Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why do you want people to work until they are 65 or older, Sebby?

Esp. since they ain't doing shit, anyway.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And thus, the Flypaper theory is replaced by the Bob Geldof theory of the War on Terror.


We must do something. Even if it doesn't work.

we have done much. Scotland Yard broke up a cell that was planning ricin attacks in the London tube. we have taken out Afghanistan as a country where they can roam free.

If you mean what we've done is a complete shield- no shit. What else do you think should have been done?

And no offense but for all your denials in the past, I predict your answer to this will come back to haunt.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by andViolins
In my experience working with a lot of rank and file employees in a lot of plants is that this statement is incorrect. Employees do not like making decisions about their money - whether it be where to invest it or even to have to make the decision to invest it at all. Even when the Company is willing to match a percentage, the majority of employees will not take advantage of the free money.

aV

This is true. And many don't know where to put the money, and many people who don't seem like total morons will put a siginificant chunk in company stock -- voluntarily -- if given the option. Even post-Enron, we have groups that are DEMANDING to be given the option of a company stock investment in the 401(k). If you have automatic enrollment, they leave the money in a default investment. You get all this crap from investment gurus about how you need 25 different funds to cover the whole market, but they ignore that most people don't understand the differences between large cap and small cap and international and mid cap and s&p 500 and balanced and bond. Give people a brokerage window option -- then people who want to diversify to that degree can.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Close to ignore list.

I'm devastated. Really and truly devastated.


But also confused -- now you say the war in Iraq was to prevent use of unconventional bombs, aka WMDs, aka non-existent bugbears.* But once we found the absence of evidence for Iraqi WMDs, the Flypaper theory came out -- i.e., the Iraqi war was keeping us safer because all the terrorists were going to Iraq to kill American soldiers, instead of killing civilians in the US and its allied countries. Now, it seems, there's been another about-face. I just can't keep track anymore.




*I think the Reagan equivalent for Iraqi WMDs was the Soviet weapons in Nicaragua. Leading Garry Trudeau to the line "What do you call a Nicaraguan MiG? A Phantom Jet." Get it?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Close to ignore list.

Sorry, Hank. You've been such a vocal advocate of the War in Iraq as panacea, but obviously you're not in the mood to discuss this now. We can take it up again later.

Nice sig line.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
1. It wasn't the businesses, it was the unions. This all started happening when the unions were in their prime. You act like the companies could actually bargain back then. Now that the power of the unions is waning, most companies are scaling back their pensions.

2. Admin costs saved? What costs more - paying hundreds of thousands of stock brokers a cut of your portfolio to interface with traders or paying base salaries to the few thousand people who are employed in the administration of institutional pension plans? Economies of scale, my friend. Adminstration costs per participant go down drastically as the number of people in the plan goes up. It costs me significantly less in admin fees to invest in my 401(k) than it would if I did it on my own through an IRA.

3. Huge assumption from someone who clearly doesn't know jack shit about pension plans.

Anyway, stop trying to justify your own choices by trying to make other people's retirement planning seem "crazy" (especially considering you seem to know very little about what you're demeaning). The fact is 401(k)s are probably the best retirement savings mechanism ever invented.

1. Thats not what I said, but I agree with your non-reply.

2. The admin costs should be born by the person who holds the investment, rather than an employer. If the business was not manging a pension, it would have ZERO expenses, right? You got an option that beats $0.00 in admin expenses?

3. I'm not justifying my own choices at all. IRAs are a good way for people to save. But its goddamned sad thing that business has to play nanny.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1. Businesses have an incentive to create pension plans, too. It means that workers won't hang on forever, but rather will realize that retirement is just as attractive as continuing to work. Avoids firings and dead wood--like your friend.

2. IRAs have admin costs as well. And having a 401k addresses the concern in 1. Forced savings also benefits the employer.

3. Tell it to a coal miner or steel worker, who'll probably die at 72 anyway. A one-size-fits-all retirement age, when there's a sharp division between white collar and blue collar labor, isn't without its problems.

(1) I think unions originally drove it -- a lot of companies maintain generous pensions in an effort to keep employees from unionizing. It is easier to push people out if they know they will have enough to get by on.

(2) 401(k) addresses what issue in (1)?

(3) 2. Do steelworkers have short life spans? Huh.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


2. The admin costs should be born by the person who holds the investment, rather than an employer. If the business was not manging a pension, it would have ZERO expenses, right? You got an option that beats $0.00 in admin expenses?

You still think there's such a thing as a free lunch, don't you.

[Sidd Finch]

Hank -- editing your post while I'm responding it is no fair. But, okay -- I'll play.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we have done much. Scotland Yard broke up a cell that was planning ricin attacks in the London tube.

