The city that outsourced everything

[UCGal]

[quote=JohnAlt91941]Don’t you think those pensions were exceptional for the time? I don’t know anyone who was in line to get that level of retirement benefit in that era from a non government employer.[/quote]
Not exceptional if you had a large employer.
Yes if you worked for smaller companies.

I have family members who worked in non-union jobs at large companies who all have/had pensions. GM, Lexmark,

Locally GA offeres a pension according to their website… so it’s still available.

[sdduuuude]

It is interesting. At first glance, it appears that the outsourcing model is the reason for the lower costs, but I think it is really the approach, attitude and dilligence of the leaders that brought about the lower cost, not necessarily the payment model.

I tend to like this outsourcing model, but I’m not convinced that the oursource model couldn’t become just as bad if the leadership changes to one that may not have the integrity and focus of the founders.

[sdduuuude]

It is interesting. At first glance, it appears that the outsourcing model is the reason for the lower costs, but I think it is really the approach, attitude and dilligence of the leaders that brought about the lower cost, not necessarily the payment model.

I tend to like this outsourcing model, but I’m not convinced that the oursource model couldn’t become just as bad if the leadership changes to one that may not have the integrity and focus of the founders.

[sdduuuude]

It is interesting. At first glance, it appears that the outsourcing model is the reason for the lower costs, but I think it is really the approach, attitude and dilligence of the leaders that brought about the lower cost, not necessarily the payment model.

I tend to like this outsourcing model, but I’m not convinced that the oursource model couldn’t become just as bad if the leadership changes to one that may not have the integrity and focus of the founders.

[sdduuuude]

It is interesting. At first glance, it appears that the outsourcing model is the reason for the lower costs, but I think it is really the approach, attitude and dilligence of the leaders that brought about the lower cost, not necessarily the payment model.

I tend to like this outsourcing model, but I’m not convinced that the oursource model couldn’t become just as bad if the leadership changes to one that may not have the integrity and focus of the founders.

[sdduuuude]

It is interesting. At first glance, it appears that the outsourcing model is the reason for the lower costs, but I think it is really the approach, attitude and dilligence of the leaders that brought about the lower cost, not necessarily the payment model.

I tend to like this outsourcing model, but I’m not convinced that the oursource model couldn’t become just as bad if the leadership changes to one that may not have the integrity and focus of the founders.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[all]

[quote=Shadowfax]
You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant][/quote]

Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.

[all]

[quote=Shadowfax]
You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant][/quote]

Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.

[all]

[quote=Shadowfax]
You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant][/quote]

Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.

[all]

[quote=Shadowfax]
You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant][/quote]

Your argument for public workers non-salary compensation applies here. The military will make a man out of you (snark?), but that in itself won’t compel enough kids to join. There has to be a pot of gold at the end or the quota would not get filled. And the public can’t take benefits away from prison guards, C-level executives or teachers is not likely to succeed in taking away a significant chunk from veterans and MIC.

[Author]

Posts