English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Back in the old days there were a lot of them, but now days theres mostly 401k.

2007-01-01 10:50:21 · 11 answers · asked by Smile Everyday 1 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

11 answers

When the companies realized how much those pensions were going to cost they either bought their way out of them, took the jobs overseas, or when bankrupt.

If we don't change the economics of Renewable Energy the economy will not support the 401's, IRAs or Social Security. Remember Social Security can only invest in government debt! They all depend on an expanding economy. Most of 1st world products depend on energy both to produce & consume.

For those that choose to focus on ENRON ask yourself why they choose to do those criminal acts. The PRESS doesn't say squat about that. ENRON, Global Crossing, many telecoms, & Dot Coms choose to invest in infrastructure where there wasn't paying demand.

2007-01-02 12:59:28 · answer #1 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 1 0

Many companies still have pensions, but yes, the number has declined significantly. Some have both pension and 401K. My husband's company does.

People need to go back to smart planning for retirement anyway, even if it is something as obvious as paying off your mortgage w/in 30 years, or selling and moving to a cheaper area when you get close to retirement age and use the remaining equity towards retirement. Housing costs are usually b/t 30-50 percent of total household income.

2007-01-01 12:48:24 · answer #2 · answered by Nels 7 · 0 0

In the UK the government didn't help either - after the dot-com slump they helped themselves to £5bn / year that would otherwise have gone into pensions. On top of this they created all manner of unfunded pensions for the government jobs they created leaving the entire nation with a hefty bill for the future. They have managed to take one of the best pension systems in Europe and turn it into one of the worst.

Well done Gordon!

2007-01-01 11:01:29 · answer #3 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0 0

It's the new George Bush Pension Plan, inspired by Enron. George figures if it worked at Enron, why not go national. He's gonna teach them unions that workers are disposable and there's no reason these seventy year olds can't lift a few bricks. Just a shame we didn't let him have Social Security, Wall Street would be having a fire sale in Congress on New Years.

2007-01-01 10:59:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

companies care more about the investors than the workers... so it's gone... and profits are up!

but... who's going to take care of all the old people in 20 years?

in the future.... the 80s, 90s and early 2000s will be looked upon VERY POORLY in America... because they are going to get stuck with trillions in debt, a huge elderly section with no money and a very small middle class...

it will be remembered as a time when America created problems and passed all it's problems on to it's children... for a quick buck

2007-01-01 11:09:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Overseas or Mexico, sans the pension. Even government employees are starting to lose pensions for 401(k) type programs. Even those will probably be gone and it left totally up to the employee soon.

2007-01-01 10:54:36 · answer #6 · answered by Git r' done 2 · 1 0

Since the 1970s, there has been a concerted effort to shift risk from those with big shoulders--government and corporations--to individual families. This works out well--for the wealthy. But for working class and middle class families, it means having to save every penny for your own retirement, even though there is less job security, less generous unemployment benefits, less generous medical benefits (and those are coming at greater personal expense as well). So individuals and families are living at far greater risk of falling into financial ruin with just one layoff or one serious illness than ever before. As a result, they are at far greater risk of inadequate savings for retirement as well.

2007-01-01 10:58:13 · answer #7 · answered by silverside 4 · 2 1

They went with the unions. Young people working today don't want a union. They think it's bad or they feel the company they work for is going to play fair with them.

2007-01-01 11:01:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

away with the Unions.

2007-01-01 10:57:37 · answer #9 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 1 1

they retired and moved to florida

2007-01-01 11:27:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers