CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

so why are you saying its Illinois pensions? other states do not have the problem we have and they have plenty of pensioned employees.

its constitutionally locked in for a reason. employees have forgeone higher salaries with the expectation of deferred pay, which is exactly what a pension is.

Most other states do not have those "protections" in their constitutions. Just tweak retirement ages, change the contributions, eliminate cola's, and you can fix things. Illinois politicians are in the pocket of outdated public employee unions though especially at the drafting of the 1972 constitution. We live in a state where public sector workers have rights that no one else does. It's really awful and the costs are just starting to hit home. We are just starting to see the results of the costs with a shrinking population, which of course makes the situation worse.

Edit:
As a comparison, SSI recipients received a 0% increase in 2016 and it was just announced that they will receive a 0.3% increase in 2017. Illinois pensioners get 3%. Every single year. Inflation has been non existent for the last 5 years or so. We the taxpayers get to fund that increase even though our incomes haven't increased that much each year.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Potentially. For 2017, all TIF districts are projected to bring in close to $400M, and there are $150M being used to patch the hole at CPS in 2017.

So, yes, you could continue to patch the CPS hole every year using TIF money. But when you factor in all of the committed projects for 2017, there's only $35M in actual surplus available to be used. So the $150M is either four years' worth of surplus being spent in one year, or it is $115M of committed projects that will now be canceled or postponed.

I'm not trying to get super wonky (or maybe I am), but TIF is a crucial economic development tool for a city that never gets enough resources from Springfield or Washington. Now $150M of important infrastructure and econ-dev projects just won't get done next year. To put in in perspective, that's probably enough money to eliminate all the slow zones on CTA at once. All I can hope is that this is a one-year tactical move by Rahm to build political capital before raising new revenues/raising taxes again next year.

CTU doesn't care about infrastructure as long as it gets its pay raises, step and lane increases and the taxpayers paying 16% of its pension cost.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Edit:
As a comparison, SSI recipients received a 0% increase in 2016 and it was just announced that they will receive a 0.3% increase in 2017. Illinois pensioners get 3%. Every single year. Inflation has been non existent for the last 5 years or so. We the taxpayers get to fund that increase even though our incomes haven't increased that much each year.

who is "we"? every job ive ever had, a 2-3% merit/COL increase per year is pretty much standard as long as the company is performing well and youre not a total fuck up. im lucky if it covers the increase in my rent (which last i checked has never gone down despite what you say about inflation).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

who is "we"? every job ive ever had, a 2-3% merit/COL increase per year is pretty much standard as long as the company is performing well and youre not a total fuck up. im lucky if it covers the increase in my rent (which last i checked has never gone down despite what you say about inflation).

Inflation numbers are not mine, the feds produce them. AMIs are basically flat over the last 10 years, so those 3% compounding COLAs for Illinois pensioners are freaking huge comparatively. Again, SSI recipients got a 0% increase in 2016 and will get a 0.3% increase in 2017. Pensions should be eliminated going forward for every new hire to state government and most local workers, including teachers.

[Via Chicago]

the irony is 401ks were designed as a vehicle to SUPPLEMENT pensions, and for high earners at that. they were never intended to be the sole vehicle of retirement savings for middle class americans. while pensions may have their flaws, 401ks have zero security. they are a product that Wall Street designed to transfer wealth from average americans to fund managers. fees are borderline criminal on most, and many companies hardly match at all. it leaves individuals with 100% of the burden of risk. how many americans even have an emergency fund, much less know what kind of investment to put their money into long term? at least pensions are professionally managed. on top of it, risk is spread out over a high number of participants and management fees are lower too. DB plans also stimulate the economy, as people have more money in their pocket after each paycheck that they can use on consumer spending.

on top of it we have congress trying to slash social security, which as it is will be just enough to keep someone without any other lifelines surviving in abject poverty. and guess what, then we as taxpayers will face higher public assistance costs. cool country we got going.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the irony is 401ks were designed as a vehicle to SUPPLEMENT pensions, and for high earners at that. they were never intended to be the sole vehicle of retirement savings for middle class americans. while pensions may have their flaws, 401ks have zero security. they are a product that Wall Street designed to transfer wealth from average americans to fund managers. fees are borderline criminal on most, and many companies hardly match at all. it leaves individuals with 100% of the burden of risk. how many americans even have an emergency fund, much less know what kind of investment to put their money into long term? at least pensions are professionally managed. on top of it, risk is spread out over a high number of participants and management fees are lower too. DB plans also stimulate the economy, as people have more money in their pocket after each paycheck that they can use on consumer spending.

on top of it we have congress trying to slash social security, which as it is will be just enough to keep someone without any other lifelines surviving in abject poverty. and guess what, then we as taxpayers will face higher public assistance costs. cool country we got going.

