patrick.net

upisdown says

mell says

Your story adds nothing to the fact that a ponzi scheme of "guaranteed" returns

WILL fail unless you adjust payouts to what you have actually taken in - that's

a mathematical truth.

Enlighten us Sir John Templeton. Tell everybody exactly how

and why your BS assertion has any value.

1) You "guarantee" X % annualized returns

2) For various reasons the fund does not get funded appropriately and/or money is diverted and/or the "projected" returns fail to materialize

3) You end up having less money in your fund to distribute

Option A) You adjust the payout = Balanced system

Option B) You pay out all the monies you "promised" to everyone by taking on new debt and/or increasing the payout for future employees and/or finding more to pay in if you can and "project" that doing the same thing over and over again will yield different results = Ponzi scheme

mell says

1) You "guarantee" X % annualized returns

2) For various reasons the fund does not get funded appropriately and/or
money is diverted and/or the "projected" returns fail to materialize

3) You end up having less money in your fund to distribute

Option A) You adjust the payout = Balanced system

Option B) You pay out all the monies you "promised" to everyone by taking on
new debt and/or increasing the payout for future employees and/or finding more
to pay in if you can and "project" that doing the same thing over and over again
will yield different results = Ponzi scheme

LOL, baffle 'em with bullshit, huh. Your usual incoherent rambling won't work, and you're actually dumber than what I originally thought that you were.

Go back to your mom's basement.

anonymous says

"What if 3 percent is the new 8 percent? Institutional investors such as
pension funds have typically built in return assumptions of 8 percent a year—a
rate some of them have not achieved for more than a decade."

Article: Facing new reality, funds assume lower returns

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101271874

Typically? So, in other words you have not even the slightest idea what the actuarialist used to figure for funding %ages, and then you linked some benign and vague anit-pension story.

I guess(????) that's better than what the other moron burped out?

bob2356 says

You don't know what you are talking about. Public employee unions don't manage their members pension funds, the government agency that employs the workers does. The reason these plans are in so much trouble is the governments have failed to fund the plans, even when legally obligated to do so. So again, how is it the unions fault these plans are underfunded?

It's their plans, they had plenty of say about how they should be ran and managed. They didn't care to price for risk did they? Where is their safety net? Maybe an average union worker is clueless about it, but union managers and lawyers all knew. The top made out like bankers out there, leaving table scraps to workers.

So yeah it is their fault. And if there was an ounce of justice, this government would claw back all the crony stolen capital from there. Instead of okeing the theft and just backing the losses with taxpayer dollars.

Being irresponsible shouldn't be insured by taxpayers. It puts a burden of someones personal irresponsibility onto others, and that is not justice.

FortWayne says

It's their plans, they had plenty of say about how they should be ran and managed. They didn't care to price for risk did they?

You are 100% incorrect. The employer handles everything. The union has no say in it.

The company (or government) negotiates the details of the pension plan with the union--after that it's up to the company (or government) to ensure that there is money available to fulfill their obligations just like they ensure they have money available to meet payroll or pay their suppliers.

FortWayne says

It's their plans, they had plenty of say about how they should be ran and managed.

You don't let facts interfere with your ideology do you? Here I'll try to save you from further embarressing yourself. Here is wiki on calpers

"The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that "manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6 million California public employees, retirees, and their families"

That executive branch stuff means the state government not the public employees unions. Honest it's true, you can look it up. It's the same for the rest of the states also.

bob2356 says

FortWayne says

It's their plans, they had plenty of say about how they should be ran and managed.

You don't let facts interfere with your ideology do you? Here I'll try to save you from further embarressing yourself. Here is wiki on calpers

"The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that "manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6 million California public employees, retirees, and their families"

That executive branch stuff means the state government not the public employees unions. Honest it's true, you can look it up. It's the same for the rest of the states also.

