Curmudgeon wrote:

---

While it may be too early to know how well the other out sourcing plans on campus are working out, we do know that less than 10% of the local Aramark employees are participating in the retirement plan. That has to end badly for most of those folks.

---

They didn't have an opt-out for PERS, did they? Had they been given the option not to participate in PERS, I wonder how many would have opted out? My bet: about 90%. Remember, the pay level for these folks is so low that even the PERS contribution is money they may view as better spent on utilities or gasoline.

as invictus points out PERS doesn't guarantee a particularly bright retirement for people who are likely to make $20,000 a year. a sad story i heard recently--a member of the physical plant retired and took a large lump sum payout like PERS allows. the money was quickly spent and now the person is back working at usm. having some financial advising is part of the equation as well.

The very concept that Spcial Security is mandatory is a testament to the (false) idea that the government knows what's best for me. Maybe the government should tell me how many kids I can have, too. Or maybe what kind of house I can buy/build. It's a slippery slope when you start down the path of "government knows best."

Didn't one of our own business faculty do an analysis of the social security system and find that people actually LOSE money with this system system, i.e. negative interest. I thought I remember reading that in the newspaper.

Cowhand wrote:

---

kind of late for them to chime in, brings to mind some parable about closing the barn door after...

---

AAUP is neither "late" nor just "chiming in." Staff submitted a petition of opposition to outsourcing. The chapter became aware of it, the officers met and sent a letter of support for their beleaguered staff colleagues to the paper. Looks to me like a meaningful gesture of solidarity with the mistreated cattle (your imagery, Cowhand).

qwerty wrote:

Do you have automobile insurance? Do you have property and casualty insurance on your home? Do you have life insurance? Health Insurance? FDIC insurance on your bank account? Title Insurance, Mortgage Insurance? Social security is simply another form of insurance--and an amazingly successful one at that.

Here's the misconception regarding Social Security: that it is a form of insurance that is analogous to those listed here by qwerty. While I do not support government-mandated auto insurance, it exists to protect OTHERS from possible injury/damage caused by ME, which I can understand if not agree with.

Property & casualty insurance, life insurance, and health insurance are all VOLUNTARY types of insurance that protect ME (the person making the payment -- if I think I can get by without them (or if I cannot afford them), then I do not participate; of course, when I get sick and cannot afford treatment (and do not have health insurance), then I run the risk of dying, unless the good socialists will pay for my treatment.

FDIC insurance protects me from from loss in the banking system, but again this is VOLUNTARY -- if I do not place deposits with banks, I have no FDIC protection. Title insurance and mortgage insurance only apply to mortgagors, which is a group of individuals who have made the choice to borrow money to buy land. How many individuals who are strictly apartment renters are required to have title or mortgage insurance? Zero.

As you can see, your Social Security argument is already disintegrating, since Social Security is a government-MANDATED program that makes a choice about how workers must allocate their resources. If workers prefer consuming their wages now to saving them or investing them for later, then what right does the government have to dictate how the individual must allocate those wages? According to the U.S. Constitution, absolutely none.

And don't believe the hype about the money running out. (Medicare, however, is another story).

If you don't think that there's a serious problem with funding Social Security, then you are either ignoring the mission of the bipartisan Greenspan Commission or you choose to play dumb. Either way, Social Security has been proven to currently be functioning as a Ponzi scheme.

The only way for social security to go broke is for the federal government to default on the bonds it has purchased from the social security fund since the FICA tax was increased in the 1980s. We don't plan to default on the bonds we've sold to China and other foreign investors. Does the Federal government intend to default on the bonds it sold to the American people?

And the way to make sure Social Security doesn't go broke is by increasing the required payments by workers now. More government-mandated withholding. I'm quite sure the U.S. Government doesn't plan to default -- it plans to tax us to make good on any obligations it makes.

The idea that Social Security is good can only be held if one believes that (1) the government knows what's better for you than you know yourself, (2) individuals are incapable of making informed decisions, and (3) it's okay for the Government to tax individuals incessantly.

COST faculty is correct. Many academic studies address the shortcomings of Social Security.

SS#123-45-6789?? wrote:

---

The answer is not for the Government to take care of such individuals. The answer is for families to care for family members. The U.S. used to have such a system, until it became too inconvenient to care for our elders. As with everything else, though, Americans seem to want the easy way out.

---

People used to have five kids and parents used to die in their seventies. Antibiotics have taken away the "natural death" that used to follow infirmity. Times have changed.

The Shadow wrote:

---

SS#123-45-6789?? wrote: The answer is not for the Government to take care of such individuals. The answer is for families to care for family members. The U.S. used to have such a system, until it became too inconvenient to care for our elders. As with everything else, though, Americans seem to want the easy way out.

People used to have five kids and parents used to die in their seventies. Antibiotics have taken away the "natural death" that used to follow infirmity. Times have changed.

---

Years ago people had larger families so that the kids could take care of their elderly parents without too much of a financial burden. We now have insurance, pensions and S.S. in order not to burden family. However in third world countries that still do it the old fashion way, but that is causing overpopulation and more poverty.  Just because you are a conservative doesn't mean the government can't do some good things for the people. 

