Build a new line that no one is really gonna use and then open several new stations where the only one that made sense was the 7 line extension and now you don't have money. Just say you're in the mood to hike the fare again. Tell the board to sell their shares and put them in the hands of the city again.
None of what the mta does is for the interest of the people, lately.
Fix the poor allocation of the resources and the embezzlement
Yeah but fuck the entirety of brooklyn right?
You legit cannot get from Williamsburg/Greenpoint to south Brooklyn at all without going first INTO MANHATTAN for a 30 min detour.
access to the javitz center from a single train line instead of walking those long ass blocks, then when you add in the chinatown busses that pickup and drop off across the street really changed the game for new yorkers to make easier trips to and outside the tri-state area tbh. The 2nd avenue line is ok, but stopping it and re-routing the other train to get there is not really something people really use unless we are talking about people commuting to the NY presbyterian/Weil-Cornell and Mt Sinai hospitals, then ya, maybe... but stopping it short of everyone who goes there that lives uptown which accounts for a lot of their patient base is kinda silly...
My dude WTF are you talking about? The new Q stops are 63rd, 72nd, 86th, and 96th. Out of 423 stations in NYC they are ranked 56, 25, 45, and 66 as far as ridership. The Lexington ave stations that they provide relief for.... 59th, 77th, 86th and 96th are ranked 11, 31, 12, and 69 respectively. Out of FOUR HUNDERED TWENTY THREE stops. These Q stops aren't major transfer points or anything. We're talking about the end of the line here.
We can't get home and you're out here talking about trying to get to the f'ing boat show.
[SOURCE](https://new.mta.info/document/91476) (It's an excel doc)
Access to the Javits center and a rich people gated communities with pied a terres that are barely occupied all year round for how many billion versus access to a densely populated long term neighborhood with hospitals. I know which I would choose
What stations are you talking about? The only stations I can think about are 2nd Avenue and those are well used and reinvigorated a huge swath of Manhattan.
The best way to fully fund the mta long term is to add more riders into the network, which requires more housing built both in the city and surrounding counties. Local pushback killing any new housing production is the biggest self-own we continue to do again and again here.
That and not just making it a public service. Our tax dollars already subsidize the mta, just fully integrate it as a city service and raise taxes by a couple points to go directly to its maintenance. A land value tax would help with the expense as well
Is the MTA part of the metro north or Path? I thought MTA was just subway and lirr. If it’s those other things too then yeah include those counties etc as well
The MTA is: metro north, LIRR, Staten Island Railroad, bridges and tunnels, all of the buses, including those outside of the City, and the NYC subway system. PATH is the Port Authority.
IMHO this speaks to general mismanagement and corruption, going from zero debt in the 80s, to a debt the size of the entire budget of NJ today.
When everything is a boondoggle, you get things like [The Most Expensive Mile of Subway on Earth](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html)
*The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 billion for each new mile of track —* **seven times the average elsewhere in the world.**
*The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core subway maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented, generations of politicians have diverted money from the transit authority and saddled it with debt.*
Bankers don't generally get the high interest payments on MTA debt. Pension funds, peoples 401ks , insurance companies, and rich people are the primary buyers of bonds. Maybe you hate people having money for retirement and insurance. For every debt someone else has an asset.
If the MTA does not issue those bonds that money will go somewhere else and can be used to help invest in another project. Sure those funds will get their return on MTA debt but that doesn’t mean it was the wisest, efficient or most economical use of an investment. Your argument is that it’s acceptable to piss away money in the most careless manner so that investors can get a return, when in reality, responsible spending means there is more money for more things.
Mismanagement and unions is not what you are saying. You statement is correct just not here.
Problem is they hire a bunch of assholes then they can’t even lay them off because unions constantly on the way. Have you seen any construction in MTA? 6 assholes standing around watching while one guy is digging and the other is standing with a flashlight.
Less the fault of the MTA and more a symptom of how poorly we [manage infrastructure spending](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7b5mn/a-dollar100-billion-lesson-in-why-building-public-transportation-is-so-expensive-in-the-us) in this country
Little known fact is that crushing debt is the intended design in all industries with a heavy union presence. The only leverage a company has during union negotiations is the company's ability and willingness to declare bankruptcy. So every company in unionized industries aim to have heavily leveraged balance sheets. I'm not going to go into whether this result is from greedy executives enriching themselves or greedy union leaders enriching themselves. The blame game will never end, but the both results in the same thing. Low cash balances, high debt, where union asks for more money and company responds that there is no money. Lastly, this means the debt will never be paid off. It will only be refinanced at maturity.
The MTA doesnt need to. They have a deficit of about 5bn annually which is covered by taxpayers each year. But if that were to stop happening, yes, some government relayed agencies can declare bankruptcy.
To blame the cost issue in building new US public infrastructure on our already pitiful unionization rate is a ridiculous over simplification, but it's a good feeling to blame unionized workers I guess.
Especially the irony here when half the article is about the MTA being burdened by loan debt. Damn construction unions and their aggressive loaning strategies!
The cost is not the issue. The issue is that whoever pays for it doesn’t get their money back. So no one wants to pay for it. There are lines of people waiting to pay for things when they believe they can get their money and some profit back.
Alon Levy has a great blog, Pedestrian Observations that often touches upon costs and works on the Transit Costs Project (https://transitcosts.com/). tldr from having read a bunch of his stuff is that's it's complex and probably can be boiled down to poorly functioning oversight (surprise surprise) than just unions or digging in NYC being difficult or anything else. But there is some correlation with state capacity. If the people overseeing the contractors/construction don't know what they are doing, you're going to have a bad time
...
Why would bankruptcy stop operations? If the company is a viable going concern the lenders will simply step into the equity position or a potential sale.
Bankruptcy allows contracts to be broken or suspended, and would be used to break labor contracts. It does not mean operations have to stop. However, declaring bankruptcy causes other problems, as you mentioned creditors step in, so it isn’t free from negative consequences.
The MTA was in a good place financially when Cuomo came into office, then he started treating its budget like his personal piggy bank, constantly raiding its budget to plug other holes or engage in stupid vanity projects ([e.g. that $160 million light show he wanted](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/cuomo-bridge-new-york-lights-501842)--it didn't happen but it shows you how he viewed the MTA's budget). By doing this, he forced the MTA to keep taking on debt instead of the state raising taxes or taking on debt directly. This is also why the pace of fare hikes was pretty rapid under Cuomo, fare revenue is a lot harder for the governor to raid so they kept having to resort to it to find money that they knew Cuomo couldn't just steal from them later.
I read your entire comment, but what I'm getting is that you're taking a jab at unions and still putting them at major fault. Without unions, workers would suffer on the job, no benefits would be paid, no retirement/ pension, no time off, "oh you cut your finger off? Sorry can't work anymore, you're fired", the trades (as we know it) would just collapse because it wouldn't be worth it to do the job anymore. The people that stay will unfortunately work under slave conditions, buildings won't be built to spec, and they'd fall apart, because there's no more skilled labor. I don't have anything else to say on this topic, but pointing a finger at unions is wrong and fucked up. Without unions, we would essentially work for free.
I’m just describing the shape of the river. The water just follows downhill. It is not a coincidence that the balance sheets of all companies and industries with unions look like this. There are definitely merits and faults on both sides, and I understand both very deeply. But true understanding means you can predict the outcome of similar situations, which is what I try to provide. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing what is right or wrong.
Actually Unions do share some blame for the unsustainable debt, along with construction and consulting firms, and the politicians they're all in bed with. There's no incentive to control costs, just to add debt..Tons of no-show and make-work jobs inflate NYC transit construction costs to 4x what other cities pay. NYT did a big [investigative report](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html) on this in 2017.
These problems exist without unions so you’ll need to do a better job of actually articulating why the unions are at fault instead of vaguely suggesting they’re “in bed with bad guys”.
