There are several problems in discussing labor unions and wages in the total market. An obvious one is comparing big business salaries with union wages. Both are extreme minorities in the marketplace. CEOs especially so. That is also the proverbial apples and oranges.

Probably more relevant to compare big business CEOs with small business managers or owners. And to compare union wages to their actual counterpart non-union wages of the so-called "working class."

And what's most material, at this time, is the comparison between public sector and private sector workers and unions.

As far as private sector unions go, in my opinion, they are perfectly fine if they are in-house. That is if a union exists solely within a given company rather than being a national or international organization.

Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector.

I know you like the "big picture." In that picture, on the whole, the "working class" of the public sector does much better in total wage and benefit packages than their counterpart in the private sector. It seems to me that the picture is out of whack. At best, shouldn't there be equity rather than disparity? And if there is a disparity, shouldn't private sector wages, which pay for the public sector's, be higher?

And the perniciousness of in-house public "collective bargaining" with itself leads, even more than in the private sector, to the predictable unsustainable situations in which government at all levels cannot be afforded. The most glaring problem, similar to big business compensation predicaments, are the lifelong pension and benefits which become larger than what is being paid to those who are still working.

When the Progressive founder of forced "collective bargaining," FDR, along with the major union leaders at that time, said that government employees must not be unionized, that should tell you something. They knew what would happen. And it has.

I guess my point is education alone is not indicator of success in any field or Job. nor should it produce a certain wage I know a lot of 4 year degree educated people who are horrible correctional officers and highshcool grad's who are the best .. Granted we aren't building Rockets. But in todays Job market even in corrections a GED wont get you in and a High school diploma with out Military service isn't much help. There are a lot of risks for public safety employee i am sure i dont need to list them .. and many rewards as well

Again I dont understand the endless assault on union working Americans who are 11% of the work force from Conservatives

you want America great again Trump supporters want the good times of the 50's and 60's places need to be unionized

The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35%

now we are at 11% and the middle class is weak

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector.. public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time.. but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...-sector-unions

Is your example of 7 weeks and 75 k a new hire ? if so thats crazy.. or is that the guy who's been there 25 or 30 years? then not so crazy

"Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA "

It is very much the case here in CT.

"that goes for every profession... "

Not even close. In most professions which are in the private sector, we must convince customers to voluntarily give us money. In the case of public labor unions, you can take my money by force. HUGE difference. I cannot choose to not pay my taxes.

"funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make '

Read my previous comment. In the private sector, CEOs do not take one cent from any customer, unless that customer freely chooses to give it to them.

"thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle"

I am very informed. But yes I am disgruntled, because here in CT the public unions are killing the state. Here in CT, the unfunded liability to public labor unions for pensions and healthcare, is $19,000 for each of the 3 million people living in my state. That is insane, and can never be funded, not in a million years.

In the private sector, I put almost 13% of my salary into social security (my contribution + employer contribution) and if I am lucky, I will start collecting 35k a year at age 67. Teachers in this state put 5% of their salary towards their pension, which pays them 75% of the average of their highest 3 years salary (can easily be 75k a year) starting at age 59.

You tell me that makes sense and is fair.

How is this for a real source...

http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-...es-connecticut

[QUOTE=detbuch;1112790
Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector. .[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Great post, and that's the problem. Too many ticks gorging on the private sector dog, and when the parasite kills the host, that's all folks. Here in CT, we fill file for insolvency in 7-10 years, because those benefits can never, ever be paid for.

There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place :kewl:

Actually, the companies brought you an economic base from which you could better yourself--in the first place. What happens in the second, third, or whatever place after that is not as simplistic as you and Michael Moore make it out to be.

It sounds as if you're not in favor of having the companies coming back to the states unless the unions and the government can impose on them the things that chased them out--in the first place (or was that the second, or third, place?). And if you don't have the companies that brought enough wealth to your community, in the first place, to pay for those teachers and police and fire fighters, who is "attacking" those folks by not providing a tax break which keeps the companies in town?

