Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Twinkies, Ding Dongs Maker Hostess Liquidates Following Failure To Labor Pension Obligations
44 views
Skip to first unread message
Hostess
Nov 16, 2012, 8:25:41 AM11/16/12
to
Twinkies, Ding Dongs Maker Hostess Liquidates Following Failure To
Resolve Labor Union Animosity
Hostess Brands, the company better known as the maker of Butternut, Ding
Dongs, Dolly Madison, Drake's, Home Pride, Ho Hos, Hostess, Merita,
Nature's Pride, and of course Wonder Bread and Twinkies, and which
previously survived one multi-year Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, when
it operated as Interstate Bakeries, has just made a splash at the NY
Southern Bankruptcy court, for the last time, with a liquidation filing.
The reason: insurmountable (and unfundable) difference in the firm's
collective bargaining agreements and pension obligations, which resulted
in a crippling strike that basically shut down the company.
In other words, Twinkies may well survive the nuclear apocalypse, but
there was one weakest link: the company making them, was unable to
survive empowered labor unions who thought they had all the negotiating
leverage... until the led their bankrupt employer right off liquidation
cliff.
“Hostess Brands is unprofitable under its current cost structure, much
of which is determined by union wages and pension costs,” the company
said. Affected are 33 bakeries, more than 550 distribution operations
and 570 stores in the U.S.
"Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member
work force and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders." It
added it has access to $75-million in debtor-in-possession financing as
it winds down its operations.
Will attention now turn to that another broke government entity, the
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (PBGC), which will have to step in to
resuscitate some 18,000 pension plans which suddenly vaporized after
labor unions took their "negotiating" freedom a step too far?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/twinkies-ding-dongs-maker-hostess-liquidates-following-failure-resolve-labor-union-a
===============
A separate Canadian company owns the rights to the Hostess brand here in
Canada, so we'll still have our twinkies and ding-dongs. You Americans,
however, will now suffer from twinkie withdrawl.
Resolve Labor Union Animosity
Hostess Brands, the company better known as the maker of Butternut, Ding
Dongs, Dolly Madison, Drake's, Home Pride, Ho Hos, Hostess, Merita,
Nature's Pride, and of course Wonder Bread and Twinkies, and which
previously survived one multi-year Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, when
it operated as Interstate Bakeries, has just made a splash at the NY
Southern Bankruptcy court, for the last time, with a liquidation filing.
The reason: insurmountable (and unfundable) difference in the firm's
collective bargaining agreements and pension obligations, which resulted
in a crippling strike that basically shut down the company.
In other words, Twinkies may well survive the nuclear apocalypse, but
there was one weakest link: the company making them, was unable to
survive empowered labor unions who thought they had all the negotiating
leverage... until the led their bankrupt employer right off liquidation
cliff.
“Hostess Brands is unprofitable under its current cost structure, much
of which is determined by union wages and pension costs,” the company
said. Affected are 33 bakeries, more than 550 distribution operations
and 570 stores in the U.S.
"Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member
work force and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders." It
added it has access to $75-million in debtor-in-possession financing as
it winds down its operations.
Will attention now turn to that another broke government entity, the
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (PBGC), which will have to step in to
resuscitate some 18,000 pension plans which suddenly vaporized after
labor unions took their "negotiating" freedom a step too far?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/twinkies-ding-dongs-maker-hostess-liquidates-following-failure-resolve-labor-union-a
===============
A separate Canadian company owns the rights to the Hostess brand here in
Canada, so we'll still have our twinkies and ding-dongs. You Americans,
however, will now suffer from twinkie withdrawl.
rlz
Nov 16, 2012, 11:14:01 AM11/16/12
to
>
> ===============
>
> A separate Canadian company owns the rights to the Hostess brand here in
> Canada, so we'll still have our twinkies and ding-dongs. You Americans,
> however, will now suffer from twinkie withdrawl.
I hope those striking union workers like being unemployed right before
> ===============
>
> A separate Canadian company owns the rights to the Hostess brand here in
> Canada, so we'll still have our twinkies and ding-dongs. You Americans,
> however, will now suffer from twinkie withdrawl.
the holidays.
Greed will only get you into trouble.
Bob F
Nov 16, 2012, 1:32:45 PM11/16/12
to
"Hostess" <Hos...@Ding.dong.com> wrote in message
news:50A63ED5...@Ding.dong.com...
> Will attention now turn to that another broke government entity, the
> Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (PBGC), which will have to step in to
> resuscitate some 18,000 pension plans which suddenly vaporized after
> labor unions took their "negotiating" freedom a step too far?
Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
> Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (PBGC), which will have to step in to
> resuscitate some 18,000 pension plans which suddenly vaporized after
> labor unions took their "negotiating" freedom a step too far?
then dumps the obligations onto the public.
SMS
Nov 16, 2012, 2:14:14 PM11/16/12
to
required contributions last August.
This was a company with no business case, already on its second
bankruptcy. It's popular for the right wing lunatics to bash the unions
for everything, but as usual they are "low information" pundits.
The real problem here was the predatory excesses of private investment
funds, as a Fortune magazine article pointed out,
<http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/>.
As usual, the taxpayers foot the bill for pensions while the private
investment funds will sell off the valuable Hostess brands. Romney would
be very familiar with this whole process. Selling the brands lets the
private investment funds get back their investment without the pesky
overhead of running factories and paying workers.
