• Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Excerpt from this afternoon's Wall Street Journal:

"Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work could soon be able to join a state-run program.  On Thursday, the California State Assembly approved a measure to allow public access to the program. The measure, which must be returned to that chamber for a vote on recent amendments, is considered likely to pass and be signed by Governor Jerry Brown,according to people familiar with the matter....

California’s program requires private-sector companies with five or more employees that don’t currently offer a retirement plan to automatically deduct contributions from employee paychecks and funnel them into individual retirement accounts, where money can grow tax-deferred or tax-free. Employees can contribute up to $5,500 a year, an amount that rises to $6,500 for those 50 or older.

 Employers would automatically enroll employees at 3% of pay, though workers would be free to opt out.  

While employers typically serve as fiduciaries for retirement plans, that role will be filled by the board that will run California’s program.

Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon and Illinois have all recently passed laws that require many small businesses to offer retirement savings plans. In contrast, lawmakers in New Jersey and Washington state authorized state-run marketplaces to help small companies that want to set up plans."

My comment:  If California's state run pension funds haven't been able to produce sufficient investment returns to fund the state's public employees retirement, why on earth would a person in the private sector want the same government bureaucrats in California to have their hands dipping into or handling their private pension funds?

Link to article but it may require a paid WSJ subcription to view: http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-heads-toward-offering-pub... 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Pretty much when most people are getting on the highway I am pulling into the parking lot at work.  Also you missed the ... (more)

RedWolfe01 (Sep. 05, 2016 @ 11:06p) |

doesn't that limit your work mobility when you have to change jobs?

rufflesinc (Sep. 06, 2016 @ 8:29a) |

Nope, scooter goes in the trailer behind my SUV.  Not like I change jobs that often.  Could be here 2 years from the loo... (more)

RedWolfe01 (Sep. 06, 2016 @ 8:47a) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

This could be the first step towards creating a framework so CA public employees can eventually be moved from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans.

NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/business/dealbook/california-l...

"Important features of the state program still need to be worked out, such as who will manage the money and what investment options will be available to workers."
"Early proposals that called for guaranteed investment returns in Secure Choice have been scaled back in the face of longstanding troubles at Calpers, California’s big pension system for government workers."

They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.

JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
  Because people aren't choosing to contribute to their IRAs, and aren't ready to hear that SS won't give them a comfortable retirement.  If you make them opt-out instead of opting in, intertia will ensure that more people start funding their retirements.

That's the logic.  The debate about the role of government and how much rope we as a society should give people to hang themselves with is separate.

Goverment ran retirement plan with preenrollment. Sounds like the first step to a ponzi scheme.

How long until California decides to "borrow" from these assets like the social security trust fund that was squandered?

JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  
Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

jagec said:   
  Because people aren't choosing to contribute to their IRAs, and aren't ready to hear that SS won't give them a comfortable retirement.  If you make them opt-out instead of opting in, intertia will ensure that more people start funding their retirements.

I doubt there will be much inertia when people start seeing slightly lower paychecks.

Despite the claims Secure Choice's claim that "7.5 Million Californians Work for  Employers Who Do Not Offer a Retirement Plan", which technically is true if evaluating a defined contribution plan (i.e. 401k, 403b, SIMPLE IRA), 100% of of these employees with earned income have access to the same retirement vehicle being pushed forward in this plan: the IRA.

This is just "feel good" legislation...  great goal aiming for a better retirement security but is a terrible plan to try and administer all of the accounts.  I expect it to fail badly in execution, particularly because I just don't see it being a self-sustaining plan.  The economics of payroll deduction start-up retirement plans are generally very poor due to very low investor balances and fewer high balance accounts to subsidize low balance ones.  See the start-up 401k plan market for examples.

Is it just me, or has California always seemed like it's on a different planet? CARB engines, prop 65, occupancy sensors, etc, etc. About the only thing good they have going for them is adult films. And that only came about because they tried to put an end to it!

irate_retro said:   Is it just me, or has California always seemed like it's on a different planet? CARB engines, prop 65, occupancy sensors, etc, etc. 
  Don't forget the crazy Prop 13 cap on property taxes!

RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

stanolshefski said:   RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

is an accountant manually doing the numbers for each employee ?

Governments acting like abusing spouses and wondering why their "beloved" business are moving away, news @ 10!

