5 ms·

The original calculations were pretty simple: "Will this get me more votes?" Puerto Rico has always assumed that the economy would soon be turning the corner a

by Vivtek 11y ago

The original calculations were pretty simple: "Will this get me more votes?" Puerto Rico has always assumed that the economy would soon be turning the corner and everything would work out, with a healthy helping of cargo-cult New-Jerseyism.

galfarragem 11y ago
This problem is widespread in all social states (democracies) all around the world. Electoral system and responsible management doesn't play very well together. Before 'shit hit the fan' is almost impossible to any government to have enough power to change anything unpopular. I wonder what the solution for this is.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Neoreactionaries promote a return to monarchy or corporate rule as a solution to this. I'm not particularly onboard with their solutions, but they are the only group of people I can see who fully recognize the problem: democracies are fundamentally short term focused and unable to do complex planning. They are certainly well worth reading (obviously skeptically).
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    There is also the libertarian solution to government pensions: don't have them (this does not mean don't have the retirement savings, it means give the money to the employee, possibly in the form of a retirement account or higher wage). It is incidentally this solution that it seems they are taking with new hires.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      As much as I hate the middle road, that's the correct approach here. No, pensioners will not get a full pension. The negotiated cut I'd propose would not promise a "life of dignity" or anything to the pension ers but rather frankly, a responsible person should not starve with this amount of payments. Congress must act to clear the roadblocks here. It is disgusting to say that the current and future generations to pay for pensions that they don't get if they were to join today. I think that's the only reasonable solution. Of course, nothing will happen because old people vote and young people don't. So much for "think of the children" and all that talk.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Usually, for constitutional provisions requiring that every such promise be accounted as (or better, paid for with) a government debt on par with their "real" bonds. Because that's what they are: the government claiming it's putting its full faith and credit behind your pension. It's horrible that they can treat it as ultra-reliable when promising it, but can shuck it off like it's nothing. It's also why I don't understand all the whining (here and elsewhere) about requiring the Post Office to actually fund its pensions rather than just assume Uncle Sam will have infinite funds to cover it later, and we Totally Won't Renege or anything.
  - justin66 11y ago
    >It's also why I don't understand all the whining (here and elsewhere) about requiring the Post Office to actually fund its pensions rather than just assume Uncle Sam will have infinite funds to cover it later Some people believe the post office is required to pay quite a bit more into those pension funds than is necessary for their financial well being. Nobody in that discussion claimed or assumed the government has infinite funds to cover the post office's obligations. It's as if you were having a discussion with yourself that happened to occupy the same space as another, ongoing discussion on the same topic. Hence the way some tried to engage with you (unsuccessfully) and some just downvoted you.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      I explained (with visible frustration) how it's eminently fair to expect a business to fully fund its obligations. If someone believes that the way this is calculated is unreasonable, then their primary complaint needs to be about that way, not (as every commenter does on this issue) complain about the mere requirement to fund the pension. A complete argument would look like this: "It's unfair to require the post office to fund future benefits by X standard, when common, reasonable practice is to use more lenient standard is Y." A complete but stupid argument would have X="include all obligations forever" and Y="ignore stuff after 75 years". This is because post-75 years can have non-trivial implications for its sustainability, and assuming them away does require belief in a bottomless pit. I'm interested in an exchange of ideas on this issue; I just wish people were capable of presenting a defensible argument about the Post Office pension requirement. Your own argument on the thread [1] does not meet that standard, as it was just "wow, that would be a lot of money". Well, yeah, if you've promised something with a (net discounted present) value of $75 trillion, then yeah, it's gonna be a pain to fund! Why is that an unreasonable requirement that you not just kick the can down the road? I'd like to hear an intelligent answer to that question. "They hate the Post Office and want it to fail" doesn't count as one. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11464618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11464618

by Vivtek 11y ago

galfarragem 11y ago

This problem is widespread in all social states (democracies) all around the world. Electoral system and responsible management doesn't play very well together. Before 'shit hit the fan' is almost impossible to any government to have enough power to change anything unpopular. I wonder what the solution for this is.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Neoreactionaries promote a return to monarchy or corporate rule as a solution to this. I'm not particularly onboard with their solutions, but they are the only group of people I can see who fully recognize the problem: democracies are fundamentally short term focused and unable to do complex planning. They are certainly well worth reading (obviously skeptically).
- tomjen3 11y ago
  There is also the libertarian solution to government pensions: don't have them (this does not mean don't have the retirement savings, it means give the money to the employee, possibly in the form of a retirement account or higher wage). It is incidentally this solution that it seems they are taking with new hires.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    As much as I hate the middle road, that's the correct approach here. No, pensioners will not get a full pension. The negotiated cut I'd propose would not promise a "life of dignity" or anything to the pension ers but rather frankly, a responsible person should not starve with this amount of payments. Congress must act to clear the roadblocks here. It is disgusting to say that the current and future generations to pay for pensions that they don't get if they were to join today. I think that's the only reasonable solution. Of course, nothing will happen because old people vote and young people don't. So much for "think of the children" and all that talk.
SilasX 11y ago
Usually, for constitutional provisions requiring that every such promise be accounted as (or better, paid for with) a government debt on par with their "real" bonds. Because that's what they are: the government claiming it's putting its full faith and credit behind your pension. It's horrible that they can treat it as ultra-reliable when promising it, but can shuck it off like it's nothing. It's also why I don't understand all the whining (here and elsewhere) about requiring the Post Office to actually fund its pensions rather than just assume Uncle Sam will have infinite funds to cover it later, and we Totally Won't Renege or anything.
- justin66 11y ago
  >It's also why I don't understand all the whining (here and elsewhere) about requiring the Post Office to actually fund its pensions rather than just assume Uncle Sam will have infinite funds to cover it later Some people believe the post office is required to pay quite a bit more into those pension funds than is necessary for their financial well being. Nobody in that discussion claimed or assumed the government has infinite funds to cover the post office's obligations. It's as if you were having a discussion with yourself that happened to occupy the same space as another, ongoing discussion on the same topic. Hence the way some tried to engage with you (unsuccessfully) and some just downvoted you.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    I explained (with visible frustration) how it's eminently fair to expect a business to fully fund its obligations. If someone believes that the way this is calculated is unreasonable, then their primary complaint needs to be about that way, not (as every commenter does on this issue) complain about the mere requirement to fund the pension. A complete argument would look like this: "It's unfair to require the post office to fund future benefits by X standard, when common, reasonable practice is to use more lenient standard is Y." A complete but stupid argument would have X="include all obligations forever" and Y="ignore stuff after 75 years". This is because post-75 years can have non-trivial implications for its sustainability, and assuming them away does require belief in a bottomless pit. I'm interested in an exchange of ideas on this issue; I just wish people were capable of presenting a defensible argument about the Post Office pension requirement. Your own argument on the thread [1] does not meet that standard, as it was just "wow, that would be a lot of money". Well, yeah, if you've promised something with a (net discounted present) value of $75 trillion, then yeah, it's gonna be a pain to fund! Why is that an unreasonable requirement that you not just kick the can down the road? I'd like to hear an intelligent answer to that question. "They hate the Post Office and want it to fail" doesn't count as one. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11464618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11464618