What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

PBS Frontline : The Retirement Gamble, sorta Must See (1 Viewer)

James Daulton said:
So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?
Click to expand...
I agree with this as well.  My kids only have one childhood.  I want them to have a good one, and make great memories.  I probably spend more money on them than I should based on my income and saving rates, but I also want to reward them for their hard work.  They have one job, in my opinion, and that is school.  My college freshman made the dean's list.  Both my middle school boys are on the A honor roll.  They chip in and work around the house as well.  Working that hard, AND having to go play kick the can in the streets to entertain themselves, AND never go anywhere over the summer would be a miserable childhood.  I wouldn't want to put them through that.

I'll sacrifice the extravagent retirement vacations for some experiences while the kids are younger.  I'll have enough to retire to not have to worry about having a roof over my head, food on the table, and some extra fun money.  If I'm healthy enough that I want more out of life, I have no problem finding some part time job that would provide me with some extra cash.  If I'm not healthy enough to still be working, I'm probably not healthy enough to be flying to Europe and hiking the alps either.

 
Dentist said:
Sure, at it's heart the loan isn't to blame..  neither is the 84 month car loan...  the instruments aren't the issue.. it's the people using them.

But if the instruments weren't available, or at least weren't recommended choices that most people used, it would be better.

The concept that people can afford what the banks are willing to lend is problematic....  again, not the banks fault... their job is to extract as much money from you as possible.

And hey, via my ETFs and mutual funds I own plenty of BoA, Wells Fargo, etc...  so they profit, I profit....  go for it banks!
Click to expand...
there's a HUGE difference between the 30 year mortgage and the 84 month car loan.  (pretty sure you know this, but others seem to treat them similarly)

 
eoMMan said:
I say we just get to the root of the problem and see WHY so people are living to paycheck to paycheck. It's obvious, isn't it? New cars, big screen TVs, eating out, etc.....people live beyond their means. You shouldn't be blaming big business for that. That's just horrible personal finances and horrible personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
So nobody drove new cars 50 years ago?  My big screen TV cost me $800, hardly puts me in the poor house.  People do not save because of many reasons.  maybe they just dont handle money very well, or maybe they dont understand investing, or maybe they dont make enough money to save anything.  You cant put people who have not saved money all in the same basket. 

I do think big business is the major cause.  Income inequality is real and thats why Bernie has a movement.  Its not something he made up to get votes.  Wages have for the most part been stagnant for the last 35 years and people expect everyone to save a million bucks for retirement????  Not going to happen because for many, many working people it simply is not possible.

 
I don't understand the people who penny pinch every last possible penny in order to put money away in order to retire with globs of money to golf every day.

I don't understand the people who never put any money away to prepare for their retirement.

For me, there is balance. You live now while trying to not go crazy and put a decent amount of money away so that you can retire at a decent age and not have to work (unless you want to).

I can't tell you how many heartbreaking conversations I have had with seniors who are in financial hardship because they are basically living off of social security and that is it. I will never, ever forget doing some volunteer work for an organization where we would go to housing for seniors and disabled and offer to do their grocery shopping for them. On one hand it was nice to help them out and on the other it was really rough because these people lived in these small sort of one bedroom apartments that could fit in my living room and had to be very specific on exactly what we got for them because they had to plan out their meals in order to have something to eat and not run out of money. That wasn't living- it was waiting to die.

I don't want to end up that way but I also am not about to not live life now. Most of my money now is paying for school/childcare but that will be decreasing moving forward towards a few years not being something I pay for. We will use a significant portion of that money towards retirement/investment funds but some of it will be used for other things like taking a vacation now etc.

Live now and prepare to live tomorrow. Don't go crazy on either side.

 
Chadstroma said:
I don't understand the people who penny pinch every last possible penny in order to put money away in order to retire with globs of money to golf every day.

