Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted January 10, 2009.


Here's what the 50 million workers who saw their retirement plans drop by as much as 30 percent last year should know.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Amy Goodman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is a transcript from an interview from Democracy Now!

For the 50 million Americans with 401(k) retirement plans, 2008 is a year many wish they could forget. Workers saw their 401(k) plans lose between 20 and 30 percent of their value as the Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered its worst year since the Depression. Between October 2007 and 2008, more than $1 trillion worth of stock value held in 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans were wiped out. For workers nearing retirement, the losses have been devastating.

Meanwhile, several major corporations have recently announced they are suspending matching contributions to workers’ 401(k) plans due to the economic crisis. The firms include FedEx, Motorola, General Motors, Starbucks and Sears. Congress is now considering overhauling the 401(k) program.

AMY GOODMAN: Our next guest, Teresa Ghilarducci, testified before Congress recently and proposed establishing a system where workers pay into a government-managed fund that would offer a guaranteed monthly pension at retirement to supplement Social Security. Her plan has been intensely criticized by the finance industry. One columnist described her as the "Most Dangerous Woman in America.”

Teresa Ghilarducci is the director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. She is the author of the book When I’m Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them.

Well, I am sure risking a lot here, having the most dangerous woman in America sitting next to us, but we’re willing to take the risk. Professor Ghilarducci, explain what’s happening now in light of all -- well, Obama just spoke on the economy yesterday.

TERESA GHILARDUCCI: It’s really the end of a thirty-year experiment with a do-it-yourself pension system. The United States stood above all other nations in saying, “Look, we’re going to hand over this saving and investing responsibility over to individuals. They want control. The stock market is healthy.” The finance industry told people that all you had to do was invest in the stock market, wait for a long term, implied that that long term would end at the end of your working career and you would have enough to live on for the rest of your life. And that experiment is over: it failed. And just like the Great Depression, just like the policies proposed in the Great Depression that brought us Social Security, I think we’re at that point now where we have to rethink that experiment and rethink how we get people their valentines, their pension valentines.

JUAN GONZALEZ: When you say this experiment, I mean, there was an enormous shift in terms of the percents of employees who were getting what’s called defined benefit plans, as opposed to defined contributions. How did that happen? And how big was that shift?

GHILARDUCCI: Yeah. Well, in the 1970s, we passed a law that said that if companies were going to promise a pension, they had to fund it. That was ERISA. And that was a good idea. But then, only about 50 percent of Americans, at any one point in time, had a pension. But the pension was a traditional pension called the defined benefit pension. Even though half had it at the time, it meant that as people got older, they often got into jobs with those kinds of pensions.

GONZALEZ: And by defined benefit, that meant that they were guaranteed a certain income per month when they retired.

GHILARDUCCI: Yes, that’s right. It was based on years of service and on pay, so lower-income workers got less, higher-income workers got more. But that was fair. The point is that it was guaranteed for the rest of a person’s life. And that’s precisely what people want when they retire. They don’t want to be rich. They don’t want to make it big in the stock market. That was always seen as something you did in Las Vegas or with money on Wall Street, money that you could afford to lose. The idea is that pensions were supposed to be secure for the rest of your life.

And we now have a system where older people who are retired have Social Security and their pension on top of that, and we have the great success story in America, was that we went from the 1950s, where to be old meant that you had a high probability of being poor, to a situation now, even though it may be at risk, it may be over, where if you are old, you could actually count on some income. Thank goodness we have Social Security.

GOODMAN: Well, what about what are called the “entitlements.” In fact, Barack Obama referred to entitlements yesterday. What do you see is the future of Social Security, of these pensions?

GHILARDUCCI: Well, a comic said that George Bush’s best success was to try and privatize Social Security. And why that was funny was because it was his largest failure in his initiative for bold domestic policy. It meant that in 2005, when he tried to do that, that Americans realized how much they had at stake in Social Security. Barack Obama, I predict, just can’t touch that. There was a huge political movement against privatization, and that movement said, “Stop. We need this program.” I just can’t imagine Barack Obama going anywhere near that entitlement.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: retirement, wall street, pensions, 401 (k)

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pension Reform is Over Due ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 10, 2009 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two great drawbacks to traditional pensions. First they are not transferable between jobs. Second, qualifying or vesting takes years and years, sometimes up to 20 years.

Of course we know the problems with 401Ks. The myth of "buy and hold" has been thoroughly disproven with first the Dot Com Crash and now with our current crisis. People say but the averages always recover. The averages lose a lot of stocks along the way that go bankrupt so they replace them with up and comers. One has to ask what the Nasdaq would be today if all the companies in the average stayed in the average even if they went belly up.

