I retired after finding out that the numbers provided to me as IBM
OFFICIAL were wrong, for my planned retirement date. I would have
made LESS money by working longer ( interest rate effect and
improperly coded algorithms in the 'estimator" program on
Netbenefits ). Now that I am retired, I am still waiting for the
OFFICIAL ( NOT ESTIMATED ) payments available. I am on the third
iteration of numbers, since my Financial team ( representative and
attorney) and I both found major computational errors, which were
acknowledged as being there and corrected. ( I would say $400 per
month difference is major ). I was being told that each changed
iteration would take them about 45 days to complete, as they have to
send the numbers to their ANALYSTS. With some assistance from an IBM
Senior Exec ( old aquaintance of mine ) I have been able to get some
turn arounds in a couple days. It turns out that I will get more
money by having already retired and then waiting for 1 month to
collect, than I woultd if I had worked extra months and then
collected immediately. "That's fancy accounting !" One option I
asked for over 30 days ago, is still outstanding. Fidelity says they
cannot calculate what it should be. It took my team only 3 hours to
calculate it using the availabel information. Only problem is it
would be "illegal" to calculate they way they have documented.
    The HR group/Fidelity cannot give me "exact/guaranteed minimum"
values for each option, but once I sign on the dotted line, I am
committed to that option for life. The legal teams are working up
some documentation that will allow me to change if the final numbers
are lower than what I have been told. Wish me luck, as I do all of
you.
     I am told an offer for me to come back as a contractor is being
created. I hope they offer a decent amount (over $150 per hour) or
it may be THANKS, BUT NO THANKS to the offer. The more I think about
the work environment I left, that may be the smart answer.

I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper (they are
quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is UNDER
FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by 1.5
billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the first
thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble as
GM!!!!

As with any complex financial issue, if enough stories are researched
and published, one of them might be close to right.  Pick one.

Carl

mmathguyh wrote:

> I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper (they are
> quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is UNDER
> FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by 1.5
> billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the first
> thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble as
> GM!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Can you please give web links to the papers that made the claims?  Thank
you.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:58:34 -0000 mmathguyh <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
writes:
> I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper (they
> are
> quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is
> UNDER
> FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by 1.5
>
> billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the first
>
> thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble as
> GM!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Help Sudanese refugees rebuild their lives through GlobalGiving.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/V42rFC/EbOLAA/cosFAA/46uqlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Actually, it's much more than $1.4B.

Keep in mind that this huge shortfall is in the non-US pension
plans.  As of 12/04, the US pension fund is $200 million overfunded.
The non-US pension funds are $7.6 billion underfunded.

Laying off thousands in Europe, and adding thousands in India, will
dramatically reduce the pension shortfall.

Not good.





--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, mmathguyh <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper
(they are
> quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is
UNDER
> FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by
1.5
> billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the
first
> thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble as
> GM!!!!
>

> As of 12/04, the US pension fund is $200 million overfunded.

http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2004/annual/md_6lcr.shtml
With respect to pension funding, on January 19, 2005
the company contributed $1.7 billion to the qualified
portion of the company's PPP. This contribution
fulfilled a number of short-term and long-term
strategic objectives. This contribution reduces the
probability of large future U.S. pension contributions
by building a funding buffer above the current
liability level. In addition, it positions the company
to further reduce volatility in pension contributions
and earnings over the long term. Finally, the company
will benefit from the return on these additional
pension assets in 2005. The increase in pension income
produced from this funding will partially offset the
impact of year-end 2004 pension assumptions changes.
The company is not quantifying any further impact from
pension funding because it is not possible to predict
future movements in the capital markets. However, for
2005, if actual returns on plan assets for the PPP
were less than 1 percent, the PPP's accumulated
benefit obligation (ABO) would be greater than its
Plan assets (assuming no other assumption change). As
discussed in the Funded Status of Defined Benefit
Pension Plans, such a situation may result in a
further voluntary contribution of cash or stock to the
PPP or a charge to stockholders' equity.

