Comments for CIV FI http://civfi.com Sustainable Financing for Civilization Sun, 13 May 2012 14:48:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on How Much of California’s Budget is Personnel Costs? by Billy http://civfi.com/2011/02/09/how-much-of-californias-state-budget-is-personnel-expense/#comment-1841 Billy Sun, 13 May 2012 14:48:04 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2153#comment-1841 Interesting debate. Persons who have earned pensions should not generally have their benefits cut as they, in good faith, accepted a commitment; however, changes for current and future employees should be made sustainable. This generation will never pay current debt. Therefore, Charles and his ilk are already being paid by their children and grandchildren. Enslaving debt of future generations is an elephant in the room that is at least as important as any specific public union member's lifestyle. The idea that unionized teachers are failing our children (statistics of failing public schools abound) while being paid by those same un-empowered children is the height of irony. Also, taxing earners more has proven to be inefficient. The government is too corrupt (including influence of public unions). History shows that higher tax rates just produce more spending rather than stabalizing current unsustainable spending. Finally, anecdotal evidence (how hard one particular person says they worked, for example) is of low value to analysis. For example, I am not envious of a public employee's pension even though the promise of a defined pension for me (after 36 years) is now half of what was promised 20 years ago. That is my situation and cannot be compared to others. What is important are my children, their future, and what I can do to help ensure that for them and others of their generation. Interesting debate. Persons who have earned pensions should not generally have their benefits cut as they, in good faith, accepted a commitment; however, changes for current and future employees should be made sustainable. This generation will never pay current debt. Therefore, Charles and his ilk are already being paid by their children and grandchildren. Enslaving debt of future generations is an elephant in the room that is at least as important as any specific public union member’s lifestyle. The idea that unionized teachers are failing our children (statistics of failing public schools abound) while being paid by those same un-empowered children is the height of irony. Also, taxing earners more has proven to be inefficient. The government is too corrupt (including influence of public unions). History shows that higher tax rates just produce more spending rather than stabalizing current unsustainable spending. Finally, anecdotal evidence (how hard one particular person says they worked, for example) is of low value to analysis. For example, I am not envious of a public employee’s pension even though the promise of a defined pension for me (after 36 years) is now half of what was promised 20 years ago. That is my situation and cannot be compared to others. What is important are my children, their future, and what I can do to help ensure that for them and others of their generation.

]]> Comment on How Construction Worker Unions Can Save California by Editor http://civfi.com/2012/05/04/how-construction-worker-unions-can-save-california/#comment-1840 Editor Fri, 11 May 2012 18:17:54 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2679#comment-1840 Peter - It is indeed an oversimplification to simply say that cheap and abundant energy is inevitable. But the history of human civilization has been to render basic commodities easier and cheaper to obtain. This progress towards abundance has suffered sharp reverses at times, but the general trend is clear. The reason fossil fuel energy isn't being developed more rapidly today is because many energy companies don't want the competition which would lower profit margins. Without that factor, environmentalists would not be useful to special interests and their influence would be countered. The irony in all this is that if energy development were unleashed, global population would stabilize at, say, eight billion instead of 10 billion, since birth-rates are negatively correlated with income. In another life I edited www.ecoworld.com, which has since been sold and reformatted, which means the charts and graphs compiled for this report don't show. But the text is worth reading if you think we are going to run out of fossil fuel. This information is increasingly difficult to access, by the way. The current edition of the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy does not have the same transparency regarding total reserves of unconventional fossil fuels that were available in earlier editions. Here is a summary: OIL – TOTAL RESERVES If oil provided 100% of global energy, and we used twice as much as we do today (1,000 Quad BTUs per year), there would be a 59 year supply of oil based on known reserves. COAL – TOTAL RESERVES If coal provided 100% of global energy, and we used twice as as much as we do today (1,000 Quad BTUs per year), there would be a 218 year supply of coal based on known reserves. GAS – TOTAL RESERVES If gas provided 100% of global energy, and we used twice as much as we do today (1,000 Quad BTUs per year), there would be a 45 year supply of gas based on known reserves. The text of this report can be found here: http://www.ecoworld.com/business/the-reality-of-fossil-fuels-as-it-accounts-for-eighty-percent-of-our-global-energy-supply.html And the book that was referenced, "A Cubic Mile of Oil," that compiled the data from the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy (among others), can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Cubic-Mile-Oil-Realities-Averting/dp/0195325540 Peter – It is indeed an oversimplification to simply say that cheap and abundant energy is inevitable. But the history of human civilization has been to render basic commodities easier and cheaper to obtain. This progress towards abundance has suffered sharp reverses at times, but the general trend is clear. The reason fossil fuel energy isn’t being developed more rapidly today is because many energy companies don’t want the competition which would lower profit margins. Without that factor, environmentalists would not be useful to special interests and their influence would be countered. The irony in all this is that if energy development were unleashed, global population would stabilize at, say, eight billion instead of 10 billion, since birth-rates are negatively correlated with income.