Right now, without those treacherous companies, some places are left only with those minimum wage jobs that you complain about. Many blame a great deal of that on our benevolent illegal alien population. But Trump is a "racist" for trying to remove that element. Of course, those treacherous companies are said to want the illegals because they can pay them less. Can you blame them for wanting to reduce their costs? I hear a lot of big businesses, and Wall Street, you know, those dastardly money grubbers who devastate the country, are afraid of trump. Hmmph. Probably because they don't like racists.

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

That in socialism there is no middle class--just the ruling elite over all the rest? In equalitarian societies everybody is equal, there is no class, except for the head honchos, they are always more equal than the rest. :btu:

"the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem"

I am critical of public labor unions NOT because they vote democrat, but because they are putting immense financial strain on public resources, and because they demand insane, INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

"the battle is between the haves and the have nots "

I want my state to avoid bankruptcy. That means paying our public servants what we can reasonably afford to pay them. You can twist that into saying I only care about the rich, but my brother and sister-in-law are public schoolteachers here in CT, and they pull in over 100 large EACH, and they have immense pensions waiting for them. They are now "the haves". We can't afford it, we just can't.

"Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue"

CT is not suffering from a lack of tax revenue. It suffers from stupid spending. The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits. Ct tax revenue is sky high. But we spend more. It doesn't matter what your revenue levels are, you need to spend less than hat you have. Right? If your state has less tax revenue, it needs to cut spending. Is that controversial? When a household has less income, it needs to cut spending. Same with a town or state.

"But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ..."

Remind me again, what's the "real cause"? I can say to you, it's much easier to ignore the real issue, and attack republicans as hating teachers and cops. I love teachers and cops. But we can no longer afford to overpay them. We need to reign in those benefits before too many Baby Boomers are retired.

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..
if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits.
Thats not the whole story is it ... The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax.. no money no spending bring back more min wage jobs and the 60 hr work week thats the answer

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

I love you Wayne but you dismiss and then launch right into a predictable rant...Detbuch took the time to make some really valid points but you seem to completely ignore them

I don't have a problem with unions generally but broadly they engage in much of the bad behavior that they criticize businesses and the private sector for through political activity, patronage, mismanagement of funds and corruption... and act as an entitled mob when the don't get their way...this accounts more for their loss of membership and prominence more than any vast right wing conspiracy

Hey. Melanoma Trump is having her shoes made in Ethiopia now. Screw China! Oh wait. Labor is cheaper in Ethiopia.

Make America great again :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

But I know this...when CT tax revenues were at an all-time high, it still wasn't nearly enough to fund those benefits. WDMSO, you can't have public servants getting pensions worth several hundred thousand dollars. You just can't. The math worked in the 1950s, because people only lived a few years in retirement. Now, people live for decades. Again, that's why the private sector did away with these pensions.

Here's an idea...you save whatever you can for your retirement, just like I have to do. However much you choose to set aside, that's how much you have. That's the way it works for everyone else, there is no earthly reason why it can't work for public servants. Your financial security is no more important to society than anyone else's.

"you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement"

Who the hell said that?

Yes, most union workers pay a small % of their pay into their pension. But that's a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the pension, and you expect everyone else to make up the difference. Why is that? Why are unionized employees so special? if I don't save enough to fund my own retirement, are you going to chip into my 401(k)? No. I have to pay for my own retirement. So should you.

"what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped"

Pensions and cheap healthcare in retirement. Those were done away with in the early 1990s. They should be stopped (for the tenth time) because they are impossible to pay for. That's why states have those deficits. Those benefits can never, ever be paid for. Never..

that's where you get the best elephant leather

Elephant scrotum makes the best bowing ball bags you will ever see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

current retirement benefits should not have to be paid with current tax revenues...where are the years of "contributions" plus interest made by the public employees to their retirement???....sounds like a Ponzi scheme

pretty sweet deal for 180 days a year

a part time worker putting in 3.5 days a week would be working 182 :huh:

And their contribution to their pension, is 5% of each paycheck. For a 5% contribution, they will get an annual pension of more than 75k a year, starting at age 59 (compared to social security, where we contribute almost 13%, and at best will get 35k a year starting at age 67!!). That is INSANE. They could contribute 25% of their paycheck, it wouldn't fund that pension. And they expect the taxpayers to make up the difference.