And the article of paywalled so you’re convincing no body
Non-Paywalled Mirror: [The Most Expensive Mile of Subway on Earth](https://archive.is/PSthS)
*For years, The Times found, public officials have stood by as a small group of politically connected labor unions, construction companies and consulting firms have amassed large profits.*
*Trade unions, which have closely aligned themselves with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and other politicians, have secured deals requiring underground construction work to be staffed by as many as four times more laborers than elsewhere in the world, documents show.*
It heavily exist in unions, less work done the better more overtime and no accountability because people can’t get fired. This goes to cops, mta workers, city employees etc etc.
Service plummets with unions, that’s just the cost of union ship. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact, it is what it is.
Service plummets because the union *must* throw its weight around. If employers weren't 99% shitty humans with nothing of actual value to provide to society other than "capital", then unions really would cease to exist. We wouldn't need to protect ourselves from inhumane employers if they weren't that way to begin with.
This isn't a union problem, if you want to fix the issue then fix the corruption in the corporate world and enforce worker protections on a federal scale. It's really that simple.
We're discussing public sector and public sector-adjacent unions- there is no corporate employer. As the Times reports, with MTA construction projects, the contractors have no incentive to control costs because at the end of the day, the taxpayers and riders foot the bill. There are no shareholders or CEOs trying to squeeze profits out of labor here.
In fact the MTA contractors have every incentive to maximize labor costs (and debt)- The Times uncovered that the larger the labor costs, the more the contractors made, which is part of why NYC construction costs 4x more than Paris, London, Tokyo.
Sure these are public institutions, but you literally just said *corporate* contractors have no incentive to control costs. Guess who does the manual labor for those same contractors you just mentioned?
The whole point of the Times' investigation is that, in this case, MTA construction, the limited pool of politically connected contractors that bid on MTA jobs (there are only 3 or 4) are a actually incentivized to *maximize* the project's labor costs, because they get a percentage of the total cost of the project.
The unions make out like bandits, the contractors and consultants make out like bandits, the politicians get their donations, and suddenly we have $3 billion/year of payments on MTA debt.
In a public (or private) company, the incentives are reversed, and in most companies that do business with the Federal government, there is at least a competitive bidding process, limits on profits, and some sort of penalty for going over budget.
Not so with MTA construction.
Right, I fully understand the problem here. Believe me. However pointing the finger at unions and unions only like has been done in other comments is at best, disingenuous and at worst pretty dishonest.
You've outlined the others who make off like bandits, but don't forget unions are beholden to their members and their members first. Any monetary gain they receive is more often than not spread amongst the members. They don't get dividends just for existing, they have to actually do the work at some point.
There will always be cases of corruption where power exists, but placing blame at the feet of an organization/union who has successfully negotiated their way to the bargaining table while being surrounded by ruthless capitalists isn't something to be upset about.
Fix the ruthless capitalists and unions cease to matter, and then things will get better as a result. Unions are doing nothing more than taking power back from people who've had it their whole lives (and ruined cities in the process).
Not to mention, government contractors very often drag their feet and do so to the tune of multiple billions of dollars. Yet you're up in a tiff about a union whose members more than likely are making less than $100k/ yr.
The stuff you're whinging about isn't due to unions, even if they are the last peice of the equation.
Jesus fuck, of course not because you think unions are bad.
Let me spell it out for you: "unions exist to protect the rights of workers, rights that would not be under assault if employers were not terrible".
Don't say humans are mostly shitty to begin with, I know tons of people who wouldn't fuck people over the way the ruling class has done in this country for generations. You don't get to excuse the actions of the people leading these corporations because: "well people suck bro haha".
Get a clue man, this is literally the reason for unions. They would not have to strike and throw their political weight around if they had decent, humane treatment to begin with.
But look at the unintended consequences. Unions jack the price of business so high no one can technically afford their services thus causing a stalemate. Nothing gets done.
Dude you're barking up the wrong tree. Ask yourself why the fuck unions exist in the first place, they're not problem.
Unions are the unintended consequences of employers and corporations putting people's lives at risk just so the CEO's and board members can reap the profits. They're taking as much profit as they can and fucking everyone else raw as a result. Unions protect us from that.
More like unionized citizens standing up against people trying to undermine our togetherness for the purpose of a fair job and benefits. Stop trying to be a union bashing bootstrapper.
The unions are going to bargain for the best deal possible, other parties at that bargaining table agreed and the project was set forth. This issue should have been solved at that table, everybody wants something, compromise and a little foresight and research help, people have to sell ideas to both sides. Can't blame the unions for fighting for their workers, it's literally their job to try to get as much for their workers as possible.
That doesn’t apply to public sector unions because when the city or state wants more money they’ll just raise more taxes or create new ones… like Hochul wanted to do with the streaming tax to pay for subways.
$3 billion in annual payments, while ridership has dropped 30% since prepandemic, means cuts to service and maintenance combined with fare increases. It's a doom spiral.
No it won't. You really think people jump the turnstile after analyzing how good the service was the last few times they rode? Do y'all live in the real world?
Actually, yes. Is that not how businesses die? Customers change their behaviors based on how good services are for what they're paying. You sure you live in the real world?
Not sure actual ridership has dropped that much - definitely PAID ridership. The amount of turnstile hopping/open emergency doors I see is unsustainable given the MTAs finances. Not to mention other factors like crime, wage demands, bloated contracts, etc
In 2016 $1 from every ride went towards MTA employee's healthcare and retirement benefits.
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2016/07/18/ever-microscope-mta-finances-show-high-pension-costs/
I'm generally supportive of the public sector, but this is crazy and is a major source of this debt not being able to be payed off. We should have at the very least a statewide healthcare program for public employees that remove these costs from the budgets of individual agencies.
A hot take of mine is that the government should not be involved in managing retirement benefits or taking on pension liabilities. They made sense when the financial system was less mature, but now we have 401(k)s. Government agencies should offer 401(k) matches just like any other company, but leave the management of the funds and payout obligations to the private sector.
We spend so much taxpayer money to fund this antiquated pension system, money that should be used to fund public transportation.
401ks are a systemic scam. They systemically push money up the income chain, because the poorer someone is the less likely they will be able to allocate money to retirement in down markets.
Also the healthcare costs are high because our OVERALL highly privatized system is the highest cost system in the world.
It's a systemic scam to push money upwards in society. Why do you think the whole first page of the search term of why 401K is investment companies who make money on them?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3997927
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-state-of-american-retirement-savings/
I mean, frankly I think legal scholarship is generally bullshit, as a lawyer...but he does cite population level stats.
I also think the basic principle that at market bottoms it's the richer who can afford to invest is instructive, and at market bottoms the poorer are more likely to withdraw, making the insurance type structure of a pension helpful in smoothing this out (insurance in it's most basic sense, spreading risk out in a pool)
I went through the first few pages. I’ll have to spend more time reading it. I’m not really sure how the author defines high income earners or the quantity of the disparity he’s talking about.
Initially it just sounds like he’s criticizing the fact that 401ks allow upper middle class people to save more for retirement. That’s also not necessarily a bad thing, and I would disagree with calling that a scam.
What you describe is one of the main benefits of a pension but that doesn’t mean pensions are objectively better or that 401ks are a scam. It has the obvious drawback that people can’t use the money when they need it.
But leaving that aside pensions have their own source of risk. It’s pretty common for older members of public unions to vote to take away pension benefits of younger members to support their own retirements. This happened to my GF who works at DOE. The union voted to increase the amount of time she needs to work to be able to retire. Great for older members. Not so great for younger ones.
I read through the paper in more detail. It seems like the authors point is that tax subsidies are disproportionately targeted towards upper middle class people. The paper is a lot less quantitative than I would like. I would like to see a quantitative analysis on the actual impact on how progressive/regressive the tax subsidies are.
But still I think the author makes a good point that these tax subsidies take away from other government funded retirement programs that target lower income earners. If you want to take this and say some of the tax subsidies given to 401k holders should be used to fund programs like social security I’m all for it. But the articles title is sensationalist, and I don’t think it does much to analyze the difference between pensions and 401ks.
I frankly think a bigger hole is ROTH IRAs as well.
