22 plays were reversed so far today, most since at least 2000

[Bemular]

Everyone in the private sector is going away from pensions. They're one of the most fiscally irresponsible ideas ever contrived. A lot of companies have filed bankrupcy because there was no way they could fulfill the pension promises they made (American Airlines did if I'm not mistaken; I think Hostess did; a bunch of others... even the city of Stockton, CA filed for bankruptcy a few months ago because of that same reason; Vallejo did a while back too). Nobody in their right mind is going to offer pensions any more. If the ref's insist of 'em then they're never work again.

Gotta slow your roll right there - You are exactly 100% dead wrong! They very well may be the worst managed idea ever contrived but they are as sound as savings from a fiscal perspective.

 

[NinerSickness]

Gotta slow your roll right there - You are exactly 100% dead wrong! They very well may be the worst managed idea ever contrived but they are as sound as savings from a fiscal perspective.

Let me be more specific and see what you think about this. Say a company or a city / state, etc. create a pension. Say this pension has a guarenteed payment based on the salary you made there. This is how they do it:

They base the payment on a projection of a certain percentage gain on their investments. In the CTA, for example, they signed contracts under Davis in CA, and they were projecting annual gains of around 7+% a year. Their actual investments over that time, if I'm not mistaken, LOST money or was closer to 1% (I think they had a lot of real estate in their portfolios). In the cases of state gov't, tax payers make up the difference. In the private sector (like the NFL), they can't pass the buck, so they file for bankruptcy.

How is projecting what investments will be in the future responsible?

They should go to a 401K.

 

[Bemular]

Let me be more specific and see what you think about this. Say a company or a city / state, etc. create a pension. Say this pension has a guarenteed payment based on the salary you made there. This is how they do it:

They base the payment on a projection of a certain percentage gain on their investments. In the CTA, for example, they signed contracts under Davis in CA, and they were projecting annual gains of around 7+% a year. Their actual investments over that time, if I'm not mistaken, LOST money or was closer to 1% (I think they had a lot of real estate in their portfolios). In the cases of state gov't, tax payers make up the difference. In the private sector (like the NFL), they can't pass the buck, so they file for bankruptcy.

How is projecting what investments will be in the future responsible?

They should go to a 401K.

Umm, Okay, like I said and you just so wonderfully demonstrated, the idea of pensions are not the problem, management of pensions is the problem - more succinctly stated, management, greed and corruption and perhaps even regulations (or the lack thereof) are the problem.

Your "they can't pass the buck, so they file bankruptcy." comment clearly demonstrates your need to study quite a bit more on this subject before you're ready to discuss it. Can you seriously not identify the blind ignorance within that statement?

Look, NinerSickness retirement mechanisms are not complex in theory but have been made complex in practice even controversial in their results for many reasons, reasons of which you know nothing about.

When you make broad statements about companies & cities going bankrupt because of pensions you're not making an intelligent statement about how pensions work or don't work, you're making a political statement.

 

[NinerSickness]

Umm, Okay, like I said and you just so wonderfully demonstrated, the idea of pensions are not the problem, management of pensions is the problem

I'll be more sprcific: defined payment is irresponsible. And every pension of which I've beomce apprised in my life are written like this, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Maybe some random company somewhere doesn't; they would be the exception. Pensions write their budgets in without knowing what their investments will do. That is irresponsible, which the private sector is going to 401K's (and so should the public sector).

Your "they can't pass the buck, so they file bankruptcy." comment clearly demonstrates your need to study quite a bit more on this subject before you're ready to discuss it.

You're patronizing me. I've been reading about this kind of thing my entire life. Don't call something "ignorant" because you don't like the criticism of pensions.

When you make broad statements about companies & cities going bankrupt because of pensions you're not making an intelligent statement about how pensions work or don't work, you're making a political statement.

I'm absolutely saying how they work. PENSIONS DEFINE THE PAYMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT REVENUES WILL BE! That's not a political statement. Sounds like you, not I, need to go back and read about this, because a retiree with a $75,000 annual pension, for example, would laugh at you. Not trying to be a a-hole about it, but this is a fact.

