Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-18-2011, 01:15 PM   #201
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
Usually better to get things over with quickly than have them drag on for months, but in some situations the company is forced to provide certain periods of notice.
And even then, they may just pay you for the amount of required notice, hand you a box and tell you to gather all your personal belongings.
__________________

__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-18-2011, 01:29 PM   #202
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
What I'd like to see is a little more connectivity and timeliness between market forces and public sector wage packages so the level of complaining and outrage doesn't need to get so high before tweaks are made and employers (tax payers) feel they are getting good value again but are still able to attract and retain all the qualified employees they wish.

I have no clue how to accomplish that.........
One very blunt instrument: The federal budget (and OPM payscales) could be restated in all legislation and executive branch planning documents as a portion of GDP (rather than $$ amounts). E.g. The FBI's budget for 2011 would be .01% of US GDP for 2010. SS would be xx% of GDP. It ain't perfect, but if the economy contracts, the amount available to spend gets smaller. If the economy barely grows, then the funds appropriated for various functions barely grows. As a by-product, inflation is already accounted for (one year in arrears) if we do all GDP calculations using current-year dollars.
Agency heads and everyone all the way down the line would find out their $$ denominated budget only after the official GDP was calculated. Everyone then has an explicit stake in enhancing US GDP.
Of course, we'd have to watch very closely how the GDP number was calculated each year.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 10-18-2011, 01:38 PM   #203
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,361
This, like the popular balanced budget amendment, would have the effect of turning many recessions into depressions.

Much of government spending is counter-cyclical in nature. You don't spend much on unemployment in boom times. You spend much more on it in recessions.

The last thing you want to be doing in a severe recession is cutting government jobs, SS, unemployment, and Medicaid at the same time. It is better to run deficits during the recession and cut the government jobs during the recovery.

It makes the recovery feel like a recession ( like right now), but it prevents the whole system from burning down in the panic of a depression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
One very blunt instrument: The federal budget (and OPM payscales) could be restated in all legislation and executive branch planning documents as a portion of GDP (rather than $$ amounts). E.g. The FBI's budget for 2011 would be .01% of US GDP for 2010. SS would be xx% of GDP. It ain't perfect, but if the economy contracts, the amount available to spend gets smaller. If the economy barely grows, then the funds appropriated for various functions barely grows. As a by-product, inflation is already accounted for (one year in arrears) if we do all GDP calculations using current-year dollars.
Agency heads and everyone all the way down the line would find out their $$ denominated budget only after the official GDP was calculated. Everyone then has an explicit stake in enhancing US GDP.
Of course, we'd have to watch very closely how the GDP number was calculated each year.
__________________
Hamlet is offline  
Old 10-18-2011, 01:39 PM   #204
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
...My son graduated with his MBA this Spring. I queried my insurance company of whether he would be covered under my retiree company plan until he was 26 (if unemployed) and was told no. Not being satisfied with that answer, I checked it with the DOL and was told, absolutely he can be denied since I was not an active employee under that plan (another loop hole).
It might be cheaper for your son to be insured outside your retirement insurance rather than added to it anyway (assuming you would have to pay for him if he were able to be added to your plan)--he's in a low risk category, I think. And with any luck he'll be employed soon and under that employer's plan!
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline  
Old 10-18-2011, 01:46 PM   #205
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
The last thing you want to be doing in a severe recession is cutting government jobs, SS, unemployment, and Medicaid at the same time. It is better to run deficits during the recession and cut the government jobs during the recovery.
This would be the flip side to Keynesian "pump priming", I agree -- but it's a political nonstarter. Who is going to say "Now that we have a budget surplus and the economy is very strong, we're going to slash government spending, lay off 10% of our workforce and concentrate on retiring public debt"? People who want to be voted out of office, that's who.

But if we can't do that, it's pretty hard to maintain massive deficit spending through recessions.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 10-18-2011, 02:01 PM   #206
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
It might be cheaper for your son to be insured outside your retirement insurance rather than added to it anyway (assuming you would have to pay for him if he were able to be added to your plan)--he's in a low risk category, I think. And with any luck he'll be employed soon and under that employer's plan!
You might be right, I haven't checked on the cost yet since they allowed him to stay on my plan through the end of the year.

Yep, he is hoping for some luck on the jobs side and so is my pocketbook.
__________________
DFW_M5 is offline  
Old 10-18-2011, 02:07 PM   #207
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
Much of government spending is counter-cyclical in nature. You don't spend much on unemployment in boom times. You spend much more on it in recessions.
As Ziggy29 points out, much of it ratchets one way. We don't cut it back when the "crisis" is over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
The last thing you want to be doing in a severe recession is cutting government jobs, SS, unemployment, and Medicaid at the same time. It is better to run deficits during the recession and cut the government jobs during the recovery.
How about we build a rainy day fund into the budget to cover this anticipated spending need? It would be stated as a % of GDP, and we'd let it run up in the good times so we could spend ourselves into happiness when times are rough. Of course this wouldn't work--the fund would get raided to pay for green energy, to aid the blighted inner cities, to pay for a needed military incursion somewhere, etc. And if we agree that this wouldn't work, why should we think that an even less explicit plan to cut government spending when times are good would work?