Actually unions do have a say. They don't manage the funds no, but they do have some power to change how it's operated. Back in 19991 Pete Wilson wanted to use some of the pension funds to reduce the CA deficit however, the union and employees were not happy about that so they help push for Prop. 192. Of course it was voted upon by the public but the Unions were at the forefront of the message.

With that said CALPERS/STRS runs and operates the pensions. However, when things go bad such as when California receives less tax income or can't fund its operations due to the lack of selling bonds they have to make cuts. Unfortunately California is unable to cut pensions (thanks to prop 192). So it's still obligated to pay pensioners what they're promised even if California doesn't have the funds to do so due to a downturn in the economy. Or better yet when Calpers/strs investments go bad, they're still on the hook for the promises that were made, which makes it unsustainable.

Can't Prop 192 be repealed?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

The Chinese will buy Detroit at the auction and take the surviving population as slaves, and replace them with pioneering settlers from the Western provinces, who will prepare America for final foreclosure and colonization.

That's a pretty racist statement considering Detroit is 90% black, and is run almost exclusively by black people. Also why do you think the Chinese would want them for slaves? Given Asian attitudes toward people with dark skin, I'd bet first on a new Great Wall of Detroit to keep non Chinese out.

bob2356 says

You don't let facts interfere with your ideology do you? Here I'll try to save you from further embarressing yourself. Here is wiki on calpers

"The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that "manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6 million California public employees, retirees, and their families"

That executive branch stuff means the state government not the public employees unions. Honest it's true, you can look it up. It's the same for the rest of the states also.

And who elected Grey Davis to spike the hell out of pensions? Unions paid significant amounts of money there to screw the public. It's why the state is out of money these days. We are still paying for what that crook and his union thugs did before the recall.

Unions in CA are killing the golden goose just like other unions did in Detroit.

spydah_hh says

Actually unions do have a say. They don't manage the funds no, but they do have some power to change how it's operated. Back in 19991 Pete Wilson wanted to use some of the pension funds to reduce the CA deficit however, the union and employees were not happy about that so they help push for Prop. 192. Of course it was voted upon by the public but the Unions were at the forefront of the message.

Putting a public referendum on the ballet 22 years ago is having a say in how calpers operates?. This is a joke right?

I like the part about "using some pension funds to reduce deficit". Sounds much better than stealing from pension fund. That would be the funds that public employees contributed from their paychecks. I can't imagine why the public employees would mind contributing their retirement funds to california politicians vote buying schemes knowing it would be very unlikely to be paid back.

FortWayne says

And who elected Grey Davis to spike the hell out of pensions?

Last time I checked the 24 million voters of california, of which 2 million are union members, elect the governor. Do you have information to the contrary?

If 22 million non union voters allow themselves to be led around by the 2 million union voters then they get what they deserve. Pubic unions shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, but voters can elect people who will stand up to them if they wanted to.

Why don't you run for office and help straighten things out instead of bitching?

bob2356 says

Why don't you run for office and help straighten things out instead of
bitching?

Cause they will sick the IRS on us if we have the temerity of trying to organize politically and criticize Democrat policies.

Not to mention union members banging pots and pans outside our places of work or residence trying to intimidate us if we dare complain about how their pension Ponzi schemes are bankrupting our cities.

It takes alot of financial and even physical courage to stray from the Prog hive-mindset of top-down government running our daily lives.

socal2 says

Cause they will sick [sic] the IRS on us if we have the temerity of trying to organize politically and criticize Democrat policies.

Uh, the organizations which were made to jump through additional hoops all got their tax-exempt status anyway, even though the concept of them being public-service organizations is utterly laughable.

HydroCabron says

Uh, the organizations which were made to jump through additional hoops all
got their tax-exempt status anyway, even though the concept of them being
public-service organizations is utterly laughable.

No they didn't. Several groups had their applications delayed until after the 2012 election and are STILL WAITING. Others simply were intimidated to drop out by the delays or when IRS hacks started asking for copies of prayers, speeches, finances.