Conclusion: The private sector isn't going to sign contracts with pensions any more with maybe a few exceptions here and there. They've learned their lessons.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

I'll be more sprcific: defined payment is irresponsible. And every pension of which I've beomce apprised in my life are written like this, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Maybe some random company somewhere doesn't; they would be the exception. Pensions write their budgets in without knowing what their investments will do. That is irresponsible, which the private sector is going to 401K's (and so should the public sector).



You're patronizing me. I've been reading about this kind of thing my entire life. Don't call something "ignorant" because you don't like the criticism of pensions.

I'm absolutely saying how they work. PENSIONS DEFINE THE PAYMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT REVENUES WILL BE! That's not a political statement. Sounds like you, not I, need to go back and read about this, because a retiree with a $75,000 annual pension, for example, would laugh at you. Not trying to be a a-hole about it, but this is a fact.

Conclusion: The private sector isn't going to sign contracts with pensions any more with maybe a few exceptions here and there. They've learned their lessons.

You're exactly right on this one. I understand the premise that the employees would agree to take less up front to get more on the back end, but it is an unmitigated disaster when played out in reality because of the uncertainty of returns based on pie in the sky projections, and putting yourself in a position where someone can work 20 years, then get paid 90% of their highest salary (not average) for the next 40-60 years and totally drain everything. But hey, the people who set up the program will be long gone by then and taken their share so it really doesn't matter, right?

The political part comes into play when these entities fill the gap with stolen money (i.e. taxpayer money or printed money). But I'm sure the government will be happy to step in and settle this dispute by providing 30 year guaranteed bonds to satisfy each individual dollar for dollar during periods of high inflation. That is how I comically see this mess ending.

If you can't make the payment, you go bust. That's the way it works unless you have the backing of a money press/tax collector to bail you out. I'm not even sure what the argument is against that point.

 

[Bemular]

Let me be more specific and see what you think about this. Say a company or a city / state, etc. create a pension. Say this pension has a guarenteed payment based on the salary you made there. This is how they do it:

They base the payment on a projection of a certain percentage gain on their investments. In the CTA, for example, they signed contracts under Davis in CA, and they were projecting annual gains of around 7+% a year. Their actual investments over that time, if I'm not mistaken, LOST money or was closer to 1% (I think they had a lot of real estate in their portfolios). In the cases of state gov't, tax payers make up the difference. In the private sector (like the NFL), they can't pass the buck, so they file for bankruptcy.

How is projecting what investments will be in the future responsible?

They should go to a 401K.

Umm, Okay, like I said and you just so wonderfully demonstrated, the idea of pensions are not the problem, management of pensions is the problem - more succinctly stated, management, greed and corruption and perhaps even regulations (or the lack thereof) are the problem.

Your "they can't pass the buck, so they file bankruptcy." comment clearly demonstrates your need to study quite a bit more on this subject before you're ready to discuss it. Can you seriously not identify the blind ignorance within that statement?

Look, NinerSickness retirement mechanisms are not complex in theory but have been made complex in practice even controversial in their results for many reasons, reasons of which you know nothing about.

When you make broad statements about companies & cities going bankrupt because of pensions you're not making an intelligent statement about how pensions work or don't work, you're making a political statement.

Your response to my post was confusing, so I want to try this again. I have again posted our conversation and will repeat my responses below with some further explanation to help you along.


"Umm, Okay, like I said and you just so wonderfully demonstrated, the idea of pensions are not the problem, management of pensions is the problem - more succinctly stated, management, greed and corruption and perhaps even regulations (or the lack thereof) are the problem."

Here I was pointing to the obvious issues you highlighted in your above (top) post that supported what I said when I first responded in this thread about private sector pensions. Here is that response again in case you forgot:

"They [pensions] very well may be the worst managed idea ever contrived but they are as sound as savings from a fiscal perspective."

Now, can you find where in your above comment where you confirmed with your own words just a trickle of some of the management issues that plagued pension funds?



"Your "they can't pass the buck, so they file bankruptcy." comment clearly demonstrates your need to study quite a bit more on this subject before you're ready to discuss it. Can you seriously not identify the blind ignorance within that statement?"

