Comments

1
You forgot to mention a waste of money. How much did the special session cost?

BTW, a note to Democratic and Republican legislators alike, I'm a teacher and politically active. I have a list of who voted for this ridiculously punitive health care plan and the evaluation plan and I'll remember when I donate money, when I volunteer for candidates, and when I vote.

2
Wow. This is surprisingly good news. Well played, Dems. (And how often do we get to say that?)
3
@1: Oh please. We all know you don't make enough to donate more than a pittance to candidates.
4
This is totally untrue.

It was very profitable for the Billionaires who own Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, and other stocks who kept their continually growing tax giveaways (exemptions), without them being subject to a mandatory 2/3 reauthorization Vote of the Citizens.

And they even doubled down and got a few tens of Millions for Tax Giveaways for Data Centers.

You build a Data Center in this state because power is cheap and reliable, not for any bonus tax giveaway, as any educated business person knows. And land is cheap.

There's your Budget Hole. Growing faster while the Richest pay even FEWER taxes while the Poor go broke under sales tax increases to pay for their Vanity Tunnels and Vanity Stadiums.
5
So Gregoire can just veto these right? I doubt she would, but I would be happy with her if she did and then just told the republicans that we're even.
6

The Slonion (www.theslonion.com) is reporting that the sludget passed slooks slemarkably slimilar to the sladdegedly slunaccetable sludgt sloposed during the slinal days of the slegular slession.

7
"...teachers who will look across the border at states where they can retire with full benefits in 30 years rather than 40."

WHAT?!? TEACHERS CAN'T RETIRE AT 52 ANYMORE?!? HOW DARE THEY FUCK WORKERS LIKE THAT
8
"And ironically, by discouraging older workers from retiring early, this reform could actually cost state coffers more than it saves"

Think about this for two goddamn seconds. If teachers now work for 40 years before retirement instead of 30, what happens? All things being equal and assuming everyone retires as soon as they can, you have to hire 1/3 fewer teachers. Of course all things aren't equal (not everyone that CAN retire immediately does so, for example) but there will be a substantial effect on the number of teachers hired, and eventually, the number of teachers drawing from the pension system.
9
@8 That is not how it works. Sure over time you will have to hire fewer teacher since you get more years out of each one, but at any given time you will have the same number of teachers as the number of teachers is based on the number of students.

The reason it might cost the state money is that the more years you work the higher pension you get. So a person retiring at 52 is likely getting a lower salary and has less pension earned, than a person at 62 or 72. It's why companies often offer early retirement. Better to get them out now and replaced with a lower cost younger worker who probably works harder.
10
I find happiness in the dead charter school bill.

Well, for this legislative session because it will be back. (There is money to be made, you know.)

But I figure, in the end, it will go back to the voters - for a fourth time, talk about a waste of money - and once again, the voters will say no. Again.
11
Okay. Goldie is dead on right! The final hours of the legislation session were a friggin' mess to get WEA and public sector unions! Didn't quite make it, however!
12
"@8 That is not how it works. Sure over time you will have to hire fewer teacher since you get more years out of each one, but at any given time you will have the same number of teachers as the number of teachers is based on the number of students."

You need to look at the marginal cost of those teachers. Pulling numbers strictly out of my ass, let's say a senior teacher makes $70k a year in total comp, but retired, would draw $50k in total comp. Keeping that teacher on the payroll instead of retired ostensibly costs $20k a year more (hence leading to the claims of it increasing expenditures), but not really. Why? That retired teacher drawing that $50k in comp needs to be replaced. In this instance, if the total comp of the replacement teacher exceeds $20k (and it does), the system loses money. The system requires a certain number of active teachers at all times, yes, but that's how having teachers retire at the same age as everyone else saves the system as a whole money.

"The reason it might cost the state money is that the more years you work the higher pension you get. "

Even looking at the pension system in isolation, there would eventually be 1/3 fewer of them in the system and each of them would be drawing on that pension for 10 fewer years. Even at a 40% higher per-person-per year payout (assuming no significant lifespan differences between the teacher population and the general population) there is literally no way this increases pension expenditures in the long term.
13
Also early retirement is typically offered as a way to reduce headcount - it gets rid of the more expensive employees, who are frequently not replaced.
14
@12, It doesn't increase pension expenditures, it increases general fund expenditures.
15
And where do pension contributions come from? Thin air? Even if they come from some other fund, they both come out of taxpayers', and the state's, pockets, one way or the other. It's not like the sizes of those respective funds are immutable in some way, it's just shifting cash between the pockets of the same institution. Hence the change will, in fact, save money.
16
holy comma abuse Batman
17
@1, perhaps you haven't noticed that there are quite a few people out of work now. They don't have a "ridiculously punitive health care plan" because they don't have ANY health care plan. You're not gaining sympathy with your insensitive complaints and threats, nor do you impress us with your ability to teach students to be aware of others besides themselves (which is a major component of teaching). Please find some other career path.
18
Just out of curiosity Goldy, was it Ed Murray who said "this reform could actually cost state coffers more than it saves" or was that something you tacked on? I'd hate to think someone that's been in Olympia that long would say something as transparently wrong as that.
19
@18, that was me, not Ed. And I stand by it. An older workforce is more expensive than a younger one, and that will cost the general fund money down the line.
20
Great recap and analysis Goldy, thanks.
21
Of course you stand by it. You never admit you're wrong unless you're corrected by one of your own. You are definitely and conclusively wrong here and ducking that fact is par for the course for you. Shine on, you crazy diamond
22
Giffy, my understanding of the State pensions system is that one's total payout is the same, whether one retires early or late.

Someone nearing the end of their career has likely stalled and will not increase their earnings much in the last few years (barring a few exceptions).

And pension payout is reduced, as you noted, for early retirers. A friend in the state system explained to me that it's based on the actuarials: They expect you to live (on average) to a certain age, so the later you wait to retire the more you get per-month but the fewer months you'll be around to spend it.

So I'm not buying the arguments of the detractors that claim the State pension system is being bled dry by State workers retiring early and collecting full benefits.

I know that wasn't your point and I'm not singling you out- I saw it posted somewhere else recently and it's been bugging me ever since.
23
@5 she can. But will she?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.