Philadelphia's soaring pension and health-care costs are outpacing revenue, which could threaten the city's ability to tackle its other problems, according to a report released by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia on Wednesday.
The study, "Philadelphia's Quiet Crisis: The Rising Costs of Employee Benefits," projects a rise to more than $1 billion for city pension and health-care costs by 2012. Such an increase would claim 28 percent of the city's budget, up from 16 percent ($403 million) in 1998.
Should cities, counties and states be more realistic and less generous with the pensions and free lifetime health benefits they offer their employees? What should be done about those who are already retired? Should the employees unions be forced to make concessions for the good of all Philadelphia's citizens, including its taxpayers who are on the hook for these bills? Also, this is not just Philadelphia's problem, all major cities in the United States are facing similar budget shortfalls when they add in the projected costs of lifetime health benefits and pensions for their employees. What should be done?
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2008/01/21/daily21.html
3 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCould be worse. How would you like to live in Detroit? In 1952 they had one of the largest economies (for cities) on earth. Then the unions and democrats took over. It now ranks worst for its size in the western world.
Philadelphia's soaring pension and health-care costs are outpacing revenue, which could threaten the city's ability to tackle its other problems, according to a report released by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia on Wednesday.
The study, "Philadelphia's Quiet Crisis: The Rising Costs of Employee Benefits ould be done?
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2008/01/21/daily21.html
Cause and effect.
edit... and it ain't like they didn't have warning. Here is an article from 19frickin61 warning of what would happen.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873465,00.html
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI thought there was something amiss in this article -- the language, or the descriptions of places: Time shows that this article originally ran Friday, Oct. 27, 1961. I suspect Detroit must be 20 times worse now.
Could be worse. How would you like to live in Detroit? In 1952 they had one of the largest economies (for cities) on earth. Then the unions and democrats took over. It now ranks worst for its size in the western world.
Cause and effect.
edit... and it ain't like they didn't have warning. Here is an article from 19frickin61 warning of what would happen.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873465,00.html
Originally posted by StarValleyWydid the democrats force americans to by better built, more affordable cars from Japan? Detroit's downfall lies directly on the shoulders of the ceo's of the automakers. These companies LOSE money, and they get a multi million dollar performance bonus, Christ... what would they pay them if they actually turned a profit?
Could be worse. How would you like to live in Detroit? In 1952 they had one of the largest economies (for cities) on earth. Then the unions and democrats took over. It now ranks worst for its size in the western world.
Cause and effect.
edit... and it ain't like they didn't have warning. Here is an article from 19frickin61 warning of what would happen.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873465,00.html
The government should take a fair share of fault as well. When they bail out companys, thay are interfering with the nateral selection of business. The 1980 bailout of Dodge was wrong. Yes it saved alot of jobs, but Dodge & many other US car makers learned nothing. The blood sucking unions just smiled and rolled on. Had they failed, maybe it would have been a lesson that Ford & Chevy could have learned from. Make what the public needs. If they had, maybe there wouldn't be so many Japaneese & German cars here.
Originally posted by duecerIt is a lot more complex than that!
did the democrats force americans to by better built, more affordable cars from Japan? Detroit's downfall lies directly on the shoulders of the ceo's of the automakers. These companies LOSE money, and they get a multi million dollar performance bonus, Christ... what would they pay them if they actually turned a profit?
Bottom line you cannot keep taking money away and not have
something break when the bills are all due. What the govenment
should do is tax their way out of this, make the companies give up
all the rest of their money in taxes to make it fair and throw anyone
in jail who cannot make the company work under those conditions.
It is after all the answer to all things, raise taxes!
Kelly
😞
Originally posted by KellyJaythe fact that these companies have lost money has nothing to do with taxes, there are plenty of companies that exist under the same structure, and they make money. my point stands, why pay a ceo a performance bonus when the company loses money?
It is a lot more complex than that!
Bottom line you cannot keep taking money away and not have
something break when the bills are all due. What the govenment
should do is tax their way out of this, make the companies give up
all the rest of their money in taxes to make it fair and throw anyone
in jail who cannot make the company work under those conditions.
It is after all the answer to all things, raise taxes!
Kelly
😞
Originally posted by duecerYou're right -- the companies aren't losing money because of taxes, but rather, because the unions have run them into the ground with excessive wages and overly generous benefits packages. Before you cry foul, you'd better be prepared to answer why foreign automakers (Mercedes, Toyota, etc.) can set up shop in the southern United States states and operate profitably. The answer of course is three simple words: Right to work.
the fact that these companies have lost money has nothing to do with taxes, there are plenty of companies that exist under the same structure, and they make money. my point stands, why pay a ceo a performance bonus when the company loses money?
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritteras a union man, it pains me to agree with you, however only partially. The unions bargained for benefits in good faith, and the automakers gave it to them. 100 % paid health care for retiree's is a great benefit, but admittadly does not help in the competative market. For their own good, the unions should have made some concessions in exchange for promises that production of more fuel efficient cars would be a prioity. That would have insured the long term health of the automakers. They forgot that what is in the best interest of the employer, is in the best interest of the employee, and vice versa. The part that the union is not responsible for, are the huge number of gas guzzling suv's they produced. They are also not responsible for inefficient business practices, poor design, and excessive executive compensation.
You're right -- the companies aren't losing money because of taxes, but rather, because the unions have run them into the ground with excessive wages and overly generous benefits packages. Before you cry foul, you'd better be prepared to answer why foreign automakers (Mercedes, Toyota, etc.) can set up shop in the southern United States states and operate profitably. The answer of course is three simple words: Right to work.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterer no.
You're right -- the companies aren't losing money because of taxes, but rather, because the unions have run them into the ground with excessive wages and overly generous benefits packages. Before you cry foul, you'd better be prepared to answer why foreign automakers (Mercedes, Toyota, etc.) can set up shop in the southern United States states and operate profitably. The answer of course is three simple words: Right to work.
Better quality vehicles.
Originally posted by KellyJayDude...are you just being sarcastic? (I hope)
It is a lot more complex than that!
Bottom line you cannot keep taking money away and not have
something break when the bills are all due. What the govenment
should do is tax their way out of this, make the companies give up
all the rest of their money in taxes to make it fair and throw anyone
in jail who cannot make the company work under those conditions.
It is after all the answer to all things, raise taxes!
Kelly
😞
If you are serious, you need to read "Atlas Shrugged".
Originally posted by duecerPoor design is partailly a result of less profitability. Less profit equals less R&D.
as a union man, it pains me to agree with you, however only partially. The unions bargained for benefits in good faith, and the automakers gave it to them. 100 % paid health care for retiree's is a great benefit, but admittadly does not help in the competative market. For their own good, the unions should have made some concessions in exchange for promises th ...[text shortened]... onsible for inefficient business practices, poor design, and excessive executive compensation.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterJust a side note--
You're right -- the companies aren't losing money because of taxes, but rather, because the unions have run them into the ground with excessive wages and overly generous benefits packages. Before you cry foul, you'd better be prepared to answer why foreign automakers (Mercedes, Toyota, etc.) can set up shop in the southern United States states and operate profitably. The answer of course is three simple words: Right to work.
All that “right to work” means is that a company and a union are forbidden by state law to negotiate a union security clause into a collective bargaining agreement. Any collective bargaining agreement still covers all those in the bargaining unit (whether union members or not), and the union is legally required to represent all those in the bargaining unit (whether union members or not) in negotiations and grievance/arbitration handling.
Whether you agree or disagree with it, that’s all it means.