Chief Executive Douche at AIG Says "Work Till Your Dead, Suckas!"

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Cascarino's Pizzeria, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. Emile

    Emile Member

    Oct 24, 2001
    dead in a ditch
    I have been under the impression that increases in life expectancy over the past 60 years are much more due to decreased infant mortality, rather than a new class of 75-year-old super-people ready to drive forklifts. Maybe I'm wrong about that - a quick glance at data shows that infant mortality in the US has pretty well stagnated, but then again so has life expectancy. I'd think that drops in smoking rates will lead to better health outcomes for people from age 65+, but I'm also pretty sure obesity and diabetes rates are higher now.
     
    bigredfutbol repped this.
  2. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My issue was with the lack of integrity if the argument. And it doesn't work as well as the railroad retirement fund so its not that great.

    The only complaint I had with what Bush proposed is that he never had the balls to explain what would happen if the personal investment portion of the program lost money.
     
  3. Emile

    Emile Member

    Oct 24, 2001
    dead in a ditch
    Sorry to respond to myself, but this info isn't very hard to find, so I'll add it.

    Life expectancy in 1950 was 56.2 for men and 65.5 for women. In 2009, it was 78.5 for the total population.

    Life expectancy from age 65 in 1950 was 13.1 for men and 16.2 for women. In 2009 it was 19.2 for the total population.

    So people are living roughly 5 years longer from age 65 than they did in 1950. Does that mean retirement age should be increased correspondingly? What is not captured is whether this 5-year increase represents the ability to keep ill people alive longer, or if the onset of debilitating illnesses which would make working difficult is being delayed.

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm
     
  4. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Once again, there aren't jobs available.

    But even if so ... come on, all you gotta do is get behind a 70-year old in a supermarket line, or (God forbid) at TSA. Employers will not pay for that level of performance, not if they can opt instead for a young buck who moves three times as quickly and who doesn't get confused by 1995 technology.

    Alright then have a massive government/tax incentive program to coerce employers into taking on slower, less-effective workers. Or ... you could just pay those government monies directly to seniors. We could call that program Social Security or something.
     
  5. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    The way I understand the reform proposed in San Jose (which passed easily but will be challenged in court), they will honor the benefits that already accrued but from now the benefits will be reduced, or if somebody wants to continue having their benefits accrue as they had been promised previously they will have some money taken out of their pay to cover the difference.

    So, in practical terms, they are rewriting the deal. You can still get all you were promised if you want, but you have to pay for some of it yourself, rather than getting it from the taxpayer.

    My understanding is that the city is negotiating with the unions to change the deal they had, and this reform package proposed to the voters in the end is to a large extent more of a bargaining chip to get the concessions they want from the unions. My point was not about the merits of the idea itself, but that the idea was very popular with the voters in San Jose, liberal as they presumably are.
     
  6. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    I am not sure if this is the case anymore. I know a few teachers who went to private schools and took a pay cut. All jobs seem to pay less at the school and the bennies are not as good either. Some government jobs don't exist in the private sector at all. This seems to be an old talking point that was once true. When I had my audit it was clear the accountants I played soccer with knew more about the tax codes than the IRS agent who audited me. Or, the agent was not being honest but knew he couldn't get fired. Either way, my teammates said the only reason you take an IRS job is because you cannot get hired in the private sector. One described it as accounting Special Olympics.

    If you give government workers private sector benefits the unions will go crazy. As far as fair, I agree that it is wrong morally to change the deal but a lot of retirees are finding out that companies can change the deal often.
     
  7. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    Social Security is the largest bushel of resources not yet usurped by Wall Street. Hence the rush to 'reform' it. Concentrate benefits, spread costs.
     
  8. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    If Bush somehow was able to convince Congress to allow people to voluntary move 2-4% of their SS money to private accounts and then 2008 happened, how much you want to bet that there'd be no bailout for these suckers? "It's the beauty of the free market" and all that jazz.
     
  9. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Sep 29, 2002
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    emile, I saw these websites too. What I would like to know are the actuarial tables for 20 year olds in 1935 vs today. They are important becasue one could compare the number of years contributing into social security into those withdrawing.
     
  10. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    The base increases annually, already. It will reach $200K soon enough. I would just like to see the higher income tax bracket kick in, where the SS wage base maxes.
    http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html
    "From 1937 to 1975, Congress increased the tax max on an ad-hoc basis. ... Since 1975, the tax max has generally increased at the same rate as average wages each year."
    Scroll down to Table 1.
    The subsequent Charts indicate that only 8% of wage earners exceed the current maximum, and only 18% will exceed the max, even once, in their lifetime.
     
