Rush Limbaugh

[Paddy]

just said that if you have a problem with corporations not honoring pension obligations you're in a 'dependent mode'.   WTF?   So it's ok to enter a contract and renege later if it's expedient to you?  This is 'ethics'?

[Sindawe]

It is if one is Rush Limbaugh.

[Seymour Skinner]

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be...restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Rush Limbaugh is an establishment parrot who used to be libertarian/anti conspiracy before he was bought off with big money contracts.  He repeats the phrase "free market" constantly when he is actually talking about corporations.  The insidious corporate entity has a natural tendency toward mergers and acquisitions, which anyone with a brainstem can see DESTROYS the free market.

The powers that be have had the "centralization" agenda for decades and here's the result of the corporate "free market" in media:

[Brad Johnson]

People who go through life totally trusting their pension plan for retirement fall into the same trap as those who do the same depending on soso security as a post-career living. Instead of having spent the time and money to plan for their own independent retirement, they have depended on others to do it for them. That is "dependent mode".

Brad

[garrettwc]

Brad, that's exactly the way I took what was said. No one takes personal responsibility.

[Art Eatman]

IMO:  Becasue of Social Insecurity, folks began thinking that El Gigantico corporations would never go into hard times or go broke.  So, trust in corporate pension plans became as absolute as trust in Social Insecurity.  The bosses of even smaller corporations had the same rose-colored lenses, as did their employees.

The Free Market includes the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed.  Times change; everybody says so and nods wisely in agreement with that idea--but changes for the worse are only supposed to happen to "that other guy".  

I never tried to think of Old Age as a time for any sort of pension plan for my support.  My Social Insecurity is nice, but not necessary for my basic overhead.  No private pension plan; just my own buildup of a net worth.

So far, so good.

TANSTAAFL is a pretty good creed to live by...

Art

[charby]

why 401k and likewise are much better route. I have a few IRA and a nice TIAA-Cref through work, I am 31 and hoping to be able to retire at 65. Just depends what happens in the next 34 years.

Charby

[Paddy]

People who go through life totally trusting their pension plan for retirement fall into the same trap as those who do the same depending on soso security as a post-career living.

and

TANSTAAFL is a pretty good creed to live by...

Contributions to a pension plan, whether by employee or employer, are every bit earnings as much as wages.   Earnings are free lunch?  Really? Would you cheat a man out of his wages, then tell him 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'?

No one takes personal responsibility.

Especially lying, cheating, thieving corporate directors.

[Unisaw]

I used to be a corporate pension officer in the treasury department of a Fortune 500 company.  The sad fact is that corporations really don't want to be in the investment business.  Yet, they chose to be when they made traditional pension promises.  The corporation for whom I worked had pension assets of over $1 billion that had to be managed, even though it thought it was solely in the forest products business.  As corporations have focused on their "core" businesses, they have shifted investment responsibility to their employees through 401(k) plans.  Unfortunately, individuals can't bear as much investment risk as can a pool of 30,000 employees.  Less risk => less return => less retirement assets

[Paddy]

People who dedicate their working lives to an employer do so for something in return.  Part of that 'something' is current wages and benefits, and part of it is the promise of future retirement income.  The employer has absolutely no basis, legal, moral, or otherwise to willfuly renege on any of it.  The employee kept his/her end of the bargain.  Promises were made and not kept.  Obligations exist.  It is reprehensible that any employer could get away with not fulfilling their obligation and remain in business.

[Preacherman]

A large part of the problem is that companies need cash invested in them, and they control a large pool of pension investments.  It's very common for companies to either invest their employees' pension funds in their own stock (thereby using the pension monies for their own corporate needs), and/or making a deal with another company, whereby company A will invest X amount of its pension pool in company B's stock, and company B will invest the same amount of its pension pool in company A's stock.

If the company hits financial problems and defaults on its obligations to stockholders, the pension fund is left holding worthless pieces of paper instead of liquid assets - which is called a "bad investment decision", but which is nevertheless legalized theft.

Sure, there are laws governing this sort of thing, but the pension industry has become masters of deception, "swapping" pension fund investments to evade the strict provisions of the law.  It's quite a shell game...

[Waitone]

Welcome to the wave of the future.  There is a financial meltdown out there of which pensions and retirement programs constitute a small part.  As long as we head down the globalists road we will eventually come to the conclusion that the MexicoUSACanda (is use the term to describe the specific entity being created) can not afford to compete against other counties when those countries have socialized retirement and medical systems.  Pensions and retirements systems will be converted to 401-K's or off loaded on the federal government (only if the company is big enough).  Pensions and medical care constitute a financial burden which can not be sustained as long as the US government supports labor arbitrage.

