Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 2:47:11 GMT
Despite some variation, solid majorities of Americans have reported being satisfied with their personal life over the past few decades, with an average of 83% satisfied since 1979. The historical low of 73% was recorded in July 1979, as the effects of that year's oil crisis took a toll on U.S. motorists. During that poll's fielding dates, then-President Jimmy Carter delivered his "malaise speech," which was interpreted by some as placing blame on Americans themselves for the rough economic spot the country was in.
Oh geez. Now I just kicked off another Jimmyjack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 3:20:46 GMT
Alright, I give. Prosperity abounds for all. Now, now ... I could easily be wrong, you know. It's just not axiomatic. The hell kind of professor are you? |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Feb 8, 2020 14:13:42 GMT
What's interesting is where employer benefits came from. In 1940 less than 10 percent of Americans had any kind of health insurance.
April 8, 1943. World War II is raging. USA is facing a huge labor shortage. Concerned that pressure on wages will unleash inflation just as the economy is coming out of the Great Depression, FDR (hero to the poor!) signs Executive Order 9328, called the Stabilization Act, that froze wages and salaries for workers.
But there was an exemption that labor-hungry companies could take advantage of: Insurance and labor benefits. Unable to offer employees higher salaries or promise them raises, employers begin offering benefits instead. Subsequent rulings by the IRS greased the skids by not forcing employees to pay taxes on these benefits and by allowing employers to deduct benefits from profits (better to give the money to employees instead of Uncle Sam).
Thus, by accident, the whole benefits boondoggle was created.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 18:42:33 GMT
But that, so stipulated, means that business is no more efficient today than they were then (i.e, inefficiency has been shifted from here to there). If that's the case ... where's this increase in consumption coming from? Increased shareholder profits are the efficiency. That's where the money goes when it doesn't have to go elsewhere. That isn't a shift in inefficiency. That's optimizing efficiency. Also, those shareholder aren’t just the Montgomery Burns cliche. Those shareholders are you and I and average middle class Americans with 401Ks and IRAs. And public pensions, too, which rely on equity investment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 19:05:52 GMT
I’m well aware.
Approximately one-third of Americans have 401(k)s. Of those who have it, the average 401(k) balance among people in their 50s is $175,000.
Employer pensions of yore would often pay out something on the order of $30K-50K, sometimes more. A $40,000 lifetime pension was essentially a $1 million annuity that the company has funded for you. And it was risk-free and guaranteed for the employee. There’s really no comparison between then and now.
The very reason companies stopped doing it was because it was “less efficient.” And the reason it was “less efficient” was that it was “more prosperous” for the employee. That was the phrasing. It was correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 8, 2020 19:19:13 GMT
I’m well aware. Approximately one-third of Americans have 401(k)s. Of those who have it, the average 401(k) balance among people in their 50s is $175,000. Employer pensions of yore would often pay out something on the order of $30K-50K, sometimes more. A $40,000 lifetime pension was essentially a $1 million annuity that the company has funded for you. And it was risk-free and guaranteed for the employee. There’s really no comparison between then and now. The very reason companies stopped doing it was because it was “less efficient.” And the reason it was “less efficient” was that it was “more prosperous” for the employee. That was the phrasing. It was correct. Not sure about the risk-free part. There’s always the risk your company goes kaput. (And, what do you know, some of the companies you applauded for offering most generous pensions did exactly that...) Of course there is PBGC insurance, but only up to a certain amount. And that itself is at risk of insolvency— Congress already had to give coal miners a bailout. One great aspect of 401Ks is they allow you to mitigate some of that risk by diversification—you don’t want to have all your wealth tied up in employer. |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Feb 8, 2020 19:22:05 GMT
Of course it's "less efficient" now. Companies paying pensions today actually have to (gasp!) pay them out, which wasn't too much of an issue back in the day when the average man died 2.5 years before his retirement age.
|
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Feb 8, 2020 19:24:14 GMT
Of course it's "less efficient" now. Companies paying pensions today actually have to (gasp!) pay them out, which wasn't too much of an issue back in the day when the average man died 2.5 years before his retirement age. Also an excellent point. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 9, 2020 0:40:17 GMT
BU has to be embarrassed, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 9, 2020 0:45:17 GMT
LMAO
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 9, 2020 0:45:34 GMT
I’m more of a John Maynard Freedman guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 1:35:07 GMT
What do you expect from someone who majored in ...
Never mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 9, 2020 1:46:00 GMT
So, Howard Stern was previously BU’s most famous graduate, right?
He’s controversial, but is undeniably good at doing radio, so no need for them to be embarrassed.
AOC? My gosh. Are they doing an internal investigation to understand what happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Feb 9, 2020 1:52:20 GMT
So, Howard Stern was previously BU’s most famous graduate, right? He’s controversial, but is undeniably good at doing radio, so no need for them to be embarrassed. AOC? My gosh. Are they doing an internal investigation to understand what happened? I always thought it was Michael Gee or Jim Craig |
|
|
|
Post by dirtybird on Feb 9, 2020 4:45:06 GMT
Pensions were clearly a remnant of less efficent and more prosperous times. How can times that are "less efficient" also be "more prosperous"? Heh, fair point. It’s been a while since I was an Econ undergrad. The shame I feel. Let’s sub our prosperous for a softer sense of largesse that came with a certain sort of prosperity. The kind that made the postwar economy feel worlds better than the immediate post housing crisis economy despite being objectively less prosperous. |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-919624-1312618814.jpeg.jpg)
