too bad there is little apatite for government regulation/oversight. But again, we are all for privatizing profits when things are good and socializing losses when it comes to PPP loans and other politically connected bailouts (again, disclosure: I got a small PPP loan and it was eventually forgiven - it covered about 30% of the salaries of my employees when there was no work being done and they weren't let go).
With people living much longer, we really need to look at the way we structure work and retirement funding. There are some serious crisis items looming for the current and future generations. We have the resource to fix this, but we have to be smarter and stop worshipping billionaires. If someone has accumulated a billion dollars, then you've benefitted greatly from our system and you owe something back to it. If you've accumulated 10 billion, you've probably exploited our system and or people and you really owe something back.
I can see it two ways.
One, you increase the funding requirements, or two, you improve the disclosure requirements.
The accounting is there, you can track it easily each year, though this is beyond the understanding of most employees. I would argue for better disclosure to employees so they understand the risks to their pensions...but under no situation should the public be held accountable for their failure. It's the same political fumble as the student loan forgiveness.
Outside of private/gov employment and public unions, pension or defined benefit plans virtually don't exist.
As for the rest, I certainly support an extremely progressive estate state, once you get above a certain threshold of $x million. Put the $ back in the pot.
To Islander - the PBGC is not intended to be an insurer, but a safety net to provide some protection when plans fail (companies go bankrupt).
To Lazy - I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think it was the union that did the contributing/investing, but a multiemployer plan, where various cos with union workers contribute to the same plan...until the plan fails.
Larger issue is it's was bad policy to allow these private pension schemes to be so drastically underfunded, and then have the public fund it when it fails.
There's the bingo square right there ^^^^^^
too bad there is little apatite for government regulation/oversight. But again, we are all for privatizing profits when things are good and socializing losses when it comes to PPP loans and other politically connected bailouts (again, disclosure: I got a small PPP loan and it was eventually forgiven - it covered about 30% of the salaries of my employees when there was no work being done and they weren't let go).
With people living much longer, we really need to look at the way we structure work and retirement funding. There are some serious crisis items looming for the current and future generations. We have the resource to fix this, but we have to be smarter and stop worshipping billionaires. If someone has accumulated a billion dollars, then you've benefitted greatly from our system and you owe something back to it. If you've accumulated 10 billion, you've probably exploited our system and or people and you really owe something back.
So...a union invested poorly and wound up with an underfunded pension fund, and that's all the fault of companies that (in general) had nothing whatsoever to do with the problem:
1. Don't have unionized workforces
2. Don't have pensionsâthey use defined contribution (401K) retirement plans rather than defined benefit (pension) plans
...and the part that bothers you about the bailout is that the beneficiaries are no longer political allies?
Well, there's a whole problem in how our retirement systems are set up and where the responsibility/accountability (or lack thereof) is, but that's not what my comment was about. A lot of people who are relying on a pension are likely to be disappointed and left with little recourse or resource. So yeah, that is one of the places where I think it is appropriate for government to step up and help their citizens. Should also come with reform of the pension systems and retirement systems as well, but I can't tell how far into fantasy land we want to go so I'll stop at 'try to minimize human suffering'.
While the companies I mentioned don't have unionized work forces, they do rely on a lot of unionized labor - longshoremen who handle goods at import, teamsters (mentioned directly in the article) for distribution/warehousing/etc. Walmart also famously relies on various strategies to indirectly get government subsidies as well (underpaying people so they get public assistance). These companies and their owners (yes, I'm an owner too, I hold both WMTt and AMZ) make a lot of profit and are happy to collect subsidies and anything else they can get in their favor. So when things go bad I have no problem asking them to kick in. Again, unlikely. The .gov will just tag this to the ongoing tab and we'll all wind up paying for it it drips and drabs.
The political affiliation isn't the part that bothers me. It's the raw hypocrisy of people who say "no socialism" and "I got by with no help from anyone else" who then are the first one with their hand out with the slightest crisis. These people never care about an issue until it affects them personally. And yes, this tends to be one side politically much more than the other. I would hesitate to call the democrats my ally, but if that's the choice I have to make to support the little guy over the giant corporations (who have already had their share of bailouts), then sure put me down for less human suffering.
To Islander - the PBGC is not intended to be an insurer, but a safety net to provide some protection when plans fail (companies go bankrupt).
To Lazy - I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think it was the union that did the contributing/investing, but a multiemployer plan, where various cos with union workers contribute to the same plan...until the plan fails.
Larger issue is it's was bad policy to allow these private pension schemes to be so drastically underfunded, and then have the public fund it when it fails.
I think this is the right thing to do. But it is especially ironic, as most of the beneficiaries of these policies are against 'socialism' and any government 'handouts' for people who are not them. Pretty typical "I don't care until it affects me personally" politics.
Edit to add: We should pay for this by taxing Amazon/Walmart/ other major retailers who have made trillions of dollars in no small part by utilizing these workers.
