Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6240)	3/13/2001 11:12:23 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Pro-worker doesn't necessarily mean anti-company. You, of all people, should understand this. In most cases, pro-worker is also pro-company. Henry Ford realized this 80 years ago when he paid his workers a decent wage, and they then went out and bought Ford automobiles. Defined-benefit pension plans are indeed losing favor for several reasons. Take some time to explain the age-discrimination aspect of a conversion from a defined-benefits pension plan to a cash-balance plan. When IBM announced its pension plan switch, several hundred longtime, loyal workers all of a sudden found their pension plans were worth tens of thousands less. But this wasn't done to boost IBM's bottom line. Oh, no! The answer given in congressional hearings was that the move was done "to make us more competitive in the workplace." Right.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6240)	3/13/2001 8:53:22 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Defined benefit pensions are also highly inequitable. The benefit those who earn the most, by definition... which is fine if you earn the most, but isn't really sensible for a company (since the same people are also paid the most). As Karen implies, they reward time-serving at the cost of mobility and personal freedom of choice where to work. And they implicitly discourage risk and investment, since there's neither chance nor incentive to use the accumulated funds which are hopefully backing the pension for anything more than a secure retirement income. Finally, they're an inducement to poorly-run companies to raid the pot - BA is a fine example recently in the UK - since they can point to any actuarial 'surplus' as 'proof' that they've paid too much in earlier years, and so should have a contribution holiday and/or a refund in compensation. My own pension - defined contribution money-purchase - might well be less than if I stay working for my current employer for the next 30+ years: and we have less leeway in this country than you do via a Roth IRA or 401K for active investment management (even for most personal pensions, bar the SIPPs only available to the self-employed or directors): but I'd rather have 'my' pot clearly earmarked for my own benefit, and choose how it's invested in the meantime, and on my head be it. So long as the company pays the same contribution at the time, and I don't choose to allot the whole amount into Far-Eastern growth funds the year before I retire, it should work out reasonably. <Hopes he's not at risk of being moderated off yet?>