The irony is that public pensions rely on wall street too, they just come with a taxpayer guarantee if market returns don't work out. DB plans don't work. That's why they have been eliminated for all but the public sector unions that bribe politicians.

Public employees should be on SSI like the vast majority of the workforce.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The irony is that public pensions rely on wall street too, they just come with a taxpayer guarantee if market returns don't work out. DB plans don't work. That's why they have been eliminated for all but the public sector unions that bribe politicians.

Public employees should be on SSI like the vast majority of the workforce.

yes, the rely on wall street. as i mentioned, they are also professionally managed and historically deliver higher rates of returns. as i also mentioned, they have lower fees which over a long timeline can have an astronomical impact.

they have been eliminated not because they dont work. they have been eliminated because corporations no longer care about long term retention of employees (something that used to be valued) and will gladly cede responsibility for retirement planning and all the costs associated with it. Go ask an actuary what the most efficient form of providing retirement benefits for a large group of people is and see what they say.

bribe politicians? thats rich. lets see how much the investment banks spend on lobbying congress each and every year.

i dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this but i am 100% behind the unions and will nearly always side with the worker class. as an average person would you rather have a better deal or a worse deal? if you were in the position to get a good deal would you turn it down? would you stand idly by if a contract you signed 20 years ago was broken, with no recourse? i applaud them for getting a good one.

[Vlajos]

Of course pensions don't work. They nearly killed the american auto industry. Illinois is insolvent due to pensions. Detroit declared BK because of pensions. Public sector unions are taxpayer leeches. The private citizens of Illinois are forced to pay for benefits that no one else receives due to a mathematically challenged state constitution. No one gets a guaranteed retirement benefit but public employees in this state. Benefits can and are changed all the time for the vast majority of people. Why? Because economies change, people live longer, etc.

It's no wonder Illinois is losing population at such an alarming rate.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Illinois is insolvent due to pensions.

hmm i wonder why that is.

are you being purposely daft? of course pensions "dont work" when one side simply stops contributing to it or funds it below the level they should be for decades. its part of the compensation plan, and they simply chose not to pay it (wonder how well that would work in the private sector if an employer short changed an employee on their paycheck?). its not that the money wasnt there, they simply chose to spend it on other more politically popular things. employees upheld their share of the bargain both sides agreed upon. other states and cities mandate that contributions have to be made. Illinois and Chicago simply kicked the can down the road time and time again, and built pork projects instead. last i checked the city magically has plenty of money for fancy riverwalks and basketball stadiums. but of course its all the employees fault.

thats like saying my television dosent work because its not plugged in....

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

hmm i wonder why that is.

are you being purposely daft? of course pensions "dont work" when one side simply stops contributing to it or funds it below the level they should be for decades. its part of the compensation plan, and they simply chose not to pay it (wonder how well that would work in the private sector if an employer short changed an employee on their paycheck?). its not that the money wasnt there, they simply chose to spend it on other more politically popular things. employees upheld their share of the bargain both sides agreed upon. other states and cities mandate that contributions have to be made. Illinois and Chicago simply kicked the can down the road time and time again, and built pork projects instead. last i checked the city magically has plenty of money for fancy riverwalks and basketball stadiums. but of course its all the employees fault.

thats like saying my television dosent work because its not plugged in....

No, but you clearly are ignoring the simple facts. Companies and municipalities have been bankrupted by pensions. Government pension funds have actuarial assumptions of 7-8% annual investment returns. The market hasn't done that in a while. The taxpayers get to pick up the difference. At least with SSI, the Feds look at CPI and adjust accordingly. With SSI, retirement ages can be extended. Time for Illinois government workers to get the same retirement system as the vast majority of the US workforce.

[Justin_Chicago]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

No, but you clearly are ignoring the simple facts. Companies and municipalities have been bankrupted by pensions. Government pension funds have actuarial assumptions of 7-8% annual investment returns. The market hasn't done that in a while. The taxpayers get to pick up the difference. At least with SSI, the Feds look at CPI and adjust accordingly. With SSI, retirement ages can be extended. Time for Illinois government workers to get the same retirement system as the vast majority of the US workforce.