So...a union invested poorly and wound up with an underfunded pension fund, and that's all the fault of companies that (in general) had nothing whatsoever to do with the problem:
1. Don't have unionized workforces
2. Don't have pensionsâthey use defined contribution (401K) retirement plans rather than defined benefit (pension) plans
...and the part that bothers you about the bailout is that the beneficiaries are no longer political allies?
Disagree.
Pensions are backstopped by PBGC, which is funded with "insurance" payments by those paying into pensions, but it's not 100%.
The rules that allow these pensions to become so massively underfunded were allowed because cos lobbied for them, and now taxpayers pick up the tab...in the so called inflation reduction act.
and not like the last admin was any better...which also subsidized underfunded plans, and allowed the can to be kicked further down the road.
p.s., are you implying most union workers are conservative/republicans?
If the PBGC were sufficient this wouldn't be a 36 billion dollar issue.
Not all union workers, but I'd bet a substantial portion that are teamsters are.
I think this is the right thing to do. But it is especially ironic, as most of the beneficiaries of these policies are against 'socialism' and any government 'handouts' for people who are not them. Pretty typical "I don't care until it affects me personally" politics.
Edit to add: We should pay for this by taxing Amazon/Walmart/ other major retailers who have made trillions of dollars in no small part by utilizing these workers.
Disagree.
Pensions are backstopped by PBGC, which is funded with "insurance" payments by those paying into pensions, but it's not 100%.
The rules that allow these pensions to become so massively underfunded were allowed because cos lobbied for them, and now taxpayers pick up the tab...in the so called inflation reduction act.
and not like the last admin was any better...which also subsidized underfunded plans, and allowed the can to be kicked further down the road.
p.s., are you implying most union workers are conservative/republicans?
On the one hand, regulators turn a blind eye to these schemes, until they get in trouble, and then a bailout.
Might as well go all-in and nationalize everything
Biden to announce federal bailout for troubled union pension fund
WASHINGTON â President Joe Biden on Thursday will join labor leaders to announce a federal bailout for a pension fund largely benefiting Teamster workers and retirees.
The $36 billion for the Central States Pension Fund will prevent benefits from being cut more than in half for more than 350,000 truck drivers, warehouse workers, construction workers and others, according to the White House.
Financially struggling multiemployer pension plans can apply to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for assistance.
Before the act passed, more than 200 pension plans were on pace to become insolvent in the near term, according to the White House. Now, those plans are projected to remain solvent through at least 2051.
The $36 billion for the Central Pension Fund is the biggest boost from the program, and the largest ever federal financial assistance for troubled pension funds, according to the White House.
What's about to happen
Teamster workers and retirees will join Biden and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh at a White House event announcing the assistance. Biden has said heâs goal is to be âthe most pro-union presidentâ in U.S. history. He held the first public event of his presidential campaign at a Teamsters hall in Pittsburgh in 2019.
Critics, like George Mason Universityâs Charles Blahous, say the bailouts encourage âmore of the irresponsible behavior that got pensions into trouble in the first place.â
Who is being helped?
Most states have workers or retires expected to benefit. The states with the most beneficiaries are:
Michigan: 40,300
Ohio: 39,900
Missouri: 27,800
Illinois: 25,000
Texas: 22,500
Wisconsin: 21,900
Indiana: 19,600
Minnesota: 19,300
Florida: 18,700
Tennessee: 14,200
I think this is the right thing to do. But it is especially ironic, as most of the beneficiaries of these policies are against 'socialism' and any government 'handouts' for people who are not them. Pretty typical "I don't care until it affects me personally" politics.
Edit to add: We should pay for this by taxing Amazon/Walmart/ other major retailers who have made trillions of dollars in no small part by utilizing these workers.
On the one hand, regulators turn a blind eye to these schemes, until they get in trouble, and then a bailout.
Might as well go all-in and nationalize everything
Biden to announce federal bailout for troubled union pension fund
WASHINGTON â President Joe Biden on Thursday will join labor leaders to announce a federal bailout for a pension fund largely benefiting Teamster workers and retirees.
The $36 billion for the Central States Pension Fund will prevent benefits from being cut more than in half for more than 350,000 truck drivers, warehouse workers, construction workers and others, according to the White House.
Financially struggling multiemployer pension plans can apply to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for assistance.
Before the act passed, more than 200 pension plans were on pace to become insolvent in the near term, according to the White House. Now, those plans are projected to remain solvent through at least 2051.
The $36 billion for the Central Pension Fund is the biggest boost from the program, and the largest ever federal financial assistance for troubled pension funds, according to the White House.
What's about to happen
Teamster workers and retirees will join Biden and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh at a White House event announcing the assistance. Biden has said heâs goal is to be âthe most pro-union presidentâ in U.S. history. He held the first public event of his presidential campaign at a Teamsters hall in Pittsburgh in 2019.
