Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
No.
The money lost from piracy is theoretical at best. The fact is most people that pirate pirate tv shows, and those that pirate movies generally see and buy a lot of movies.
Our money problems have to do with quite a few things, but mainly they simply have to do with a lot of spending. We tend to have more severe reactions to national economic trends, which means a recession brings a lot more welfare recipients in California than it might in say Oregon. Our prison system is heavily privatized and our prison guards make a shitload of money. If we had a public system, we could remove a good 40% of the prison budget. We have wildly inconsistent public salaries, including some recent discoveries that there are public officials pulling in 7 figures for $50,000 a year jobs. The worst problem, though, is our state legislature. We need a 2/3 majority in both houses on a budget bill, and then it has to make it past Republican governor Arnold, which means it's almost impossible to get a fucking budget passed. It's very frustrating.
|
Not sure I buy all that. Most state prison systems privatize in order to save money. Private companies tend to offer less health care, pensions and honestly training. I was on a board considering privatizing some facilities in Oregon. Several bids were reviewed and the cost per prisoner per day dropped around $25-$30 a day depending on the bid. Times that by the number of inmates and you stand to save millions.
As Cyn points out above, correctly in my opinion, the pension obligations of many states are killing them. In Oregon they negotiated several times/years for no cost of living increase but instead an increase in retirement benefits. Not only an increase but a change in the way they calculate those benefits and retirement age. Sick time accrued was at one time lost (I think) when you retire, then it was added in at 50% and finally %100 (I think it's back to 50% now). Plus if you have prior military service you can "buy" that time and have it added to your account as if you worked in your state job. It counts both as funds and as time in service. So if you're under the police/fire system which is 25yrs and out you can actually retire with 80% full benefits after 21 years. So after 21 years of service the state would be required to pay a person for the rest of their life, not only their life but if they die they have to pay the person's spouse until they pass away. You end up possibly paying someone who worked 21-25 yrs for another 30 or 40 years.
They also used to have 5 pay grades, then 6 and I believe now it's 7 in some occupations. So you have people just starting out making 35-40K a year and 10 years later nearly 70K. And when those top end people retire often they make more then their take home pay when working. Under Oregon PERS system it's called "money match." Which basically means when you retire we'll double the amount in your account and pay you monthly based on that inflated amount.
Now this sounds a little crazy, right? So why would a state make such a deal? In my opinion several factors were at play. One, like all governments anymore, there was a thought process of "why pay now? We don't have the money, so lets pay later." As if some magical event was going to occur and they'd be in a better position to pay later. Two you had powerful unions threatening to shut down the entire state if they didn't get something. Those unions were smart enough to see a good deal when they saw one. And lastly, probably most importantly, all the people at the collective bargaining table were either state employees or union officials. No one solely had the interest of the taxpayer at the table.
Now Oregon has a two tier system and people hired after a certain date, I'd have to look up that date but I think it was around 1993, do not have the same benefits as people hired prior to that date. Seems someone looked at the numbers and realized it had become unsustainable. Imagine that.