we better worry. the last time I used the term "white men in suits" I got an alert, but the truth is, these men have lost any and all touch with working people trying to retire on a damn pittance which can be reduced at any time.

to pay guaranteed monthly benefits when employees retire."

Or I should say who gets to invest them? Wallstreet?

Badly, sometimes.

If they don't invest them then there's no sense taking them in the first place.

and now there has to be a 'reduction' to maintain 'solvency.'

Right.....

The Unions dictated where the money went. They could have put it in T-Bills if they wanted.

Wall Street then crashed the economy causing pension funds lose massive amounts of value.
They have not recovered.

So yes, as has been detailed for the last 6 years in a variety of places, Wall Street ripped these pension funds off.

No one made them do it. They could have invested in T-bills. And Wall street has recovered. The Dow is at its highs.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that the trustees should have known in advance that Wall Street was going to crash the economy?

And yes, Wall Street has recovered, but that recovery was due to bailouts that were not passed on to shareholders.

There is a wealth of info out there detailing this stuff.

Unfortunately, it is clear you don't understand any of it.

Sorry to say.

Or are you just in snark mode today?

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

"Care to clarify what I'm not understanding?"

Based on what you typed in your previous responses to this thread......all of it.

As an example, NO ONE that has any real understaanding of how a Pension Fund is invested, how they are managed and how they work in general would say;

All you did was pick at my opinions with your own opinions.

So enjoy them, because your own 'righteous indignation' at critics of Wall Street is falling on deaf ears.

Were they stupid and pulled it out at the lows?

Is the underfunding due to the decrease in union membership and due to people living longer/having more health needs due to living longer, or were the companies underfunding the pensions?

But if the options are getting some of what you were promised, as opposed to none, I guess it's better for retirees to get a percentage.

But if we had a more functional government I think the correct solution would be to have the government fund the pensions where there is a gap, but that would create an incentive for companies to cook the books to look broke and shift the retirement off onto people.

Again if we had a more functional government, the better solution would be to take employment out of retirement funding so that a company couldn't either intentionally or unintentionally leave their retirees out in the cold. But I don't trust Republicans to not then cut those benefits.

will run out of accomplices and then something will be done.

These were union run. In some cases union membership decreased. For example the Teamster Central States fund has 5 retirees for every one still working. That is completely unsustainable. In other cases the money was invested badly. In a few cases criminal activity occurred such as when the Teamsters invested in Las Vegas hotels run by mobsters.

They are multi-employer funds. The definition of multi-employer funds are those that are union based not company based.

I understand the opposition of the Steelworkers, etc. They don't want to pay the increase in the per capita tax for funds they manage. But that money is needed to keep the PBGC solvent. Currently they have a project deficit of $42 billion and they have put their odds of going broke by 2025 at 90%. If that happened the maximum PBGC pension payment would drop to $1500 a year. That would be a disaster.

employer plans and multi-employer plans. I get a pension from the PBGC because I worked at one employer (Republic Steel which became LTV Steel) and when they went bankrupt they turned over their plan to the PBGC. The PBGC employer based plans are in better financial shape than the multi-employer ones.

little over $500 is a multi-employer plan the (Steelworkers Pension Trust) which I think is funded pretty well. I get a $200 pension from the PBGC from a plan that was terminated back in 1985. I get an $1100 pension from the former owner of the company that the PBGC froze in 2003. Since I retired 4 years ago the percentage of funding in that Defined Benefit Plan has dropped every year, I think it was around 70% last year. The company has somehow gotten a waiver from the IRS for funding the last few years claiming hardship but they are making big profits. The Steelworkers Pension Trust was originally a fund set up for small employers but over the years as imports and union busting killed off the Defined Benefit Plans and dumped them on the PBGC they have been picking us up. The way I understand it the Defined Benefit Plans are insured buy the PBGC up to a pretty high limit. But I believe only about 30% of the multi-employer benefits are covered by the PBGC. I get a report that explains it every year but unfortunately I haven't kept them. So after 40 years I get a little over $1800 a month and every one of them is potentially on the chopping block. Oh we also lost our health insurance when the company liquidated a couple years ago. Fortunately I was only 8 months from Medicare so I made out fairly well. I ran into one of my co-workers yesterday his wife is not 65 yet and he said he pays $1400 a month for her insurance.

a good part of the problem came from the deregulation of the trucking industry and union busting. I worked in the steel industry
as steel companies were driven out of business from illegal steel dumping many of us also lost our company DB plans and were dumped on the PBGC. After that the Steelworkers Pension Trust ( a multi-employer plan) picked us up. As of last year's report that plan was in good shape. It all goes back to Reaganomics.

Jimmy Hoffa used Teamster pension money to "invest" in Las Vegas hotels run by mobsters. The very same mobsters that put him into office starting in the late 1940s. The history of Teamster pensions is criminal and a scandal.

I worked in the steel industry also. There was certainly no union busting there. I remember going to D.C. during the Bush administration for a Steelworker Union demonstration asking the government to impose tariffs on imported steel. Bush did exactly what the union asked him to do. Steel was done in by global competition by countries which don't allow any effective unions such as China.

relations with Cuba and how they don't have any human rights and freedom. Well what the fuck is with China? We made a living wage in the steel industry and had to compete with China making 50 cents an hour. There wasn't union busting in the steel industry that is what that free trade stuff is all about.

remember how we begged Bill Clinton for years to do it and he did nothing. Before Clinton left office there were 40
major steel companies that liquidated or went chapter 11. Then the day after Bush put tariffs on he commenced in giving waivers on
hundreds of steel products. That is the main reason I am not too excited about getting another Clinton in office.

Fucking ratfuckers.

lobbied for the bill. This cannot be lost in the story. I voted for the man twice so he could attack my pension.

that around his neck just as they did when Clinton signed NAFTA (a Republican plan).