Supreme Court pwns public sector unions in the USA

[Lexicus]

We could easily support everyone retiring at 55 today but it would require massive expropriation of the capitalist swine

 

[stinkubus]

Pensions are a total red herring. They were a non-issue until Congress opened the door to them being deliberately underfunded by allowing actuarial unsound projections to be used to determine the level of funding necessary to meet their payout targets. These funds were intentionally sabotaged by both government and corporate America alike. If they were required to be funded in a sound way it would be scandalous malpractice to have one collapse.

Social Security functions more or less like a pension and no one is opposed to it. I don't really understand the opposition to them in either government employment or the private sector. 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans come with a host of issues, including low participation rates and moral hazard on the part of the employer. Most plans charge outrageous management fees for funds which can't beat Vanguard's index fund products (which come at a fraction of the cost).

 

[Lexicus]

Social Security functions more or less like a pension

Not quite; social security is paid out by the federal government so there is no possibility of running out of money. For pensions, it's different, they really do need to get the money from somewhere.

and no one is opposed to it.

Well, this isn't quite true but to quote Dwight Eisenhower, "their number is negligible and they are stupid."

401(k)s and other defined contribution plans come with a host of issues, including low participation rates and moral hazard on the part of the employer. Most plans charge outrageous management fees for funds which can't beat Vanguard's index fund products (which come at a fraction of the cost).

A lot of people's 401ks are still not where they were before 2008, either. One of the biggest drivers of organizing for my union right now is the fact that so many guys in our trade had IRAs that were destroyed by the financial crisis but our Central Pension Fund is one of the strongest, if not the strongest in the country.

 

[rah]

I'm not opposed to either, and expect to start collecting both next year and a 401k. I've directly or indirectly contributed over half a million into them and it would nice if that was enough that i won't starve in my old age.

We could easily support everyone retiring at 55 today but it would require massive expropriation of the capitalist swine

Good luck with that comrade.

 

[stinkubus]

Not quite; social security is paid out by the federal government so there is no possibility of running out of money. For pensions, it's different, they really do need to get the money from somewhere.



Well, this isn't quite true but to quote Dwight Eisenhower, "their number is negligible and they are stupid."



A lot of people's 401ks are still not where they were before 2008, either. One of the biggest drivers of organizing for my union right now is the fact that so many guys in our trade had IRAs that were destroyed by the financial crisis but our Central Pension Fund is one of the strongest, if not the strongest in the country.

LOL I assumed it would be taken as a given that my comment about Social Security's popularity excluded the Koch Brothers and Paul Ryan.

Government insurance coupled with strong regulation regarding operations (to prevent moral hazard) eliminates any risk of a pension fund going broke. Honestly the insurance would only be necessarily because I would fully expect some entities to try to cheat any regulation, no matter how stringent, and thus cause at least a few failures.

Any fund run in good faith should really never face the possibility of going broke. It requires the same level of malfeasance as a money market fund which "breaks the buck," so to speak. The actuarial profession has been around for a long time; they know what they are doing.

Back on topic - if the radical right wing can parlay this decision into even 1-2 more statehouses they'll be able to call a constitutional convention. Add this to the courts being packed with right wing ideologues and we could be in for some rough times ahead. If Trump ends up getting to pick a third justice (say Ginsburg dies) then we are probably drawing live to a repeal/overturn of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and possibly even worse, in our lifetimes.

 

[onejayhawk]

There is a movement to call a convention of states to amend the Constitution. The big reason would be a balanced budget amendment. After that, I'm not sure where things would go. In another group, it might worth a thread.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

a balanced budget Multiple government shutdowns amendment.J

Fixed for J
I suppose that would be an improvement.

 

[onejayhawk]

Fixed for J

The amendment would prevent the shutdowns. Problem fixed.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

The amendment would prevent the shutdowns. Problem fixed. J

We'll make Mexico pay for the deficets !
I dont think that stopped the US States from doing equally damaging state budgets.

 

[Zkribbler]

After that, I'm not sure where things would go.

No one knows.

 

[Takhisis]

The state is not bled dry. It's fat, bloated, lazy, and self-centered.

I know you're a Señor Donald Sr supporter and that the U.S government is an elective monarchy, but do you really think that this is a Louis XIV moment?

I don't have any problem with people retiring at 55. I want to retire at 55. I'm not going to be able to, largely because of decisions made by your generation, but it would sure be nice.

The things you're saying here don't even make sense. The system is "broken" because of a shortfall of money. The pensions aren't fully funded because they are paying more out in benefits than it was thought they would have to when they were drawn up. The two basic ways to solve this problem are to cut benefits, which is what you want to do, or increase the amount of money going into the pension system. One way to do that is to raise taxes. I believe that generally speaking the wealthy do not pay enough taxes and the poor pay too much.

Yes, but, taxation is bad, mmkay? I mean, would SCOTUS rule that people who benefit more from the system than others do should actually pay proportionately?

 

[onejayhawk]

I know you're a Señor Donald Sr supporter and that the U.S government is an elective monarchy, but do you really think that this is a Louis XIV moment?

Yes, but, taxation is bad, mmkay? I mean, would SCOTUS rule that people who benefit more from the system than others do should actually pay proportionately?

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain

I think that means you are in trouble.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, but, taxation is bad, mmkay? I mean, would SCOTUS rule that people who benefit more from the system than others do should actually pay proportionately?

We had to amend the Constitution to allow that.

 

[Azale]

Hopefully we won't be led by the nose by corporate unionism into the conservative abyss that is the American legal system next time.

 

[warpus]

This kills the unions.

Good job America, you're taking away employee rights and protections one by one. And everyone's worried about political donations......