On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
then dumps the obligations onto the public.

Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.

Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
benefit retirement program.

The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.

No. See above.

It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.

No. See above.

This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.

Doesn't mean it's the way it *has* to be.

Unions only exacerbated the situation. I'm betting 18,495 people are now wishing they had their jobs back, broken promises and all.

But the union won!

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:38:03 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, z wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
then dumps the obligations onto the public.

Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.

Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
benefit retirement program.

The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.

No. See above.

It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.

No. See above.

This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.


The problem with all of this is "properly funding a pension plan"
depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
spiral.

You're assuming a fixed-sized pie and everyone gets hungry at the same
time.

The basic problem right now is we did not change retirement age to
reflect lifespan. You can't have a third of the adult population
retired, living off the other 2/3ds. That is especially true when you
consider a large number of these retired people make more than the
median family wage.

This has nothing to do with retirement plans. It's a serious problem
with Social Security, sure, but that's a different discussion.

My meager pension and Social Security is more than my (Master degreed)
son in law's salary and he has a wife and 3 kids.

Irrelevant.

I retired at 49. I have been collecting that pension for 17 years. I
may live 15 years or more if I am just average. That is 2 years longer
than I worked. How do you fund that?

I will get every dime I and my employer put in Social Security by 2015
assuming no COLAs. How is that sustainable?

Is there a reason you're intentionally conflating private pensions and
SS?

On Nov 20, 9:38*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
then dumps the obligations onto the public.

Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.

Not necessarily true. *It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
benefit retirement program.

The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.

No. *See above.

It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.

No. *See above.

This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.

The problem with all of this is "properly funding a pension plan"
depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
spiral.

The world stock markets, the US being the best example,
are clearly large and liquid enough that any pension fund
selling off some of it's holdings to meet obligations is
going to have a negligible effect on the price of the
securities. Sure, if some big pension fund was dumb
enough to dump all of it's holding in one trade or one
day, it could have a significant effect. But that is not
how it's done. First the fund is distributed over many
securities, so any individual postion is only a small
percentage of the whole fund. And second, they only
liquidate a portion of any particular security at a time.

In article ,
wrote:


The problem is you will have 83 million baby boomers drawing down
equities in their 401ks and depleting pension funds at the same time.
The overall pressure on the investment market may make a dent in stock
prices.

But this also comes at a time when the BRIC nations are in their own
baby boom and with rising middle classes may go a long way toward
offsetting that.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:04:49 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:59:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 20, 9:38Â*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
then dumps the obligations onto the public.

Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.

Not necessarily true. Â*It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
benefit retirement program.

The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.

No. Â*See above.

It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.

No. Â*See above.

This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.

The problem with all of this is "properly funding a pension plan"
depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
spiral.

The world stock markets, the US being the best example,
are clearly large and liquid enough that any pension fund
selling off some of it's holdings to meet obligations is
going to have a negligible effect on the price of the
securities. Sure, if some big pension fund was dumb
enough to dump all of it's holding in one trade or one
day, it could have a significant effect. But that is not
how it's done. First the fund is distributed over many
securities, so any individual postion is only a small
percentage of the whole fund. And second, they only
liquidate a portion of any particular security at a time.


The problem is you will have 83 million baby boomers drawing down
equities in their 401ks and depleting pension funds at the same time.
The overall pressure on the investment market may make a dent in stock
prices.

If you look hard at those numbers, you'll find that nowhere near 83
million people have 401k's, and nowhere near 83 million will be alive
at one time. Some of those 83 million "boomers" have already been
dead for years. Many before they even reached retirement age.
Here's some info - can't vouch for it.
http://theweek.com/article/index/226...s-of-americans

I will say that "average" 401k value is pretty meaningless. Median
would give a truer picture.
This bad recession with people closing 401k's and eating the penalties
probably had more effect on the financial markets than the naturally
metered withdrawals of retirees will ever have.
Just guessing of course.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:39:20 -0500, wrote:


http://theweek.com/article/index/226...s-of-americans


You article doesn't say anything about the number of boomers who are
dead already or who are going to die soon. The national average
lifespan is around 80.

No, that was just about 401k's, which aren't as big a part of
retirement savings as many people think.