I don't understand the people who never put any money away to prepare for their retirement.
Click to expand...
I'm no shrink but I think both behaviors are rooted in fear.

my question for the first group is whether they really will spend money in retirement or if they'll believe they always need more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnnymac said:
So nobody drove new cars 50 years ago?  My big screen TV cost me $800, hardly puts me in the poor house.  People do not save because of many reasons.  maybe they just dont handle money very well, or maybe they dont understand investing, or maybe they dont make enough money to save anything.  You cant put people who have not saved money all in the same basket. 

I do think big business is the major cause.  Income inequality is real and thats why Bernie has a movement.  Its not something he made up to get votes.  Wages have for the most part been stagnant for the last 35 years and people expect everyone to save a million bucks for retirement????  Not going to happen because for many, many working people it simply is not possible.
Click to expand...
Everyone can save something. Everyone can cut back an expense somewhere. I'm not suggesting that everyone has the ability to max out there 401k or even their IRA, but they can definitely get out of the hole of living paycheck to paycheck. You just gotta prioritize.

And speaking of TVs, our HD TV is several years old and didn't cost $800 when we got it new. My wife and I are DINKS and could definitely afford a much larger, look at me, TV....but that's not where we choose to put our money.

And regarding education of investing/finance, I agree that it should be more readily available  (especially for HS students). However, even if you were simply putting cash in a coffee can, you can break the paycheck to paycheck cycle. This doesn't need to be rocket surgery. 

 
eoMMan said:
Everyone can save something. Everyone can cut back an expense somewhere. I'm not suggesting that everyone has the ability to max out there 401k or even their IRA, but they can definitely get out of the hole of living paycheck to paycheck. You just gotta prioritize.

And speaking of TVs, our HD TV is several years old and didn't cost $800 when we got it new. My wife and I are DINKS and could definitely afford a much larger, look at me, TV....but that's not where we choose to put our money.

And regarding education of investing/finance, I agree that it should be more readily available  (especially for HS students). However, even if you were simply putting cash in a coffee can, you can break the paycheck to paycheck cycle. This doesn't need to be rocket surgery. 
Click to expand...
Sure everyone can always save by cutting back here and there.  I guess my point is bigger picture.  I would say many of those people may say to hell with retirement, I need the money now.  I think many of them feel like they will never be able to retire anyway.

 
This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.   :thumbup:

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Pretty sure we all hate Wall Street and Dentist hates anyone who doesn't save enough to take 2 round the world trips each year when retired.

And only one weekend trip to a state park per year while the kids are still in the house!

 
Dentist- so you have a family of savers rather than doers.  Do you some day think you are going to get a piece of that?

I'm not asking as an ###, but my parents were savers and theb frugals for the most part in retirement.  Same with the in-laws.  I keep telling everyone to spend, spend, spend on what they want b/c they don't owe us kids anything.

But at the same time I have a large net under me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
xulf said:
Dentist- so you have a family of savers rather than doers.  Do you some day think you are going to get a piece of that?

I'm not asking as an ###, but my parents were savers and theb frugals for the most part in retirement.  Same with the in-laws.  I keep telling everyone to spend, spend, spend on what they want b/c they don't owe us kids anything.

But at the same time I have a large net under me.
Click to expand...
On track to inherit millions most likely from multiple sources

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I am here to rail against the system once in a while  :thumbup:

That said, I follow the great advice in here and do the right thing responsibility-wise (my numbers are a few pages back), so for me the thread serves multiple important purposes. Best non-humorous thread in the FFA by far, IMO.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...


James Daulton said:
Pretty sure we all hate Wall Street and Dentist hates anyone who doesn't save enough to take 2 round the world trips each year when retired.

And only one weekend trip to a state park per year while the kids are still in the house!
Click to expand...


:lmao:

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I think once you discuss expense ratios and index funds it's a pretty short discussion.    I'm certainly glad programs like this Frontline one have paved the way for further reforms.. I'm glad that competition in the financial services industry have dropped expense ratios to the floor.

It doesn't have to be expensive to invest anymore.   Open a TD Ameritrade account,  use a commission free ETF that will likely have an expense ratio under 0.2%.   Follow a basic stock/bond ratio that's age appropriate, and you're done.     It's never been cheaper or easier to invest by yourself in the history of the stock market.

