Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal
for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers
aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.



Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be
found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch




I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations
would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities.

My union's pension fund has *no* unfunded liabilities, and we intend to
keep it that way, for moral and legal reasons. The hourly contributions
go where they are supposed to go, and, even though we do not invest in
stocks, we are still several percentage points ahead in earnings so that
we can handle distributions.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized
deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the
employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.



Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot
be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch


I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would
have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension
plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have
pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's
about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized
deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the
employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.


Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot
be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would
have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension
plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have
pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's
about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement.

Eisboch




Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers,
if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan
or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a
new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health
care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school
mentality.


Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management
cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get
away from traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The
current organized employees need to be considered and fairly
treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated,
particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts
the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the
administrators of health plans.

Eisboch

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations
would have to do if they were required to fund their pension
liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with
pension plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't
have pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Eisboch



Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.

And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad.
So sad.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:59:56 -0500, Jim wrote:

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers,
if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan
or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a
new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health
care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school
mentality.


Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management
cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get
away from traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The
current organized employees need to be considered and fairly
treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated,
particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts
the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the
administrators of health plans.

Eisboch

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations
would have to do if they were required to fund their pension
liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with
pension plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't
have pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Eisboch



Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.

And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad.
So sad.

The irony escapes him.
--
John H.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.




If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some
sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might
trust a federally insurance bank or banks.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced
to ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement
investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families,
their financial stability.


If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort
of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust
a federally insurance bank or banks.


I don't know. I don't have a 401K. I know that they may be "rolled over"
when you change employment, but I don't know how it all works. But that's
not the current problem. The problem is that those *with* 401K type plans
who have been faithfully contributing for their retirement nest egg have
seen the values of their portfolios drop by 20,30 or even 40 percent in the
past few months. Many can no longer afford to retire, let alone help bail
out GM and a union member's generous employment benefits. Again, this
represents the vast *majority* of people, typically working for small
businesses.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.


That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced
to ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement
investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families,
their financial stability.

If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort
of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust
a federally insurance bank or banks.


I don't know. I don't have a 401K. I know that they may be "rolled over"
when you change employment, but I don't know how it all works. But that's
not the current problem. The problem is that those *with* 401K type plans
who have been faithfully contributing for their retirement nest egg have
seen the values of their portfolios drop by 20,30 or even 40 percent in the
past few months. Many can no longer afford to retire, let alone help bail
out GM and a union member's generous employment benefits. Again, this
represents the vast *majority* of people, typically working for small
businesses.

Eisboch



I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:10:55 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.




If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some
sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might
trust a federally insurance bank or banks.

Some 401k plans allow for a portion to be rolled out into a qualified
plan - which means no taxes/penalties - after certain age/employment
requirements are met. They vary widely, but I'd venture to say most
require you leave employment.
This is how the stock market got so inflated - you lock in as many of
the Ponzi captives as you can.
Any equity trading IRA will have no guarantees, but there are FDIC
insured IRA CD's. That's what I put my retirement money in when I got
a portion out before retirement, then all after retirement.
I immediately tripled my returns in the free market.
In the captive 401k my only "safe" option was the money market fund
which offered littler return.
BTW, one of the first financial bailout actions by the feds was to
guarantee 401k money market funds at 1.00 par value.
Money markets can go negative. If they did there would be no safe
haven in 401k's and that would have been a *real* disaster.
I think Obama's team - maybe Clinton's - mentioned allowing
non-penalized withdrawals from 401k's as an option for those facing
mortgage foreclosure, and Wall Street had a **** fit at the
suggestion.

--Vic