American Airlines faces turbulent ride

[amjon]

Once again I'm not very familiar with the pension system in the US, but it seems that you would want more safety in what is going to pay for 30 or 40 years of your life no ?

Sure, but if you think the US government is going to provide that then you must have not seen any US news in the past year or so. They nearly defaulted on the debt and are already predicting the plan they DO run to run out of money.

 

[jtrain609]

Social security? Go bankrupt?

"It is a logical impossibility for social security go to bankrupt."

-Forbes

You know, Forbes, that communist rag that doesn't know a thing about rich people, erm, I mean, JOB CREATORS!!!

 

[Pépé le Pilot]

Thanks for shedding light on this. I still prefer the French system. Might not be the most efficient but still, retirement is guaranteed and the option to capitalize on the side is nice !

 

[Murdoughnut]

Sorry, but I don't know a single, solitary individual in this entire world who somehow got ahead or otherwise bettered their lot in life through schadenfreude, and there's far too much of that going around nowadays as well. The only ones who get more in this world are those who demand more for themselves rather than wishing less for others.

There's a difference between wanting someone/something to fail (which I don't) and not being too concerned when someone's quality of life goes from a Bentley and several vacation homes to a Toyota Camry and a nice vacation timeshare. I'm far more concerned about the sub $150k employees at AA. Losing your pension when you're making $300k a year isn't the same as when you're making $40k.

 

[jtrain609]

There's a difference between wanting someone/something to fail (which I don't) and not being too concerned when someone's quality of life goes from a Bentley and several vacation homes to a Toyota Camry and a nice vacation timeshare. I'm far more concerned about the sub $150k employees at AA. Losing your pension when you're making $300k a year isn't the same as when you're making $40k.

It is when you've planned on that pension.

Now you and me? I think we know we won't get a pension. Follks my parents age, who recently retired? They gave up cash for decades as part of obtaining that pension.

 

[Dugie8]

It is when you've planned on that pension.

Now you and me? I think we know we won't get a pension. Follks my parents age, who recently retired? They gave up cash for decades as part of obtaining that pension.

Do you think those that bet on a company funded pension should shoulder some of this "responsibility"? I realize looking back it is easy to say BUT, if your employer came to you today and offered you 95% of your salary for the rest of your life upon retirement at age 55 and all you had to do was put in 5% of your paycheque to a general fund, would you agree to that and forgo any other forms of retirement savings or would you think about it for a while and realize that might not be the safest bet to make?

I used skewed numbers to make a point but is it really such a hard series of dots to connect that putting your ENTIRE retirement financial future into one basket is maybe not such a good idea?

 

[RDoug]

It is when you've planned on that pension.

Precisely this. It's irrelevant what someone's lifestyle was during a majority of their working career. What matters is how they planned for retirement based upon what they were promised. It's awfully hard to go back and modify forty years of lifestyle to correct for having the rug pulled out from under your promised retirement with only three to five years of career left to go.

Murdoughnut—you may not feel sorry for them, but I certainly do. Especially when considering that whatever real estate holdings they managed to acquire over the years, including those aforementioned " several vacation homes" you brought up, have most likely been devalued to the point where they may not be worth enough to cover the remaining principle on the mortgage.

 

[jtrain609]

Do you think those that bet on a company funded pension should shoulder some of this "responsibility"? I realize looking back it is easy to say BUT, if your employer came to you today and offered you 95% of your salary for the rest of your life upon retirement at age 55 and all you had to do was put in 5% of your paycheque to a general fund, would you agree to that and forgo any other forms of retirement savings or would you think about it for a while and realize that might not be the safest bet to make?

I used skewed numbers to make a point but is it really such a hard series of dots to connect that putting your ENTIRE retirement financial future into one basket is maybe not such a good idea?

Yes, it is quite a hard series of dots to connect.

Because in my America, contracts were expected to be fulfilled. In a better America, when you made a promise, you followed through with it.

But in a time when America was better, when Americans were better PEOPLE, before the corporate raiders took the reigns and lead a decent standard of living into the sunset, I think the agreements that were made were certainly reasonable.

 

[Dugie8]

Yes, it is quite a hard series of dots to connect.

Because in my America, contracts were expected to be fulfilled. In a better America, when you made a promise, you followed through with it.

But in a time when America was better, when Americans were better PEOPLE, before the corporate raiders took the reigns and lead a decent standard of living into the sunset, I think the agreements that were made were certainly reasonable.

You don't think, as an employee, you have any responsibility to question or look into the viability of sustaining those promises or contracts?

I firmly believe in the social contract way of living. We should all do the best we can to contribute and make the "neighborhood" a better place than we found it, not rely on those coming after us to finance our mistakes or our retirements.

Sure, I would love to have a pension that I barely have to pay into that pays me nearly my salary from retirement to death but, via the social contract, I wouldn't want the employees after me to have the burden of it.

Maybe my line of thinking is to "self responsible" and too forward thinking??

