Why Not Raise The Retirement Age? Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Drum provides one answer:

[W]here does the preoccupation with [raising the retirement age to] age 70 come from? That would represent a decrease in the expected number of years of retirement since 1970, during a period in which the United States has become nearly twice as wealthy. That doesn't even begin to make sense. Sure, life expectancy may increase in the future, but if it does then we have the option of increasing the retirement age when it happens. For now, we should make policy based on current reality, and the current reality is that life expectancy at age 65 has increased only 3.5 years since 1970. There's no reason the retirement age should increase five years in response.

When YouTube Distorts

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Dan Savage is awesome usually, but during this period in which he's been on a "roll" he also denounced a rather benign Toronto church group as "Christofascists" based on incorrect information provided by a YouTube poster who later admitted he had no evidence for what he was saying.  That was pretty bad.  Full story here.

Land of Plenty

by Zoe Pollock

This video, from students at the Vancouver Film School, visualizes a different sort of pseudovariety, this time within our natural food systems. Out of 80,000 edible plants we choose only 30 to supply 90% of the calories in our diet; 14 animal species make up 90% of our livestock. The scariest realizations are about 1:45 in.

Means and Ends

by Conor Friedersdorf

Tim Lee writes:

Personally I’m not interested in “limited government” as an end in itself, but as a means to greater individual liberty. I’m opposed to government programs that waste taxpayer dollars because higher taxes restrict my freedom. But I’m much more opposed to government programs that use taxpayer dollars to restrict freedom directly. I’m not interested in joining a “limited government” movement that considers the two equivalent. And I’m definitely not interested in being part of a movement that gives torture and preemptive war a free pass under the heading of “national defense” while it focuses instead on fighting the tyranny of SCHIP and unemployment insurance.

(Hat tip: League Of Ordinary Gentlemen)

Police, Firefighters, And Their Salaries, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Cohn returns to the subject and makes a couple worthwhile points. A reader focuses on NYC:

I don't know much about compensation in the rest of the country but I do know about New York and its cops and firefighters. I grew up with them. My father (retired), both brothers, best friend from high school (retired on medical) are all FDNY. The (suburban) block I grew up on had 11 houses: 5 firemen and two cops. The significant other of the fireman who wrote in presented a version of things that doesn't really square with my experience.

The firefighters that I know are all hard working people who do or did a tough and nasty job. They've all seen very terrible things that generally do not intrude upon my workday. Bad, bad stuff. They are very well compensated for this. It's a good job. Some people like it and some don't. Whether or not its worth it to any particular person is up to that person but the line is long to get a spot and the pension is no small part of the draw.

Starting salary is modest, $39k base plus overtime (you're most likely in your early to mid 20s), but it steps up every year until full pay and is $76k base after 5 years (your most likely in your late 20s, maybe early 30s). That's about what I make now (early 40s, comfortable). Both my brothers make a good bit more. The fireman makes about $100k and the lieutenant closer to $125k. Not counting the side jobs. They can easily afford to live in my very nice middle-class Brooklyn neighborhood but have chosen, as my parents did, to live in very nice middle class suburbs. Not because they have to but because they like it there (kids, schools, etc).

They'll probably retire in their mid 40s not because they're broken men but because that's when they come due for their pensions. If you can take 50% of your total compensation (base + OT), exempt from state and local tax, and go do something else you'll be making more money— even if you can make only about half of your current take home doing that something else (teacher; consultant, either security or fire safety; small business; trades). If you can take 75% (tax exempt) even better and not at all unusual. And that's what most of them do.

I'll skip the who deserves what nonsense. Very tough job, very well compensated. It's silly to deny either. I don't think the city can afford to continue to pay the civil service as well as it has. The city's share of paying the retirees costs as much as paying the active payroll. That's a little nuts. They've already made cuts but they can really only hit the new guys coming in. Big boat, slow turn.

Why Mehlman Matters, Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

Dan Savage pulls no punches:

Mehlman would like us to believe that he didn't know he was gay back then. And, I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell-my-finger test. Mehlman rose quickly through the ranks of the GOP, wound up on top, cashed the checks, made the contacts, did real and lasting harm to other gays and lesbians, and Mehlman knew damn well what he was and what he was doing.

However, he agrees with John Aravosis:

Ken Mehlman now wants to use his contacts and influence to help me win the right to marry. I don't care if he ripped the heads off baby bunnies back in 2004, if he's willing to help us now. My enemy's enemy is my friend. And if Ken Mehlman wants to be my friend, and start on the path towards making up for all the bad things he did in the past, I'm not going to spurn his help, and set our movement and community back by missing this incredible opportunity, simply because the guy (rightfully) pisses me off.

Dan is on a bit of a blog roll lately; today he reacts to a new poll showing 75% (!) public acceptance for ending DADT, and checks in on those kooky Mormons.