4 ms·

And conversely this undue pension funding burden is a talking point as well. A lot of companies would be in a good financial position if only they didn't have t

And conversely this undue pension funding burden is a talking point as well. A lot of companies would be in a good financial position if only they didn't have to worry about their unfunded liabilities. Can someone clarify for me if this USPS pension thing is any different from any other organization that offers pensions? Naively, the requirement to "fund" pension liabilities pretty reasonable. How else do you guarantee pensioners they'll have something when they retire. I know here in Chicago we're in bad shape because of unfunded pension liabilities.

oblio 6y ago
I think they're being asked to fund pensions until the end of time, which regular companies aren't being asked to.
R0b0t1 6y ago
The USPS is the only company that needs to fund 75 years out. Do you know any that must also do that? Yes, there is some point to be made about pensions and 401ks being raided, but now is not the time.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > Yes, there is some point to be made about pensions and 401ks being raided, but now is not the time. When would the appropriate time be then? The point of 75 year pension is to guarantee, in no uncertain terms, the existence of a retirement for the over 470,000 postal employees. That is absolutely huge - particularly for an organization that's subject to the political whims of the day. The only thing certain to happen 75 years from now is postal employees will be able to enjoy a rightfully earned retirement. Why would you want to deprive them of that?
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    I don't want to deprive them of that. Stop arguing in bad faith. The requirement stands out as extremely onerous and atypical. Look at most state pensions. Somehow, magically, most republicans only care about the USPS.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      > Somehow, magically, most republicans only care about the USPS. I could argue the opposite right now. Seems "the other side" only wants to champion USPS right now, even though only a year ago everyone would have been in near agreement USPS needs reforms. It's political... I get it, but does everyone here arguing get it too? Doubtful. In my time serving as a legislative assistant for a California Assemblyman, we fought against several state controlled pension funds, including pushing for divestment from Iran. These attempts were always met with fierce opposition - "you're destroying my retirement!" and more. Anecdata I know... Pensions, in my opinion, are universally bad. You, the individual, should control your own retirement. Too often these pensions, that people rely on, dry up or disappear suddenly due to gross mismanagement. If you're going to have a pension - it should have to be funded for a massive amount of time. Maybe not 75 years, but the average person's working years (ie, 40 or 50 years). Making it impossible for the pension to be gone through no fault of your own is what we owe people stuck with pensions.
- treis 6y ago
  I'm continually stunned at how many people believe this obviously false fact. The USPS is not required to fund 75 years worth of pension payouts. They are required to set aside money to pay the pension liabilities they have incurred.

oblio 6y ago

I think they're being asked to fund pensions until the end of time, which regular companies aren't being asked to.

R0b0t1 6y ago

The USPS is the only company that needs to fund 75 years out. Do you know any that must also do that? Yes, there is some point to be made about pensions and 401ks being raided, but now is not the time.

Alupis 6y ago
> Yes, there is some point to be made about pensions and 401ks being raided, but now is not the time. When would the appropriate time be then? The point of 75 year pension is to guarantee, in no uncertain terms, the existence of a retirement for the over 470,000 postal employees. That is absolutely huge - particularly for an organization that's subject to the political whims of the day. The only thing certain to happen 75 years from now is postal employees will be able to enjoy a rightfully earned retirement. Why would you want to deprive them of that?
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  I don't want to deprive them of that. Stop arguing in bad faith. The requirement stands out as extremely onerous and atypical. Look at most state pensions. Somehow, magically, most republicans only care about the USPS.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > Somehow, magically, most republicans only care about the USPS. I could argue the opposite right now. Seems "the other side" only wants to champion USPS right now, even though only a year ago everyone would have been in near agreement USPS needs reforms. It's political... I get it, but does everyone here arguing get it too? Doubtful. In my time serving as a legislative assistant for a California Assemblyman, we fought against several state controlled pension funds, including pushing for divestment from Iran. These attempts were always met with fierce opposition - "you're destroying my retirement!" and more. Anecdata I know... Pensions, in my opinion, are universally bad. You, the individual, should control your own retirement. Too often these pensions, that people rely on, dry up or disappear suddenly due to gross mismanagement. If you're going to have a pension - it should have to be funded for a massive amount of time. Maybe not 75 years, but the average person's working years (ie, 40 or 50 years). Making it impossible for the pension to be gone through no fault of your own is what we owe people stuck with pensions.
treis 6y ago
I'm continually stunned at how many people believe this obviously false fact. The USPS is not required to fund 75 years worth of pension payouts. They are required to set aside money to pay the pension liabilities they have incurred.