Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A preview of the U.S. without pensions

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 221 posts

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross »

newfoundglory wrote: post #13
friedButter wrote: post #9

> federal judge agreed that McDonnell-Douglas had illegally considered the pensions in its decision to close the plant. The employees case, presented by attorneys Joe Farris and Mike Mulder, showed that the company had tracked pension savings in its plant closure decisions WTF! So a company is not allowed to consider costs in a cost cutting decision? Was this not a conscious risk an employee took by accepting a job o…

It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary - the company has to pay you for your work, even if they would rather not.

> It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary

Not really. The case doesn’t seem to involve the company trying to default on existing obligations. It involves them projecting future costs and deciding whether to carry them. This is akin to laying off an employee, something most states freely permit, more than defaulting on pay for work already done.

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#22

Post by jstewartmobile »

The fundamental problem with pensions, however you arrange them, is that no one has a crystal ball.

If you were FDR, how could you possibly know that average person will live 10 years longer, or that we're going to end up with birth control and a consequent demographic cliff?

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#23

Post by defined »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
newfoundglory wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary - the company has to pay you for your work, even if they would rather not.

> It's more like the risk assumed by taking a job and expecting a salary Not really. The case doesn’t seem to involve the company trying to default on existing obligations. It involves them projecting future costs and deciding whether to carry them. This is akin to laying off an employee, something most states freely permit, more than defaulting on pay for work already done.

I just see it as making promises (pensions) the company was not committed to keep. I'm sure the judge didn't use the word "mendacity " lightly or unadvisedly.

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#24

Post by nunez »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #18
wildmusings wrote: post #6

Defined benefit plans, i.e. pensions, are a total disaster. They are premised on a fantasy: that the pension fund will make enough money on the market to to pay its liabilities, or that the backing entity will bail it out if not. Those are bad assumptions. The result is pension funds going broke across the country, and it's just getting started. Defined contribution plans, 401k's and such, are much more sensible. You…

I'm not sure 401ks are so great. Many charge ridiculous management fees for funds that track mundane things like the S&P 500, but if you want that employer match, no way around it. Mostly a case of perfectly intelligent people throwing wads of money into the market on autopilot because that's all the 401k lets you do. Lambs to the slaughter! edit: Example: Back when I was on 401k, was into a S&P500 fund that had an e…

Yeah the only time it makes sense to have a 401k is if your company matches your contributions.

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#25

Post by dizzystar »

Kyragem wrote: post #20

Yet these old folks all voted for trump/GOP. Good luck trying to make a living when they cut social security next year.

Sigh... the voting data is out there, and let's not all pretend the poor are any better off after ACA took effect.

Clinton won the poor, Trump won the rich. When will you all stop with this?

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#26

Post by jedmeyers »

dguaraglia wrote: post #16
friedButter wrote: post #7

Is retirement planning (Live "below your means" and put in 20-30% or more of your salary towards long term investments), and family support (you fund your kids education and parents post retirement needs, and your kids fund your post retirement needs and your grandkids education) such an alien concept for Americans? When you manage it internally, instead of paying interest to a bank, you just have lost opportunity co…

It’s easy to consider putting 20 to 30% of your salary towards savings and investments when you are making Silicon Valley money. It’s not so easy when you are making minimum wage while paying school loans, or even if you are one of the families earning the median household income of ~$60k and you have a couple kids.

> It’s easy to consider putting 20 to 30% of your salary towards savings and investments when you are making Silicon Valley money.

Only if you are making Silicon Valley money somewhere outside of Silicon Valley. Otherwise, not so easy.

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#27

Post by killjoywashere »

friedButter wrote: post #7

Is retirement planning (Live "below your means" and put in 20-30% or more of your salary towards long term investments), and family support (you fund your kids education and parents post retirement needs, and your kids fund your post retirement needs and your grandkids education) such an alien concept for Americans? When you manage it internally, instead of paying interest to a bank, you just have lost opportunity co…

Is that why China has seen protests numbering in the hundreds of thousands of workers put out by more efficient management methods? They can afford to protest? Or are they in crisis, realizing the cost of living is skyrocketing and they all of a sudden have no money to honor either end of that bargain?

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#28

Post by [deleted] »

wildmusings wrote: post #6

Defined benefit plans, i.e. pensions, are a total disaster. They are premised on a fantasy: that the pension fund will make enough money on the market to to pay its liabilities, or that the backing entity will bail it out if not. Those are bad assumptions. The result is pension funds going broke across the country, and it's just getting started. Defined contribution plans, 401k's and such, are much more sensible. You…

[deleted]

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#29

Post by fatbird »

friedButter wrote: post #7

Is retirement planning (Live "below your means" and put in 20-30% or more of your salary towards long term investments), and family support (you fund your kids education and parents post retirement needs, and your kids fund your post retirement needs and your grandkids education) such an alien concept for Americans? When you manage it internally, instead of paying interest to a bank, you just have lost opportunity co…

There's a growing recognition today of a social crisis in Korea where the working generation today is less willing to support the parents who sank every dollar into pushing their children into lucrative professional careers. It sounds terrible, but from the children's perspective, they experienced less choice about their future because they're just an investment vehicle for their parents. The exact compact you describe breeds generational resentment.

Re: A preview of the U.S. without pensions

#30

Post by jstewartmobile »

nunez wrote: post #24
jstewartmobile wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure 401ks are so great. Many charge ridiculous management fees for funds that track mundane things like the S&P 500, but if you want that employer match, no way around it. Mostly a case of perfectly intelligent people throwing wads of money into the market on autopilot because that's all the 401k lets you do. Lambs to the slaughter! edit: Example: Back when I was on 401k, was into a S&P500 fund that had an e…

Yeah the only time it makes sense to have a 401k is if your company matches your contributions.

Don't they all have a match?

It would be nice if people could keep the match and have more control over their portfolios. Buy & sell stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. whenever instead of a very small basket of mutual funds that can only be juggled a few times a year.

Post reply on HN