Weren't you talking about tuition? Oregon universities are largely funded by the state, not the federal government. State taxes mostly pay for them, as well as tuition.
Tuition is rising everywhere, not just in Oregon. And not just at public universities, either. So it's pretty implausible that the root cause is PERS. barfo
I don't think it can be denied that PERS is taking a chunk out of the education budget. There have been quite of few articles about it. School budgets are shrinking while PERS costs are doubling. Seems like a strong correlation to me. I wouldn't expect the public freeloaders to renegotiate their fat pensions while schools crumble, though. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/pers_rates_for_state_agencies.html
excuse the hugeness of my diagram. http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1012/college-business/transparency.jpg e:I see that you are right that states pay more than federal, but this implies it is not "mostly" paid by the state.
I was more just speaking from the point that the poster was speaking in a logical manner, not the details of the post directly. I don't think there's any question PERS is part of the problem, but I do believe there are a lot more pieces to that puzzle than PERS alone.
How many Oregon programs are seeing costs increase? Budgets everywhere are collapsing, tax revenues are going down, yet PERS continues to rapidly expand. barfo saying that it isn't a problem in Oregon is laughably ignorant.
How is this different than financial institution employees that have negotiated their pensions and thus cannot be cut?
Taxpayers don't pay for the pensions of financial institution employees. Unless they work for the UAW, of course. Every dime paid out to PERS employees originates in the private marketplace. Even "taxes" on it are from money already taxed in the private marketplace.
The Wall Street bailout wasn't for pensions. The UAW/GM thing was, and it has yet to be completely repaid. Plus, the private bondholders got screwed out of a real bankruptcy process, all so the UAW could keep their pensions.
The same thing is happening in every state. As for PERS growing rapidly.... where do you get that info? If the funds are increasing rapidly, I'd argue it's because the number of Public Employees putting into the funds are growing, which is offsetting the other decreases in values. Because I can tell you.... from everything my parents (both public employees) have shown me regarding their PERS.... they have had A LOT of things taken away in the last few years. They're close to retirement right now. But they've had so much taken away, that they can't retire yet. And these things were taken away after each had 25-30 years in the system (they've now been in the system 30-35 years each). So I'm pretty curious where you're getting your belief about how rapidly PERS is growing. Are they helping out the people just getting into the system? Because those who were promised something for decades are now being stripped, and promises are being taken back.
I didn't say it wasn't a problem in Oregon. I said tuition was rising everywhere, and not just in public universities. Explain how PERS causes tuition hikes at Harvard. First you blamed tuition hikes on Obama. Now it's PERS. What's next, the UN? barfo
You do realize that many sectors of public employees are paid quite a bit less than their equivalents working in the private sectors? The thought process behind the public employee system is that the government pays you less now, sets some money aside, invests it, and then gives it to you upon retirement. You act like these employees were given huge chunks of money, and a gravy retirement.
That used to be the case, but no longer, at least in terms of federal pay. I don't have stats for state employees, but a while back a list was published of both the Top 10 PERS recipients, as well as wages for all teachers in Multnomah County. The amount of kindergarten teachers making $100k (benefits included) was insane. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
3% less for non-teachers in Oregon for public workers, and that's 2010 data. On average, and taking out the absurd salaries for teachers, if you make $50k for the state of Oregon (and you get PERS), your private sector counterpart is making $51,500 (and likely contributing to his/her own retirement at a 50% rate, at the very least). Professor salaries at public universities for some reason weren't included in this study. http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110425/NEWS/104250315/-1/NEWSMAP
I'd take $50k and guaranteed PERS as opposed to $51,500 in the private sector. That argument just doesn't work anymore for public employees.
Maybe not for Federal. I've read where they say pay figures for Federal employees are severely skewed by a few factors (can't remember much about the article, other than most Fed employees live in areas that typically pay more, but I'm not quite sure how that would skew the figures, so I'm not really going to comment much more on that). But how about all the people working for our city and states? There are many sectors on these levels that those working private make far more than public. I know it's true of both of my parents' industries. As for teachers making $100K..... I know several teachers ranging from new entries to 25+ years on the job. None make 6 figures. The only ones even coming anywhere close are the ones with 20-25+ years on the job. Now, I know my sample size may be limited to the 12 or so teachers I know on a very close, personal level, but they all believe their making the same as their peers with equivalent experience. And it ain't enough to make me want to be a teacher.
I just posted a link, but as I said, educators in the state university system weren't included in this study.