Perhaps Twinkies can be manufactured in China and shipped to the U.S..
I though that perhaps doing short sales on the manufacturers of diabetes
drugs and supplies might be a way to make money off the end of Hostess,
but I doubt if the products will be gone from store shelves for very
long, plus there's a slew of other companies, as well as store brands,
of these types of products.
David Kaye
Nov 16, 2012, 2:15:20 PM11/16/12
to
People blame the unions, BUT during its bankruptcy proceedings, Hostess has
GIVEN RAISES of 80% to its senior management!
Two vulture capital funds have owned Hostess recently and bled it DRY.
Here's a thorough analysis of the situation from Fortune, a fairly rightwing
publication:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/
GIVEN RAISES of 80% to its senior management!
Two vulture capital funds have owned Hostess recently and bled it DRY.
Here's a thorough analysis of the situation from Fortune, a fairly rightwing
publication:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/
David Kaye
Nov 16, 2012, 2:15:48 PM11/16/12
to
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote
> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
> obligations, then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
Exactly. Instead they bled Hostess dry.
> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
> obligations, then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
denni...@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2012, 2:43:06 PM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
Unions only exacerbated the situation. I'm betting 18,495 people are now wishing they had their jobs back, broken promises and all.
Cha ching
Nov 16, 2012, 3:35:42 PM11/16/12
to
<denni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de9cf0d8-b4c3-49d8...@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
>> obligations,
>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
> Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>
> The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows,
> and continually improves its profit margin.
Hard to make a profit, when the salaries continue upward of the executives.
>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
>> obligations,
>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
> Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>
> The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows,
> and continually improves its profit margin.
A lot easier to blame the janitor.
BCTGM members voted to strike Hostess after the company imposed cuts that
included ending payments to the employees' pension plan while executives
awarded themselves massive bonuses. Among the raises was a 300 percent
raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) for the then-CEO of
Hostess. At least nine other top executives of the company also received
massive pay raises, including one who received a pay increase from $500,000
to $900,000 and another received one that brought his salary from $375,000
to $656,256.
HeyBub
Nov 16, 2012, 3:47:13 PM11/16/12
to
SMS wrote:
>
> The real problem here was the predatory excesses of private investment
> funds, as a Fortune magazine article pointed out,
> http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/.
Predatory? Private investment funds and venture capital companies poured
>
> The real problem here was the predatory excesses of private investment
> funds, as a Fortune magazine article pointed out,
> http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/.
bags of money into Hostess with the hopes that someday they'd recoup their
investment - and a nice-sized return.
As things stand now, these venture capitalists are out some $200 million.
>
> As usual, the taxpayers foot the bill for pensions while the private
> investment funds will sell off the valuable Hostess brands. Romney
> would be very familiar with this whole process. Selling the brands
> lets the private investment funds get back their investment without
> the pesky overhead of running factories and paying workers.
>
twenty cents on the dollar. Wonder Bread may survive with a new owner, but I
don't think the Twinkies brand would even FIND a buyer, no matter how low
the price. "Twinkies" is the headliner of a failed company, and who wants to
be associated with that? Plus, Twinkies is known to cause fatness in
California.
As things stand, the workers get 99 weeks of unemployment and majority
funding of their pensions (courtesy of the taxpayers) while the investment
firms get bupkus.
That's not fair, I tell you.
Bob F
Nov 16, 2012, 3:49:27 PM11/16/12
to
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
>> obligations,
>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
> Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>
> The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and
> continually improves its profit margin.
Or, if the company properly funds the pension fund, as would be reasonably
>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
>> obligations,
>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
> Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>
> The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and
> continually improves its profit margin.
expected, since they had made the committment to pay the pensions. Instead, they
steal the money they know they will own, and spend it on whatever they want,
until they get vulture capitalized, with the debt dumped on the public.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
HeyBub
Nov 16, 2012, 4:17:53 PM11/16/12
to
Cha ching wrote:
>
> Hard to make a profit, when the salaries continue upward of the
> executives. A lot easier to blame the janitor.
>
> BCTGM members voted to strike Hostess after the company imposed cuts
> that included ending payments to the employees' pension plan while
> executives awarded themselves massive bonuses. Among the raises was a
> 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) for the
> then-CEO of Hostess. At least nine other top executives of the
> company also received massive pay raises, including one who received
> a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one
> that brought his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
It was a gamble.
>
> Hard to make a profit, when the salaries continue upward of the
> executives. A lot easier to blame the janitor.
>
> BCTGM members voted to strike Hostess after the company imposed cuts
> that included ending payments to the employees' pension plan while
> executives awarded themselves massive bonuses. Among the raises was a
> 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) for the
> then-CEO of Hostess. At least nine other top executives of the
> company also received massive pay raises, including one who received
> a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one
> that brought his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
If the CEO could get away with it (cutting salaries and pension
contributions) thereby saving the company many millions of dollars,
shouldn't he be deserving of a modest raise? Isn't it in our American genes
to cut expenses? To make more profit so you can reward stockholders - and
investors - for risking their money? To be able to hire more people?
Lets do some math.
Assume each of 18,000 workers is paid, on average, $22/hr for 40 hours/week
for 52 weeks/year:
18,000 x 22 x 40 x 52 = $823,680,000 existing annual payroll
Now assume each employee has their wages cut to $20.00/hr (9%)
18,000 x 20 x 40 x 52 = $748,800,000 new annual payroll
Or a difference of about seventy-five million dollars ($74,880,000).
