Can I Get an Amen??

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I am so happy to have finished college when I did. Tuition was really starting to jump while I was in college. In the 2-3 years after graduating, I can remember friends telling me their tuition for a quarter was almost as much as I had been paid for what was considered a full-year (3 quarters) about mid-way through my college experience.

(For those confused by the full-year equaling what was considered a full-year... the 4th quarter was summer, and that was not a regular quarter, with limited and odd class availability.)
 
I am so happy to have finished college when I did. Tuition was really starting to jump while I was in college. In the 2-3 years after graduating, I can remember friends telling me their tuition for a quarter was almost as much as I had been paid for what was considered a full-year (3 quarters) about mid-way through my college experience.

(For those confused by the full-year equaling what was considered a full-year... the 4th quarter was summer, and that was not a regular quarter, with limited and odd class availability.)

The company I worked for out of my undergrad paid for my MBA. Without that, I'd probably still be in debt. Luckily, student loans were competitive back then, keeping interest rates at manageable levels, and the economy was growing, meaning that in Oregon, you couldn't find enough qualified candidates to fill every opening.

Things have changed so much since then. Before I went out on my own, we were getting 250 qualified applicants for positions that started at $75k in base. The same job was paying $100k just 5 years earlier, but that supply and demand thing has driven down pay.
 
Last edited:
BlazerProphet, I'm actually curious as to why you think college tuition has risen so much over the past 15 years. If it's not the public unions, what is it?
 
The company I worked for out of my undergrad paid for my MBA. Without that, I'd probably still be in debt. Luckily, student loans were competitive back then, keeping interest rates at manageable levels.

My interest rate is just below 3% or something like that. Which ain't bad. What are they like today?

I know I got my loans rolled and wrapped into one (and locked into a low rate) just before some huge changes to that industry.
 
My interest rate is just below 3% or something like that. Which ain't bad. What are they like today?

I know I got my loans rolled and wrapped into one (and locked into a low rate) just before some huge changes to that industry.

It's doubling on July 1st, whatever it is now. Funny thing is that Obama didn't even vote against that bill.
 
It's doubling on July 1st, whatever it is now. Funny thing is that Obama didn't even vote against that bill.

I'm waiting for the bailout on these (for those with signicant debts and no job, or a job that does not pay one enough to repay the debts). I only owe like $8K on mine (never had more than $14K). Again, it'll be a situation where every gets a bailout, except me. I've seen so many handouts given, financial situations forgiven, and none have yet to benefit me. It's not that I have a problem with the American people getting bailouts (though I do with the corporations that have been given them), it's that it's frustrating that I did pretty much everything by the book, and my being a responsible teen to college student to graduate.... I've been given no breaks. I had to do everything myself, while I've seen several peers get handouts. It sends the wrong message IMO. Reward the slackers, ignore the people who have made every attempt to do right and played the game the way it's supposed to be played.
 
BlazerProphet, I'm actually curious as to why you think college tuition has risen so much over the past 15 years. If it's not the public unions, what is it?

I'm not really sure. I think it's many things combined- loss of state/federal funds, liability (driven by lawsuits), teacher unions demanding higher salaries, more and higher maintenance costs, increasing taxes on properties, and just the fact they can as in supply & demand. Keep raising tuitions and other costs until enrollments start to decline. As one small example, most the books one of my stepsons required for his math degree are about $400 in the university bookstore. We found the exact same book edition on Amazon for about $100. We also noticed that as their 4 years went by they had to pay more for food services and yet got fewer meals. I might add the quality of food was generally poor.
 
Well, in Oregon, PERS payment to public employees who are "retired" takes up 9% of the entire state budget, and a large chunk of that come out of the budget for education.

Read up a bit. You live in Oregon, right? Somebody has to pay for the public leeches to retire at age 50.

By that same logic, lower taxes have driven up the cost of school. You are a piece of work.
 
By that same logic, lower taxes have driven up the cost of school. You are a piece of work.

Which state taxes have been lowered in the past 15 years in Oregon?

Lower taxes? What are you talking about?
 
State, where did i use the word state?

Weren't you talking about tuition? Oregon universities are largely funded by the state, not the federal government. State taxes mostly pay for them, as well as tuition.
 
Tuition is rising everywhere, not just in Oregon. And not just at public universities, either. So it's pretty implausible that the root cause is PERS.

barfo
 
Tuition is rising everywhere, not just in Oregon. And not just at public universities, either. So it's pretty implausible that the root cause is PERS.

barfo

Don't you ever speak in logic on this board again.
 