Using police tactics at home instead of the military in Iraq? Those pussies. What are they thinking.

we have taken out Afghanistan as a country where they can roam free.

They aren't out of Afghanistan, and to the extent they are they've largely relocated to Pakistan. But instead of devoting our military to hunting them down, and our resources to making Afgahnistan a true example of the rewards of moving away from Islamic dictatorship, we've diverted them to the Baghdad Adventure.

If you mean what we've done is a complete shield- no shit. What else do you think should have been done?

Devoted our resources to hunting them down, to developing Afghanistan, and to working with (instead of alienating) our allies and others to hunting them down. This wouldn't have been a complete shield either -- no such thing. But the invasion of Iraq was a great waste of resources, American lives, credibility, goodwill, and so much more -- and for what? To bring democracy to the Shiites? Big fucking deal -- look at how the Shiites in Iran just exercised their votes.

And no offense but for all your denials in the past, I predict your answer to this will come back to haunt.

What denials, and what answer, are you talking about? Are you back to claiming that I'm pro-terrorist?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm devastated. Really and truly devastated.


But also confused -- now you say the war in Iraq was to prevent use of unconventional bombs, aka WMDs, aka non-existent bugbears.* But once we found the absence of evidence for Iraqi WMDs, the Flypaper theory came out -- i.e., the Iraqi war was keeping us safer because all the terrorists were going to Iraq to kill American soldiers, instead of killing civilians in the US and its allied countries. Now, it seems, there's been another about-face. I just can't keep track anymore.




*I think the Reagan equivalent for Iraqi WMDs was the Soviet weapons in Nicaragua. Leading Garry Trudeau to the line "What do you call a Nicaraguan MiG? A Phantom Jet." Get it?

If you're trying to get notme in as a administration spokesperson, good luck. The flypaper theory is simply the argument that terrorists going THERE isn't a bad thing. That there are still bad people here was never claimed. We keep arresting them. the ACLU keeps wanting them released saying we really shouldn't hold them until after they blow themselves up.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
(1) I think unions originally drove it -- a lot of companies maintain generous pensions in an effort to keep employees from unionizing. It is easier to push people out if they know they will have enough to get by on.

(2) 401(k) addresses what issue in (1)?

(3) 2. Do steelworkers have short life spans? Huh.

(1) not questioning the genesis; just offering another reason why employers might see value in pensions.
(2) That it's easier to can someone if they have something to get by on.
(3) Less so, now that they're mainly asian.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You still think there's such a thing as a free lunch, don't you.

Sure he does. That's what clients are for.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Thats not what I said, but I agree with your non-reply.

2. The admin costs should be born by the person who holds the investment, rather than an employer. If the business was not manging a pension, it would have ZERO expenses, right? You got an option that beats $0.00 in admin expenses?

3. I'm not justifying my own choices at all. IRAs are a good way for people to save. But its goddamned sad thing that business has to play nanny.

1. My reply was that businesses were forced to play nanny, not that they chose to, so you really can't blame them for it. Now that they have an opportunity to get out of it, many are doing just that.

2. I guess I'm talking about comparing the admin costs of an "everybody go out and get your own IRA" world vs the present "feel free to invest in our 401(k) plan" world. It's much, much cheaper the way it's done now.

3. Say the "business has to play nanny" thing one more time and you might have yourself convinced...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

They aren't out of Afghanistan, and to the extent they are they've largely relocated to Pakistan. But instead of devoting our military to hunting them down, and our resources to making Afgahnistan a true example of the rewards of moving away from Islamic dictatorship, we've diverted them to the Baghdad Adventure.


Devoted our resources to hunting them down, to developing Afghanistan, and to working with (instead of alienating) our allies and others to hunting them down. This wouldn't have been a complete shield either -- no such thing. But the invasion of Iraq was a great waste of resources, American lives, credibility, goodwill, and so much more -- and for what? To bring democracy to the Shiites? Big fucking deal -- look at how the Shiites in Iran just exercised their votes.

You realize we can't go into Pakistan don't you?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you're trying to get notme in as a administration spokesperson, good luck. The flypaper theory is simply the argument that terrorists going THERE isn't a bad thing.

Sure. Because dead American soldiers don't count, right?

And you act as if there's a very limited number of people willing to blow themselves up. That's not the case, and the Iraq war has increased the number.

That there are still bad people here was never claimed. We keep arresting them. You and the ACLU keep wanting them released saying we really shouldn't hold them until after they blow themselves up.

Oh, go fuck yourself. I never said a thing like that and you know it. I supported and still support the war in Afghanistan. I supported and still support taking out terror cells.


I don't support setting aside the Constitution. I'm funny that way. Call me American.