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Krueger"
<janet.krueger@p...> wrote:
>
> > As of 12/04, the US pension fund is $200 million overfunded.
>
> http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2004/annual/md_6lcr.shtml
> With respect to pension funding, on January 19, 2005
> the company contributed $1.7 billion to the qualified
> portion of the company's PPP. This contribution
> fulfilled a number of short-term and long-term
> strategic objectives. This contribution reduces the
> probability of large future U.S. pension contributions
> by building a funding buffer above the current
> liability level. In addition, it positions the company
> to further reduce volatility in pension contributions
> and earnings over the long term. Finally, the company
> will benefit from the return on these additional
> pension assets in 2005.


"...and we had to set aside $1.7 billion we'll have to pay cause we
got caught with our hands in the pension cookie jar."

I made a "typo" error----The correct numbers are 7.4 billion for IBM
and 7.5 billion for GM---- I typed a "1" instead of  "7". Sorry about
that.

The article appeared in the RECORD on 12/7/05.  I believe the web
address is northjersey.com


--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, mmathguyh <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper (they
are
> quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is
UNDER
> FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by 1.5
> billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the first
> thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble as
> GM!!!!
>

> The article appeared in the RECORD on 12/7/05.  I
> believe the web address is northjersey.com

The 7.8 billion comes from combining the SURPLUS in
the US fund with the underfunding in the non-US funds.
  It is a bogus number when talking about possible
Congressional action, US law, or the probability that
a US pensioner will continue to be paid.

Janet

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, Janet Krueger <janet.krueger@p...>
wrote:
>
> > The article appeared in the RECORD on 12/7/05.  I
> > believe the web address is northjersey.com
>
> The 7.8 billion comes from combining the SURPLUS in
> the US fund with the underfunding in the non-US funds.
>  It is a bogus number when talking about possible
> Congressional action, US law, or the probability that
> a US pensioner will continue to be paid.
>
> Janet
>
I would agree in your statement relative to the letter of US law
however from an IBM Corp. standpoint it is very pertinent.  It will
add fuel to the fire of their global strategy of eliminating all
retiree defined benefits and health programs.  It will accelerate
their pernicious tactics to subvert, weaken and undermine the spirit
and substance of those benefits to those retirees who were promised
them explicitly or implicitly during their careers.

>ctman1452 writes:....It will
>add fuel to the fire of their global strategy of eliminating all
>retiree defined benefits and health programs.

While I ,too, am personally concerned about any erosion of pension benefits, you
make a rather harsh accusation.  Does this come from personal knowledge of such
a "strategy" or is it your supposition based on recent IBM Board/HR actions?

Tom Dillon

-----Original Message-----
From: ctman1452 <ctman1452@...>
To: ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:45:15 -0000
Subject: [IBM Retiree] Re: IBM PENSION PLAN UNDER FUNDED!!!!!


--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, Janet Krueger <janet.krueger@p...>
wrote:
>
> > The article appeared in the RECORD on 12/7/05.  I
> > believe the web address is northjersey.com
>
> The 7.8 billion comes from combining the SURPLUS in
> the US fund with the underfunding in the non-US funds.
>  It is a bogus number when talking about possible
> Congressional action, US law, or the probability that
> a US pensioner will continue to be paid.
>
> Janet
>
I would agree in your statement relative to the letter of US law
however from an IBM Corp. standpoint it is very pertinent.  It will
add fuel to the fire of their global strategy of eliminating all
retiree defined benefits and health programs.  It will accelerate
their pernicious tactics to subvert, weaken and undermine the spirit
and substance of those benefits to those retirees who were promised
them explicitly or implicitly during their careers.







Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, TJDillon@a... wrote:
>
> >ctman1452 writes:....It will
> >add fuel to the fire of their global strategy of eliminating all
> >retiree defined benefits and health programs.
>
> While I ,too, am personally concerned about any erosion of pension
benefits, you make a rather harsh accusation.  Does this come from
personal knowledge of such a "strategy" or is it your supposition
based on recent IBM Board/HR actions?
>
As of 1/1/05 all new IBM hires have no DB pension or retiree health
benefits just a slightly enhanced 401k plan which they don't vest into
until two years of service when most have left IBM; my daughter just
started this year in IBM and has seen a 30% turnover of staff in her
dept in just 4 mo.; she views it as short term employment to gain
experience and add to the resume. Ego there is no IBM company pension
or retiree health benefits and represents their current strategy.