Critics, like George Mason Universityâs Charles Blahous, say the bailouts encourage âmore of the irresponsible behavior that got pensions into trouble in the first place.â
Who is being helped?
Most states have workers or retires expected to benefit. The states with the most beneficiaries are:
Bentley CEO: âNever seen spending patternsâ like this before with luxury consumer
Pras Subramanian·Senior ReporterWed, November 2, 2022 at 10:24 AM
For British luxury automaker Bentley (VOW.DE), 2022 may leave a strong 2021 in the dust.
Through the first nine months of 2022, Bentley reported record operating profit of â¬575 million ($577,129,608), more than double the amount from a year ago. The previous full-year record high for operating profit was â¬389 million ($383,651,250.00). Revenue through the first nine months came in at â¬2.490 billion ($2,455,762,500.00), a jump of 28% from a year ago.
For Bentley CEO Adrian Hallmark, the results are astonishing because the automaker only increased sales of cars by 3%, yet profitability soared.
âThe exciting part for me is that we've doubled the profit year to date, with only a 3% increase in , and that's all about quality of margin,â Hallmark says to Yahoo Finance. âIt's all about these higher price cars with more personalization, order bank driven, not stock build driven; and we've got the right formula, and we're going to be ruthless about maintaining that pool.â
"I've been in this industry and in this sector for nearly 28 years. I've never seen spending patterns like it and not just in Bentley,â
The Russian economy has suffered. Wealth has suffered. The Russian economy will likely suffer for years, possibly decades to come.
As an aside, please do note that not all Russians wanted this war. Think of the subcultures in the USA and other rich western countries that have opposed war or the nuclear arms race and one finds the same subcultures in Russia.
The important point from the perspective of the welfare of Europeans and North Americans is that Russia can economically last for a very long time. That has to be part of the strategic calculation on the part of US-lead NATO going forward. Any illusions of a quick, inexpensive military victory in Ukraine should be dismissed or assigned an extremely low probability of materializing.
This conflict could easily escalate with conventional weapons alone into highly destructive and risky directions.
Yeah, well Putin seems to long for the days of the cold war. Last one took around 40 years. That's his choice until someone figures out how to get rid of him, provided someone as bad doesn't take his place. Putin could fix this easily but he won't.
Obama ignored Russian aggression in Crimea and that just lead to aggression in the rest of Ukraine. The alternatives appear to be either Russia takes over Ukraine and probably the rest of Eastern Europe or support Ukrainian self-determination, even if it means digging in for the long haul. Yeah, it is dangerous but so are the other options.
The Russian economy has suffered. Wealth has suffered. The Russian economy will likely suffer for years, possibly decades to come.
As an aside, please do note that not all Russians wanted this war. Think of the subcultures in the USA and other rich western countries that have opposed war or the nuclear arms race and one finds the same subcultures in Russia.
The important point from the perspective of the welfare of Europeans and North Americans is that Russia can economically last for a very long time. That has to be part of the strategic calculation on the part of US-lead NATO going forward. Any illusions of a quick, inexpensive military victory in Ukraine should be dismissed or assigned an extremely low probability of materializing.
This conflict could easily escalate with conventional weapons alone into highly destructive and risky directions.
Surprise, dumping massive amounts of currency into the military sector raises GDP—hence the durable fallacy that wars are good for the economy.
An awful lot of Russians who should be doing productive work are either dodging shrapnel in Ukraine or already casualties, and the work they should be doing is going undone. But GDP counts their military pay and the expenditures for weapons and fuel and boots, even if the soldiers they're being bought for never get them because they were stolen by a corrupt procurement apparatus or blown up on the way.
So GDP looks great! Money is being spent! The fact that it is buying nothing of any earthly use matters not at all to that tabulation. Russia is becoming poorer by the minute, squandering its future to run in place, but the number look great.
The EU economy is getting hammered. But the USA is not that far behind in terms of heading into recession (if not already there).
Well done President Biden. Chalk up another victory for US Exceptionalism. Please continue to target a military victory in Ukraine and let's see where the chips fall.
Comment from Matt Maley at Miller Tabak sums it (current and recent past economy) up:
âIf we had tried maintain what we had a year ago, it would have been like getting drunkâ¦and then trying to stay drunkâ¦to avoid a hangover. What the Fed is trying to do is to keep a bad hangover from becoming a horrendous oneâ¦but theyâre also trying to make sure we donât get drunk againâ¦â¦â¦.Itâs a very tough job,â
And all it has in the medicine cabinet is more alcohol. But this time is different!
Comment from Matt Maley at Miller Tabak sums it (current and recent past economy) up:
âIf we had tried maintain what we had a year ago, it would have been like getting drunkâ¦and then trying to stay drunkâ¦to avoid a hangover. What the Fed is trying to do is to keep a bad hangover from becoming a horrendous oneâ¦but theyâre also trying to make sure we donât get drunk againâ¦â¦â¦.Itâs a very tough job,â