I tell my brother and sister-in-law all the time to make other plans. They will not be getting that full pension, no way, no how - and they need to prepare for that. The state will declare insolvency long before they are dead, probably before they retire. Then we will re-negotiate those contracts.

And that's the irony. In the end, the people who get hurt the worst, are the union members who believed the unions and the politicians, who made ridiculous pension promises, in return for union dues and campaign contributions. It's beyond bad policy, it's evil. But when I warn people about what's coming (and it's coming, make no mistake), they say I hate teachers and cops.

Of course it's a Ponzi scheme.

These people make tiny contributions to their pensions, and in most states, the taxpayers are expected to make up the difference. states have mostly been able to kick the can down the road using accounting gimmicks (liabilities that aren't due in this year, aren't considered in the annual budget), but as more and more Baby Boomers are retiring, the reserves are dwindling FAST. Here in CT, we will start bouncing checks in 5-10 years (depending on interest rates and some other variables). At that point, the state will concede that they can't double th income tax, so they will have zero choice but to declare insolvency and re-negotiate those contracts.

These people should have switched to 401(k)s (or whatever you call the public sector equivalent) 25 years ago. But here in CT, the legislature has been controlled by Democrats for 30 years, and Democrats are beholden to labor unions, so that wasn't going to happen. You can only plug holes in the dike with your fingers for so long, we only have so many fingers. The Baby Boomers will be the wrecking ball that destroys the dike once and for all.

This isn't advanced calculus, this is elementary school arithmetic. You cannot have more than there is. Public labor unions are the lsst entity on the planet that refuses to accept that notion.

As you said, it is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. Like all Ponzi schemes, it will implode when sufficiently more money is going out than coming in. We have been treading water, barely, for many years. But we cannot dodge the economic impact of the Baby Boomers. It's coming.

Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated. For some of his early term the Repub. controlled the Senate (Conn. wasn't always as blue as now). Many state employees were getting like a 9-11% raise each year for like 5 years bc the state went from a 35 hour week to a 40 hour week over that 5 year period. Current state ees have like 2 or 3 different pension/benefit plans based on when they where hired. Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees. Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg. When the economy tanked he illegally layed off state union members and Conn's liablity for that is now like $100M.

Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits.

Fault lies with both parties.

"Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated"

(1) John Roland is not anyone's idea of a conservative
(2) the governor doesn't write the contract language. That is done by the legislature.

Forget about party, let's use the terms liberal and conservative. It is a liberal notion (regardless of party affiliation) to give unions a blank check and to think that's good policy. It's a conservative notion (regardless of party affiliation) to believe in fiscal responsibility.

"Fault lies with both parties"

The fault does not lie with conservatives, who have never had even a whisper of a voice in Hartford.

"Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees"

Is that true? The contracts are in place for that long? Wow...well, if the government doesn't want to limit those pensions, then the laws of arithmetic will be happy to oblige. because regardless of which party is in control, you still cannot have more than there is. A check with insufficient funds to back it up, will bounce regardless of the party membership of the idiot who signed said check.

"Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg"

But a budget surplus only consider expenses that need to be paid in that year. Even when there were budget surpluses, the actuaries were warning that the pensions could not be funded. Same thing with Social Security, which always generated massive surpluses - the actuaries knew that regardless of any current year surpluses, the plan could not bear the weight of the Baby Boomer effect. A one-year surplus doesn't matter, this is long term debt.

"Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits"

Sure, he spent a ton of my money to delay bankruptcy by a month.

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

Public sector unions are the big issue now. That was the thrust of your article. That is the remaining "big" problem with unions now. As I've said several times now, the creators of enforced collective bargaining stipulated that the public sector must not be unionized. The very problems they, FDR and labor leaders of the time, foresaw have happened.