The rules changing that hold financial people to a fiduciary standard are also great.

I think things are reforming rapidly.. and I'm happy about it.      The only sad part is that it's so hard to communicate that to the average person...  so many people still think they need a "guy" to do all this.... due mostly to fear.

 
Dentist said:
I think once you discuss expense ratios and index funds it's a pretty short discussion.    I'm certainly glad programs like this Frontline one have paved the way for further reforms.. I'm glad that competition in the financial services industry have dropped expense ratios to the floor.

It doesn't have to be expensive to invest anymore.   Open a TD Ameritrade account,  use a commission free ETF that will likely have an expense ratio under 0.2%.   Follow a basic stock/bond ratio that's age appropriate, and you're done.     It's never been cheaper or easier to invest by yourself in the history of the stock market.

The rules changing that hold financial people to a fiduciary standard are also great.

I think things are reforming rapidly.. and I'm happy about it.      The only sad part is that it's so hard to communicate that to the average person...  so many people still think they need a "guy" to do all this.... due mostly to fear.
Click to expand...
BUT WALL STREET'S STEALING OUR MONEY!!!!

 
The main problem with 401Ks is that:

-The majority are crappy plans, filled with high expense ratio funds

-What training does occur is by the snakes at the 401k firm, who tout their high expense ratio funds

-You almost have to get lucky and find a forum like this, have a good friend or parent, or watch Frontline to be saved from the 'system'

Everything is set up to suck your retirement dollars out like a leach and into Wall St money managers' pockets

 
wilked said:
The main problem with 401Ks is that:

-The majority are crappy plans, filled with high expense ratio funds

-What training does occur is by the snakes at the 401k firm, who tout their high expense ratio funds

-You almost have to get lucky and find a forum like this, have a good friend or parent, or watch Frontline to be saved from the 'system'

Everything is set up to suck your retirement dollars out like a leach and into Wall St money managers' pockets
Click to expand...
And thanks to your help these are the funds our company now has:

https://www.sponsorportal.com/SponsorsPortal/index.cfm?nfc&custno=f1fc5413-fc23-4593-94a9-7288aa905ab9&plan=8135&sortby=name

 
2 people getting 16k each in SS doesn't sound too bad.  Its not going to be very good, but from the sound of it, neither was their pre-retirement years.  So important to pick a career that pays decently.      

 
Johnnymac said:
http://www.nextavenue.org/how-the-dream-of-retirement-is-becoming-a-nightmare/
Click to expand...
This makes my point when people come out saying SS won't be there for them when they retire.

Oh and one last thing: Puleeeze, don’t talk to us about cutting Social Security.

For millions of Americans, Social Security is The Retirement Plan: 65 percent of beneficiaries depend on it for half or more of their monthly income. Without it, nearly half of women 65 and older would live in poverty or extreme poverty. Let’s not gloss over what extreme poverty means. It means living on less than $5,885 per year or $490 a month.

So when you threaten to cut entitlement programs like Social Security, what you’re really talking about is dooming millions and millions of boomer-age women to misery and destitution. Boomer-age women who vote.

 
The fact that so many people are irresponsible with retirement saving means that Social Security HAS to be around. For some, that will be their only source of income. Changes will be made to the program but it's not going away.

 
eoMMan said:
The fact that so many people are irresponsible with retirement saving means that Social Security HAS to be around. For some, that will be their only source of income. Changes will be made to the program but it's not going away.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Also, there will never be a time when the gov't hands the general public an SS lump sum and allows them to manage it. The fact that 50% of humanoids have no retirement tells what would happen in that scenario.

 
GAO was asked to review the trends on DC plans (401(k)s, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc.) because they have become the dominant form for how Americans save for retirement, replacing the once common pension plans offered by the government and many private companies.

GAO found that 60% of working households have no money in any type of DC plan. The biggest reason by far for this was due to lack of access. The majority of those with no money in any plan (39%) did not have access to one. 34% of working households had no DC plan from either a current or previous job.


