Survey: FPGA PCB layout
in [FPGA]
|
Prev: attached a 2nd peripheral to FSL bus. how to use it in software?
Next: XST design frequency setting
From: JosephKK on 25 Apr 2008 01:43 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:22:49 GMT, Joerg <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote: >Joel Koltner wrote: >> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:KD6Oj.9778$2g1.2542(a)nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> That is strange. Normally they should have known this guy inside out before >>> even offering tenure if that's what his new position entails. >> >> I believe they did know him inside and out, were happy with his performance, >> and that's why it happened: They had already decided they were going to offer >> him the promotion, but some standard procedure required getting a student >> evaluation as well... so they had to find someone who was willing to write up >> a positive one. I just think it's strange that they bother getting a student >> evaluation when their minds are already made up... since it then puts them in >> the rather awkward position of having to say, "Please write us a good >> evaluation, or if you don't feel you can, that's OK, we'll find someone >> else..." Weird. >> >> Perhaps they'd do better to ask a handful of students to write up objective >> evaluations without the pressure of "...but, um, it has to be positive?" -- >> and then culling any that were negative? :-) I suppose they're stuck in a >> way... being tied to the government (they're a land-grant university) means >> they have to follow lots of procedures that regular businesses don't. >> >> Regarding the nice retirement packages... my understanding was that state >> workers ended up with rather cushy retirement packages in exchange for having >> to accept noticeably below-average salaries (relative to private industry) >> during their working years. In Oreogn we have the PERS (Public Employee >> Retirement System) which used to work this way, but the "cushy" benefits were >> signifcantly reduced via the ballot box when some interested parties pointed >> out how much better PERS was than what those folks in private industry get. >> Hence you now have a system where public employee pay still isn't competitive >> with private industry and now the retirement isn't either! This was a common >> topic of complaint by the professors (that you'd get to know well enough) when >> I was in grad school; a significant number left for private industry during >> that time, and I certainly coudn't blame them. >> >> That being said, I don't know enough to evaluate whether or not public jobs >> are still attractive when you look at the total package -- some people would >> argue they are and that PERS benefit reductions were just "corrections" to a >> system that had become too "generous" in its compensation. >> > >All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling. OK lets get to that. >Paid sick leave, Not particularly uncommon until you get to low end hourly. Standard for engineers since WWII. > fat disability payments where lots of people tried and >succeeded to be declared "disabled", Yes there has been abuses. >cradle-to-grave medical with hardly any co-pay. When i worked for private as an engineer it was $5 for office visit, $20 for lab, $5 per prescription. Today with State of CA it is $10 or more for office visit, $0 for lab, $5 to $25 per prescription. It increases in retirement. Then Medicare is supposed to kick in and relieve much of the State burden. If you are 65 or older and don't like what you have try Medicare and see how well you like that. >The latter alone will saddle our communities with previously >unheard of debt. > Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit >tied to the last work year. So, folks have themselves transferred into >high-cost areas such as the Bay Area for 13 months or so, then move >back. That ratchets their monthly checks up substantially, until their >dying day. That ain't right. It has been changed to the highest paid three years average in the last ten. And it now takes ten years to become "vested", instead of five. Now, you have been reading my stuff for some years now, do you think i am a doofus parading as an engineer? When i was hired some 15 years ago a PE could only expect about $5000 a month in State service. What was your monthly average then. What was it 5 years ago? What is it today. CA State pay rates for engineers and almost all others is a matter of public record. Try looking them up for yourself. You would do well to start with www.spb.ca.gov. Better still, compare them to County and City rates for the last 20 years. And finally note that for most cases the State does not give you a better paycheck based on where the job is, let alone where you live. 80 percent to 90 percent of half to two thirds of what a private engineer can make ain't all that much. You may get a lower top percentage, but it is / was based on a much better salary.
From: JosephKK on 25 Apr 2008 02:08 On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:47:57 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, >notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... >> Joel Koltner wrote: >> > "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message >> > news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >> All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling... >> > >> > Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public >> > employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that >> > public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a >> > pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get >> > comparable quality out of their workers. >> > >> >> Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those >> days are long gone. > >I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is >pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined >contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been >lost and are portable. > >> > One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their >> > employees to be agile over time. See this article: >> > http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up >> > with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build >> > them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in >> > the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on >> > average, would only be middle-aged today!? >> > >> >> A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least >> that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-) > >Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-) >> >> >> Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work >> >> year. >> > >> > I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move? >> > >> > It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the >> > government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so. >> > >> >> Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ... >> >> Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of >> service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way. > >The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined >benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into >account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans >do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double >one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer >should pay that forever. So you say. While there are classes where that is easily done it is usually in the mid range hourly and low range salaried that it is reasonably possible. But how may 50+ year olds do you know that can and will work significant overtime?
From: JosephKK on 25 Apr 2008 02:26 On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:34:30 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >In article <ovwOj.2084$pS4.1733(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, >notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... >> krw wrote: >> > In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, >> > notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... >> >> Joel Koltner wrote: >> >>> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message >> >>> news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >>>> All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling... >> >>> Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public >> >>> employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that >> >>> public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a >> >>> pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get >> >>> comparable quality out of their workers. >> >>> >> >> Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those >> >> days are long gone. >> > >> > I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is >> > pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined >> > contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been >> > lost and are portable. >> > >> >> Sure, but 401(k) is generally funded by the employee. Occasionally the >> company throws in a little extra but that is mostly a mere drop in the >> bucket in contrast to the lavish pension plans that cover many state >> workers. > >It's quite normal for a company to add significantly to the 401K, >sometimes with strings attached, sometimes without. My PPOE had a >fairly decent 401K (in addition to pension plans for everyone >joining before '06, or so). They matched 1:1 up to 6% of salary >(plus bonusus) and had no management fees for the normal funds. I >understand it's gotten better since they've dropped the pension >plans for the newbs. > >> >>> One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their >> >>> employees to be agile over time. See this article: >> >>> http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up >> >>> with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build >> >>> them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in >> >>> the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on >> >>> average, would only be middle-aged today!? >> >>> >> >> A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least >> >> that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-) >> > >> > Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-) >> >> >> Yes, definitely. OTOH completely quitting a career has brought many fine >> engineers into the grave within less than a year. My father who worked >> as a data processing engineer continued as a consultant and gradually >> tapered it off. He said that there was a rash of unexpected deaths of >> otherwise quite healthy colleagues right after retirement, and it was >> among the group of engineers who shut their careers down more or less >> overnight after the first retirement check arrived. > >I got quite bored, once I wasn't allowed to make messes at home >anymore. Good thing that only lasted a week or two. ;-) >> >> >>>> Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work >> >>>> year. >> >>> I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move? >> >>> >> >>> It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the >> >>> government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so. >> >>> >> >> Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ... >> >> >> >> Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of >> >> service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way. >> > >> > The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined >> > benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into >> > account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans >> > do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double >> > one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer >> > should pay that forever. >> > >> >> But it's happening. And we are all paying for that. > >Precisely. It's not going to get better. The government requires >others to have fully funded retirement plans, but would have none of >it for themselves. Actually CalPERS is one exception to the slightly over broad brush. Of course over 2E11 dollars is not a toy.
From: JosephKK on 25 Apr 2008 02:38 On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:56:41 GMT, Joerg <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote: >Joel Koltner wrote: >> Hi Joerg, >> >> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:PLsOj.7522$GE1.332(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those days >>> are long gone. >> >> Actually I think a very significant fraction of companies (at least those >> hiring EEs) offer some sort of contribution to 401k plans, sometimes profit >> sharing, sometimes stock options, etc... but I concur that the old days of >> "company pensions" is pretty much gone. >> > >Mostly it's a mere pittance. And that's ok, I am a strong believer that >everyone should pull their own weight. Except disabled people, of course. Actually i have found an amazing amount of them that can do just that. I expect you have heard of Steven Hawking? > > >>> A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. >> >> Absolutely, but if you're an employer it's definitely a legitimate >> consideration that starting a bunch of 70-year-olds on a, say, decade-long >> "modernization" project is rather riskier than if you toss a few 50- or >> 30-year-olds into the mix as well. :-) Correct. >> > >True. However, we should embrace the Japanese concept of letting older >folks teach the young ones, not lay them off. There is a trade off there. You need to limit that to the most flexible and brightest old personnel. > > >>> Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of service? >>> IMHO that's wrong. >> >> I agree that one year seems too short, but trying to figure out how many years >> should be taken into consideration (which is effectively what happens in >> private companies if the company is contributing to your 401k) is not going to >> be easy either. >> > >Just make it the same as with 401(k), IRA, old style pension funds, >social security etc. What counts is what you pay in over your whole career. Heavily weighted by the early amounts because of compound interest. Check it out. Moreover, no matter what the contributions were there should come a point where the interest on the early contributions outweigh the current contributions. Do the arithmetic. A spreadsheet program makes this relatively painless. > >We can read such stories almost daily, just an example from this morning: >http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/876845.html > >Guess who gets to pay the tab for the agency's legal defense?
From: JosephKK on 25 Apr 2008 02:41
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:40:55 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in message >news:Jr5Pj.4650$vF.1890(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... >> Mostly it's a mere pittance. And that's ok, I am a strong believer that >> everyone should pull their own weight. > >I guess it depends on the employer... > >Do you see anything bad about the old system of pensions (from private >companies, ignore the government for the moment)? I see them more as >"different" than particularly better or worse. These days you're personally >responsible for more of your retirement planning, which has the upside that >you can probably do a better job than some company-wide pension programs used >to do, but the downside is that those who plan poorly (or not at all) end up >needing that much more government assistance once they're retired. > >> True. However, we should embrace the Japanese concept of letting older folks >> teach the young ones, not lay them off. > >Yes, agreed 100%. > >> Just make it the same as with 401(k), IRA, old style pension funds, social >> security etc. What counts is what you pay in over your whole career. > >The end result there is that if your employer requires you to move to, e.g., >California for the last few years of employment you'll pretty much be forced >to then immediately move when you hit retirement. I suppose that isn't >particularly awful, since that fact would have been clear when the employer >said, "move!" > >> Guess who gets to pay the tab for the agency's legal defense? > >Sheesh... screw the taxpyers with retiremend funding and then screw'em again >when someone tries to blow the whistle. Nice... Finally, someone else caught on. > >---Joel > |