That's enough:
* To hire almost two thousand additional workers at the $20/hr level.
* Give $30 million in bonuses to the top administrators, and STILL hire over
1,000 additional workers!
* According to news reports, the Hostess pension plan had $56 million in
assets and $111 million in liabilities. The $75 million calculated above
would make the pension plan solvent in less than two years.
* At a minimum, stay in business.
When you're in the CEO position of a multi-million dollar enterprise, one
day it's chicken, the next day it's feathers.
The Daring Dufas
Nov 16, 2012, 4:24:17 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 2:35 PM, Cha ching wrote:
> <denni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9cf0d8-b4c3-49d8...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
>>> obligations,
>>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>>
>> Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>>
>> The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows,
>> and continually improves its profit margin.
>
> Hard to make a profit, when the salaries continue upward of the executives.
> A lot easier to blame the janitor.
>
The people who run the union still have their cushy jobs. O_o
> <denni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:de9cf0d8-b4c3-49d8...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension
>>> obligations,
>>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>>
>> Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>>
>> The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows,
>> and continually improves its profit margin.
>
> Hard to make a profit, when the salaries continue upward of the executives.
> A lot easier to blame the janitor.
>
TDD
Robert Neville
Nov 16, 2012, 5:38:16 PM11/16/12
to
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
>then dumps the obligations onto the public.
You clearly don't know how labor agreement pension obligations work. Not only
>Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
>then dumps the obligations onto the public.
are the companies responsible for pension expenses of their own employees, they
are also obligated to cover any shortfalls from any other union employer. It has
nothing to do with the company funding a pension because the company has to turn
over the pension funding to the union immediately.
Bob F
Nov 16, 2012, 6:36:51 PM11/16/12
to
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68ada8tmn196drng3...@4ax.com...
> put $130 million INTO the company. It was the unions that ignored the
> fact that this was a company that was in peril and they were not
> willing to give up anything. Now they have given up everything.
>
> The reality is, these are products that had a declining customer base
> with people making healthier choices and they did not change.
A buyer of a company is buying all its obligations, including pension
obligations. The origional company made those contracts, and they should not be
discarded just because a buyer doesn't like them. The attempst by vulture
capitalists to screw the unions out of their legal contracts is despicable.
HeyBub
Nov 16, 2012, 7:22:29 PM11/16/12
to
are run by Democrats.
"... because Tim Collins of Ripplewood, was a prominent Democrat, a position
which allowed him to get involved in the first bankruptcy process in the
first place, due to his proximity with the Teamsters' long-term heartthrob
Dick Gephardt (whose consulting group just happens to also be an equity
owner of Hostess). In other words, the traditional republican-cum-PE
scapegoating strategy here will be a tough one to pull off since the
narrative collapses when considering that it was a Democrat who rescued the
firm, only to see it implode in a trainwreck that has resulted in the
liquidation of a legendary brand, and 18,500 layoffs."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/hostess-liquidation-curious-cast-characters-twinkie-tumbles
Kurt Ullman
Nov 16, 2012, 9:33:23 PM11/16/12
to
In article <68ada8tmn196drng3...@4ax.com>,
helpful group in this mess. They had okayed the changes, it was the
other union that balked. The Teamsters even went to the Bakers union and
said their guys had been over the books and this wasn't a bargaining
ploy on the part of the Company and they should take the concessions.
You would think this would be the other way around since the Teamsters
people should have less trouble finding new jobs given the shortage of
truck drivers. The three Teamsters I have seen interviewed locally
have already found new jobs.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:15:48 -0800, "David Kaye"
> <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:15:48 -0800, "David Kaye"
> <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The article you linked does not say that at all. It says Ripplewood
> put $130 million INTO the company. It was the unions that ignored the
> fact that this was a company that was in peril and they were not
> willing to give up anything. Now they have given up everything.
>
> The reality is, these are products that had a declining customer base
> with people making healthier choices and they did not change.
The other strange part is that it was the Teamsters that were the
> put $130 million INTO the company. It was the unions that ignored the
> fact that this was a company that was in peril and they were not
> willing to give up anything. Now they have given up everything.
>
> The reality is, these are products that had a declining customer base
> with people making healthier choices and they did not change.
helpful group in this mess. They had okayed the changes, it was the
other union that balked. The Teamsters even went to the Bakers union and
said their guys had been over the books and this wasn't a bargaining
ploy on the part of the Company and they should take the concessions.
You would think this would be the other way around since the Teamsters
people should have less trouble finding new jobs given the shortage of
truck drivers. The three Teamsters I have seen interviewed locally
have already found new jobs.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
Retired
Nov 16, 2012, 10:04:40 PM11/16/12
to
<snip>
See: http://www.pbgc.gov/about/how-pbgc-operates.html
"PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are
financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of
defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans
trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly
responsible for the plans."
>
> As things stand, the workers get 99 weeks of unemployment and majority
> funding of their pensions (courtesy of the taxpayers) while the investment
> firms get bupkus.
>
> That's not fair, I tell you.
Sorry, the PBGC is not taxpayer funded.
> As things stand, the workers get 99 weeks of unemployment and majority
> funding of their pensions (courtesy of the taxpayers) while the investment
> firms get bupkus.
>
> That's not fair, I tell you.