Government fiscal discipline is what is in short supply. Conversely, we have an overabundance of government "spending flexibility" right now--there's no sign that our present and future trouble is due to the government's failure to spend money.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 10-18-2011, 02:16 PM   #208
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
No, he was covered without any break in coverage, however, the law provides discretion to the company who holds the plan and they do not have to offer this to retirees, since that class is not considered as an active employee. My former company did tell me however, had I been a non-exempt (union) retiree, he would have been covered.

Remeber that some plans are grandfathered and do not fall under the same rules...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 10-18-2011, 02:19 PM   #209
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
I will say this for certain, once a worker knows for sure he going to be riffed, the productivity goes way down until their out the door. Usually better to get things over with quickly than have them drag on for months, but in some situations the company is forced to provide certain periods of notice.
Notice does not mean you have to have them working....

Our Mega would give the 60 days notice... and most of the time let you not come in during that time.... most of the time it was 30 days on, 30 days off... either way, you got paid.... that is all the law requires...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 10-18-2011, 02:56 PM   #210
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,361
If you look at the monthly jobs reports, we are currently cutting government jobs. It's getting done, albeit veryt slowly.

It is much better to be doing it now in the recovery (however weak that recovery is), than in the actual free fall that was occurring in 2008-2009. If you had tried to enforce a balanced budget at that time I think we'd have ended up looking at a Mad Max type scenario. The only thing keeping the lights on was the Federal government.

Of course, its going to be impossible to balance the budget when voters decide that they want everything that government is currently providing but they want to pay taxes at pre-SS, Medicare, and Medicaid rates.

I'm well aware of the political problems, but a balanced budget amendment is a situation where the cure is worse than the disease.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
This would be the flip side to Keynesian "pump priming", I agree -- but it's a political nonstarter. Who is going to say "Now that we have a budget surplus and the economy is very strong, we're going to slash government spending, lay off 10% of our workforce and concentrate on retiring public debt"? People who want to be voted out of office, that's who.

But if we can't do that, it's pretty hard to maintain massive deficit spending through recessions.
__________________
Hamlet is offline  
Old 10-18-2011, 04:07 PM   #211
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
If you look at the monthly jobs reports, we are currently cutting government jobs. It's getting done, albeit veryt slowly.

It is much better to be doing it now in the recovery (however weak that recovery is), than in the actual free fall that was occurring in 2008-2009. If you had tried to enforce a balanced budget at that time I think we'd have ended up looking at a Mad Max type scenario. The only thing keeping the lights on was the Federal government.

Of course, its going to be impossible to balance the budget when voters decide that they want everything that government is currently providing but they want to pay taxes at pre-SS, Medicare, and Medicaid rates.

I'm well aware of the political problems, but a balanced budget amendment is a situation where the cure is worse than the disease.

Not trying to get political here... and I do not know the language of the current balanced budget amendment being touted... but even the current one has an 'out' if a super majority votes to spend more...

From what I remember, there were enough people that would have voted to spend the money that was spent back in 08 and 09.... so the amendment would not have been the problem...

However, when the times were 'good', it would have slowed gvmt spending to what they had taken in.... (well, except for the wars which would have been voted to spend)...

We have ample evidence that over time our elected leaders will not put our countries interest first when it comes to spending money... having an amendment that prevents them from doing it so easily is at least another option that should be tried.... heck, it might even work
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 10-18-2011, 04:38 PM   #212
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
One thing I do know is that when 20% of most private sector workforces are laid off, 20% of the work doesn't go away. In fact, in many times there's *more* work but fewer people to do it.
I saw the same thing in the Federal sector from 1980 until I left. Constant downsizing taking my agency from 35000 to 14000 when I left. Although some of the work was picked up by contractors the load that fell on civil servants ratcheted up year after year after year. We were (and my former coworkers still are) talking the same "more with less" mantra that emanates from big corporations. This happened with everyone I knew. The increases people talk about must have come in new programs, hello Homeland Security.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline  
Old 10-18-2011, 05:01 PM   #213
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
I saw the same thing in the Federal sector from 1980 until I left. Constant downsizing taking my agency from 3500 to 14000 when I left. Although some of the work was picked up by contractors the load that fell on civil servants ratcheted up year after year after year. We were (and my former coworkers still are) talking the same "more with less" mantra that emanates from big corporations. This happened with everyone I knew. The increases people talk about must have come in new programs, hello Homeland Security.
do you mean 1400


Also, you would think that there would be some efficiencies over time.... not always, but some...


