3 ms·

>Predictably the now-pensioners claim that they paid for pensions and are thus 'owed' them. Do you think employees are 'owed' a paycheck after they do their mo

by lsc 13y ago

>Predictably the now-pensioners claim that they paid for pensions and are thus 'owed' them. Do you think employees are 'owed' a paycheck after they do their month of work? Some jobs, instead of paying you all that money up-front, instead give you a pension. Just because it's deferred 30 years rather than just 30 days doesn't mean it's any less your pay than your paycheck. I mean, you can argue that it isn't sustainable, or even that it's stupid to expect a company to deliver on a promise 30 years from now, but when you are paid in a promise of future pay... you are certainly owed that money.

rayiner 13y ago
Sure, under normal circumstances, but e.g. in bankruptcy employees can be left with unpaid wages. That's the context here.
- lsc 13y ago
  I was responding to the previous poster saying >>Predictably the now-pensioners claim that they paid for pensions and are thus 'owed' them. I read the quotes as implying that the poster thought that the pensioners were acting entitled because they thought they were owed their wages. Of course, if someone that owes you money declares bankruptcy, sometimes those debts are reduced or expunged. But that doesn't make the original debt any less legitimate.
- Retric 13y ago
  Sure, but there first in line in-front of all other creditors. So first Detroit would have to completely default on all loans as in everyone get's 0$ before they could go after pensioners. In this case the Judge basically said, bankers are just as important than you despite whatever the state law said.
3pt14159 13y ago
I put it in quotes because the group of people demanding it weren't honest enough for me to feel that they have a moral claim to it. Companies and cities go bankrupt. This isn't news. This has been happening since before the Aztec empire started. If you are going to design a pension for thousands of people you should take care to design it for the worst case scenario. I would rather take a pension that had a 99% chance of paying out $500 per month, than one that had a 95% chance of paying out $650 per month, because the retired should be risk adverse. Instead the employees were greedy, thought they could double dip by being part of the huge baby boomer group (thus not paying in a fair share, considering what they would get out) and retiring handsomely. Well you can't change reality. At the very bottom of economics is actual real resources, and if you don't create enough value or save enough value and there there isn't enough other people to feed from then you must downwardly adjust your standard of living. Remember Freedom 55? I actually know people that worked for only 30 years at a government job and are being paid 80% of their best 4 years (adjusted for inflation of course) for the rest of their life. This is unsustainable.
- lsc 13y ago
  >Well you can't change reality. At the very bottom of economics is actual real resources, and if you don't create enough value or save enough value and there there isn't enough other people to feed from then you must downwardly adjust your standard of living. Remember Freedom 55? I actually know people that worked for only 30 years at a government job and are being paid 80% of their best 4 years (adjusted for inflation of course) for the rest of their life. This is unsustainable. And? I've had jobs where I got paid $200/hr. I mean, that's not a "sustainable" rate- I'm just not bringing that much value. But the boss agreed to the rate; I still expect them to pay up for the hours I work, and I think that expectation is legitimate.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lsc 13y ago
  >Instead the employees were greedy, thought they could double dip by being part of the huge baby boomer group (thus not paying in a fair share, considering what they would get out) and retiring handsomely. The big thing you are missing is that when the boomer pension contracts were created? you could expect a reasonable return, over and above inflation, on your T bills. Because safe investments that paid out reasonably existed, defined benefit pensions were a reasonable thing. The economic reality is very different now, and the very idea that someone could make good on a defined-benefit pension is kinda laughable. My point is that the economic realities were different in the 80s. The big danger in the 80s wasn't that the value of your investment wouldn't go up, it was that inflation would go up even faster, making your 'defined benefit' worth much less in real dollars.

by lsc 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Sure, under normal circumstances, but e.g. in bankruptcy employees can be left with unpaid wages. That's the context here.

lsc 13y ago
I was responding to the previous poster saying >>Predictably the now-pensioners claim that they paid for pensions and are thus 'owed' them. I read the quotes as implying that the poster thought that the pensioners were acting entitled because they thought they were owed their wages. Of course, if someone that owes you money declares bankruptcy, sometimes those debts are reduced or expunged. But that doesn't make the original debt any less legitimate.
Retric 13y ago
Sure, but there first in line in-front of all other creditors. So first Detroit would have to completely default on all loans as in everyone get's 0$ before they could go after pensioners. In this case the Judge basically said, bankers are just as important than you despite whatever the state law said.

3pt14159 13y ago

I put it in quotes because the group of people demanding it weren't honest enough for me to feel that they have a moral claim to it. Companies and cities go bankrupt. This isn't news. This has been happening since before the Aztec empire started. If you are going to design a pension for thousands of people you should take care to design it for the worst case scenario. I would rather take a pension that had a 99% chance of paying out $500 per month, than one that had a 95% chance of paying out $650 per month, because the retired should be risk adverse. Instead the employees were greedy, thought they could double dip by being part of the huge baby boomer group (thus not paying in a fair share, considering what they would get out) and retiring handsomely. Well you can't change reality. At the very bottom of economics is actual real resources, and if you don't create enough value or save enough value and there there isn't enough other people to feed from then you must downwardly adjust your standard of living. Remember Freedom 55? I actually know people that worked for only 30 years at a government job and are being paid 80% of their best 4 years (adjusted for inflation of course) for the rest of their life. This is unsustainable.

lsc 13y ago
>Well you can't change reality. At the very bottom of economics is actual real resources, and if you don't create enough value or save enough value and there there isn't enough other people to feed from then you must downwardly adjust your standard of living. Remember Freedom 55? I actually know people that worked for only 30 years at a government job and are being paid 80% of their best 4 years (adjusted for inflation of course) for the rest of their life. This is unsustainable. And? I've had jobs where I got paid $200/hr. I mean, that's not a "sustainable" rate- I'm just not bringing that much value. But the boss agreed to the rate; I still expect them to pay up for the hours I work, and I think that expectation is legitimate.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lsc 13y ago
>Instead the employees were greedy, thought they could double dip by being part of the huge baby boomer group (thus not paying in a fair share, considering what they would get out) and retiring handsomely. The big thing you are missing is that when the boomer pension contracts were created? you could expect a reasonable return, over and above inflation, on your T bills. Because safe investments that paid out reasonably existed, defined benefit pensions were a reasonable thing. The economic reality is very different now, and the very idea that someone could make good on a defined-benefit pension is kinda laughable. My point is that the economic realities were different in the 80s. The big danger in the 80s wasn't that the value of your investment wouldn't go up, it was that inflation would go up even faster, making your 'defined benefit' worth much less in real dollars.