Hundreds quarantined for measles in 2 CA universities.

[The Black Forrest]

So basically, steal the money people earned through their working lives because you don't think they're entitled to it.

Classy.

Let alone that pensions certainly do not guarantee anyone "$120,000 a year".

Actually, they do. Might want to look up CalPERS, which invests pension funds on a whim, and then proceeds to demand that cities and counties cover the shortfall, should their own investments turn out to be mistakes.

https://calmatters.org/articles/comment ... nderwater/

CalPERS was, by its own calculations, 100 percent funded during the 1990s and into the first decade of the 21st century – so healthy, in fact, that state and local officials felt free to sharply increase pension benefits retroactively. However, pension funds took immense hits during the Great Recession – CalPERS alone lost $100 billion – and most have not fully recovered.

In fact, between 2007 and 2016, before the 2017-18 stock market surge, CalPERS’ total liabilities increased by a startling 76 percent, from $248 billion to $436 billion, while its assets increased by just 19 percent, from $251 billion to $298 billion, sharply increasing the fund’s unfunded liabilities. The earnings surge, plus big increases in mandatory “contributions” from state and local governments, did raise CalPERS’ official funded level slightly to 70 percent, but that was still a long way from 100 percent – and now it’s declining again.

Very quietly, CalPERS officials told its governing board last month that the trust fund actually lost 3.9 percent during 2018, apparently due to the sharp stock market decline late in the year, pushing its funded level back down to about 67 percent.

If by "earned" it you mean "state and local officials felt free to sharply increase pension benefits retroactively" then sure they "earned" it. As for "no one" being guaranteed $120,000 in pensions, well: https://reason.com/2017/10/23/californi ... club-2016/

Last week Transparent California released data showing that more than 62,000 retired California public workers earn at least six figures in annual retirement benefits.

So are you claiming that those 62,000 people don't exist, Katganistan? Or that all 62,000 earn between $100,000 and $119,999 in pension benefits? Ah, the entitlement mentality of some Californians, it never gets old.

Six figure income in parts of California is not a sign of wealth. In certain areas it's poverty.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Actually, they do. Might want to look up CalPERS, which invests pension funds on a whim, and then proceeds to demand that cities and counties cover the shortfall, should their own investments turn out to be mistakes.

https://calmatters.org/articles/comment ... nderwater/



If by "earned" it you mean "state and local officials felt free to sharply increase pension benefits retroactively" then sure they "earned" it. As for "no one" being guaranteed $120,000 in pensions, well: https://reason.com/2017/10/23/californi ... club-2016/



So are you claiming that those 62,000 people don't exist, Katganistan? Or that all 62,000 earn between $100,000 and $119,999 in pension benefits? Ah, the entitlement mentality of some Californians, it never gets old.

Six figure income in parts of California is not a sign of wealth. In certain areas it's poverty.

That's probably a sign that the state has failed, if people earning incomes that aren't astronomical can't afford to live.

[The Black Forrest]

Six figure income in parts of California is not a sign of wealth. In certain areas it's poverty.

That's probably a sign that the state has failed, if people earning incomes that aren't astronomical can't afford to live.

Land value isn't controlled by the state.

[Andsed]

So you’d rather die from a pandemic than have people quarantined?

yes I would.

So you would rather let thousands suffer than have a few people quarantined? Wow just wow.

[Shofercia]

Actually, they do. Might want to look up CalPERS, which invests pension funds on a whim, and then proceeds to demand that cities and counties cover the shortfall, should their own investments turn out to be mistakes.

https://calmatters.org/articles/comment ... nderwater/

CalPERS was, by its own calculations, 100 percent funded during the 1990s and into the first decade of the 21st century – so healthy, in fact, that state and local officials felt free to sharply increase pension benefits retroactively. However, pension funds took immense hits during the Great Recession – CalPERS alone lost $100 billion – and most have not fully recovered.

In fact, between 2007 and 2016, before the 2017-18 stock market surge, CalPERS’ total liabilities increased by a startling 76 percent, from $248 billion to $436 billion, while its assets increased by just 19 percent, from $251 billion to $298 billion, sharply increasing the fund’s unfunded liabilities. The earnings surge, plus big increases in mandatory “contributions” from state and local governments, did raise CalPERS’ official funded level slightly to 70 percent, but that was still a long way from 100 percent – and now it’s declining again.

Very quietly, CalPERS officials told its governing board last month that the trust fund actually lost 3.9 percent during 2018, apparently due to the sharp stock market decline late in the year, pushing its funded level back down to about 67 percent.

If by "earned" it you mean "state and local officials felt free to sharply increase pension benefits retroactively" then sure they "earned" it. As for "no one" being guaranteed $120,000 in pensions, well: https://reason.com/2017/10/23/californi ... club-2016/

Last week Transparent California released data showing that more than 62,000 retired California public workers earn at least six figures in annual retirement benefits.

So are you claiming that those 62,000 people don't exist, Katganistan? Or that all 62,000 earn between $100,000 and $119,999 in pension benefits? Ah, the entitlement mentality of some Californians, it never gets old.

