Pensions Cheaper for Businesses Verses 401k's

Trapper Gus wrote:https://finance-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/pensions-may-actually-cheaper-employers-220634138.html?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16416451782816&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fpensions-may-actually-cheaper-employers-220634138.html

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Probably would be cheaper for business since no one stays at the same company for 30 or 40 years any more.  Working for 4 or 5 different employers in a career would make it difficult to piece together a pension for an employee.

Well, this is why pensions should be nationalized and run by the US government. We need a system where pensions are 100% portable from day one with no vesting and only the government can make that happen.

The article is all about how much more expensive it is to manage 401k's verses pensions. An economy of scale issue which has been obvious to anyone with a brain from the start of the 401k era.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I saw nothing in the article about the Government running the pensions.  Currently, 401k’s are much more portable.  Even the Government uses them, the Civil Service pension was phased out years ago.  

No but you brought it up. not me, and I gave you a very workable solution.

The basic problem is that people who have great retirements due the legacy pensions are fighting to keep anyone else from having them, thus in this new workplace where the employers are out to rob the employees of every last cent, the solutions must be progressive ones from the government, the only entity which has the power to control the rapist haves. /s

The fact remains that pensions are cheaper for corporations than 401k's, because they are way cheaper to manage, due to economy of scale, a point you seem to be dodging way more than RQA does on his dodges.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

No but you brought it up. not me, and I gave you a very workable solution.

The basic problem is that people who have great retirements due the legacy pensions are fighting to keep anyone else from having them, thus in this new workplace where the employers are out to rob the employees of every last cent, the solutions must be progressive ones from the government, the only entity which has the power to control the rapist haves. /s

The fact remains that pensions are cheaper for corporations than 401k's, because they are way cheaper to manage, due to economy of scale, a point you seem to be dodging way more than RQA does on his dodges.

If pensions are cheaper, companies will go back to them eventually.  If there is one thing private industry is good at, it’s pinching pennies.  But no, I’m not going to agree with your Government run pensions idea.  We can’t even get the BBB plan passed, I don’t think there is an appetite for more Government involvement.  

Cameron wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
If pensions are cheaper, companies will go back to them eventually.  If there is one thing private industry is good at, it’s pinching pennies.  But no, I’m not going to agree with your Government run pensions idea.  We can’t even get the BBB plan passed, I don’t think there is an appetite for more Government involvement.  

The failure to pass BBB is not in any way indicative of the appetite of the American people for the government to actually govern. You sound like a fucking Republican.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Actually that is exactly the reason. Half of this country hates the Government. Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination twice while promoting a massive increase in Government. He couldn’t even get Libs to buy into it. Republicans will vote against it every time.

President Biden beat Trump by almost 5%.

The 50 Republican Senators in the US Congress represent States which make up about 41% of the US population.

The actions in the BBB are wildly popular in polling of "The People". between 60% to 80% of the people support them, depending on which action.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
The best polls are the ones taken on Election Day. You’ve told me many times that the ideas of Progressives like Sanders and Warren are wildly popular, and yet Trump and Biden won the last two elections. If these big government proposals are so popular, they are going to have to prove it by getting a majority of Progressives elected to Congress and someone in the White House. Otherwise it’s just talk.

Looks to me as you are moving to goal posts, slightly, from "The People", who do want progressive economic policies, to the elected representatives, the population of whom is a function of our political system.

I already addressed the Senate, which does not, and was never meant to, represent "The People"

The House is also tilted, the popular vote has to be about 5% to the Democratic side for a Democratic majority, so the current house members were elected with about 55% of the popular vote.

Therefore, the bar you are setting is tilted. Essentially, IMO, you are using the structural advantage the wealthy have with the way the government is set up as a rhetorical defense of your positions.

I am still of the belief that some version of the BBB will be passed.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Sorry, but I believe all politicians represent the people. The people elected them. If Progressives want to get their agenda passed into law, they are going to have to understand that. Get more than 50% in both houses (Progressives, not Democrats) and occupy the White House and they can do what they wish. Otherwise it’s just an old man (Bernie ) yelling at clouds.

For someone who spends some time in discussions on political issues the point of view that percentages of elected representatives reflect the percentage of people in the country who support various proposals is somewhat naive.

As pointed out, there are differences between what the people want and what the percentages of elected representatives are due to the Senate not being a vehicle of the popular vote of the country, and the House being heavily gerrymandered. The EC system also causes the President to not be elected by popular vote.

While politicians by definition represent all of the people in their voting area, including those who cannot or do not vote, their views represent a different constituency. If the Senator from West Virgina was representing the popular will of the people of his state the BBB would already be law, so clearly, he is marching to the beat of some other drummer, so to speak.

That is what interesting discussions on this board can address.

To your incorrect idea that this is all about Senator Sanders, as has been pointed out there are 94 Congressional members of the Progressive Caucus, so it is a bit more one Senator.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
If pensions are cheaper, companies will go back to them eventually. If there is one thing private industry is good at, it’s pinching pennies. But no, I’m not going to agree with your Government run pensions idea. We can’t even get the BBB plan passed, I don’t think there is an appetite for more Government involvement.

Probably.

Sorry, was just feeling grumpy last night.

I have always thought that asking each person to become a pension expert, aka the 401k system, is stupid, as it has been known for hundreds of years that one of the major strengths of free markets is the division of labor so that people who become really good at doing one thing are good for the society as a whole. Pension managers are just like any other skill and asking everyone to be one is as I said, stupid.