Dus10 said:   Governments acting like abusing spouses and wondering why their "beloved" business are moving away, news @ 10!
lol, tech is moving away from ca? let me know when that happens, becausetc home prices there seem to be only going up and up

brettdoyle said:   Goverment ran retirement plan with preenrollment. Sounds like the first step to a ponzi scheme.

How long until California decides to "borrow" from these assets like the social security trust fund that was squandered?

  
As a longtime California resident I can assure you that they figured this out before they wrote the law.

jayK said:   This could be the first step towards creating a framework so CA public employees can eventually be moved from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans.

NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/business/dealbook/california-l... 

"Important features of the state program still need to be worked out, such as who will manage the money and what investment options will be available to workers."
"Early proposals that called for guaranteed investment returns in Secure Choice have been scaled back in the face of longstanding troubles at Calpers, California’s big pension system for government workers."

  
This is nothing more than a ploy to get more voters to be sympathetic to current and future public employee pension recipients, by also putting those voters on the receiving end of retirement plans sponsored by the state. 

The money collected from employees in the private sector will also be borrowed to use in the general fund, which is a black hole, and future tax increases will be required to bail out the system.  

This is so predictable it hurts.

At least the weather is nice.

otaymiester said:   brettdoyle said:   Goverment ran retirement plan with preenrollment. Sounds like the first step to a ponzi scheme.

How long until California decides to "borrow" from these assets like the social security trust fund that was squandered?

  
As a longtime California resident I can assure you that they figured this out before they wrote the law.

so.... why are you still in California?

DTASFAB said:   At least the weather is nice.
wild fires , earthquakes ... at least the weathers nice!

rufflesinc said:   
otaymiester said:   
brettdoyle said:   Goverment ran retirement plan with preenrollment. Sounds like the first step to a ponzi scheme.

How long until California decides to "borrow" from these assets like the social security trust fund that was squandered?

  
As a longtime California resident I can assure you that they figured this out before they wrote the law.

so.... why are you still in California?

  
Because I have been elsewhere.

otaymiester said:   
rufflesinc said:   
otaymiester said:   
brettdoyle said:   Goverment ran retirement plan with preenrollment. Sounds like the first step to a ponzi scheme.

How long until California decides to "borrow" from these assets like the social security trust fund that was squandered?

  
As a longtime California resident I can assure you that they figured this out before they wrote the law.

so.... why are you still in California?

  
Because I have been elsewhere.

  People that ask why they live in California,obviously have never been to California. Trust me no state comes even close .

bopc1996 said:   
otaymiester said:   
rufflesinc said:   
otaymiester said:   
brettdoyle said:   Goverment ran retirement plan with preenrollment. Sounds like the first step to a ponzi scheme.

How long until California decides to "borrow" from these assets like the social security trust fund that was squandered?

  
As a longtime California resident I can assure you that they figured this out before they wrote the law.

so.... why are you still in California?

  
Because I have been elsewhere.

  People that ask why they live in California,obviously have never been to California. Trust me no state comes even close .

  close to what?

rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

is an accountant manually doing the numbers for each employee ?

  I can never tell if you're trolling or serious.

Here's the type of work the payroll service and employer will be doing:

  • Seeking legal counsel's advice on how to comply with the law
  • Generating forms -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for changing enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employers -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating an opt-out process for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Hiring additional staff (or increasing staff hours) to deal with the addition mismatch issues (i.e. wrong account numbers used in the sign up process)
  • Reviewing the plan options to ensure that they are appropriate (since a fiduciary duty is likely created somewhere in the process) -- which requires a legal review
  • Translating the forms and educational materials to other language -- which may require a legal review from a multi-lingual lawyer
  • Training/educating HR staff about the law and how to answer employee questions
  • Educating employees during the hiring process
  • Educating employees during the transition process
  • Obtaining opt-in/opt-out/acknowledgement forms
  • Answering questions about the process
  • Spot checking the deferrals to ensure they are correct
  • Additional updates and legal review as the result of any updates to the law, regulations or common law court action
  • Additional CPA/accountant review time/consultation to ensure that companies are properly complying with the law
  • Paying for additional ACH transactions (while this cost is minimal at the individual level it will at up -- for example, if 10 million employees have 26 pay periods per year, that adds an addition 260 million ACH transactions. Even if they cost a 1/2 cent each, that still increases overall costs $1,300,000)
  • If the transfers are handled internally, instead of by the payroll company, there will be additional staff time and costs to initiate ACH transactions and/or issue and send live checks

i moved out of ca - i dont see too many downsides so far. its good to visit as a tourist, etc

stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

is an accountant manually doing the numbers for each employee ?