Six figure income in parts of California is not a sign of wealth. In certain areas it's poverty.

If you're retired, you can move to a less expensive location. Also, pensions shouldn't be guaranteed by taxpayers, they should bear the stock market risk like the rest of us do, or increase at the average 5 year CD rate of 3% and be FDIC-insured. Asking others to pay for your investment risk is just wrong.

[The Black Forrest]

Six figure income in parts of California is not a sign of wealth. In certain areas it's poverty.

If you're retired, you can move to a less expensive location. Also, pensions shouldn't be guaranteed by taxpayers, they should bear the stock market risk like the rest of us do, or increase at the average 5 year CD rate of 3% and be FDIC-insured. Asking others to pay for your investment risk is just wrong.

*shrugs* it was what was negotiated right?

The same can be said for corporate officers. Why as a shareholder do I have to pay for bad decisions?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If you're retired, you can move to a less expensive location. Also, pensions shouldn't be guaranteed by taxpayers, they should bear the stock market risk like the rest of us do, or increase at the average 5 year CD rate of 3% and be FDIC-insured. Asking others to pay for your investment risk is just wrong.

*shrugs* it was what was negotiated right?

The same can be said for corporate officers. Why as a shareholder do I have to pay for bad decisions?

That's just the obvious risk that you take up when buying shares.

[Internationalist Bastard]

That’s what happens when you don’t use medicine to treat illness folks

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* it was what was negotiated right?

The same can be said for corporate officers. Why as a shareholder do I have to pay for bad decisions?

That's just the obvious risk that you take up when buying shares.

Anyhow. I am not sure how we ended up here with this in a thread for measles. So I am out of here.

[Shofercia]

If you're retired, you can move to a less expensive location. Also, pensions shouldn't be guaranteed by taxpayers, they should bear the stock market risk like the rest of us do, or increase at the average 5 year CD rate of 3% and be FDIC-insured. Asking others to pay for your investment risk is just wrong.

*shrugs* it was what was negotiated right?

The same can be said for corporate officers. Why as a shareholder do I have to pay for bad decisions?

Except it wasn't. Unions, and the politicians whom they helped elect randomly decided on an increase, without asking anyone else.

[Valentine Z]

You got a really fucked up moral compass dude

I don't really have what a lot of people seem to have which tells them that staying alive is the thing to do. I could live until I'm 120, I could die tomorrow: I don't mind.

It's all good and well that you value personal freedom, but the thing is, you need to sacrifice some rights if you don't want innocent people, especially babies or immunocompromised people (who can't be vaccinated for actual legitimate reasons), dropping dead.

And I'm very certain that you won't want anyone innocent, or goodness help us, someone close, to die in such a preventable matter.

Vaccines work. And quarantines need to be there - while sacrificing some rights to freely move around, it will at least prevent more people from infecting each other.

You may not mind dying today or tomorrow, but other people do. Think about someone else, if you please.

[Slotted Floppies]

I don't really have what a lot of people seem to have which tells them that staying alive is the thing to do. I could live until I'm 120, I could die tomorrow: I don't mind.

It's all good and well that you value personal freedom, but the thing is, you need to sacrifice some rights if you don't want innocent people, especially babies or immunocompromised people (who can't be vaccinated for actual legitimate reasons), dropping dead.

And I'm very certain that you won't want anyone innocent, or goodness help us, someone close, to die in such a preventable matter.

Vaccines work. And quarantines need to be there - while sacrificing some rights to freely move around, it will at least prevent more people from infecting each other.

You may not mind dying today or tomorrow, but other people do. Think about someone else, if you please.

Because government overreach is the only way to limit disease spread. Also it’s not hard to fool a government body just slip your doctor a bit of cash.
/nods

As an example from earlier in the thread.
Make being unvaccinated the same sort of risky unsafe behaviour as unsigned wet floors in casinos.

Predatory lawyers will sue the problem away.

[Andsed]

It's all good and well that you value personal freedom, but the thing is, you need to sacrifice some rights if you don't want innocent people, especially babies or immunocompromised people (who can't be vaccinated for actual legitimate reasons), dropping dead.

And I'm very certain that you won't want anyone innocent, or goodness help us, someone close, to die in such a preventable matter.

Vaccines work. And quarantines need to be there - while sacrificing some rights to freely move around, it will at least prevent more people from infecting each other.

You may not mind dying today or tomorrow, but other people do. Think about someone else, if you please.

Because government overreach is the only way to limit disease spread. Also it’s not hard to fool a government body just slip your doctor a bit of cash.
/nods

As an example from earlier in the thread.
Make being unvaccinated the same sort of risky unsafe behaviour as unsigned wet floors in casinos.

Predatory lawyers will sue the problem away.

Yes this kind of action is in no way foolproof but it is the best way to make sure that these diseases do not spread and harm thousands of others. Besides I am not seeing you suggest a better idea.