See: http://www.pbgc.gov/about/how-pbgc-operates.html
"PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are
financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of
defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans
trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly
responsible for the plans."
Wes Groleau
Nov 16, 2012, 10:14:42 PM11/16/12
to
"Where's the cream filling?" becomes "Where's the silver lining?"
--
Wes Groleau
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 16, 2012, 11:37:32 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:36:51 -0800, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>A buyer of a company is buying all its obligations, including pension
>obligations. The origional company made those contracts, and they should not be
>discarded just because a buyer doesn't like them. The attempst by vulture
>capitalists to screw the unions out of their legal contracts is despicable.
>
On the surface, I agree. Reality is probably something else. If the
new buyer has to take on the unfunded pension obligation, there may be
no buyer, thus no jobs and no pension funding. If the company cannot
be run profitably with present contracts, there will be no buyer.
Seems like a lot of fact smearing on both sides so let's keep an open
mind until we know for sure.
wrote:
>A buyer of a company is buying all its obligations, including pension
>obligations. The origional company made those contracts, and they should not be
>discarded just because a buyer doesn't like them. The attempst by vulture
>capitalists to screw the unions out of their legal contracts is despicable.
>
new buyer has to take on the unfunded pension obligation, there may be
no buyer, thus no jobs and no pension funding. If the company cannot
be run profitably with present contracts, there will be no buyer.
Seems like a lot of fact smearing on both sides so let's keep an open
mind until we know for sure.
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 16, 2012, 11:46:30 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:17:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>If the CEO could get away with it (cutting salaries and pension
>contributions) thereby saving the company many millions of dollars,
>shouldn't he be deserving of a modest raise? Isn't it in our American genes
>to cut expenses? To make more profit so you can reward stockholders - and
>investors - for risking their money? To be able to hire more people?
>
>Lets do some math.
The math works, but there is a lot more to it. As the CEO, you aren't
worth crap unless the 18,000 workers do a good job for you. Cutting
their pay and increasing yours just pisses off the little guy. At
least get things up and running smoothly before you do that.
Pissing off the workforce leads to poor efficiency, poor quality, and
every other problem associated with a disgruntled workforce.
We've all hears stories of the pizza guy spitting on your pie, you
certainly don't want that attitude amongst the 18000 worker bees.
wrote:
>If the CEO could get away with it (cutting salaries and pension
>contributions) thereby saving the company many millions of dollars,
>shouldn't he be deserving of a modest raise? Isn't it in our American genes
>to cut expenses? To make more profit so you can reward stockholders - and
>investors - for risking their money? To be able to hire more people?
>
>Lets do some math.
worth crap unless the 18,000 workers do a good job for you. Cutting
their pay and increasing yours just pisses off the little guy. At
least get things up and running smoothly before you do that.
Pissing off the workforce leads to poor efficiency, poor quality, and
every other problem associated with a disgruntled workforce.
We've all hears stories of the pizza guy spitting on your pie, you
certainly don't want that attitude amongst the 18000 worker bees.
Message has been deleted
Kurt Ullman
Nov 17, 2012, 8:09:53 AM11/17/12
to
In article <jr4ea8t7ocge2obb4...@4ax.com>,
The buying company would not likely be on the hook for most of
these prior obligations in this case since it is coming out of
bankruptcy and the court can discharge them.
these prior obligations in this case since it is coming out of
bankruptcy and the court can discharge them.
George
Nov 17, 2012, 8:44:33 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/16/2012 11:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:17:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If the CEO could get away with it (cutting salaries and pension
>> contributions) thereby saving the company many millions of dollars,
>> shouldn't he be deserving of a modest raise? Isn't it in our American genes
>> to cut expenses? To make more profit so you can reward stockholders - and
>> investors - for risking their money? To be able to hire more people?
>>
>> Lets do some math.
>
>
> The math works, but there is a lot more to it. As the CEO, you aren't
> worth crap unless the 18,000 workers do a good job for you. Cutting
> their pay and increasing yours just pisses off the little guy. At
> least get things up and running smoothly before you do that.
Exactly. Its easy to echo the tough guy RNC position that only investors
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:17:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If the CEO could get away with it (cutting salaries and pension
>> contributions) thereby saving the company many millions of dollars,
>> shouldn't he be deserving of a modest raise? Isn't it in our American genes
>> to cut expenses? To make more profit so you can reward stockholders - and
>> investors - for risking their money? To be able to hire more people?
>>
>> Lets do some math.
>
>
> The math works, but there is a lot more to it. As the CEO, you aren't
> worth crap unless the 18,000 workers do a good job for you. Cutting
> their pay and increasing yours just pisses off the little guy. At
> least get things up and running smoothly before you do that.
count and everyone else is a POS (as Romney did) but really stupid in
practice.
>
> Pissing off the workforce leads to poor efficiency, poor quality, and
> every other problem associated with a disgruntled workforce.
by only getting a reward if it all worked out. This includes the union
management.
NotMe
Nov 18, 2012, 1:45:42 PM11/18/12
to
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cdcea89rhtljp9090...@4ax.com...
And according to reports out of/low on money which means the backstopped
funding comes into play.
NotMe
Nov 19, 2012, 5:21:08 PM11/19/12
to
"rlz" <ro...@ellzey.net> wrote in message
news:0714d7d6-6fd0-4bc3...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Based on the word on the street here (DFW) for a while the company was on
short time regardless of what labor did.
bob haller
Nov 19, 2012, 6:24:47 PM11/19/12
to
union and company have agreed to mediation, ho hos production along
with everything else to resume
with everything else to resume
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 19, 2012, 10:27:05 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:21:08 -0600, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>I hope those striking union workers like being unemployed right before
>the holidays.
