When pensions run dry...

brett636

Well-Known Member
I know this is a small town with a small pension that failed, but the conditions that caused it to fail can cause much larger pensions to do the same. I certainly hope nobody here ever has to deal with this, but let this be a warning that relying on someone else to manage your retirement for you is not a good idea.

What is even scarier is that public employee pension funds across this nation are all on the same path this town found its fund in. In California alone the unfunded liabilities of public employee pension funds is $40k per family. If this is allowed to continue expect to see a lot more of what is occuring in this small Alabama town.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40791768

Alabama Town’s Failed Pension Is a Warning

Published: Thursday, 23 Dec 2010 | 4:39 AM ET

By: Michael Cooper and Mary Williams Walsh
The New York Times

This struggling small city on the outskirts of Mobile was warned for years that if it did nothing, its pension fund would run out of money by 2009. Right on schedule, its fund ran dry.

Then Prichard did something that pension experts say they have never seen before: it stopped sending monthly pension checks to its 150 retired workers, breaking a state law requiring it to pay its promised retirement benefits in full.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
The concept of a pension or even retiring is a rather recent development in human history ... within the last hundred years.
There is a good possibility that future generations will look back on the 1900's and early 2000's as an anomaly with people retiring before their 70's.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Along similar lines of what you 2 are saying, earlier today I saw this story concerning 16 cities that could see bankruptcy in the coming year. I'm sure in these cases pension costs are at least part of the equation.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I would be lying if I were to say that I am not counting on my pension as the major source of my retirement income. I would go so far as to say that most if not all of my co-workers feel the same way and have done little to fund their retirements.

Our pension fund is currently in a rehabilitation plan wherein our split raises through 2/1/12 will be diverted to the pension. There are many reasons for this but the main one is the fund is simply paying out more than is coming in. If this were the case in our personal budgets we would also be forced to make changes.

While I do feel secure that my pension will be there in 8 years I do fear that my younger co-workers may not have that same security. I also fear that workers in public sector unions may be in for a rude awakening when it is their time to retire.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Bernie Maddock ran a ponzie scam and goes to jail.
Our gov't runs a much larger ponzie scam, where our elected body has stolen more funds than could ever be counted,no one will ever go to jail. Namely the Social Security Administration.
 

curiousbrain

Well-Known Member
Bernie Maddock ran a ponzie scam and goes to jail.
Our gov't runs a much larger ponzie scam, where our elected body has stolen more funds than could ever be counted,no one will ever go to jail. Namely the Social Security Administration.

Not trying to be pedantic, but I think you mean Madoff.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Bernie Maddock ran a ponzie scam and goes to jail.
Our gov't runs a much larger ponzie scam, where our elected body has stolen more funds than could ever be counted,no one will ever go to jail. Namely the Social Security Administration.
Ponzie scams have an entire industry. It's called the Insurance Industry and it does quite well. Could say the current banking debacle is the same. Borrow from the government at .5% interest and lend to the government at 3%. Not bad considering the amount being borrowed.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Ponzie scams have an entire industry. It's called the Insurance Industry and it does quite well. Could say the current banking debacle is the same. Borrow from the government at .5% interest and lend to the government at 3%. Not bad considering the amount being borrowed.
You're confused my friend, when big corporations benefit it's not called a "ponzi scheme", it's called "the miracle of the free market" :happy-very:
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
You're confused my friend, when big corporations benefit it's not called a "ponzi scheme", it's called "the miracle of the free market" :happy-very:

Ah. My bad. Thanks for the correction:happy-very:.

Several years ago, a Canadian broadcasting company did a documentary called "The Corporation" and not sure if either of you have seen it but if not, very much worth the watch and it's a free view at Google Video.

As an aside, Wikileaks just released a memo concerning Genetically Modified Organisms and the US Gov't and for those from any side of any stupid political isle and in the spirit of the true definition to the term free, how would one ever call such actions in any marketplace of an alliance between state and market actor a free market?
:wink2:

Thanks to Karen De Coster for the heads up on the Rodale Press article. Also if you want to see more about the good "free market" actions of Monsanto, check out "The World According to Monsanto" at Google Video and "Food Inc" is another good documentary about the "free market" of modern Agra-Bidness in America.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Ponzie scams have an entire industry. It's called the Insurance Industry and it does quite well. Could say the current banking debacle is the same. Borrow from the government at .5% interest and lend to the government at 3%. Not bad considering the amount being borrowed.

Not surprisingly the subject you are bringing up is one you have very little knowledge of. If an insurance company is insuring something it must have the assets to cover whatever protection it is selling. If Allstate insures your car for $100k they must have $100k in assets to cover it should you need the full $100k. When the government is involved these rules do not apply. For example, the money you are putting into social security now is paying for people who are currently drawing benefits. Nothing is being be towards the benefits you have been promised and believe me there will be no money to pay you those benefits. Same goes for many union pension funds today. Those who have significant time left between now and retirement will find the 25, 30. 35 and out pensions will not be there when they reach those milestones. Those just looking to retire soon will be lucky to receive their full benefits throughout their retirement as the funds very well could fail between now and then. This is the reality when benefits being promised are overextending the ability to be paid today. The rules of how a pension fund must operate have been changed to help avoid these future problems, but it has yet to be seen if those rule changes were enough. Especially when concerning public employee pension funds where a public employee of some areas can receive a pension that pays more than they made while they were working. A Ponzie scheme is one that will collapse as it runs short of new suckers to sustain it, and today we sit upon the precipice of this reality with regards to government promises and retirement funds.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
You are correct. I know little about the subject. However, if a Ponzie scheme is "one that will collapse as it runs short of new suckers to sustain it," I can think of fewer things that fit that description than the housing market of 2003-2007 with inflated assessments, people using home equity loans based upon those assessments, and the mortgage companies packaging the suspect notes to "spread the risk". Now if there were to be certain companies guaranteeing these "securitized assets" which would be a kind of "insurance" and the bottom dropped out of the housing market who stands to lose when the homeowner decides it's not worth paying the mortgage? Well the Federal Government of course! Yep. Seems the "suckers" run all the way through that scenario.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Didn't know Lloyds of London (Insurance Company) was government owned.
Because, they sure didn't have the money to pay up, either !

Oh, and AGI, weren't they also in trouble ?
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Top