However, I did have a boss who one time said that he could give me more work than last year because I should be more productive... I said 'and where did you spend money so I could be more productive?'.... IOW, just being one year older does not make you more productive... if so, there would be a lot of old folks in the NFL, NBA etc. etc...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 10-18-2011, 05:13 PM   #214
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
do you mean 1400
Thanks for the catch -- the 14,000 is correct, we started at 35,000 not 3,500.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline  
Old 10-19-2011, 08:54 AM   #215
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bimmerbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,631
Some good discussion here, thanks.
So, if you were job shopping right now, how would you evaluate a job that offered a pension? Would you totally disregard the pension in figuring total compensation? Would it matter if the job was public or private sector?
__________________
Bimmerbill is offline  
Old 10-19-2011, 09:14 AM   #216
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
Some good discussion here, thanks.
So, if you were job shopping right now, how would you evaluate a job that offered a pension? Would you totally disregard the pension in figuring total compensation? Would it matter if the job was public or private sector?

I would only value at 100% a pension plan if the money was in a separate account that I controlled... IIW, if I left the company I could move that money to Vanguard or Fidelity when I wanted...


Any other pension I would discount a lot... maybe 50% or so... most of the pension problems are being fixed (slowly) except for the current balance shortfall...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 10-19-2011, 09:41 AM   #217
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
Some good discussion here, thanks.
So, if you were job shopping right now, how would you evaluate a job that offered a pension? Would you totally disregard the pension in figuring total compensation? Would it matter if the job was public or private sector?
Good question, and not so easy to answer. The compensation value of a pension is the value of the contribution being made by the employer. With a DC plan that is a "simple number" With a DB plan it is the present value of the future benefit once it vests. The employer views the total cost of compensation, including benefits, and compares that sum with other employers to ensure it pays "enough", not too much. So, you should consider it as well.

What matters is not if it is public or private but how it is being funded. If the plan obligations are well funded, and the plan itself is open and transparent, there is no reason to discount it. If the plan is not well funded or the finances are opaque, that is probably a danger signal.

There are still many DB plans in the US that are properly funded, sustainable and the employers intend to continue.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 10-19-2011, 09:48 AM   #218
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
Some good discussion here, thanks.
So, if you were job shopping right now, how would you evaluate a job that offered a pension? Would you totally disregard the pension in figuring total compensation? Would it matter if the job was public or private sector?
Well, if I was young, I would look at a public service job with a pension all day, even the military. I was recruited at college by the Navy to go to OCS and eventually be assinged to a sub but I turned it down. Heck, maybe I would have had Nords as my CO had I done that!!

Private sector pensions are an endangered species. For every one still around, like GE, there are companies dumping them all the time. I am pretty good friends with the folks at city hall and several local teachers. Not ONE of theme ver complains about their pension and benefits........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline  
Old 10-19-2011, 10:58 AM   #219
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
Private sector pensions are an endangered species. For every one still around, like GE, there are companies dumping them all the time.
Better read "The Retirement Heist," GE was one of the most egregious abusers of employee pension funds.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline  
Old 10-19-2011, 11:27 AM   #220
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,361
I know that I would tend to disregard the value of a DB pension in comparing offers. In order for the DB pension to have value, the following has to occur--

1. You have to work there long enough to get the benefit. Nowadays, it is ridiculous to envision working anywhere (public or private) that long.
2. You have to count on the pension being well-funded now, and having it continue to be well-funded over the next 20-30 years. Given the high transition rate at the top of most large organizations (public or private), there are very few situations that are stable enough to count on this being true.

From my standpoint, I would much prefer having the employer just contribute to the 401k that I control. If we part ways, I still have what I earned, and am not dependent on them keeping a promise 20 years down the road.

There are very few companies that I would trust to keep a long term promise like that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
Some good discussion here, thanks.
So, if you were job shopping right now, how would you evaluate a job that offered a pension? Would you totally disregard the pension in figuring total compensation? Would it matter if the job was public or private sector?
__________________

__________________
Hamlet is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Gray divorce" in retirement Nords Life after FIRE 46 07-27-2011 09:48 PM
Middle-Income Boomers Expect Tough Retirement mickeyd FIRE and Money 27 07-27-2011 08:44 AM
GAO Report on Retirement Income Purron FIRE and Money 5 07-17-2011 03:27 PM
Mid 40's looking for soft retirement in 8yrs, 9 months and 23 days sspribyl Hi, I am... 0 07-17-2011 01:34 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:58 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.