>Greed will only get you into trouble.
>
>{{
But I'm not sure where the greed was. Union workers that refused to
>
>I hope those striking union workers like being unemployed right before
>the holidays.
>Greed will only get you into trouble.
>
>{{
take a cut in pay, or a CEO that tripled his salary? Both? I'd not
be surprised of both are orchestrating this a bit for some publicity
too.
Message has been deleted
Michael Black
Nov 20, 2012, 2:03:00 AM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, PeterD wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote in
> news:hvtla8d4if8sahcai...@4ax.com:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/twinkies-may-survive-pabst-
> brewing-company-pbr-buy-auction_n_2158928.html?utm_hp_ref=business
>
> When Hostess announced plans to liquidate, fans of the baked-goods company
> feared the fate of the Twinkie. But lovers of the cream-filled sponge cake,
> fret not: Twinkies may survive thanks to the owner of Pabst Brewing, Co.
>
And then the news tonight showed profiteering, people rushing to stock up
on Twinkies and the like, so they could resell them on ebay for a profit.
SHots of empty shelves where Twinkies once roamed, surely it can't be the
supply drying up that fast.
I'd much rather see Twinkie hoarding from those who wnat them, than
hoarding from those hoping to make a profit from those who actually like
them.
Michael
> Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote in
> news:hvtla8d4if8sahcai...@4ax.com:
> brewing-company-pbr-buy-auction_n_2158928.html?utm_hp_ref=business
>
> When Hostess announced plans to liquidate, fans of the baked-goods company
> feared the fate of the Twinkie. But lovers of the cream-filled sponge cake,
> fret not: Twinkies may survive thanks to the owner of Pabst Brewing, Co.
>
And then the news tonight showed profiteering, people rushing to stock up
on Twinkies and the like, so they could resell them on ebay for a profit.
SHots of empty shelves where Twinkies once roamed, surely it can't be the
supply drying up that fast.
I'd much rather see Twinkie hoarding from those who wnat them, than
hoarding from those hoping to make a profit from those who actually like
them.
Michael
Kurt Ullman
Nov 20, 2012, 7:08:58 AM11/20/12
to
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> I'd much rather see Twinkie hoarding from those who wnat them, than
> hoarding from those hoping to make a profit from those who actually like
> them.
>
Interesting. Why?
> I'd much rather see Twinkie hoarding from those who wnat them, than
> hoarding from those hoping to make a profit from those who actually like
> them.
>
tra...@optonline.net
Nov 20, 2012, 8:45:48 AM11/20/12
to
I've seen actual retractions on it. It's not one CEO.
I think the essence of it is the union is deliberately muddling
it up by using two CEOs among other things.
One while the company was entering bankruptcy.
The other when that CEO left, the company emerged
from bankruptcy and they hired a new turn-around CEO.
That salary and plan was approved by a bankruptcy
judge.
Here is an example:
"CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly conflated
the former Hostess CEO, Brian Driscoll, whose salary was reportedly
tripled, with the current CEO, Greg Rayburn. For a detailed look at
who did what, here’s Fortune/CNN:
Even as it played the numbers game, Hostess had to face chaos in the
corner office at the worst possible time. Driscoll, the CEO, departed
suddenly and without explanation in March. It may have been that the
Teamsters no longer felt it could trust him. In early February,
Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new
employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual
salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and “long-term incentive”
compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll
were fired without cause, he’d still get severance pay of $1.95
million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement."
From the above, it sure doesn't look out of line for compensation
of a CEO that's running a $2bil company.
k...@att.bizzz
Nov 20, 2012, 7:46:08 PM11/20/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:09:53 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <jr4ea8t7ocge2obb4...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:36:51 -0800, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >A buyer of a company is buying all its obligations, including pension
>> >obligations. The origional company made those contracts, and they should not
>> >be
>> >discarded just because a buyer doesn't like them. The attempst by vulture
>> >capitalists to screw the unions out of their legal contracts is despicable.
>> >
>>
>> On the surface, I agree. Reality is probably something else. If the
>> new buyer has to take on the unfunded pension obligation, there may be
>> no buyer, thus no jobs and no pension funding. If the company cannot
>> be run profitably with present contracts, there will be no buyer.
>>
>> Seems like a lot of fact smearing on both sides so let's keep an open
>> mind until we know for sure.
>
> The buying company would not likely be on the hook for most of
>these prior obligations in this case since it is coming out of
>bankruptcy and the court can discharge them.
The buyer will likely only want the brands, recipes, and customers.
Leave the rest of the losing proposition, including the union, behind.
wrote:
>In article <jr4ea8t7ocge2obb4...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:36:51 -0800, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >A buyer of a company is buying all its obligations, including pension
>> >obligations. The origional company made those contracts, and they should not
>> >be
>> >discarded just because a buyer doesn't like them. The attempst by vulture
>> >capitalists to screw the unions out of their legal contracts is despicable.
>> >
>>
>> On the surface, I agree. Reality is probably something else. If the
>> new buyer has to take on the unfunded pension obligation, there may be
>> no buyer, thus no jobs and no pension funding. If the company cannot
>> be run profitably with present contracts, there will be no buyer.
