Sunday, February 27, 2011

FRACTURED SOCIETY 2

In the first "installment"  I tried to focus on today's economic society's two easiest  classes  to codify. Today , I hope to briefly and coherently cover  my remaining three groupings.

(3)The third and perhaps the largest group springs from those who are wage earners gained from self-employment and/or private enterprises. Most seldom have the luxury of accumulating a large retirement nest egg. The majority, where there was an employment pension plan may have had to co-contribute in the past or resort to savings and IRAs.In the 80s the 401K plan became more common and shifted  the funding over to the employee.  Others that were part of a full funded pension plan have seen their “money” disappear due to employer bankruptcy or management fiat. The few that were members of Unions where the employer absorbed all the Health Care Insurance costs have suffered from owner relocation, or changes forced by the threat of job loss. Very few have had compensatory income raises based on the increased cost of living.

This large majority of the population feels that they are bearing an excessive proportion of the Nation’s expenses as a percentage of their income when compared to the Obscene Rich. And they are right. They are ambivalent on the heath care issues as long as the availability and quantity is there. Most are less concerned about the quality then they are about the impact upon their wallet. This generation has become used to a regimented system where their options on doctors, facilities, treatments, medications, etc. will become even more limited then today.

This grouping is additionally divided between those that would sacrifice today to prepare for tomorrow, and those who live only for the moment financially and can not be prepared for retirement years.

(4) And then there is the jealous envy of the above masses.  Those workers in Government employment who have “civil service jobs”   almost never can be “fired”. The Teachers have “Tenure” as their “Civil Service Protection). They have the best Health Protection available, and Pension Plans that can be inflated by a final year’s shenanigans. Often they are eligible for full benefits after 20/25 years employment irrespective of their age.  Their contracts provide for annual increases not tied into increases in living costs.  Other perks such as fully paid health care and pension plan funding that those outside the envelope of Government worker cannot enjoy.  It is to be noted that 59% of the workers in the N.J. Public Sector are Union Members

If the "Letter to the Editors" is a guide, the adamant refusal by the majority of the “locals” with “state union” support to give any givebacks that might prevent some job losses has alienated much of the public.    Certainly the insistence of including in new contracts mandatory yearly raises not subject to merit or economic conditions causes hostility among over 60% of the population if the media polls are to be believed.

(5) The last of the present groupings are the elderly as a group they are in ways a mirror reflection of the first four.  Obviously, those that belong to the “Millionaires” classification should, barring a catastrophe, have no worries about becoming bagmen/ladies. Those who were former Government Employees have one or more pension plans and continued health care as provided in their union’s contracts. They can go to bed in the Islands or Florida laughing at us every night.

It is the large majority of the over  70s who are hurt most by the present economic climate. Those that were already receiving assistance as unemployed or below the poverty level, if funds stay available should continue to be wards of the State. They will not be impacted by increase Government debt until uncontrolled inflation happens.

The mass majority who are living on Social Security Payments ,  plus income from a pension plan whose numbers seemed astronomical at first, and some saved assets are in danger,  As the cost of living has risen  their pension income numbers have remained static. Social Security’s COLA has not risen proportionally,  so the elderly have to deplete their assets to meet every day needs. To compound the insult, those that have health insurance find that not only does the premium increase every year for basic policy but the costs of medication also increase.

As one grows older there is an increased need for medication so the health care cost demands on income. The money squeeze is extreme on the elderly and many are no longer able to retain their homes. Even those that can are hit by exponential annual tax increases. This is a bleak and dreadful picture why the elderly resent the annual salary and benefit increases granted to government workers.


This would lead us into the next subject; the conflict between State Governors and the large powerful public workers unions.  We are seeing in states like Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, New York a very public confrontation that may continue to                      grow.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 We will continue the  state/union  issue                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


11 comments:

  1. As you continue today I will continue from my response last night. Doc you are much older than me so perhaps you can comment, but I seem to remember that social security was never meant to be the sole means of support upon retirement but as an additional cushion.
    Second point relative to current retirees, the policy of the Federal Government is clear, inflate our way out of the current debt problem. On a macro level it may work but for those on a fixed income it will be harsh. I believe the gov't feels that as long as housing remains depressed, and therefore exempt from inflation, the residual damage to the economy can be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon 7:47A, Old as I am I don't remember the debate in 1935 about SS. It was intended to be an insurance program to counter poverty due to disability or retirement, and initial made no provisions for women and children.

