On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:33:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, wrote:
On 31 Aug 2017 17:45:54 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:55:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Bleed 'em some more! Bloodsuckers...

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...reck-rahm-says



Unfunded pension liabilities are a bitch. That is why my local union
doesn’t allow them.

It is one of the major problems with government unions. Without the
need to demonstrate funding they can demand unreasonable benefits and
they have the political power to make it happen.


Lots of private sector pension funds have unfunded liabilities...

Nothing like the public sector unions and even then the PBGC is
supposed to be regulating that.. They may have some "promises" that
might not be kept but the core benefit has to be funded.


What sort of mishmash are you trying to sell here?

You don't know what PBGC is ?

The problems of
unfunded municipal pension liabilities are due to the municipalities,
states, et cetera, not properly funding those liabilities, a problem
that goes back decades. The unions, such as they are, negotiate decent
pension and healthcare programs because typically* the salaries cities
and state governments pay don't begin to compare with private sector
salaries.


Bull****, in the cities with the biggest problems the employees make a
lot of money.
The fact that we have allowed these cities to *not* fund the overly
generous pension programs is simply a failure of government to be
responsible. Politicians understand that when their failed policies
explode in their constituants faces, they will be long gone.


* Yes, I know, there are some exceptions...*some* municipal employees
get decent pay.

Which ones don't compared to the same job in the private sector
(including benefits)?