>>
>> Seems like a lot of fact smearing on both sides so let's keep an open
>> mind until we know for sure.
>
> The buying company would not likely be on the hook for most of
>these prior obligations in this case since it is coming out of
>bankruptcy and the court can discharge them.
Leave the rest of the losing proposition, including the union, behind.
k...@att.bizzz
Nov 20, 2012, 7:49:00 PM11/20/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), denni...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
benefit retirement program.
>The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
No. See above.
>It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
No. See above.
>This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
Doesn't mean it's the way it *has* to be.
>Unions only exacerbated the situation. I'm betting 18,495 people are now wishing they had their jobs back, broken promises and all.
But the union won!
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
>Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
benefit retirement program.
>The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
>It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
No. See above.
>This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
Doesn't mean it's the way it *has* to be.
>Unions only exacerbated the situation. I'm betting 18,495 people are now wishing they had their jobs back, broken promises and all.
But the union won!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
HeyBub
Nov 20, 2012, 9:52:06 PM11/20/12
to
Michael Black wrote:
>
> I'd much rather see Twinkie hoarding from those who wnat them, than
> hoarding from those hoping to make a profit from those who actually
> like them.
>
Buying up stock for eventual resale is not "hording."
>
> I'd much rather see Twinkie hoarding from those who wnat them, than
> hoarding from those hoping to make a profit from those who actually
> like them.
>
It's "investment."
k...@att.bizzz
Nov 20, 2012, 10:51:34 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:38:03 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), denni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>>>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
>>>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>>>
>>>Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>>
>>Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
>>benefit retirement program.
>>
>>>The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
>>
>>No. See above.
>>
>>>It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
>>
>>No. See above.
>>
>>>This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
>>
>
>The problem with all of this is "properly funding a pension plan"
>depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
>pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
>devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
>to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
>spiral.
You're assuming a fixed-sized pie and everyone gets hungry at the same
time.
>The basic problem right now is we did not change retirement age to
>reflect lifespan. You can't have a third of the adult population
>retired, living off the other 2/3ds. That is especially true when you
>consider a large number of these retired people make more than the
>median family wage.
This has nothing to do with retirement plans. It's a serious problem
with Social Security, sure, but that's a different discussion.
>My meager pension and Social Security is more than my (Master degreed)
>son in law's salary and he has a wife and 3 kids.
Irrelevant.
>I retired at 49. I have been collecting that pension for 17 years. I
>may live 15 years or more if I am just average. That is 2 years longer
>than I worked. How do you fund that?
>I will get every dime I and my employer put in Social Security by 2015
>assuming no COLAs. How is that sustainable?
Is there a reason you're intentionally conflating private pensions and
SS?
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), denni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
>>>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
>>>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>>>
>>>Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>>
>>Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
>>benefit retirement program.
>>
>>>The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
>>
>>No. See above.
>>
>>>It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
>>
>>No. See above.
>>
>>>This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
>>
>
>depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
>pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
>devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
>to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
>spiral.
You're assuming a fixed-sized pie and everyone gets hungry at the same
time.
>The basic problem right now is we did not change retirement age to
>reflect lifespan. You can't have a third of the adult population
>retired, living off the other 2/3ds. That is especially true when you
>consider a large number of these retired people make more than the
>median family wage.
This has nothing to do with retirement plans. It's a serious problem
with Social Security, sure, but that's a different discussion.
>My meager pension and Social Security is more than my (Master degreed)
>son in law's salary and he has a wife and 3 kids.
Irrelevant.
>I retired at 49. I have been collecting that pension for 17 years. I
>may live 15 years or more if I am just average. That is 2 years longer
>than I worked. How do you fund that?
>I will get every dime I and my employer put in Social Security by 2015
>assuming no COLAs. How is that sustainable?
Is there a reason you're intentionally conflating private pensions and
SS?
tra...@optonline.net
Nov 21, 2012, 8:59:28 AM11/21/12
to
On Nov 20, 9:38 pm, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:00 -0500, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:06 -0800 (PST), dennisga...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
> >>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
> >>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
> >>Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>
> >Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
> >benefit retirement program.
>
> >>The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
>
> >No. See above.
>
> >>It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
>
> >No. See above.
>
> >>This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
>
>
> >>On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
> >>> Just another company that clearly did not properly fund its pension obligations,
> >>> then dumps the obligations onto the public.
>
> >>Pensions have been an unsustainable business model since day 1.
>
> >Not necessarily true. It *is* possible to fully fund even a defined
> >benefit retirement program.
>
> >>The only way a pension system works is if the business continually grows, and continually improves its profit margin.
>
> >No. See above.
>
> >>It's the production of the current generation that pays for the pension of the previous generation. When there are fewer people putting in than taking out, it's only a matter of time before the system collapses.
>
> >No. See above.
>
> >>This happened to Kodak, and now Hostess.
>
> The problem with all of this is "properly funding a pension plan"
> depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
> pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
> devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
> to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
> spiral.
The world stock markets, the US being the best example,
> depends on investments and you need to liquidate the investments to
> pay the retirees. That depresses the market for those securities and
> devalues the investments meaning you have to liquidate more next time
> to get the same amount of money.. It might end up being a downward
> spiral.
are clearly large and liquid enough that any pension fund
selling off some of it's holdings to meet obligations is
going to have a negligible effect on the price of the
securities. Sure, if some big pension fund was dumb
enough to dump all of it's holding in one trade or one
day, it could have a significant effect. But that is not
how it's done. First the fund is distributed over many
securities, so any individual postion is only a small
percentage of the whole fund. And second, they only
liquidate a portion of any particular security at a time.