[brimic]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who deliberately put their financial future in someone else's hands. 401K is a grgeat tool to help people take ownership of their futures, but its only a start. I have a feeling that in 20 or 30 years there will be a lot fo people bitching about how their 401K account isn't enough to cover retirement when they 'sacrificed' 5% of their income to it. If people cut out $1000 worth of spending a month by not: buying new clothes every week, buying a new car every year, not going out to eat 3 times a week, and not paying $200 a month on cell phones, cable tv, and high speed internet a month, they can invest that money into Roths, trad IRAs, real eastate, on top of their 401k plan. Wife and I have been doing this for 5 years now and already have a huge 'nest egg' built up. If we can do it, darn near anyone can.

I look at it the same way people on THR look at survival preparedness. Just because others think you are a wild eyed loon for stockpiling for the rainy day doesn't mean you are wrong. It also doesn't mean that you should have to cover for everyone else on the street who has the attitude of "someone else will take care of me" up until the SHTF day. Besides, I like money, I like using money to make more money, I like keeping my money or giving it away to worthy causes, I DO NOT like having money taken from me. Molon La$e

Pensions were all the rage up to 20 years ago, and for the msot part large companies honored them. A more recent phenomenon with organized labor pricing themselves out of a job and causing corporations to file for bankruptcy to stay in business has caused these companies to default.

If anyone believes that government will come through on their promises with S.S. in 30 years, I have some really nice subtropical oceanfront property in Upper Michigan to sell you.

[Paddy]

We're not talking about the pensions not being enough, but not being available at all, having been underfunded/ripped off by the employers.  A deal's a deal, and as long as these employers have assets (including the personal assets of directors and officers) they should be compelled to make good on their promises.

Agreed that there is no rational excuse for neglecting saving and retirement concerns, and that people spend way too much money on toys.  However, the entire country's economy is dependent on consumer spending, and I don't think that's sustainable policy.   Most people spend more than they can afford and as a result, we have an economy supported by consumer debt.  I think it's a house of cards.

The stock market has crashed before and most assuredly can crash again.  Many people are just now recovering losses they incurred after 9/11, and this is without some serious event like terrorism in the CONUS, or some widespread biological or health hazard.  If you're young enough, there's time to make it up again.  I'm pushing 60, and there isn't enough working time left for me to rebuild my nestegg.  If part of that nestegg were an promised pension in 5 years, and I found out it isn't there, I'd be really, really pissed.

[Paddy]

There is a school of thought that says the Enron phenomena grew out of the Clinton administration; corporate executive saw Clinton get away with the most outrageous behavior and decided they could too.   How long will it be until other companies begin to follow this lead and just ignore pension obligations?   And hey, if that works, let's just cheat investors, too.  There goes your retirement portfolio, but you shouldn't have counted on it anyway.  I think not.  Law exists in part to enforce agreements.  Do corporations exist to shield thieves?

[roo_ster]

I will be forever grateful to the high school teacher who showed us the actuarial tables for Social Security and then did hte analysis of projected economic/population growth and the tax rates required to support Social Security.  I never looked at defined benefit (traditional pensions, SS, etc) retirement programs as anything but worthless ever since.  If a high school student, who has worked nothing but landscaping & grunt manual labor jobs can figure this out, few others can claim ignorance.

If it doesn't have my name on it and I can not move it around, it just does not exist, as far as I am concerned.  Oh, yeah, my company says I am now eligible for a pension at retirement, but I don't expect bupkus.  It is so much wind.

I dump 10% (with a 4% company stock match from my company) into a 401k.  I also play the "zero dependent zero interest" annual savings plan, despite having a wife & child.  I get a pretty good passel back come tax-time & about half of it goes to long-term savings (college savingss, etc).  Yes, I am aware that this is not the ideal way to save over the year, but we can not risk having to shell out come tax time.  Period.  Too many unplanned for expenditures make for credit card debt, which we have thus far avoided.  We have only our mortgage & 18 months left on a 3 year car note for debt.

[brimic]

And hey, if that works, let's just cheat investors, too.

A corporation IS the investors. If anyone is going to rob, cheat, or steal, its going to be the heads of the corporation who were put in place by the shareholders. If you don't approve of a CEO and the board of a corporation you can vote with your feet and sell your shares.

There is a school of thought that says the Enron phenomena grew out of the Clinton administration; corporate executive saw Clinton get away with the most outrageous behavior and decided they could too.

I don't buy this.  As much as it pains me to defend Clinton, his getting a BJ, his unseemly behavior, and his lying to congress has nothing to do with people being crooks.

How long will it be until other companies begin to follow this lead and just ignore pension obligations?