Others started getting their personal or business finances audited (or leaked) for the first time in their lives after trying to follow the rules and get involved with politics.

But yeah - there is no "scandal" at all. Obama even said it last week.

bob2356 says

Last time I checked the 24 million voters of california, of which 2 million are union members, elect the governor. Do you have information to the contrary?

Who financed his campaing in exchange for crooked promises? That's cronyism at it's finest, rival that of corporate cronyism at a federal level.

Don't put it on stupid voters, voters voted for a good campaign slogan. I voted to Recall that jackass.

bob2356 says

FortWayne says

And who elected Grey Davis to spike the hell out of pensions?

Last time I checked the 24 million voters of california, of which 2 million are union members, elect the governor. Do you have information to the contrary?

If 22 million non union voters allow themselves to be led around by the 2 million union voters then they get what they deserve. Pubic unions shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, but voters can elect people who will stand up to them if they wanted to.

Why don't you run for office and help straighten things out instead of bitching?

Uh... Not all 24 million voters vote. In fact during the Gray Davis election only 8.6 million people voted. So yeah 2 million voters is a big portion when compared to 8.6 million.

bob2356 says

I can't imagine why the public employees would mind contributing their retirement funds to california politicians vote buying schemes knowing it would be very unlikely to be paid back.

Well that happened in Vallejo and it's certainly looking like it may happen in Detroit too now right?

FortWayne says

Don't put it on stupid voters, voters voted for a good campaign slogan

Voters who vote for a good campaign slogan are by definition stupid voters. I rest my case.

spydah_hh says

Uh... Not all 24 million voters vote. In fact during the Gray Davis election only 8.6 million people voted. So yeah 2 million voters is a big portion when compared to 8.6 million.

You will be presenting what evidence that all 2 million union members voted? Get a life.

bob2356 says

spydah_hh says

Uh... Not all 24 million voters vote. In fact during the Gray Davis election only 8.6 million people voted. So yeah 2 million voters is a big portion when compared to 8.6 million.

You will be presenting what evidence that all 2 million union members voted? Get a life.

Umm.. You're the one who said 2 million not me.... I am just using your statement of 2 million as reference. Which I'll admit are both incomplete and wrong but hey since you want to throw numbers out there...

bob2356 says

Last time I checked the 24 million voters of california, of which 2 million are union members, elect the governor.

spydah_hh says

bob2356 says

I can't imagine why the public employees would mind contributing their retirement funds to california politicians vote buying schemes knowing it would be very unlikely to be paid back.

Well that happened in Vallejo and it's certainly looking like it may happen in Detroit too now right?

It's happened all over the country and all over the world. The whole thing is a scam. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926

Don't get smug just because you are not a public employee and have your nice secure IRA. Once things get bad enough in DC they'll be going after IRA's. There's just too much money there for politicians to resist.

spydah_hh says

Umm.. You're the one who said 2 million not me.... I am just using your statement of 2 million as reference. Which I'll admit are both incomplete and wrong but hey since you want to throw numbers out there...

No I said there were 24 million voters and 2 million union members. You made the statement that 2 million is a large portion of the 8.6 million votes for gray, implying all 2 million union members not only voted, but they all voted for gray, something I have to believe is very highly unlikely. I await your proof to back up your statement.

If people don't bother to go out to vote or are to lazy to bother to research the candidates and issues then they deserve whatever they get.

bob2356 says

Don't get smug just because you are not a public employee and have your nice secure IRA. Once things get bad enough in DC they'll be going after IRA's. There's just too much money there for politicians to resist.

Actually I work for the state thanks... Don't act like you know me either. Also do I agree with our pension plan? No, in fact I wish I could stop paying and place that $220 check into my hands and let me determine how I want to pay for my retirement (same for SS too). What's funny is the state contributes over $520 to my retirement per month and yeah they can keep that too as long as I get to keep my $220. I think that's a fair trade off don't you? But honestly i am not counting on it since i have over 25 more years til I am eligible to retire from the state, and who knows what f*k would happen til then.