Message has been deleted
Kurt Ullman
Nov 22, 2012, 6:45:36 AM11/22/12
to
In article <f0nra8hjahpr8fcko...@4ax.com>,
gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The problem is you will have 83 million baby boomers drawing down
> equities in their 401ks and depleting pension funds at the same time.
> The overall pressure on the investment market may make a dent in stock
> prices.
But this also comes at a time when the BRIC nations are in their own
baby boom and with rising middle classes may go a long way toward
offsetting that.
gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The problem is you will have 83 million baby boomers drawing down
> equities in their 401ks and depleting pension funds at the same time.
> The overall pressure on the investment market may make a dent in stock
> prices.
But this also comes at a time when the BRIC nations are in their own
baby boom and with rising middle classes may go a long way toward
offsetting that.
Vic Smith
Nov 22, 2012, 4:36:03 PM11/22/12
to
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:04:49 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
million people have 401k's, and nowhere near 83 million will be alive
at one time. Some of those 83 million "boomers" have already been
dead for years. Many before they even reached retirement age.
Here's some info - can't vouch for it.
http://theweek.com/article/index/226886/how-401ks-are-failing-millions-of-americans
I will say that "average" 401k value is pretty meaningless. Median
would give a truer picture.
This bad recession with people closing 401k's and eating the penalties
probably had more effect on the financial markets than the naturally
metered withdrawals of retirees will ever have.
Just guessing of course.
>The problem is you will have 83 million baby boomers drawing down
>equities in their 401ks and depleting pension funds at the same time.
>The overall pressure on the investment market may make a dent in stock
>prices.
If you look hard at those numbers, you'll find that nowhere near 83
>equities in their 401ks and depleting pension funds at the same time.
>The overall pressure on the investment market may make a dent in stock
>prices.
million people have 401k's, and nowhere near 83 million will be alive
at one time. Some of those 83 million "boomers" have already been
dead for years. Many before they even reached retirement age.
Here's some info - can't vouch for it.
http://theweek.com/article/index/226886/how-401ks-are-failing-millions-of-americans
I will say that "average" 401k value is pretty meaningless. Median
would give a truer picture.
This bad recession with people closing 401k's and eating the penalties
probably had more effect on the financial markets than the naturally
metered withdrawals of retirees will ever have.
Just guessing of course.
Message has been deleted
Vic Smith
Nov 22, 2012, 7:39:07 PM11/22/12
to
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:39:20 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>http://theweek.com/article/index/226886/how-401ks-are-failing-millions-of-americans
>
>
>You article doesn't say anything about the number of boomers who are
>dead already or who are going to die soon. The national average
>lifespan is around 80.
No, that was just about 401k's, which aren't as big a part of
retirement savings as many people think.
>I don't know anyone in my peer group 60-66, who is still working and
>some are already drawing down their 401k, most who actually have money
>are sitting on it hoping the market will go up. The government makes
>you draw it down at 70.
>401!k is not our main pension plan tho. Anyone who had a real job
>before the second half of the Clinton administration, had a fixed
>benefit pension and that is vested.
>
Funny. I had many "real jobs" that didn't offer a vested pension
plan. It was typical in the contractor world. And many now who
aren't in unions or government jobs don't have defined benefit plans.
So your peer group doesn't define much except itself.
That's why Social Security will never go away.
>>I will say that "average" 401k value is pretty meaningless. Median
>>would give a truer picture.
>>This bad recession with people closing 401k's and eating the penalties
>>probably had more effect on the financial markets than the naturally
>>metered withdrawals of retirees will ever have.
>>Just guessing of course.
>
>People who didn't plan for retirement may be taking the whole nut at
>59.5 to try to pay down some debt. It is hard to retire if you still
>owe money.
>
>It won't matter if the democrats stay in charge., They will just
>borrow more money from China and subsidize these people somehow.
Right. It's all the evil Demoncrats fault. Good luck with that..
>>http://theweek.com/article/index/226886/how-401ks-are-failing-millions-of-americans
>
>
>You article doesn't say anything about the number of boomers who are
>dead already or who are going to die soon. The national average
>lifespan is around 80.
No, that was just about 401k's, which aren't as big a part of
retirement savings as many people think.
>I don't know anyone in my peer group 60-66, who is still working and
>some are already drawing down their 401k, most who actually have money
>are sitting on it hoping the market will go up. The government makes
>you draw it down at 70.
>401!k is not our main pension plan tho. Anyone who had a real job
>before the second half of the Clinton administration, had a fixed
>benefit pension and that is vested.
>
Funny. I had many "real jobs" that didn't offer a vested pension
plan. It was typical in the contractor world. And many now who
aren't in unions or government jobs don't have defined benefit plans.
So your peer group doesn't define much except itself.
That's why Social Security will never go away.
>>I will say that "average" 401k value is pretty meaningless. Median
>>would give a truer picture.
>>This bad recession with people closing 401k's and eating the penalties
>>probably had more effect on the financial markets than the naturally
>>metered withdrawals of retirees will ever have.
>>Just guessing of course.
>
>59.5 to try to pay down some debt. It is hard to retire if you still
>owe money.
