Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except economies of scale only is only more efficient until diseconomies of scale takes over.
a country is not one big city where the economies of scale can link neighborhoods together to make it efficient
what does the economy of boston have to do with the economy of LA? not much, so it's hard to "scale" together...
off the top of my head, Taiwan would probably be as efficient a country can get in terms of public transportation for the entire country due to its small size
a country is not one big city where the economies of scale can link neighborhoods together to make it efficient
what does the economy of boston have to do with the economy of LA? not much, so it's hard to "scale" together...
off the top of my head, Taiwan would probably be as efficient a country can get in terms of public transportation for the entire country due to its small size
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
Except economies of scale only is only more efficient until diseconomies of scale takes over. You can’t just simply say that bigger scale will increase the efficiency and that an economy the size of the United States will mirror a tiny population smaller than many U.S states...or even one of our major cities.
Good thing I never said any such thing, simply or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
You can’t just throw a ridiculously simple solution at a complex problem.
This is exactly why I used to actually read the annual pension statements from my employer. I would be willing to wager that most people never read their statement, believing that when they finally get to retirement there will be sufficient money in their plan. At some point, people have to wake up and stop taking things for granted. Companies have been under funding or raiding their pension plans for a long time, and its up to the employee to take care of their retirement by educating themselves on the health of their plan. Long gone are the days when companies and unions actually look after their people. This is just one reason why I recommend people taking a lump sum and reinvesting it when they retire.
That's what I did - I took my pension lump sum. In addition, my company has been making wacky decisions so I am not sure if it will still be around in a couple of years. Since I took my pension lump sum, the company does not owe me anything so they can crash and burn in peace. I now have nothing to gain or lose with their demise. Just my retirement to enjoy.
I continue to be surprised at the political disconnect of articles like the one referenced in the OP. Essentially the article proposes more taxpayer funding of retirees, in this case retroactive pension funding because of irresponsible promises between small groups of employers and employees.
So, in addition to all of the already-funded entitlements paid by working people toward nonworking people, this would add yet another burdensome cost. Not going to happen. If it is difficult (and it has been) to legislate adequate funding for Social Security, which is an almost universal program, why would anyone think it would be possible to fund a carve-out for a special-interest group that got bamboozled by their own pension administrators.
And the optics of having younger working people, who will generally receive zero pension in their own retirement, pay additional taxes toward underfunded pensions for retirees -- this is a non-starter.
How much would fair share correct this problem? That is given total employee contributions with average market return over the years, what value would this be in comparison to pension benefits? I don't know, I'm asking.
Is the problem people living longer and drawing more than they put in?
Several factors.
1) Companies get into financial trouble and can't keep funding at required levels, go bankrupt etc.
2) Mismanagement, especially with some unions that are notorious on that front.
3) Union leadership is older, if the pension fund gets in trouble they'd rather leave nothing for the younger guys than take reductions for the current pensioners (I have a friend getting screwed that way).
4) Extremely Low interest rates on bonds etc. for quite a number of years.
5) It's possible that the life mortality tables underestimated life span, I don't know though.
Please note that in 2012 or so they passed a transportation bill that changed the interest rate that pension funds can use to determine their liabilities from a 2 year average to a 20-30 year average.
This GREATLY lowered their present value liabilities which made their pension funds look more healthy and in some cases wiped out the need for "catch up" contributions.
WHEN YOU GET YOUR PENSION STATEMENT they show how the fund is doing under both the OLD way and the NEW way.
For example, GE's pension prior to the calculation change was short a billion or so and they'd have had to put in a few hundred million annually to "catch up". But with the new way, they're fully funded. (Approximate numbers from memory).
This assumes that the pension funds will get those higher interest rates in the future like they did years ago....but if they don't then there is going to be more pain.
This isn't completely skeevy, there are some reasonable points as to why they should be using a longer term average for interest but be warned that the congress critters slipped this into a transportation bill due to lobbyists for a reason.
I continue to be surprised at the political disconnect of articles like the one referenced in the OP. Essentially the article proposes more taxpayer funding of retirees, in this case retroactive pension funding because of irresponsible promises between small groups of employers and employees.
So, in addition to all of the already-funded entitlements paid by working people toward nonworking people, this would add yet another burdensome cost. Not going to happen. If it is difficult (and it has been) to legislate adequate funding for Social Security, which is an almost universal program, why would anyone think it would be possible to fund a carve-out for a special-interest group that got bamboozled by their own pension administrators.
And the optics of having younger working people, who will generally receive zero pension in their own retirement, pay additional taxes toward underfunded pensions for retirees -- this is a non-starter.
Yeah, it sucks to get a greatly reduced pension. I have a number of relatives that have 50-75% of their pension (steel workers and the company went under) and no medical so it's been a rude awakening for them.
This is why I'm a big fan of the 401k. My money. I control it....no "future promises" that may or may not become reality.
We don't need congress (taxpayers via insurance guarantees) taking over more company's pensions. Too much of that went on during the great recession - companies CHOSE to underfund the pension plans then dump them on tax payers. Every other week there was news about companies "handing over" pension responsibilities to taxpayers.
Meanwhile the same companies were paying executives huge bonuses.
What congress does need to do is pass a law saying companies cannot abandon their already promised pension systems and they MUST pay out pension before bonus.
Last edited by blktoptrvl; 04-23-2018 at 03:58 PM..
This private sector problem should not be solved using public funds.
Absolutely true. Unfortunate for them, not my problem
Too many handouts already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