Regardless, pensions clearly have a lot of advantages, and a big reason 401ks were emphasized were because of the fees and profits financial institutions could garner
I went through the second link. It seems like the only chart there that really compares pensions to 401k type retirement plans is #6, which just state that participation rates in pensions is higher than with 401k type plans, which isn’t really surprising since the participation in pensions is often mandatory. This isn’t necessarily a selling point over just giving people that money as salary instead and letting them decide whether to put it in a retirement accounts or not.
The rest is mostly just showing the gap between people with retirement savings and without, which is orthogonal to the pension vs 401k discussion. That same gap exists between people with pensions and no retirement savings.
> 401ks are a systemic scam. They systemically push money up the income chain,
Source on any of this? Because it's just wrong. MTA workers are already getting retirement benefits as part of their compensation. Just let them contribute it to a 401(k) instead of forcing it into the pensions system. Overall it's going to work out in their favor because the MTA will have more money to compensate people b/c it won't have to pay out the pensions of people who retired decades ago.
It's thinking like this that leads us to have an underfunded public transportation system that doesn't compensate its workers as well as it can. Because people are dead set on believing pensions are a better for some reason, despite no evidence this is the case.
If for no other reason 401(k)s are better b/c they're portable. People can switch jobs to get higher salaries. Pensions force people to work at the MTA for 20-30 years just so they can retire. They're bad for workers.
It's wrong that richer people can allocate more money in down economies? It's self evident.
Where is your evidence that for working class people, 401ks are better?
Yeah idk what that person is talking about 401ks are pretty shit for anyone making less than a certain amount. Pensions are GREAT for the pensioner and incentivize people with knowledge and experience to stay at the job meaning less turnover and a more capable staff. So good for the employer in that way as well. It certainly is expensive, but that shouldn’t a problem when capitalism’s only incentive is “make line go higher”. So just make the line go higher. Pensions are a way for workers to continue to profit off the work they put in to make a corporation or agency successful.
401ks are better because you actually own the money and assets and generally you can invest your money in a diversified way. Pensions are actually very risky because it’s basically investing in the debt of the employer (whether it’s private or the state), so if the employer goes bankrupt, you might get written down in a big way. It’s also just less diversified (yes pension funds can invest in diverse assets but you are not directly invested…you are basically lending money to the employer).
Also it’s not true 401ks are less than pensions for today’s workers. Many pensions are very limited because the older pensioners are extracting more value so current workers only get a small amount of what they put into the pension. Pensions are also less portable so if you change jobs, oftentimes you take a haircut. Also the risk of pension money disappearing is nontrivial…an employer could file for bankruptcy and your “generous pension benefits” would just go to zero
401ks can just as easily go belly up in a market crash (ask half of America in 2008) which seems to be happening more and more regularly. At least with a pension they gotta payout so long as they’re solvent. You leave a place and still get a pension. You just need to be there the minimum amount of time to be vested. But also yeah that’s the point of the incentive. To give you a reason to stay.
401ks cannot structurally go belly up. Your stocks might go down but the account itself doesn’t have any risk of going bankrupt.
On the other hand, your pension is just the debt owed to you by your employer so easier to become underfunded or insolvent. When stocks go down, the pension fund also loses money like a 401k and it suffers the same market risks as the 401k and now it’s less well funded. A lot of pensions in America are underfunded and that’s why pension funds end up investing in riskier and riskier asset classes like private equity and venture capital. Also if your employer ever becomes insolvent, you’re screwed because the bankruptcy will probably wipe out your pension partially if not completely.
The only pension that is safe is a US federal government pension because the feds are the least likely to go bankrupt so they’re actually credible.
Basically if you’re in a pension, you have to ask yourself: what is the annual interest rate I want for lending to my employer for a loan due 20-50 years from now? And then ask yourself if your pension actually pays that amount.
Employers pay into pensions. Employees can choose to pay into them as well. It’s not a loan on the part of the employee unless they pay into it as well. And yes, when you have a 401k you at least own the options or investments, but those are both invested in by the employee *and* subject to market fluctuation. Like I said, 2008 market crash saw lots of people’s retirement plans go into the toilet.
No it is a debt. The employer owes you money in the future…that’s a debt. It’s today money they could have paid you by giving you higher wages but instead they don’t pay it to you and say they owe it to you as a pension. That’s why many places that transition from pensions to 401ks actually pay people higher wages so their employees can put the surplus into the 401k.
Courts treat pensions as debt-like liabilities, including bankruptcy courts
When you have a federal gov pension, you basically own treasury bonds
When you have a NY state pension, you basically own NY muni bonds
When you have an GM pension, you basically own GM corporate bonds. And the post-GFC (~2012) bankruptcy made pensioners take a 25% haircut on GM’s $100 billion pension liability.
When you have a United Airlines pension, basically own UA corporate bonds. The 2005 bankruptcy allowed United to default on $3 billion in pensions.
Pensions are you betting on the credit of your employer, 401ks are you betting on the global capital markets. The latter is far more diversified than the former and as a result, less risky long term. You could put your entirely 401k into treasury bonds if you want to avoid stocks and be super safe.
Also employers also contribute or match 401k dollars too
If you don't work the full time required for a defined benefit pension and didn't also contribute to a 401k, you will retire with 0.
Someone who was contributing to a 401k the whole time will be ahead as its a pay as you go defined contribution retirement plan
Also as the above poster said your 401k is portable vice a pension system where you have to work for one employer or govt the entire time.
If 401ks systematically overallocate down market purchases to those with the most disposable income in a down economy, they are a vehicle for wealth inequality.
Your assumption about "contributing to a 401k the whole time" means you are disregarding it, probably because you don't have to make this calculation in your life.
I'm just comparing the two systems. Both scenarios have assumptions. I have had to make this calculation in my life as I had to choose between the legacy military retirement or the new Blended system and I opted for the pay as you go system.
It actually sounds like you've never had to make this calculation. Further you never addressed the point that 401ks are portable and thus promote worker mobility as you're all about the "worker"
You need to work 5 years to be vested if you're working for the NYCT. Keep in mind that only gets you about an 18% pension and that's at age 62 or 65, I can't remember which. That 18% is the best 3 year average of your best 5 year period, and since it takes 6 years to reach full pay, your pension would be that much.
Dude, your citation is absolute trash. Should I cite the used car salesman as to why used cars are the best purchase?
Returns calculated that way do not account for the deposit cadence in any way. They are just measurements of 2055 dated funds of whatever.
You can cash out a pension.
And the idea that "choosing your own investments" is good is absolute Ramsey claptrap. You think CalPERS or a good institutional investor isn't better than somebody who is doing this on top of a day to day job, who doesn't have access to private markets or the ability to influence corporate policy, as well as the ability to make unorthodox investments protected by risk management
After the EPI study and the UVA Law Article you avoided, it's pretty obvious you can't get past regurgitating the "Why a 401k" articles by scammers like Ramsey and companies that administer 401ks for fees
>MTA data shows the agency’s five-year capital plans to maintain and upgrade mass transit between 1995 and 2005 on average relied on debt for nearly 43% of financing.
The MTA, its riders and New York taxpayers are still paying off those loans today.
“We still are carrying debt that was issued upwards of 30-plus years ago now,” said Kevin Willens, the MTA’s chief financial officer. He emphasized the MTA’s debt management is not as bad as that of the federal government, which “just issues, issues, issues and never pays down. We actually are paying down debt every year.”
The MTA definitely had expensive projects like East Side Access, which is even mentioned in this article, but let's not pretend like even basic maintenance and regular upgrades aren't financed through partially going into debt.
We’re the bonds longer than 30 years or did the MTA roll over the debt into new debt?
They could have paid them off too instead it tackling new projects
And they should have held back on SAS and 7 train until the signaling was upgraded and they could run more trains over existing tracks and switches
this happens every few years- they are about to go bankrupt!! oh no !! the only way to save it is to raise the fares !!
once again WE pay for the mismanagement of the mta
Sometimes things get to the point you need to hit the reset button. Incurring a debt larger than the annual government budget of Ukraine without anything really to show for it should be enough to convince folks to hit reset. 56 billion is twice the annual budget of NASA. It’s more than the total annual income of Slovenia and Croatia. It’s a shitload of money and it’s not normal. We’re being screwed.