As for the government, well to your valid point about the "gig" economy, the pension laws need to be changed so there is no vesting by company and that pensions are portable. We can allow private business, which are more expensive for the people whose pensions they will be, to do this, or set up a public business, I'm all for giving the people highest returns, thus the government.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Football analogy: Scoreboard. It doesn’t matter which team is better on paper, right? Whoever has the most points at the end of the game wins. With regard to your post, it doesn’t matter if more people want something than don’t want it. It’s the elected officials who make the laws. As I’ve said in the past, you have to play with the cards you’re dealt. Dems didn’t do a good job of figuring out if they have enough votes to pass BBB before they started the process. Again, if Progressives want to get things done, get more than 50% of Congress. Quit relying on polls, and start winning the game on the field.

Following your football analogy, this Congress is only at the start of the 3rd quarter, there is almost half the game yet to play, so let's not be deciding who won the game quite yet.

Say the Progressives et al give into Manchin's request for a lower income cap than is already there and some sort of employment requirement for Child Care Payments and the bill then passes the Senate?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Probably.

Sorry, was just feeling grumpy last night.

I have always thought that asking each person to become a pension expert, aka the 401k system, is stupid, as it has been known for hundreds of years that one of the major strengths of free markets is the division of labor so that people who become really good at doing one thing are good for the society as a whole. Pension managers are just like any other skill and asking everyone to be one is as I said, stupid.

As for the government, well to your valid point about the "gig" economy, the pension laws need to be changed so there is no vesting by company and that pensions are portable. We can allow private business, which are more expensive for the people whose pensions they will be, to do this, or set up a public business, I'm all for giving the people highest returns, thus the government.

Yes, asking people to manage their own financial independence is way too much. Let's have a large, overly complicated governmental organization oversee what everybody gets.

Hey, Trap, that's a big ol "/s" for ya!

PennSpartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Yes, asking people to manage their own financial independence is way too much. Let's have a large, overly complicated governmental organization oversee what everybody gets.

Hey, Trap, that's a big ol "/s" for ya!

Might be the only time I agree with you.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Perhaps. If that happens I would say Manchin won this round. Compromise is what usually gets things done. It’s why Biden was elected.

I would say that the Progressive pressure to pass bills which are progressive was successful, also. Manchin is compromising on a number of items in the BBB which he is not fond of, let's not forget.

Your apparent tendency to look at a win-win situation as a win-lose situation is odd.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Might be the only time I agree with you. But don’t gloat too much. I didn’t see many conservatives turn down those stimulus checks handed out by the overly complicated government earlier this year.

I thought you said in the past that your health care and pension were provided by your former employer, if correct you surely know that the pension is tightly regulated by the US government.

PennSpartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Yes, asking people to manage their own financial independence is way too much. Let's have a large, overly complicated governmental organization oversee what everybody gets.

Hey, Trap, that's a big ol "/s" for ya!

Might be the only time I agree with you. But don’t gloat too much. I didn’t see many conservatives turn down those stimulus checks handed out by the overly complicated government earlier this year.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Yes, asking people to manage their own financial independence is way too much. Let's have a large, overly complicated governmental organization oversee what everybody gets.

Hey, Trap, that's a big ol "/s" for ya!

While there may be a few, and many fewer than most people think, who have the knowledge needed to manage a secure source of income via some sort of private pension, a majority of the population in this country have neither the knowledge nor the time to create something as secure as a professionally managed pension. In any case the article is pointing out that due to how free markets create people who are specialists and are very good at their specialty, the system of defined benefit pensions with these professional managers, was a less costly system, for the companies, than the 401k system.

Thus your "/s" is unfounded in reality.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
But pensions have largely been replaced by 401k’s now. You read one article and now you are convinced pensions are coming back. Not in my lifetime or yours.

Rome wasn't built in a day, my friend.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

You're claiming that the majority of Americans are incapable of managing their own finances. Accepting your claim at face value, don't you think that's a massive issue? And why wouldn't your first response to such an issue be education, instead of the government absolving people of their personal responsibilities?

There is a significant difference between managing your day-to-day cash flow and managing a pension fund for 30 years in the future, however, there is also a significant difference between someone who has been professionally trained with at least a BS and probably an MS in finance who manages a pension fund and your average American who never wnet to college.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

You don't need a MS in finance to save for retirement.  Don't be absurd.

In order to maximize the pension and minimize the costs an expert is required.  Most individuals will end up with less when they are forced to manage the pension process by themselves, and their costs will be higher than if it had been done in a professional pension by someone who was highly trained to manage it.  (Are you really going to argue that division of labor into specialties, as first detailed by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" does not exist?)

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

In order to maximize the pension and minimize the costs an expert is required.  Most individuals will end up with less when they are forced to manage the pension process by themselves, and their costs will be higher than if it had been done in a professional pension by someone who was highly trained to manage it.  (Are you really going to argue that division of labor into specialties, as first detailed by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" does not exist?)

Is there any amount of personal responsibility you're not willing to turn over to the government?

Trapper Gus wrote:Your description of what you think I think is incorrect, however, it does seem to reveal someone who appear to believe there is a lot of waste in government, though you may not believe that.

I think that there are areas in which governments do a more results effective and more cost-effective job and areas where a correctly regulated private business environment does a more results & cost effective job.

Two quick areas where the government run programs are more results and cost effective are Social Security and MediCare, retirement support & health care insurance, where, with very low overhead, less than 2% of funds the government has a highly cost effective, and based on customer satisfaction, a highly results effective operation. There are plenty of other areas where the government way outperforms private business, also. I chose just two.

Where private business does a better job are barbering & hairdressing, though both, of course have sigificant government regulation.