French strikes roll on!
-
I heard a recent stat being aired that says, most baby girls being born in the Western World today will live beyond 100! Pension structure will have to change?
-
But never forget Malthus!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus#An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population
-
The only way to do this it to test every individual. If you can no longer easily climb down from a counter top, you should consider physical retirement:-). Am still working on mental requirements.>_<.
Btw, the French situation isn't about egos, its about funding retirement:-(, a problem every civilized nation faces.
-
The US has solved it. They've simply gotten rid of most defined benefit programs (pensions) and left it to the individual to fund their own retirements. Very few jobs have pensions anymore except government jobs and some large corporations. Considering the financial fiascoes of the last decade and the flamboyant overspending across the board, this does not bode well at all for the future; I expect many have planned poorly, if at all, for their retirements.
-
This is the problem!
How a simple drawing says many more than any words
Hommes = Men, Femmes = Women
Orange = 2050 ! For France.
-
"The US has solved it. They've simply gotten rid of most defined benefit programs...........many have planned poorly, if at all, for their retirements."
Not a solution for retirement, perhaps a short sighted one for the economy. Lots of retirement plans were raided by their corporate managers. If anyone, only the "member run" Unions seem to have retirement funds.
-
As a tax payer without a pension, I harbour some resentment at government employees who get generous pensions. I realize they pay into their pensions but typically the benefits received far exceed what they ever put into them.
I have an idea: End pensions for government employees. Make them fend for themselves like the rest of us. Those employees will see a increase in their take-home pay when their contributions stop being deducted. Like most people they won't save the "extra" but will spend it. Perhaps that spending will stimulate an economic recovery.
-
Ross, you may be onto something...I'll vote for you.
-
@ross macintosh said:
As a tax payer without a pension, I harbour some resentment at government employees who get generous pensions. I realize they pay into their pensions but typically the benefits received far exceed what they ever put into them.
To amplify - the average 'matching contribution' amount from corporate America is about 80 cents to the dollar up to about 6% of salary. So the company puts in 80 cents for every dollar the employee adds to his retirement plan. Compare this to government pensions - in New York City the taxpayers pay about 10 dollars for every dollar the government employee contributes, unless you're a teacher then the contribution is about $15.50 to the dollar.
Many categories of government work in California allow a '3 at 50' rule - you get 3 times the number of years you worked as a basis for your retirement amount. So if you started work at 20, you'd be able to retire on 90% of your salary at 50. These are guaranteed benefit plans so no one really knows how much the taxpayer will have paid by the time these employees are in their 80s. If the economy crashes and the pension fund loses money the taxpayers have to put in more and more and more.
But it can get much worse. Not only are these early retirement ages economically unfeasible but they also create a 'brain drain'. Pennsylvania solved the brain drain problem by offering 'DROP'. With a DROP, the government employee retires for one day at the age of 50 but then goes back to work until 60. Between 50 and 60 he receives a salary with the normal escalators plus he receives his pension from his 'retirement' at 50. When he retires again at 60, his retirement is recalculated at the higher salary rate.
Pissed off yet?
-
Those of you advocating reductions in retirement benefits might want to think carefully; you're likely to be getting there in the not too distant future…
What on earth do you expect old people to do if there is no plausible pension? Live on the streets? Take up drug dealing? Mugging? Prostitution?
-
@tim said:
Those of you advocating reductions in retirement benefits might want to think carefully; you're likely to be getting there in the not too distant future…
What on earth do you expect old people to do if there is no plausible pension? Live on the streets? Take up drug dealing? Mugging? Prostitution?
-
The government employees retiring at 50 that I commented on aren't 'old people'. In fact, the average retirement age for a police officer in NYC right now is 43. We have approximately 10,000 retired police on full pension under the age of 50.
-
My real estate taxes right now on a small cabin in the Adirondacks are over $5,000. By the time I retire my real estate taxes will exceed the meager amount of money I'll be receiving from Social Security. In other words, I won't be able to retire because I have to pay the unreasonable pension plans the government pays itself.
-
It isn't a question of pensions or no pensions - it's a question of unequal distribution and economic reality.
-
I think the French are childish for complaining about a reasonable increase in the age of retirement to 62.
-
-
@honoluludesktop said:
"The US has solved it. They've simply gotten rid of most defined benefit programs...........many have planned poorly, if at all, for their retirements."
Not a solution for retirement, perhaps a short sighted one for the economy. Lots of retirement plans were raided by their corporate managers. If anyone, only the "member run" Unions seem to have retirement funds.
My statement was meant in a sarcastic tone, sorry it doesn't carry well on the 'net. Our economy is very shortsighted, everything is done for short term gain to please shareholders and if that means cutting employee benefits and wages to prop stock up, that's what happens.
I don't disagree with allowing people to plan their own retirements, no do I necessarily disagree with the loss of defined benefit retirements (other than the wholesale raiding or denial of pensions that employees were expecting/living on/paid into), but the main thing is that the overall scenario is a loss for the employee. One got a decent salary at one time plus benefits and retirement. Now, one makes less overall with greater expenses due to increased employee benefit costs and self contribution to a retirement fund. It equals less take home pay overall.
One of the issues with pensions is that many were designed to be vested at 20 years, so if you started working somewhere at 20, by the time you were 40 you could "retire", take the pension and get another job and work 'til 60. That's a lot of money the first company has to pay you for a long time, like our automotive industry. It's too much. There's got to be a happy medium, like working until a realistic retirement age like 55-65 before getting the pension.
-
Respect for the French.
The have a glorious history of getting rid of people who rule them the way they don't like.
The Europeans (we Dutch)are getting robbed of there pension rights ,to finance the current financial crisis.
Most working Dutch have payed all there working live (min 40j) for a pension right for the elderly (100% AOW) in a state fund.
Until now this gives them a right of a bare minimum income at 65 j
On top of that most working people build up a private pension ,via a employee pension fund ore a insurance's company to lift there income at 65 j to 70%
of there latest income.
This was one off the most stable and solidarity pension systems.However at the Lisbon Treaty the EU (the Dutch voted against the EU at a referendum) have decided to level out all European pension right.
The financial (banking) crisis however is used now as a excuse to strip down the solid pension systems in Europe to the level off the weak ones.
I hope the French will wake up the rest off Europe,
Viva la France
Bep van Malde
Advertisement