And former PIMCO boss Bill Gross said pensions need to start assuming 6.75%. Municipal pensions need to reset their market assumptions to reality so liabilities do not continue to outpace actual returns. Industrial economies like the U.S. are not growing like China. I wish people on 401k plans had guaranteed.... or impractical... above market returns.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-lower-returns

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

yes, the rely on wall street. as i mentioned, they are also professionally managed and historically deliver higher rates of returns. as i also mentioned, they have lower fees which over a long timeline can have an astronomical impact.

they have been eliminated not because they dont work. they have been eliminated because corporations no longer care about long term retention of employees (something that used to be valued) and will gladly cede responsibility for retirement planning and all the costs associated with it. Go ask an actuary what the most efficient form of providing retirement benefits for a large group of people is and see what they say.

bribe politicians? thats rich. lets see how much the investment banks spend on lobbying congress each and every year.

i dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this but i am 100% behind the unions and will nearly always side with the worker class. as an average person would you rather have a better deal or a worse deal? if you were in the position to get a good deal would you turn it down? would you stand idly by if a contract you signed 20 years ago was broken, with no recourse? i applaud them for getting a good one.

The flaw in your argument is that more working class people are being harmed by this than helped. If the city and state become insolvent it helps nobody. Unions cannot negotiate in a vacuum. You have to be realistic. It's like when you negotiate with your employer: you have to ask for terms that are reasonable and which the employer can afford, or else it's a waste of time.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago

And former PIMCO boss Bill Gross said pensions need to start assuming 6.75%. Municipal pensions need to reset their market assumptions to reality so liabilities do not continue to outpace actual returns. Industrial economies like the U.S. are not growing like China. I wish people on 401k plans had guaranteed.... or impractical... above market returns.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-lower-returns

i agree that the assumptions need to be adjusted. the reality is, american post war dominance was perhaps a 50 year fluke that we wont truly ever see again.

[SamInTheLoop]

There is nothing inherent about DB plans that make them untenable. Like anything else though, they do need to allow for adjustment over time to account for changes in demographics, the underlying economy/return environment, and more.

The single most important factor (there are others) behind Illinois' abysmal pension funding situation is the state skipping/putting off contributions. That should have never repeatedly happened - should have never been allowed. The impact that has had over time on the overall state of funding is monumental.

[SamInTheLoop]

For all you political junkies, lots of state races again that serve as proxy battles between Madigan and Rauner. Rauner may gain a couple seats around the edges, but once again, I predict Madigan to mostly clean our feckless governor's clock. Rauner has turned out to be such a hapless, clueless, ineffectual, impotent dud, and he's almost certainly a one-termer. (for the record, and once again, I'm not a fan of Madigan and his iron grip on power)

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This is spot on, but I just wanted to add that Grand has heated up lately as well. Makes sense as a convergence of West Town, River West and West Loop development.

^^^ The moral of this story is that the vast vast majority of Chicago was built and then never redeveloped since. That is a function of the unique rapid construction of Chicago out of nothing and the unique disruptive circumstances of World Wars and the implementation of technologies and capital from those wars en masse. This circumstance is not the long term status quo for cities and Chicago (along with multiple other rust belt American cities) are historically unique.

This is not London, New York, Paris, or Rome. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were these other cities, but most of Chicago was. What I constantly find striking in Chicago is not only what once was and lost, but what wasn't. You drive by vacant lots and think "gee there must have been something beautiful there which was torn down", but the vast majority of times, outside of a few specific areas, vacant lots have always been that, or at most some low level retail or industrial use.

Chicago is still new, still green. There are a lot of holes created in the era of decline, but there have always been a lot of holes prior to that as well. That's because this city is not complete in the way that those older cities are. We are just now creating truly mature neighborhoods with a balance of old, middle age, and new buildings. Most areas of the city, up until the last few decades, were simply built all at once, maybe over 10 years, and then left to gradually decay. The most beautiful thing about this boom has been a widespread flowering of this trend across huge swaths of the city.

We still have a lot, and I mean a lot (plural, as is many lots, lol), to fill in. But finally true headway is being made. We are approaching a tipping point where enough of the old industrial and urban renewal scars have healed that the scabbing becomes exponential. Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and the rest of the north side has become developed to the point of running out of new sites. This combined with a general trend of relocation to the central area has caused an organic explosion of growth across huge areas of the city which is self reinforcing as neighborhoods make themselves increasingly more desirable. And what is more desirable than being in a nice area like Lincoln Park? Being in a nice area like Lincoln Park surrounded by other nice areas each with their own character or usefulness to you (yes this even includes auto hells like North and Clyborn which is invariably better than vacant lots, gas stations, and a bunch of projects which is what once inhabited that area).

I envy those who moved here after the fire for being able to see and participate in the construction of an entire city in a day, but I relish being alive to see the maturation of an entire city in a day far more. It has only just begun too, the changes we will see in the next 40 years will make the last 5 look cute.

[TimeAgain]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ The moral of this story is that the vast vast majority of Chicago was built and then never redeveloped since. That is a function of the unique rapid construction of Chicago out of nothing and the unique disruptive circumstances of World Wars and the implementation of technologies and capital from those wars en masse. This circumstance is not the long term status quo for cities and Chicago (along with multiple other rust belt American cities) are historically unique.