Hell, I wish I wasn't obligated to pay $50 for union dues.

bob2356 says

No I said there were 24 million voters and 2 million union members.

You didn't quite say that either.

spydah_hh says

bob2356 says

No I said there were 24 million voters and 2 million union members.

You didn't quite say that either.

Thats exactly what I said. I'm still waiting for your proof that every single union member in CA voted for grey. Will I be waiting long?

bob2356 says

It's happened all over the country and all over the world. The whole thing is
a scam. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926

Don't get smug just because you are not a public employee and have your nice
secure IRA. Once things get bad enough in DC they'll be going after IRA's.
There's just too much money there for politicians to resist.

The ONLY reason that Detroit's pension is sunsustainable is because of the recent actions by the governor and the hyped/self-imposed bankruptcy. His actions made the ratio of payers into the system versus the number of retired go negative.
But is the ratio truly negative, or is it a BS figure, and yet the private managers continue to milk that pension for fees, commissions, and admin costs along with the state cutting off their funding.

These pension funds went from something reasonable and conservative, to something that is just another racket ran by Wall Street.

It's why those things were never unsustainable, and vanished long ago from the private sector.

FortWayne says

It's why those things were never unsustainable, and vanished long ago from the private sector.

Pension funds were and are completely sustainable. They vanished from the private sector for the same reason that companies cut pay and lay off workers. Because they can. Companies cut whatever they can get away with so more money flows up to the owners.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

It's why those things were never unsustainable, and vanished long ago from the private sector.

Pension funds were and are completely sustainable. They vanished from the private sector for the same reason that companies cut pay and lay off workers. Because they can. Companies cut whatever they can get away with so more money flows up to the owners.

And you figure that how? Pension promises rely on ever growing economy become impossible in an economy that crashes every 10 to 20 years. At some point those pensions were reasonable, today they are bloated.

In CA I hear pension funds are pretending that they are getting 8% returns on their pension investments in order to keep it going... but reality is that they are sending huge bills to the cities every year. At some point we are not getting the service we are paying for in taxes if all the money is vanishing into locked up wall street funds courtesy of the unions... who only know how to cover behind union employment and protest occasionally hurting the cities economy.

FortWayne says

In CA I hear pension funds are pretending that they are getting 8% returns on
their pension investments in order to keep it going...

Hedge funds are crying about 8% returns and closing them up because they were used to around 30% returns. And those pensions are considered annuities, that coincidentally are sold by many different types of companies to the general public.

FYI, your ficticous 8%-8 1/2% number is some random pulling from someone's ass because not all pensions have the exact same number of contributing members, eligible but non-contributing members, and retired/collecting members. The diverse investments have diverse returns along with the payers to paid ratios, so they can NEVER all rely upon some predetermined returns standard.

The supposed worst pension in the country which is the Illinois Teachers Retirement System has never missed a payment since it's inception in 1941, and takes in more than double of what it pays out.
The useless and moronic funding percentages are ridiculous because not only do people retire at totally different times, but pre-funding some account decades before it is ever drawn upon is susceptible to numerous fees and costs, not to mention then you bitching about the high dollar amounts within those accounts.

Why don't you just admit the REAL reason that you and every other right wing extremist hate pensions is because; 1)you don't have one or anything that closely resembles retirement security, and 2) it's about throwing those retirement investments onto the private market(where they essentially already are) to be used and abused by parasitic humps like Mush that eat up most of the gains while accepting none of the risk.

FortWayne says

And you figure that how? Pension promises rely on ever growing economy become impossible in an economy that crashes every 10 to 20 years. At some point those pensions were reasonable, today they are bloated.

A pension simply promises a fixed payout--it does not require a growing economy. As such, it is not by definition unsustainable.