I wrote the above not to be controversial but you responded rather defensively, saying:

"You're patronizing me. I've been reading about this kind of thing my entire life. Don't call something "ignorant" because you don't like the criticism of pensions."

First off, I don't mind the criticism of pensions; in fact I agree with some maybe even a lot of it. What I called ignorant was in fact ignorant.

My question as to your apparent inability to identify the blind ignorance within your statement was not at all patronizing - it was an actual question.


I then wrote:

"Look, NinerSickness retirement mechanisms are not complex in theory but have been made complex in practice even controversial in their results for many reasons, reasons of which you know nothing about."

Can you speak from an educated platform and not a political one to some of these complexities and controversies that have contributed to the downfall of pensions?


I then wrote:

"When you make broad statements about companies & cities going bankrupt because of pensions you're not making an intelligent statement about how pensions work or don't work, you're making a political statement."

Pensions have been around for 100's of years and have and still work effectively for both businesses and retiree's. But now suddenly they are the cause of some businesses and even some municipalities to go bankrupt.

Sorry Sickness and I'm not trying to be a dick here, but that is certainly not an intelligent statement and since you're claiming it is not a political statement that leaves only one possibility.


Look Sick, earlier you asked: "How is projecting what investments will be in the future responsible?" By that question I don't think you have a shred of knowledge about pensions, or for that matter finance & investment in general.

You clearly do not know the history of pensions, their architecture, why some succeed while others fail. Why some are bad and others good, what are some good arguments against them as well as good arguments for them, etc, etc, etc.


But screaming blind statements such as:

PENSIONS DEFINE THE PAYMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT REVENUES WILL BE!

and:

"They're one of the most fiscally irresponsible ideas ever contrived!"

and:

"defined payment is irresponsible!"

certainly does not inspire much thought and even less insight into this wealth of knowledge you proclaim to have.

My argument stands. The biggest problem with pensions is not the "idea" of them but rather the broad and general mismanagement of them.

A well-managed pension fund can be profitable for a company or municipality while a poorly managed fund can be disastrous. Perhaps you should begin your studies by trying to ascertain why that is.

Good Luck!

 

[mem49er]

Your response to my post was confusing, so I want to try this again. I have again posted our conversation and will repeat my responses below with some further explanation to help you along.


"Umm, Okay, like I said and you just so wonderfully demonstrated, the idea of pensions are not the problem, management of pensions is the problem - more succinctly stated, management, greed and corruption and perhaps even regulations (or the lack thereof) are the problem."

Here I was pointing to the obvious issues you highlighted in your above (top) post that supported what I said when I first responded in this thread about private sector pensions. Here is that response again in case you forgot:

"They [pensions] very well may be the worst managed idea ever contrived but they are as sound as savings from a fiscal perspective."

Now, can you find where in your above comment where you confirmed with your own words just a trickle of some of the management issues that plagued pension funds?



"Your "they can't pass the buck, so they file bankruptcy." comment clearly demonstrates your need to study quite a bit more on this subject before you're ready to discuss it. Can you seriously not identify the blind ignorance within that statement?"

I wrote the above not to be controversial but you responded rather defensively, saying:

"You're patronizing me. I've been reading about this kind of thing my entire life. Don't call something "ignorant" because you don't like the criticism of pensions."

First off, I don't mind the criticism of pensions; in fact I agree with some maybe even a lot of it. What I called ignorant was in fact ignorant.

My question as to your apparent inability to identify the blind ignorance within your statement was not at all patronizing - it was an actual question.


I then wrote:

"Look, NinerSickness retirement mechanisms are not complex in theory but have been made complex in practice even controversial in their results for many reasons, reasons of which you know nothing about."

Can you speak from an educated platform and not a political one to some of these complexities and controversies that have contributed to the downfall of pensions?


I then wrote:

"When you make broad statements about companies & cities going bankrupt because of pensions you're not making an intelligent statement about how pensions work or don't work, you're making a political statement."

Pensions have been around for 100's of years and have and still work effectively for both businesses and retiree's. But now suddenly they are the cause of some businesses and even some municipalities to go bankrupt.

Sorry Sickness and I'm not trying to be a dick here, but that is certainly not an intelligent statement and since you're claiming it is not a political statement that leaves only one possibility.


