Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Collapse of Pension Funds: The End of Retirement?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Labor Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 12:44 PM
Original message
Collapse of Pension Funds: The End of Retirement?

by Shamus Cooke

Unless things change fast, human history will show that the phenomenon of “retirement” was limited to one generation. After World War II, when European and Japanese economies stood in tatters, American capitalism could fulfill “the American dream,” since there was little foreign competition to speak of. For the first time ever, workers were promised that — after working thirty or so years — they would be able to securely retire. That was largely the case…for one generation.

The second generation is having a devastating reality check. 2008 was supposed to be a watershed year for retirement: it was the first year that the baby-boomers turned 62, and the retirement frenzy was to begin (since people could begin to draw on their social security benefits). Early in the year, however, a study was conducted that found one-fourth of these boomers were delaying retirement (only the baby-boomers who were actually able to plan for retirement were studied). The economy has since nosedived, and many more retirements are being delayed. The unfortunate reality is that many who planned on retiring will work until the grave, joining the millions of other baby-boomers who never had such dreams.

The experts are calling this the “perfect storm” for retirement. Everything that could go wrong is in fact going wrong. This storm, however, was not created by supernatural forces, but the coordinated effort of big-business and their puppet politicians.

The deliberate destruction of the pension and its replacement by the 401(k) was, of course, a giant step towards attacking retirement; but now that the economic crisis has emerged, we’re beginning to see just how ruinous the effects are.

At the end of September, just as the crisis was beginning to gain steam, it was discovered that in the previous year the value of stocks in 401(k) accounts had fallen by nearly $2 trillion! Much more has been lost since then. This is especially devastating since almost one-third of 401(k) participants in their 60s had 80 percent of their money in stocks (pension funds have been similarly destroyed).

The 401(k) was the scheme of the century. Corporations offloaded their “burdensome” pensions and used the combined forces of the media and politicians to sell the ruse to the public, to the great benefit of Wall Street. Workers were told that the boom-slump cycle was over, and that stocks were a sure thing. There were additional factors to invest in stocks: interest rates were so low that investing in bonds and other less-risky instruments offered only tiny returns; and since employers stopped contributing to retirement funds, a bigger return was required.

More importantly, corporations have been driving down real wages since the seventies, allowing less money to be saved for retirement, creating a mood of desperation.

Every “safe bet” for investing has been proven unsafe; the recession has left nothing untouched. After the dotcom bubble burst — taking with it millions of people’s 401(k) savings — the housing market became the place to invest. Now the safest possible investment, too, has turned sour. For millions of people, the home they lived in was their nest egg, which they had planned to sell and move into a smaller place. No more.

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), who chairs the House subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions, put it bluntly: “Some will have very little, some will have almost nothing, and some will have nothing when they retire”. Of course, people who “have nothing” do not retire.

This process is being accelerated by the newest trick of big business: declaring bankruptcy to destroy “pension obligations”. These obligations apply with equal weight to workers already retired, many of whom are seeing their pensions slashed in half, forcing them out of retirement.

Now even the threat of bankruptcy is constantly used in union contract negotiations to scare workers into concessions, since after achieving bankruptcy, labor agreements are torn up. The threat of closing the company’s doors is a very effective form of intimidation.

This phenomenon is at the center of the GM debate. The corporate politicians in congress cannot decide whether to appoint a “Car Tsar” to oversee the destruction of the autoworkers pensions, or use the proven method of bankruptcy. Not a day goes by that the corporate media doesn’t join hands to assail the pension and health care benefits of the “spoiled” GM workers. The hypocrisy is sickening.

Continued>>>
http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/collapse-of-pension-funds-the-end-of-retirement/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. No retirement. No dignity for the elderly
Basically they are being told they were suckers for believing anyone would look after them in their old age. I predict many suicides as elderly folks are squeezed financially and lose their homes and have no place to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. No dignity for anyone who isn't paying in. If you are taking out, you are expendable.
How is our system any better than the tribe of Indians who would send their elderly out on the ice platforms to end their lives.. because they were no longer contributing to the tribe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. First, let me clearly state that I'm pro-pension.
Edited on Sun Dec-14-08 12:58 PM by MercutioATC
That said, a lot of the issues with retirement and 401k's have been due to two things...a lack of fund choice and a lack of education.

ALL 401k's should have an option to invest in U.S. Treasuries. One can be the most savvy investor in the world, but if there's no safe place to park one's money, one is screwed.

Additionally, people need to get educated, especially if they're going to invest in equities. I work with a relatively smart group of people, and there is no shortage of decimated 401k's. They never reviewed their investments and they're paying for it now. That has to change.

Combine those two remedies with a repeal of the regulation that requires 401k's and IRAs to be cashed in at a defined age and we wouldn't have nearly the problem we do now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Working the long hours that Americans work, the average person
has too little time to learn about investment. And it takes a lot of time. My husband and I have been trying.

Also, a lot of Americans don't like math, and those that don't are baffled by the charts and numbers and seeming gibberish. Learning to judge stock performance is takes time and interest and above all patience. And think how many of the Wall Street brokers broke in this melt-down.

The repeal of the regulation that requires 401(K)s and IRAs to be cashed in at a certain age should be the first item on Congress' agenda after the inauguration. It shouldn't take much time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Then the average American should have NO money in equities.
Managing a 401k is a responsibility. I can empathize with those who don't educate themselves because it's "too hard to learn", but if they invest in equities, they kinda deserve what they get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Businesses had better prepare for a wave of age discrimination suits.
Just try competing for a job if you are over 50, much less over 60. A lot of people do not really retire. Their jobs get "phased out" and then they can't find another one because there are 200 applicants including enough younger ones (anyone 50 or younger) from which to pick. The older applicant may have years of experience, but not the fresh credentials that the younger ones have. And don't bother to talk about retraining. That is inappropriate after the age of 55 (other than retraining on the job at the employer's expense) because the older worker will not, over the course of his future working life, earn back the lost income and cost of the training or education.

No. If pensions disappear, older workers will simply sell their houses at a loss in today's depressed market (if they own them), live on that money until it is no more and then go on welfare. Either way, the young pay for the old. And for the children of the middle class, lack of pensions for their parents will mean no inheritance.

Reagan sold out the country. We liberals have been trying to explain this for over 25 years now, but no one wanted to listen.

Americans held one big national yard sale. The Chinese, Indians and other third world peoples shopped until they dropped, and now here we are -- no industry, no income. Well, America, hope you enjoy looking at your 3,000 square foot house once the new owners move in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. ..live on welfare? what welfare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. How to respond?
The answer is over two hundred years old, something that the founding fathers knew well and implemented until 'progress' spawned the perpetual corporation: limit corporate charters to a fixed term, say 20 years. At the end of the corporation's term, the books could be closed, the assets sold, and the profits distributed to the participants (stockholders and workers). There would be no open ended promises (pensions) that would have to be kept, and where no promises are made, no promises can be broken.

How would profitable businesses retain continuity? The same way they do now, through re-capitalizations, mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs, and so forth. They would just have one less tool in their financial toolbox -- the empty promise with which they stiff the trusting worker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Labor Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC