<p>From dstark’s link, post #337</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Something really perverse about private-sector workers with no pension being taxed to the hilt to fund Marvin Marcus $300k+ annual public-sector pension</p>
<p>Before I judge, I would like to know what these people do…</p>
<p>Many do take lower pay packages working in the public sector than they would make in the private sector. </p>
<p>I know one person not on the list, but with a good pension, who was paid hundreds of thousands a year less than he could have made in the private sector. The person was a big winner for the public sector.</p>
<p>Marvin Marcus brought in millions of dollars in grants for UCLA.</p>
<p>I like this headline although wharton is short on the actual details. They are estimating a current shortfall of 757 billion.</p>
<p>“Public Sector Pensions: ‘Their Accounting Makes Enron Look Good’”</p>
<p>[Public</a> Sector Pensions: ‘Their Accounting Makes Enron Look Good’ - Knowledge@Wharton](<a href=“http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3080]Public”>http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3080)</p>
<p>The estimate can be upto 2.9 billion based on a discount rate?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12084/05-04-pensions.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12084/05-04-pensions.pdf</a></p>
<p>[UH</a> gives Khator big bucks to stay - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“UH gives Khator big bucks to stay”>UH gives Khator big bucks to stay)</p>
<p>Not sure if deferred compensation shows up as pension.</p>
<p>“Regents chairwoman Nelda Blair said Friday that Khator recently signed a new three-year contract with an annual base salary of $700,000 and an annual deferred salary of $200,000.”</p>
<p>Those are both great links.</p>
<p>Yes…the discount rate matters big time. The shortfall can change by trillions of dollars depending on the discount rate used.</p>
<p>Those that want to cut govt usually use a lower discount rate to show bigger shortfalls. Then they can yell, “3 trillion dollar shortfall. Let’s cut the pensions”. Lol </p>
<p>Those that support the pensions have a dilemna. If they use a higher discount rate to make the shortfall look smaller, and the pensions are
funded expecting the higher rate, the odds of a large shortfall are higher.
Lol
These pensioners might get screwed by projections that are too positive. </p>
<p>Calpers might not want to show a lower discount rate because the shortfall looks bigger and they don’t want to look like they mismanage the pension’s assets. This is my opinion. Maybe Calpers believes they can achieve returns of almost 8 percent a year. That kind of return was achievable in the past. But now? Who knows?</p>
<p>I like the CBO. I think the CBO does a good job. They guess…but logically…</p>
<p>Khator looks like she might be worth the money. UH is a billion dollar plus organization.</p>
<p>The president of a much smaller company where I used to work was paid $500,000 a year and ran the company into the ground.</p>
<p>I think we could have gotten someone cheaper to run the company so poorly.:)</p>
<p>Not sure if the other presidents are deferring a lot more money. It surprises me that UT and A&M chancellors get paid less.</p>
<p>[Board</a> of Regents approves three-year contract for Khator // thedailycougar.com](<a href=“http://thedailycougar.com/2012/12/21/board-of-regents-approves-three-year-contract-for-khator/]Board”>Board of Regents approves three-year contract for Khator - The Cougar)</p>
<p>"According to The Texas Tribunes Government Employee Salary Database, the president of Texas A&M University makes $424,999 a year; the president of the University of Texas at Austin makes $613,612; Texas State University pays its president $354,486; and Lamar University pays its president $306,034 a year.</p>
<p>According to the database, Khator is the highest paid university president in Texas colleges excluding university hospitals and medical branches."</p>
<p>Khator is president and chancellor. Is that a similar arrangement at the other schools?</p>
<p>UH has 4 or so other schools and she is an overall chancellor. However, both UT and A&M have larger systems and have simiar chancellors. </p>
<p>On a side note, she is a purdue alumna and supposedly interviewed there last year (she has not admitted to it publicly) which triggered the raise. She claimed they have called her a dozen times but she is not interested.</p>
<p>The president and chancellor at UT is the same person?</p>
<p>So do you think the UH president is overpaid? Has she brought in revenue for the school?</p>
<p>Looks like there is a President at UT and a chancellor of the system.</p>
<p>The football coaches in Texas Us get paid more than the chancellors.</p>
<p>“The football coaches in Texas Us get paid more than the chancellors.”</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Ok. Bedtime for me. Have a good night.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa! The State of California and her taxpayers have not contributed one penny to the University of California pension fund (UCRP) for 23 years.</p>
<p>Read the Executive Summary:
<a href=“uclafaculty.org”>uclafaculty.org;
<p>@momsquad,</p>
<p>The state of CA jumped in a few times to contribute to the UCRP. The author of this report makes a case for why the state should continue to support retirements.</p>
<p>polarscrip- the new federal pension is still better for its employees than NJ’s pension, My brother is a federal employee and we compared.