Don't you ever speak in logic on this board again.

I don't think it can be denied that PERS is taking a chunk out of the education budget. There have been quite of few articles about it. School budgets are shrinking while PERS costs are doubling. Seems like a strong correlation to me. I wouldn't expect the public freeloaders to renegotiate their fat pensions while schools crumble, though.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/pers_rates_for_state_agencies.html

The actuary for Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System confirmed Friday what is already a common-knowledge piece of the state's looming budget shortfall: the cost of funding PERS will increase sharply in 2011.

Mercer Inc. told the PERS board Friday that systemwide, the payroll rates paid by cities, counties, school districts and state agencies to cover their employees' pension and health care benefits will more than double in 2011, from their current level 5.2 percent of payroll to 10.8 percent of payroll.

Those rates include offsets from prepaid contributions by employers who issued pension obligation bonds during the last decade, but don't include the cost of debt service on those bonds or employer contributions to the system's individual account program.

As of Dec 31, the retirement system had 76 cents in assets for every $1 in liabilities, excluding prepaid contributions. The system's investments declined about 1 percent year through May 31, Mercer said. If they finish the year at this level, the system's overall funded status, excluding prepaid contributions, will decline to about 70 percent, Mercer said.

Actual pension rates vary by individual employer. Employers will learn the exact rate they'll start paying in 2011 in September.
 
I don't think it can be denied that PERS is taking a chunk out of the education budget. There have been quite of few articles about it. School budgets are shrinking while PERS costs are doubling. Seems like a strong correlation to me. I wouldn't expect the public freeloaders to renegotiate their fat pensions while schools crumble, though.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/pers_rates_for_state_agencies.html

I was more just speaking from the point that the poster was speaking in a logical manner, not the details of the post directly. I don't think there's any question PERS is part of the problem, but I do believe there are a lot more pieces to that puzzle than PERS alone.
 
I was more just speaking from the point that the poster was speaking in a logical manner, not the details of the post directly. I don't think there's any question PERS is part of the problem, but I do believe there are a lot more pieces to that puzzle than PERS alone.

How many Oregon programs are seeing costs increase? Budgets everywhere are collapsing, tax revenues are going down, yet PERS continues to rapidly expand. barfo saying that it isn't a problem in Oregon is laughably ignorant.
 
I don't think it can be denied that PERS is taking a chunk out of the education budget. There have been quite of few articles about it. School budgets are shrinking while PERS costs are doubling. Seems like a strong correlation to me. I wouldn't expect the public freeloaders to renegotiate their fat pensions while schools crumble, though.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/pers_rates_for_state_agencies.html

How is this different than financial institution employees that have negotiated their pensions and thus cannot be cut?
 
How is this different than financial institution employees that have negotiated their pensions and thus cannot be cut?

Taxpayers don't pay for the pensions of financial institution employees. Unless they work for the UAW, of course. Every dime paid out to PERS employees originates in the private marketplace. Even "taxes" on it are from money already taxed in the private marketplace.
 
Taxpayers don't pay for the pensions of financial institution employees. Unless they work for the UAW, of course. Every dime paid out to PERS employees originates in the private marketplace. Even "taxes" on it are from money already taxed in the private marketplace.

But did they not get a loan from taxpayers?
 
But did they not get a loan from taxpayers?

The Wall Street bailout wasn't for pensions. The UAW/GM thing was, and it has yet to be completely repaid. Plus, the private bondholders got screwed out of a real bankruptcy process, all so the UAW could keep their pensions.
 
How many Oregon programs are seeing costs increase? Budgets everywhere are collapsing, tax revenues are going down, yet PERS continues to rapidly expand. barfo saying that it isn't a problem in Oregon is laughably ignorant.

The same thing is happening in every state.

As for PERS growing rapidly.... where do you get that info? If the funds are increasing rapidly, I'd argue it's because the number of Public Employees putting into the funds are growing, which is offsetting the other decreases in values.

Because I can tell you.... from everything my parents (both public employees) have shown me regarding their PERS.... they have had A LOT of things taken away in the last few years. They're close to retirement right now. But they've had so much taken away, that they can't retire yet. And these things were taken away after each had 25-30 years in the system (they've now been in the system 30-35 years each). So I'm pretty curious where you're getting your belief about how rapidly PERS is growing. Are they helping out the people just getting into the system? Because those who were promised something for decades are now being stripped, and promises are being taken back.
 