Look Sick, earlier you asked: "How is projecting what investments will be in the future responsible?" By that question I don't think you have a shred of knowledge about pensions, or for that matter finance & investment in general.

You clearly do not know the history of pensions, their architecture, why some succeed while others fail. Why some are bad and others good, what are some good arguments against them as well as good arguments for them, etc, etc, etc.


But screaming blind statements such as:

PENSIONS DEFINE THE PAYMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT REVENUES WILL BE!

and:

"They're one of the most fiscally irresponsible ideas ever contrived!"

and:

"defined payment is irresponsible!"

certainly does not inspire much thought and even less insight into this wealth of knowledge you proclaim to have.

My argument stands. The biggest problem with pensions is not the "idea" of them but rather the broad and general mismanagement of them.

A well-managed pension fund can be profitable for a company or municipality while a poorly managed fund can be disastrous. Perhaps you should begin your studies by trying to ascertain why that is.

Good Luck!

This argument is like discussing Communism. In theory, Communism would be great. In reality, people don't work hard unless they're rewarded for it which is why in reality Capitalism >>>>>>>>>>Communism.

In this scenario, the theory of well managed Pensions are great but in reality, that doesn't exist.

 

[Bemular]

This argument is like discussing Communism. In theory, Communism would be great. In reality, people don't work hard unless they're rewarded for it which is why in reality Capitalism >>>>>>>>>>Communism.

In this scenario, the theory of well managed Pensions are great but in reality, that doesn't exist.

I wouldn't be able to argue either for or against capitalism vs. communism because I have never lived under communistic principals, either governmental of economical. From an economical perspective I'm a mixed economist.

As for pensions, they have been around and working for quite some time so to suggest well managed pension funds don't exist, sorry brother Mem, you are just wrong on that one.

There are many contributing factors to the current sea change of opinion on pensions. Some work great while others are downright criminal. But for someone to make a blanket statement that the very idea of pensions "...[are] one of the most fiscally irresponsible ideas ever contrived." is just grade school.

 

[NinerSickness]

Look Sick, earlier you asked: "How is projecting what investments will be in the future responsible?" By that question I don't think you have a shred of knowledge about pensions, or for that matter finance & investment in general.

You clearly do not know the history of pensions, their architecture, why some succeed while others fail. Why some are bad and others good, what are some good arguments against them as well as good arguments for them, etc, etc, etc.

I'll stick to this point for & go back to the others if time permits. Yes, I do know how Pensions work. I understand that the word "pension" is used differently in different places, so I'm only focusing on defined payment plans. You didn't answer my question there. All you did is say I didn't have a shred of knowledge about pensions or finance. What specifically can you see that I don't know.

So I'll ask again: is it responsible to define a payment without knowing what revenues will be? If so, why?

 

[Bemular]

I'll stick to this point for & go back to the others if time permits. Yes, I do know how Pensions work. I understand that the word "pension" is used differently in different places, so I'm only focusing on defined payment plans. You didn't answer my question there. All you did is say I didn't have a shred of knowledge about pensions or finance. What specifically can you see that I don't know.

So I'll ask again: is it responsible to define a payment without knowing what revenues will be?

Okay, first off you don't even know what they are called. The type of pension you are trying (but failing) to discuss is called a "Defined Benefit Pension", not a Defined Payment Plan. There are DBP's & DCP's.


What you don't know is prevalent in everything you have and have not written in your posts.

For starters you are still unable to see the ignorance of claiming municipalities & businesses go bankrupt because of pensions. You make this claim in absence of knowing anything about the decisions, both ethical and unethical as well as legislation, market conditions, business environments, social changes, local politics, etc, that influence the success or failure of businesses, municipalities, pensions, etc.

According to your posts, you would have us all believe businesses and municipalities that began pension programs years/decades ago did so despite the glaring and certain portend of bankruptcy - Brilliant!


Your "they can't pass the buck, so they file bankruptcy." This statement alone exposes your lack of any knowledge and demonstrates an embarrassing degree of ignorance.


Then there is this beaut:

"They're one of the most fiscally irresponsible ideas ever contrived."

