4 ms·

I'm not up to date with the nuance of the US pension system, but this article seems highly loaded: > For decades, conservative governors and state legislators

I'm not up to date with the nuance of the US pension system, but this article seems highly loaded: > For decades, conservative governors and state legislators [...] have worked to undermine public employee pensions. > Last year, as the Covid-19 pandemic raged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied governors’ appeals for federal emergency aid because he saw an opportunity to punish states for their pension debts. And so forth. Granted, I don't know the history behind all of this, but even with the benefit of the doubt these seem very stark takes without any additional context.

_red 5y ago
Not only that, but undoubtedly they also support the modern neo-liberal Globalist system....so they want to offshore all jobs to slave factories in China, allow millions of 'undocumented' workers to depress salaries, AND bemoan that we can't have multi-decade retirement systems fully funded. Its astounding how the democrats have gone along with these ideas for so long...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jmclnx 5y ago
In the US there is a "fund" that is suppose to be paid into by Private Companies, Unions and others that is like a Pension Insurance. That fund is Extremely underfunded. If your Company goes bust or the Union implodes, last I heard (many years ago), that fund could only cover a bit less than 50% of your benefits, so you will get a massive cut. Also in the past, if you worked for the Federal or State Gov, you did not get Social Security because you paid into a pension. I do not know if that is still true. But the Federal Gov through cuts (we all know who pushed those cuts) and Union Busting, is causing the whole pension system to go bust since pensions work only if the Company or Union is growing and people are there to pay into it. Now that union membership is optional in many states, money is not flowing into the fund.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  > since pensions work only if the Company or Union is growing There’s a name for a scheme like this—-pyramid.
  - tolidano 5y ago
    Well, that’s a pretty interesting connection. If you look here, besides one or two states, every state is much much larger than it was 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, and 20 years ago. So, it’s not shocking or absurd to imagine state populations continuing an upward trend and therefore, more people, and therefore, without anyone passing union busting or other anti-union laws and regulations, you would expect union membership in most sectors to grow and have plenty of data to back it up. This isn’t like Mary Kay or Noni Juice or whatever where you have to sell someone on the promise very hard or demand some upfront investment to pay the current membership. Just wait around and people will be born. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > since pensions work only if the Company or Union is growing and people are there to pay into it. Only true if it's a "pay-as-you-go" systems: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-as-you-go_pension_plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-as-you-go_pension_plan Canada's public pension (CPP) used to be this way (like US SS), but was changed in the 1990s and uses investment returns in addition to contributions: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_reforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_refor... It is possible to have a practical fund without new contributions. It is after all how the "4% rule" works with private retirement accounts: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_spend-down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_spend-down You stop contributing at (e.g.) 65 and you can coast on the holdings without putting new money into account.
amusedcyclist 5y ago
How is it loaded if its true ? Its not neutral to avoid blaming the party that is actually responsible for the bad thing being discussed
cherrycherry98 5y ago
A reasonable explanation other than McConnell is a "mean guy" would be that he doesn't feel the federal government should bail out states for making promises they can't keep. After all, if they get bailed out once, it only further enables state and local politicians to keep promising generous future benefits that they won't be responsible for figuring out how to fund. Come work for us, we pay less than the private sector but future generations will figure out how to pay you a nice retirement package! Oh, I won't be around to be held accountable if they can't, but don't worry Uncle Sam will pick up the tab!

_red 5y ago

Not only that, but undoubtedly they also support the modern neo-liberal Globalist system....so they want to offshore all jobs to slave factories in China, allow millions of 'undocumented' workers to depress salaries, AND bemoan that we can't have multi-decade retirement systems fully funded. Its astounding how the democrats have gone along with these ideas for so long...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jmclnx 5y ago

In the US there is a "fund" that is suppose to be paid into by Private Companies, Unions and others that is like a Pension Insurance. That fund is Extremely underfunded. If your Company goes bust or the Union implodes, last I heard (many years ago), that fund could only cover a bit less than 50% of your benefits, so you will get a massive cut. Also in the past, if you worked for the Federal or State Gov, you did not get Social Security because you paid into a pension. I do not know if that is still true. But the Federal Gov through cuts (we all know who pushed those cuts) and Union Busting, is causing the whole pension system to go bust since pensions work only if the Company or Union is growing and people are there to pay into it. Now that union membership is optional in many states, money is not flowing into the fund.

bradleyjg 5y ago
> since pensions work only if the Company or Union is growing There’s a name for a scheme like this—-pyramid.
- tolidano 5y ago
  Well, that’s a pretty interesting connection. If you look here, besides one or two states, every state is much much larger than it was 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, and 20 years ago. So, it’s not shocking or absurd to imagine state populations continuing an upward trend and therefore, more people, and therefore, without anyone passing union busting or other anti-union laws and regulations, you would expect union membership in most sectors to grow and have plenty of data to back it up. This isn’t like Mary Kay or Noni Juice or whatever where you have to sell someone on the promise very hard or demand some upfront investment to pay the current membership. Just wait around and people will be born. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
throw0101a 5y ago
> since pensions work only if the Company or Union is growing and people are there to pay into it. Only true if it's a "pay-as-you-go" systems: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-as-you-go_pension_plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-as-you-go_pension_plan Canada's public pension (CPP) used to be this way (like US SS), but was changed in the 1990s and uses investment returns in addition to contributions: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_reforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_refor... It is possible to have a practical fund without new contributions. It is after all how the "4% rule" works with private retirement accounts: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_spend-down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_spend-down You stop contributing at (e.g.) 65 and you can coast on the holdings without putting new money into account.

amusedcyclist 5y ago

How is it loaded if its true ? Its not neutral to avoid blaming the party that is actually responsible for the bad thing being discussed

cherrycherry98 5y ago

A reasonable explanation other than McConnell is a "mean guy" would be that he doesn't feel the federal government should bail out states for making promises they can't keep. After all, if they get bailed out once, it only further enables state and local politicians to keep promising generous future benefits that they won't be responsible for figuring out how to fund. Come work for us, we pay less than the private sector but future generations will figure out how to pay you a nice retirement package! Oh, I won't be around to be held accountable if they can't, but don't worry Uncle Sam will pick up the tab!