boycott united forever

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

gatt wrote:

Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
loyalty
and hard work isn't smart?


I'm really sorry to hear about your father's financial predicament,
but to answer your question, hard work is very smart, company loyalty
is an anachronism from a bygone era. It hasn't been a relevant concept
for decades.

Pledging your future to a faceless corporation is great for the
corporation, but as your father found out, it's a one-way street.
Tactics like getting rid of an employee on the eve of retirement (to
save a few bucks) are fairly commonplace. On top of that, banking
your retirement on the fact that a corporation will not only be in
business, but be profitable enough to support all of the former
employees is quite a gamble. Even large corporations fold on a fairly
regular basis.

I've only been in the workforce for about 26 yrs and have never
understood pensions. It requires a huge leap of faith in a
corporation. I equate it to keeping all of your retirement savings in
one stock. Not a financially sound move by any measure.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

gatt wrote:

Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
loyalty
and hard work isn't smart?


I'm really sorry to hear about your father's financial predicament,
but to answer your question, hard work is very smart, company loyalty
is an anachronism from a bygone era. It hasn't been a relevant concept
for decades.

Pledging your future to a faceless corporation is great for the
corporation, but as your father found out, it's a one-way street.
Tactics like getting rid of an employee on the eve of retirement (to
save a few bucks) are fairly commonplace. On top of that, banking
your retirement on the fact that a corporation will not only be in
business, but be profitable enough to support all of the former
employees is quite a gamble. Even large corporations fold on a fairly
regular basis.

I've only been in the workforce for about 26 yrs and have never
understood pensions. It requires a huge leap of faith in a
corporation. I equate it to keeping all of your retirement savings in
one stock. Not a financially sound move by any measure.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits.

Mike
MU-2

That is only true in some cases and only recently have laws been passed to
make sure the money is actually there. The golden rule is fund your own
retirement. What has happened to Uniteds pension is by no means unique or
unusual. Up until recently all pension monies could be invested in the
corporations own stock.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits.

The problem is that the funds are typically invested in stocks and/or bonds. If
the market is doing well, the employer only has to contribute money for
relatively new employees -- employees who have been there a while already have
substantial funds, and the returns on that provide the necessary increase. If,
however, the market isn't doing well, the company has to make continuing
deposits, usually at a time in which they aren't making very much themselves.

My former employer is typical in this regard. In early 2001, the market was
still cooking, and my former employer had the pension funds in stocks. As the
market collapsed later in the year, there was a rush to shift everything to
bonds. Then came the ENRON scandal. Congress reacted to that by increasing the
amount of equity employers had to keep in their pension plans. That meant that
companies that had pension plans suddenly had to scrape up substantial amounts
of cash to add to them at a time that the market was forcing them to divert more
and more of their income to the plans anyway.

My company reacted in two ways. First, they laid off anyone who was close to
either a 2 year or a 5 year service anniversary (those are the dates that
pensions become partially and fully vested). That freed up a lot of funds that
could be allocated to pensions for other employees. Second, they changed the
pension plan to a "cash balance payout" plan. This works sort of like Bush's
"private account" option for Social Security. The company pays in a certain
amount into your pension. If the market does well during your career, you'll get
a big lump sum when you retire; if not, you'll get a tiny lump sum when you retire.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:T0Wge.4970$1f5.1194@trndny01...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

The problem is that the funds are typically invested in stocks and/or
bonds. If the market is doing well, the employer only has to contribute
money for relatively new employees -- employees who have been there a
while already have substantial funds, and the returns on that provide the
necessary increase. If, however, the market isn't doing well, the company
has to make continuing deposits, usually at a time in which they aren't
making very much themselves.

My former employer is typical in this regard. In early 2001, the market
was still cooking, and my former employer had the pension funds in stocks.
As the market collapsed later in the year, there was a rush to shift
everything to bonds. Then came the ENRON scandal. Congress reacted to that
by increasing the amount of equity employers had to keep in their pension
plans. That meant that companies that had pension plans suddenly had to
scrape up substantial amounts of cash to add to them at a time that the
market was forcing them to divert more and more of their income to the
plans anyway.

My company reacted in two ways. First, they laid off anyone who was close
to either a 2 year or a 5 year service anniversary (those are the dates
that pensions become partially and fully vested). That freed up a lot of
funds that could be allocated to pensions for other employees. Second,
they changed the pension plan to a "cash balance payout" plan. This works
sort of like Bush's "private account" option for Social Security. The
company pays in a certain amount into your pension. If the market does
well during your career, you'll get a big lump sum when you retire; if
not, you'll get a tiny lump sum when you retire.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Companies aren't required to fund plans on a daily or even annual basis and
react to every decline in their investments. There is an assumed rate of
return and the company is required to fund the plans so that there will be
enough to pay benefits if the assumed rate of return is earned.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at your own risk.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935. The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63. Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would be
uncompetitive in the workforce. It was a reasonable approach that got
derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
. net...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935.

Well thought out? You're kidding!!!

The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

And just 5 years earlier it was 49. Now, if it was so "well thought
out"...ah, forget it. Several economists predicted it was going to be a
boondoggle before the ink was dry of FDR's signiture.

The only thinking involved was those grabbing for power.

Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would
be
uncompetitive in the workforce.

It ws, and it's name defined, that it was SUPPLEMENTAL.

It was also VOLUNTARY.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...n/1005355.html



It was a reasonable approach that got

Gee, the same system failed every where else...how reasonable is that?


derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life
expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Lord Acton and James Madison come to mind.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935.

It was a Ponzi scheme, whereby the people bailing out first were
repaid by the entry fees of those who joined later. It worked as long
as the labor force grew faster than the retirement community.

Then somebody discovered the link between cigarettes and lung cancer,
and bingo! One of my pals is celebrating his 90th birthday in the
Bahamas next February. He got remarried last year. He no longer sails
to the Bahamas every fall, but he sails a small boat every day when
he's down there.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

Probably it was a bit higher than that, but your premise is sound.
Ever wonder why the magic figure of 65 as the retirement age?

Because when Germany instituted the first old-age pension in the 19th
century, Otto von Bismark (whose idea it was) asked an economist to
tell him at what age most workers were already dead. The answer: 65.
So you got the old-age pension only if you beat the odds.

Today that would kick in at, what, 77?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the
pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


The term is "beholden".

When you demand the taxpayers bail you out of your stupid and adolescent
decisions, the term is "parasite".