Your article didn't address any of that. It was all about public sector unions being tied to the fortune of progressive politics and those unions being the tip of the spear in the battle to transform predominantly Republican state legislative bodies into Democrat ones.
How that was supposed to solve the problems that FDR warned against and which have occurred was not addressed. Apparently, per the article, there is no problem.

When I first encountered public sector unionization, I worked for the Detroit Public library system. At the time it was one of the best in the nation. Before the librarians were unionized we had an in-house employee organization which elected library employees to negotiate compensation. Most of the management negotiators had worked their way up through the system. Bargaining was amicable and reasonable. The financial books were open, and everybody knew what was feasible without crippling our ability to serve the public.

The library, as well as the city as a whole, had a history of protecting its employees and paying enough to live comfortably somewhere in the scale of middle class America. Even in hard times, including the Great Depression, layoffs were unheard of. And, before unionization, we all had pension and benefit packages. Civil service jobs were sought after.

The city's non-management employees had recently become unionized, represented by A.F.S.M.E. or other skilled labor orgs. The younger librarians were not satisfied with the status quo, especially the wages which they thought were too low for their status as degreed professionals. So they wanted to be represented by a more powerful outside union. The UAW was chosen, a vote was taken, and the UAW was chosen over the old in-house professional organization.

I had been a UAW member before when I worked for GM. I thought, oh crap, the stupid three year dance with the antagonistic labor management relationship and the importation of fiscal problems that the auto companies had. And, yeah, all that happened. When I retired the library had shrunk from a staff of about 1,100 employees to a bit over 300. Many branch libraries were closed. Book collections were downsized. Service quality deteriorated. None of that happened before, even in bad times such, as I said, during the depression.

And the rest of the city began its precipitous fall from greatness to bankruptcy.

Was that all the fault of unionization? Obviously, it was more complex than one single issue. But unionization was a piece of the big picture. Unionization, in terms of big national and international organizations, has become a branch of political power. The politics which strives for collective power and identity finds its home in big centralized government, collectivism versus individualism, big corporations rather than scattered small or little businesses. And big unions thrive in that climate if they support it. And they do support it, financially and ideologically. They propagandize for it. I still get the UAW "Solidarity" magazine. The propaganda disinformation it publishes is astounding. One issue proudly proclaimed that the Constitution protected the "right" of collective bargaining. No, the Constitution doesn't, but big progressive government with its crony judges does.

So, yeah, the big unions played their role in destroying Detroit. They are part and parcel of the politics which created business flight out of the city and even out of the country. And without that tax base, the intransigent employee demands became too onerous to sustain.

As an aside the inflation graph of the US by date shows a peculiar rise when compared to the advent of expanded unionization, especially public sector unionization. Right about the time when manufacturers were more generally becoming unionized, inflation begins to show a bit of a rise. And just about the time public sector unions began to take hold, the graph shoots up dramatically. Are correlation and cause connected? I don't know. I think there is some correlation/cause connection.

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

http://ctmirror.org/2016/11/15/debt-...ext-ct-budget/

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

not to answer for paul.. however if you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years.. seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who?

"you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years"

No, thanks, I don't want to do their job. I want to do my job, and spend what I earn on my kids. That is a very tired, thoughtless argument. Why don't you look at the numbers, see what it will take to actually fund those pensions, and ask yourself if it's fair to do that to your neighbors. We all want a fat pension that's mostly paid for by others. But few of us actually feel so entitled to other people's hard-earned wages. Also, we can't all work in the public unions. You need people in the private sector paying taxes, right?

If I have to make some sacrifices so that public servants don't have to live in trailer parks and eat cat food, I am happy to do that. However, if I have to make sacrifices so that public servants can cling to antiquated benefits that dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve, that's something else. And the latter is what is happening.

WDMSO, I posted a link from the Hartford Courant showing that the unfunded liabilities here in CT are $19k per person. That means, in order to pay for those benefits, my family of 5 owes another $95,000 to the state of CT, on top of current tax rates, which are already absurdly high.

