A lesson from California...

Compassion said:
I really don't see the point of state governments investing in the stock market for pensions.

You know what's a much better investment? Your states economy. Just let the senior spend their money there, and introduce a tax to soak the economic benefit from that up. It's never going to go 1000000% south.

Investing in stock market funds, however, is going to mean your investing all over the place. You're not specifically helping your state out here. And, let's face it, state pension plans are ALWAYS the first thing to get soaked in any kind crisis. Maybe that's actually the point of California's logic, to ensure that state workers get nothing.
Click to expand...
Invest in bonds in your state. Usually they pay better than Fannie & Freddie anyway and they aren't usually run by retards protected by equally retarded legislators.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Just more anti-union propaganda written by people who hate and fear the middle class and want to eliminate it.

Anyone who thinks California's budget crises is a result of the wages paid to union employees is a moron who can't do math and who hates seeing working people make a living wage.

Right wingers wont' be happy until a handful of them own everything and we go back to where everyone is lucky to get a 6th grade education and has to work 16 hour days 6 days a week in unsafe factories where a persons life is far less important then profits.

I am where I am today, an educated and productive middle class professional thanks in a large part to the Unions!
Click to expand...

this is typical bullshit from the left. Take a look at the article. Actually READ it this time instead of providing the typical left wingnut talking points about people trying to destroy the middle class and how union people are 'working people' (as if non-union people or white collar people dont frigging work).

Also... it is NOT just their wages, but more so their pensions that are bankrupting the state. Show me a job in the corporate world where you can retire at FIFTY with 90% of pay for life. Even when SS was created, it was designed for people to retire at 65 (when average life expectancy was 66).

If a person begins work at 20 puts in 30 years and then draws benes for 35-40 years+.... that is not going to work. It CANT. Unless you have massive gains in the investments of the pension plans.
 
Superfreak said:
this is typical bullshit from the left. Take a look at the article. Actually READ it this time instead of providing the typical left wingnut talking points about people trying to destroy the middle class and how union people are 'working people' (as if non-union people or white collar people dont frigging work).

Also... it is NOT just their wages, but more so their pensions that are bankrupting the state. Show me a job in the corporate world where you can retire at FIFTY with 90% of pay for life. Even when SS was created, it was designed for people to retire at 65 (when average life expectancy was 66).

If a person begins work at 20 puts in 30 years and then draws benes for 35-40 years+.... that is not going to work. It CANT. Unless you have massive gains in the investments of the pension plans.
Click to expand...


Bitching about the pensions is bullshit and typically comes from people that do not have pensions being pissed off that other people do have pensions. Little more.

Pensions are a negotiated benefit. Employees forgo being paid wages now in exchange for being paid wages after they retire. There should not be any difficulty for employers to fulfill their obligations with sufficient planning and investing.

The problems arise when, as with California, not enough is paid in when people are working and the vehicles that the funds invest in lose lots of money. In fact, the California pension plans could have (almost) met their investment gain targets by investing exclusively in corporate bonds as opposed to wheeling and dealing in real estate where they ended up taking ginormous hits.
 
Before the Bush team crashed the world economy the Cali pensions rivialed the country of Poland.

If you wnat to blame someone why not blame the people who crashed the world economy a second time in one lifetime.
 
evince said:
Before the Bush team crashed the world economy the Cali pensions rivialed the country of Poland.

If you wnat to blame someone why not blame the people who crashed the world economy a second time in one lifetime.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bill Clinton presided when the first downturn began in March of 2000.... it was also Bill Clinton who signed the bill to repeal Glass Steagall. Had he not done so, the absurd risk taking of firms like Goldman, JP Morgan, Citibank, etc... would not likely have occurred.

That said, Bush did indeed suck in terms of fiscal responsibility.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Bitching about the pensions is bullshit and typically comes from people that do not have pensions being pissed off that other people do have pensions. Little more.

Pensions are a negotiated benefit. Employees forgo being paid wages now in exchange for being paid wages after they retire. There should not be any difficulty for employers to fulfill their obligations with sufficient planning and investing.

The problems arise when, as with California, not enough is paid in when people are working and the vehicles that the funds invest in lose lots of money. In fact, the California pension plans could have (almost) met their investment gain targets by investing exclusively in corporate bonds as opposed to wheeling and dealing in real estate where they ended up taking ginormous hits.
Click to expand...