We see a steady erosion (25-30%/yr) of retiree health benefits for
existing legacy retirees

We see a multi billion deficit in funding non US retirement country
plans where there is no legal protection such as in the US with no
publically stated intent to fund them properly.

We see no COLA of any substance for legacy pensions

We see everyday in the media another example of pension/retiree health
care reduction or elimination in US corps with a vacumn of non
leadership at the federal level to stop it.

Quakes like a duck, looks like a duck to me...............come to your
own conclusion.

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "ctman1452" <ctman1452@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, TJDillon@a... wrote:
> >
> > >ctman1452 writes:....It will
> > >add fuel to the fire of their global strategy of eliminating all
> > >retiree defined benefits and health programs.
> >
> > While I ,too, am personally concerned about any erosion of
pension
> benefits, you make a rather harsh accusation.  Does this come from
> personal knowledge of such a "strategy" or is it your supposition
> based on recent IBM Board/HR actions?
> >
> As of 1/1/05 all new IBM hires have no DB pension or retiree health
> benefits just a slightly enhanced 401k plan which they don't vest
into
> until two years of service when most have left IBM; my daughter
just
> started this year in IBM and has seen a 30% turnover of staff in
her
> dept in just 4 mo.; she views it as short term employment to gain
> experience and add to the resume.

[snip]

Is it really true that the vesting period is two years for the
enhanced 401K?

Under the regular IBM 401K plan you cannot participate your first
year, but it has immediate vesting after that period.

What are the real facts for the enhanced 401K for new employees
starting on 2005?

I would not call doubling the company match to up to a total of 6%
of compensation a "slightly enhanced" enhanced benefit.  IMHO, it
beats hands down the loss of the C/B plan for those employees.

And it's ALL outside the US.  BS!!!!!!!!!!!

mmathguyh wrote:

> I made a "typo" error----The correct numbers are 7.4 billion for IBM
> and 7.5 billion for GM---- I typed a "1" instead of  "7". Sorry about
> that.
>
> The article appeared in the RECORD on 12/7/05.  I believe the web
> address is northjersey.com
>
>
> --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, mmathguyh <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper (they
> are
> > quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is
> UNDER
> > FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by 1.5
> > billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the first
> > thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble as
> > GM!!!!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "ibmretiree
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ibmretiree>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        ibmretiree-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:ibmretiree-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Please see post #8352.  This $7.4B is $0.2 OVERfunded in the U.S.,
and $7.6B UNDERfunded in the non-U.S.  Unfortunately, the non-U.S.
problem will be substantially reduced by European layoffs and Indian
hiring.




--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, mmathguyh <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> I made a "typo" error----The correct numbers are 7.4 billion for
IBM
> and 7.5 billion for GM---- I typed a "1" instead of  "7". Sorry
about
> that.
>
> The article appeared in the RECORD on 12/7/05.  I believe the web
> address is northjersey.com
>
>
> --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, mmathguyh <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I just read an article on Pension Plans in my local newspaper
(they
> are
> > quite reliable).  The article states that IBM's Pension Plan is
> UNDER
> > FUNDED by 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! GM's plan is underfunded by
1.5
> > billion dollars.  I have read a lot about GM, but this is the
first
> > thing I have seen that indicates that we are in as much trouble
as
> > GM!!!!
> >
>

Continuing a thraed from another topic.
--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, fhawontcutit wrote:

>>

>
> ERIC (not our friends) has CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTHCARE under their list
> of current issues.  Health savings accounts and high deductible
> policies are CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTHCARE.  This is the GOP agenda and
> their "solution" to the healthcare crisis.
>
> Aren't we lucky?
>

Ahhhh... now I see, thanks.

It's all about population control!