And this is where I have a problem with Teresa Ghilarducci's proposal. A government pension is a good idea but with government bonds not private companies stocks and bonds. As sure as the sun rises politicians would be steering investment towards contributors.

The myth of a 7% return year after year is just that, a myth. Sure things were great from 1982 to 2000 but look what's happened since. When you consider brokerage fees and capital gains it is even less. The government would have to pay fees just like anybody else. Just look at wealthy Harvard. Doing great then bam, down 25% this year.

Government pensions should be government obligations based on the prior years inflation rate plus an additional "savings rate". What if we did have what Teresa suggested this year ... the government pension would be down 35-40% ! And in my opinion the decline ain't nearly over yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's actually a lot worse Posted by: ReallyBearish
Remove the SS Cap.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 10, 2009 3:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The payroll tax FICA is regressive. Ones payment stops at around one hundred thousand dollar of income. This limit should be made unlimited. One should pay on all income with no maximum.

But, how much one can draw should be limited. Rich people, indeed, don't even need SS when they retire;therefore, they should not get it. But they sure as hell should pay for it.

That would bring some leveling to the "system."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emove the SS Cap. Posted by: mtatasmith
» RE: emove the SS Cap. Posted by: 2thepoint
Yes government, you did a wonderful job with my social security so far
Posted by: 2thepoint on Jan 10, 2009 3:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""pay into a government-managed fund that would offer a guaranteed monthly pension at retirement to supplement Social Security."

Considering how the government has created their own Ponzi scheme with Social Security I can't even imagine letting them handle any more of our retirement money!

She just might not be the most dangerous women, but she surely isn't the brightest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

insane idea fix whats broken.
Posted by: papatooth on Jan 10, 2009 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe social security and 401k's just need to be fixed. My 401 I can change my fund allocation daily which is nice because the way the market was this year I would have seen my savings drop by 30k (my 401 is only 6 yrs old). Maybe if investors are allowed to make daily calculated strikes they could fair better. In this years blood bath I actually made 2k (remember small 401). I made money each and everyday. SS is a mess I mean what kind of insanity allows for double taxation. I paid you once now i pay you again??? Didnt we have a revolution over that before??????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAd
Posted by: jbsacks on Jan 10, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My best friend just lost his 401k after 20 years of giving. I been telling him for years he should just sock his money away in a floor safe where it will ALWAYS be available when and if he needs it, now its just all gone! Sad@

JT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SAd Posted by: VZEQICVA
'Rugged individualist' does not mean Survivalist
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jan 10, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Repugs and their lap dog Dems have FORCED america into a Fuedlistic caste system with their 'Trickle Down'. The name itself revealed it goal..to Hoard all wealth and resources for the top while robbing and denying the middle and the bottom. Who can live off a Trickle? Certianly Not 95% of the Poplulation of 300 Million.Trickle dwon has been the mainstay of Kings and dictators.
As for Free Market, That was designed for the Citizens not Corps. Thus being able to 'sell' your wares at a fair price is the sole right of citizens (Labor).Corps have Seized and controled the Free Market just as any dynastic entity has- Family Crest or Logo, makes no difference. Besides how can a market be 'free' when corps not only own our labor, wages and debt, but also add variables which have unknown effects.Just as Regulations are thought of as Strings attached, so are these 'investment Products'.They don't 'Free' the market they complicate it. The Free Market Could work, except they ahve added so many complications it not longer is able to be as agile as it should be.
Don't bitch about Gov't involvement when you have fucked up the market to begin with and You have nowhere else to turn. These Repugs & 'blue dogs' have offered NO alternative solutions, since Their Corps stratedgy has destroyed the economy, an dpossilby the Country.
As much as the Repugs created the Shock Doctrine with their 9/11 scam, This economic meltdown may be the Shock Doctrine those of US who've been fighting against Trickle Down need to Return our coutnry to a Truely Free market Economy..Where the citizens are the sole benficiaries.
Geenspan, Paulson and Berenke et al should be executed for Economic treason (aka Trickle Down feudalism).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one thing for certain, at the bottom of the heap...
Posted by: ellie on Jan 10, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a year or so a colleague and I were talking and we're both in our mid 50's... we both agreed that we were going to have to work to the day we die with no sick time off... we were serious!!!

neither one of us ever felt we would ever see a dime of social security... we would be lucky if we were going to be able to recoup a penny of what we have invested in retirement accounts, our principal, not gains...

the system that we have right now in social security and other investment schemes is that with advancements in human longevity, the systems we have right now had a life expectancy of maybe 70 years old...