  I can never tell if you're trolling or serious.

Here's the type of work the payroll service and employer will be doing:

  • Seeking legal counsel's advice on how to comply with the law
  • Generating forms -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for changing enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employers -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating an opt-out process for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Hiring additional staff (or increasing staff hours) to deal with the addition mismatch issues (i.e. wrong account numbers used in the sign up process)
  • Reviewing the plan options to ensure that they are appropriate (since a fiduciary duty is likely created somewhere in the process) -- which requires a legal review
  • Translating the forms and educational materials to other language -- which may require a legal review from a multi-lingual lawyer
  • Training/educating HR staff about the law and how to answer employee questions
  • Educating employees during the hiring process
  • Educating employees during the transition process
  • Obtaining opt-in/opt-out/acknowledgement forms
  • Answering questions about the process
  • Spot checking the deferrals to ensure they are correct
  • Additional updates and legal review as the result of any updates to the law, regulations or common law court action
  • Additional CPA/accountant review time/consultation to ensure that companies are properly complying with the law
  • Paying for additional ACH transactions (while this cost is minimal at the individual level it will at up -- for example, if 10 million employees have 26 pay periods per year, that adds an addition 260 million ACH transactions. Even if they cost a 1/2 cent each, that still increases overall costs $1,300,000)
  • If the transfers are handled internally, instead of by the payroll company, there will be additional staff time and costs to initiate ACH transactions and/or issue and send live checks


  that's my point most of the time-consuming stuff is one time for all employees, not per employees. everything else per employee is all automated.

Nobody who lives in California is going to say anything other than it's heaven on earth, regardless of reality. Not until after they leave. It does have a lot going for it, but I don't know how they put up with the nanny state's ever-growing tentacles.

rufflesinc said:   
Dus10 said:   Governments acting like abusing spouses and wondering why their "beloved" business are moving away, news @ 10!
lol, tech is moving away from ca? let me know when that happens, becausetc home prices there seem to be only going up and up

  Dude, maybe keep your wits about you?  I didn't #1 say tech was moving from California, and #2, since you brought it... they are.  Datacenters are being pushed elsewhere.  IT folks are being outsourced to India.  Sure, the companies have their presence in California, but the economic growth is happening elsewhere.  That is the only thing keeping California afloat. There was something I read a few years back that a relatively small number of wealthy people moving away from California would essentially bankrupt the state.  The wealthy are the engine of that state.  Get too many of them upset, or a largely number of well-off but not as wealthy people... and if falls apart.  Now, how quickly would it remain bankrupt?  Who knows... probably not long because there would a fire sale with plenty of people willing to get things cheap... but it would always stay teetering.

It's just not a good practice to keep barraging people with stuff.  Retirement accounts exist for these people already.

I live in California. And Lived in PDX. PDX is better if you can stand the 8.5 months of rain. People are fatter in PDx, though, but it could just be that people are generally fatter everywhere.

rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

is an accountant manually doing the numbers for each employee ?

  I can never tell if you're trolling or serious.

Here's the type of work the payroll service and employer will be doing:

  • Seeking legal counsel's advice on how to comply with the law
  • Generating forms -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for changing enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employers -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating an opt-out process for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Hiring additional staff (or increasing staff hours) to deal with the addition mismatch issues (i.e. wrong account numbers used in the sign up process)
  • Reviewing the plan options to ensure that they are appropriate (since a fiduciary duty is likely created somewhere in the process) -- which requires a legal review
  • Translating the forms and educational materials to other language -- which may require a legal review from a multi-lingual lawyer
  • Training/educating HR staff about the law and how to answer employee questions
  • Educating employees during the hiring process
  • Educating employees during the transition process
  • Obtaining opt-in/opt-out/acknowledgement forms
  • Answering questions about the process
  • Spot checking the deferrals to ensure they are correct
  • Additional updates and legal review as the result of any updates to the law, regulations or common law court action
  • Additional CPA/accountant review time/consultation to ensure that companies are properly complying with the law
  • Paying for additional ACH transactions (while this cost is minimal at the individual level it will at up -- for example, if 10 million employees have 26 pay periods per year, that adds an addition 260 million ACH transactions. Even if they cost a 1/2 cent each, that still increases overall costs $1,300,000)
  • If the transfers are handled internally, instead of by the payroll company, there will be additional staff time and costs to initiate ACH transactions and/or issue and send live checks


  that's my point most of the time-consuming stuff is one time for all employees, not per employees. everything else per employee is all automated.