When tax rates that are among the highest in the nation, fall short of paying for those pensions by $19,000 per person, then those benefits are insane. If there is another explanation, go ahead and provide it. if you can tell me how the state can get another $95k from my family without destroying us, I'm all ears.

we all get that you want this pension. What you haven't done, is offered a way to pay for it. because there isn't a way to pay for it. You are reacting to what you want. I am reacting to the math. All you can see is what's best for you. I am looking at what's best for all of us, collectively.

"seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who"

What difference does it make to you, if I stay at one company for 40 years, or if I switch every 10 years. It's my choice, and I have switched companies when it benefitted my family. That's called freedom.

I love how you hide behind Freedom your not looking for freedom.. your looking for fairness .. your looking to remove freedoms (colective bargining ) because you dont have it .. some one looking for freedom does not reach in to others pockets .. you have freedom you made your choices now try accepting them.. do I think you shouldn't get Social security because I am not eligible to collect because I paying to my own pension and dont have the quarters .. of course not ,

again who screwed the American worker companies ..

The History of the Pension
For generations, pensions were the retirement plan standard for just about every employer. This may be hard to believe, but it wasn’t until the early 1980’s that 401(k)’s even existed. Ironically, 401(k)’s were originally added to the IRS code as a way for companies to offer additional retirement benefits to high ranking executives, above and beyond their defined pensions. This didn’t last long.

Over time, most employers have made the shift from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)’s. 401(k)’s were sold as the fresh new thing, giving employees all of the power to choose their own investments. In reality, they were often times a low to modest cost savings over their defined benefit counterparts. The combination of the appeal to the American individualistic ambition and cost cutting possibilities were the perfect storm to sell 401(k)’s over their elder relative.

"your not looking for freedom.. your looking for fairness "

Freedom and fairness are not mutually exclusive. And if I am looking for fairness (which I agree I am), what are you looking for?

"your looking to remove freedoms (colective bargining ) because you dont have it "

Wrong. I would remove collective bargaining not because I don't have it, but because it leads to crushing debt. I have provided hard data to back that up, at least in my home state of CT.

"do I think you shouldn't get Social security because I am not eligible to collect because I paying to my own pension and dont have the quarters .. of course not "

Here's the difference...if you are not eligible for SS, that means you don't pay into SS. So my SS benefits do not impact you one cent, so you have no reason to care.

"they (401ks) were often times a low to modest cost savings over their defined benefit counterparts"

That might be the stupidest thing ever posted on the Internet. With 401ks, companies typically contribute 3% of a person's salary each year. You're going to say with a straight face, that my company could give me a pension with that same 3% contribution?

Here's an annuity calculator. I figured out that to pay for an annuity of 50k a year for 27 years,. assuming growth of 6% per year, you'd need to start with $700,000. You think you can accumulate that much, by putting 3% of your salary into an account each year?

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/...alculator.aspx

My limited understanding of the difference between 401k's and the "standard" pensions you mentioned is that the latter is a defined benefit guarantee. A defined monthly benefit is guaranteed on retirement and the provider (company, municipality) is at risk for providing the benefit. On the other hand, the 401k is a defined contribution plan in which a given amount of pay can be invested by the employees as he wishes, and the employee is at risk in terms of what benefits she gets at retirement. The company is relieved of the cost of providing pension payments. So the cost savings to the employer are substantial.

The difference is massive. Which is exactly why almost the entire private sector made the switch.

Trump just filed suit to block the PA recount despite saying earlier this week there was "massive fraud" and that "millions of people illegally voted for Clinton".

It is going to be a fun 4 years watching him.

once again the difference between something being said...and something actually being done :deadhorse:

wasn't the left and many on the right up in arms over the suggestion that he might not accept the outcome....where is the outrage over those who apparently have not accepted the outcome...??

trust me...it will far more fun watching the left and media reacting to Trump over the next 4 years....

So what Trump says doesn't matter?

not generally

have to agree with you there.