However, there was some good news from the study: 61% of working households have access to a DC plan, and of those, a majority participate. According to 2013 data, 86% of working households that could participate in a DC plan of some sort were doing so.

Discrepancies stood out even more based on income. Lower income families were much less likely to have any savings inside of a DC plan, even if they worked in a job that offered one. For example, GAO found that 35% of lower income families had access to a DC plan, however, only 64% of those that did participated. In higher income families, 95% who had access to a DC plan were participating. Higher income households also had more access (80%) to a DC plan of some kind.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2016/05/09/gao-majority-of-american-households-have-no-defined-contribution-plan-savings-for-retirement/#sthash.1ecJds5X.dpuf
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GAO was asked to review the trends on DC plans (401(k)s, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc.) because they have become the dominant form for how Americans save for retirement, replacing the once common pension plans offered by the government and many private companies.

GAO found that 60% of working households have no money in any type of DC plan. The biggest reason by far for this was due to lack of access. The majority of those with no money in any plan (39%) did not have access to one. 34% of working households had no DC plan from either a current or previous job.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how they lacked access to a plan when they could open an IRA at any bank (assuming working household = earned income). 

 
Tom Hagen said:
The first line DD's quote specifically includes IRA's in the definition of a defined contribution plan but then claims people do not have access to one.
Click to expand...
The second part specifically notes it is talking about lack of access to DC plans.. the part you didn't quote.

 
That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
The supposition that government jobs pay less than private sector hasn't been true for a while.  On the whole they are significantly higher compensation.

 
Sand said:
The supposition that government jobs pay less than private sector hasn't been true for a while.  On the whole they are significantly higher compensation.
Click to expand...
I spent 9+ years working for a non-appropriated agency, so I agree that even excluding benefits, the pay can be sneaky good. But even when factoring in I could get away with 40% of my salary in a pension if I worked that many years (I started before I turned 22) I wasn't coming out ahead by sticking around when factoring in the higher comp (salary plus bonus) over all those years. 

 
lod01 said:
Exactly. Also, there will never be a time when the gov't hands the general public an SS lump sum and allows them to manage it. The fact that 50% of humanoids have no retirement tells what would happen in that scenario.
Click to expand...
It's sad to me the government has to have a program to care more for people than they bother to do themselves.

But then again I guess people really don't care about themselves much at all really, so few take good care of themselves, their offspring, their money, or really anything.

 
Dentist said:
It's sad to me the government has to have a program to care more for people than they bother to do themselves.

But then again I guess people really don't care about themselves much at all really, so few take good care of themselves, their offspring, their money, or really anything.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you but there are a lot of people that are having a hard time living on what they make now.  There is no way these people could ever hope to save enough to take care of themselves in retirement.  Like it or not we are our brother's keeper.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
Pretty much as close to unlimited resources as you can get in this life coupled with powerful unions and politicians that have no interest in upsetting people in the unions or the workers and that is what you get.

Then people wonder why the government can't do anything well. It is not rocket science and no, you can't make government better when you have that structure in place. It is just a slow crawl death of bureaucracy. Easy to bloat up and damn hard to get lean.

 
Chadstroma said:
Pretty much as close to unlimited resources as you can get in this life coupled with powerful unions and politicians that have no interest in upsetting people in the unions or the workers and that is what you get.