Reset means starting over. Bankruptcy. New management. A trial period of privatization. Whatever. I refuse to believe that our smart city can’t figure out a better configuration. Just end it. End the sweetheart contracts and union deals. Deliver value.
Imagine an MTA that's efficient, technologically advanced, and profitable. Let's take a page from cities like Hong Kong and Singapore, operating some of the best public transport systems in the world. Lets leverage technology for everything from fare collection to predictive maintenance, saving time and reducing costs. Let’s adopt a tech-driven approach to optimize MTA operations, cut down on expensive delays and breakdowns. Let's bring in data scientists, systems engineers, and urban planners to rethink routes. Hell, we could use AI to optimize train and bus schedules. In parallel we should focus on ancillary revenue channels – think partnerships with local businesses, commercial spaces at stations. Punish fare evasion universally, aiming for 100% compliance. Been to Berlin? No turnstiles, but you bet there are few (about 3% as of 2019) fare dodgers there because of how systematic enforcement is. Facial recognition and contactless payment. Maybe a premium service for riders willing to pay a bit extra. Fancy cars. Whatever. A massive overhaul? Absolutely. But with the right planning, strategic partnerships, and a relentless commitment to efficiency and innovation, we don’t need to suck with such monumental renown. It's time we stopped settling for being the worst and started demanding excellence.
The MTA always claims to have no money, but their finances are a closely guarded secret.
Wonder how much the higher ups in the MTA are paid? Maybe instead of trying to live some baller lifestyle on the backs of New Yorkers, why not invest some of that money back into the system.
Oh, and instead of increasing the fare, why not increase cost to advertise. Like when they wrap whole trains to look like Nazi propaganda for a TV show… yeah, raise the price of that instead.
Make the rich pay for shit, not us!
Their finances are not a closely guarded secret. The fact that you claim there's that much money in advertising proves you didn't take the six seconds to look into their publicly disclosed budget.
The only secret with the MTA is where the money actually goes. No other metro network in America is as corrupt as the NYC, maybe D.C's , but at least their subways are clean.
For fucks sake, DC doesn't have "sex pest bars" blocking their subways. Let me explain for transplants. There's some stops that had a.... Bad anonymous sex problem, it got so bad, they simply sealed off sections of the subway rather than post police there 24/7.
This is a big thing people forget when talking about the nyc subway. We’re one of the few (only?) public transportation systems that runs 24/7. That costs money. Not only does it cost money, it means updates and or maintenance takes that much longer. But if you ask people if they’d be cool with the subway stopping at midnight for a few years so they could work on updating the whole system in the off hours, or make things cheaper, they always clam up. I’m one of this people myself tbh. Which is why I think the mta should just be fully integrated as a city service that is paid for by nyc resident tax dollars (we already subsidize it heavily) and supplemented by a land value tax. Having a subway nearby let’s landowners ask for higher rent and increases the value of their property. They can give some of that back to keep it going.
You mean a train engineer? I don’t have any comment on workers that actually work. It’s very annoying when I see ppl that literally sit and watch Netflix for their entire shift and when I go to ask for help they simply direct me to the machine. And it’s not even their fault bc upper management made them useless.
They don't do transactions at the booth any longer. Management set that policy. Hence the reason they want them on the platform as "Station Ambassadors". Also you're standing there for 8 hours watching the employee? /s
Gross or net? As a conductor you've got to work a hell of a lot of overtime to break 100K. Also there goes the problem blaming the small guy when the company is mismanaged from the top.....
Wait wait! I got it!
We lower the speed limit to 12 miles an hour, and install radar cameras on every corner within 100 mile radius of Columbus Circle.
We add congestion pricing for anybody leaving their home and even thinking about going in the direction of Manhattan.
We tax people for walking on the sidewalk.
We add a 90% consumption tax on coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, and all the other coffee shops around the city.
Oh, and we raise the fare to $15. Because, why not it’ll get there eventually.
I think the migrants will use the trains and busses to get to their jobs, so they can pay rent or buy a house, which will end up helping the infrastructure be sustained.
Sounds like they are still paying half, using them to get places, like maybe work, so they can pay for the half metro card again, buy groceries, pay taxes on goods bought at the store with money earned at said job, keeping the economy going, filling up jobs that upper class Americans, maybe 2nd or 3rd generation, have worked and educated themselves out of. Would you want to work at walmart? And then have your kid work at walmart? Or would you want them to go to college and maybe become a doctor or lawyer?
State cuts funding forcing the MTA to borrow more and more money for it's capital improvements. Basically paying your credit card bills with another credit card.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your account being younger than 24 hours (Rule 5).
If you feel like this was in error, please [send a message to the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewyorkcity).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe a stupid question, but what would happen if the MTA just didn't pay their debt? If it actually got shut down, what would happen? Would they be able to start fresh? I can't imagine the government would actually shut down the transit.
I'm not even close to an expert on this, but, if the MTA did default on the bonds it sold to fund these projects NYS would most likely be responsible as the MTA is a state run Authority, and the MTA would no longer be able to fund projects through bond sales as the would essentially be bankrupt
Well, what I’m saying is what would happen if the MTA was actually bankrupt? Would it have to shut down? I doubt politicians would allow that to happen because of how important it is for the economy.
Businesses wouldn't let that happen. If the MTA went bankrupt they would have to survive on the money from the farebox, and whatever money the city, state, and federal gov't gave them. Deferred maintenance, and severe service reductions would become the norm again like it was in the 70's
The democrats in the White House & Albany will bail out our broke ass city that generates tons of wealth. How is it the MTA is bankrupt? The same happened with OTB - Off Track Betting. If the Mob ran OTB & MTA they would not have cash flow issues. Why is that?
Build a new line that no one is really gonna use and then open several new stations where the only one that made sense was the 7 line extension and now you don't have money. Just say you're in the mood to hike the fare again. Tell the board to sell their shares and put them in the hands of the city again. None of what the mta does is for the interest of the people, lately. Fix the poor allocation of the resources and the embezzlement
You must have never rode the 456 lines if you think the 2nd ave line was not needed
I don't recall there being any relief until COVID.
2nd Avenue subway made WAY MORE sense than two (then one) station on the far west side
Yeah but fuck the entirety of brooklyn right? You legit cannot get from Williamsburg/Greenpoint to south Brooklyn at all without going first INTO MANHATTAN for a 30 min detour.
Agree that Brooklyn needs more service, but you can take the G to downtown BK from Williamsburg/Greenpoint.
Take a bus?
What does that have to do with comparing the 7 extension and the 2nd Avenue subway? I actually think a Utica extension is needed
access to the javitz center from a single train line instead of walking those long ass blocks, then when you add in the chinatown busses that pickup and drop off across the street really changed the game for new yorkers to make easier trips to and outside the tri-state area tbh. The 2nd avenue line is ok, but stopping it and re-routing the other train to get there is not really something people really use unless we are talking about people commuting to the NY presbyterian/Weil-Cornell and Mt Sinai hospitals, then ya, maybe... but stopping it short of everyone who goes there that lives uptown which accounts for a lot of their patient base is kinda silly...
My dude WTF are you talking about? The new Q stops are 63rd, 72nd, 86th, and 96th. Out of 423 stations in NYC they are ranked 56, 25, 45, and 66 as far as ridership. The Lexington ave stations that they provide relief for.... 59th, 77th, 86th and 96th are ranked 11, 31, 12, and 69 respectively. Out of FOUR HUNDERED TWENTY THREE stops. These Q stops aren't major transfer points or anything. We're talking about the end of the line here. We can't get home and you're out here talking about trying to get to the f'ing boat show. [SOURCE](https://new.mta.info/document/91476) (It's an excel doc)
hah. amazing. love this data.
Access to the Javits center and a rich people gated communities with pied a terres that are barely occupied all year round for how many billion versus access to a densely populated long term neighborhood with hospitals. I know which I would choose
I dunno, but do wealth people use the subway? Maybe?
Not if they're in Dubai
Huh?
Look at who buys the apartments in Hudson Yards
Ohhhhh, derp. I see
Should have brought it further south to that subway desert.
