The more corrupt the state,
the more numerous the laws.
Cornelius Tacitus
The Political Myth of the "War on Woman"
This blog has attacked the 77 centers for years. The idea that businesses intentionally discriminate against talented female workers is preposterous. Take, for instance, men working on dangerous oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico vs. elementary school teachers fighting for the few vacancies--convenient hours, commute, etc., 3 months off every summer. Salaries reflect demand/supply, productivity. It's not "discrimination"--if it was, staffing companies could arbitrage the difference.
The fact that Obama repeats the 77 center lie exposes his lack of personal integrity; he is either economically-illiterate or a cynical demagogue. But lets move on to the equally illiterate focus on alleged discrimination in prices for women's goods and services. Say, for instance, a woman's hair takes longer to cut or a garment requires special handling to clean--or suppose that women on average live longer or incur more medical expenses. Equality depends on context. For example, suppose men live 10 years in retirement on average and women 14. To pay out the same monthly payment means on average women are getting 4 years of pension benefits men aren't getting--in what universe is that "fair"? What's fair reflects the expected liabilities....
One of the ludicrous examples of political correctness is Wimbleton; the female champion gets paid as much as the male--but plays fewer sets to win a match--and in my opinion the men's matches are far more competitive and entertaining. I am more likely to pay to watch top male athletes go at each other. (I do prefer looking at lady athletes, but that's a different topic..)
Facebook Corner
(IPI). Pensions run by Illinois politicians are much riskier than self-managed retirement accounts.
Just look at the results of Chicago’s pension funds. The police pension fund has just $0.25 for every $1 needed to pay out future benefits. The firefighter fund has just $0.31. Those funds are broke, and without real reform they’ll run dry in just a few years.
I was enrolled in a 403B several years ago as a visiting prof at a central Illinois university for a year. Let's get real, people: anyone in a public employee union who didn't see danger in pension (state contribution) holidays and other gimmicks the Tribune traces back at least to 1994 is a fool. Wise stewardship of the people's hard-earned tax money does not include juggling bills at the end of the month, deciding which one gets paid. My own contributions, even without vested matching state funds, have earned a decent return; why? Because it's my own money for retirement. I didn't trust in some politicians whom likely never think beyond the next election and likely will never be in office when the unsustainable Baby Boomer retirements are in full force forcing a choice between deferred obligations and essential services.
Illinois Policy Institute but a legaly binding contract was signed by the employer and the membership. Comes down to keeping your word on both sides.
No. Unduly transferring costs to future taxpayers is not a reasonable agreement. It would be like your telling your bank, "I've decided instead of paying off my loan this year, I'll pay it off at some future date." There are all sorts of risks--e.g., you're paying off your loan in ever cheaper dollars. The State of Illinois is indebted to a number of parties: why are retirees more equal? Bondholders also have contracts with the state, not to mention other vendors. What about their contractual rights?
That is why [different comment thread] public union workers should pay into SS. In many other states, public union workers pay into SS.
I was reminded of this when I recently reviewed my social security statement. During my 5 years as a professor at state schools (including Wisconsin and Texas), the only time during my job history (including work/study in undergraduate school) I did not pay into SS was my one year teaching in Illinois.
http://www.forbes.com/.../2013/04/24/why-401ks-have-failed/\
I don't recall working for any company offering pensions. 401K's have been the rule, not the exception, at least since the 1980's. Why? They realized the largest generation, the Baby Boomers, hitting retirement and with longer lifespans, were going to be unsustainable. If businesses knew this was unsustainable decades ago, why is the public sector now only beginning to get the message years after Baby Boomers have already started to draw on social security?
The residential troll points out pensions are a better deal--yeah, maybe if the plan is well-financed--but the State of Illinois has been playing games trying to limit state contributions for at least 20 years. For the unions to start bitching now are years late and billions of dollars short. It's not going to happen; deal with it.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall |
Justin Timberlake (with Timbaland), "SexyBack"