 

[RDoug]

Sure, I would love to have a pension that I barely have to pay into that pays me nearly my salary from retirement to death but, via the social contract, I wouldn't want the employees after me to have the burden of it.

And you're missing the whole point. The employees in question did pay for those retirements. Those retirements were part of their total compensation package. The employees willingly took less at the front end (wages) of their careers for the promise of retirement security at the tail end of their careers. Thus, it was the responsibility of the corporation to fulfill those promises (promises used to reduce current compensation for compensation later) by adequately funding employee retirement accounts. Instead, corporations robbed those accounts for other purposes.

Some people would call that wage theft.

 

[jtrain609]

You don't think, as an employee, you have any responsibility to question or look into the viability of sustaining those promises or contracts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

I firmly believe in the social contract way of living.

With what you're saying, I'm not sure you do.

We should all do the best we can to contribute and make the "neighborhood" a better place than we found it, not rely on those coming after us to finance our mistakes or our retirements.

Which is why our parents generation made the business decision to enter into a contract with an organization that they were employed with in order to fund, finance, plan and execute their retirements. Knowing that there is safety in numbers, and knowing that you can leverage money better when you have more of it in a pool, they made a business decision, and the rug was pulled out from under them.

That's traditionally referred to as larceny.

Sure, I would love to have a pension that I barely have to pay into that pays me nearly my salary from retirement to death but, via the social contract, I wouldn't want the employees after me to have the burden of it.

You're much more generous than I am. Personally, I take what I can, and give nothing back. I expect my employer to play by the same rules, and it's evident that they will. That's ok, it's not a bad thing as long as we BOTH play by the same rules.

Maybe my line of thinking is to "self responsible" and too forward thinking??

So let me get this straight:

"I will pay you X if you give me Y" is collectivist.

But you're being responsible?

Please.

All you're doing is justifying theft, plain and simple. Call it what it is, and then try to get in on the action yourself, or get to supporting what you're saying. But whatever you do, don't be a hypocrite about this, please. You are much better than that, and there's nothing wrong with saying that you're greedy and that you'd do the same thing as these businesses if you were in their shoes, and that you don't care what the ramifications for these people are. That's the fair and honest thing to say, not to try to run circles around how this is ok when it isn't.

Theft has been happening in lawful society for centuries, and it won't stop anytime soon. Be it through taxation, slavery, or any other number of legitimized institutions such as the fleecing of American pensions, it has happened in the past, and it will continue to happen in the future.

But what I'm saying is that's not ok. Either honor your contracts or don't, but don't try to make excuses about how it's ok because there couldn't have been any rational belief that the contract you signed was too good to be true when it paid out for countless others, but eventually became too expensive.

 

[Dugie8]

And you're missing the whole point. The employees in question did pay for those retirements. Those retirements were part of their total compensation package. The employees willingly took less at the front end (wages) of their careers for the promise of retirement security at the tail end of their careers. Thus, it was the responsibility of the corporation to fulfill those promises (promises used to reduce current compensation for compensation later) by adequately funding employee retirement accounts. Instead, corporations robbed those accounts for other purposes.

Some people would call that wage theft.

I'm not missing the whole point, slow your role. Did the amount that was taken out of those paycheques or the amount that wages were reduced by, ON THEIR OWN, provide enough capital to fulfill ALL the obligations? In other words, was each employees individual pension independently funded by their "contributions" or was the plan to have a rolling fund, like social security is, to be funded by those not yet taking the pension?

 

[jtrain609]

I'm not missing the whole point, slow your role. Did the amount that was taken out of those paycheques or the amount that wages were reduced by, ON THEIR OWN, provide enough capital to fulfill ALL the obligations? In other words, was each employees individual pension independently funded by their "contributions" or was the plan to have a rolling fund, like social security is, to be funded by those not yet taking the pension?

You'd need to pull apart a specific pension plan and crunch some numbers to make that determination.

Regardless of how it was setup, if the company agrees to it, they should honor it.

So let me ask you this: Your company agrees to employ you for the next 5 years, and they say that no matter what, they'll pay you X amount of dollars. The contract is not worth X yearly wage times Y years, it's worth Z total dollars over the life of the contract.

Are you saying that if you were terminated without cause after 1 year (and let's not get into a discussion about termination proceedings, it'll detract from what I'm trying to get at here), and you had a provision in your contract that said that no matter whether you were or were not employed, you would be paid Z, that you wouldn't sue to recoup the remainder of the contract?

Because if you tell me you wouldn't, you're lying, crazy, or stupid, and I don't think you're crazy OR stupid.

 

[Dugie8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel



With what you're saying, I'm not sure you do.



Which is why our parents generation made the business decision to enter into a contract with an organization that they were employed with in order to fund, finance, plan and execute their retirements. Knowing that there is safety in numbers, and knowing that you can leverage money better when you have more of it in a pool, they made a business decision, and the rug was pulled out from under them.

That's traditionally referred to as larceny.



