6 ms·

I really don't care if shareholders get less money or if a CEO gets less of a bonus. It's OK to pay some people less.

cpursley 3y ago
So it’s okay screwing retired teachers living of funds they’ve paid into their entire working career? Because that’s the typical type of person who owns stock (not directly).
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  Obviously society thinks it is OK. If we didn't, we wouldn't let retirement funds be dependent on how well stocks do - and we only did that after plundering other people's pensions and screwing them over. They might indirectly own it, but it is other folks getting rich off of their money. Realistically, no one should have risk when paying into pensions/retirement for later and it should be somewhat promised. The entire system is reprehensible as it stands.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  No of course not. But keep in mind it's a relatively new phenomenon for most people to rely on stocks/401k/IRA for their retirement. Prior to that retirement funds were primarily handled by pensions where the company or organisation you worked for put away money for you in a fund and for the employee there was little to no risk that this money would disappear or diminish in value. Behind the scenes the company may invest it in various ways but it was generally a "low risk" retirement fund. The reason why every company and organisation (other than a handful of government orgs) got rid of pensions and switched to investment based retirement funds was because the risk got moved away from the company to the employee and as a result it was cheaper to operate. And as an added bonus, now any time we want to consider raising wages or improving things for workers at the cost of shareholders profits, companies can turn around and argue "this is hurting retired people". So no of course not I don't think retired people should be getting fucked out of the funds they've been paying into for their entire careers but they shouldn't be paying into those funds in the first place. Unless they explicitly opt into that risk, they should be getting access to a pension with guaranteed payout by default.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    > opt into that risk This is firmly opt-out at this point. Who offers pensions anymore outside of State/Fed (how reliable do we expect those states to be in the coming decades). You can't demand a company provide a pension so it's on you to invest for your retirement ... into what?
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      Exactly. That's the problem. Companies don't provide pensions anymore because it is always cheaper for them to provide a 401k or IRA and offload that risk. People only let them do it because we had fairly substantial periods of prosperity where relying on the stock market seemed "guaranteed" even though it is anything but. What I'm suggesting is that not providing a pension shouldn't be seen as acceptable. I don't know if I'd suggest going as far as mandating it by law but I think workers should be demanding a right to a pension for themselves and all their fellow workers at a given org or in a given industry. The labor movement is having a bit of a revival at the moment so hopefully unions can start pushing for Qualified Direct Benefit Plans (aka pensions) to be a standard again. > how reliable do we expect those states to be in the coming decades The federal government provides guarantees for qualified pensions through the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation (https://www.pbgc.gov https://www.pbgc.gov). Even if the states fuck up, those state employees still get their pensions.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Pensions have always been invested, even before you were expected to manage the investment yourself.
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      Yes however the risks and costs are on the organization, not the individual. Even if the organization goes bankrupt or catastrophically mismanaged the fund used for the pension, the employee still gets their pension regardless of whether this occurs while or after they are working for the org. That's the important point. The costs and risks are on the org. They can guarantee the pension with low risk investments or dollar equivalents and have effectively no risk or they can try higher risk investments in an effort to save money but at the end of the day the employee/pensioner gets the amounts promised from the beginning.
- 8note 3y ago
  How are you doing the weighing for "typical" ? I'd imagine the typical stock owner by worth of stock owned not remotely being a retired teacher But the retired teachers indirect stock was also an attempt to get rid of pensions. Why don't we just support retired teachers as they are, instead of tying their well-being to some rich guys?
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Every time someone has tried that kind of equal income distribution, everyone has wound up gotten less, no one got more (except the new ruling class).
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  We haven't actually given it an honest try. Most places aren't even putting in a robust safety net that lets the folks with the worst luck live a life that includes adequate food and shelter. Edit: Of course some people are going to have less if we redistribute income in any way. There is no real reason that we have such income disparity. It really seems unfair for a few professions, but mostly because the job can be really stressful. Doctors and nurses and teachers, for example: Then again, not all of these jobs are paid well now and some folks would benefit from some of the distribution.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Honest tries are hard to come by because people are flawed. Even if they start out with good intentions, they inevitably get greedy and it’s just a changing of who is rich and poor more than anything else.

So it’s okay screwing retired teachers living of funds they’ve paid into their entire working career? Because that’s the typical type of person who owns stock (not directly).

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
Obviously society thinks it is OK. If we didn't, we wouldn't let retirement funds be dependent on how well stocks do - and we only did that after plundering other people's pensions and screwing them over. They might indirectly own it, but it is other folks getting rich off of their money. Realistically, no one should have risk when paying into pensions/retirement for later and it should be somewhat promised. The entire system is reprehensible as it stands.
CuriousCosmic 3y ago
No of course not. But keep in mind it's a relatively new phenomenon for most people to rely on stocks/401k/IRA for their retirement. Prior to that retirement funds were primarily handled by pensions where the company or organisation you worked for put away money for you in a fund and for the employee there was little to no risk that this money would disappear or diminish in value. Behind the scenes the company may invest it in various ways but it was generally a "low risk" retirement fund. The reason why every company and organisation (other than a handful of government orgs) got rid of pensions and switched to investment based retirement funds was because the risk got moved away from the company to the employee and as a result it was cheaper to operate. And as an added bonus, now any time we want to consider raising wages or improving things for workers at the cost of shareholders profits, companies can turn around and argue "this is hurting retired people". So no of course not I don't think retired people should be getting fucked out of the funds they've been paying into for their entire careers but they shouldn't be paying into those funds in the first place. Unless they explicitly opt into that risk, they should be getting access to a pension with guaranteed payout by default.
- peteradio 3y ago
  > opt into that risk This is firmly opt-out at this point. Who offers pensions anymore outside of State/Fed (how reliable do we expect those states to be in the coming decades). You can't demand a company provide a pension so it's on you to invest for your retirement ... into what?
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    Exactly. That's the problem. Companies don't provide pensions anymore because it is always cheaper for them to provide a 401k or IRA and offload that risk. People only let them do it because we had fairly substantial periods of prosperity where relying on the stock market seemed "guaranteed" even though it is anything but. What I'm suggesting is that not providing a pension shouldn't be seen as acceptable. I don't know if I'd suggest going as far as mandating it by law but I think workers should be demanding a right to a pension for themselves and all their fellow workers at a given org or in a given industry. The labor movement is having a bit of a revival at the moment so hopefully unions can start pushing for Qualified Direct Benefit Plans (aka pensions) to be a standard again. > how reliable do we expect those states to be in the coming decades The federal government provides guarantees for qualified pensions through the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation (https://www.pbgc.gov https://www.pbgc.gov). Even if the states fuck up, those state employees still get their pensions.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Pensions have always been invested, even before you were expected to manage the investment yourself.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    Yes however the risks and costs are on the organization, not the individual. Even if the organization goes bankrupt or catastrophically mismanaged the fund used for the pension, the employee still gets their pension regardless of whether this occurs while or after they are working for the org. That's the important point. The costs and risks are on the org. They can guarantee the pension with low risk investments or dollar equivalents and have effectively no risk or they can try higher risk investments in an effort to save money but at the end of the day the employee/pensioner gets the amounts promised from the beginning.
8note 3y ago
How are you doing the weighing for "typical" ? I'd imagine the typical stock owner by worth of stock owned not remotely being a retired teacher But the retired teachers indirect stock was also an attempt to get rid of pensions. Why don't we just support retired teachers as they are, instead of tying their well-being to some rich guys?

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Every time someone has tried that kind of equal income distribution, everyone has wound up gotten less, no one got more (except the new ruling class).

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
We haven't actually given it an honest try. Most places aren't even putting in a robust safety net that lets the folks with the worst luck live a life that includes adequate food and shelter. Edit: Of course some people are going to have less if we redistribute income in any way. There is no real reason that we have such income disparity. It really seems unfair for a few professions, but mostly because the job can be really stressful. Doctors and nurses and teachers, for example: Then again, not all of these jobs are paid well now and some folks would benefit from some of the distribution.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Honest tries are hard to come by because people are flawed. Even if they start out with good intentions, they inevitably get greedy and it’s just a changing of who is rich and poor more than anything else.