Then people wonder why the government can't do anything well. It is not rocket science and no, you can't make government better when you have that structure in place. It is just a slow crawl death of bureaucracy. Easy to bloat up and damn hard to get lean.
Click to expand...
I think there's a lot of truth here. The other side of the equation is a discussion too though, job security in the private sector. The employment "agreement" has been moving to become very one sided to the advantage of companies. I realize that freewill employment has advantages for both employers and employees, and that placing artificial constructs on the labor market is tricky. But by and large, in the private sector, you can be gone tomorrow. I think that uncertainty absolutely factors into retirement savings, or lack thereof, for a significant portion of Americans.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I think there's a lot of truth here. The other side of the equation is a discussion too though, job security in the private sector. The employment "agreement" has been moving to become very one sided to the advantage of companies. I realize that freewill employment has advantages for both employers and employees, and that placing artificial constructs on the labor market is tricky. But by and large, in the private sector, you can be gone tomorrow. I think that uncertainty absolutely factors into retirement savings, or lack thereof, for a significant portion of Americans.
Click to expand...
At will employment favors employers by a large degree. An employer can fire you with no warning yet you risk personal reputational damage if you do not give 2 weeks notice. I worked for a company in the past that if you did not put in your two weeks they would mark you in the HR database as 'not re-hirable' which other companies would get if they called to confirm employment dates. (I think most companies don't do anything like this anymore as it opens up to lawsuits) I honestly don't see the 'advantage' of at will employment for the employee. I would like to see it applied to all levels though and not just underlings while executives get fat contracts with golden parachutes instead.

Being that you can rollover your retirement funds- I don't see that being too big of a problem for retirement. In fact, having it so easily movable is a benefit to the employee as you don't have to worry about not getting a pension if you don't work X amount of time etc. Usually there is a vesting time for matching funds on 401ks but that is about it. You can then move employers and then roll your money over into an IRA and keep on going.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
No idea what the bolded means, you don't seem to know either.  Also there is no "G grades," attention to detail is half the battle.  ;)

This whole topic has been covered ad nasuem on these forums.  Government employees are more educated than their peers, often work in professional fields where they would often be better compensated in private industry, and Sand's ascertain that Feds are paid more is debatable. 

But sure, the stability is good and the benefits are terrific.  I am a pretty senior govt employee and I make less in DC than most of my neighbors, and I don't live in Bethesda or some other area loaded with contractors and lobbyists.  I live in a middle class house in a middle class neighborhood.  My equivalent job overseas as a contractor pays double what I make in my current job, and 20% in other locations.  Plus my job is pretty stressful, and most of the jobs I've had in government were the same.  My time spent in the private world was picnics and blow jobs, no stress at all.  Worry about the bottom line and don't #### the maid amirite?  See I can use small sample sizes too! 

If you are interested in federal employment visit USAJobs.  gllllllllllll

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chadstroma said:
Pretty much as close to unlimited resources as you can get in this life coupled with powerful unions and politicians that have no interest in upsetting people in the unions or the workers and that is what you get.

Then people wonder why the government can't do anything well. It is not rocket science and no, you can't make government better when you have that structure in place. It is just a slow crawl death of bureaucracy. Easy to bloat up and damn hard to get lean.
Click to expand...
Another guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Powerful unions?  I've never worked in a place in govt where a union was present.  Please stop. 

Government does a ton for you, and confusing operational government with Congress and terrible state agencies is ignorant.  Defense, law enforcement, infrastructure, parks and federal lands, etc.  Government does a lot well, don't throw the baby away with the bathwater. 

ETA:  What I had come in here to say, before getting sidetracked, is that I find it audacious we have people day trading in their retirement accounts.  I was reading through some forums where guys are moving major portions of their retirement savings to and through REITs, equities, and funds on a semi-regular basis.  The scariest thing is, they have a ton of people who follow their advice.  This to me...is nothing short of gambling. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
Another guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Powerful unions?  I've never worked in a place in govt where a union was present.  Please stop. 

Government does a ton for you, and confusing operational government with Congress and terrible state agencies is ignorant.  Defense, law enforcement, infrastructure, parks and federal lands, etc.  Government does a lot well, don't throw the baby away with the bathwater. 

ETA:  What I had come in here to say, before getting sidetracked, is that I find it audacious we have people day trading in their retirement accounts.  I was reading through some forums where guys are moving major portions of their retirement savings to and through REITs, equities, and funds on a semi-regular basis.  The scariest thing is, they have a ton of people who follow their advice.  This to me...is nothing short of gambling. 
Click to expand...
Defense and law enforcement have no unions. These do the work they are tasked with fairly well but even so are bloated with mismanagement of funds. Take what we have seen with SpaceX coming in to launch for a fraction of what United Launch Alliance has a contract for. Or the countless stories over the years in Iraq and Afghanistan of money spent or money outright missing. I have full respect for defense and law enforcement and it is one of the very few things that our government is actually suppose to be doing but it is ridiculous to act as if these are lean organizations.... except maybe for the Marines, they seen to always do more with less.