In another life I edited http://www.ecoworld.com, which has since been sold and reformatted, which means the charts and graphs compiled for this report don’t show. But the text is worth reading if you think we are going to run out of fossil fuel. This information is increasingly difficult to access, by the way. The current edition of the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy does not have the same transparency regarding total reserves of unconventional fossil fuels that were available in earlier editions. Here is a summary:

OIL – TOTAL RESERVES
If oil provided 100% of global energy, and we used twice as much as we do today (1,000 Quad BTUs per year), there would be a 59 year supply of oil based on known reserves.

COAL – TOTAL RESERVES
If coal provided 100% of global energy, and we used twice as as much as we do today (1,000 Quad BTUs per year), there would be a 218 year supply of coal based on known reserves.

GAS – TOTAL RESERVES
If gas provided 100% of global energy, and we used twice as much as we do today (1,000 Quad BTUs per year), there would be a 45 year supply of gas based on known reserves.

The text of this report can be found here:
http://www.ecoworld.com/business/the-reality-of-fossil-fuels-as-it-accounts-for-eighty-percent-of-our-global-energy-supply.html

And the book that was referenced, “A Cubic Mile of Oil,” that compiled the data from the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy (among others), can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Cubic-Mile-Oil-Realities-Averting/dp/0195325540

]]> Comment on How Construction Worker Unions Can Save California by Peter http://civfi.com/2012/05/04/how-construction-worker-unions-can-save-california/#comment-1838 Peter Fri, 11 May 2012 13:14:52 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2679#comment-1838 I agree with of lot of the things said in this blog, but you need to take another look at your statement - "As energy becomes abundant and cheap – and technology guarantees this will occur...". Maybe nuclear energy falls in this specious category of falling energy prices, but everything else points to rising energy costs. Wind, solar and battery technology has not helped mitigate the rising cost of energy in this country. Maybe drilling in ANWR and the Keystone pipeline would help alleviate some the strain, but it would be nothing more than a drop in the bucket relative to rising world demand for a global commodity. Literally. Simply look at the stats from the past century on EIA's website. Enjoy the weekend. I agree with of lot of the things said in this blog, but you need to take another look at your statement – “As energy becomes abundant and cheap – and technology guarantees this will occur…”. Maybe nuclear energy falls in this specious category of falling energy prices, but everything else points to rising energy costs. Wind, solar and battery technology has not helped mitigate the rising cost of energy in this country. Maybe drilling in ANWR and the Keystone pipeline would help alleviate some the strain, but it would be nothing more than a drop in the bucket relative to rising world demand for a global commodity. Literally. Simply look at the stats from the past century on EIA’s website.

Enjoy the weekend.