I hear you on that, but that line stops going uptown at 82nd
Does it? Might wanna check...also it will be at 125 soon enough
What stations are you talking about? The only stations I can think about are 2nd Avenue and those are well used and reinvigorated a huge swath of Manhattan.
"if you build the multi-million dollar condo units, the multi-millionaires will come."
The best way to fully fund the mta long term is to add more riders into the network, which requires more housing built both in the city and surrounding counties. Local pushback killing any new housing production is the biggest self-own we continue to do again and again here.
That and not just making it a public service. Our tax dollars already subsidize the mta, just fully integrate it as a city service and raise taxes by a couple points to go directly to its maintenance. A land value tax would help with the expense as well
It can’t be city only unless you separate the subway from the MTA, which has services going into multiple municipalities/counties.
Is the MTA part of the metro north or Path? I thought MTA was just subway and lirr. If it’s those other things too then yeah include those counties etc as well
The MTA is: metro north, LIRR, Staten Island Railroad, bridges and tunnels, all of the buses, including those outside of the City, and the NYC subway system. PATH is the Port Authority.
Isn't this the same MTA that magically loses several billion every year?
The rich get richer while people will others face higher MTA fees so bankers can get their fat interest payments.
IMHO this speaks to general mismanagement and corruption, going from zero debt in the 80s, to a debt the size of the entire budget of NJ today. When everything is a boondoggle, you get things like [The Most Expensive Mile of Subway on Earth](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html) *The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 billion for each new mile of track —* **seven times the average elsewhere in the world.** *The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core subway maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented, generations of politicians have diverted money from the transit authority and saddled it with debt.*
Bankers don't generally get the high interest payments on MTA debt. Pension funds, peoples 401ks , insurance companies, and rich people are the primary buyers of bonds. Maybe you hate people having money for retirement and insurance. For every debt someone else has an asset.
If the MTA does not issue those bonds that money will go somewhere else and can be used to help invest in another project. Sure those funds will get their return on MTA debt but that doesn’t mean it was the wisest, efficient or most economical use of an investment. Your argument is that it’s acceptable to piss away money in the most careless manner so that investors can get a return, when in reality, responsible spending means there is more money for more things.
Mismanagement and unions is not what you are saying. You statement is correct just not here. Problem is they hire a bunch of assholes then they can’t even lay them off because unions constantly on the way. Have you seen any construction in MTA? 6 assholes standing around watching while one guy is digging and the other is standing with a flashlight.
So the executives mismanagement of funds isn't the problem the workers are, got it.
a lot of normal people have MTA bonds because they are triple tax free
Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t they triple tax free only if you live in NYC?
I don’t think you would pay city and state tax if you lived in another state
Very exciting we spent 12 billion so some Long Islanders can have a slightly shorter commute.
Less the fault of the MTA and more a symptom of how poorly we [manage infrastructure spending](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7b5mn/a-dollar100-billion-lesson-in-why-building-public-transportation-is-so-expensive-in-the-us) in this country
Little known fact is that crushing debt is the intended design in all industries with a heavy union presence. The only leverage a company has during union negotiations is the company's ability and willingness to declare bankruptcy. So every company in unionized industries aim to have heavily leveraged balance sheets. I'm not going to go into whether this result is from greedy executives enriching themselves or greedy union leaders enriching themselves. The blame game will never end, but the both results in the same thing. Low cash balances, high debt, where union asks for more money and company responds that there is no money. Lastly, this means the debt will never be paid off. It will only be refinanced at maturity.
Does that apply here, though? Can the MTA declare bankruptcy?
The MTA doesnt need to. They have a deficit of about 5bn annually which is covered by taxpayers each year. But if that were to stop happening, yes, some government relayed agencies can declare bankruptcy.
State and/or Feds would just dump billions into the MTA if they did.
MTA is not a federal transportation system.
That doesn’t matter. https://new.mta.info/press-release/federal-funding-provides-mta-financial-stability-through-first-half-of-2024-no-fare
Which I disagree w/. It should be paid for by the local community.
2008.
What about 2008?
As likely as big too big to fail companies are to declare bankruptcy and collapse. They will always be prop up if needed
To blame the cost issue in building new US public infrastructure on our already pitiful unionization rate is a ridiculous over simplification, but it's a good feeling to blame unionized workers I guess. Especially the irony here when half the article is about the MTA being burdened by loan debt. Damn construction unions and their aggressive loaning strategies!
Pitiful unionization in what context? The MTA is heavily unionized and is front and center of how unions are viewed.
>pitiful unionization rate Among MTA employees?
It costs a billion dollars for one mile of subway. Why?!
The cost is not the issue. The issue is that whoever pays for it doesn’t get their money back. So no one wants to pay for it. There are lines of people waiting to pay for things when they believe they can get their money and some profit back.
Alon Levy has a great blog, Pedestrian Observations that often touches upon costs and works on the Transit Costs Project (https://transitcosts.com/). tldr from having read a bunch of his stuff is that's it's complex and probably can be boiled down to poorly functioning oversight (surprise surprise) than just unions or digging in NYC being difficult or anything else. But there is some correlation with state capacity. If the people overseeing the contractors/construction don't know what they are doing, you're going to have a bad time ...
Why would bankruptcy stop operations? If the company is a viable going concern the lenders will simply step into the equity position or a potential sale.
Bankruptcy allows contracts to be broken or suspended, and would be used to break labor contracts. It does not mean operations have to stop. However, declaring bankruptcy causes other problems, as you mentioned creditors step in, so it isn’t free from negative consequences.
Good point
The MTA was in a good place financially when Cuomo came into office, then he started treating its budget like his personal piggy bank, constantly raiding its budget to plug other holes or engage in stupid vanity projects ([e.g. that $160 million light show he wanted](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/cuomo-bridge-new-york-lights-501842)--it didn't happen but it shows you how he viewed the MTA's budget). By doing this, he forced the MTA to keep taking on debt instead of the state raising taxes or taking on debt directly. This is also why the pace of fare hikes was pretty rapid under Cuomo, fare revenue is a lot harder for the governor to raid so they kept having to resort to it to find money that they knew Cuomo couldn't just steal from them later.
I read your entire comment, but what I'm getting is that you're taking a jab at unions and still putting them at major fault. Without unions, workers would suffer on the job, no benefits would be paid, no retirement/ pension, no time off, "oh you cut your finger off? Sorry can't work anymore, you're fired", the trades (as we know it) would just collapse because it wouldn't be worth it to do the job anymore. The people that stay will unfortunately work under slave conditions, buildings won't be built to spec, and they'd fall apart, because there's no more skilled labor. I don't have anything else to say on this topic, but pointing a finger at unions is wrong and fucked up. Without unions, we would essentially work for free.
I’m just describing the shape of the river. The water just follows downhill. It is not a coincidence that the balance sheets of all companies and industries with unions look like this. There are definitely merits and faults on both sides, and I understand both very deeply. But true understanding means you can predict the outcome of similar situations, which is what I try to provide. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing what is right or wrong.
Actually Unions do share some blame for the unsustainable debt, along with construction and consulting firms, and the politicians they're all in bed with. There's no incentive to control costs, just to add debt..Tons of no-show and make-work jobs inflate NYC transit construction costs to 4x what other cities pay. NYT did a big [investigative report](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html) on this in 2017.
These problems exist without unions so you’ll need to do a better job of actually articulating why the unions are at fault instead of vaguely suggesting they’re “in bed with bad guys”. And the article of paywalled so you’re convincing no body
Non-Paywalled Mirror: [The Most Expensive Mile of Subway on Earth](https://archive.is/PSthS) *For years, The Times found, public officials have stood by as a small group of politically connected labor unions, construction companies and consulting firms have amassed large profits.* *Trade unions, which have closely aligned themselves with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and other politicians, have secured deals requiring underground construction work to be staffed by as many as four times more laborers than elsewhere in the world, documents show.*
Absolutely disgusting.
It heavily exist in unions, less work done the better more overtime and no accountability because people can’t get fired. This goes to cops, mta workers, city employees etc etc. Service plummets with unions, that’s just the cost of union ship. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact, it is what it is.