    Your comments are well received and would be better if you ID yourself.
    From Wikipedia
    "Confusion, or misrepresentation of the nature of Social Security has often muddied debate over the program. The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are neither simply "taxes" nor do they create "retirement accounts" analogous to investment accounts such as IRAs. Social Security is an insurance program funded through payroll taxes. The FICA taxes constitute insurance premiums protecting workers and covered family members against loss of income from the wage earner's retirement, loss of income from the wage earner's disability, as well as survivor benefits in the event of the wage earners death. Hence it is incorrect to compare the return on Social Security contributions with the return on private investment instruments"

    ReplyDelete
  3. The greatest mistake made (or was it),was when the Bums Looking for Change bailed out GM, Chrysler, the banks and the unions!
    How does nature renew a forest? Fire . . . burns off the deadwood and debris so that vital new life can spring forth!
    It would have caused Americans to review and change their lifestyles and would have positively affected illegal immigration . . . you would have seen a mass exodus out of the country!

    ReplyDelete
  4. My father died in 1947 at age 62,when I was 13. Although my mother worked, it was my dad's Social Security survivor benefits that enabled us to avoid going on welfare.

    You're right, Doc--Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment. And almost all working people, including public employees, pay into the trust fund. If so many corporations had not outsourced American jobs to places like China and Malaysia there would be a lot more Americans working (at decent wages) and contributing into the Social Security trust fund.

    We are in tight economic times now and it's difficult for many of us to make ends meet. But attacks on Social Security--like raising the eligibility age, for example, or cutting payments--defeat the purpose of the program.

    These days our "safety net" is full of holes, and there are some people who want to make those holes bigger. We need to make sure Social Security is there for our children and grandchildren as it has been for us old folks--it enables people to survive, difficult as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've been doing a lot of reading of differing opinions about where we are, what are options are, etc. I'll share some of what I have concluded:

    1. The Feds felt they had to bail out the big banks, they feared coallapse. Most banks have already paid back the money -- they didn't want the Fed hovering and watching. We still have little banks collapsing - mostly those that did risky loans that are now underwater. Many, many banks are not forclosing on properies yet -- they don't want to make the market worse, and if they have to "own" the bad debt these properties represent -- they would not be securitized enough. While the bad properties are on their books, they can play financial games and count "unearned income."

    2. The Federal government we know is paying for all the bailouts/ programs by printing money and selling government bonds. Right now other countries are still buying our bonds -- but if and when they decide the US govt is a bad risk -- the endless printing of money will have to stop. They are devaluing our dollar, commodities are rising. Some I've talked to think it is a strategy to make US goods more attractive on the global marketplace. The idea of inflating our way out of the hole is outright insanity.

    3. Businesses have left NJ and left the US due to many things - onerous and costly regulations, taxes and primarily health care. I talked to a guy who used to run a plastics company here in Plainfield, he moved to PA. He said the taxes here in NJ were more than double what he is paying for mortgage and taxes in PA.

    Countries are in competition over jobs, exports/imports, make no mistake. And, people vote with their dollars to support companies making cheap products overseas.

    4. The US for many businesses is no longer a growth market. We're now a steady "mature" market. All the growth is in the rising middle classes coming up in other countries. Companies and governments are always chasing "growth" -- well, what if the growth isn't there? All the flawed Fed and state models are based on percentages of growth. That's the problem we're in now -- no growth, no jobs, no taxes collected, no money to pay state and federal bills.

    ReplyDelete
  6. cont --

    5. Social security has many problems -- it's not just for retirement. A lot of other entitlement programs have been lumped under it's umbrella. The bottom line, it's been mismanaged, and there is no money. When the bulk of the boomers retire, I suspect the Feds will have to make some sweeping changes, and it is going to be ugly.