]]> Comment on How Construction Worker Unions Can Save California by Charles http://civfi.com/2012/05/04/how-construction-worker-unions-can-save-california/#comment-1837 Charles Mon, 07 May 2012 21:50:33 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2679#comment-1837 Mr. Ring I age with your comments. High speed rail is a loser. California needs large infusions of cash in our infrastructure. We need better roads airports, and water. As I have said before on these pages, environmentaliats need to be brought into check. They already have theirs and care nothing about your children and grandchildren. If California drives the middle class and small business into poverty there will be nothing left. Charles Civil Engineer Mr. Ring

I age with your comments. High speed rail is a loser. California needs large infusions of cash in our infrastructure. We need better roads airports, and water. As I have said before on these pages, environmentaliats need to be brought into check. They already have theirs and care nothing about your children and grandchildren. If California drives the middle class and small business into poverty there will be nothing left.

Charles
Civil Engineer

]]> Comment on Social Security Isn’t Insolvent, Public Pensions Are by Isthat http://civfi.com/2012/03/17/social-security-is-not-insolvent-public-pensions-are/#comment-1835 Isthat Thu, 03 May 2012 15:46:18 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2670#comment-1835 Agree with you that the markets are distorted due to the massive amount of investment dollars coming from the public employees retirement systems across the country, but what to do? The dollars have to be put somewhere. Agree that there needs to be less management in schools. Agree that firemen are overpaid. However, I don't agree that public employees (as a whole) are overpaid by 50%. Some are overpaid, some under, some about right. Right wing news groups always try to paint things with a big fat brush, comparing the average salary of a public employee to the average of private. Again, we go back to the fact that nearly all people who work for the public are in professions. Now days, those who work in the private sector are in mostly service jobs. It is just a matter of type of employment/education that causes the wage disparity. Agree with you that the markets are distorted due to the massive amount of investment dollars coming from the public employees retirement systems across the country, but what to do? The dollars have to be put somewhere.

Agree that there needs to be less management in schools.

Agree that firemen are overpaid.

However, I don’t agree that public employees (as a whole) are overpaid by 50%. Some are overpaid, some under, some about right. Right wing news groups always try to paint things with a big fat brush, comparing the average salary of a public employee to the average of private. Again, we go back to the fact that nearly all people who work for the public are in professions. Now days, those who work in the private sector are in mostly service jobs. It is just a matter of type of employment/education that causes the wage disparity.

]]> Comment on Preserving America’s Middle Class by Leah http://civfi.com/2012/02/18/preserving-americas-middle-class/#comment-1820 Leah Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:55:11 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2629#comment-1820 When Obama got elected I actually expected the middle class to gain strength. He mentioned to create jobs in green technology and aimed to become market leader in that field. That would indeed create an enormous amount of jobs. Though it never happened. Instead the middle class kept shrinking and the lower class kept increasing unfortunately. In my opinion just innovation will get us out of the circle. One thing is for sure that lowering the wages won't work. We simply won't ever be able to compete with east/south Asia. Apartments and housing are too expensive here and the cost of living in general, too. When Obama got elected I actually expected the middle class to gain strength. He mentioned to create jobs in green technology and aimed to become market leader in that field. That would indeed create an enormous amount of jobs. Though it never happened. Instead the middle class kept shrinking and the lower class kept increasing unfortunately. In my opinion just innovation will get us out of the circle. One thing is for sure that lowering the wages won’t work. We simply won’t ever be able to compete with east/south Asia. Apartments and housing are too expensive here and the cost of living in general, too.

]]> Comment on America’s Forgotten 33% by Ally French http://civfi.com/2012/01/08/americas-forgotten-33/#comment-1818 Ally French Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:37:46 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2611#comment-1818 I'm living in Europe, and the more (poor) countries that join the European Union, the more problems we import. I guess our leaders want us to look a lot like the USA... I’m living in Europe, and the more (poor) countries that join the European Union, the more problems we import. I guess our leaders want us to look a lot like the USA…