And you seem to want to act like there is no AFGE or NFFE and even more union representation for federal employees. It is not about confusing Congress or state agencies. It is the nature of government. Some are better than others and some are much more bloated than the rest but the nature of government means that these organizations are not lean and never will be. Efficiency, other than when forced by law (meaning artificially setting prices for example), will never happen and effectiveness is usually at a low degree as well, again, with the exception of defense and law enforcement.

But if you think unions don't play a role in federal employment and the bureaucracy that exists, then you are the one who is ignorant. Sure, we know that most (all?) of your career has been in the DoD and if I remember right the military has a federal law banning unionization- so you career anecdote may be skewered.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
For some, sure. Generally speaking the private sector does pay more for the same job (and not all government jobs equate well to the private sector) but there's more risk involved. 

Doctor Detroit said:
No idea what the bolded means, you don't seem to know either.  Also there is no "G grades," attention to detail is half the battle.  ;)

This whole topic has been covered ad nasuem on these forums.  Government employees are more educated than their peers, often work in professional fields where they would often be better compensated in private industry, and Sand's ascertain that Feds are paid more is debatable. 

But sure, the stability is good and the benefits are terrific.  I am a pretty senior govt employee and I make less in DC than most of my neighbors, and I don't live in Bethesda or some other area loaded with contractors and lobbyists.  I live in a middle class house in a middle class neighborhood.  My equivalent job overseas as a contractor pays double what I make in my current job, and 20% in other locations.  Plus my job is pretty stressful, and most of the jobs I've had in government were the same.  My time spent in the private world was picnics and blow jobs, no stress at all.  Worry about the bottom line and don't #### the maid amirite?  See I can use small sample sizes too! 

If you are interested in federal employment visit USAJobs.  gllllllllllll
Click to expand...
I assumed he meant GS. 

Doctor Detroit said:
Another guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Powerful unions?  I've never worked in a place in govt where a union was present.  Please stop. 
Click to expand...
You might not have worked in one, but the union here is active.  Sometimes the union head makes a good point, other times, less so.

 
Chadstroma said:
But if you think unions don't play a role in federal employment and the bureaucracy that exists, then you are the one who is ignorant. Sure, we know that most (all?) of your career has been in the DoD and if I remember right the military has a federal law banning unionization- so you career anecdote may be skewered.
Click to expand...
and yet unions like AUSA are very influential. 

 
Chadstroma said:
Defense and law enforcement have no unions. These do the work they are tasked with fairly well but even so are bloated with mismanagement of funds. Take what we have seen with SpaceX coming in to launch for a fraction of what United Launch Alliance has a contract for. Or the countless stories over the years in Iraq and Afghanistan of money spent or money outright missing. I have full respect for defense and law enforcement and it is one of the very few things that our government is actually suppose to be doing but it is ridiculous to act as if these are lean organizations.... except maybe for the Marines, they seen to always do more with less.

And you seem to want to act like there is no AFGE or NFFE and even more union representation for federal employees. It is not about confusing Congress or state agencies. It is the nature of government. Some are better than others and some are much more bloated than the rest but the nature of government means that these organizations are not lean and never will be. Efficiency, other than when forced by law (meaning artificially setting prices for example), will never happen and effectiveness is usually at a low degree as well, again, with the exception of defense and law enforcement.

But if you think unions don't play a role in federal employment and the bureaucracy that exists, then you are the one who is ignorant. Sure, we know that most (all?) of your career has been in the DoD and if I remember right the military has a federal law banning unionization- so you career anecdote may be skewered.
Click to expand...
Union membership is essentially like belonging to the moose lodge these days, they have some influence but a fraction of what you want people to believe. The unions fought and complained about three years of no COLA increases, they got no where. 

