Ford says pensions are a plan of the past
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
In addition to eliminating the ability to job hop, you lose your pension if you are terminated. I work in an environment where some have pensions and some don’t. It’s painful when someone who has a lot of years in loses their job. And while it’s simple to say, don’t do anything to make that happen, sometimes people make mistakes or have bad managers, etc and it happens.
I definitely think retirement benefits are something to fight for but I’m not sure that pensions are so desirable and that they are not antiquated. |
Anonymous
And what about the GM CEO? $29 million Mary. |
Anonymous
Don't they get vested after some time? That's awful. In government, once vested, even if you are fired for misconduct, they can't take it away, except in some states that have laws that say you can lose your pension if convicted of crimes involving your official duties, which is fair. |
Anonymous
And another +1. The UAW will win. |
Anonymous
Yep. And the CEO of Toyota makes $6 million. Why does the GM CEO need nearly 5 times more than the Toyota CEO? |
Anonymous
Yes I think in most cases they vest after a relatively short period of time, like 5-10 years. Basically protects the employer from really terrible employees -- if you can stick it out 10 years without getting fired, you probably aren't going to be fired for gross misconduct. I'll also say that at least in state government, no one ever gets fired. I mean, you'd have to embezzle money or something. There is TONS of dead weight. They'll deny promotions but some people don't care, and there are a lot of people who just want to find a government job with minimal responsibilities, which they will then do poorly, until they can get their pension at 50 and then retire. For this reason, I wish we just had a more robust social security program that operated like pensions do in other countries. When you work, you pay in. If you don't, you don't. Employers could fire employees without destroying their retirement, but people would be motivated to work because the more you work, the bigger your payout in the end. Social security is kind of like this, but it's so little money that it doesn't really serve as a proper motivator because most people couldn't live off of it. I'm fine with 401ks and other investment programs (and am engaged in more than one myself) but if we're talking about how best to facilitate people having enough money to live off of past the age of 65 or so, I actually think government sponsored programs that are not tied to a specific employer could be really beneficial. |
Anonymous
I don’t think social security is nothing. You and your employer both put 6.2% in. Getting 2-3,500 a month each isn’t bad, especially if you’re married and get double that. It’s absolutely enough to live on. Save money, pay off your house and it will be enough. You also get Medicare. |
Anonymous
Greed |
Anonymous
Is the 6M all in or just salary? In many countries executive pay in cash is lower because other benefits - like buying the CEO a home and paying for a full house staff is not taxed the same as cash. Deferred compensation may be treated differently around the world as well. |
Anonymous
| Just wait until our society has a generation of seniors without pensions - the first big wave will be Gen X. Unless the government steps in, there will be poverty like we have never seen. |
Anonymous
|
DB plans mean the employer takes on the risk of both investment returns and long life of beneficiaries. DC plans put all the risk on the employee.
Montgomery County did something really clever which is they created a DC plan with a guaranteed return. Just like a 401k you pay into it and the employer matches, and when you retire, you have to figure out how to make your money last you long enough. But while you are working, you are earning a set percentage return and the employer has to figure out how to invest the money to get that return (and may save money when the stock market is good and lose money when it's bad). I think it's a really good balance. And after you vest (I think it's 3 years?) you can leave and keep your money in that plan until you retire. No need to sit around waiting for a magical date (though you do need to do that for retiree health benefits which is a different story). |
Anonymous
Greed |
Anonymous
Not in our case. If you’re tired for cause before eligible for retirement it’s gone. |
Anonymous
Young people are complaining because their rising taxes are used to pay for retirements for Boomers today (who always gave themselves tax cuts and thus never paid enough into the system to begin with). Basically young people are being forced to make up for the sins of their selfish parents while at the same time there will be very little left for them when they retire. |
Anonymous
No. Social Security was always meant to be funded by the generation currently working. The Boomers didn’t make a tax cut to limit Social Security. The Silent Generation and Greatest Generation began raiding the trust to pay for other pet projects. They also were the first two generations to far outlive any contribution they actually made to Social Security. The same applies for FERS. Actuarial tables for pensions are based on people dying not too long after retirement. Well the Silent Generation blew those table out because modern medicine allowed them to live far longer than earlier generations. It’s not in good public interest to cut off grandma’s pension at 75 because she should have died at 68. Instead changes have to be made to increase contributions and push out retirement dates to account for longer life spans. I know you’re a typical DCUMer with a rage hard on for Boomers, but get your facts straight. Tax cuts benefitting the wealthy and older population, have been largely made by Silent Generation and Greatest Generation. So go rage at your grandparents for their piss poor policies and for living too long. |