More people forced into ER and early social security

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba especially since I heard last week no raises at w*rk for anyone next year.

Same here. See also 2008, 2009.....

[Stevewc]

First I should point out I have not read the entire thread so may have missed where someone covered my point. It might even be random but heavy on my mind?
I think that the baby boomers have paid in plenty money to support SS.
Our congress critters have spent the money on other programs and basically wasted our funds. The system needs to be a lock box of some sort to be retirement funds only. No going into the SS fund for other BS programs. After all SS money is paid out each year the rest is wasted on other BS stuff. We would not be in the terrible shape we are in if the congress critters had kept their dirty paws out of the fund. Actually there is no fund. It is robbed each and ever year.
Just my .02
Steve

PS. I have written my congress idiots about this subject several times. Maybe you should write yours.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevewc The system needs to be a lock box of some sort to be retirement funds only.

Not to make light of your concern, but what would you have them do with all the dollar bills that pile up in this "lock box"? If you or I were a fiduciary for a trust, we would owe an obligation to the beneficiary of the trust to invest the money prudently. Social security works the same way; the money is invested in special United States government obligations, which have always been viewed as the touchstone of prudent investing. In fact, for social security to remain solvent, it relies on the interest paid on these special notes.

Here is a link that makes the mechanism clearer.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, you and I may legitimately gripe that the obligation of the federal government to repay those social security "special notes", when added to all the other government obligations, is too large. But the solution to that problem lies in fiscal discipline throughout the government. The mechanism for funding social security is not the actual problem and changing it to a warehouse-sized "lock box" full of dollar bills is not the solution.

[Stevewc]

It appears you have taken this a step further than my understanding goes. If there is such a fund that is kept then the treasury bonds sound good to me. My understanding is that there really is no fund at all. I heard President G.W. Bush (not to get political) make a statement on TV that after the retirees were paid each year, any left over money was used for other programs and such. These are surely not his exact words but close.
Steve
PS. I will read the link and try to learn more. Thanks
PSS. This probably part of the speech (Below) I referred to, its in your link:


On February 2, 2005, President George W. Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. One consequence was increased public attention to the nature of the Social Security Trust Fund. Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government". The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Not to make light of your concern, but what would you have them do with all the dollar bills that pile up in this "lock box"? If you or I were a fiduciary for a trust, we would owe an obligation to the beneficiary of the trust to invest the money prudently. Social security works the same way; the money is invested in special United States government obligations, which have always been viewed as the touchstone of prudent investing. In fact, for social security to remain solvent, it relies on the interest paid on these special notes. Here is a link that makes the mechanism clearer. Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Now, you and I may legitimately gripe that the obligation of the federal government to repay those social security "special notes", when added to all the other government obligations, is too large. But the solution to that problem lies in fiscal discipline throughout the government. The mechanism for funding social security is not the actual problem and changing it to a warehouse-sized "lock box" full of dollar bills is not the solution.

[Escort Rider]

Back to the original thread subject (people being forced by their circumstances to take Social Securtiy retirement benefits at age 62), only one poster has alluded to the one conceivable upside to this. The downsides are obvious - the individuals involved will have lower benefits for life and it puts more financial strain on Soc. Sec. in the short term. But in the long term, it will ease strain on the system as all those people who took benefits at 62 reach their break-even age. Not much to cheer about, admittedly. But it is an upside.

[HsiaoChu]

When times are good, employers are nice to employees, because they can. But over the 30 years, employers have done a great PR job in making employees feel that time will always be great and that employers will always be nice, and thus they don't need unions. As such Union membership has declined. People have developed the managment's view of Unions, and have figured that Unions are a waste and who needs them, which is exactly the view that managment has wanted to workers to have.

As times have turned bad, people don't really know what to do, but they aren't turning to Union collective bargaining because they have been brainwashed by management to believe that Unions are bad. The pendulum will swing. But in bad economic times, Unions continue to protect their workers. And now the non-unionized are unhappy. Funny how they were not before.

People should read the story of how unions formed and what they do. In education, there are some places with really strong unions and some places without. The managment brainwashing is so successful that people complain that Educator Unions don't care about children as if that is some kind of indictment. Of course, Educator Unions don't care about children, any more than Auto worker unions want to make better cars, or UPS unions want to make shipping faster.

The bottom line, despite widespread management brainwashing, is that Unions work to protect their workers from abuse by management, easy firing for no real reason, and work to increase or at least hold the line on salaries and benefits including retirement options.

It will turn back again, but people need to wake up to management brainwashing.
IMnotsohumbleopinionofcourse. And of course, you may be part of management or you may have been brainwashed at a very early age.

HS

[bubba]

Regarding post above, I'm not interested in unions, but to each his or her own.

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba ...I'm not interested in unions, but to each his or her own.

You would be if you worked in a "closed shop" and the only way you could keep your job (after an initial probation period) was to join the union.

You may not be interested and there may be others that think like you (e.g. no desire to join), but that freedom is taken away from you.

Not anti-union (worked with them, but never in one), but just pro-facts.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba Regarding post above, I'm not interested in unions, but to each his or her own.

This whole topic is a diversion, but I'll jump in to say that I worked in a nonunion shop out of high school where the employer let people get repeatedly splashed with 600 degree liquid zinc because installing splash guards would have cost literally a few hundred dollars.

I later worked with union employees who would let the company lose thousands of dollars rather than step outside of a very narrowly defined job responsibility for a few minutes.

Not black and white.

[nun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover This whole topic is a diversion, but I'll jump in to say that I worked in a nonunion shop out of high school where the employer let people get repeatedly splashed with 600 degree liquid zinc because installing splash guards would have cost literally a few hundred dollars. I later worked with union employees who would let the company lose thousands of dollars rather than step outside of a very narrowly defined job responsibility for a few minutes. Not black and white.

I worked in at a blast furnace for a summer. It was fully unionized and everyone was supplied with "hot metal" clothing which was thick felt material. The guys on the cast house floor who's job it was to drill out the plug at the base of the furnace and direct the molten metal into rail cars never wore the protective clothing, just sneekers and shorts as it was so hot. There was also great pride in the scars and burns that all of them had from the metal splashing on their skin.

[landonew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HsiaoChu The bottom line, despite widespread management brainwashing, is that Unions work to protect their workers from abuse by management, easy firing for no real reason, and work to increase or at least hold the line on salaries and benefits including retirement options. It will turn back again, but people need to wake up to management brainwashing. IMnotsohumbleopinionofcourse. And of course, you may be part of management or you may have been brainwashed at a very early age. HS

Do they? Or do they prevent necessary contractions during the down times?

The UAW's dismantling of the American auto industry is particularly telling.

Why GM's Plan Won't Work

Quote:

The carmaker is saddled with a $1,600-per-vehicle handicap in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits. Any day now, GM is likely to get slapped with a junk-bond rating. GM has lost a breathtaking 74% of its market value -- some $43 billion -- since spring of 2000,

That $1,600/vehicle doesn't even include other benefits (read cost-increases) obtained through collective bargaining. Without the government bailout, most (likely all) of these UAW employees would be out of a job.

Thus, there is a convincing argument that labor-unions, at least in some instances, do not protect the long-term interests of their members.

[travelover]

Right. When a CEO writes himself a $100 million dollar bonus, it is necessary compensation to remain competitive. When a guy spends 30 years with his head in an engine compartment on the assembly line and negotiates a retirement with dignity, he is "ruining the company".

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Right. When a CEO writes himself a $100 million dollar bonus, it is necessary compensation to remain competitive. When a guy spends 30 years with his head in an engine compartment on the assembly line and negotiates a retirement with dignity, he is "ruining the company".

That's a hollow argument. I don't think you'll find anyone here defending outrageous CEO salaries either. Many of us have pointed to it as a problem, and likely due to issues of transparency and an intentionally 'closed' market at that level (BOD and execs keeping it closed).

Sounds like you are trying to justify one wrong with another. Many of those benefits for people with their heads in engine compartments weren't really 'negotiated', they threatened to shut down the company if they didn't get them. I've never heard a CEO try that one.

And while this doesn't make it right - add up the (former) Big 3 CEO and top exec salaries over the past 50 years, assign some portion as 'excess', and then compare that to the 'excess' wage and benefits the UAW workers got over that time. I bet one had a much bigger impact on the bottom line than the other, just due to the numbers.

-ERD50

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Agreed. Which is why I called them "outright liars."

Fixed...

I don't begrudge CEOs their pay/ perks, but it does seem that the game is rigged. As for unions, I agree that many, in cahoots with management, negotiated short-term deals without a longer-term, sustainable view.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 That's a hollow argument. I don't think you'll find anyone here defending outrageous CEO salaries either. Many of us have pointed to it as a problem, and likely due to issues of transparency and an intentionally 'closed' market at that level (BOD and execs keeping it closed). Sounds like you are trying to justify one wrong with another. Many of those benefits for people with their heads in engine compartments weren't really 'negotiated', they threatened to shut down the company if they didn't get them. I've never heard a CEO try that one. And while this doesn't make it right - add up the (former) Big 3 CEO and top exec salaries over the past 50 years, assign some portion as 'excess', and then compare that to the 'excess' wage and benefits the UAW workers got over that time. I bet one had a much bigger impact on the bottom line than the other, just due to the numbers. -ERD50

My point is that people are uniformly greedy. The CEO's job is to negotiate with the union and make sure that he doesn't agree to anything in negotiations that the company can't afford. That was not done - repeatedly. The board of director's job is to make sure that the CEO doesn't steal too much for himself and his buddies. That was also not done and encouraged the union to get "their share". Quoting a 5 year old article and claiming that the UAW was responsible for most of GM's problems is inflammatory at best and disingenuous at worst.

Back to Social Security - are we as Americans not like the UAW who demand more and more even though it is not sustainable? Who asks before they accept their SS check if they have contributed enough or if the distribution is sustainable long term? We want that and free medical care, as well.

[landonew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover My point is that people are uniformly greedy. The CEO's job is to negotiate with the union and make sure that he doesn't agree to anything in negotiations that the company can't afford. That was not done - repeatedly. The board of director's job is to make sure that the CEO doesn't steal too much for himself and his buddies. That was also not done and encouraged the union to get "their share". Quoting a 5 year old article and claiming that the UAW was responsible for most of GM's problems is inflammatory at best and disingenuous at worst.

A 5 year article is disingenuous you say? Do you think the information is out-dated? If so, it is only because of the government bailout.

What is "disengenuous" is paying a "guy with his head in an engine compartment" an unsustainable wage and then lobbying congress for a bailout after the company becomes uncompetitive.

Noone is saying that the UAW workers didn't work hard or that they are bad people. I truly believe that, on average, they are as hard-working as the rest of us.

That being said, a lot of us hard-working folks get paid far less than $70/hour.

UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour | The Heritage Foundation

This article was written in Dec-2008, so hopefully you will find this less inflamatory.

Anyhow, I don't think anyone blames the UAW workers for GM's downfall - I would have done the same thing in their position. I do, however, think that the result accurately illustrates the long-term effects of unionization (at least in some instances).

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Quoting a 5 year old article and claiming that the UAW was responsible for most of GM's problems is inflammatory at best and disingenuous at worst.

I think plenty of people would see it as neither inflammatory nor disingenuous, just factual. One could argue about the word 'most', surly there was blame to go around, but this line gives some perspective:

Quote:

When GM shut down for 54 days during a 1998 labor action, it knocked a full percentage point off the U.S. economic growth rate that quarter. Those workers, who made parts needed by every GM assembly plant, struck for 54 days over what they said were local issues. That shut down the entire company, costing it $2 billion and nine percentage points of market share, though GM recovered all but a point of that by yearend.

