Trump

[swake]

Breitbart has been "campaigning" for months already. What's the difference?

According to Breitbart staffers, Breitbart has been a paid media operation for Trump for a long time now.

[Conan71]

Wow.  That is amazing....


But I bet you are "all about" the massively failed 401k program rammed down the throat of the American people as "replacement" for defined benefit pension programs...the one that let corporations do their little sleight of hand to raid all the pensions for the trillions of dollars sitting there just waiting for the C-suite to use more effectively. 

Think about it, Hier: What is the mechanism of a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme?  You put money in which others benefit from now, and you do so with the hope there will be others paying in to cover you when it's your turn to cash out.

Kindly explain how this vastly differs.

[erfalf]

Think about it, Hier: What is the mechanism of a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme?  You put money in which others benefit from now, and you do so with the hope there will be others paying in to cover you when it's your turn to cash out.

Kindly explain how this vastly differs.

If it were a private company offering it, it is not a ponzi scheme. Like purchasing an annuity. But that's not exactly what is going on here. Both programs are tied to income, which a traditional annuity is not. Those would be priced based on the market alone.

Pensions are fine too, because it is a form of compensation, which aI have yet to work anywhere that offered a Pension. And a 401k is not a replacement. It's another tool. You don't have to use it. It's up to the individual to take care of themselves.

[Townsend]

Fallin Named Trump Farm Advisor

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/fallin-named-trump-farm-advisor

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has named several Oklahomans to his newly created Agriculture Advisory Committee, including Gov. Mary Fallin.

Trump announced the creation of the 64-member committee in a press release on Tuesday as a way to "strengthen our nation's agriculture industry as well as provide support to our rural communities." It includes current and former elected officials, farmers and officials with agriculture trade groups.

The governors of several other agriculture states were named to the panel, including Govs. Terry Branstad of Iowa, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota and Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge also was named to the committee.

Other Oklahomans are Secretary of Agriculture Jim Reese, state Sen. Eddie Fields and state Rep. Casey Murdock.

I'm going to guess she's Bobby Trippe on this committee.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Think about it, Hier: What is the mechanism of a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme?  You put money in which others benefit from now, and you do so with the hope there will be others paying in to cover you when it's your turn to cash out.

Kindly explain how this vastly differs.

More like an annuity.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Pensions are fine too, because it is a form of compensation, which aI have yet to work anywhere that offered a Pension. And a 401k is not a replacement. It's another tool. You don't have to use it. It's up to the individual to take care of themselves.

Pensions are good, when you don't let the company raid the treasury.  It worked will for 30 years before getting gutted by the Bought-Out Congress' of the 70's and especially the 80's.   401k was sold as the replacement for a pension - and would even take over for Social Security.  And failed.

[swake]

Fallin Named Trump Farm Advisor

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/fallin-named-trump-farm-advisor

I'm going to guess she's Bobby Trippe on this committee.

Sam Brownback and Mary Fallin on the same committee. What kind of damage could that combo do?

[Conan71]

Pensions are good, when you don't let the company raid the treasury.  It worked will for 30 years before getting gutted by the Bought-Out Congress' of the 70's and especially the 80's.   401k was sold as the replacement for a pension - and would even take over for Social Security.  And failed.

No, the problem with pensions is when they were conceived, it was assumed someone had a post-retirement life-span of 10-15 years.  People started retiring when they were fully vested at 50-55 years old then lived off it another 25-30 years making half or three quarters what they were used to making and then their widow got the pension for another 5-10 years.  Probably the biggest issue for those offering pensions was not requiring a much longer period to be fully vested in a pension.

(Note, I'm playing rather loose and fast with numbers here, but using them to make a simple point you cannot pay an ever-larger pool of retirees do to nothing for longer periods of time and expect to stay flush or competitive in your market if you are, say, an automaker).

It's really not vastly different as to why Greece is broke: you are paying too many people to not produce anything.

