Ford says pensions are a plan of the past

[Anonymous]

I don’t think employers should be responsible for pensions. Taking care of elderly citizens in retirement should be a function of centralized government, as should healthcare and childcare.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many of the Ford executives still have defined benefit plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the Ford executives still have defined benefit plans

I’ve been wondering the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think employers should be responsible for pensions. Taking care of elderly citizens in retirement should be a function of centralized government, as should healthcare and childcare.

We do! Medicare and social security. Plus there's medicaid. In a cheaper area of the country, all of DH's elderly relatives live nicely off social security. No you can't live in a million dollar home (unless it was paid off) and you can't take trips to Hawaii, but social security is enough to live off of. Additionally, you're supposed to supplement it with your own savings or your 401k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think employers should be responsible for pensions. Taking care of elderly citizens in retirement should be a function of centralized government, as should healthcare and childcare.

We do! Medicare and social security. Plus there's medicaid. In a cheaper area of the country, all of DH's elderly relatives live nicely off social security. No you can't live in a million dollar home (unless it was paid off) and you can't take trips to Hawaii, but social security is enough to live off of. Additionally, you're supposed to supplement it with your own savings or your 401k.

Social security is up to $9,000 a month (dual income max amount)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think employers should be responsible for pensions. Taking care of elderly citizens in retirement should be a function of centralized government, as should healthcare and childcare.

We do! Medicare and social security. Plus there's medicaid. In a cheaper area of the country, all of DH's elderly relatives live nicely off social security. No you can't live in a million dollar home (unless it was paid off) and you can't take trips to Hawaii, but social security is enough to live off of. Additionally, you're supposed to supplement it with your own savings or your 401k.

Social security is up to $9,000 a month (dual income max amount)

PP here. The kind of people who need to live off of social security won't ever be making that amount. My grandparents are in their 90s and retired 30 years ago, so their social security is like $2000 and $1000 (grandma never worked, so it's half his).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Ford CEO, you don’t say

What a load of horse patootie.

CEO and executive pay has ballooned since the 60s, yet there isn’t money for pensions.

They really haven't. And if you think a $36 mil yearly salary being reduced to $500k is going to make a dent in pension issues you need to pull out a calculator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ford CEO, you don’t say

What a load of horse patootie.

CEO and executive pay has ballooned since the 60s, yet there isn’t money for pensions.

They really haven't. And if you think a $36 mil yearly salary being reduced to $500k is going to make a dent in pension issues you need to pull out a calculator.

FFS I already addressed that. It’s stock manipulation and blowing wads on stock buybacks etc how the rich enrich themselves and starve pensions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ford CEO, you don’t say

What a load of horse patootie.

CEO and executive pay has ballooned since the 60s, yet there isn’t money for pensions.

+1

And what about the GM CEO? $29 million Mary.

Look at car manufacturers revenue over the decades. Revenue has actually outpaced CEO pay. For instance, today Ford revenue is about 40x what was in 1960. CEO pay is about 22x more today than 1960.

[Anonymous]

The UAW will win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ford CEO, you don’t say

What a load of horse patootie.

CEO and executive pay has ballooned since the 60s, yet there isn’t money for pensions.

+1

And what about the GM CEO? $29 million Mary.

Look at car manufacturers revenue over the decades. Revenue has actually outpaced CEO pay. For instance, today Ford revenue is about 40x what was in 1960. CEO pay is about 22x more today than 1960.

Now show me that calculation for average worker pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ford CEO, you don’t say

What a load of horse patootie.

CEO and executive pay has ballooned since the 60s, yet there isn’t money for pensions.

They really haven't. And if you think a $36 mil yearly salary being reduced to $500k is going to make a dent in pension issues you need to pull out a calculator.

FFS I already addressed that. It’s stock manipulation and blowing wads on stock buybacks etc how the rich enrich themselves and starve pensions.

Starve pensions of what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ford CEO, you don’t say

What a load of horse patootie.

CEO and executive pay has ballooned since the 60s, yet there isn’t money for pensions.

+1

And what about the GM CEO? $29 million Mary.

Look at car manufacturers revenue over the decades. Revenue has actually outpaced CEO pay. For instance, today Ford revenue is about 40x what was in 1960. CEO pay is about 22x more today than 1960.

Why does the CEO need $29 million? Are you saying that GM could find someone as ineffectual as Barra for $5 or $10 million a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a fed and very pro pension, but I see lots of young people complaining about Social Security and FERS deductions because they think they can invest it better (I am more comfortable knowing part of my portfolio is defined benefit with COLA, but I also max TSP). I think it's a shame that pensions have faded away but I don't think it's considered a big benefit anymore because it locks you into a job.

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.

I find it strange that some small minority of current young people like to throw the previous generations under the bus. Why not just take responsibility for your own future, rather than blaming prior generations. I am Gen X, and we never criticized the generations before us. We just did what had to be done. I hope that young people will realize this and stop just complaining.

And in any case, Social Security is designed as a compact among generations. The young pay for the old while the young are working. That is also how it worked when the Boomers were young as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think employers should be responsible for pensions. Taking care of elderly citizens in retirement should be a function of centralized government, as should healthcare and childcare.

+1. It should not be the job of the employer, but instead of the government.