Internet - the Time Eater

     I know I'm a dinosaur, but I don't quite get all the new internet sites.  When I was a young man I called friends, went out and did things with them, and was, frankly, quite busy.  I still am.  I'm active in several organizations, and have difficulty finding time to get things done.  Even finding time to blog once a week is difficult.  That used to be the norm.  Well, Things Have Changed.
     The plethora of websites that people have time for boggles the mind.  Facebook is the best known, I guess.  Everybody posts what they're up to, check what everyone else is up to, lets the world know everything about them.  When I want to let someone know, I call.  If I'm short of time, I e-mail.  There isn't much I want to tell the world about myself.  Someone checking out my Facebook page won't find out much of what I'm up to, even if they're on my short list of friends.
     Then there's twitter.  I really don't get that one.  People "tweet" every little thing they do - how do they have time to actually "do" anything?  And who really wants to know?  I'm too busy actually doing to "tweet" you, and except for my wife, and perhaps a couple friends, I may not want others to know what I'm doing.
     And then there's the endless e-mails forwarded.  Please, before forwarding to me, please check it out on snopes.com.  I flush most of the junk people send me.
     Now we have Pinterest - you pin up things of interest to you, for all the world to see.  I guess that's useful to some - you can save things to check online later, and it will always be there - if the site succeeds.
     I guess what I don't get is where are all these people getting the time to spend online?  What is it that they're not getting around to?  Don't they have any hobbies or interests?  Are they really that efficient in getting things done?  Or don't they have a life?  To me having a life means actually seeing people!  At the computer, time has no meaning - you look up and it's three hours later.  Personally, I'd rather do that in the garden, or reading.  Why did staring at a screen replace human contact?  Are our personal contacts that unsatisfying?  Is bowling so boring?  Or is physical activity just too much trouble?
     Others have said this before, and better, but if you are busy living, I don't see how you have the time to hunt around online for meaning - and that includes reading this blog.  If you do, I'm flattered, but better you should read, paint, garden, clean your closets, call a friend!

Tier VI - A Missed Opportunity

     It used to be if you worked on a job for a long time, you got a definite pension when you retired - especially in Civil Service.  Well, things have changed.

     The details aren't clear, but the New York State Legislature passed a pension deal in the middle of the night.  (When else?  Why should they do something when anybody is actually watching what they do?)  The details aren't clear yet, but new workers will pay more for less.

     In the interest of disclosure, I am collecting a Tier III pension from New York State.  Am I bankrupting the state?  No.  According to Comptroller DiNapoli, the pension plan for N.Y. State workers is quite solvent.  So where is the problem?  Apparently local municipalities have offered more than they could afford.  Unfortunately, any deal on those also affects all state employees, too, since the state administers all public pensions.  I'm not certain I understand this, but apparently it's so.

     Actually, I've never been opposed to some pension reform, but it's been my feeling the state and municipal pensions should all have the same rules.

     First, the changes I favored:

          1.)  Increase all pension contributions to 4 percent, no more.  It will instead be 3 percent to 6 percent, depending what you make.  It will now be possible to get a raise in pay, but a cut in take-home pay.

          2.)  Collect the contributions during an employee's entire career.   For some strange reason the state during the 1990's decided to stop collecting contributions after ten years.  This they don't appear to have changed.  When I heard this, my response was, "That's nuts!"  And it is.  However, there's a Yiddish expression that translates, "When they give, take.  When they take, scream."  So I took.  I had no say when they took, so I wasn't going to refuse when they gave.

          3.)  Raise the retirement age one or two years, at least for white collar workers.  This they did.

          4.)  Limit pensionability of overtime.  This they did not do.

     What they did that I opposed:

          1.)  401(k) pensions.  This they didn't impose (hurray), although they made them available to nonunion workers.

          2.)  Defined contribution plan, whatever that is.  I guess that means you know what you're putting in, but don't know what you're getting out.  If you sign up for this, I've got a bridge to sell you.  It's unclear yet if anyone is getting this.