  Yeah, dealing with every employee questions why their pay is "less" is just a one time thing. You do realize that these smaller companies probably also have much higher turnover -- so all these extra activities will happen much more often than if it was for a large company, right?

stanolshefski said:   rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

is an accountant manually doing the numbers for each employee ?

  I can never tell if you're trolling or serious.

Here's the type of work the payroll service and employer will be doing:

  • Seeking legal counsel's advice on how to comply with the law
  • Generating forms -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for changing enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employers -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating an opt-out process for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Hiring additional staff (or increasing staff hours) to deal with the addition mismatch issues (i.e. wrong account numbers used in the sign up process)
  • Reviewing the plan options to ensure that they are appropriate (since a fiduciary duty is likely created somewhere in the process) -- which requires a legal review
  • Translating the forms and educational materials to other language -- which may require a legal review from a multi-lingual lawyer
  • Training/educating HR staff about the law and how to answer employee questions
  • Educating employees during the hiring process
  • Educating employees during the transition process
  • Obtaining opt-in/opt-out/acknowledgement forms
  • Answering questions about the process
  • Spot checking the deferrals to ensure they are correct
  • Additional updates and legal review as the result of any updates to the law, regulations or common law court action
  • Additional CPA/accountant review time/consultation to ensure that companies are properly complying with the law
  • Paying for additional ACH transactions (while this cost is minimal at the individual level it will at up -- for example, if 10 million employees have 26 pay periods per year, that adds an addition 260 million ACH transactions. Even if they cost a 1/2 cent each, that still increases overall costs $1,300,000)
  • If the transfers are handled internally, instead of by the payroll company, there will be additional staff time and costs to initiate ACH transactions and/or issue and send live checks


  that's my point most of the time-consuming stuff is one time for all employees, not per employees. everything else per employee is all automated.

  Yeah, dealing with every employee questions why their pay is "less" is just a one time thing. You do realize that these smaller companies probably also have much higher turnover -- so all these extra activities will happen much more often than if it was for a large company, right?

economies of scale are a built in advantage of larage companies

Dus10 said:   
There was something I read a few years back that a relatively small number of wealthy people moving away from California would essentially bankrupt the state.  The wealthy are the engine of that state.  Get too many of them upset, or a largely number of well-off but not as wealthy people... and if falls apart.  

  If it was only the wealthy keep CA afloat, then you shouldn't see middle class housing costs spike as it has for the past few years

kranky said:   Nobody who lives in California is going to say anything other than it's heaven on earth, regardless of reality. Not until after they leave. 
  As much as some here want to portray it, CA isn't North Korea, people living in CA can easily look up what conditions are like in other states, and even visit those states.

cr3s said:   I live in California. And Lived in PDX. PDX is better if you can stand the 8.5 months of rain. People are fatter in PDx, though, but it could just be that people are generally fatter everywhere.
  
People are generally fatter almost everywhere.  OR is below the national average.

http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity

CA is #47th and OR is #34th

CO, HI, DC & MA are all thinner than CA.
 

rufflesinc said:   As much as some here want to portray it, CA isn't North Korea
 

Ain't that the truth!  In North Korea they are allowed to use incandescent bulbs and leave them switched on when they leave the room if they want to.

irate_retro said:   
rufflesinc said:   As much as some here want to portray it, CA isn't North Korea
Ain't that the truth!  In North Korea they are allowed to use incandescent bulbs and leave them switched on when they leave the room if they want to.

 
=12pxNorth Koreans are rushing to purchase China-made light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs to light their homes, despite high costs, because of their comparative efficiency over incandescent bulbs—a crucial advantage in their power-starved reclusive nation.

=12pxWhile the cost of LED bulbs can be more than three times that of normal incandescent bulbs, residents are willing to bear the higher price because they can operate normally on low voltage, sources recently told RFA’s Korean Service.

