How the TWU Blew It

I agree with Captain. This whole experience has taught the TWU that striking will get them just about everything they want. Hence, I think we can expect more of this in the future. Unless, of course, the fines are imposed to the fullest. But I'm not holding my breath for that...

escap wrote: I think we can all expect huge fare increases as well as tax increases over the next 5-10 years.

The subway fare is always about the same as the going rate for a slice of pizza. This has held true through previous strikes, economic ups and downs, as far back as I've been following it (since the fare was 75 cents). $2 is about right now, and I don't think they'll be raising it again anytime soon (at least on the basic pay-per-ride fare).

Ben wrote: I've read about the subway fare/slice of pizza correlation before. That said, $2.25-2.50 for a slice in Manhattan is becoming more common meaning that an increase should be in the works in the next couple of years.

Good point.

escap wrote: I heard on the news this afternoon that a fare increase has already been agreed on. They didn't say how much, but I think they said it would happen sometime next year.

To be fair, they also said the increase would have been implemented no matter what the outcome of the labor negotiations.

I tell you, the MTA and the pizzerias are in cahoots! :x

Predicting a fare increase is like predicting the sun will rise. The problem is that we will get hosed.

but hey, happy new year to all, even if you like the union

qtrain wrote: [quote=escap] The problem with pensions is that the benefits are defined but not the contributions. Talk about hocus pocus!! That's why they're so damaging to corporate and government budgets--they're built on houses of cards.

The damage to corporate and government budgets was self-inflicted. If pension contributions during the boom years had reflected long term investment average returns, pensions could have weathered the downtown. The push to switch from defined benefit to defined contribution is mostly about escaping responsibility for pension underfunding.

Like I said before if there was really a gauranteed investment vehicle the could provide the money neccesary to fund benefits, there would be a lot more rich people. You cant predict boom and bust, the "switch" you mention is a function of economic reality, in market place that sells X but is paying all its retried employees half salary, how do you expect it to compete with a new company that sells X and does not have that burden? Pension payment dont come from old school dusty account thats been growing for 50 years, most of it comes from the companies current finances.

Captain M wrote: Like I said before if there was really a gauranteed investment vehicle the could provide the money neccesary to fund benefits, there would be a lot more rich people.

I just checked my banks' CD rates -- 5% on a 7 year CD, FDIC insured. $11k a year for 35 years would grow to $1M. If you start 10 years earlier, the contribution is $6k a year (Bloomberg retirement calculator). A mix of funds with a long term average of 10% would need only $1400 a year, but it would not be guaranteed. The benefit of long term investing and gradual payouts is that boom or bust doesn't matter, unless you try to take out all the money immediately -- people that lost a massive chunk of their mutual funds in the market tank of 2002 have regained it all by now. The reason there aren't a lot of poor people becoming rich is that few people are willing or able to put aside a hundred bucks a month from the moment they start working to have money when they retire. But you'll notice that the rich do get richer, because they have that extra money.

Captain M wrote: Pension payment dont come from old school dusty account thats been growing for 50 years, most of it comes from the companies current finances.

Many do. If a company decides to mingle retirement investments with their own finances (paying contributions directly to themselves, and benefits straight out of the balance sheet), they are betting that they will outperform a balanced portfolio in order to benefit from that cash infusion. If the bet doesn't pay, then they've gambled away their employees retirement savings. That's economic reality.

escap wrote: The problem is when that goal becomes self defeating--by cutting too deeply into corporate profits, unions can put their own employers at a competitive disadvantage, essentially biting the hand that feeds them and ultimately destroying their own jobs. You're right that companies may be shirking their pension obligations, but they also have to try and compete in the marketplace.

I agree.

armchair_warrior wrote: hehe qtrain i love that new icon of yours .

It disappeared, along with all the other photos.

WE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

qtrain wrote:
I just checked my banks' CD rates -- 5% on a 7 year CD, FDIC insured. $11k a year for 35 years would grow to $1M. If you start 10 years earlier, the contribution is $6k a year (Bloomberg retirement calculator). A mix of funds with a long term average of 10% would need only $1400 a year, but it would not be guaranteed. The benefit of long term investing and gradual payouts is that boom or bust doesn't matter, unless you try to take out all the money immediately -- people that lost a massive chunk of their mutual funds in the market tank of 2002 have regained it all by now. The reason there aren't a lot of poor people becoming rich is that few people are willing or able to put aside a hundred bucks a month from the moment they start working to have money when they retire. But you'll notice that the rich do get richer, because they have that extra money.