You're much more generous than I am. Personally, I take what I can, and give nothing back. I expect my employer to play by the same rules, and it's evident that they will. That's ok, it's not a bad thing as long as we BOTH play by the same rules.



So let me get this straight:

"I will pay you X if you give me Y" is collectivist.

But you're being responsible?

Please.

All you're doing is justifying theft, plain and simple. Call it what it is, and then try to get in on the action yourself, or get to supporting what you're saying. But whatever you do, don't be a hypocrite about this, please. You are much better than that, and there's nothing wrong with saying that you're greedy and that you'd do the same thing as these businesses if you were in their shoes, and that you don't care what the ramifications for these people are. That's the fair and honest thing to say, not to try to run circles around how this is ok when it isn't.

Theft has been happening in lawful society for centuries, and it won't stop anytime soon. Be it through taxation, slavery, or any other number of legitimized institutions such as the fleecing of American pensions, it has happened in the past, and it will continue to happen in the future.

But what I'm saying is that's not ok. Either honor your contracts or don't, but don't try to make excuses about how it's ok because there couldn't have been any rational belief that the contract you signed was too good to be true when it paid out for countless others, but eventually became too expensive.

I never said it was right or that I think it is a good thing. I said the employees should shoulder some of the responsibility. Yes it is crap and it isn't fair and it is wrong. My point being, could it all have been avoided or maybe the impact reduced if the boomers didn't want so much for so little? Is there any record of any union or employee group doing some vetting and seeing if what they were agreeing to was even financially feasible for any realisitic length of time? I haven't seen or heard of any and I will retract my statements if it was done and found to be viable. I honestly don't know.

 

[Dugie8]

You'd need to pull apart a specific pension plan and crunch some numbers to make that determination.

Regardless of how it was setup, if the company agrees to it, they should honor it.

So let me ask you this: Your company agrees to employ you for the next 5 years, and they say that no matter what, they'll pay you X amount of dollars. The contract is not worth X yearly wage times Y years, it's worth Z total dollars over the life of the contract.

Are you saying that if you were terminated without cause after 1 year (and let's not get into a discussion about termination proceedings, it'll detract from what I'm trying to get at here), and you had a provision in your contract that said that no matter whether you were or were not employed, you would be paid Z, that you wouldn't sue to recoup the remainder of the contract?

Because if you tell me you wouldn't, you're lying, crazy, or stupid, and I don't think you're crazy OR stupid.

If I was fired for doing something stupid, nope I wouldn't go after the money, I didn't live up to my end of the bargain. If I was fired because I am Steelers fan and the boss is a Packers fan then yep I go after the money. If taking the money would put the company out of business and cause other people to lose their jobs then no, it isn't worth it.

 

[RDoug]

Dugie8, you're making a whole lot of "what-if" suppositions to try and justify wage theft. What-it . . . the amount not paid employees in salaires didn't cover the entire cost (irrelevant, because it was still agreed to). What if . . . the employees or their union vetted the agreement beforehand (irrelevant, because it was the company's job to "vet" the entire compensation package (including retirement benefits) before they agreed to it to see if it was fiscally possible and corporately responsible to do so.

You can "what-if" it all day, but the responsibility here doesn't lie one iota with the employees. It lies with the employer who mislead them into taking less in salary for a worthless, unfunded promise of retirement benefits later.

No matter how you cut it, it still amounts to wage theft.

 

[RDoug]

If I was fired for doing something stupid, nope I wouldn't go after the money

And you're "what-ifing" it again. Jtrain specifically stated in his hypothetical that the termination was "without cause." You're taking that hypothetical and changing it to meet your parameters rather than answering the question posed by stipulating you wouldn't go after the money if you were terminated for "doing something stupid."

As such, this is obviously going nowhere. I'm done with it.

 

[Boris Badenov]

This thread is a pretty great example of the cancer that's going to kill the US. No one trusts the rules because the goalposts keep moving, so no one respects the rules, and everyone assumes the other guy got where they are "unfairly", so it's ok to lie, cheat, and steal from them.

 

[Dugie8]

I yield. I can't get my point across the message is getting lost in the anger.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.008250,-92.396663

 

[jtrain609]

I yield. I can't get my point across the message is getting lost in the anger.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.008250,-92.396663

Angry? Who's angry? I'm not angry at all. This is an emotionless pursuit for me, as is everything else in this realm for me.

Now you wanna talk about Red Wings hockey? Western Michigan football? Dare I say, the Lions? I can go ahead and get angry if you'd like

But this isn't anger on my part, this is serious questioning that's design to elicit a response. More specifically, a response where you have to think critically about what you're thinking and how it meshes up with the real world.

Because this isn't some abstract concept, this is people's lives. I love to talk about abstract things, and would welcome a discussion between Boris and I about the nature of reality or the merits of social contract theory. But when we're starting to talk about the nuts and bolts of people's investments and business decisions, it's cold, hard facts for me, mostly because you don't win with emotion.

You win by being ruthless, and that means being emotionless.

So with that, UND hockey sucks.