As the good paying jobs leave this countyr, and benefits diminish to
nothingness, fewer people will be able to afford health care.

As more people die off, mostly the older (people over 40?)ones, fewer
jobs are needed and the younger people well get more jobs.

With fewer people getting health care, the demand for medical
facilities, staff and drugs diminishes.  Many of those employees will
lose their jobs and fall into the uninsured and they too will live
shorter lives.

Buy this time the Health insurance industry will have collapsed and
those people lost their jobs. (Let's admit it: it was the coming of
age of Labor Unions that brought us health benefits.  It is the
existance of Health Insurance that eliminates shopping around for
price, thus escalating the cost of health care.)

At this point, our life spans will be about like in the 1800's.

The many lost jobs diminsh:
1) Tax revenue collections
2) Social Security beneficiaries
3) Medicaid funding
4) Military budget
5) consumer spending

By this time, the illegal immigrants may want to "go home" which will
diminsh consumer goods consumption, the market for old cars and low
end appartments, and don't forget... Social Security revenue.

Of course the Governemnt employee pension and benefits continue to rise.

Carl

A. This counttry's government can't function with a responsible budget
like is required for you and me.

Here is a recent study done on customer satisfaction with consumer-
driven health plans done by the Commonwealth Fund. I've never heard
of this organization, but according to a newspaper article I read,
IBM helped to fund this study. Some of the other studies summarized
on this site look interesting such as the Medicare Part E proposal.

http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=326359


--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lackey" <clackey3@r...>
wrote:
>
> Continuing a thraed from another topic.
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, fhawontcutit wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >
> > ERIC (not our friends) has CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTHCARE under their
list
> > of current issues.  Health savings accounts and high deductible
> > policies are CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTHCARE.  This is the GOP agenda
and
> > their "solution" to the healthcare crisis.
> >
> > Aren't we lucky?
> >
>
> Ahhhh... now I see, thanks.
>
> It's all about population control!
>
> As the good paying jobs leave this countyr, and benefits diminish to
> nothingness, fewer people will be able to afford health care.
>
> As more people die off, mostly the older (people over 40?)ones,
fewer
> jobs are needed and the younger people well get more jobs.
>
> With fewer people getting health care, the demand for medical
> facilities, staff and drugs diminishes.  Many of those employees
will
> lose their jobs and fall into the uninsured and they too will live
> shorter lives.
>
> Buy this time the Health insurance industry will have collapsed and
> those people lost their jobs. (Let's admit it: it was the coming of
> age of Labor Unions that brought us health benefits.  It is the
> existance of Health Insurance that eliminates shopping around for
> price, thus escalating the cost of health care.)
>
> At this point, our life spans will be about like in the 1800's.
>
> The many lost jobs diminsh:
> 1) Tax revenue collections
> 2) Social Security beneficiaries
> 3) Medicaid funding
> 4) Military budget
> 5) consumer spending
>
> By this time, the illegal immigrants may want to "go home" which
will
> diminsh consumer goods consumption, the market for old cars and low
> end appartments, and don't forget... Social Security revenue.
>
> Of course the Governemnt employee pension and benefits continue to
rise.
>
> Carl
>

Wow! What a great site.  Commonwealth Fund seems to be a foundation with
noble goals.  I am unsure just how much accomplishment will happen as a
result of appropriate surveys.  I hope they are more credible than JD
Power and Associates who seem to generate "survey results" of some
strange title to accommodate any paying advertiser.  They generate "a
survey class" where any paying product can be the top rating... and
there is no way to dispute their "findings."

Regarding the referenced survey on customer satisfaction with consumer
driven health care, The low ratings are higher than I expected.  I
suspect it is because those participating in the mentioned programs are
either:
1) financially set well enough that it doesn't sink their ship, or

2) don't have a choice.

Personally, I think IBM's HSA is nothing but exploiting an intended
"well meaning" program for IBM profit by:

1) Disconnecting the employee from company paid health care costs much
sooner in life.

2) Pricing the captive market for a high profit experience.