How many Oregon programs are seeing costs increase? Budgets everywhere are collapsing, tax revenues are going down, yet PERS continues to rapidly expand. barfo saying that it isn't a problem in Oregon is laughably ignorant.

I didn't say it wasn't a problem in Oregon. I said tuition was rising everywhere, and not just in public universities. Explain how PERS causes tuition hikes at Harvard.

First you blamed tuition hikes on Obama. Now it's PERS. What's next, the UN?

barfo
 
Taxpayers don't pay for the pensions of financial institution employees. Unless they work for the UAW, of course. Every dime paid out to PERS employees originates in the private marketplace. Even "taxes" on it are from money already taxed in the private marketplace.

You do realize that many sectors of public employees are paid quite a bit less than their equivalents working in the private sectors? The thought process behind the public employee system is that the government pays you less now, sets some money aside, invests it, and then gives it to you upon retirement. You act like these employees were given huge chunks of money, and a gravy retirement.
 
You do realize that many sectors of public employees are paid quite a bit less than their equivalents working in the private sectors? The thought process behind the public employee system is that the government pays you less now, sets some money aside, invests it, and then gives it to you upon retirement. You act like these employees were given huge chunks of money, and a gravy retirement.

That used to be the case, but no longer, at least in terms of federal pay. I don't have stats for state employees, but a while back a list was published of both the Top 10 PERS recipients, as well as wages for all teachers in Multnomah County. The amount of kindergarten teachers making $100k (benefits included) was insane.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

grey.gif
 
3% less for non-teachers in Oregon for public workers, and that's 2010 data. On average, and taking out the absurd salaries for teachers, if you make $50k for the state of Oregon (and you get PERS), your private sector counterpart is making $51,500 (and likely contributing to his/her own retirement at a 50% rate, at the very least). Professor salaries at public universities for some reason weren't included in this study.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110425/NEWS/104250315/-1/NEWSMAP

Many people assume union workers such as Blocher get paid more than their counterparts in the private sector. But according to a study by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services in December, state workers earn almost 3 percent less on average

Many people assume union workers such as Blocher get paid more than their counterparts in the private sector. But according to a study by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services in December, state workers earn almost 3 percent less on average.

Teachers often receive the brunt of criticism for high compensation, receiving an average $93,000 per year in Oregon in pay, health insurance and retirement benefits. In Medford, teachers on average receive $91,300 in total compensation.

Teachers' salaries and benefits packages are negotiated by school districts, not by the state, even though much of the funding for schools comes from the state budget.

By comparison, the average teacher at the private St. Mary's School in Medford receives $55,900, including benefits. Most St. Mary's teachers have a master's degree.
 
I'd take $50k and guaranteed PERS as opposed to $51,500 in the private sector. That argument just doesn't work anymore for public employees.
 
That used to be the case, but no longer, at least in terms of federal pay. I don't have stats for state employees, but a while back a list was published of both the Top 10 PERS recipients, as well as wages for all teachers in Multnomah County. The amount of kindergarten teachers making $100k (benefits included) was insane.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

grey.gif

Maybe not for Federal. I've read where they say pay figures for Federal employees are severely skewed by a few factors (can't remember much about the article, other than most Fed employees live in areas that typically pay more, but I'm not quite sure how that would skew the figures, so I'm not really going to comment much more on that).

But how about all the people working for our city and states? There are many sectors on these levels that those working private make far more than public. I know it's true of both of my parents' industries.

As for teachers making $100K..... I know several teachers ranging from new entries to 25+ years on the job. None make 6 figures. The only ones even coming anywhere close are the ones with 20-25+ years on the job. Now, I know my sample size may be limited to the 12 or so teachers I know on a very close, personal level, but they all believe their making the same as their peers with equivalent experience. And it ain't enough to make me want to be a teacher.
 
Maybe not for Federal. I've read where they say pay figures for Federal employees are severely skewed by a few factors (can't remember much about the article, other than most Fed employees live in areas that typically pay more, but I'm not quite sure how that would skew the figures, so I'm not really going to comment much more on that).

But how about all the people working for our city and states? There are many sectors on these levels that those working private make far more than public. I know it's true of both of my parents' industries.

As for teachers making $100K..... I know several teachers ranging from new entries to 25+ years on the job. None make 6 figures. The only ones even coming anywhere close are the ones with 20-25+ years on the job. Now, I know my sample size may be limited to the 12 or so teachers I know on a very close, personal level, but they all believe their making the same as their peers with equivalent experience. And it ain't enough to make me want to be a teacher.

I just posted a link, but as I said, educators in the state university system weren't included in this study.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top