dstark- my brother works for IBM and when they took him out of the pension they went to a 401k match where if he contributes 6% they contribute 10%. I would agree to that immediately.
I would like to remind you the employer was to contribute 4% of an employees salary to fund the state and teacher pension-4% is not an excessive cost.</p>
<p>I work for a large corporation which used to have defined pension benefit. Before I joined it used to be a great benefit for those workers who worked for the company for many years. I don’t know the details, but I know that it was growing exponentially, but was worth zero if you left the company before you retired. </p>
<p>When my employer realized that they could not afford that benefit, they started offering a new one, which is 6% of the last 5 years average compensation multiplied by number of years with the company. With this new plan people were vested into the plan after a year of service and the pension was theirs even if they left the company after one year. New people, including me, were now offered this benefit. Existing employees were offered a choice between two plans. Because of many layoffs at the time, most people chose the new plan.</p>
<p>Nowadays, newly hired employees do not get any pension. Even with new plan, the pension was underfunded ten or so years ago and my employer had to go through a lot of pain to fund it. Our CEO does not talk anymore about under-funded liabilities, so I assume my employer solved this problem.</p>
<p>We also have 401K with generous matching. Everyone, including those who still have pension, has the same 401K plan. However, when times were lean, my employer slashed matching. They now partially restored the matching, but not completely. It is not clear if and when the full matching is going to be completely restored. </p>
<p>I also would like to add that over the years, many benefits were slashed, like health care and vacation schedule. There was a year when we were furloughed. Am I happy about this? Of course not. But I have a choice: to stay or leave. There is no such thing as irreplaceable employee. I chose to stay, because it is not like my employer is unique in its predicament. I believe the public employees should also have only two choices: stay or leave. The third choice of striking should not be there for them (for the reasons outlined in post #327).</p>
<p>However, I think public and private sector need to fund what they promised to fund for their existing employee, because unlike health care and vacation, retirement planning is a long term thing. But they have to redefine their retirement benefits for newly hired employees. And the unions should stay out of it. </p>
<p>P.S. I also think the same about SS. We have to fund what we promised to older people, but we need to figure out how to address this problem with future generations.</p>
<p>I’m not against pensions, esp. when it comes to cops, firefighters, and teachers, but some of the payouts are outrageous for some individuals. And salaries are manipulated for some people the last couple of years, in order to jack up the payout significantly, or so I’ve read.</p>
<p>mstee, my husband is a city worker here. I am grateful beyond words for what he gets, believe me. And yes, I know there is an element of hypocrisy on my part.</p>
<p>Since superstorm Sandy, he has worked almost every day, including Sundays and major holidays. He worked 53 days straight after the storm, many days 12-16 hours. While this was necessary in the early days, the express purpose has been to use the federal money to jack up the workers’ salaries because their pensions are based on their highest three years of salary. It’s not a secret, it’s not even a question. This is what is being done from the very high levels in the department (not the commissioner level) that makes the schedules. Other uniformed services are doing the same.</p>
<p>The whole scandal with the LIRR pensions is similar, and for many years it was hard to find a NYC firefighter who didn’t retire with a medical pension. These possibilities exist but can be and are exploited, which is hugely expensive in a time of declining birthrates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read a lot of what Victor Davis Hanson and Heather Mac Donald have written, including what I have posted here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with defined pension benefit is that it is unsustainable, this is why private sector with non-unionized labor force does not offer it anymore. (I am not sure about private section with unions).</p>