You ask a lot of open ended questions. Please cite any of your implicit claims.
Here's some prompts:
Do you really think that the state of California, if it was properly taxing the rich and eliminated business tax loopholes for major companies like Walmart, is really incapable of paying a living wage to its public sector employees?
What revenue are they leaving on the table? What does properly mean? What loopholes would you close? Are they not already paying a livable salary (and, isn't this discussion about generous retirements, and not day-to-day wages?)
Is it more likely that my community cannot feasibly afford to pay us a fair amount for the cost of living in this state, or that the massive amount of money that is present here is grossly mismanaged, hidden away, manipulated through tax loopholes, and horded by the incredibly wealthy?
If it is mismanaged, where does the burden lie? Should the poor bear the burden of that mismanagement or should all parties? If all parties, are employees of the state a party? If not, why not? Also, you're back at the "incredibly wealthy" so please cite sources for your claims.
As for a concrete answer on how to solve what we do, you're likely right. The lower and middle class will get screwed more, the income gap will widen, the rich will continue to laugh all the way to bank, and... I don't know. I don't know how this country will continue on this path. But this is probably far too much of a political rant to be on /r/econ anyways...
Agreed. I don't know how to solve it either. The rich are mobile. I'm not rich. I do get fucked by policy, though, and think it is super shitty when even modest opposition to giving state workers what is, ultimately, a pretty goddamn good lifestyle somehow makes me evil. It is particularly frustrating when my argument is that the first cuts will go to the truly poor, so I'm literally advocating for the little guy. Regardless, that somehow still makes me evil because I think you cashing a $60k+ pension plus benefits for 30+ years is kind of a lot.