]]> Comment on Social Security Isn’t Insolvent, Public Pensions Are by Editor http://civfi.com/2012/03/17/social-security-is-not-insolvent-public-pensions-are/#comment-1814 Editor Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:19:00 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2670#comment-1814 Isthat - it is always good to read your generally insightful, and always pithy, comments. Believe it or not, I am not a registered Republican. Henry Hyde and Kenneth Star got me out of the Republican party back in 1998. Ronald Reagan got me into the Republican party back in 1981. For 17 years I thought partisan politics was a way to save America. In my youth I was a liberal Democrat. In my middle age I am an independent. I am neither Republican, nor Tea Party, nor Occupier. I am certainly not a libertarian, nor a socialist. I'm just an American, trying to solve problems, and not getting far. But the problems are daunting, wouldn't you say? I completely agree with you that the Republican plan to sink the entire social security fund into the stock market was a bad idea, but for different reasons. Where we disagree is that I think we already have too much taxpayer guaranteed investment in the markets, via the public sector pension funds, and I think amounts invested and backed up by taxpayers at this scale distort and risk destroying the market. That is the crux of our disagreement. The rest is window dressing. As an aside, stating the fact that public employee base pay averages 50% greater than that earned by private sector taxpayers is not a value judgement, it's a fact. I think some jobs in government overpay, such as nearly all non-safety bureaucratic, entry and mid-level positions. I also think many of these bureaucracies are top-heavy, and while the top positions may or may not overpay, they could eliminate a lot of the layers and have fewer top positions. I think the educational bureaucracy is grossly top heavy, and that we could solve our problems financing education if we simply kept 75% of the employees in the classroom, and eliminated about half the non-classroom positions. I think firefighters in most cases in California are overpaid, because literally thousands of applicants try for every open position, but I think that in general, police and prison guards are not grossly overpaid. On the other hand, the abuse of overtime and sick time is rampant throughout government. And the size of the pensions and retirement health benefits are completely unaffordable. But that brings us back to the crux of our disagreement: I think that over $4.0 trillion in assets invested by public employee pension funds and backed up by taxpayers at this scale - and at rates of return exceeding 7% per year - distort and risk destroying the market, and you, apparently, do not. Isthat – it is always good to read your generally insightful, and always pithy, comments. Believe it or not, I am not a registered Republican. Henry Hyde and Kenneth Star got me out of the Republican party back in 1998. Ronald Reagan got me into the Republican party back in 1981. For 17 years I thought partisan politics was a way to save America. In my youth I was a liberal Democrat. In my middle age I am an independent. I am neither Republican, nor Tea Party, nor Occupier. I am certainly not a libertarian, nor a socialist. I’m just an American, trying to solve problems, and not getting far. But the problems are daunting, wouldn’t you say?

I completely agree with you that the Republican plan to sink the entire social security fund into the stock market was a bad idea, but for different reasons.

Where we disagree is that I think we already have too much taxpayer guaranteed investment in the markets, via the public sector pension funds, and I think amounts invested and backed up by taxpayers at this scale distort and risk destroying the market. That is the crux of our disagreement. The rest is window dressing.

As an aside, stating the fact that public employee base pay averages 50% greater than that earned by private sector taxpayers is not a value judgement, it’s a fact. I think some jobs in government overpay, such as nearly all non-safety bureaucratic, entry and mid-level positions. I also think many of these bureaucracies are top-heavy, and while the top positions may or may not overpay, they could eliminate a lot of the layers and have fewer top positions. I think the educational bureaucracy is grossly top heavy, and that we could solve our problems financing education if we simply kept 75% of the employees in the classroom, and eliminated about half the non-classroom positions. I think firefighters in most cases in California are overpaid, because literally thousands of applicants try for every open position, but I think that in general, police and prison guards are not grossly overpaid.

On the other hand, the abuse of overtime and sick time is rampant throughout government. And the size of the pensions and retirement health benefits are completely unaffordable. But that brings us back to the crux of our disagreement: I think that over $4.0 trillion in assets invested by public employee pension funds and backed up by taxpayers at this scale – and at rates of return exceeding 7% per year – distort and risk destroying the market, and you, apparently, do not.