If they want to stay reputable, they go as far as they can before they claim bunkruptcy- this is the only way they can shed their pension burden, a director in a corporation can't just wake up one morning and have a Eureka moment where he decides it would be great to cut off pensions, goes in to work, writes a memo, and its a done deal.

BTW, consumers default on their financial obligations everyday when they file for bankrupcy because they have $75,000 in credit card debt and can't pay it off.

The stock market has crashed before and most assuredly can crash again.  Many people are just now recovering losses they incurred after 9/11, and this is without some serious event like terrorism in the CONUS, or some widespread biological or health hazard

worrying about 'what ifs' and burying your savings in a coffee can in your backyard will never get a person ahead. Do you think Donald Trump worries about "holy geez I hope that building this giant casino/hotel isn't going to break me?"  He got ahead in life by taking huge risks, not relying on others to watch his back.

[Paddy]

Do you think Donald Trump worries about "holy geez I hope that building this giant casino/hotel isn't going to break me?"  He got ahead in life by taking huge risks, not relying on others to watch his back.

Not to mention filing bankruptcy twice.

[brimic]

Not to mention filing bankruptcy twice

There's is something to be said about picking your self up, dusting yourself off, and getting back on the horse.

[Guest]

Yeah,  screw all your creditors, while maintaning your lavish personal life and keeping all of your other highly lucretive buisnesses

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Well, umm, if you depend on your pension, doesn't that make you, umm, dependent on your pension?  Dependent is dependent.  What's your problem with Limbaugh (or anyone) pointing out something so obvious?

Corporate welfare states are almost as bad as government welfare states.  Their only redeeming quality (as compared to goverment welfare states) is that you aren't forced to participate.  No company can long afford to pay for someone who isn't providing anything.  Corporations arn't the magic money machines that most people seem to think they are.  They can only pay out as much as they bring in (over the long term) or they go under.

As for expecting to receive your pension check, well...  Yeah, you should be able to expect a corporation to honor its word.  But the reality is that the execs who promised pensions were bone stupid.  They should have known the situation was untenable.  And frankly, so should the workers.  The unions deserve a share of the blame for this.

If you rely upon others to meet your needs, then you have every reason to expect you needs to go unmet.  I dont like it any more than the next man, but it's still true.  Such is the reality of the world.

(And a pox on any corporation of employee who thinks the government (i.e. your fellow citizens) should be forced to bail out your failing pension program.  YOU made a stupid deal with your employer, and YOU should bear the consequences.  Leave the rest of us out of it!)

[El Tejon]

I got to hear all about the stupidity of corporate America (GM) from my father growing up.  He never expected to receive a dime upon retirement and now views his "golden parachute" (we need guys like you to leave, here's money now and forever) as bonus for the sake of his grandchildren's education.

I don't expect a dime from Socialist Security or from any corporation, private or governmental.  No doubt those people who did depend on their pension are getting a raw deal, but it is the consequence of allowing oneself to become dependent (it's not right, it's just reality).

[garrettwc]

HTG, excellent post.

[Paddy]

Corporate welfare states are almost as bad as government welfare states.  Their only redeeming quality (as compared to goverment welfare states) is that you aren't forced to participate.  No company can long afford to pay for someone who isn't providing anything.

And this mindset is exactly the problem.  Excuse me, I always though 'welfare' meant something for nothing, like foodstamps or government housing.  Now we're expanding the concept of 'welfare' to include earnings?   These pension agreements were part of a compensation package that was earned in exchange for labor.  Because the 'consideration' (you are familiar with the elements of a contact, right?) was deferred makes it no less an obligation than the original wages.  To classify an individual as 'dependent' because he or she demands something lawfully, morally, and ethically due them is shortsighted and self serving in the extreme.

[garrettwc]

And this mindset is exactly the problem.  Excuse me, I always though 'welfare' meant something for nothing, like foodstamps or government housing.

Welfare, as defined by the dictionary is Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

The welfare state as HTG was referring to is A social system whereby the state(or company) assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security. (my emphasis added)
The point is placing the primary responsibility for your well being in the hands of a disinterested third party, instead of taking responsibility for yourself.

Now we're expanding the concept of 'welfare' to include earnings?   These pension agreements were part of a compensation package that was earned in exchange for labor.  Because the 'consideration' (you are familiar with the elements of a contact, right?) was deferred makes it no less an obligation than the original wages.

You are right in as much as you consider it a contract. But it is more like a futures contract on the financial market, than a traditional exchange contract. The way I understand it, you are agreeeing to take a specified income right now, in exchange for a specified amount at a later date. The futures portion is that you are betting that sales will grow at a rate large enough to sustain all the retired employees who are no longer producing revenue. That in my opinion is a sucker bet, just like Social Security.