H0W TRUMP COULD RUIN HIS PRESIDENCY

Ann Coulter | Thursday Dec 1, 2016 9:47 AM

Soon after Trump’s announcement speech, I said he would win the nomination and likely the election. It wasn’t that hard to predict. For anyone familiar with the Republican Party’s repeated betrayals of the American people, it was a 2-foot putt.

I issue this warning with the same certitude — in fact, for the exact same reason I knew anyone running on Trump’s platform would have unbreakable support from millions of voters.

What coalesced Trump’s base, what made his support tempered steel, was the fact that voters had been lied to, over and over again — on many things, but most smugly and repeatedly on immigration.

How many times did we have to see the GOP choke? There’s 30 seconds left in the game, Republicans are down by two, they move the ball up the court, have a man in position — and, every time, the GOP would do anything to avoid taking the 3-point shot.

That is the beating heart of the anger that voters felt toward the party. No one trusted Republicans to ever score when they had the ball.

It’s why Trump’s supporters stuck with him through thick and thin — his attack on war hero John McCain (he deserved it), his mocking a disabled reporter (a lie), his lazy first debate performance (totally true) and the “Access Hollywood” tape (oh well).

After he gave that Mexican rapists speech, and never backed down, Trump’s base would have brushed off six more “Access Hollywood” tapes. All because they think Trump will take the shot.

He’d better! As the popular vote proves, we don’t have 30 seconds on the clock. It’s only three.

But if he breaks a major campaign promise, his supporters will turn on him with a blind ferocity, dwarfing their rage toward Jeb! because Trump’s is the more exquisite con. He will have duped them. And he will never, ever, ever get them back.

Most of his promises can be kept with little trouble: He will appoint good judges, cut regulations, replace Obamacare and renegotiate trade deals. In other words, he’ll do all the things any Republican president would do — plus the trade deals.

But the moment Trump attempts to make good on his central promise — to remove troublesome immigrants and give us our country back — every major institution in America will declare war on him.

Trump knows that. In his Phoenix immigration speech, he said: “To all the politicians, donors and special interests, hear these words from me and all of you today. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.”

If powerful interests were not furiously opposed to Trump’s idea that immigration should benefit Americans, rather than foreigners, our immigration policies would already do so.

It will surprise consumers of American media to learn this, but every promise Trump made on immigration is already the law. Why? Because politicians know that’s what the public wants. So they pass the laws — and then refuse to enforce them.

But if Trump doesn’t appoint the sort of people capable of fulfilling his campaign promises on immigration, he will fail. He’ll be just another lying politician, and his supporters will watch in horror as rapists, terrorists and drug dealers continue living in our country.

There will be no one person to blame. No one is ever to blame in Washington. They just won’t get it done.

Then, well into the Trump presidency, some Muslim will commit a machete attack, shoot up a community center, stage a mass slaughter at a gay nightclub or bomb a marathon. There’s no question but that the terrorist attacks won’t stop — unless Trump nominates people who know what needs to be done and aren’t intimidated by testy New York Times editorials.

There will be more Americans like Kate Steinle, Grant Ronnebeck and Joshua Wilkerson killed by illegal aliens. There will be more children addicted to heroin brought in by Mexican drug cartels. There will be more parents joining the Remembrance Project.

But this time, they’ll blame Trump.

And then it will be Trump’s opponents saying, “What is wrong with our politicians, our leaders — if we can call them that. What the hell are we doing?”

If Trump betrays voters on immigration, he can have as many rallies as he wants, but Americans will say, Been there, done that — you screwed us. He will never escape the stink of broken campaign promises.

So unless Trump has another 60 million voters hiding someplace, the appointments he makes today — to State, Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, even the IRS — will determine whether he is remembered as America’s greatest president, or if the Trump name becomes a cautionary tale in American politics.

At this precise moment — not after his inauguration, not in year two of his administration, but today, as he fills his Cabinet — Trump has to decide if he’s going to be like every other Republican and throw a brick or grab the ball and score.

Whether he’s listening or not, his supporters are screaming: TRUMP! NOW! TAKE THE SHOT!!!