4 ms·
This op-ed is a dog's breakfast of Big Labor talking points, and pretty much what one would expect from a law professor flogging his latest book, entitled, "The
by leroy_masochist 9y ago
This op-ed is a dog's breakfast of Big Labor talking points, and pretty much what one would expect from a law professor flogging his latest book, entitled, "The Rise of the Working-Class Shareholder: Labor’s Last Best Weapon" (see author bio at bottom of piece).
TLDR: The Kochs are trying to kill pensions because they don't like Calpers' political activism. The author doesn't get into specifics, preferring to make sweeping accusations such as, "This relentless, well-funded attack has taken every form of political advocacy available. It ranges from campaign contributions to ballot initiatives to model legislation to lobbying to lawsuits to financing academic and judicial conferences."
Sounds pretty scary. And as a former investment banker I can confirm that, in fact, F500 CEOs and boards are afraid of Calpers and Ontario Teachers and a few others who have gone the activist route. So maybe there is something to the thesis that all these fat cats want to stymie the ability of the working class to effect meaningful change through its collective ability to influence corporate governance.
But as someone currently involved in the government of a small town, I can also tell you that pensions are, legitimately, a major problem. Especially when they pertain to unionized public employees whose unions are allowed to force every member of that group of public servants (cops, teachers, garbage collectors, etc) to pay union dues regardless of whether they want to be part of the union.
The tenacity of union leaders, coupled with the universally bad optics of management not giving labor the future financial security that labor wants, often results in management making pension promises that they won't be able to deliver in a decade's time -- especially if the discussions happen during a good market run when modeling a perennial 7% YoY return on the pension portfolio seems reasonable.
This is ultimately much more of a public sector problem than a private sector one. Unfunded pension liabilities can kill companies, giving union leadership a strong incentive to compromise in cases where the pension is going to bankrupt the company.
On the public sector side, what you see instead is hiring freezes that benefit tenured union members, tax hikes that prompt wealthy residents to move to Florida, and cutbacks in other areas (e.g., paving roads).
It's not a pretty picture, and this op-ed is a good example of the rhetoric that can be deployed against people trying to make sources of funds equal uses of funds. Please DO NOT take that as an implicit defense of anything the Kochs are doing, btw.
- sokoloff 9y ago> especially if the discussions happen during a good market run when modeling a perennial 7% YoY return on the pension portfolio seems reasonable. That's a pretty reasonable, even conservative, assumption for the long-run nominal total return of the stock market. I wish I could find the version that had figures in it (rather than simply 3% wide buckets, but all of the 25 and 30-year long periods in the heatmap have real returns in excess of 6% (meaning the nominal would be over 7%) https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/total-stock-market/ https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/total-stock-market/ I think 7% nominal over a long period (such as a pension fund could expect) is quite reasonable and would expect a pension so funded to be quite stable.
- perl4ever 9y agoThe GDP growth rate is quite steady and nowhere near 7%, so I do not see how the stock market can produce higher returns indefinitely - otherwise P/Es would go to infinity and labor's share of income would go to zero. It seems like a perpetual motion machine.
- sokoloff 9y agoIt has held for the last 100+ years (that chart is only the last 50 or so, but other calculators go back to the late 19th century). Not all the growth is domestic. Many "US" stocks make a substantial portion of their revenue and profit from international operations [sales and/or manufacturing], not all of which is reflected in US GDP growth. As an example, when Apple makes an iPhone in China and sells it Europe, that doesn't contribute to US GDP, yet it contributes to the total return of Apple shareholders.
- perl4ever 9y agoReal world GDP growth over the last 55 years has averaged less than 3.5% [1]. Not that matters, but I didn't even specify US GDP growth in my previous comment. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?cid=GPD_30 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?cid=GPD_...