Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 123698" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I don't know the exact number like you posted above Scratch but the CS documentation at the meeting (I was at the same meeting) and documentation published by CS via it's quarterly Teamwork publication has documented the fact that in 1980' there we 3 active contributory employees to every retired recipent drawing benefits. At the time of the benefit cuts 2 years ago that ratio was 0.9 active contributory employee to every retired recipent drawing benefits and that demographic is expected to worsen as it pertains to active contributory employees. As it relates to all the smoke and mirrors thrown around by everyone as it relates to CS and the retirement, this one fact has stuck in my head and has been the cornerstone of the real problem we face. Most new IBT organizing that has come about have been small companies with 10's and in some better scenarios a few hundred employees but none have risen the numbers of 1000's that would replaced the 1000's that have left do to bankruptcy, etc. especially during the 1980's. </p><p> </p><p>It's ironic that one of the main concerns about the future of Social Security is the same demographic ratio comparsion that CS is dealing with. In the case of SS, it's the reduction in child birth after the baby boom generation as in the near future retirees on SS could outnumber workers in a sense making the balance loopsided but over time as death rebalances the books things could level themselves out but in the case of CS, they don't share the same advantages as a gov't program so waiting on the grim reaper to correct matters may not work in the long run.</p><p> </p><p>I'm not trying to debate SS but rather to show how the problem of demographics that threaten SS are exactly the same as with CS for example but unlike SS who has time to help correct it's unbalance, I'm not sure CS will have that same luxury.</p><p> </p><p>JMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 123698, member: 2189"] I don't know the exact number like you posted above Scratch but the CS documentation at the meeting (I was at the same meeting) and documentation published by CS via it's quarterly Teamwork publication has documented the fact that in 1980' there we 3 active contributory employees to every retired recipent drawing benefits. At the time of the benefit cuts 2 years ago that ratio was 0.9 active contributory employee to every retired recipent drawing benefits and that demographic is expected to worsen as it pertains to active contributory employees. As it relates to all the smoke and mirrors thrown around by everyone as it relates to CS and the retirement, this one fact has stuck in my head and has been the cornerstone of the real problem we face. Most new IBT organizing that has come about have been small companies with 10's and in some better scenarios a few hundred employees but none have risen the numbers of 1000's that would replaced the 1000's that have left do to bankruptcy, etc. especially during the 1980's. It's ironic that one of the main concerns about the future of Social Security is the same demographic ratio comparsion that CS is dealing with. In the case of SS, it's the reduction in child birth after the baby boom generation as in the near future retirees on SS could outnumber workers in a sense making the balance loopsided but over time as death rebalances the books things could level themselves out but in the case of CS, they don't share the same advantages as a gov't program so waiting on the grim reaper to correct matters may not work in the long run. I'm not trying to debate SS but rather to show how the problem of demographics that threaten SS are exactly the same as with CS for example but unlike SS who has time to help correct it's unbalance, I'm not sure CS will have that same luxury. JMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top