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/leds-07142014141642.html 
 

rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
bighitter said:   
JavaCoder said:   They had to emphasize "Millions of California residents who don’t have access to a retirement-savings program at work" to skip over the fact that those people have access to traditional IRAs. Unclear why they need to burden small businesses with something that's widely available to anyone anyways.
As you correctly point out,  this new government program will create an additional burden that will hit small businesses particularly hard because small business don't have the extra staff to devote time to government compliance paperwork.  

I suspect that California is looking for a greater pool over which to spread their dismally low investment returns in the hope it evens out in the long run and the pensions politicians promised to government employees -- pension that are currently significantly underfunded -- will somehow survive (or at least postpone the day of reckoning).

  Most small employers hire a payroll service, who does all of this.  My last employer (a smallish staffing agency) already did exactly this without a law and in TX-- 3% to a 401K automatically and you have to opt out and no match.  It will just become a standard feature of their payroll vendor.  Mine was with ADP.

Many companies used POSITIVE reinforcement already with 401K match, or so I hear.  The dark side of contracting is that nobody matches.  (sighs)

  Don't you think the payroll service will charge more money when they're doing more work?

is an accountant manually doing the numbers for each employee ?

  I can never tell if you're trolling or serious.

Here's the type of work the payroll service and employer will be doing:

  • Seeking legal counsel's advice on how to comply with the law
  • Generating forms -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating a process for changing enrollment -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employers -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating educational materials for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Creating an opt-out process for employees -- which requires a legal review
  • Hiring additional staff (or increasing staff hours) to deal with the addition mismatch issues (i.e. wrong account numbers used in the sign up process)
  • Reviewing the plan options to ensure that they are appropriate (since a fiduciary duty is likely created somewhere in the process) -- which requires a legal review
  • Translating the forms and educational materials to other language -- which may require a legal review from a multi-lingual lawyer
  • Training/educating HR staff about the law and how to answer employee questions
  • Educating employees during the hiring process
  • Educating employees during the transition process
  • Obtaining opt-in/opt-out/acknowledgement forms
  • Answering questions about the process
  • Spot checking the deferrals to ensure they are correct
  • Additional updates and legal review as the result of any updates to the law, regulations or common law court action
  • Additional CPA/accountant review time/consultation to ensure that companies are properly complying with the law
  • Paying for additional ACH transactions (while this cost is minimal at the individual level it will at up -- for example, if 10 million employees have 26 pay periods per year, that adds an addition 260 million ACH transactions. Even if they cost a 1/2 cent each, that still increases overall costs $1,300,000)
  • If the transfers are handled internally, instead of by the payroll company, there will be additional staff time and costs to initiate ACH transactions and/or issue and send live checks


  that's my point most of the time-consuming stuff is one time for all employees, not per employees. everything else per employee is all automated.

  Yeah, dealing with every employee questions why their pay is "less" is just a one time thing. You do realize that these smaller companies probably also have much higher turnover -- so all these extra activities will happen much more often than if it was for a large company, right?

economies of scale are a built in advantage of larage companies

  Which is another reason this is bad policy. It makes it harder for small firms to get started and grow.

rufflesinc said:   
Dus10 said:   
There was something I read a few years back that a relatively small number of wealthy people moving away from California would essentially bankrupt the state.  The wealthy are the engine of that state.  Get too many of them upset, or a largely number of well-off but not as wealthy people... and if falls apart.  

  If it was only the wealthy keep CA afloat, then you shouldn't see middle class housing costs spike as it has for the past few years

  If everyone wants to live in the few "good" areas with "good" schools, then those areas will see increasing housing costs.

There ware tons of places in the state that may take a long time to reach their peak (2005-2008) housing prices -- because fewer people want to live there and what was driving up their prices was the "free" money.

The median retirement savings for all working-age CA households in 2010 was $10,000. At least CA is putting forth a way for their minimum wage (going up to $15/hr) workers to accumulate that amount in about 10 years.

Skipping 137 Messages...
rufflesinc said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
 
Pretty much when most people are getting on the highway I am pulling into the parking lot at work.  Also you missed the operative word "ride" to work.    As in on 2 wheels.  Its nice not having to worry about traffic, or leave 

 

  doesn't that limit your work mobility when you have to change jobs?

  
Nope, scooter goes in the trailer behind my SUV.  Not like I change jobs that often.  Could be here 2 years from the looks of it.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017