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.
If you're going to "educate" us, at least get your facts straight. Life expectancy for all in the US has gone from 69.8 to 78.7 in the period of 1960 through 2010. A significant portion of that has to do with a lower infant mortality rate rather than people living longer.
Yeah, that's why anyone with a semblance of actuarial talent wouldn't use life expectancy from birth for the reasons of calculating retirement pension costs. Infant mortality skews the data for these purposes. Next time you correct someone use data that is pertinent to the argument.
Here is data from social security. People who live to 21 have a greater chance of making it well into their mid 80's then they did at any time post WW2. Mind you, this data just goes to 1990. Also, note the spike in life expectancy from age 65 to death. Now, that won't tell the whole story because some people will contribute and die before being able to withdraw funds.
Quote:
Irrespective of this, there is nothing inherently unsustainable about a pension if properly budgeted and protected from politicians or businessmen who raid the funds.
And here we are. Blame it on other people. The government didn't budget enough. The politicians raided the pension. It's Wall St's fault. Blame the housing market. My 7 year old makes less excuses than most people on this board. She also makes better arguments and brings better supporting data! It's really much simpler then this. NYS politicians, with a little charitable contributions from unions, gave some concessions that are detrimental to the future of the state. The great thing is that we can change this. Hold a constitutional convention, change the law that was added guaranteeing pension rights, and reduce pensions to be in line with contributions.
Yeah, that's why anyone with a semblance of actuarial talent wouldn't use life expectancy from birth for the reasons of calculating retirement pension costs. Infant mortality skews the data for these purposes. Next time you correct someone use data that is pertinent to the argument.
Here is data from social security. People who live to 21 have a greater chance of making it well into their mid 80's then they did at any time post WW2. Mind you, this data just goes to 1990. Also, note the spike in life expectancy from age 65 to death. Now, that won't tell the whole story because some people will contribute and die before being able to withdraw funds.
You claimed that life expectancy is now 86:
Quote:
A great example of pensions going awry is social security. Originally the contribution levels were calculated based on a life expectancy of 68 when one could only start drawing funds at 65. Now life expectancies are 86 and you can draw at 66.
...but your data doesn't support that. In fact, your link doesn't touch on life expectancy at all - it just says that if you live to 65, you have a good chance of living longer. Which hasn't changed much, according to your link:
Quote:
As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
Quote:
And here we are. Blame it on other people. The government didn't budget enough. The politicians raided the pension. It's Wall St's fault. Blame the housing market.
Yes, instead of a myriad of complex reasons, let's boil it down to dem damn greedy teachers because that's easier to wrap your head around.
Quote:
My 7 year old makes less excuses than most people on this board. She also makes better arguments and brings better supporting data!
Clearly a greedy teacher taught her better than her father.
Quote:
It's really much simpler then this. NYS politicians, with a little charitable contributions from unions, gave some concessions that are detrimental to the future of the state. The great thing is that we can change this. Hold a constitutional convention, change the law that was added guaranteeing pension rights, and reduce pensions to be in line with contributions.
Be careful what you wish for. Given the liberal bent in this state, I don't think a constitutional convention would go well for people with your beliefs.
I actually find it rather hypocrital for the teachers and some of the other unions to blame their problems on wall street. They were the direct beneficiaries of a pension fund that was heavily invested in the stock market, at one point it allowed the state to stop contributions all together. They didn't seem to have much anger towards the financial sector when their funds were getting +10% returns in the 90's.
but your data doesn't support that. In fact, your link doesn't touch on life expectancy at all - it just says that if you live to 65, you have a good chance of living longer. Which hasn't changed much, according to your link:
Yes, the words
Quote:
Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65
have nothing to do with life expectancy. Wow, either your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking or you just want to ignore the other side in a mad dash to claim some type of fleeting victory.
Maybe you should try to read someone's posts and look at their links before you reply. It will make you look like less of a snobbish liberal drowning in your own refuse of self absorbed talking points without any understanding of the argument at hand.
I pointed out life expectancy
You pointed out that it hasn't changed much if you include infant mortality
I replied by pointing out that most people who calculate retirement type costs don't include infant mortality, because it skews the data
You then went to say that the above bolded quote has nothing to do with life expectancy, clearly because it only has the word life expectancy in the the title.
You posted that life expectancy is now 86, when it isn't. Then, your own data, which you claim is controlling, says that life expectancy for people who reach 65 is only 5 years longer than it was in 1940 (less so for men). Once again, I quote your source:
Quote:
As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
Perhaps it is you who should look at their links before replying.
I actually find it rather hypocrital for the teachers and some of the other unions to blame their problems on wall street. They were the direct beneficiaries of a pension fund that was heavily invested in the stock market, at one point it allowed the state to stop contributions all together. They didn't seem to have much anger towards the financial sector when their funds were getting +10% returns in the 90's.
This is kind of backwards. Teachers get a guaranteed pension, so whether the fund pulls 2% or 10%, their pension is the same. I think teachers salaries may have been the benefactor of high wall st returns because you didn't have these kinds of uproars about contracts when the economy was doing better, so municipal salares..and hence pension pay outs..kept escalating.
The reason I started this thread was because I was comparing the pay of a profession, which (I thought) was held in high esteem, to Long Island teachers. I feel that it puts into perspective a problem which is driving so many out of our area.
I agree that a good teacher should be well compensated. These teachers should also be angry. Are they rewarded for their igenuity and effort? Or are they just getting what everyone else is? Where is the incentive?
The way our economy is, the private sector is being pitted against public. Wouldn't it be great if both can have a decent wage? But, no, the private sector is all about cost and pleasing the share-holders. It's business.
yup!.......and its a crying shame we are ALL not reaping the benefits of our hard work!
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday that he will immediately halt investments in two big government pension plans so the government can continue to borrow money.
Geithner informed Congress of his decision in a letter stating that the government had officially reached its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit. He repeated a warning that if lawmakers do not increase the borrowing limit by August 2, the government is at risk of an unprecedented default on its debt.
We are going to keep piling on more debt on every level of government starting from Federal, State, Municipalities, Schools etc. Eventually US dollar will be ZERO. Keep buying the junk from China with borrowed money from them or printed money from FED and no hard work to actually produce anything.
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.
Budget vote May 17, 2011 its for the kids
yup!.......and its a crying shame we are ALL not reaping the benefits of our hard work!
