Why no contract from the Association?

[Albert]

Wow. Really? The example of pay you post is still better than the pension. Do the math. Even without any overtime. You need to get a clue man. I bet your too lazy to read the contracts too. That's why you have the contract you have, how pathetic is this guy.

Not pathetic enough to go to another airline's site and criticize their contract when I haven't had a contract for five years. Not pathetic enough to come to another airlines site and push a union that lets the largest percentage of outsourcing. As far as you go I hope you live to 90 just hope your 401 lasts just as long

 

[Albert]

Wow. Really? The example of pay you post is still better than the pension. Do the math. Even without any overtime. You need to get a clue man. I bet your too lazy to read the contracts too. That's why you have the contract you have, how pathetic is this guy.

It doesn't concern you but there is really nothing wrong with the contract I have. It suits me just fine

 

[WeAAsles]

Something you all need to consider on this "choice" issue between the pension and 401K. While it is certainly something most in the union membership would desire, pensions like insurance are about risks, investment returns and actuarial estimates.

My view is that if I was near retirement, ceteris paribus (there's a $5 phrase for everyone) in terms of company contributions between 401K and pension, I would choose the pension. For example, keeping the math simple $80(?)/month per year of service, so one year equals $960 annually. Safely I would need to have around $10,000 in retirement to equal that benefit over a lifetime to draw down against, but the company has been contributing $1.05/hour to the pension which is only about $2,200 a year for full time? So $960 return on a $2,200 investment-- that's a nice return on investment! In contrast, if one has 30 years to retirement then the magic of compounding interest (even just looking at what the company contributes) creates a sizable 401K which returns a larger monthly income than what a $2,400 ($80 x 30) monthly pension would provide.

My point being that if given the choice, I suspect those close to retirement would flood into the pension and those with decades to retirement would take the 401K option instead. It would leave the pension in even worse financial condition. Like health insurance, pensions attempt to pool the risk between expensive and less expensive policy holders/beneficiaries to average out the risks. I don't think it is a viable option for the IAMNPF to allow high return retirees (those close to retirement) to stay in the pension while the low return retirees (those decades from retirement) to opt out.

We are seeing the same thing with ObamaCare state health insurance exchanges where younger, healthier people are ignoring the personal mandate and paying the fine, as it is cheaper than the premiums. However, older, higher risk, less healthy people are willing to pay the premiums, especially without penalty for pre-existing conditions, and the results are predictable as insurers withdraw from the market.

BTW Jester yes I did have to look it up. When do I get my $5.00?

ce·te·ris pa·ri·bus
ˌkād(ə)rəs ˈperəbəs/
adverb
formal

1. with other conditions remaining the same.
   "shorter hours of labor will, ceteris paribus, reduce the volume of output"

 

[anotherdelay]

[QUOTE="Jester, post: 1265265, member: 13241"]Something you all need to consider on this "choice" issue between the pension and 401K. While it is certainly something most in the union membership would desire, pensions like insurance are about risks, investment returns and actuarial estimates.

My view is that if I was near retirement, ceteris paribus (there's a $5 phrase for everyone) in terms of company contributions between 401K and pension, I would choose the pension. For example, keeping the math simple $80(?)/month per year of service, so one year equals $960 annually. Safely I would need to have around $10,000 in retirement to equal that benefit over a lifetime to draw down against, but the company has been contributing $1.05/hour to the pension which is only about $2,200 a year for full time? So $960 return on a $2,200 investment-- that's a nice return on investment! In contrast, if one has 30 years to retirement then the magic of compounding interest (even just looking at what the company contributes) creates a sizable 401K which returns a larger monthly income than what a $2,400 ($80 x 30) monthly pension would provide.

Caveat emptor. due diligence. Do you also understand Kleine Miller? do you understand a ponzi scheme? do you know that the assets may be really really really overstated, and the liabities understated? If it was that simple our aa pensions would be unfrozen wouldn't they be?

Then go thru the cornucopia of posts here about the benefits of the 401k. Unions should try to offer some services and plans, but making them mandatory, too many conflicts to mention. Prediction, some major cuts are coming for the iampf, what's the Latin phrase for laughter comes tears.

 

[NYer]

NYer, C'mon man. Do you really believe this contract will get done by July? No way. Not going to happen. You gotta consider the source, and that guy don't know chite.

No, I do not.

He only knows what's he's told to know.

 

[WeAAsles]

No, I do not.

He only knows what's he's told to know.

Unsolicited attack # 1

 

[Kev3188]

Well I'm very happy to know with all of these dramatic medical advancements that have happened in the last 30 years that if they cure cancer and you live to 108 you have enough saved not counting SSI or your Pension to live a long and economically fruitful life (Not counting inflation of course)

Most of us mere mortals aren't quite as superlative though.

108? I should be so lucky!

I have (more or less) the same investment vehicles you do. I'm just not planning on SSI to be there. I sure hope it is, but who knows?

I have one pension that's frozen, and another that's in an odd state of limbo. Neither will be significant enough to qualify as one of my proverbial stool legs.

 

[WeAAsles]

[QUOTE="Jester, post: 1265265, member: 13241"]Something you all need to consider on this "choice" issue between the pension and 401K. While it is certainly something most in the union membership would desire, pensions like insurance are about risks, investment returns and actuarial estimates.