You need to account for inflation right now a cool million sounds good, in 35 years 1M wont really be much to retire on. its sad but true. And thats saying you put all your retirement money into this one account to even get that much. Think about how much life cost 35 years ago and how much it does now, for example the subway was 35 cents! Yo that 571% so in 35 years the subway may cost 11 dollars and 42 cents.

Also, you mention the market tank, what if you had tried to retire with those funds then, you would not have been able to, to say the market bounced back was not luck but still chance, it has taken the japanese market much longer to recover from their recession. So this in itself is a gamble

I do agree it takes money to put away to retire and you have to have a mix of sources, but even with your numbers its pretty dreamy.

qtrain wrote:
Many do. If a company decides to mingle retirement investments with their own finances (paying contributions directly to themselves, and benefits straight out of the balance sheet), they are betting that they will outperform a balanced portfolio in order to benefit from that cash infusion. If the bet doesn't pay, then they've gambled away their employees retirement savings. That's economic reality.

I think our economic realities differ, I dont disagree that pension accounts should not be touched but the fact is they need to be supplanted by current profits becasue there is no way the money necesary can be produced by investment.

Companies exist to make money, and if they do not they are replaced by companies that do. The goverment should be doing its job which is not to make money but to care for its citizens.

The bottom line with relation to this whole TWU thing is that they dont give a shit about workers rights, they want more money for themselves for their retirement, they didnt say FU to the government and ask them to make some pension laws, they said FU to all of us and now we will pay for whatever they want.

metulj wrote: [quote=Captain M] Think about how much life cost 35 years ago and how much it does now, for example the subway was 35 cents! Yo that 571% so in 35 years the subway may cost 11 dollars and 42 cents.

And with wages increasing to match inflation, ceteris parabis, your point is what?



Wages is not the point but how much money an account can generate over 30 years, to continue paying someone for another 30+ years.

Thanks for pointing that out, which means the amount of retirement pay will be much more than what they are getting now which means the "magical money tree" account will have to produce even more cash.

Captain M wrote: You need to account for inflation right now a cool million sounds good, in 35 years 1M wont really be much to retire on. its sad but true.

It's true, inflation will eat a fat chunk of that. The average rate of inflation has been 3.5% over the past 25 years, so that $1M in 35 years would be $300k in today's dollars. But compare that to the $49k total contribution, and you see that you're getting over six times your investment, accounting for inflation.

Captain M wrote: I think our economic realities differ, I dont disagree that pension accounts should not be touched but the fact is they need to be supplanted by current profits becasue there is no way the money necesary can be produced by investment.

Right, the company has to make yearly contributions on behalf of each worker. Not just investment growth, but continued support by the company. If there are no profits, there is no money to pay into pensions. But by the same token, if there are no profits, there should be no money to pay the CEO.

Check out:

www.dinkytown.net
www.bankrate.com
www.choosetosave.org/ballpark

for information regarding how much you need to save for retirement. Good rule of thumb is: save as much as you can, as early as you can.

I just saw a report that 2005 will mark the first year since 1933 that Americans spent more than they earned. People are relying on increases in their net wealth from the real estate market to finance their spending, but this is dangerous, if not disastrous. Small investments made early and often can compound into a fortune, but politics aside--be careful!!

Subject: Toussaint gets jail time

10 days in jail. Anyone feel better now?

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=58851

A strong union is important. It's about time the working slug take a stand against corporate thugs. So what your ass had to be inconvenienced for a couple of days. Have you no depth of vision? In the three days you stupidly walked back and forth in the cold, you should thank every single MTA worker for working on your behalf. Instead, selfish pricks like yourself bellyache because Toussaint actually is working to make the lives of the average worker better.

This will all be moot in several years. Who wants to bet that within ten years the only man power on the MTA subways will be track workers? The MTA is going to go total automation and have no use for motormen or conductors. No more pensions, no more Taylor Law, no muss, no fuss.