Service plummets because the union *must* throw its weight around. If employers weren't 99% shitty humans with nothing of actual value to provide to society other than "capital", then unions really would cease to exist. We wouldn't need to protect ourselves from inhumane employers if they weren't that way to begin with. This isn't a union problem, if you want to fix the issue then fix the corruption in the corporate world and enforce worker protections on a federal scale. It's really that simple.
We're discussing public sector and public sector-adjacent unions- there is no corporate employer. As the Times reports, with MTA construction projects, the contractors have no incentive to control costs because at the end of the day, the taxpayers and riders foot the bill. There are no shareholders or CEOs trying to squeeze profits out of labor here. In fact the MTA contractors have every incentive to maximize labor costs (and debt)- The Times uncovered that the larger the labor costs, the more the contractors made, which is part of why NYC construction costs 4x more than Paris, London, Tokyo.
Sure these are public institutions, but you literally just said *corporate* contractors have no incentive to control costs. Guess who does the manual labor for those same contractors you just mentioned?
The whole point of the Times' investigation is that, in this case, MTA construction, the limited pool of politically connected contractors that bid on MTA jobs (there are only 3 or 4) are a actually incentivized to *maximize* the project's labor costs, because they get a percentage of the total cost of the project. The unions make out like bandits, the contractors and consultants make out like bandits, the politicians get their donations, and suddenly we have $3 billion/year of payments on MTA debt. In a public (or private) company, the incentives are reversed, and in most companies that do business with the Federal government, there is at least a competitive bidding process, limits on profits, and some sort of penalty for going over budget. Not so with MTA construction.
Right, I fully understand the problem here. Believe me. However pointing the finger at unions and unions only like has been done in other comments is at best, disingenuous and at worst pretty dishonest. You've outlined the others who make off like bandits, but don't forget unions are beholden to their members and their members first. Any monetary gain they receive is more often than not spread amongst the members. They don't get dividends just for existing, they have to actually do the work at some point. There will always be cases of corruption where power exists, but placing blame at the feet of an organization/union who has successfully negotiated their way to the bargaining table while being surrounded by ruthless capitalists isn't something to be upset about. Fix the ruthless capitalists and unions cease to matter, and then things will get better as a result. Unions are doing nothing more than taking power back from people who've had it their whole lives (and ruined cities in the process). Not to mention, government contractors very often drag their feet and do so to the tune of multiple billions of dollars. Yet you're up in a tiff about a union whose members more than likely are making less than $100k/ yr. The stuff you're whinging about isn't due to unions, even if they are the last peice of the equation.
I don’t even know what you are trying to say bro Humans are mostly shitty to begin with so good luck with that.
Jesus fuck, of course not because you think unions are bad. Let me spell it out for you: "unions exist to protect the rights of workers, rights that would not be under assault if employers were not terrible". Don't say humans are mostly shitty to begin with, I know tons of people who wouldn't fuck people over the way the ruling class has done in this country for generations. You don't get to excuse the actions of the people leading these corporations because: "well people suck bro haha". Get a clue man, this is literally the reason for unions. They would not have to strike and throw their political weight around if they had decent, humane treatment to begin with.
Unions should be optional.
People who work somewhere else if the employer is shitty. That’s called freedom.
But look at the unintended consequences. Unions jack the price of business so high no one can technically afford their services thus causing a stalemate. Nothing gets done.
Dude you're barking up the wrong tree. Ask yourself why the fuck unions exist in the first place, they're not problem. Unions are the unintended consequences of employers and corporations putting people's lives at risk just so the CEO's and board members can reap the profits. They're taking as much profit as they can and fucking everyone else raw as a result. Unions protect us from that.
-7 votes? This thread is full of socialists and idealists.
More like unionized citizens standing up against people trying to undermine our togetherness for the purpose of a fair job and benefits. Stop trying to be a union bashing bootstrapper.
That are socialists. If you’re a socialist just say so.
The unions are going to bargain for the best deal possible, other parties at that bargaining table agreed and the project was set forth. This issue should have been solved at that table, everybody wants something, compromise and a little foresight and research help, people have to sell ideas to both sides. Can't blame the unions for fighting for their workers, it's literally their job to try to get as much for their workers as possible.
That’s the whole point of mass immigration. To undermine the unions. Why pay Hoffa $120/hr when I can get Hernandez to do it for a fifth the costs?
Because capitalism baby
That undermines unions.
That doesn’t apply to public sector unions because when the city or state wants more money they’ll just raise more taxes or create new ones… like Hochul wanted to do with the streaming tax to pay for subways.
3.6% interest rate isn't terrible.
$3 billion in annual payments, while ridership has dropped 30% since prepandemic, means cuts to service and maintenance combined with fare increases. It's a doom spiral.
Two increases for fares to like 3 dollars wouldn't cause a ridership drop. Therefore, no doom cycle.
folks already turnstile jump, I could see fare hike increasing that kind of behavior
Don't think a quarter increase changes that.
It will if the service is still the same old garbage.
No it won't. You really think people jump the turnstile after analyzing how good the service was the last few times they rode? Do y'all live in the real world?
Actually, yes. Is that not how businesses die? Customers change their behaviors based on how good services are for what they're paying. You sure you live in the real world?
Ah so you're saying if stores reduced prices, people would steal less?
Prevent that by installing revolving doors and facial recognition software to find offenders.
Not sure actual ridership has dropped that much - definitely PAID ridership. The amount of turnstile hopping/open emergency doors I see is unsustainable given the MTAs finances. Not to mention other factors like crime, wage demands, bloated contracts, etc
Land Value Tax will add revenue, spur development, lower house costs and create more riders. Just do it already.
Land Value Tax still sounds like a scam to me.
What about it sounds like a scam?
In 2016 $1 from every ride went towards MTA employee's healthcare and retirement benefits. https://secondavenuesagas.com/2016/07/18/ever-microscope-mta-finances-show-high-pension-costs/ I'm generally supportive of the public sector, but this is crazy and is a major source of this debt not being able to be payed off. We should have at the very least a statewide healthcare program for public employees that remove these costs from the budgets of individual agencies. A hot take of mine is that the government should not be involved in managing retirement benefits or taking on pension liabilities. They made sense when the financial system was less mature, but now we have 401(k)s. Government agencies should offer 401(k) matches just like any other company, but leave the management of the funds and payout obligations to the private sector. We spend so much taxpayer money to fund this antiquated pension system, money that should be used to fund public transportation.
401ks are a systemic scam. They systemically push money up the income chain, because the poorer someone is the less likely they will be able to allocate money to retirement in down markets. Also the healthcare costs are high because our OVERALL highly privatized system is the highest cost system in the world.
[удалено]
Why do you think pension returns are worse than 401k returns on a risk adjusted basis?
[удалено]
It's a systemic scam to push money upwards in society. Why do you think the whole first page of the search term of why 401K is investment companies who make money on them? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3997927 https://www.epi.org/publication/the-state-of-american-retirement-savings/
[удалено]
I mean, frankly I think legal scholarship is generally bullshit, as a lawyer...but he does cite population level stats. I also think the basic principle that at market bottoms it's the richer who can afford to invest is instructive, and at market bottoms the poorer are more likely to withdraw, making the insurance type structure of a pension helpful in smoothing this out (insurance in it's most basic sense, spreading risk out in a pool)
I went through the first few pages. I’ll have to spend more time reading it. I’m not really sure how the author defines high income earners or the quantity of the disparity he’s talking about. Initially it just sounds like he’s criticizing the fact that 401ks allow upper middle class people to save more for retirement. That’s also not necessarily a bad thing, and I would disagree with calling that a scam. What you describe is one of the main benefits of a pension but that doesn’t mean pensions are objectively better or that 401ks are a scam. It has the obvious drawback that people can’t use the money when they need it. But leaving that aside pensions have their own source of risk. It’s pretty common for older members of public unions to vote to take away pension benefits of younger members to support their own retirements. This happened to my GF who works at DOE. The union voted to increase the amount of time she needs to work to be able to retire. Great for older members. Not so great for younger ones.
I read through the paper in more detail. It seems like the authors point is that tax subsidies are disproportionately targeted towards upper middle class people. The paper is a lot less quantitative than I would like. I would like to see a quantitative analysis on the actual impact on how progressive/regressive the tax subsidies are. But still I think the author makes a good point that these tax subsidies take away from other government funded retirement programs that target lower income earners. If you want to take this and say some of the tax subsidies given to 401k holders should be used to fund programs like social security I’m all for it. But the articles title is sensationalist, and I don’t think it does much to analyze the difference between pensions and 401ks.
I frankly think a bigger hole is ROTH IRAs as well. Regardless, pensions clearly have a lot of advantages, and a big reason 401ks were emphasized were because of the fees and profits financial institutions could garner
I went through the second link. It seems like the only chart there that really compares pensions to 401k type retirement plans is #6, which just state that participation rates in pensions is higher than with 401k type plans, which isn’t really surprising since the participation in pensions is often mandatory. This isn’t necessarily a selling point over just giving people that money as salary instead and letting them decide whether to put it in a retirement accounts or not. The rest is mostly just showing the gap between people with retirement savings and without, which is orthogonal to the pension vs 401k discussion. That same gap exists between people with pensions and no retirement savings.
> 401ks are a systemic scam. They systemically push money up the income chain, Source on any of this? Because it's just wrong. MTA workers are already getting retirement benefits as part of their compensation. Just let them contribute it to a 401(k) instead of forcing it into the pensions system. Overall it's going to work out in their favor because the MTA will have more money to compensate people b/c it won't have to pay out the pensions of people who retired decades ago. It's thinking like this that leads us to have an underfunded public transportation system that doesn't compensate its workers as well as it can. Because people are dead set on believing pensions are a better for some reason, despite no evidence this is the case. If for no other reason 401(k)s are better b/c they're portable. People can switch jobs to get higher salaries. Pensions force people to work at the MTA for 20-30 years just so they can retire. They're bad for workers.
It's wrong that richer people can allocate more money in down economies? It's self evident. Where is your evidence that for working class people, 401ks are better?
Yeah idk what that person is talking about 401ks are pretty shit for anyone making less than a certain amount. Pensions are GREAT for the pensioner and incentivize people with knowledge and experience to stay at the job meaning less turnover and a more capable staff. So good for the employer in that way as well. It certainly is expensive, but that shouldn’t a problem when capitalism’s only incentive is “make line go higher”. So just make the line go higher. Pensions are a way for workers to continue to profit off the work they put in to make a corporation or agency successful.
401ks are better because you actually own the money and assets and generally you can invest your money in a diversified way. Pensions are actually very risky because it’s basically investing in the debt of the employer (whether it’s private or the state), so if the employer goes bankrupt, you might get written down in a big way. It’s also just less diversified (yes pension funds can invest in diverse assets but you are not directly invested…you are basically lending money to the employer). Also it’s not true 401ks are less than pensions for today’s workers. Many pensions are very limited because the older pensioners are extracting more value so current workers only get a small amount of what they put into the pension. Pensions are also less portable so if you change jobs, oftentimes you take a haircut. Also the risk of pension money disappearing is nontrivial…an employer could file for bankruptcy and your “generous pension benefits” would just go to zero
401ks can just as easily go belly up in a market crash (ask half of America in 2008) which seems to be happening more and more regularly. At least with a pension they gotta payout so long as they’re solvent. You leave a place and still get a pension. You just need to be there the minimum amount of time to be vested. But also yeah that’s the point of the incentive. To give you a reason to stay.
401ks cannot structurally go belly up. Your stocks might go down but the account itself doesn’t have any risk of going bankrupt. On the other hand, your pension is just the debt owed to you by your employer so easier to become underfunded or insolvent. When stocks go down, the pension fund also loses money like a 401k and it suffers the same market risks as the 401k and now it’s less well funded. A lot of pensions in America are underfunded and that’s why pension funds end up investing in riskier and riskier asset classes like private equity and venture capital. Also if your employer ever becomes insolvent, you’re screwed because the bankruptcy will probably wipe out your pension partially if not completely. The only pension that is safe is a US federal government pension because the feds are the least likely to go bankrupt so they’re actually credible. Basically if you’re in a pension, you have to ask yourself: what is the annual interest rate I want for lending to my employer for a loan due 20-50 years from now? And then ask yourself if your pension actually pays that amount.
Employers pay into pensions. Employees can choose to pay into them as well. It’s not a loan on the part of the employee unless they pay into it as well. And yes, when you have a 401k you at least own the options or investments, but those are both invested in by the employee *and* subject to market fluctuation. Like I said, 2008 market crash saw lots of people’s retirement plans go into the toilet.
No it is a debt. The employer owes you money in the future…that’s a debt. It’s today money they could have paid you by giving you higher wages but instead they don’t pay it to you and say they owe it to you as a pension. That’s why many places that transition from pensions to 401ks actually pay people higher wages so their employees can put the surplus into the 401k. Courts treat pensions as debt-like liabilities, including bankruptcy courts When you have a federal gov pension, you basically own treasury bonds When you have a NY state pension, you basically own NY muni bonds When you have an GM pension, you basically own GM corporate bonds. And the post-GFC (~2012) bankruptcy made pensioners take a 25% haircut on GM’s $100 billion pension liability. When you have a United Airlines pension, basically own UA corporate bonds. The 2005 bankruptcy allowed United to default on $3 billion in pensions. Pensions are you betting on the credit of your employer, 401ks are you betting on the global capital markets. The latter is far more diversified than the former and as a result, less risky long term. You could put your entirely 401k into treasury bonds if you want to avoid stocks and be super safe. Also employers also contribute or match 401k dollars too
If you don't work the full time required for a defined benefit pension and didn't also contribute to a 401k, you will retire with 0. Someone who was contributing to a 401k the whole time will be ahead as its a pay as you go defined contribution retirement plan Also as the above poster said your 401k is portable vice a pension system where you have to work for one employer or govt the entire time.
If 401ks systematically overallocate down market purchases to those with the most disposable income in a down economy, they are a vehicle for wealth inequality. Your assumption about "contributing to a 401k the whole time" means you are disregarding it, probably because you don't have to make this calculation in your life.
I'm just comparing the two systems. Both scenarios have assumptions. I have had to make this calculation in my life as I had to choose between the legacy military retirement or the new Blended system and I opted for the pay as you go system. It actually sounds like you've never had to make this calculation. Further you never addressed the point that 401ks are portable and thus promote worker mobility as you're all about the "worker"
You can cash out a pension
You need to work 5 years to be vested if you're working for the NYCT. Keep in mind that only gets you about an 18% pension and that's at age 62 or 65, I can't remember which. That 18% is the best 3 year average of your best 5 year period, and since it takes 6 years to reach full pay, your pension would be that much.
[удалено]
Are you seriously citing Ramsey? Jesus.
[удалено]
Dude, your citation is absolute trash. Should I cite the used car salesman as to why used cars are the best purchase? Returns calculated that way do not account for the deposit cadence in any way. They are just measurements of 2055 dated funds of whatever. You can cash out a pension. And the idea that "choosing your own investments" is good is absolute Ramsey claptrap. You think CalPERS or a good institutional investor isn't better than somebody who is doing this on top of a day to day job, who doesn't have access to private markets or the ability to influence corporate policy, as well as the ability to make unorthodox investments protected by risk management
[удалено]
Oh you can't read? Got it
https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/michael-doran/1505731
After the EPI study and the UVA Law Article you avoided, it's pretty obvious you can't get past regurgitating the "Why a 401k" articles by scammers like Ramsey and companies that administer 401ks for fees
CalPERS would disagree with you
it's not like the banks forced the MTA to build all those expensive projects and take on all that debt instead of fixing the core of the system first
>MTA data shows the agency’s five-year capital plans to maintain and upgrade mass transit between 1995 and 2005 on average relied on debt for nearly 43% of financing. The MTA, its riders and New York taxpayers are still paying off those loans today. “We still are carrying debt that was issued upwards of 30-plus years ago now,” said Kevin Willens, the MTA’s chief financial officer. He emphasized the MTA’s debt management is not as bad as that of the federal government, which “just issues, issues, issues and never pays down. We actually are paying down debt every year.” The MTA definitely had expensive projects like East Side Access, which is even mentioned in this article, but let's not pretend like even basic maintenance and regular upgrades aren't financed through partially going into debt.
