If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
kontiki wrote:
They will find they are competing with a new class of laborer, resently arrived from another country willing to work for a wage suprisingly lower than they expected to make (if they can get hired at all). No, they won't. Recently arrived immigrants aren't thick on the ground in professional positions. They will be competing with other professionals who are in their late 20s or early 30s (that's typically the age bracket employers target with their ads for "3 to 7 years experience"). If they return to school and try to enter another profession, they may get as far as the interview. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:xtVge.4964$1f5.4519@trndny01... gatt wrote: They're probably better off finding work at a company that won't screw them and the taxpayers based on poor executive decisions. *You* try finding a decent job when you're in your 50s. No, they won't discriminate on age, they'll just tell you they're looking for someone with less experience. Kinda what happens when you expect your (current) employer to act as your parent as well...even into your 50's. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"aluckyguess" wrote in message ... Their is only one person who will take care of you and that is yourself. The corporate world has to answer to the stock holder not the employee. And customers. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:04:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote: Not to diminish what has happened at United, but it was reported on NPR that United pensioners are guaranteed their pensions, up to $45K annually. The guarantee of course is by the American taxpayer. (Speaking of the nation, not the airline.) I have little sympathy for airline employees, who in the good days set the airlines up for future bankruptcy much as the United Auto Workers did. (To be sure, the airlines and the auto mfgrs were enablers.) I remember the media crowing about how good it was going to be for United when the union became the primary stockholder (IOW, the OWNER of the COMPANY). UAL was going to become the Workers Paradise®. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"kontiki" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to pay the promised benefits. One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be just that: "professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct. The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of their own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves manage. When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at your own risk. The term is "beholden". When you demand the taxpayers bail you out of your stupid and adolescent decisions, the term is "parasite". |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message . net... "kontiki" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to pay the promised benefits. One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be just that: "professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct. The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of their own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves manage. When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at your own risk. I agree with most of what you say. Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it was inplemented in 1935. Well thought out? You're kidding!!! The problem came when people started looking at it as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63. And just 5 years earlier it was 49. Now, if it was so "well thought out"...ah, forget it. Several economists predicted it was going to be a boondoggle before the ink was dry of FDR's signiture. The only thinking involved was those grabbing for power. Social Security was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would be uncompetitive in the workforce. It ws, and it's name defined, that it was SUPPLEMENTAL. It was also VOLUNTARY. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...n/1005355.html It was a reasonable approach that got Gee, the same system failed every where else...how reasonable is that? derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life expectancy) and the program didn't change with it. Lord Acton and James Madison come to mind. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
StellaStarr wrote: You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare. It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up for retirement. You know...a "personal account." And the "sitting around" part is supposed to be the retirement they worked for all those years. They were wrong to plan for that? One of us seems to be failing to understand something... I think you missed the boat there Stella. I'm not sure what you're describing, but it is not a pension. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message Speaking as one of the millions who have
never had a pension plan -- and never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty danged good. $45k is the maximum. Very few will get that amount. I work with a flight attendent who had 19 years, 11 months in at Eastern when they went tango uniform. Being 1 month shy of 20 years, and being well shy of 60 years of age, means she will get less than $300/ month at retirement (if the PBGC isn't dissolved). This is much more prevalent than the $45k/yr figure touted in the press. Employees with a pension plan give up other benefits, usually more pay, for the promise of a retirement pension. When those promises are broken, the employee ends up with nothing in exchange for many years of concessions. Most of these people put their trust in Big Corporate Brother and will pay dearly in their less productive years. You don't have a pension, but I bet your retirement will be a lot nicer for not counting on Big Corporate Brother. D. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"John Galban" wrote
StellaStarr wrote: You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare. It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up for retirement. I think you missed the boat there Stella. I'm not sure what you're describing, but it is not a pension. From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia: A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an employer (for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of "deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during the 1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to increase. John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what Stella wrote. Bob Moore |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Moore wrote: From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia: A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an employer (for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of "deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during the 1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to increase. John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what Stella wrote. The deferred compensation described sounds like the company promising to pay you later (originally because they couldn't afford to pay now). Stella's description sounded like some sort of individual account, like a 401K, where actual earned dollars (not deferred) are used. A 401K (or similar individual retirement account) is usually not under the direct control of a company, and cannot be squandered by them. A promise by a company to pay your salary after retirement is just that. Words. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 07:31 PM |
Osama bin Laaden | Big John | Piloting | 2 | January 12th 04 04:05 AM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |
Two Years of War | Stop Spam! | Military Aviation | 3 | October 9th 03 11:05 AM |
U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world | John Mullen | Military Aviation | 149 | September 22nd 03 03:42 PM |