Pensions become unsustainable when companies/governments UNDERFUND them and use the money in other ways. They oftentimes then must make unrealistic expectations on investment returns to make it appear OK. The problem is not the pension. The problem is that the management made the conscious decision to UNDERFUND it.

tatupu70 says

A pension simply promises a fixed payout--it does not require a growing economy. As such, it is not by definition unsustainable.

Pensions become unsustainable when companies/governments UNDERFUND them and use the money in other ways. They oftentimes then must make unrealistic expectations on investment returns to make it appear OK. The problem is not the pension. The problem is that the management made the conscious decision to UNDERFUND it.

I tell you what, you put 5% of your salary away for 28 years into some investment just like pension funds do. And come back and tell me if you'll have magically saved for another 30 years of your final salary... including healthcare benefits and any other pension spikes.

Those guarantees are only good and sustainable if money grows on trees and no one spikes their pensions... In CA they were sustainable when pensions were 60% of final salary, not 100%. Today numbers just don't add up. Unions are killing the golden goose.

upisdown says

FYI, your ficticous 8%-8 1/2% number is some random pulling from someone's ass because not all pensions have the exact same number of contributing members, eligible but non-contributing members, and retired/collecting members. The diverse investments have diverse returns along with the payers to paid ratios, so they can NEVER all rely upon some predetermined returns standard.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night, those pensions are only good if there are money in the account. And with constant spiking, and theft by the union members those pensions are not sustainable. Not to mention the math doesn't even add up, and economy growth far less then what pensions are expecting to get... but I know in union entitlement system it's all about money growing on trees.

I'm in CA, and CA lucked out, Obama bailed out our state pension funds. But most other states... best of luck to you.

FortWayne says

I tell you what, you put 5% of your salary away for 28 years into some investment just like pension funds do. And come back and tell me if you'll have magically saved for another 30 years of your final salary... including healthcare benefits and any other pension spikes.

Obviously the pension funds aren't based solely on employee contributions. The company is supposed to contribute the majority of the funds--and that's why the pensions are underfunded. The management didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

FortWayne says

Those guarantees are only good and sustainable if money grows on trees and no one spikes their pensions..

No those guarantees are only good if management actually does what it promised. If they lie, then obviously all bets are off.

tatupu70 says

Obviously the pension funds aren't based solely on employee contributions. The company is supposed to contribute the majority of the funds--and that's why the pensions are underfunded. The management didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Especially when for a long time they contributed close to nothing because they didn't think contributing made sense. I remember all those CA union protests when they were told that they need to start putting money into their pensions...

FortWayne says

I remember all those CA union protests when they were told that they need to start putting money into their pensions...

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? The union pension contributions were automatically deducted from their paychecks. Management, on the other hand, willfully neglected their obligations.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

I remember all those CA union protests when they were told that they need to start putting money into their pensions...

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? The union pension contributions were automatically deducted from their paychecks. Management, on the other hand, willfully neglected their obligations.

I don't know how it was in other states, but in CA for a while there were no paycheck deductions toward pensions for many years. Economy was doing great, so unions decided that contributing to pensions was for chumps and stopped since their pension fund returns were more then enough with just "employer contributions alone". Then years later they started whining that there is not enough money in the fund, which they underfunded themselves.

Unions like to blame others, but it's all their doing out here in CA.

Here is an article for you tatupu, we were all there when this happened. I remember being outraged at Governor Davis when he screwed CA royally it was 1999.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703315404575250822189252384

CALPERS unions screwed CA out of money, it's why all our cities are broke, streets are crumbling. Unions are killing CA. They voted themselves very nice retroactive increases, by putting that cost onto the rest of us and our children.

FortWayne says

but in CA for a while there were no paycheck deductions toward pensions for many years.

link?

FortWayne says

Economy was doing great, so unions decided that contributing to pensions was for chumps and stopped since their pension fund returns were more then enough with just "employer contributions alone".

Unions don't get to make those decisions. Unions don't control their pension funding. I think this has been explained multiple times to you.