now that folks are living to around mid 80-90 with the help of medical advancements, there is more lifespan to pay for and the current system is not designed for that... 5-10 years of life then death or now 20-30 years of life after 65 is breaking the system... a retirement system design flaw... longevity isn't accounted for...

not into the put the old and sick out on an ice flow to die thing, but lifespan does have an impact that needs to be addressed in any future retirement designs...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not a plan!!!
Posted by: 2cynical on Jan 10, 2009 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were sold a bill of goods with all the previous ALL the previous attempts to supplement SS,BECAUSE ANY PLAN THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY GOVERNMENT IS SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION.IRAs worked really well at first,what with all that compounding daily,until Greenspan started walking interest rates down the stairs,and into the basement.I have one which I'm getting distrubutions from each month.
401Ks were a scam from the start,intended only to add fees to the brokers,and large volumes of cash for corporations to leverage.How has that worked out for us?
The FED under Greenspan and Congress,under Hastert and DeLay,with help from Phil Gramm,have manipulated the supply and value of money towards pumping up bigger and bigger bubbles,of which we are again surrounded by the pieces.
Unless you have the juice to establish a dedicated US government Treasury Bond,of sufficiently low minimum yearly contribution price,so that workers could actually buy in,and sufficiently HIGH guarenteed APY,to prevent inflation and taxes from eating the gains WHOLE,this is not a plan !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jan 10, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is a lot of scarcity in the article and in the comments. There is plenty of money for all who want to retire at 65. Just stop paying for military expansion and fat packages to CEOs --require all the bail out money to be payed back with interest to the taxpayers.
Stop pork spending. There is pleanty.........$
if all else fails print more money == as long as we have trees and ink.....it is endless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

working for the state of Louisiana
Posted by: muktuk on Jan 10, 2009 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 1990's I made the decision to go with the unimpressive state pension plan for teachers instead of the 401k because even then it was apparent that the stock market was hyper-inflated and didn't represent real value.

Now I'm faced with working at least to 25 years just to "earn" 2.5% times years service. That means after 25 years of service my pension will only be 62.5% of my current 50k salary.

Who can afford to retire? And "they" want us to spend money that we don't have? Are they serious?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: working for the state of Louisiana Posted by: QuestionAuthority
Jumping on The "Times Are Bad" Band Wagon
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 10, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no reason why savings can't be built in to compensation for all employees. It should also be portable, when someone changes jobs. Employers have to stop whining about everything. If they can't afford to legitimately hire people than they can't afford to be in business. I'd prefer to see more savings plans than investment accounts. A fixed amount of money from a paycheck saved at the prevailing rate of interest over a long period of time can turn in to an impressive nestegg. Years of buying company stock has risks. It puts all the eggs in one basket. Not a good investment strategy. U.S. Savings Bonds are a good way to go. A seperate IRA should be allowed. This is not a plan to get rich. It's about one day being able to retire and maintain a decent lifestyle. Corporatons have a moral obligaton to get with the program that will make us great (again). It's OK if they're rich but they cannot go on creating poverty among the rest of us. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a GREAT example...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jan 10, 2009 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of why we should NEVER allow ourselves to be talked into privatizing Social Security by obese politicians in expensive suits paid for by banking interests and corporate cash. This pension disaster could also be your Social Security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

me too
Posted by: johnorford on Jan 11, 2009 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My retirement pension has also gone down by 30% - due to the fall in the value of the pound sterling against the dollar. But wasn't the US economy supposed to be near collapse - it seems fairly healthy from where I am.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the government IOU's issued against SS and spent on Illegal wars?
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Jan 11, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fully realize we cannot trust private entities to manage our money for us but can we trust our government to do the same? Our tax dollars are spent on multi billion dollar corporate hand outs, wasted on “defense” and subsidies to highly profitable corporations while our social system is being ignored and allowed to degenerate especially by the GOP.

I was recently in Toronto Canada where I have relatives; I NOTICED THAT there is a vast difference on how the Canadians spend their collective wealth versus how we are screwed by the crooks schemers and conmen inside and outside our government. We pay the Oil companies for drilling overseas, we pay McDonalds for opening new fast food outlets, the big Pharma uses our publicly funded higher education for research, etc...All costs are public while profits are privatizes at a huge cost to the American taxpayers. The humongous Pentagon budget and the lack of accountability and the missing trillions, what about those wasted dollars? Who should go to jail for that?

I think it is essential that we the people do all in our power to have our say on how our tax dollars are spent. Our tax rate for the working people is extremely high and woefully unfair. There has to be a fundamental reorganization of all US tax laws where the rich are forced to pay their fair share and if they sell in the USA they should actually make it here too or pay high tariffs to discourage “global trade” and the destruction of our planet our common home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]