End All 2-Tier Pay/Retirement Plans : They Don't Work

[Dave M]

imported post

I'm not sure the 1%, 1.1%, etc., can be whittled down without there first being some form of negotiation with the labor unions. Our agency is bound by a pretty firm contract with the employees. That is a big part of what is holding back the imposition of pay-banding for us.

It has been true of our agency that local managers have little scope and many requirements. This results from a 'corporate culture' that regards HQ as the real deal and the field as theirhired hands. It began during the Grant administrationwhen we were part of the Signal Service and wore uniforms -- soldiers need constant watching.

It persists despite the fact that times have changed and the field now makes up ~80% of the brainpower in the agency. Promotions to HQ andlocal management come largely from the ranks. This sounds good but it means that our ablest scientistsdrain away to administrative posts for whichtheylacktraining and experience. Manyfreely admit they just wanted to get away from shift work. It goes with the close supervision. For these reasons it is a good thing that we have nothing to do withpay-banding.

So check out your union if you have one.

Dave

 

[Shaggy]

imported post

I believe the first answer was correct it is 1.1% after 30 years. The 20 year mark is guaranteed the 1% as long as they don't start receiving until they are 60 but can receive at 57 with penalty. Less then 20 years you have no choice except in limited circumstances to receive at age 62.

You know it is kind of funny how the gov is constantly advising people to properly plan for retirement. Question, how do you plan for retirement when you have no idea what SOC or your Gov retirement will look like in 25 years?

I have been planning based on the assumption that I will be living entirely off my TSP and IRA's. Unfortunately I will probably be penalized for that in the future because the Gov will say I have to much in the way of assets and don't need SOC to survive, therefore don't deserve it. What a system, punish and take from those that plan and reward those that abuse.

 

[Mike]

imported post

The minimum wage is a political issue only because it sounds good to some people when you say "we should pay this group more money because they don't make enough".

In the end, it really doesn't matter much. The economic reality is that most jobs pay more than minimum wage - only menial labor / entry level positions that are mostly staffed by high school-aged / college-aged people pay this trivial sum. Raising this amount only shifts the equilibrium. Companies relying on this labor will see higher costs of doing business, which will lead them to do the following: raise prices, hire fewer workers, and invest in equipment to bring about greater automation / stabilize costs.

 

[rokid]

imported post

Or reduce profits.

 

[Mike]

imported post

And what CEO would willingly let his/her company see reduced profits?

Blasphemy.

 

[bkrownd]

imported post

Minimum wage - those were the days! I started at minimum wage (woo, $3.55!), and after working 5 years there the minimum wage rose nearly as much as my raises, so I was making just nickels and dimes more than the lazy teeny-boppers I was training. Wow, a couple days of overtime during peak season and I'd have a HUGE $200 paycheck! Ah, the joys of retail. Not much money, but we did have a nice fringe benefit...cute young cashiers.

 

[Wimpy]

imported post

December 02, 2005 10:04 AM ET
Greenspan renews warning

Greenspan -- whose remarks to Friday's Fed conference were pre-recorded as he is in London for a G7 meeting -- said U.S. economic activity is expanding "at a reasonably good pace" into 2006 despite disruptions from hurricanes that battered the southern United States in a record storm season.

He warned, however, that "this period of relative stability will soon end" as demographic pressures take hold.

"I fear that we may have already committed more physical resources to the baby boom generation in its retirement years than our economy has the capacity to deliver," he said, adding changes to Social Security and other programs "should be made sooner rather than later" to ease disruption.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=OBR&Date=20051202&ID=5323652



----------------------------

This is classic.


Easy Al is covering his arse before he goes out, because he knows what is on the horizon and wants to be able to tell everyone, at the appropriate time, that he told us what was going to happen on December 2, 2005. He is publicly washing his hands of the loose monetary policy he initiated and promoted during his tenure as FED chief. Bernanke will take the fall. Timing is everything and Easy Al was one of the best.