This is just another blind, all-inclusive, uninformed unsupported statement - the kind uniformed individuals make when they want to sound intelligent. The truth is, a well-run pension fund provides excellent fiscal opportunities for all three entities directly impacted.


And lastly with the above question, you're effectively asking for a subjective confirmation based on an irrational condition. Seriously?

Sickness, do you honestly believe when a CFO or City Manager meet with their pension fund managers and they ask for projections the PFM just gives them a blank stare and says "Gee, I dunno?"

No need to answer, the question is rhetorical.


Listen, you are just flat wrong about pensions in the context you have presented them and flat wrong to believe you have any knowledge about them. If you can convince someone otherwise - good for you - bad for them!

I know you said you have been reading about pensions your whole life - That's great! - May I recommend you actually open the book.

 

[NinerSickness]

For the love of crap... Defined payment isn't a technical term; I was highlighting the difference between having a defined payment (or benefit) versus a defined contribution (like in a 401K).

And you refuse to answer the question because you know the answer. It is absolutely irresponsible, and all you can say is "this exposes your ignorance."

I never said companies go or municipalities go bankrupt for the sole reason of over-promised pensions. I said that when they do go bankrupt these companies tear up the contracts, and the people who thought they were going to get their payments are SOL.

Governments, on the other hand, make up the difference between their promises and their revenues via the tax payer. We all know this. You just apparently don't think it's irresponsible & wrong for some reason.

When retired teachers in California, for example, get an average of $51,072 per year, and they'll get that every year for the rest of their lives, those kinds of promises are how the state crossed $500 billion ($24,000+ per family) in unfunded pension liabilities alone this summer based on average lifespans. The private sector, on the other hand, learned its lesson, so they don't offer those retirement plans any more.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Ideology vs. experience.

 

[NinerSickness]

Ideology vs. experience.

Planning VS assuming.

 

[Bemular]

Planning VS assuming.

So are suggesting here that what differentiates DCP's from DBP's is "planning vs. assuming"? I read your other post - pathetic. I didn't take you for a liar so that was disappointing to read. Why would you or anyone for that matter ever engage in a discussion on a topic they no absolutely nothing about?

 

[SY8goat]

 

[mem49er]

Alex Smith started pensions.

 

[Bemular]

For the love of crap... Defined payment isn't a technical term; I was highlighting the difference between having a defined payment (or benefit) versus a defined contribution (like in a 401K).

And you refuse to answer the question because you know the answer. It is absolutely irresponsible, and all you can say is "this exposes your ignorance."

I never said companies go or municipalities go bankrupt for the sole reason of over-promised pensions. I said that when they do go bankrupt these companies tear up the contracts, and the people who thought they were going to get their payments are SOL.

Governments, on the other hand, make up the difference between their promises and their revenues via the tax payer. We all know this. You just apparently don't think it's irresponsible & wrong for some reason.

When retired teachers in California, for example, get an average of $51,072 per year, and they'll get that every year for the rest of their lives, those kinds of promises are how the state crossed $500 billion ($24,000+ per family) in unfunded pension liabilities alone this summer based on average lifespans. The private sector, on the other hand, learned its lesson, so they don't offer those retirement plans any more.

Now that I have a little extra time on my hands I will be happy to respond to this post. I can see many areas where you are not being truthful or embellishing or omitting critical facts. I'll put something together and respond by tonight.

 

[Bemular]

For the love of crap... Defined payment isn't a technical term; I was highlighting the difference between having a defined payment (or benefit) versus a defined contribution (like in a 401K).

And you refuse to answer the question because you know the answer. It is absolutely irresponsible, and all you can say is "this exposes your ignorance."

I never said companies go or municipalities go bankrupt for the sole reason of over-promised pensions. I said that when they do go bankrupt these companies tear up the contracts, and the people who thought they were going to get their payments are SOL.

Governments, on the other hand, make up the difference between their promises and their revenues via the tax payer. We all know this. You just apparently don't think it's irresponsible & wrong for some reason.

When retired teachers in California, for example, get an average of $51,072 per year, and they'll get that every year for the rest of their lives, those kinds of promises are how the state crossed $500 billion ($24,000+ per family) in unfunded pension liabilities alone this summer based on average lifespans. The private sector, on the other hand, learned its lesson, so they don't offer those retirement plans any more.

