Survey: Americans Want Pensions Back

Reader Comments
Back to blog

ITS THE SO CALLED SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN AND THE PRESIDENTS SPEND THE MONEY FOR THERE OWN GOOD. WE PAYED IN ONCE, WHY SHOULD WE PAY AGAIN. WHEN IN WASHINGTON ALL YOU NEED IS ONE TERM AND YOUR SET FOR LIFE. WE THE TAX PAYERS PAY FOR THAT. WHEN WILL THEY BE TOLD THEY CAUSED THE PROBLEM NOT THE TAX PAYER. AS FAR AS THE UNIONS GO ,THE GARBAGE IN DC. GAVE WHAT THEY WANTED FOR VOTES. THE GREED LIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN DC. THE UNIONS GET THE BEST FOR THERE MEMBERS, LIKE DC GET THE BEST FOR THERE OWN.

Joe DiBenedetto of NJ 8:24PM April 26, 2011

Most countries offer a more realistic social security than ours, the UK is the only other major economy who is cheaper. Social security pays about 35-40% of your pre retirement income many countries offer around 60%, a more realistic figure. That coupled with half of your 401k purchasing an immediate annuity should yield you 75-90% of your pre-retirement income with $100-150k left in the market for growth in your IRA.

Loren of CA 12:22PM May 12, 2009

and worse than no pension at all. The reason is you are told for your entire working life (35-40 years) that you will get a pension and so you plan for that. Then the company is allowed to reneg when the economy gets tight. Too late to make an adjustment. It would be far better for companies to have never "offered" any pension at all. Shame on me for believing what we were told.

Screwed in Detroit of MI 7:28AM May 11, 2009

There is a national pension plan - it's called social security.
Capitalism is a good thing. It is good so long as the vast majority of society is honest. The problem we are having now, is that we have adopted too many cultural 'values' from the south. Where the vast majority of people (think 1950s) were hard working, tax paying people - that is not the case anymore. Today's culture is one of trying to take advantage of the system, to avoid work, to avoid paying fair share of taxes. Take a look at the majority of the people who do these things, and you will find they are not the same people that represented the majority of the country 50 years ago. We are sliding into the cultural values of Africa & Mexico. Look to those nations today to see what our country will be like in 20 years. If you can - take everything you have and move to New Zealand, Australia, or some other country that will not have to deal with these problems in the next 50 years.

gooddog of CA 10:40PM May 08, 2009

I will not have the luxury of retiring, worse yet having the same employer for 30 years. I will never get the benefits that you had. I won't get social security. I want to hear how worried you guys are about your kids and their kids. WE are the ones who got screwed.

Janet of MI 10:55AM May 06, 2009

Pensions are gone, for the most part, because few workers work for the same company for very long any more. The other reason is that 401(k) plans are really much better for the individual worker. The old pension plans were at the discretion of the companies, unless one also had union membership. Failing companies can fail to guarantee pension promises. Look at what has happened to many of the steel companies, for example. Federal, state and local workers' pensions, of course, look like real winners these days. And, Social Security, of course, is the lifetime income vehicle most workers look to and depend on. So, the financial basis of one's retirement for most private workers needs to be 401(k) savings and Social Security. Wives work these days just like the men. In fact, a good percentage make more than their husbands/partners and are able to work longer, as men in their 50's are weeded out of the workforce like...weeds. Social Security benefits can be taken by spouses if that benefit is more than that of the surviving spouse's benefit. 401(k) balances flow smoothly to spouses and/or other beneficiaries if one dies. It's not a perfect world, but we need to move on. Pensions are essentially gone for younger workers in the private sector. 401(k) plans are the way to build savings for retirement to complement Social Security benefits.

George Fulmore of CA 1:59AM May 06, 2009

We should be looking at a national pension plan. Then we don't have to live on the lie of capitalism and the stock market.
We don't have to suffer losses when profiteers steal the financial system blind. Remember, for capitalism to work, not everybody can win. Knowing that, we should be looking at other alternatives.

Anon of MI 10:51PM May 05, 2009

Translation: If we can't screw you and have to pay those pesky pensions, we'll take YOUR jobs and OUR money offshore to a place where we CAN screw you.

The great unknown of TX 2:15PM May 05, 2009

Pensions only work if life span stays constant and the population continues to increase. This is not the case. Who is going to pay the pensions for more and more elderly that live almost as long after retirement as there working years. "Retirement" used to mean more and more young people would pay my pension lasting 10 years until I die. Now it means less and less young people (thank you technology in the form of birth control and the information age) paying my retirement lasting 25 years until I die (again thank you technology). We are in deep crap for the next 30 years until the population gap evens out.

Richard Wood of GA 10:08AM May 05, 2009

Years ago, companies stopped their long-term planning and "vision," choosing instead to focus on quarterly performance and so-called stockholder value. As that happened, companies began looking for places to cut expenses. Employee pensions emerged as a major, "unnecessary" expense that could legally be cut. With an aging workforce, employers were realizing that paying out promised benefits would be a growing headache, particularly once the huge gains from the stock market were a thing of the past. Once pension funds failed to produce large returns, they became liabilities rather than assets.
At the same time, CEOs looking to fatten their own wallets set up pension plans for themselves that were hundreds or even thousands of times more lucrative than any employee ever would have received. All done legally, of course.
It's really too bad there wasn't more public outrage and age discrimination charges against the companies that reneged on promises their longtime workers. The decision favoring IBM employees that was later overturned showed that our government and Congress favor big business over constituents, even when blatant age discrimination is involved. That decision set an unfortunate precedent for other companies, and the so-called Pension Protection Act that followed put the last nail in the coffin for most corporate defined benefit pension.

SLE of NY 8:11AM May 05, 2009