As Superfreak said how is someone who works for 20 - 30 years but receives benefits for 30 - 40 years ever going to pay enough in? There's a reason the CalSTRS and Calpers of the world invest in the stock market and in real estate, it's the only way they are going to meet the high returns promised their employees.
 
Superfreak said:
this is typical bullshit from the left. Take a look at the article. Actually READ it this time instead of providing the typical left wingnut talking points about people trying to destroy the middle class and how union people are 'working people' (as if non-union people or white collar people dont frigging work).

Also... it is NOT just their wages, but more so their pensions that are bankrupting the state. Show me a job in the corporate world where you can retire at FIFTY with 90% of pay for life. Even when SS was created, it was designed for people to retire at 65 (when average life expectancy was 66).

If a person begins work at 20 puts in 30 years and then draws benes for 35-40 years+.... that is not going to work. It CANT. Unless you have massive gains in the investments of the pension plans.
Click to expand...
I agree that pensions cannot kick in at 50 and you get 90% of your working wage for another 30 years. Fuck, the military doesn't have it that good, and they risked their life for this country. THAT being said, rightwingers ALWAYS talk about negotiating wages and working conditions when it is the WORKER that doesn't like their end of the bargain. "Go work somewhere else" they are told. But NOW, it is the union worker that got the better end of the deal and the right is not so happy with the whole "you get what you bargain for" theory of market economics. Just think it is sour grapes in reverse. California was stupid for negotiating such a huge payout beginning at such an early age. But stupidity is not a reason for negating a contract.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Bitching about the pensions is bullshit and typically comes from people that do not have pensions being pissed off that other people do have pensions. Little more.

Pensions are a negotiated benefit. Employees forgo being paid wages now in exchange for being paid wages after they retire. There should not be any difficulty for employers to fulfill their obligations with sufficient planning and investing.

The problems arise when, as with California, not enough is paid in when people are working and the vehicles that the funds invest in lose lots of money. In fact, the California pension plans could have (almost) met their investment gain targets by investing exclusively in corporate bonds as opposed to wheeling and dealing in real estate where they ended up taking ginormous hits.
Click to expand...

Look, yet another of the typical knee jerk reactions from the left.

'oh... you are just jealous of their pensions'

No... not jealous of them, I just don't want to continue paying more and more to them.

If you were talking about pensions being negotiated between a union and a company, you would have a point. But when you have government unions that are allowed to elect their bosses and who also wield the power to FIRE their bosses if they don't get what they want, then it ceases to be negotiation.

Again, you are wrong. If you spend more time in retirement than you do working, that is a plan doomed to fail. It requires far too high a rate of return for it to be sustainable. You pretend they could have gotten by with just corporate bond returns. They could not.

Corporate bonds can stay ahead of inflation, but they do little to provide the necessary growth to provide such lavish pensions. Real Estate, when managed properly can provide better returns as it tends to be a great inflation hedge AND it produces similar income streams to bonds. The problem CA ran into was similar to many pensions. They put hard limits on how much they could hold. When the stock market crashed hard, it of course upped the percentage that Real Estate represented in the overall portfolio and thus CA (like many other pensions) was forced to sell property that was not distressed (a poor investment).

Side note: Had you bothered to read the article, you would have noted that the union members are NOT forgoing wages now for later benefits. That is simply bullshit on your part. Again, when you can hire and fire your boss, there really isn't a negotiation. It becomes a case where if the boss doesn't do as he/she is told... he/she is soon looking for work.
 
They defend ceos who negociate great bennies but hate on workers who do so.

It pretty much tells the tale.

Good point soc
 
cawacko said:
As Superfreak said how is someone who works for 20 - 30 years but receives benefits for 30 - 40 years ever going to pay enough in? There's a reason the CalSTRS and Calpers of the world invest in the stock market and in real estate, it's the only way they are going to meet the high returns promised their employees.
Click to expand...


Actually, according to the report that Dano posted about the deplorable state of CalSTRS and Calpers, the funds could have nearly met their investment objectives (i.e. achieve the returns necessary to cover benefits) by investing exclusively in corporate bonds. So I doubt very seriously that high-risk investments are the only means to achieve sufficient returns to cover benefits.

Moreover, there are two parts of the equation. You don't need extraordinary returns if you put enough capital into the funds while workers are working.
 