You should stick to recommending people 12 year car loans as a banker. I think we can assume all of you are like that, clueless and corrupted. Right? I remember when you were out of work and desperate, you were less bitter then. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
Union membership is essentially like belonging to the moose lodge these days, they have some I furnace but a fraction of what you want people to believe. The unions fought and complained about three years of no COLA increases, they got no where. 

You should stick to recommending people 12 year car loans as a banker. I think we can assume all of you are like that, clueless and corrupted. Right? I remember when you were out of work and desperate, you were less bitter then. 
Click to expand...
It really is sad. Somewhat ironic that you bring up bitter. You have for a long time been one of my favorite posters here but I have seen you get more and more combative, angry and bitter. I remember even reaching out to you via PM because you just seemed like you were so much so.

I still value your opinion and I am not about to try to go to trading personal blows over something like this. I certainly have no problem disagreeing someone without making it personal or being angry over it. I am really not even taking your personal attacks personally. I guess being a favorite of mine I have no problem extending extra grace.

My best wishes for you and hopefully you can address whatever is going on with you and feel better.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Union membership is essentially like belonging to the moose lodge these days, they have some I furnace but a fraction of what you want people to believe. The unions fought and complained about three years of no COLA increases, they got no where. 

You should stick to recommending people 12 year car loans as a banker. I think we can assume all of you are like that, clueless and corrupted. Right? I remember when you were out of work and desperate, you were less bitter then. 
Click to expand...
Has a study been done on the value of government employee benefits?  Versus the private sector where benefits get leaner and leaner, the health and retirement package alone for federal employees has to be worth high six figures.  My sister is a mechanical engineer who left the private workforce for a government job simply for the benefits.  She took a small cut in pay but if she collects benefits for 15 years after retirement she'll make that small difference up 100 fold.

 
Chadstroma said:
It really is sad. Somewhat ironic that you bring up bitter. You have for a long time been one of my favorite posters here but I have seen you get more and more combative, angry and bitter. I remember even reaching out to you via PM because you just seemed like you were so much so.

I still value your opinion and I am not about to try to go to trading personal blows over something like this. I certainly have no problem disagreeing someone without making it personal or being angry over it. I am really not even taking your personal attacks personally. I guess being a favorite of mine I have no problem extending extra grace.

My best wishes for you and hopefully you can address whatever is going on with you and feel better.
Click to expand...
I'm great, thanks for asking. I'm also the same as I ever was, I just don't appreciate broad brushes calling all federal employees money-grubbing dirtbags.  How you or grace under fire came to your conclusions from a few innocuous comments in a fedben site is beyond me. 

I'll stop now, you have ruined the spirit of the thread with your nonsense. This thread is about retirement, not your personal political agenda. 

 
James Daulton said:
Has a study been done on the value of government employee benefits?  Versus the private sector where benefits get leaner and leaner, the health and retirement package alone for federal employees has to be worth high six figures.  My sister is a mechanical engineer who left the private workforce for a government job simply for the benefits.  She took a small cut in pay but if she collects benefits for 15 years after retirement she'll make that small difference up 100 fold.
Click to expand...
I think this is huge and one major problem with our current system.   Corporations care more about paying huge dividends then their employees benefits.  There was a time where benefits were close between private and govt benefits but it is not close for many anymore.   I know Federal benefits have declined too but to a much lesser extent.   A 401k match is a small drop in the bucket compared to how things were 50 years ago and companies are much more profitable today.   It is really sad when you think how discarded workers in general are.    

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

higgins
Age of Easy Money | PBS FRONTLINE
Replies
3
Views
814
GroveDiesel
GroveDiesel
Senor Schmutzig
I had a heart attack this weekend...
2 3
Replies
115
Views
3K
Mr.Pack
Mr.Pack
GordonGekko
What Do You Plan And Hope To Do After You Retire? (21/30)
2
Replies
85
Views
5K
Senor Schmutzig
Senor Schmutzig

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top