401K and IRA's are not a failure to people who make savings a priority, over time, they have done quite well for those who have taken advantage of employer matching and have seen their funds rise with the stock market.  My last two career stops have had a 401K or matching IRA contribution as well as profit sharing in lieu of a pension, I can't complain.  They can't touch those funds, only I can.  I also like the portability of it.  Losing a pension is never a consideration if I decide to fly the middle finger at my company.  Granted there are other reasons to keep doing what I do, but not having that to keep me tied down is a bonus if I decide to shift gears and do something else.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, the problem with pensions is when they were conceived, it was assumed someone had a post-retirement life-span of 10-15 years.  People started retiring when they were fully vested at 50-55 years old then lived off it another 25-30 years making half or three quarters what they were used to making and then their widow got the pension for another 5-10 years.  Probably the biggest issue for those offering pensions was not requiring a much longer period to be fully vested in a pension.

(Note, I'm playing rather loose and fast with numbers here, but using them to make a simple point you cannot pay an ever-larger pool of retirees do to nothing for longer periods of time and expect to stay flush or competitive in your market if you are, say, an automaker).

It's really not vastly different as to why Greece is broke: you are paying too many people to not produce anything.

401K and IRA's are not a failure to people who make savings a priority, over time, they have done quite well for those who have taken advantage of employer matching and have seen their funds rise with the stock market.  My last two career stops have had a 401K or matching IRA contribution as well as profit sharing in lieu of a pension, I can't complain.  They can't touch those funds, only I can.  I also like the portability of it.  Losing a pension is never a consideration if I decide to fly the middle finger at my company.  Granted there are other reasons to keep doing what I do, but not having that to keep me tied down is a bonus if I decide to shift gears and do something else.

Yeah...those aren't the kind of pensions regular people got....the typical ones real people got were vested for maximum benefit in that time frame, payable upon reaching regular retirement age.  Early retirement accompanied by reduced benefit.  And all those benefits were calculated in and when funded properly, worked well.  But then they found they could pay Congress to pass laws that let them raid what was supposed to be a separate entity - the biggest method used was to let them use the pension fund money to "invest" in company stock.  How many bankruptcy experts are gaming that system....??  Like Donald Trump is bragging about doing!!  Repeatedly.

Vesting is required for pensions to occur at 5 years.  The company can vest earlier if they choose.  I have a small vesting in a company where I worked that was bought out and the pension stopped and frozen at that point.  I was there a little over 2 years at the time.  It is NOT a full benefit pension, but proportional to your time in grade compared to maximum benefit timeframe.  I will get a 2 year equivalent pension.  401k is also required to vest in 5 years.  Vesting just means you don't lose the whole thing when you leave, like happened early on - many decades ago!

Vastly different from Greece.

Congress, Military and some governmental entities are the only ones that get the gravy train you are describing - and can let some one "double dip", just go get another gubbmint job and vest there, too.


And by any measure, for the vast majority of Americans, 401k's are a massive failure.  They are way behind any possible 'catch-up' to be ready for retirement.  And the "plaintive bleat" for this topic is, "well, if they would just save enough..."   About people who cannot afford any kind of savings whatsoever.  And the average value in a 401k now is about $102,000.   With a "guidance" for that same person - meaning where they should be - is about $300,000.  This is based on average age of an American, which is around 35 right now.

It's a horrendous mess.  And the bottom 49% of the people in this country - or more - can't even afford to participate at all.

[patric]

And the rest of the story...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/16/rudy-giuliani-911-remarks/

The sad part is that NPR seems to have been "fooled" as well.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/16/490200895/rudy-giuliani-claims-no-terror-attacks-in-u-s-pre-obama

This does not help when trying to maintain that Gubment check.

"Mr. 9/11" 's wetnurse explained it thusly:

Giuliani clearly didn't "forget" about 9/11 after just having spoken about it at length; he just didn't feel the event warranted inclusion in what he described as an increasing number of attacks linked to Islamic fundamentalists that have occurred in recent years (i.e., during the Obama administration).


In other words, "sarcasm."

[Conan71]

Yeah...those aren't the kind of pensions regular people got....the typical ones real people got were vested for maximum benefit in that time frame, payable upon reaching regular retirement age.  Early retirement accompanied by reduced benefit.  And all those benefits were calculated in and when funded properly, worked well.  But then they found they could pay Congress to pass laws that let them raid what was supposed to be a separate entity - the biggest method used was to let them use the pension fund money to "invest" in company stock.  How many bankruptcy experts are gaming that system....??  Like Donald Trump is bragging about doing!!  Repeatedly.

Vesting is required for pensions to occur at 5 years.  The company can vest earlier if they choose.  I have a small vesting in a company where I worked that was bought out and the pension stopped and frozen at that point.  I was there a little over 2 years at the time.  It is NOT a full benefit pension, but proportional to your time in grade compared to maximum benefit timeframe.  I will get a 2 year equivalent pension.  401k is also required to vest in 5 years.  Vesting just means you don't lose the whole thing when you leave, like happened early on - many decades ago!

Vastly different from Greece.

Congress, Military and some governmental entities are the only ones that get the gravy train you are describing - and can let some one "double dip", just go get another gubbmint job and vest there, too.


And by any measure, for the vast majority of Americans, 401k's are a massive failure.  They are way behind any possible 'catch-up' to be ready for retirement.  And the "plaintive bleat" for this topic is, "well, if they would just save enough..."   About people who cannot afford any kind of savings whatsoever.  And the average value in a 401k now is about $102,000.   With a "guidance" for that same person - meaning where they should be - is about $300,000.  This is based on average age of an American, which is around 35 right now.

It's a horrendous mess.  And the bottom 49% of the people in this country - or more - can't even afford to participate at all.

The point about Greece and pensions was completely lost on you apparently.  You also want to blame politicians for companies raiding pensions.  You seem to think raiding pensions was meant to benefit a few Wall Streeters and corporate execs you have consistently cast aspersions on.

You simply cannot pay out half or more of your total payroll costs in pensions and expect to be afloat or competitive forever.  It might have worked when US companies didn't face so much competition from global manufacturers with far lower legacy costs.

While I get that penthouse salaries and bonuses seem to defy logic to those on the production floor, that still has nothing to do with why pensions were breaking American companies like General Motors.  I don't recall exact numbers, but when GM hit the skids in '08 or so, that had nothing sudden to do with the mortgage melt-down roughly 1/2 or 2/3 of their employee costs were legacy patroll costs they were having to pony up the money for.  They were paying too much in support of a workforce that had long since quit making cars for them.

A guy who used to work for us moved here from Michigan with his new wife in 2003.  He was about 52 or 53, his wife was a couple years younger, she was the widow of a GM employee (they referred to GM as "Generous Motors" due to all the legacy benefits she had).  She didn't work once they moved here, she got a check from GM.  When he retired the tail end of 2011, she was diagnosed with a fairly rare form of breast cancer.  They moved to southern Texas as she fought the cancer through a few surgeries and short-lived remissions at MD Anderson.  She died about this time last year.  GM picked up the tab for her medical expenses through that expensive battle for four years.  That was easily $1m plus spent on medical for someone who never even worked for GM, plus writing her a paycheck every month even though she never worked an assembly line for them.

This isn't isolated.  We pay for too many people to not produce a damn thing.  Same issue Greece and other countries have.  People got dependent on a company or government to feed them from cradle to the grave instead of using the discipline to save and set their own course.

Keeping it on topic, I'll state the obvious: Trump sucks.

[cannon_fodder]

Perhaps I can bridge this pension gap.

We do pay too many people to not-produce anything. Politicians did change the rules to allow pensions to fail. But not by encouraging raiding...

The accounting rules were changed to enable companies to under-fund their pension liabilities, particularly governments, but pretending inflation, rate of return, or future growth would level it out. So they cut way back on funding their pensions.  Then they ignored the problem until it became a crisis.  Had they been forced to properly fund their pensions the entire time the cost would have been evident, not something to deal with in the future. But, as long as it's a problem for next quarters earnings report...

Now the reaction has been to setup a two tier system. One group of workers was in before the crisis hit, and they have the "generous motors" deal (that holds true at Deere, GM, American Airlines, etc.). The other group wasn't in, and they have the "new American deal," where they get paid $12-15 an hour with drastically cut back benefits and without a defined pension plan.  At Deere, it wasn't uncommon for two guys working the same station on the to see one making $12-15 and the other making $30. As the older men aged out, the cost of labor dropped --- but the low wages for the young guys are paying for the generous pensions for the older ones... because the company didn't have to fund the pensions previously.

The companies made promises that were too expensive to keep. The politicians changed the rules so they could pass the buck a year, or two, or a generation. At least, that's how I put it together. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

The point about Greece and pensions was completely lost on you apparently.  You also want to blame politicians for companies raiding pensions.  You seem to think raiding pensions was meant to benefit a few Wall Streeters and corporate execs you have consistently cast aspersions on.

You simply cannot pay out half or more of your total payroll costs in pensions and expect to be afloat or competitive forever.  It might have worked when US companies didn't face so much competition from global manufacturers with far lower legacy costs.

While I get that penthouse salaries and bonuses seem to defy logic to those on the production floor, that still has nothing to do with why pensions were breaking American companies like General Motors.  I don't recall exact numbers, but when GM hit the skids in '08 or so, that had nothing sudden to do with the mortgage melt-down roughly 1/2 or 2/3 of their employee costs were legacy patroll costs they were having to pony up the money for.  They were paying too much in support of a workforce that had long since quit making cars for them.

A guy who used to work for us moved here from Michigan with his new wife in 2003.  He was about 52 or 53, his wife was a couple years younger, she was the widow of a GM employee (they referred to GM as "Generous Motors" due to all the legacy benefits she had).  She didn't work once they moved here, she got a check from GM.  When he retired the tail end of 2011, she was diagnosed with a fairly rare form of breast cancer.  They moved to southern Texas as she fought the cancer through a few surgeries and short-lived remissions at MD Anderson.  She died about this time last year.  GM picked up the tab for her medical expenses through that expensive battle for four years.  That was easily $1m plus spent on medical for someone who never even worked for GM, plus writing her a paycheck every month even though she never worked an assembly line for them.

This isn't isolated.  We pay for too many people to not produce a damn thing.  Same issue Greece and other countries have.  People got dependent on a company or government to feed them from cradle to the grave instead of using the discipline to save and set their own course.

Keeping it on topic, I'll state the obvious: Trump sucks.

No, I actually do get it.  Congress was - and is - bought and paid for.  They allowed companies to raid pension plans in exactly the fashion I mentioned - taking it back "into the fold" of corporate oversight instead of being held at arms length to be professionally invested in a responsible manner - at that point letting companies "invest" the money in company stock valued at ridiculous multipliers based on "estimates" of what the stock would be worth in a distant future.  Since the "future value" of that money was obscenely manipulated, they could then take out all the "overage" that they said didn't need to be there because the stock was gonna do so good over time.  

THAT was the ponzi scheme in pensions!  I guess I thought you and erfalf had better business backgrounds that understood that - I guess it just goes back - as it always does - to not knowing the history.  Congress made it literally a case of rape and pillage of pensions in this country.  And in concert with companies, said the 401k would be a really good thing.

"While I get that penthouse salaries and bonuses seem to defy logic to those on the production floor, that still has nothing to do with why pensions were breaking American companies like General Motors."

The only reason it defies logic is because so many people - not just the production floor, obviously - don't understand the program and what was implemented over that time.  Also, during that same time frame - the last 40 years - the median (half make more, half make less) income in this country has gone down by 40%.  Add that to the raids on pension plans, plus gains in productivity over those same 40 years, it is easy to see how the C-suite has gained, not just 500 or 600% increases, but 500 and 600 TIMES the salaries they made at that time.  What is that...about 50,000%...60,000%...increases....