I doubt any GM CEO knocked a full percentage point off the U.S. economic growth rate in any one quarter.

Quote:

Back to Social Security - are we as Americans not like the UAW who demand more and more even though it is not sustainable? Who asks before they accept their SS check if they have contributed enough or if the distribution is sustainable long term? We want that and free medical care, as well.

I know plenty of people who have said all along that they would rather have the money that went into SS and fend for themselves. You can't just frame these things to make your point, and disregard that reality.

But I agree with you, the ones who want, want, want at the expense of others and who risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg are a LOT like the UAW workers.

-ERD50

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew A 5 year article is disingenuous you say? Do you think the information is out-dated? If so, it is only because of the government bailout.

Not true The UAW accepted huge wage and benefit cuts prior to the bailout and even more during the bankruptcy. Future hires get about $14 an hour.

Quote:

What is "disengenuous" is paying a "guy with his head in an engine compartment" an unsustainable wage and then lobbying congress for a bailout after the company becomes uncompetitive.

You can thank GM management for that.

Quote:

Noone is saying that the UAW workers didn't work hard or that they are bad people. I truly believe that, on average, they are as hard-working as the rest of us. That being said, a lot of us hard-working folks get paid far less than $70/hour. UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour | The Heritage Foundation This article was written in Dec-2008, so hopefully you will find this less inflamatory.

The Heritage Foundation is hardly a source for an unbiased view of any union activity

Quote:

Anyhow, I don't think anyone blames the UAW workers for GM's downfall - I would have done the same thing in their position. I do, however, think that the result accurately illustrates the long-term effects of unionization (at least in some instances).

What it all comes down to is that eventually the union asked for excessive benefits and their management decided to kick the can down the road and take as much for themselves as possible before the whole game ended. Unions are necessary when workers are abused. The early organizers literally put their necks on the line to get what they got. Once that was achieved greed took over. In other industries an equilibrium was reached between union demands and fair treatment. That did not happen at GM. To put the primary blame on the workers or to suggest that fundamentally unions are a bad thing is wrong.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I doubt any GM CEO knocked a full percentage point off the U.S. economic growth rate in any one quarter.

The old "he stole more than I did" defense.

Quote:

I know plenty of people who have said all along that they would rather have the money that went into SS and fend for themselves. You can't just frame these things to make your point, and disregard that reality.

And will they still accept SS money if it exceeds what they paid in?

Quote:

But I agree with you, the ones who want, want, want at the expense of others and who risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg are a LOT like the UAW workers. -ERD50

Right because it is human nature.

[landonew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Not true The UAW accepted huge wage and benefit cuts prior to the bailout and even more during the bankruptcy. Future hires get about $14 an hour.

As they should. Moreover, my understanding (which is limited) is that the UAW got precedence over bond holders in the GM bankruptcy, even though they were the junior lienholder.

Quote:

You can thank GM management for that. The Heritage Foundation is hardly a source for an unbiased view of any union activity

You challenge the source, but don't refute the facts (i.e. $70/hour). Not very persuasive in my book.

Quote:

What it all comes down to is that eventually the union asked for excessive benefits and their management decided to kick the can down the road and take as much for themselves as possible before the whole game ended. Unions are necessary when workers are abused. The early organizers literally put their necks on the line to get what they got. Once that was achieved greed took over. In other industries an equilibrium was reached between union demands and fair treatment. That did not happen at GM. To put the primary blame on the workers or to suggest that fundamentally unions are a bad thing is wrong.

I don't think a 54 day strike amounts to "politely" asking for excessive benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover The old "he stole more than I did" defense. And will they still accept SS money if it exceeds what they paid in? Right because it is human nature.

Wasn't it you who brought up the GM executives compensation?

So not only do you try to justify a wrong with a wrong (i.e. execs stole, therefore excess compensation for UAW is justifiable), you try to do so with a wrong that is far less significant.


At the end of the day, what made GM uncompetitive? Executive compensation or GM assembly line workers getting paid $70/hour?