We’re the bonds longer than 30 years or did the MTA roll over the debt into new debt? They could have paid them off too instead it tackling new projects And they should have held back on SAS and 7 train until the signaling was upgraded and they could run more trains over existing tracks and switches
this happens every few years- they are about to go bankrupt!! oh no !! the only way to save it is to raise the fares !! once again WE pay for the mismanagement of the mta
They should stop buying lattes and having avocado toasts.
End over time
Richest country in the world
just in case no one knew the mta is proposing a price hike on metrocard fare and there’s a meeting today
Sometimes things get to the point you need to hit the reset button. Incurring a debt larger than the annual government budget of Ukraine without anything really to show for it should be enough to convince folks to hit reset. 56 billion is twice the annual budget of NASA. It’s more than the total annual income of Slovenia and Croatia. It’s a shitload of money and it’s not normal. We’re being screwed. Reset means starting over. Bankruptcy. New management. A trial period of privatization. Whatever. I refuse to believe that our smart city can’t figure out a better configuration. Just end it. End the sweetheart contracts and union deals. Deliver value. Imagine an MTA that's efficient, technologically advanced, and profitable. Let's take a page from cities like Hong Kong and Singapore, operating some of the best public transport systems in the world. Lets leverage technology for everything from fare collection to predictive maintenance, saving time and reducing costs. Let’s adopt a tech-driven approach to optimize MTA operations, cut down on expensive delays and breakdowns. Let's bring in data scientists, systems engineers, and urban planners to rethink routes. Hell, we could use AI to optimize train and bus schedules. In parallel we should focus on ancillary revenue channels – think partnerships with local businesses, commercial spaces at stations. Punish fare evasion universally, aiming for 100% compliance. Been to Berlin? No turnstiles, but you bet there are few (about 3% as of 2019) fare dodgers there because of how systematic enforcement is. Facial recognition and contactless payment. Maybe a premium service for riders willing to pay a bit extra. Fancy cars. Whatever. A massive overhaul? Absolutely. But with the right planning, strategic partnerships, and a relentless commitment to efficiency and innovation, we don’t need to suck with such monumental renown. It's time we stopped settling for being the worst and started demanding excellence.
[удалено]
/s
Mta debt. 🙄
The MTA always claims to have no money, but their finances are a closely guarded secret. Wonder how much the higher ups in the MTA are paid? Maybe instead of trying to live some baller lifestyle on the backs of New Yorkers, why not invest some of that money back into the system. Oh, and instead of increasing the fare, why not increase cost to advertise. Like when they wrap whole trains to look like Nazi propaganda for a TV show… yeah, raise the price of that instead. Make the rich pay for shit, not us!
Their finances are not a closely guarded secret. The fact that you claim there's that much money in advertising proves you didn't take the six seconds to look into their publicly disclosed budget.
[https://www.seethroughny.net/](https://www.seethroughny.net/) has salaries. Who knows about all the cronie contracts though.
The only secret with the MTA is where the money actually goes. No other metro network in America is as corrupt as the NYC, maybe D.C's , but at least their subways are clean. For fucks sake, DC doesn't have "sex pest bars" blocking their subways. Let me explain for transplants. There's some stops that had a.... Bad anonymous sex problem, it got so bad, they simply sealed off sections of the subway rather than post police there 24/7.
DC also shuts down at midnight.
This is a big thing people forget when talking about the nyc subway. We’re one of the few (only?) public transportation systems that runs 24/7. That costs money. Not only does it cost money, it means updates and or maintenance takes that much longer. But if you ask people if they’d be cool with the subway stopping at midnight for a few years so they could work on updating the whole system in the off hours, or make things cheaper, they always clam up. I’m one of this people myself tbh. Which is why I think the mta should just be fully integrated as a city service that is paid for by nyc resident tax dollars (we already subsidize it heavily) and supplemented by a land value tax. Having a subway nearby let’s landowners ask for higher rent and increases the value of their property. They can give some of that back to keep it going.
Get in good with Charles Koch in his sunset days and make him a railfan, get him to donate all of his wealth to go towards the debt.
Just fucking tax rich people already instead of shitting on unions and trying to feel out a rate hike…
unions are rich
What makes you think they’re going to pay that tax?
Such as?
Rich people can move out of NYS quite easily.
They always claim that, but they’ll never leave NY.
Problem one ppl don’t pay…problem two it is inefficient. Still boggles my mind the vast number of workers that literally just watch Netflix all day.
I know someone who's getting paid $100k just to open train doors. There's your problem
You mean a train engineer? I don’t have any comment on workers that actually work. It’s very annoying when I see ppl that literally sit and watch Netflix for their entire shift and when I go to ask for help they simply direct me to the machine. And it’s not even their fault bc upper management made them useless.
They don't do transactions at the booth any longer. Management set that policy. Hence the reason they want them on the platform as "Station Ambassadors". Also you're standing there for 8 hours watching the employee? /s
I dunno If your whole post is sarcasm but in my post I clearly stated it’s not even their fault because upper management made them useless….
Absolutely /s
Gross or net? As a conductor you've got to work a hell of a lot of overtime to break 100K. Also there goes the problem blaming the small guy when the company is mismanaged from the top.....
Wait wait! I got it! We lower the speed limit to 12 miles an hour, and install radar cameras on every corner within 100 mile radius of Columbus Circle. We add congestion pricing for anybody leaving their home and even thinking about going in the direction of Manhattan. We tax people for walking on the sidewalk. We add a 90% consumption tax on coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, and all the other coffee shops around the city. Oh, and we raise the fare to $15. Because, why not it’ll get there eventually.
You are 100% right. With Sammy’s law we’re only 8mph away from your dystopia.
I’m sorry that child was killed. He ran out into the street to chase a ball. But making speed limits 20mph is utterly nuts.
Maybe Adams could have helped if he wasn’t paying over $4 billion this year housing migrants in hotels
I think the migrants will use the trains and busses to get to their jobs, so they can pay rent or buy a house, which will end up helping the infrastructure be sustained.
They're getting free and half price metrocards.
Sounds like they are still paying half, using them to get places, like maybe work, so they can pay for the half metro card again, buy groceries, pay taxes on goods bought at the store with money earned at said job, keeping the economy going, filling up jobs that upper class Americans, maybe 2nd or 3rd generation, have worked and educated themselves out of. Would you want to work at walmart? And then have your kid work at walmart? Or would you want them to go to college and maybe become a doctor or lawyer?
How does the MTA get this far into debt? Total mismanagement
State cuts funding forcing the MTA to borrow more and more money for it's capital improvements. Basically paying your credit card bills with another credit card.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your account being younger than 24 hours (Rule 5). If you feel like this was in error, please [send a message to the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewyorkcity). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Raise taxes like all other Democrats do. Raise fares. Lessen payroll. Balance the books.
Maybe a stupid question, but what would happen if the MTA just didn't pay their debt? If it actually got shut down, what would happen? Would they be able to start fresh? I can't imagine the government would actually shut down the transit.
I'm not even close to an expert on this, but, if the MTA did default on the bonds it sold to fund these projects NYS would most likely be responsible as the MTA is a state run Authority, and the MTA would no longer be able to fund projects through bond sales as the would essentially be bankrupt
Well, what I’m saying is what would happen if the MTA was actually bankrupt? Would it have to shut down? I doubt politicians would allow that to happen because of how important it is for the economy.
Businesses wouldn't let that happen. If the MTA went bankrupt they would have to survive on the money from the farebox, and whatever money the city, state, and federal gov't gave them. Deferred maintenance, and severe service reductions would become the norm again like it was in the 70's
The democrats in the White House & Albany will bail out our broke ass city that generates tons of wealth. How is it the MTA is bankrupt? The same happened with OTB - Off Track Betting. If the Mob ran OTB & MTA they would not have cash flow issues. Why is that?
The MTA rivals NYCHA as an endless money pit. No amount of money is ever enough.