Sorry for the delay - but I am rather disappointed with your response NinerSickness. You have demonstrated a clear lack of integrity and self-respect which surprises me.


"For the love of crap... Defined payment isn't a technical term; I was highlighting the difference between having a defined payment (or benefit) versus a defined contribution (like in a 401K)."

Yes, from reading your posts I can see you love crap quite a bit! You're right, "defined payment" isn't a technical term and certainly not a term anyone with a "lifetime of knowledge" of Direct Benefit Pensions would use either.

Both a DBP's and a DCP's can have "defined payments" so the only thing you are highlighting here is your ignorance – just as I have stated - repeatedly.


And you refuse to answer the question because you know the answer. It is absolutely irresponsible, and all you can say is "this exposes your ignorance."

I didn't refuse to answer your question, I laughed at it. As noted in my response, the condition you established for which you were seeking a "subjective opinion" (not answer) was irrational. My answer came in the form of a question of which I now know your answer is yes.


I never said companies go or municipalities go bankrupt for the sole reason of over-promised pensions.

Yes you did and now you're trying to lie your way out of it by cowering behind the omission of the word "sole". You cited both private businesses and public municipalities that had to file for bankruptcy because they were unable to pay their pensions. Do you know what the word "because" means?


I said that when they do go bankrupt these companies tear up the contracts, and the people who thought they were going to get their payments are SOL.

This is the chicken-shit lie that bothered me the most. The only positive with your above statement is that tucking your tail between your legs forced you to remove your head from your ass! THIS is what you actually said:

"In the private sector (like the NFL), they can't pass the buck, so they file for bankruptcy."

So now, after being told several times how blindly ignorant your comment was, you finally realize there are stakeholders in a private business bankruptcy proceeding where pensions are concerned. But, instead of being a man and owning your ignorance you would rather just lie about what you really said.


Governments, on the other hand, make up the difference between their promises and their revenues via the tax payer. We all know this. You just apparently don't think it's irresponsible & wrong for some reason.

I'm critical of any form of tax-payer bailout – both public & private. Apparently, you think tax-payer bail-outs are bad in the public sector but good in the private sector – pull your pants up kid, your politics are showing.


When retired teachers in California, for example, get an average of $51,072 per year, and they'll get that every year for the rest of their lives, those kinds of promises are how the state crossed $500 billion ($24,000+ per family) in unfunded pension liabilities alone this summer based on average lifespans. The private sector, on the other hand, learned its lesson, so they don't offer those retirement plans any more.

And then we come to this. This entire statement is nothing more than hyperbole and BS.

So let's break this down:

"When retired teachers in California, for example, get an average of $51,072"

$51,072 is an average not a median. There are significant administrative outliers in the average.

Do you know what the median pension is?

Do you know what the bulk of non-outlying retired teachers make on their pensions?

Do you know what the median pension benefit is for all pensioners (not just teachers)?

Do you know how many years and how much money was invested into the pension systems by these teachers and others?


"…and they'll get that every year for the rest of their lives

Do you know what average life expectancy is for retired teachers?

Do you know what the average value of an average pension for the bottom 80% of retired teachers will be at the end of their average life expectancy including COLA?


"…those kinds of promises are how the state crossed $500 billion ($24,000+ per family) in unfunded pension liabilities alone this summer based on average lifespans."

First off, those are not promises they are benefits – benefits paid on the back-end of a front-end agreement. Pension benefits are not some socialistic handout as you would like to make us believe - so just stop. Here, see if you can answer a few questions.

Where are you getting your $500B figure?

What discount rate was used to derive this figure?

How has the fund performed over the past 15-25 years?

Does the discount rate match the performance rate?

If the answer to the above question is no, then what is the impact of the difference?

What is CalSTRS fully funded ratio?

Where is CalSTRS at today?

Does the $500B represent a current liability or just a single momentary snapshot of an investment portfolio?

If the above answer is the latter then what were the market conditions when this snapshot taken?

You said this $500B was as of this past summer meaning 2012 – can you provide a credible resource supporting this claim?


"The private sector, on the other hand, learned its lesson, so they don't offer those retirement plans anymore."

