12-23-2003, 06:42 PM
12-23-2003, 06:44 PM
That's ok. You should still have enough money at that point for me to sleep with you.
12-23-2003, 06:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by The Man
why should any company be responsible for your retirement.
They pay you to work there. Why is it assumed that every company owes their employees above and beyond that? pension, Xmas bonus, days off when the weather is bad, other bullshit.
You work. They pay. You want to make sure you have money when you are old: save some. Why should your company have to take care of you. Why should strangers take care of you (social security).
Companies have traditionally also provided retirement benefits. If a company removes a retirement they should then offer a 9% increase in base pay (basically an equivant increase to pay to offset the loss of compensation). A company that offers a retirement plan tells it's employees that it wants them to work their for a long time. Plus it is a way to increase compensation to an employee without paying SS tax. A company does not need to provide a retirement plan, but it is more effective if the company does.
And Suzie, if you invest in a money market/fixed income, your pay raises will increase faster than the return. You would be forced to save 600%-820% of your pay. 20%-30% of your pay for 30 years (based on a rough life annuity value of 10-12 at age 65).
12-23-2003, 06:51 PM
A company probably should do a few things. But the bottom line is that if people will work, then they don't have to do a damn thing.
And bonds pay a higher return than 5%. Money markets return lower than inflation, but certainly not bonds
And bonds pay a higher return than 5%. Money markets return lower than inflation, but certainly not bonds
12-23-2003, 06:53 PM
Quote:Originally posted by The Man
A company probably should do a few things. But the bottom line is that if people will work, then they don't have to do a damn thing.
And bonds pay a higher return than 5%. Money markets return lower than inflation, but certainly not bonds
A company doesn't have to offer Medical either. DC became an attractive alternative to DB and that shifts the risk onto the individual, which is bad.
...and just wait until you lose $10,000 in a quarter.
12-23-2003, 06:56 PM
it's a matter of economics. Companies will only (or actually SHOULD ONLY) do what they need to do to keep their employees happy and motivated. Anything in addition to that is wasteful and could be counter productive.
People who say that companies "owe" them something for their hardware and loyalty are just like everyone else who would jump ship if they got a better offer.
People who say that companies "owe" them something for their hardware and loyalty are just like everyone else who would jump ship if they got a better offer.
12-23-2003, 06:58 PM
I am not saying OWE.
What I am saying is that employers SWITCHED plans.
What I am saying is that employers SWITCHED plans.
12-23-2003, 07:04 PM
But companies chose them because 401Ks are infintely more attractive to companies than a pension plan.
12-23-2003, 07:05 PM
But you are not getting my point. By doing that Security has been compromised.
12-23-2003, 07:08 PM
and my point is that the security of the employee is not the company's worry. The security of the employee's long term retirement should be the employee's alone. He or she looks at what the company is offering. If it is not enough save their own. If that's not an option, get another job. If that still doesn't improve the situation, die young.