This is not London, New York, Paris, or Rome. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were these other cities, but most of Chicago was. What I constantly find striking in Chicago is not only what once was and lost, but what wasn't. You drive by vacant lots and think "gee there must have been something beautiful there which was torn down", but the vast majority of times, outside of a few specific areas, vacant lots have always been that, or at most some low level retail or industrial use.

Chicago is still new, still green. There are a lot of holes created in the era of decline, but there have always been a lot of holes prior to that as well. That's because this city is not complete in the way that those older cities are. We are just now creating truly mature neighborhoods with a balance of old, middle age, and new buildings. Most areas of the city, up until the last few decades, were simply built all at once, maybe over 10 years, and then left to gradually decay. The most beautiful thing about this boom has been a widespread flowering of this trend across huge swaths of the city.

We still have a lot, and I mean a lot (plural, as is many lots, lol), to fill in. But finally true headway is being made. We are approaching a tipping point where enough of the old industrial and urban renewal scars have healed that the scabbing becomes exponential. Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and the rest of the north side has become developed to the point of running out of new sites. This combined with a general trend of relocation to the central area has caused an organic explosion of growth across huge areas of the city which is self reinforcing as neighborhoods make themselves increasingly more desirable. And what is more desirable than being in a nice area like Lincoln Park? Being in a nice area like Lincoln Park surrounded by other nice areas each with their own character or usefulness to you (yes this even includes auto hells like North and Clyborn which is invariably better than vacant lots, gas stations, and a bunch of projects which is what once inhabited that area).

I envy those who moved here after the fire for being able to see and participate in the construction of an entire city in a day, but I relish being alive to see the maturation of an entire city in a day far more. It has only just begun too, the changes we will see in the next 40 years will make the last 5 look cute.

The city's growth will be contingent on its ability to get its finances in order, and to get crime down. The narrative that Chicago is ultra violent, whether true or not, is hurting it.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

You drive by vacant lots and think "gee there must have been something beautiful there which was torn down", but the vast majority of times, outside of a few specific areas, vacant lots have always been that, or at most some low level retail or industrial use.

The most beautiful thing about this boom has been a widespread flowering of this trend across huge swaths of the city.

We still have a lot, and I mean a lot (plural, as is many lots, lol), to fill in. But finally true headway is being made. We are approaching a tipping point where enough of the old industrial and urban renewal scars have healed that the scabbing becomes exponential. Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and the rest of the north side has become developed to the point of running out of new sites. This combined with a general trend of relocation to the central area has caused an organic explosion of growth across huge areas of the city which is self reinforcing as neighborhoods make themselves increasingly more desirable.

I envy those who moved here after the fire for being able to see and participate in the construction of an entire city in a day, but I relish being alive to see the maturation of an entire city in a day far more. It has only just begun too, the changes we will see in the next 40 years will make the last 5 look cute.

It's great that many parts of the North Side and the neighborhoods near the Loop are doing well, but what about the West Side and the South Side?

There's been a mass emigration of African Americans from "inner city" Chicago over the last few decades. Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Englewood was down 24%, Austin was down 16%, West Garfield Park down 22%, etc.

If Austin, Englewood, etc. are going to make a come back, I wonder how they are going to accomplish that. Unfortunately, it seems to me they may be beyond the point of no return.

[johnnygosox]

When Dearborn Park was conceived and built, there were many in and out of Chicago who gave this town a slim chance of survival...at least as a vibrant, major American city.
It might be hated by most of you out there and I'm not fond of it either. Just try to keep in perspective the time and the condition of Chicago when it was built. Might help to mitigate some anger and allow you to be happier.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

It's great that many parts of the North Side and the neighborhoods near the Loop are doing well, but what about the West Side and the South Side?

There's been a mass emigration of African Americans from "inner city" Chicago over the last few decades. Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Englewood was down 24%, Austin was down 16%, West Garfield Park down 22%, etc.

If Austin, Englewood, etc. are going to make a come back, I wonder how they are going to accomplish that. Unfortunately, it seems to me they may be beyond the point of no return.

They will be replaced by working class immigrants or whatever... the loss of most of those folks isn't a big deal as they likely found a better quality of life elsewhere in the burbs or other parts of town. Yes its barren now, but Englewood is being bought up or rented at least by Mexicans at the moment that have been priced out of places. Cities are continually changing demographically. It will be interesting to see what happens to the south side as I think there is promise there, the far west side right now is just horrible and until the war on drugs stops, and police start locking up gun toting criminals for long periods of time, I don't see it getting any better.