Carl


xblue94 wrote:
> Here is a recent study done on customer satisfaction with consumer-
> driven health plans done by the Commonwealth Fund. I've never heard
> of this organization, but according to a newspaper article I read,
> IBM helped to fund this study. Some of the other studies summarized
> on this site look interesting such as the Medicare Part E proposal.
>
> http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=326359
>
>
> --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lackey" <clackey3@r...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Continuing a thraed from another topic.
>> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, fhawontcutit wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>> > ERIC (not our friends) has CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTHCARE under their
> list
>> > of current issues.  Health savings accounts and high deductible
>> > policies are CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTHCARE.  This is the GOP agenda
> and
>> > their "solution" to the healthcare crisis.
>> >
>> > Aren't we lucky?
>> >
>>
>> Ahhhh... now I see, thanks.
>>
>> It's all about population control!
>>
>> As the good paying jobs leave this countyr, and benefits diminish to
>> nothingness, fewer people will be able to afford health care.
>>
>> As more people die off, mostly the older (people over 40?)ones,
> fewer
>> jobs are needed and the younger people well get more jobs.
>>
>> With fewer people getting health care, the demand for medical
>> facilities, staff and drugs diminishes.  Many of those employees
> will
>> lose their jobs and fall into the uninsured and they too will live
>> shorter lives.
>>
>> Buy this time the Health insurance industry will have collapsed and
>> those people lost their jobs. (Let's admit it: it was the coming of
>> age of Labor Unions that brought us health benefits.  It is the
>> existance of Health Insurance that eliminates shopping around for
>> price, thus escalating the cost of health care.)
>>
>> At this point, our life spans will be about like in the 1800's.
>>
>> The many lost jobs diminsh:
>> 1) Tax revenue collections
>> 2) Social Security beneficiaries
>> 3) Medicaid funding
>> 4) Military budget
>> 5) consumer spending
>>
>> By this time, the illegal immigrants may want to "go home" which
> will
>> diminsh consumer goods consumption, the market for old cars and low
>> end appartments, and don't forget... Social Security revenue.
>>
>> Of course the Governemnt employee pension and benefits continue to
> rise.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I recently commented that each administration fails to address any of the 4 most
important issues for "the people".  Why?

Excerpt fragments:

The ferment of the '60s and '70s - when boomers changed the world, or thought
they did - faded long ago. Nostalgic pride in the achievements of that era now
mixes with skepticism: Have the boomers collectively betrayed their youthful
idealism?

  "The boomers have set up institutions that will continue to benefit them, at
the expense of other groups, as they grow old and live longer than any other
generation," Gillon said. "It's spend what you want, cut your own taxes - the
ultimate baby boom philosophy of 'We want to have it all.' We're not a
generation that's had to deal with the reality of sacrifice."

  "Often when people get older, they say to the younger generation, 'Well, it's
your turn now,'" he said. "I feel very differently. Rather than just passing the
torch,


  "We're always in the middle of the next fun moment at some everlasting party,
and we're not able to defer the gratification to tackle the long-term problems."

http://tinyurl.com/b8buh

Carl




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lackey" <clackey3@r...> wrote:
>
> I recently commented that each administration fails to address any
of the 4 most important issues for "the people".  Why?
>
> Excerpt fragments:
>
> The ferment of the '60s and '70s - when boomers changed the world,
>or thought they did - faded long ago. Nostalgic pride in the
>achievements of that era now mixes with skepticism: Have the boomers

Interesting citation Carl relative to current events and broken
promises; I was part of the generation just before the boomers so I
got to bridge both the 50 and 60s culture and its boomer changes.

I believe that the WW2 generation which was incubated in the
depression and then the collective sacrifices of the most pervasive
war we have had was almost the direct opposite of the boomers in terms
of self sacrifice and selfishness and that is why the 50s were one of
general upward mobility and mostly conformity to the status quo for
the US middle class.

The boomers were the epitomy of the "me" generation and I came to that
conclusion in my early 20s when they first steamrolled their way
through our society in the 60s by sheer weight of numbers.

