U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2011, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 81,544,977 times
Reputation: 27707

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
but mostly it was the PEOPLE that wanted that

the 80's- and 90's had the YUPPIES..they were UPWARDLY MOBILE, and didnt want to be anchored down with a pension, they wanted the bennie of a pension(savings plan) (kind of like the old christmas funds) that was MOBILE...wah-la..the 401k
It was a boon to corporations as well as they got out of the pension business. It was easier to just toss some money to a 401K then to worry about inflation and COL adjustments to pensions that were eating up their balance sheets.

If you look at the balance sheets of these big corporations their pension funding requirements have shrunk quite a bit which frees up money for them to reinvest in the company.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:27 PM
 
54,673 posts, read 23,610,313 times
Reputation: 13167
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It was a boon to corporations as well as they got out of the pension business. It was easier to just toss some money to a 401K then to worry about inflation and COL adjustments to pensions that were eating up their balance sheets.

If you look at the balance sheets of these big corporations their pension funding requirements have shrunk quite a bit which frees up money for them to reinvest in the company.
Please stay on topic. This NOT about corporations. This is about municipalities cow towing to union demands and making promises they can't deliver.

I don't blame the unions for asking, I blame the politicians for caving in.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 81,544,977 times
Reputation: 27707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Please stay on topic. This NOT about corporations. This is about municipalities cow towing to union demands and making promises they can't deliver.

I don't blame the unions for asking, I blame the politicians for caving in.
Sorry..you're right. Went off on a tangent with another poster.

If the town is poor then they will have no other choice but to run out of money like that other town did.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 04:32 PM
 
1,123 posts, read 746,536 times
Reputation: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Yes it is insane, just as blaming the union for negotiating a contract when folks didn't think or could possibly forsee that they would be faced with the economic crisis that many cities now face.
And you feel the union leadership is entirely blameless, like freaking Bambi, for taking advantage of their fellow citizens in a process they know was rigged?

Quote:
Ah, we aren't talking about porches, we are talking about professional firefighters who I am sure at the time negotiated their contract based upon prevailing wages in other similar locals.
That is the whole point, this city is NOT like other major cities, it is very poor with a median home selling for $130,000...

Quote:
Now which is it, a gravy train or never a gravy train? Of course in the NYT story that you reference too it also points out that the city could have opted into the state wide pension fund but instead opted to operate its own. Is that also the union's fault? Is it the union's fault that the state legislature opted out fire and police of the state limits on collective bargaining, is it the unions fault that the state allowed arbitration based upon national prevailing wages and not local? Please to explain all of this in a tab bit more instructive manner rather than the sophistic "its the union's fault".
The union does share significant blame, as the fundamental relationship between politicians and public unions is by definition, unacceptable - and I might happily add, is being eliminated nationwide.

Allowing public unions to offer votes for higher pensions and benefits is entirely corrupt, why far left liberals seem to only be able to see corporate corruption - but none in this situations, is astounding, and entirely hypocritical.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 04:36 PM
 
1,123 posts, read 746,536 times
Reputation: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Sorry..you're right. Went off on a tangent with another poster.

If the town is poor then they will have no other choice but to run out of money like that other town did.
The problem with that is if I were living in RI outside that city I'd be furious, because as in the case of the other thread this issue came up in (Illinois IIRC), the state is responsible for picking up the pieces.

This means that if this city declares bankruptcy, RI will have to bail out the pensions, so even if you had nothing to do with the benefit negotiations - as in you couldn't vote because you lived outside the city - you are still obligated to have to pay for the profligate pensions et al.

Talk about taxation without any representation...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 81,544,977 times
Reputation: 27707
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterpetron View Post
The problem with that is if I were living in RI outside that city I'd be furious, because as in the case of the other thread this issue came up in (Illinois IIRC), the state is responsible for picking up the pieces.

This means that if this city declares bankruptcy, RI will have to bail out the pensions, so even if you had nothing to do with the benefit negotiations - as in you couldn't vote because you lived outside the city - you are still obligated to have to pay for the profligate pensions et al.

Talk about taxation without any representation...
Actually no. Prichard, Alabama..the first town to stop paying pensions.

Alabama Town

They have still not received any pensions:
The pension crisis: Promises unkept - CBS News
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29 AM.

¬© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top