And there it is!!  As is trotted out whenever anyone has something less than complementary to say about C-suite malfeasance!  The plaintive bleat of upper management to blame the workers for all the woes of the company!    GM was the poster child for that.  EVERY single problem they had was due to their mis-management!  People always fall back on blaming some retired worker, or his wife, when the only reason those plans were in place were due to negotiations AGREED to and APPROVED by management.  NOBODY MADE them sign an agreement - EVER!!  It was always voluntary.  Unions were NOT to blame...never were.  If it were such a bad deal, the company only had to get up from the table and leave.  (That's where strikes came from...)   And management obviously felt it was fiducially (sp?) responsible to agree to labor contracts based on their calculations of where the stock value would be sometime in the near future...!

And never in the history of any company that I have looked into (GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel) with those kind of labor agreements did the workers get a better deal than the C-suite!  The C-suite ALWAYS got preferential treatment and better benefit plans.  Always!   But they are worth it, of course.... obviously, or they wouldn't make 50,000% more than the unwashed masses on the production floor!!

Nothing like Greece.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Perhaps I can bridge this pension gap.

The accounting rules were changed to enable companies to under-fund their pension liabilities, particularly governments, but pretending inflation, rate of return, or future growth would level it out. So they cut way back on funding their pensions.  Then they ignored the problem until it became a crisis.  Had they been forced to properly fund their pensions the entire time the cost would have been evident, not something to deal with in the future. But, as long as it's a problem for next quarters earnings report...

Now the reaction has been to setup a two tier system. One group of workers was in before the crisis hit, and they have the "generous motors" deal (that holds true at Deere, GM, American Airlines, etc.). The other group wasn't in, and they have the "new American deal," where they get paid $12-15 an hour with drastically cut back benefits and without a defined pension plan.  At Deere, it wasn't uncommon for two guys working the same station on the to see one making $12-15 and the other making $30. As the older men aged out, the cost of labor dropped --- but the low wages for the young guys are paying for the generous pensions for the older ones... because the company didn't have to fund the pensions previously.

You allow/advance a very "kid glove" interpretation - "accounting rules were changed" - to describe what is rape and pillage.  I would be surprised if more than 2 or 3 out of 10 regulars here have a defined pension plan in their work history.  What is not experienced is generally not well understood nor ever missed - anyone who doesn't have one should search out some older friends or family who do and spend some time talking about it.  

Pensions were in place as part of the "total compensation" package for an employee - in lieu of higher immediate cash hourly wage.  It wasn't some kind of "gimme" for the employee - it was part of their pay - it was earned income.  Placed at arms length in the hands of profession money managers who were required by law to have a fiduciary responsibility to care for those plans.  As opposed to a 401k which requires every single person to be their own professional money manager!  Which is another reason why the 401k plan has been, and will continue to be, such a retirement catastrophe for the vast majority of workers in this country!  Few of us have been trained as professional money managers.

Pensions were their retirement plan, since SS was never intended to be more than a very basic amount to provide a basement level of income.  And what happened over time was the companies got the accounting rules changed so they could change the game.  Re-valuing the plans so they could underfund and take money back - which was done extensively - once the plans were no longer held at arms length, nor required to perform in a fiscally responsible manner  (Congress again).



That 40% drop in real wages over the last 40 years.

Going into the 50,000% increase in real pay for the C-suite.

[AquaMan]

What he just said, in caps.

I had one at the oil company I worked at after college. Do not underestimate or gloss over what determined cpa's did during that time. I got caught in one of the scheduled expansion/contractions known as centralization/decentralization at the time. LIFO if you are into inventory management. They lied to the employees being let go. I remember being told that I could no longer be a member of their credit union which gave favorable perks to employees. We believed them and withdrew savings and had to refinance cars elsewhere. Later, I received a small check from my pension plan which indeed had been touted as part of the compensation package that I always assumed was used to shelter company income. Its purpose was described to me as an effort to keep employees from jumping to their oil company competitors which was common.