The Retirement Heist

[ziggy29]

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.

 

[samclem]

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.

 

[Hamlet]

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.

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.

 

[Bestwifeever]

...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!

 

[ziggy29]

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.

 

[eytonxav]

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.

 

[samclem]

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.

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.

 

[Texas Proud]

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]

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...

 

[Hamlet]

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.

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.

 

[Texas Proud]

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

 

[donheff]

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.

 

[Texas Proud]

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...

 

[donheff]

do you mean 1400

Thanks for the catch -- the 14,000 is correct, we started at 35,000 not 3,500.

 

[Bimmerbill]

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?

 

[Texas Proud]

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...

 

[MichaelB]

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.

 

[FinanceDude]

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........

 

[donheff]

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.

 

[Hamlet]

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.

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?

 

[Mulligan]

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........

While I agree with what you say, Finance, perhaps we look at this from the eyes of experience and middle age plus. I never heard anyone say the reason they got into education was for the pension. As you get older you certainly appreciate it and then learn to value it, but most young people I have known entering education vaguely thought of the contribution as an immediate tax on them that may give them some money when they are old and wrinkled, but that is two lifetimes from now

 

[GregLee]

I In order for the DB pension to have value, the following has to occur--
...
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.

In the case of state pensions, at least, I don't see why you have to count on that. The payment of pensions is not contingent on the health of pension portfolios -- even if the pension fund is depleted, the state is still responsible paying out the agreed pension amounts to retirees. Perhaps it depends on your interpretation of "well-funded".

 

[Hamlet]

If you are confident that the politicans 20 years from now will keep those promises, feel free to bank on that government pension.

The states' responsibilities can always be changed.

When the politicians are chosing between raising taxes, or reducing pensions for retired employees, I wouldn't be sure that taxes will get raised.

In the case of state pensions, at least, I don't see why you have to count on that. The payment of pensions is not contingent on the health of pension portfolios -- even if the pension fund is depleted, the state is still responsible paying out the agreed pension amounts to retirees. Perhaps it depends on your interpretation of "well-funded".

 

[GregLee]

When the politicians are chosing between raising taxes, or reducing pensions for retired employees, I wouldn't be sure that taxes will get raised.

Who's sure? But reducing pensions for already retired employees would require more than politicians' expedience, since there is an issue of contract law involved, as well as in several states a constitutional requirement that the pensions must be paid. You can imagine the states' defaults happening, nonetheless, but does the possibility really justify saying that state DB pensions have no value when the system is not fully funded? And don't forget that our politicians are still elected, and pensioners vote.

 

[Trex]

This may have been posted already... This is Jon Stewart's interveiw of Ellan Schuilz who explains how American companies have decimated retiree benefit plans. Here's the link to Jon's web site....The Jon Stewart Show. October 17, 2011 - Ellen Schultz - The Daily Show With Jon Stewart - Full Episode Video | Comedy Central