shouldn't have anything to do with your Mother's income. Grad students are Independent per the FAFSA and don't report parent income

per the FAFSA website

BOTH of you can get student loans-I agree with above poster-what you are posting makes no sense