Socrtease said:
I agree that pensions cannot kick in at 50 and you get 90% of your working wage for another 30 years. Fuck, the military doesn't have it that good, and they risked their life for this country. THAT being said, rightwingers ALWAYS talk about negotiating wages and working conditions when it is the WORKER that doesn't like their end of the bargain. "Go work somewhere else" they are told. But NOW, it is the union worker that got the better end of the deal and the right is not so happy with the whole "you get what you bargain for" theory of market economics. Just think it is sour grapes in reverse. California was stupid for negotiating such a huge payout beginning at such an early age. But stupidity is not a reason for negating a contract.
Click to expand...

As I just mentioned to Dung.... had there actually BEEN negotiations, I would agree with you. However, when negotiation becomes extortion then you have a problem.

If you possessed the ability to hire/fire your boss... how hard of a negotiation is it going to be?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, according to the report that Dano posted about the deplorable state of CalSTRS and Calpers, the funds could have nearly met their investment objectives (i.e. achieve the returns necessary to cover benefits) by investing exclusively in corporate bonds. So I doubt very seriously that high-risk investments are the only means to achieve sufficient returns to cover benefits.

Moreover, there are two parts of the equation. You don't need extraordinary returns if you put enough capital into the funds while workers are working.
Click to expand...

Corporate bonds possess MORE risk than real estate. Real Estate is a tangible asset. As the old saying goes, they aren't making any more of it. Read my other post as to why the real estate portion of their portfolios got into trouble.
 
evince said:
They defend ceos who negociate great bennies but hate on workers who do so.

It pretty much tells the tale.

Good point soc
Click to expand...

yet another bullshit post from a knee jerk left wingnut.

You pretend that somehow we don't care about insane packages CEOs make. Show me any study or report that you can find that shows conservatives or Reps don't care about CEO compensation. Just one Desh. To be clear, I am not talking about how some Politician doesn't care... I am talking about conservative/republican voters in general
 
The right defended the CEOs right to get payed what they negociated super.

Dont you remember discussing CEO pay with people on the left before this whole mess exploded?

The right was always saying we were just envious of their success
 
evince said:
Bill clinton was a fucking asshole to sign the bill.

Now that being said who wrote it?
Click to expand...

90-8 was the Senate vote. We have been over this many many many times. Any sane person realizes it was both parties that championed this bill. Larry Summers was one of the biggest proponents on the left.... and he is currently whispering more bullshit in the ear of our current President.

I only brought up Clinton because you continually try to pretend this downturn was because of Bush. You even went as far as to pretend it was the 'second' one. Implying that the crash in 2000-2002 was his fault.
 
Superfreak said:
Look, yet another of the typical knee jerk reactions from the left.

'oh... you are just jealous of their pensions'

No... not jealous of them, I just don't want to continue paying more and more to them.

If you were talking about pensions being negotiated between a union and a company, you would have a point. But when you have government unions that are allowed to elect their bosses and who also wield the power to FIRE their bosses if they don't get what they want, then it ceases to be negotiation.
Click to expand...

Government employees hardly make up enough of the population, even in CA, to have this sort of power. Get a grip. Christ, CA has had Republican governors for 23 of the last 27 years.

Superfreak said:
Again, you are wrong. If you spend more time in retirement than you do working, that is a plan doomed to fail. It requires far too high a rate of return for it to be sustainable. You pretend they could have gotten by with just corporate bond returns. They could not.

Corporate bonds can stay ahead of inflation, but they do little to provide the necessary growth to provide such lavish pensions. Real Estate, when managed properly can provide better returns as it tends to be a great inflation hedge AND it produces similar income streams to bonds. The problem CA ran into was similar to many pensions. They put hard limits on how much they could hold. When the stock market crashed hard, it of course upped the percentage that Real Estate represented in the overall portfolio and thus CA (like many other pensions) was forced to sell property that was not distressed (a poor investment).
Click to expand...


You aren't arguing with me, hombre. You're arguing with the finding of the folks at Stanford that took a look at the larger California public employee pension funds.

Superfreak said:
Side note: Had you bothered to read the article, you would have noted that the union members are NOT forgoing wages now for later benefits. That is simply bullshit on your part. Again, when you can hire and fire your boss, there really isn't a negotiation. It becomes a case where if the boss doesn't do as he/she is told... he/she is soon looking for work.
Click to expand...

Yes they are foregoing wages now for later benefits. Saying otherwise is simply bullshit on your part. And, again, public employees are hardly sufficient to have so much sway over elections. More bullshit from you.
 
evince said:
The right defended the CEOs right to get payed what they negociated super.

Dont you remember discussing CEO pay with people on the left before this whole mess exploded?

The right was always saying we were just envious of their success
Click to expand...

Again... show me where...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top