>
>It won't matter if the democrats stay in charge., They will just
>borrow more money from China and subsidize these people somehow.
Right. It's all the evil Demoncrats fault. Good luck with that..
Message has been deleted
NotMe
Nov 23, 2012, 11:07:45 AM11/23/12
to
<gfre...@aol.com>
>
> I never even heard about private contractors until the mid 90s unless
> you were talking about a licensed guy who owned his own real company.
> Then it was up to him to pay himself first..
> The idea of making a line coder a "contractor" started during the
> Clinton administration when everyone says we were so prosperous.
You're a bit miss informed. I worked as a contractor for Aero Space back in
the 60's. Made out like a bandit.
>
> I never even heard about private contractors until the mid 90s unless
> you were talking about a licensed guy who owned his own real company.
> Then it was up to him to pay himself first..
> The idea of making a line coder a "contractor" started during the
> Clinton administration when everyone says we were so prosperous.
You're a bit miss informed. I worked as a contractor for Aero Space back in
the 60's. Made out like a bandit.
Vic Smith
Nov 23, 2012, 4:17:30 PM11/23/12
to
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:00:35 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>I never even heard about private contractors until the mid 90s unless
>you were talking about a licensed guy who owned his own real company.
>Then it was up to him to pay himself first..
>The idea of making a line coder a "contractor" started during the
>Clinton administration when everyone says we were so prosperous.
>
I knew IT "line coder" independent contractors in 1980.
>
>I never even heard about private contractors until the mid 90s unless
>you were talking about a licensed guy who owned his own real company.
>Then it was up to him to pay himself first..
>The idea of making a line coder a "contractor" started during the
>Clinton administration when everyone says we were so prosperous.
>
Billing $45 an hour "coding lines." Not bad in 1980 - or now.
And I was called a contractor by clients even when I wasn't
independent, but working (salaried employee) for body shops as early
as 1984. Some "contractors" called themselves "consultants."
Always thought that was as ridiculous as a 3-piece suit with a watch
fob. Or a bow tie on a grown man.
Since clients had me there under contract, "contractor" was fine.
They weren't small shops either. Don't know about CGA, who I was with
for about 4 years. Maybe 2,000 employees. Profit sharing, no pension
plan. CTG, who I had 10 years with, had about 4000 employees in '88
and offered only 401k and ESOP in '88.
All this predates Clinton.
The writing was on the wall for DB pensions when Wall Street realized
it could get their hands directly into workers' wallets with 401k's.
According to this
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.html
even in 1980 only 38% of workers had DB pensions.
So you've basically fifteen-upped Mitt Romney's 47%.
By saying that 62% of people never had "real jobs."
Pretty crazy IMO.
There's a very big world of workers out there, so thinking your "peer
group" is representative is a mistake.
>>That's why Social Security will never go away.
>
>reasons I worry about other pension plans.
>
>From a macro economic sense, you can't have a third of all adults in
>the country living off the labor of the other two thirds, particularly
>when most of them don't even make enough to pay income taxes.
Right. And it's "macro economically" impossible for the U.S. to be
what, 16 trillion in debt, and the DJIA at 13k. All a mirage.
Without going into the details of the many ways it can and will be
worked out, one thing is certain. SS, at least at a subsistence level
minimum, won't go away.
Old people won't be kicked to the curb in the United States of
America. That's commie stuff. And un-Christian to boot.
Robert Green
Jul 19, 2013, 6:44:14 PM7/19/13
to
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<sad stuff about pensioners getting the the shaft snipped>
THEY'RE BACK!!!!
http://www.latimes.com/features/food/dailydish/la-dd-twinkies-new-line-is-smaller-has-fewer-calories-20130715,0,2762951.story
<<Twinkies are slimming down, just in time for their close-up. As Twinkies
show up on store shelves nationwide again, consumers may notice something
different -- and not just the packaging touting the "sweetest comeback." The
new line of Twinkies will be smaller in size, and contain fewer calories,
according to Hostess Brands, maker of the iconic creme-filled snack food.
But that won't necessarily translate into a smaller price tag. The
Associated Press reports that the new boxes hitting shelves list the cakes
as weighing 38.5 grams apiece, and coming in at 135 calories. That compares
with the old line of Twinkies, which weighed 42.5 grams apiece, and equaled
150 calories.>>
Sounds like most of the caloric savings comes from the smaller size. Such a
deal.
--
Bobby G.
<sad stuff about pensioners getting the the shaft snipped>
THEY'RE BACK!!!!
http://www.latimes.com/features/food/dailydish/la-dd-twinkies-new-line-is-smaller-has-fewer-calories-20130715,0,2762951.story
<<Twinkies are slimming down, just in time for their close-up. As Twinkies
show up on store shelves nationwide again, consumers may notice something
different -- and not just the packaging touting the "sweetest comeback." The
new line of Twinkies will be smaller in size, and contain fewer calories,
according to Hostess Brands, maker of the iconic creme-filled snack food.
But that won't necessarily translate into a smaller price tag. The
Associated Press reports that the new boxes hitting shelves list the cakes
as weighing 38.5 grams apiece, and coming in at 135 calories. That compares
with the old line of Twinkies, which weighed 42.5 grams apiece, and equaled
150 calories.>>
Sounds like most of the caloric savings comes from the smaller size. Such a
deal.
--
Bobby G.
0 new messages