My view is that if I was near retirement, ceteris paribus (there's a $5 phrase for everyone) in terms of company contributions between 401K and pension, I would choose the pension. For example, keeping the math simple $80(?)/month per year of service, so one year equals $960 annually. Safely I would need to have around $10,000 in retirement to equal that benefit over a lifetime to draw down against, but the company has been contributing $1.05/hour to the pension which is only about $2,200 a year for full time? So $960 return on a $2,200 investment-- that's a nice return on investment! In contrast, if one has 30 years to retirement then the magic of compounding interest (even just looking at what the company contributes) creates a sizable 401K which returns a larger monthly income than what a $2,400 ($80 x 30) monthly pension would provide.

Caveat emptor. due diligence. Do you also understand Kleine Miller? do you understand a ponzi scheme? do you know that the assets may be really really really overstated, and the liabities understated? If it was that simple our aa pensions would be unfrozen wouldn't they be?

Then go thru the cornucopia of posts here about the benefits of the 401k. Unions should try to offer some services and plans, but making them mandatory, too many conflicts to mention. Prediction, some major cuts are coming for the iampf, what's the Latin phrase for laughter comes tears.

Speculation based on probabilities because of past occurrences not because all "Due Dilligence" has been accomplished or can be.

 

[Albert]

No, I do not.

He only knows what's he's told to know.

There's a lot of that going around

 

[WeAAsles]

108? I should be so lucky!

I have (more or less) the same investment vehicles you do. I'm just not planning on SSI to be there. I sure hope it is, but who knows?

I have one pension that's frozen, and another that's in an odd state of limbo. Neither will be significant enough to qualify as one of my proverbial stool legs.

Each individual investment constitutes being a stool leg even if that leg doesn't quite reach the ground. It's just a shaky leg.

And are you saying that you believe there will be no SSI for you at all when you retire? The facts really don't support that belief of a complete SS trust fund well running completely dry.

But you know if that's your belief and you're investing with that idea in your mind then you're doing pretty good if your SSI check winds up being nothing but gravy for you.

One stool on a chair you don't need.

 

[Albert]

Each individual investment constitutes being a stool leg even if that leg doesn't quite reach the ground. It's just a shaky leg.

And are you saying that you believe there will be no SSI for you at all when you retire? The facts really don't support that belief of a complete SS trust fund well running completely dry.

But you know if that's your belief and you're investing with that idea in your mind then you're doing pretty good if your SSI check winds up being nothing but gravy for you.

One stool on a chair you don't need.

He was told about SS shortfalls from one of his handlers so it must be true

 

[WeAAsles]

He was told about SS shortfalls from one of his handlers so it must be true

People in Kev's age group and younger have every right to be concerned about SS shortfalls in the future when they go to collect. They feel prior generations are stealing their futures and to some degree they're right. Eventually they are going to have to make modifications and when that comes the group that will be most affected will be the under 50 crowd (Not you and I)

But as for a wholesale disappearance of that security net I highly doubt it. Unless people plan to stop having babies here in the US?

But his generation does need to save more on their own than prior generations had to and thankfully for Kev it seems he realized that early instead of before it was too late to catch up.

 

[Albert]

People in Kev's age group and younger have every right to be concerned about SS shortfalls in the future when they go to collect. They feel prior generations are stealing their futures and to some degree they're right. Eventually they are going to have to make modifications and when that comes the group that will be most affected will be the under 50 crowd (Not you and I)

But as for a wholesale disappearance of that security net I highly doubt it. Unless people plan to stop having babies here in the US?

But his generation does need to save more on their own than prior generations had to and thankfully for Kev it seems he realized that early instead of before it was too late to catch up.

Perhaps it should only go to people or spouses that kicked in not as a form of welfare that it is now sometime used as. Again the day I receive my first SS or retirement check which ever comes first I will probably get hit by a car and I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone like Bob driving it claiming I got in his way

 

[WeAAsles]

Perhaps it should only go to people or spouses that kicked in not as a form of welfare that it is now sometime used as. Again the day I receive my first SS or retirement check which ever comes first I will probably get hit by a car and I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone like Bob driving it claiming I got in his way

Like you I don't plan on collecting until as late as possible to maximize the benefit when I do start to collect. I don't really care about it being worth more over time pulling the trigger early as much as I care about maintaining a particular lifestyle I hope to enjoy as long as possible.

But others are concerned more about "How Much" rather than "How Long"

 

[Kev3188]

He was told about SS shortfalls from one of his handlers so it must be true

My what again?

People in Kev's age group and younger have every right to be concerned about SS shortfalls in the future when they go to collect. They feel prior generations are stealing their futures and to some degree they're right. Eventually they are going to have to make modifications and when that comes the group that will be most affected will be the under 50 crowd (Not you and I)

But as for a wholesale disappearance of that security net I highly doubt it. Unless people plan to stop having babies here in the US?

But his generation does need to save more on their own than prior generations had to and thankfully for Kev it seems he realized that early instead of before it was too late to catch up.

I'm not that far behind you.

I was also fortunate to be surrounded by senior guys that looked out for us junior pukes all those many years ago, and was encouraged to start my 401k by them.