vorleon

lawyer and self deprecating know it all (opinions my own) rt≠endorsement

[vorleon @vorleon]

new video https://t.co/YrZVhyOz0i

[vorleon @vorleon]

@ayatr0llah whilst also living in the tallest building in the picture

[vorleon @vorleon]

@joinshiftX Shift

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 Tier 6 shields the MTA from pensioning anything over the $21k cap. If an engineer makes $100k in variable, $79k is blocked. Rolling that premium into base salary bypasses the statutory cap and explodes the pension liability. Major L for you buddy

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You applied a system-wide mean to the specific subset of engineers triggering the penalty. Those guys are outliers pulling $100k+, not the $26k average. Using the general mean to measure the extreme tail is statistical illiteracy.

[danny @dabbs346]

NRSC is also actively scrubbing their website on Ken Paxton releases. So embarrassing.

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 The $100k+ overtime figure is literally from the article YOU linked. You just called your own source an 'unsupported claim' because you didn't read it. You shouldn't continue to engage; you should log off and take the L

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 I'm asserting you don't understand averages. $26k includes the entire LIRR. ALL engineers are dual-certified, and top earners pull $100k+ in variable pay. The cap strips out $79k+. $79k is the vast majority of $100k. You are fundamentally out of your depth

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 If the average variable pay ($26k) already exceeds the Tier 6 cap ($21k), then shifting premium pay into the base salary explicitly unlocks and balloons the pension liability

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 Tier 6 already strips the vast majority of variable penalty pay out of the pension calculation via the cap. The "corresponding pension liability" you claim to be saving from the larger group doesn't legally exist to be offset

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You claimed: "If the base pay premium is less... this reduces comp spend." That directly conflicts with the formula. Your equation only shows a "reduction" because you completely deleted the 30-year compounding FAS liability

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 The formula is Pension = FAS × Years × Factor. Converting capped variable pay into permanent base pay increases the FAS variable for 3 decades of payouts. Describing an algebraic relationship is math. I'm sorry I didn't write it out in crayon

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 The math error is basic algebra: trading capped variable pay for an uncapped base hike geometrically balloons the 30-year pension multiplier. Ignoring compounding tail-risk to claim short-term 'savings' isn't a difference of opinion, you lack financial literacy

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You conceded your entire economic proposal rests on the union voluntarily taking a net lifetime loss just to balance your math. Now you're throwing 'no u' insults because you have nowhere left to go. Take the L and enjoy your Friday.

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 A financial model that requires the counterparty to voluntarily lose money just to balance your ledger is the literal definition of mathematical illiteracy

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You are trading a strictly capped variable premium that ends at retirement for a permanent bump to FAS that pays out for 3 decades of retirement. Only way your math 'reduces spend' is if the union voluntarily negotiates a massive net pay cut during their working years

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 A hypothetical short-term payroll saving doesn't negate compounding a higher Final Average Salary over a 30-year retirement

[vorleon @vorleon]

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 When I said 'everyone,' I clearly meant 'everyone in your hypothetical new tier.' Tier 6 caps pensionable variable pay @ ~$21k. By converting that variable premium into a higher base salary, you bypass the statutory cap and permanently inflate the pension liability for that group

[vorleon @vorleon]

@StochasticStat1 @trashbaby40k @jbarro It makes it bulletproof. Economic rent is the market payment for a structurally scarce asset. The MTA demands dual-certification; the union controls the inelastic supply. The resulting premium is a rent AND a market rate. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

[vorleon @vorleon]

@StochasticStat1 @trashbaby40k @jbarro Hochul’s political cost of a strike is the MTA's cost of doing without the labor. That establishes their reservation price. Just because the buyer's leverage variables are political doesn't make the outcome 'arbitrary.' You're confusing a complex market with no market.

[vorleon @vorleon]

@StochasticStat1 @trashbaby40k @jbarro If your definition of 'market rate' requires perfect competition, then 99% of real-world wages aren't market rates. A bilateral monopoly clearing price is an established market outcome driven by voluntary exchange. You're hiding behind semantic pedantry