I don't know anyone in my peer group 60-66, who is still working and
some are already drawing down their 401k, most who actually have money
are sitting on it hoping the market will go up. The government makes
you draw it down at 70.
401!k is not our main pension plan tho. Anyone who had a real job
before the second half of the Clinton administration, had a fixed
benefit pension and that is vested.


Funny. I had many "real jobs" that didn't offer a vested pension
plan. It was typical in the contractor world. And many now who
aren't in unions or government jobs don't have defined benefit plans.
So your peer group doesn't define much except itself.
That's why Social Security will never go away.

I will say that "average" 401k value is pretty meaningless. Median
would give a truer picture.
This bad recession with people closing 401k's and eating the penalties
probably had more effect on the financial markets than the naturally
metered withdrawals of retirees will ever have.
Just guessing of course.

People who didn't plan for retirement may be taking the whole nut at
59.5 to try to pay down some debt. It is hard to retire if you still
owe money.

It won't matter if the democrats stay in charge., They will just
borrow more money from China and subsidize these people somehow.

Right. It's all the evil Demoncrats fault. Good luck with that..

I never even heard about private contractors until the mid 90s unless
you were talking about a licensed guy who owned his own real company.
Then it was up to him to pay himself first..
The idea of making a line coder a "contractor" started during the
Clinton administration when everyone says we were so prosperous.

You're a bit miss informed. I worked as a contractor for Aero Space back in
the 60's. Made out like a bandit.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:00:35 -0500, wrote:

I never even heard about private contractors until the mid 90s unless
you were talking about a licensed guy who owned his own real company.
Then it was up to him to pay himself first..
The idea of making a line coder a "contractor" started during the
Clinton administration when everyone says we were so prosperous.


I knew IT "line coder" independent contractors in 1980.
Billing $45 an hour "coding lines." Not bad in 1980 - or now.
And I was called a contractor by clients even when I wasn't
independent, but working (salaried employee) for body shops as early
as 1984. Some "contractors" called themselves "consultants."
Always thought that was as ridiculous as a 3-piece suit with a watch
fob. Or a bow tie on a grown man.
Since clients had me there under contract, "contractor" was fine.
They weren't small shops either. Don't know about CGA, who I was with
for about 4 years. Maybe 2,000 employees. Profit sharing, no pension
plan. CTG, who I had 10 years with, had about 4000 employees in '88
and offered only 401k and ESOP in '88.
All this predates Clinton.
The writing was on the wall for DB pensions when Wall Street realized
it could get their hands directly into workers' wallets with 401k's.
According to this
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.html
even in 1980 only 38% of workers had DB pensions.
So you've basically fifteen-upped Mitt Romney's 47%.
By saying that 62% of people never had "real jobs."
Pretty crazy IMO.
There's a very big world of workers out there, so thinking your "peer
group" is representative is a mistake.

That's why Social Security will never go away.

SS will go away when it falls from it's own weight, for all the
reasons I worry about other pension plans.

From a macro economic sense, you can't have a third of all adults in
the country living off the labor of the other two thirds, particularly
when most of them don't even make enough to pay income taxes.

Right. And it's "macro economically" impossible for the U.S. to be
what, 16 trillion in debt, and the DJIA at 13k. All a mirage.
Without going into the details of the many ways it can and will be
worked out, one thing is certain. SS, at least at a subsistence level
minimum, won't go away.
Old people won't be kicked to the curb in the United States of
America. That's commie stuff. And un-Christian to boot.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

sad stuff about pensioners getting the the shaft snipped

THEY'RE BACK!!!!

http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2762951.story

Twinkies are slimming down, just in time for their close-up. As Twinkies
show up on store shelves nationwide again, consumers may notice something
different -- and not just the packaging touting the "sweetest comeback." The
new line of Twinkies will be smaller in size, and contain fewer calories,
according to Hostess Brands, maker of the iconic creme-filled snack food.
But that won't necessarily translate into a smaller price tag. The
Associated Press reports that the new boxes hitting shelves list the cakes
as weighing 38.5 grams apiece, and coming in at 135 calories. That compares
with the old line of Twinkies, which weighed 42.5 grams apiece, and equaled
150 calories.

Sounds like most of the caloric savings comes from the smaller size. Such a
deal.

--

Bobby G.