Point of clarification:

While it is true that faculty can opt out of the PERS retirement system, they must contribute an equal amount to a 403(b) account. Thus, they do not have the option of additional cash in their pocket to spend on utilities, gasoline, etc. If the staff had an opt out of PERS I am sure they would be forced to make a similar contribution to a 403(b) resulting in no more take home pay.

Invictus wrote:

---

Curmudgeon wrote:
While it may be too early to know how well the other out sourcing plans on campus are working out, we do know that less than 10% of the local Aramark employees are participating in the retirement plan. That has to end badly for most of those folks.


They didn't have an opt-out for PERS, did they? Had they been given the option not to participate in PERS, I wonder how many would have opted out? My bet: about 90%. Remember, the pay level for these folks is so low that even the PERS contribution is money they may view as better spent on utilities or gasoline.

---

Barry Piazza wrote:

---

Point of clarification: While it is true that faculty can opt out of the PERS retirement system, they must contribute an equal amount to a 403(b) account. Thus, they do not have the option of additional cash in their pocket to spend on utilities, gasoline, etc. If the staff had an opt out of PERS I am sure they would be forced to make a similar contribution to a 403(b) resulting in no more take home pay.

---

Point of clarification: I wasn't originally talking about faculty. I was talking about staff. And what's the point of working for 25 years (and "contributing" to PERS) to receive a sub-poverty level pension? I was merely observing that if low-paid workers are given an opt-out to PERS, they would probably take it to increase take home pay. An option to "contribute" to a 403(b) or whatever in lieu of PERS is not an opt-out.

Years ago, preachers had the option not to participate in Social Security. The result was a bunch of extremely poor retired preachers. Because the truth is, if the FICA contribution money goes back into a feller's pocket, the odds are great that he will find a multitude of immediate demands for it & will not invest in a retirement plan.

LVN wrote:

---

I'm sorry if my mother (who continued to work), her five year old son, her twenty-five year old married working with small child full-time student daughter [me] and her twenty year old working full time, full-time student other daughter were not able to take my father out of the hospital and care for him at home with no help. For your information, my mother, against medical advice and social work advice, chose not to institutionalize my father when he was released from the hospital (after a year) and instead did care for him, her pre-school child, and her own elderly mother. The family's Social Security benefits were about one-fourth what it would have cost the state to care for my father in a nursing home. My father did not have to enter a nursing home for 25 years, until his care became overwhelming. My mother sacrificed her own life and health to do this because she too believes that families have a duty to care for their own.

---

There is no need to get defensive or defend your motives with the above poster. It's a losing proposition to argue with someone who is so black and white and extreme (he or she makes Bill Buckley look like a flaming Commie). Love ya, LVN.

Angeline wrote:

---

SS ultra-right-winger:

A government is judged by its people by what it does for them - like it or not. I hope you crazies on the far right do keep trying to take away social security - you will be hounded out on a rail along with the congresspersons you bought and paid for.

Want to know the one simple fix to the need for more SS funding? Get rid of the salary cap that allows those making 100s of thousands a year, like SFT, our head football coaches, athletic directors and the type to pay a decreasing percentage of their income to SS the higher salary they make.

---

YAWN.

SS#123-45-6789?? wrote:

---

...That is a fine socialist ideal, but it is definitely not a conservative (or even libertarian) concept that government should increase taxes on workers to support the old, the infirm, or the abandoned. ...

---

I'm with you SS.  Us Eskimos just let our unproductive elderly go sit out in the snow and feed the polar bears.  It sure saves us the money and meat to support them.   Oh, yes, I almost forgot we are also strong, conservative Christians, just like you.  If our government would just get out of the business of helping people we would have more charity and people would come our churches for help.  That was the way it was in the good old days, but then they freed the slaves and let women vote.  Now look where we are.     

"Obviously a lack of reading comprehension around here. I'm not surprised, though, as most liberals purposely ignore facts that so inconveniently contradict their agenda.

I have said nothing about religion, race, gender, or other favorite liberal mudslinging standbys. I simply argued that big government is bad. Unfortunately, some of you won't be happy until everyone has to pay for your spending habits. I take solace in the fact that there is a strong growing movement against socialist ideas like socialized medicine, welfare, and the like.

Again, though, all you can fall back on is your rehearsed rhetoric about conservatives hating women, minorities, the poor, etc. I think you should all volunteer to donate all of your take-home raise money to save Social Security."

---

I don't know why I bother given the dullardness at play here, but I say let's give it a try - to return to pre-New Deal America when the great capitalist system threw poor, disabled, and elderly people in the street and told them to quit expecting something for nothing. If you can breathe you can work dammit. And, then, slowly at first, but increasing in size and speed as the days go by, the great "undeserving" will sweep over the fields and valleys to storm gated suburbia and put their last drops of lighter fluid to good use. Aaah, the Revolution - bring it on Mr. I Hate Social Security Because I Love Anarchy Man. May you live to enjoy the fruits of your labor.