]]> Comment on Social Security Isn’t Insolvent, Public Pensions Are by Isthat http://civfi.com/2012/03/17/social-security-is-not-insolvent-public-pensions-are/#comment-1813 Isthat Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:02:55 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2670#comment-1813 More mindless opinions. For the purpose of this post, I will assume that you are a Republican - only Republican's be so obtuse. The Republican party suggested during the Shrub years that Social Security dollars should be invested in the general stock market so that seniors could retire 'big - Texas big'. The argument of the ignorant folk (Republicans) was, at the time, that if SS dollars had been invested all those years that the 'average individual SS account' would have roughly a million dollars in it. SS retirees could live like kings they said. Perhaps it would be closer to the truth to say they could have retired like some lower level Earl of a bygone era. The really cool thing (sarcasm intended) about PERS programs around the country is that they DO invest in the market and dollars grow. You see, this renders your comparative percentages meaningless. They are so devoid of merit, that even you should have posted it. Then there is the (LOL) statement of public employees pay being 50% more. While the benefits are more, the pay is the same (on a job vs job basis). That's not to say that the average govt employee doesn't make more than the average private employee. OF COURSE THEY DO. The govt doesn't have Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and so on. The govt, for the most part, is a professional class that has a higher pay basis. But you, and your little clan of haters, like to throw out pointless numbers in an attempt to inflame the less than educated readers of this blog. Luckily, hardly anybody reads your little blog - but the haters. More mindless opinions. For the purpose of this post, I will assume that you are a Republican – only Republican’s be so obtuse.

The Republican party suggested during the Shrub years that Social Security dollars should be invested in the general stock market so that seniors could retire ‘big – Texas big’. The argument of the ignorant folk (Republicans) was, at the time, that if SS dollars had been invested all those years that the ‘average individual SS account’ would have roughly a million dollars in it. SS retirees could live like kings they said. Perhaps it would be closer to the truth to say they could have retired like some lower level Earl of a bygone era.

The really cool thing (sarcasm intended) about PERS programs around the country is that they DO invest in the market and dollars grow. You see, this renders your comparative percentages meaningless. They are so devoid of merit, that even you should have posted it. Then there is the (LOL) statement of public employees pay being 50% more. While the benefits are more, the pay is the same (on a job vs job basis). That’s not to say that the average govt employee doesn’t make more than the average private employee. OF COURSE THEY DO. The govt doesn’t have Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and so on. The govt, for the most part, is a professional class that has a higher pay basis. But you, and your little clan of haters, like to throw out pointless numbers in an attempt to inflame the less than educated readers of this blog.

Luckily, hardly anybody reads your little blog – but the haters.

]]> Comment on Pricing A Taxpayer Bailout of California’s Pensions by ISthat http://civfi.com/2012/02/24/the-cost-of-a-taxpayer-bailout-of-californias-government-pensions/#comment-1805 ISthat Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:09:43 +0000 http://civfi.com/?p=2652#comment-1805 When the stock market hits 20,000 early next year (remember you heard it here first) and CalPers is funded over 100%, what will you say? That said, the only reason the DOW will hit 20,000 is due to the loss of value in the dollar. This will negatively impact retirees on fixed income. So it all works out to a cut in retirement pay. Just like you want it. Isn't that nice? Hope you have your money in high beta volatility stocks so you can enjoy the ride. Otherwise a 100k that turns into 200k is really still only worth 100k due to the loss of purchasing power of the dollar (high inflation). You following me financial expert? When the stock market hits 20,000 early next year (remember you heard it here first) and CalPers is funded over 100%, what will you say?

That said, the only reason the DOW will hit 20,000 is due to the loss of value in the dollar. This will negatively impact retirees on fixed income.

So it all works out to a cut in retirement pay. Just like you want it. Isn’t that nice?

Hope you have your money in high beta volatility stocks so you can enjoy the ride. Otherwise a 100k that turns into 200k is really still only worth 100k due to the loss of purchasing power of the dollar (high inflation).

You following me financial expert?

]]>