Economically DUUHHHRRRR
Some employees at the New York Times have put together a video whining about a potential pension freeze that is currently being negotiated with the company by their guild. As readers of this board are aware, The Times has been hemorrhaging readership for some time now and is starting to feel the effects of the Pinch.
The video is a hilarious demonstration of just how economically clueless the staff of The Times has become. The video ominously presents this explanation:
In a Defined Benefit Plan, a retired employee gets a monthly pension benefit that is guaranteed for life. It's based on a formula negotiated by the Guild. The Times is required by contract to contribute whatever the plan needs to fund your pension benefit.
In a Defined Contribution Plan, The Times puts a specific amount into your account - 3% of your base pay, for example. It's your responsibility to invest that money in the plan's mutual funds, which are subject to market forces and could lose value. When you retire, you get whatever is in your account.
Corporate management wants to shift the risk from The Times to YOU.
Oh, THE HORROR! The EMPLOYEES might actually have to assume some RISK for THEIR OWN retirement?!?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth provides a bit of schadenfreude for those of us that are familiar with economic reality and have had to worry about our retirement for our entire lives.
"This does mean, uh... a threat to what I thought my retirement era was going to look like."
"A pension plan, a defined benefit plan, I.. I at least have the safety of knowing that I have money coming in. You know, even it it's, you know, like a couple of thousand a month or whatnot, at least its there for me. You know, in my old age if I, you know, hopefully I won't find myself, you know, scruffling around for a cardboard box to live in, for God's sake."
"Basically, under a frozen pension, even with donations to my 401k, they would take away $350,000 between 65 and 85. $350,000 is a lot of money. $350,000 is worth fighting over. $350,000, as far as I'm concerned is worth risking a strike over."
Is it just me, or are these self-proclaimed "altruistic" and "enlightened" reporters rather.. well, selfish? Money is worth fighting over? If that is true, then isn't it equally true for the people you are trying to take that money away from? Whatever happened to "no blood for oil" and "give peace a chance?"
Apparently, having to make decisions about the course of his own life is too much for this guy to deal with:
"If you live to be 80 - 85, your 401k runs out. Its very hard to plan that kind of thing. So suddenly you find yourself confronting yourself, 'Gee, I run out of money. I can't take the money out of the 401k that I had before. What am I going to do? Am I going to eat cat food? Am I going to move in with my kids? Am I going to commit suicide?' It's a very ugly choice to stick people with."
One guy near the end actually seems to have a clue, but I'm not sure he knows what to do with it.
"There are competing organizations now that will pick off Times reporters and are able to pay them significantly higher salaries than the paper is putting forth at this point."
You're getting close, buddy! Here's a little more help. Ask yourself, "Why are those other organizations able to afford those higher salaries?"
"It's hard to reconcile the desire to have the best and to produce the best product, uhm... with, uhm... a plan to, you know, cut the benefits in this kind of extreme way."
Uhm... no. You see, if you paid any attention in Economics 101, you would know that if you actually offered "the best product" then people would be buying it. If people were buying it, then the owners would not need to "cut the benefits in this kind of extreme way".
Apparently their research department (if they still have one, I haven't seen any evidence) has not bothered to do much digging into the availability of pension plans in the rest of the private sector. Or maybe they assume that they're pretty much government workers anyway and are entitled to the same benefits.
If they did understand basic economics they would realize that, in order to pay pensions in the future, the company has to actually EXIST in the future. Unlike the Federal Government they have been cheer-leading for so long, companies have to earn enough money to cover their expenses. Those expenses include those big, fat pensions.
Of course, they are probably counting on a government bailout to keep them afloat. That money comes from taxpayers, and who cares about them?
The video is a hilarious demonstration of just how economically clueless the staff of The Times has become. The video ominously presents this explanation:
In a Defined Benefit Plan, a retired employee gets a monthly pension benefit that is guaranteed for life. It's based on a formula negotiated by the Guild. The Times is required by contract to contribute whatever the plan needs to fund your pension benefit.
In a Defined Contribution Plan, The Times puts a specific amount into your account - 3% of your base pay, for example. It's your responsibility to invest that money in the plan's mutual funds, which are subject to market forces and could lose value. When you retire, you get whatever is in your account.
Corporate management wants to shift the risk from The Times to YOU.
Oh, THE HORROR! The EMPLOYEES might actually have to assume some RISK for THEIR OWN retirement?!?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth provides a bit of schadenfreude for those of us that are familiar with economic reality and have had to worry about our retirement for our entire lives.
"This does mean, uh... a threat to what I thought my retirement era was going to look like."
"A pension plan, a defined benefit plan, I.. I at least have the safety of knowing that I have money coming in. You know, even it it's, you know, like a couple of thousand a month or whatnot, at least its there for me. You know, in my old age if I, you know, hopefully I won't find myself, you know, scruffling around for a cardboard box to live in, for God's sake."
"Basically, under a frozen pension, even with donations to my 401k, they would take away $350,000 between 65 and 85. $350,000 is a lot of money. $350,000 is worth fighting over. $350,000, as far as I'm concerned is worth risking a strike over."
Is it just me, or are these self-proclaimed "altruistic" and "enlightened" reporters rather.. well, selfish? Money is worth fighting over? If that is true, then isn't it equally true for the people you are trying to take that money away from? Whatever happened to "no blood for oil" and "give peace a chance?"
Apparently, having to make decisions about the course of his own life is too much for this guy to deal with:
"If you live to be 80 - 85, your 401k runs out. Its very hard to plan that kind of thing. So suddenly you find yourself confronting yourself, 'Gee, I run out of money. I can't take the money out of the 401k that I had before. What am I going to do? Am I going to eat cat food? Am I going to move in with my kids? Am I going to commit suicide?' It's a very ugly choice to stick people with."
One guy near the end actually seems to have a clue, but I'm not sure he knows what to do with it.
"There are competing organizations now that will pick off Times reporters and are able to pay them significantly higher salaries than the paper is putting forth at this point."
You're getting close, buddy! Here's a little more help. Ask yourself, "Why are those other organizations able to afford those higher salaries?"
"It's hard to reconcile the desire to have the best and to produce the best product, uhm... with, uhm... a plan to, you know, cut the benefits in this kind of extreme way."
Uhm... no. You see, if you paid any attention in Economics 101, you would know that if you actually offered "the best product" then people would be buying it. If people were buying it, then the owners would not need to "cut the benefits in this kind of extreme way".
Apparently their research department (if they still have one, I haven't seen any evidence) has not bothered to do much digging into the availability of pension plans in the rest of the private sector. Or maybe they assume that they're pretty much government workers anyway and are entitled to the same benefits.
If they did understand basic economics they would realize that, in order to pay pensions in the future, the company has to actually EXIST in the future. Unlike the Federal Government they have been cheer-leading for so long, companies have to earn enough money to cover their expenses. Those expenses include those big, fat pensions.
Of course, they are probably counting on a government bailout to keep them afloat. That money comes from taxpayers, and who cares about them?
posted by Morlock Banduar at 16:38
1 Comments:
I recommend striking! Force us to live in a world without NYT reporters!
-JW
Post a Comment
<< Home