  11. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    There are certain aspects of public pensions that need reforming, particularly employee contributions, disability and the earning upon which pensions are based.
    Public employees and employers realize that their pensions have to be funded, based on annual ontributions and reasonable returns. In New Jersey, the state decided decades ago, to simply stop paying its annual share! (Both paid 5% of salary, for a 10% annual contribution.) This has led to a pension crisis, but it's entirely the employer's doing.
    Citizens are rightly concerned when a large number of any group of public employees receive tax-free disability pensions. In a way, it mirrors the concern over Social Security Disability fraud. I've never been a fan, because I question exactly how many can genuinely no longer perform their jobs, or receive reasonable workplace accomodations, to continue them to work.
    In some systems, pensions are based on a final year's pay, rather than an average, and some include overtime. These both lead to abuses. Some employees retire on pensions that are greater than their base pay! Reform here seems obvious and reasonable, but is generally opposed.
     
  12. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, that's what bugs me to no end. We hear all the time about how states can't afford the public employee pensions, but what they don't tell you is that is that the situation got to that point because those states weren't contributing to their pensions to the level that they knew that they had to contribute when those pensions were set up. Why? Because "not contributing to pension funds" is an easy way for state legislatures to balance the books without having to cut programs or raise taxes. They know that they'll eventually have to pay much more to make up for what they didn't contribute today, but by then, it won't be their problem anymore.

    Now that the bill has finally come due, suddenly we're hearing about fat-cat public employee retirees who are bankrupting their states. Well, no. But because the state didn't contribute $1 to their pension funds way back when, the pensions don't have the money to pay out $3 now.
     
  13. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not just not contributing, but legislative borrowing from said funds and failing to repay fully, or at all to said funds.
     
    JBigjake repped this.
  14. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Yet another example of how The WSJ controls the Republican base. Crushing public-sector employees was a Journal mission long before the Tea Party took its first breath. The Journal has spent years battering public unions -- polishing the message and printing faux research from the think tanks. Eventually, word gets to the base, which has no idea that it's being played from up top.
     
  15. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    Or, in some cases, they prefer to blow up the pension system. NJ has gone the full circle from Christie (Whitman) to (Chris) Christie. When Whitman was gov, the pension plans were flush, so she proposed to stop making the state's half of payments, while the rate o return was high. Employees went along with it, because she reduced their contributions from 5% to 4%. I warned a lot of co-workers that the 1% would come around to bite them in the ass one day. Now, that day has come. Gov. Chris has chopped CoLas (cost of living increases) until the fund reaches a higher level of funding, but STILL refuses to move towards that level by paying the state's share! His actions also caused many state workers to retire early, putting more of a drain on the pension systems, with fewer contributors! Some unions opposed the state's failure to fund from the start, but lost in court.
     
  16. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    States have borrowed from all funds, not just public employee pension funds. NJ saw that its unemployment insurance fund was flush, so it borrowed billions from it. Then, the economy declined, and the fund was eventully exhausted. NJ then had to borrow billions from the federal government, which will have to be paid back, with interest, apparently by increasing the amount employers have to contribute ...
     
  17. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Don't forget the transportation fund that he steals from:

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/state_treasurer_christie_admin.html
     
  18. nicklaino

    nicklaino Member+

    Feb 14, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    You could invest it in low risk stuff. You won't lose money. If I was younger I would have went for that .


    If you die at 65. It is a loss but if you invested that money in a private 401 k you can leave that money to your children. Then they can piss it away.
     
  19. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    If you know the elementary basics of investing it's a no-brainer. Of course you're much better off investing your own money. The problem is how to prevent those who don't know shit about investing from getting scammed.
     
  20. nicklaino

    nicklaino Member+

    Feb 14, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    In a government backed reverse mortgage you have to take a class before you do it. You can do the same and it could be mandated by law so if you take that option you don't screw it up. But the truth is a reverse mortgage is only good if you absolutely need extra money now. If you don't it is a very bad thing to do. Especially if you would like to leave the house to the kids.
     
  21. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is the price of that "education" for approximately 200 million people worth it?
     
  22. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Is this a moot point? I would be curious what percent of our population don't invest at all.
     
  23. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Just over 50% own stocks in some fashion (typically through funds in the 401(k) plan).

    I don't think it's clear at all that people would be better off investing on their own than going through Social Security. Who is to say that stock returns will be positive a long time period?
     
  24. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Does anyone know what the return on SS is?
     
  25. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Good question.
     

Share This Page