On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:44:36 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
accept a lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are
you advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

Of course there are limitations.


I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing
company profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences
for investments that many people make to fund their retirement.

There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes
were honoured. But that day's gone.

The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve
corporate management saying: "You know that deferred income that
you were supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in
order to fund your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency
we can't afford your pension any more -- sorry, but you should
have saved more, out of that salary that we didn't pay you so
that your pension would be funded".

As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has
become -- by and large -- a financial scam.


Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to
have a range of investment vheicles for retirement and other
purposes.

We agree furiously (as I've seen it put elsewhere.)

Which is why -- in earlier days -- those people who believed what the
employing bodies told them were misguided to do so; and it's also why,
today, it is still unwise to believe that what an employer says is
"necessary to ensure the survival of the business" is, in fact, true.

--
Cheers,
Harvey