Guess who is in control of our society today?  Yes the same "me"
generation; so the execs we have today are in effect feeding on "their
own" because of that same "get mine first" culture.

And I have to smile as you listen to many boomers about retirement and
how they think they can maintain their current working lifestyles if
only they can somehow save $1.5M before retirement.

The boomers are going to go down hard in my opinion since as has been
pointed out they really don't know the word self sacrifice.........we
are headed for a very vocal and divisive generational war in the US as
they retire and for the first time realize the boomer party is over
and their power is waning fast because they are not the future anymore
and that the younger generation is simply not going to sacrifice their
own lifestyles for continued boomer selfishness.

I agree the boomers have some hard times coming but the "greatest
generation" has to thank us for their plush retirement packages. The greatest
generation is also the richest retirees in history. If it wasn't for the 
"boomer"
economy and the shear number of boomers pumping money in social 
security/pension
plans this bubble would have burst sooner. Alas when the  boomers come to the
trough they will find it empty, because nobody saved  anything. Medicare is
already broke, Social Security will be broke in 8  years and the pension funds
are going belly up every day with little hope  PBGC will have enough money
either .
The whole idea that there is some "trust fund" to bail all of these  out is
simply a fantasy.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, gfretwell@a... wrote:
>
> I agree the boomers have some hard times coming but the "greatest
> generation" has to thank us for their plush retirement packages. The
greatest
> generation is also the richest retirees in history. If it wasn't for
the  "boomer"
> economy and the shear number of boomers pumping money in social
security/pension
> plans this bubble would have burst sooner. Alas when the  boomers
come to the
> trough they will find it empty, because nobody saved  anything.
Medicare is
> already broke, Social Security will be broke in 8  years and the
pension funds
> are going belly up every day with little hope  PBGC will have enough
money
> either .
> The whole idea that there is some "trust fund" to bail all of these
  out is
> simply a fantasy.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


I beg to differ with you. The so called 'greatest generation', which
includes this writer who is just another of the fast dwindling WWII
vets, is NOT the generation of the richest retirees in history.  I am
certain that some of us may be, but NOT the vast majority of us. We
may have thought we would all be fairly comfortable in retirement but
we did not, in our wildest inagination, think we, who are mostly in
our early and late 80's would be sold out  by the generation that
followed. Whether that IS the BOOMER generation, or another 'me first'
group that knows nothing of the great depression I can't say.

Believe me, If I were among the richest retirees, though compared to
the future retirees we may end up being just that, I would most likely
be on these boards for no other purpose than  to support my fellow,
but following, IBMers who are now facing a dire future.

BTW, just how do you consider a monthly gross, before deductions, of
$1160.86, along with a reneged benefit package, as a PLUSH retirement
package?  Of course, among the deductions not shown on my statement,
is the cost of 100% coverage for my spouse with right of return to my
full pension should she precede me in death.

For the record, I am probably above average for the rank and file
non-professional IBM employee of my generation. IF I am correct, the
PLUSH retirement retirees are those of the generation that followed
mine and initiated the sell out of we previous retirees, you future
retirees, and, even worse, this great country of ours.

So watch your tongue young person and get your facts right before
making any more misleading claims.

How much were you paying for your health care?

I doubt I will see much of any of my social security and it is obvious  which
way my retirement is going.
Perhaps you are splitting hairs between those born in the twenties and  early
thirties and those born between the mid 30s and the end of  WWII. Gerstner,
Eisner and Welch are the CEOs who looted the  corporations.
It was also FDR who signed the legislation that allowed the government  to
spend the  social security surplus (1940) to pay for his war. LBJ,  another
greatest generation guy, signed the law that let him use social security  funds
toward the deficit to hide the cost of his  war.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

you need to check your facts also... the "generation after"  yours
is the boomer generation...    and it is very tiring to always hear
from your generation how they deserve the SS, because they paid so
much into it...   most of my working life i paid in more in a year
then most of the "greatest" paid in during their whole work life..
get your facts right....      you all are the richest retired
generation because the boomers don't turn 60 until 2006, so by most
past standards we are not a retiree generation yet...... we may
become the richest as we make it to retirement, although from what i
hear many boomers think they will have to die on the job, because
they cannot afford to retire, but as of now you wear the
appalation......


-- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "retired_in_89" <raccc5@e...>
wrote:
>
> --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, gfretwell@a... wrote:
> >
> > I agree the boomers have some hard times coming but
the "greatest
> > generation" has to thank us for their plush retirement packages.
The
> greatest
> > generation is also the richest retirees in history. If it wasn't
for
> the  "boomer"
> > economy and the shear number of boomers pumping money in social
> security/pension
> > plans this bubble would have burst sooner. Alas when the  boomers
> come to the
> > trough they will find it empty, because nobody saved  anything.
> Medicare is
> > already broke, Social Security will be broke in 8  years and the
> pension funds
> > are going belly up every day with little hope  PBGC will have
enough
> money
> > either .
> > The whole idea that there is some "trust fund" to bail all of
these
>  out is
> > simply a fantasy.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
> I beg to differ with you. The so called 'greatest generation',
which
> includes this writer who is just another of the fast dwindling WWII
> vets, is NOT the generation of the richest retirees in history.  I
am
> certain that some of us may be, but NOT the vast majority of us. We
> may have thought we would all be fairly comfortable in retirement
but
> we did not, in our wildest inagination, think we, who are mostly in
> our early and late 80's would be sold out  by the generation that
> followed. Whether that IS the BOOMER generation, or another 'me
first'
> group that knows nothing of the great depression I can't say.
>
> Believe me, If I were among the richest retirees, though compared
to
> the future retirees we may end up being just that, I would most
likely
> be on these boards for no other purpose than  to support my fellow,
> but following, IBMers who are now facing a dire future.
>
> BTW, just how do you consider a monthly gross, before deductions,
of
> $1160.86, along with a reneged benefit package, as a PLUSH
retirement
> package?  Of course, among the deductions not shown on my
statement,
> is the cost of 100% coverage for my spouse with right of return to
my
> full pension should she precede me in death.
>
> For the record, I am probably above average for the rank and file
> non-professional IBM employee of my generation. IF I am correct,
the
> PLUSH retirement retirees are those of the generation that followed
> mine and initiated the sell out of we previous retirees, you future
> retirees, and, even worse, this great country of ours.
>
> So watch your tongue young person and get your facts right before
> making any more misleading claims.
>

i agree that the boomers, of which i am one are to blame for most of
this countries ills, mainly because the non realistic flower part of
our generation runs the libral side of politics, media and being
pc.  they did not understand the realities of life then and they
don't now, you can not make every one the same and make anyone
happy.   all generations are "me " generations.  the majority of
the "greatest" believe they are entitled as do the majority of the
boomers.the socalled x and z generations may turn out to be the most
practical of all the 20th century born generations...     for now
catch what life throws at you and throw it back harder..only you can
make your life better.. and it is like the oxygen masks in planes...
you have to take care of you first before you can help anyone else
successfully.


....        -- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "ctman1452"
<ctman1452@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lackey" <clackey3@r...>
wrote:
> >
> > I recently commented that each administration fails to address
any
> of the 4 most important issues for "the people".  Why?
> >
> > Excerpt fragments:
> >
> > The ferment of the '60s and '70s - when boomers changed the
world,
> >or thought they did - faded long ago. Nostalgic pride in the
> >achievements of that era now mixes with skepticism: Have the
boomers
>
> Interesting citation Carl relative to current events and broken
> promises; I was part of the generation just before the boomers so I
> got to bridge both the 50 and 60s culture and its boomer changes.
>
> I believe that the WW2 generation which was incubated in the
> depression and then the collective sacrifices of the most pervasive
> war we have had was almost the direct opposite of the boomers in
terms
> of self sacrifice and selfishness and that is why the 50s were one
of
> general upward mobility and mostly conformity to the status quo for
> the US middle class.
>
> The boomers were the epitomy of the "me" generation and I came to
that
> conclusion in my early 20s when they first steamrolled their way
> through our society in the 60s by sheer weight of numbers.
>
> Guess who is in control of our society today?  Yes the same "me"
> generation; so the execs we have today are in effect feeding
on "their
> own" because of that same "get mine first" culture.
>
> And I have to smile as you listen to many boomers about retirement
and
> how they think they can maintain their current working lifestyles
if
> only they can somehow save $1.5M before retirement.
>
> The boomers are going to go down hard in my opinion since as has
been
> pointed out they really don't know the word self
sacrifice.........we
> are headed for a very vocal and divisive generational war in the
US as
> they retire and for the first time realize the boomer party is over
> and their power is waning fast because they are not the future
anymore
> and that the younger generation is simply not going to sacrifice
their
> own lifestyles for continued boomer selfishness.
>