Private firms have been offering DCP's for decades. This is nothing new so stop acting like you stumbled upon some remarkable revelation. The problem with DCP retirement plans (401k's) is they were never intended to provide full retirement benefits but were intended and designed to be a retirement supplement.

The only thing private corporations learned was how to shift the risk of retirement funding from themselves to those who know very little about investments; thus forcing them to pay exorbitant fees to money laundering firms while investing in the world's largest Ponzi scheme known as the New York Stock Exchange.


Summary:

As I have repeatedly stated, you don't know shit about pensions or retirement mechanisms or investment or anything money related. You have provided nothing more than your equally ignorant political point of view and some 4th grade mathematical formula you claim proves you possess this superior intelligence when it comes to pensions – Forgive my laughter.

Are all DBP policies good? No, some, as I have said, are criminal. But you don't have enough knowledge about pension benefit policy to converse on that level so you choose to follow what I call the "dumb parent" route of just attacking the symptom instead of trying to understand the problem.

 

[NinerSickness]

Looks at you circle the wagons and deflect from the point I was making about Pensions.

Your “dumb parent” analogy is stupid and it’s very revealing about your me-first, state employee ideology. You think because I didn’t write a 90 page essay detailing every single aspect of pension calculations that I’m not qualified to comment on them. Typical. Try to marginalize the person speaking and deflect from the point. Fill the page with red herrings.

First of all, you just pulled a conclusion out of your ass. You said I support private sector bailouts. Hell no I don’t! I don’t support any bailouts. I don’t support states bailing out cities, federal gov’s bailing out states or anyone bailing out anyone else. I say sleep in the bed you make. Screw rewarding people for being irresponsible.

• CalSTRS contribution is only 33.5% of the actual paid benefit. So tax payers, for all you math majors, pay 66.5%. And the percentage tax payers contribute keeps going up because of low actual investment returns and clinging to 7.5 to 7.75% annual would-be returns.
• Median VS Average: The most recent study on this was done by Dr. Joe Nation of Stanford University (former Democrat in the state assembly), and he didn’t include median benefits; he used averages. But with around 150,000-200,000 retired teachers and just over 5,300 of ‘em making over 100K (which is obscene in and of itself), the average & the median are going to be almost identical. At most it’d be a difference of $1,000 one way or the other.
• Age: The average retiree lives to be about 85 & a half. Because you can’t comment on this stuff unless you friggn’ know exactly how long these people are living.
• For CalPERS, benefits are 3% times years services times last year’s salary.
• CalPERS made 1.1% on their portforlio lass year. CalSTRS made 2.7%. They PROMISE (yes, it’s a promise not a benefit because the money isn’t actually in the bank) 7.5 to 7.75%. Guess who’s paying the difference? Unlike in the private sector, tax payers are.

As far as my sources go, I’ve gone through a multitude of them over the years; I’ve focused mainly on CalSTRS because teachers in this state b!tch about their pay more than anyone I’ve ever heard, (even though the average teacher here makes over 100K a year if pension is calculated in). They’re listed below. And by the way, Californians for Retirement Security said about Joe Nation’s study:

"This so-called academic study is an irresponsible exercise in manipulating numbers and relying on faulty data to support a political agenda. … In its latest hit piece, which also is full of inaccuracies and false assumptions, facts and input from several groups that did not support the study's preset conclusions were roundly ignored."

I included his study, but it has been accused of being slanted to hide how big the problem is.

Conclusion: Defined Benefit = assuming and screwing the tax payer if it doesn’t go as planned. That’s why it’s irresponsible and wrong. Go to a 401K.

Ocregister.com (orange county register)
http://siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/Nation Statewide Report v081.pdf
unionwatch.org
Sacbee.com
californiapensionreform.com
Calstrs.com

 

[Bemular]

...

"Looks at you circle the wagons and deflect from the point I was making about Pensions."

Looks at you circling the drain and just laughs at the point your lack of knowledge prohibits you from making.


"Your dumb parent analogy is stupid and it's very revealing about your me-first, state employee ideology."

My dumb parent analogy is over your head, but a "me-first state employee ideology" - Now that sounds fascinating! Tell me more!