[Slotted Floppies]

Because government overreach is the only way to limit disease spread. Also it’s not hard to fool a government body just slip your doctor a bit of cash.
/nods

As an example from earlier in the thread.
Make being unvaccinated the same sort of risky unsafe behaviour as unsigned wet floors in casinos.

Predatory lawyers will sue the problem away.

Yes this kind of action is in no way foolproof but it is the best way to make sure that these diseases do not spread and harm thousands of others. Besides I am not seeing you suggest a better idea.

Wut

[Andsed]

Yes this kind of action is in no way foolproof but it is the best way to make sure that these diseases do not spread and harm thousands of others. Besides I am not seeing you suggest a better idea.

Wut

What do you mean what? I thought your point was that government action was not the best way to do this and had flaws. Am I misreading your post? Sorry if that is the case.

[Slotted Floppies]

Wut

What do you mean what? I thought your point was that government action was not the best way to do this and had flaws. Am I misreading your post? Sorry if that is the case.

You just weren’t clear with what you meant. I mean I’m still not sure if you are challenging my disagreement with mandatory vaccination or if you think that using predatory lawyers and safety regulations is the worst idea.

[Gormwood]

Meanwhile Pakistan has halted its polio vaccination drive after a vaccination worker was shot dead. The third death linked to the campaign this week. Fake news spread on social media and hardline Islamists claiming the vaccination teams are cover for western spies are blamed for the hostility.

Ever since a vaccination doctor was revealed to have helped with tracking down Bin Laden.

[Thermodolia]

Meanwhile Pakistan has halted its polio vaccination drive after a vaccination worker was shot dead. The third death linked to the campaign this week. Fake news spread on social media and hardline Islamists claiming the vaccination teams are cover for western spies are blamed for the hostility.

Ever since a vaccination doctor was revealed to have helped with tracking down Bin Laden.

And before that in South America and Africa, where the CIA posed as doctors

[Thermodolia]

It's all good and well that you value personal freedom, but the thing is, you need to sacrifice some rights if you don't want innocent people, especially babies or immunocompromised people (who can't be vaccinated for actual legitimate reasons), dropping dead.

And I'm very certain that you won't want anyone innocent, or goodness help us, someone close, to die in such a preventable matter.

Vaccines work. And quarantines need to be there - while sacrificing some rights to freely move around, it will at least prevent more people from infecting each other.

You may not mind dying today or tomorrow, but other people do. Think about someone else, if you please.

Because government overreach is the only way to limit disease spread. Also it’s not hard to fool a government body just slip your doctor a bit of cash.
/nods

As an example from earlier in the thread.
Make being unvaccinated the same sort of risky unsafe behaviour as unsigned wet floors in casinos.

Predatory lawyers will sue the problem away.

More people will either get vaccinated or become reclusive before bribing people. Also mandatory quarantines are not government overreach, much in the same way that mandatory evacuations aren’t government overreach

[Andsed]

What do you mean what? I thought your point was that government action was not the best way to do this and had flaws. Am I misreading your post? Sorry if that is the case.

You just weren’t clear with what you meant. I mean I’m still not sure if you are challenging my disagreement with mandatory vaccination or if you think that using predatory lawyers and safety regulations is the worst idea.

I am challenging your disagreement with mandatory vaccination.

[Slotted Floppies]

Because government overreach is the only way to limit disease spread. Also it’s not hard to fool a government body just slip your doctor a bit of cash.
/nods

As an example from earlier in the thread.
Make being unvaccinated the same sort of risky unsafe behaviour as unsigned wet floors in casinos.

Predatory lawyers will sue the problem away.

More people will either get vaccinated or become reclusive before bribing people. Also mandatory quarantines are not government overreach, much in the same way that mandatory evacuations aren’t government overreach

I’m only talking about mandatory vaccinations. Like only. It’s a square peg for a round hole.

[Slotted Floppies]

You just weren’t clear with what you meant. I mean I’m still not sure if you are challenging my disagreement with mandatory vaccination or if you think that using predatory lawyers and safety regulations is the worst idea.

I am challenging your disagreement with mandatory vaccination.

I’m not sure you’ve noticed but not doing what the government says is pretty prolific. So much so that they build special buildings to house everyone they can prove doing it in. And those millions are just the ones that they catch and prove. There’s millions more who never even get caught and millions again who never get proven.

Pretty sure the instance of unsigned wet floors in casinos is pretty much non existent in comparison.

[Thermodolia]

More people will either get vaccinated or become reclusive before bribing people. Also mandatory quarantines are not government overreach, much in the same way that mandatory evacuations aren’t government overreach

I’m only talking about mandatory vaccinations. Like only. It’s a square peg for a round hole.

Still not government overreach

[Slotted Floppies]

I’m only talking about mandatory vaccinations. Like only. It’s a square peg for a round hole.

Still not government overreach

You going to explain that or we up for a game of is so, is not!

[Thermodolia]

Still not government overreach

You going to explain that or we up for a game of is so, is not!

Mandatory vaccination like mandatory seatbelts aren’t government overreach at all. And besides what I consider government overreach would probably be a dystopian nightmare to you