annual interruptus

Jay, go spend a week in a classroom and then say teachers shouldn't be
able to retire with 30 years at full pension. The average life
expectancy of a teacher is 5 years in the classroom.

Why should we pay any young person to sit around doing nothing?
Nowadays, 55 is YOUNG -- VERY young -- and there is simply no way to
make paying every 55 year old to sit around doing nothing work,
mathematically.

Unless you've found some new actuarial tool that I've never seen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ummm... what if we save enough to pay OURSELVES?

At 59?

Dave (60 days away, and "nothing " is not the plan)



On 22 Feb 2007 17:23:13 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Jay, go spend a week in a classroom and then say teachers shouldn't be
able to retire with 30 years at full pension. The average life
expectancy of a teacher is 5 years in the classroom.

Why should we pay any young person to sit around doing nothing?
Nowadays, 55 is YOUNG -- VERY young -- and there is simply no way to
make paying every 55 year old to sit around doing nothing work,
mathematically.

Unless you've found some new actuarial tool that I've never seen.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:07:45 -0400, Dave
wrote:

Ummm... what if we save enough to pay OURSELVES?

At 59?

Dave (60 days away, and "nothing " is not the plan)



On 22 Feb 2007 17:23:13 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Jay, go spend a week in a classroom and then say teachers shouldn't be
able to retire with 30 years at full pension. The average life
expectancy of a teacher is 5 years in the classroom.

Why should we pay any young person to sit around doing nothing?
Nowadays, 55 is YOUNG -- VERY young -- and there is simply no way to
make paying every 55 year old to sit around doing nothing work,
mathematically.

Unless you've found some new actuarial tool that I've never seen.

Keem them young people working to support us retired ones. BTW, had I
not gone back to college I'd have had enough time in to take full
returement at just over 52 working in the chemical industry.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

BTW, had I
not gone back to college I'd have had enough time in to take full
returement at just over 52 working in the chemical industry.

I doubt those types of retirement plans will be around much longer.
(Well, except for our ruling class, of course.)

Medically, there is no justification for them, and actuarily, they
can't be sustained.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 26 Feb 2007 08:48:37 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

BTW, had I
not gone back to college I'd have had enough time in to take full
returement at just over 52 working in the chemical industry.

I doubt those types of retirement plans will be around much longer.
(Well, except for our ruling class, of course.)

Why not? They work. The plans are growing. Both the employee and
company pay. For the CAP the company has a base 3% of your salary
that goes in and then they match 50/50 for a few more %. of what you
put in. You can put up to 15% of your salary into the account if you
wish. On top of that is the standard retirement plan. The money for
both plans is held by an investment firm and the company has no claim
to any of it.


Medically, there is no justification for them, and actuarily, they
can't be sustained.

Again, why not? I had over 35 years in and had earned that company
plenty. Unlike many companies that kept their own retirement accounts
they were smart enough to put the retirement plan in the hands of a
company that does that for a business. That meant the temptation to
use that money to cover expenses, or a short fall *temporarily* was
not an option. IOW they could not rob the employees retirement fund
as so many companies have done. Even though the company has fewer
employees now than when I retired the regular retirement plan is still
growing with earnings and their contributions combined.

Our accounts are investment based. I retired 10 years ago and my
account is worth more now (even after today's little correction and
the _dot_com_crash) than when I retired. Prior to the dot com crash
my cap was earning more than I was and I was putting every cent into
it they'd let me.

Michigan's financial woes are kinda like the dot com boom and bust,
but with blind reliance on the automotive industry instead of a
particular stock market segment. The industry has been blindly
following the path to building what people say they want, not what
they buy. Not too long ago the US industry was selling more trucks
than cars and those trucks are not noted for economy. Take the so
called "flex fuel" vehicle. The industry gets mileage credits for
them as they "could" be called green even though few of them will ever
run on anything but gas. They aren't even designed to use E85 for
extended periods. Their fuel systems are not designed to withstand the
abuse of E85 over prolonged periods. That leaves us with them still
making gas guzzlers that end up sitting on the lot when gas prices are
thought to be high. We haven't yet seen high gas prices in the US,
but we most likely will. We certainly will if the average driver
doesn't change their ways of driving.

Now those automotive employees represent a sizeable voting force. They
don't appear to want change and they probably have considerably more
political clout that the automotive companies themselves. Where else
can you get laid off for a while at full pay? OTOH they are making
some concessions now.

We had "planned obsolescence" which was great for the industry when
they had no competition. I had a 61 or 62 Mustang that rusted out
about 6 months after I purchased it new. of course the company stood
behind it. They'd pay half of the body shop work if I used a Ford
body shop. I got it done for less than that at the local body shop
that did better work. In 1980 I ended up with one that didn't have the
belly pan welded in. They had to strip the interior and redo the whole
thing, but at least I didn't have to pay that time. Up through the
70's US cars had an average life span that was pretty short. If it had
more than 50,000 miles you were getting concerned. If it had much more
than 60,000 it was almost worthless. Sure there were some outstanding
exceptions, but those were few. That approach gave foreign
manufacturers a foot in the door and it didn't take them long to
surpass the US made cars in quality. The Japanese went from "Junk" to
high quality at low cost in just a few years. Now they are having a
similar problem with Korea who is having the same problem with China.