"You think because I didn’t write a 90 page essay detailing every single aspect of pension calculations that I’m not qualified to comment on them."

No, actually, I think because your comments are stupid that you are not qualified to comment on them.


"Try to marginalize the person speaking and deflect from the point. Fill the page with red herrings."

Red Herrings? LOL! You mean like the one you are sliding across the trail here? Nice try kid. Besides I'M not marginalizing you - YOU are marginalizing you!


"First of all, you just pulled a conclusion ut of your ass. You said I support private sector bailouts. Hell no I don’t!"

LOL!- I believe I said "apparently" you support private sector bailouts. How great is this, you have now learned two new words – the word "because" and the word "apparently"! Soon you will have enough words to form a whole sentence.


"I don’t support any bailouts. I don’t support states bailing out cities, federal gov’s bailing out states or anyone bailing out anyone else."

Interesting how you didn't mention directly your distain for public sector bailouts of private sector enterprises in your list above. Maybe I'm not wrong about your apparent approval for those types of bailouts.


"I say sleep in the bed you make. Screw rewarding people for being irresponsible"

You go righteous internet guy! Btw, who is being rewarded for being irresponsible?


"CalSTRS contribution is only 33.5% of the actual paid benefit. So tax payers, for all you math majors, pay 66.5%. And the percentage tax payers contribute keeps going up because of low actual investment returns and clinging to 7.5 to 7.75% annual would-be returns."

Soooo, are you saying 66.5% of CalSTRS pensions are paid from California’s GF? Care to prove that? I thought the state had a legislated limit of around 2.17% + 2.5% for Pension II?


"Median VS Average: The most recent study on this was done by Dr. Joe Nation of Stanford University (former Democrat in the state assembly), and he didn’t include median benefits"

Do I care at all that Joe Dirt was a democrat? Umm, No. This is a political conversation only to you. So the median figures are not available. Thanks.

Honestly though, when you consider the restrictions placed upon CalSTRS pensioners, I have no problem with the $51,000 average.


"Age: The average retiree lives to be about 85 & a half."

Excellent!


"For CalPERS, benefits are 3% times years services times last year’s salary."

Ummm, Okay - thanks? I guess.


"CalPERS made 1.1% on their portforlio lass year. CalSTRS made 2.7%. They PROMISE (yes, it’s a promise not a benefit because the money isn’t actually in the bank) 7.5 to 7.75%. Guess who’s paying the difference? Unlike in the private sector, tax payers are."

Nope, still not a promise whether you use all capital letters or not! Still just a benefit. Now, there is a promise in the equation with CalSTRS and I have alluded to it a couple times in our discussion.

I figured with your vast "I’ve been studying this shit my whole life" knowledge you would have picked up on it by now – but you continue to be oblivious to where the promise resides. Perhaps now you will go look for it. Here is a hint - it is legislated.

As for your "Unlike in the private sector, tax payers are." Not sure this is entirely true. Check out ERISA laws & agencies and who insures those agencies.


"As far as my sources go, I’ve gone through a multitude of them over the years; I’ve focused mainly on CalSTRS because teachers in this state b!tch about their pay more than anyone I’ve ever heard, (even though the average teacher here makes over 100K a year if pension is calculated in."

I didn't ask for your sources – but since you provided them things are much clearer. I can now see the genesis of your problem. I would however like you to prove your claim that "teachers" on average make over $100K/Yr and demonstrate how their pensions figure into the result.


"And by the way, Californians for Retirement Security said about Joe Nation’s study:"

"This so-called academic study is an irresponsible exercise in manipulating numbers and relying on faulty data to support a political agenda. … In its latest hit piece, which also is full of inaccuracies and false assumptions, facts and input from several groups that did not support the study's preset conclusions were roundly ignored."

I included his study, but it has been accused of being slanted to hide how big the problem is.

Do you even understand what this study is claiming? Why would you bash pensions then turn around and bash a study that bashes pensions? That's just crazy!


Conclusion: The best way to resolve the pension issue is with reform – not obliteration. DCP's offer some ideas worth considering and perhaps incorporating; however, one of the main priorities with any retirement plan is security and 401k’s are still far too risky to be used as a sole retirement mechanism.