    6. Money is tight and I think will tighten further. Freddie and Fannie have tightened requirements for house loans. No more 3% down, that's for sure. If you've had a bankruptcy, you have to wait 4 years before any bank will look at you (which I think is fair). This will impact house sales of course. With all the pent-up foreclosure inventory still to come, as well as a looming commercial property foreclosure crisis (that no one is talking about), well, I don't see housing changing any time soon.

    Some are saying China will go through a housing bubble as well.

    7. I believe many of the people making the policy decisions are part of an elite Doc is talking about -- and while they may give lip service to "helping the middle class, etc., etc." -- they are too far removed. We are all just numbers and statistics. The elite will protect their own interests first -- no politician wants to bite the hand feeding them campaign dollars.

    We all understand that when someone owns a company that sells products that become outdated, that this company will fold, because it can't compete against the newer, better technology. We as a progressive society get rid of bad, outdated laws.

    We have outdated entitlement, union and other systems that just don't work anymore in their present state. People have to stop looking for "someone to take care of me" -- none of us are guaranteed happiness, but the right to pursue it. We need to really reform health care -- not the BS that is out there. We need to reform how people run for office and the monitoring of campaign contributions.

    I do believe, that being said, no latter what, we as a society need to protect our most vulnerable groups, which includes the elderly. Young and middle aged folks can work, save and recover. There is nothing wrong with working 2 jobs, I've done it to achieve certain goals. But, you can't do anything if no one is hiring, that's for sure!

    But, when you're 80 and ill, you don't have that option.

    Just some thoughts on the mess we are in. I'm no expert by any means, but I can see that fixes will not be simple, nor painless.

    Olive Lynch

    ReplyDelete
  7. A fair wage and decent working conditions are just causes worthy of a fight in all instances. But buying the Brooklyn Bridge is what goes on when it comes to pensions and healthcare because the future cannot be guaranteed. Using the state's ability to tax to make up for shortfalls in investment returns (that is after all what supports these benefits)for a select group of the population is unfair, and making an agreement to guarantee the future with an entity that is in no position to guarantee it is just plain foolish. Hence the BB analogy.

    Just to balance this, I'll state
    it's equally unfair not to make annual contributions that have been agreed upon, or to raid the pension accounts to use the money for other purposes. That should not be permissable. Lump in here also the ability of various powerful economic interests to skew laws and regulations of all types in their favor so as to destabilize the playing field or discriminate.

    Reform is definitely needed in the area of benefits because when they are generous beyond the realm of reason or doability they become destructive by virtue of people relying on the false assumptions underlying them. Just as the unions are fearful they may be financially jeopardized without automatic deduction of dues if their membership had to write the checks themselves, needed regulatory reforms in the investment world, and sensible healthcare policy, will come faster when indivduals are writing the monthly checks.

    We are 308 million individuals who require a system that works equitably for all of us. Bargaining simply to gain advantage for this or that group usually comes at the expense of some other, and in the end works against the vast majority. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, bargain not by the color of their special interest, but by the content of their individually equal character.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Social Security would be intact and secure if the Federal thugs hadn't stolen all the monies!
    These miscreants are acting as though this is their money and not ours. I'll bet not one of them has had to tighten their belts or do without something . . . afterall they are the elite, they are entitled . . . they already know what we common people have to learn! They are better than us, more intelligent than us, and to prove it we elected them. The problem with this whole political system is that it isn't who you are or what your qualifications are, it's who you know and how much money you have to spend!
    Neither Corzinne nor Bloomberg would have been elected on merit!
    There will be no solution in site as long as the Harry Reids, the Pulosis, the Franks, etc., and their friends hold the reins of power!

    ReplyDelete
  9. TAP, The GOP has not been lily white either.Politicians are politicians no matter what color pants they wear.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just citing the most blatant current examples . . . both the Republicrats and the Democans are two sides of the same coin!

    ReplyDelete
  11. No expert here in this topic, but just wondering the following:

    If we were all middle class, or poor, who would create the jobs?

    Just wondering.

    Maria Pellum

    ReplyDelete