          3.)  Different contribution rates for different pay levels.  This they did.

     So let's look at what they did.  Acting like thieves in the night, they raised the contributions for all but the lowest paid employees, but didn't change the length of time of contributions.  You can get a raise in pay, and take home less, but they won't, apparently, be collecting after ten years.  Someone please explain this.

     They raised the retirement age one year, without differentiating between white collar and blue collar (as a court reporter I took expert testimony that the average blue collar worker is not physically able to do his job after age 57 or 58).

     They cut what each year of service means, so that the pensions will be smaller, or service noticeably longer.

     They did NOT limit pensionability of overtime, allowing people to boost their pensions a lot in their last few years.

     But police and fire department pensions are not subject to any part of this deal.  While I generally strongly support the police and fire departments, they are among the most expensive pensions, and at least some limitation of pensionability of overtime would have been reasonable.

     Lest you think N.Y. State employees are getting wealthy in retirement, according to the New York State Comptroller's office, two-thirds of N.Y. State retirees get less than $20,000 a year in pension.  The average New York State pension is $18,000 per year.  The average CSEA retiree (the largest state union) gets $14,000 per year.  The average figure of $18,000 includes pensions of professionals!  You figure what the average grunt is getting!

     And what really gripes me about the new figures is that the threshold figures (such as $45,000 for paying more than 3 percent) are set in stone, so that as prices, and salaries rise, those in the lower salaried jobs will pay a higher percentage!  This is part of the race to the bottom.  And it was done to deal with a problem that's been greatly exaggerated, and without solving some of the structural problems that will still be with us!  They have hurt the working class without doing more than nibbling around the edges of the problem.

     Governor Cuomo will have to be back asking for more.  On this issue, he's wrong, and the legislature is both gutless and stupid!  They missed a chance to stand up to him, and yet also have meaningful reform, without shafting the working class.  More pain to come.

Politics and Money

       This is the first of what I intend to be approximately a weekly blog on whatever is on my curmudgeonly mind.
       It used to be that most funds spent in local political races were, well, local.  Things have changed.  And this is not a recent development.  I remember in 1986 the Town of Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Board was roughly split between Democrats and Republicans.  The Democrats wanted more information before approving a proposed mall.  The state Republican party sunk $250,000 into the Town Board race.  The Republicans rammed through the development at an “emergency” meeting while two Democrats were out of town.  The next election brought a six-to-one Republican majority.  Coincidentally, the corporation that owned the proposed mall, which headquartered half the state away, just happened to have donated $250,000 to the state Republican coffers.  The normal total amount spent on those races before that was $40,000.
       Well, since I was young things may have changed, but since 1986 I think things have not changed much.  My state assemblyman passed away, and his predecessor, whom he defeated, is running to get the seat back.  His opponent has sent out one or two flyers.  He has sent me an average of five or six a week.  When he was last in office, I never got a visit or mailing from him or his staff at all.  In the last ten days I’ve received two visits and two phone calls from his campaign.  What I want to know is where is this money coming from?  The local Democratic Party (his party) has usually been underfunded and in disarray.  Obviously, the state Democratic party desperately wants this seat back.  I had been supportive in view of his previously clean record, but any time someone has eight or ten times the funding of his opponent, I’m suspicious - just who is paying for this election?  Not the local people.
       I guess funding can be more obvious now.  Thank you, U.S. Supreme Court!  Corporations are people, too.  And anyone can contribute to any race, anywhere.  That means you and I, and corporations, could conceivably contribute to election races in any state in the union, and with “soft money”, as much as we want.  You or I, or any corporation.  Exxon-Mobil and I have an equal right to contribute all we wish to any election, anywhere!  How egalitarian.
       As Anatole France wrote, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”  Who has more money, large corporations, or you and I?
       Normally I just listen to positions, and try to choose the better candidate, but when one candidate has far more money than the other, I don’t care what his position is - it clearly is horizontal when it comes to contributors.
                       Comments may be sent to HershelMendel@gmail.com