Bennie yourself out of business then blame somebody else. It's not like they make superior products.
Take away the Vette, Mustang, 300C/Charger, and a couple of Caddies, and the Big Three's got nothing.
Posted on 10/23/2005 4:27:25 PM PDT by rdmartinjd
Not to worry, GM's pension is covered by the PBGC (i.e., the taxpayers) if GM is unable to pay.
Bush really did not do a good job of selling his reform plan, and least in part because he didn't really claim to have one. He spent a lot of time saying he was open to suggestions. That's not how it works, and that's not how he works when he wants things to go the way he wants.
Now we have Madame Meirs and her unfortunate advancement threatening to derail the whole second term.
I really am depressed. But it's not just because of Bush and co., but they are not helping!
When GM made it's deal with the Union, the retirees didn't have a say. They never got to vote on it according to an article I read. Yet, they are the ones who are supposed to cut back so they can save the company. My husband worked 27 yrs before becoming disabled and now he collects his pension that he worked for. Unlike other Delphi employees that can work, he can't. Where does that leave us? In the toilet.
The problem was, these companies simply didn't set enough money aside at the time to pay for these workers' retirements. It's a difficult thing to plan for. Take a 35 year old worker: you know he'll work 30 years, and on average, you'll have to support him for an additional 10 years or whatever. So you put the money away each year, let it grow, and then you should in theory have enough.
Problem is, that even small variations can have a big impact. Think you'll earn 8% a year on the money you set aside, and you only earn 6% or 7%? Disaster. Think the average worker will live 9 years and due to increased health care and prescriptions, he lives 11? Nice for the retiree, of course, but not good for the company. And of course, health care costs are the biggest variable of all: who knows what it'll cost to take care of the average retiree in 30 years?
In essence, the corporate planners got something wrong: they underestimated the life spans or health care costs, or overestimated the returns or they just didn't put enough money aside.
Of course, the unions bargained hard: maybe they pushed too hard. Management didn't push back, though, because these were all theoretical costs 30 years hence, and probably weren't worth fighting for. Well, that 30 years in the future is now here and we've got a problem. Oh, and if you think it's bad in the corporate world, trying looking at municipalities. It's frightening there.
So the only real solution is to do IRA and 401K plans. This way, all the workers set their own money aside. They choose how risky they want to be, they choose how much to take out and when. "With great power comes great responsibility".
BFL (bookmarking for later)
Defined pension plans can be absolutely crippling for a company. It is all coming home to roost for companies who have allowed themselves to be held hostage by socialist labor unions.
That's a real understatement. I worked for a company that offered generous pension and health plans for retirees. In the 80's, statistics showed that the average retiree lived 18 months after retirement.
I don't know what the average is now, but I sure do know plenty who are well over their 15th year of retirement.
IRA's, 401(k)', MSA's etc. and individual control over the money would be a far superior system.
And far safer than just hoping the company you left 20 years ago is still solvent enough to pay your pension.
I aint yer pal, and your cars are crap.
It should be obvious by now, that there is no such thing as a defined benefit system. There is no free lunch. That is you get benefits equal to what you put in. If you get more benefits than you put in, bankruptcy is sure to follow.
The one exception is social security where there was a single one time free lunch for the first recipients or generation. This free lunch comes at the expense of the last recipients but if there is a last group of recipients, it is the end of the world and social security is the last thing they are worrying about.
PBGC only covers pensions up to 28k per year, far less than the current GM pensions.
Both my parents are GM employees who are counting down the days until the pension kicks in. They never had to save a dime for retirement and even make fun of me because I work for a small company have to save my 10% from every check.
Thing is that what goes around comes around. With these defined bebefit plans if you die its not your money to give to your survivors. With your own saved pension plan the money is yours to keep.
You get no sympathy from me. You will still get a reduced pension from the govt./taxpayers like me. You will still get social security from taxpayers like me. And why did you not save and invest a little while your husband made good money making crappy cars ?
Two things come to mind. Management made money, pensions are not a worry. Shareholders made money. Workers are all to blame because they wanted a part of the pie.
I think the average man dies at 79 and women 84.
You were very rude to the lady. Sometimes it is better to say nothing.
The chevy aveo is made by daewoo and not as good as the hyundais. The cobalt is over priced, underpowered and gets surprisingly bad gas mileage for a little car. The trailblazer has bad build quality and poor driver visibility. The equinox is a pretty good suv at a good price point. Don't know much about the Impala, but the accords and camrys have 20 years of stellar reputation to fall back on while the Impala has none. The impala had better be 10-20% better to get people to switch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.