Now days it's difficult to call a car US, Japanese, or what ever.
Assembled in USA would be more accurate The foreign manufacturers
(Particularly Japanese) build cars here, they make some parts here
and we use their parts (made here or there) in our "US" made cars.

Michigan has been unable to wean itself from the auto industry and
with the inertia of that industry and its employees, it's probably
going to get far worse before it gets better. OTOH we do have the
*possibility* of agriculture and alternative energy sources/fuels, but
only time will tell. If they think Michigan and the auto industry are
in bad shape now, wait until gas goes above $3.50 a gallon and stays
there. I doubt it's all that far off and increasing oil production
capacity is one of the worst things they can do.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Why not? They work. The plans are growing.

Your plan is not the norm. I'm glad it's "working" for you, but the
fact is that if your company is paying you to "retire" at age 52 (or
whatever you said), there is going to be a competitor out there that
ISN'T.

That savings will be the death of your company, because it's just
plain stupid to pay young men to sit around and do nothing.
Companies that are smart enough NOT to pay young men to NOT work will
win, in an open market.

Michigan has been unable to wean itself from the auto industry and
with the inertia of that industry and its employees, it's probably
going to get far worse before it gets better.

That's for sure. I lived through (on a much smaller scale) the
economic devastation that occurs when an auto maker goes belly up,
back when American Motors Corporation died. The economy of Kenosha,
Wisconsin was ruined for a decade or more.

They've now recovered fully, with nearly full employment -- but there
are still a lot of bitter old men there, wondering what happened to
their cushy lives...

It never even dawns on them that the answer is in the mirror.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



OTOH we do have the
*possibility* of agriculture and alternative energy sources/fuels, but
only time will tell. If they think Michigan and the auto industry are
in bad shape now, wait until gas goes above $3.50 a gallon and stays
there. I doubt it's all that far off and increasing oil production
capacity is one of the worst things they can do.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

On 27 Feb 2007 21:23:45 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Why not? They work. The plans are growing.

Your plan is not the norm. I'm glad it's "working" for you, but the
fact is that if your company is paying you to "retire" at age 52 (or
whatever you said), there is going to be a competitor out there that
ISN'T.

That savings will be the death of your company, because it's just

That's the point. The company isn't paying me anything. They paid that
as part of my wages. That percent went to an investment company
similar to the CAP from the day I received my first pay check.
Considering what went into the retirement account I'd guess the
interest is more than what I'm getting and I do get a fairly nice
check. OTOH it sure aint what I received while working.

I could have gone to the local head hunters and had it all set up to
come back in to my old office the next day with a considerable raise.
They can contract out like that, give the other company a commission,
and me a raise as they don't have to pay benefits. A good portion of
those benefits went to that investment company for my retirement.
OR rephrased, they pay the employment agency a premium and my wages. I
get a considerable raise and they still save money.
Also in today's dollars the new hires don't get as much in the way of
benefits as the earlier employees, but it's still a good place to work
and they pay a good wage to professionals.

plain stupid to pay young men to sit around and do nothing.
Companies that are smart enough NOT to pay young men to NOT work will
win, in an open market.

They can't even claim what I receive for retirement as an expense as
that was done when I received my original paychecks.
So it doesn't cost the company any more for retirement if I retire at
50, 55, 60 or 65.


Michigan has been unable to wean itself from the auto industry and
with the inertia of that industry and its employees, it's probably
going to get far worse before it gets better.

I was glad I worked most of my life in the chemical industry. Prior to
that I had a taste of the auto industry for a couple of years. (didn't
like it)


That's for sure. I lived through (on a much smaller scale) the
economic devastation that occurs when an auto maker goes belly up,
back when American Motors Corporation died. The economy of Kenosha,
Wisconsin was ruined for a decade or more.

They've now recovered fully, with nearly full employment -- but there
are still a lot of bitter old men there, wondering what happened to
their cushy lives...

It never even dawns on them that the answer is in the mirror.

Yup. The cost of that new car is mostly wages.
I don't know if it's that way now or not, but at one time line workers
were reportedly making as much as engineers. (even when laid off)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Oh Crap.. shoudda read on, I am not a teacher.

Sorry..

Dave

On 22 Feb 2007 17:23:13 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Jay, go spend a week in a classroom and then say teachers shouldn't be
able to retire with 30 years at full pension. The average life
expectancy of a teacher is 5 years in the classroom.

Why should we pay any young person to sit around doing nothing?
Nowadays, 55 is YOUNG -- VERY young -- and there is simply no way to
make paying every 55 year old to sit around doing nothing work,
mathematically.

Unless you've found some new actuarial tool that I've never seen.