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, rsked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
>

"blame"? I don't think so.

Unrealistic? You betcha.

Did not understand the realities of life? You betcha.

Take care of ourself? Oh yes.

Let's look at these labels.

No, we're not to BLAME, directly, because of all the other labels
you applied. We boomers were the product of the Levittown post-war
generation that wanted us to have better than they had. We were
coddled and Doctor Spocked (not coddled like today's youts, though)
and weaned on the unrealism of television and got more than one toy
at Christmas and thought we could be saved from an atomic bomb
by 'ducking and covering'. So, you want to talk unrealistic? We were
primed for it. We didn't have to live through a Holocaust or a
Depression or rationing or any other reality. All we had to do was
decide between Davey Crockett or Howdy Doody. Life was good, and our
parents were happy for us. Hell, even polio was controllable in our
lifetime.

So, on to the unrealistic life in a paternal IBM. You remember the
paternal IBM, don't you? We had family days and Christmas parties
and wonderful managers and decent peers and respect for the
individual and all the other good things you read about on these
boards. Unrealistic, viewed from today's cynicism? Of course. We
were TOLD, as I've said before, that our pension and retiree medical
and our insurance was additional compensation to our salaries. Okay,
we said, we believe you, you'll take care of us when we're retired
and older. Unrealistic??? You tell me.

Were we a 'me' generation? I don't know. In light of the fact that
we took our unrealistic attitudes to the street and may have been
partly responsible for bringing a war to an end, NONE of which is in
evidence today, I don't think so, no. I would say today's generation
is more concerned about self than we were. But that's my personal
opinion.

So don't go castigating the generation before us for what they have.
Remember, they earned it, just as we earned ours before it was
stolen from us. Don't get sucked into the 'us vs them' fight that
corporations and governments are putting into place, just to divide
us. Divide and conquer, you remember that, right?

Finally, take care of ourselves? Oh yes, we have to now. With the
FHA and static unremarkable pensions and proposed theft of our
Social Security, we boomers will be lucky if we can live well until
our death. But we have to try, since all those whom we trusted
turned out to be liars and thieves, and we were, alternately,
unrealistic, trusting, starry-eyed, loyal and foolish.

And so it goes.

> i agree that the boomers, of which i am one are to blame for most
of > this countries ills, mainly because the non realistic flower
part of > our generation runs the libral side of politics, media and
being > pc.  they did not understand the realities of life then and
they > don't now, you can not make every one the same and make
anyone > happy.   all generations are "me " generations.  the
majority of > the "greatest" believe they are entitled as do the
majority of the > boomers.the socalled x and z generations may turn
out to be the most > practical of all the 20th century born
generations...     for now  > catch what life throws at you and
throw it back harder..only you can > make your life better.. and it
is like the oxygen masks in planes... > you have to take care of you
first before you can help anyone else > successfully.
>
>

--- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, rsked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> you need to check your facts also... the "generation after"  yours
> is the boomer generation...

You need a fact check also.  I'm in the generation after Retired and
I'm not a boomer.  They came after me.

-- Don

The boomers came after 1945/46

Don <depeter@...> wrote:          --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, rsked
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
   >
   > you need to check your facts also... the "generation after"  yours
   > is the boomer generation...

   You need a fact check also.  I'm in the generation after Retired and
   I'm not a boomer.  They came after me.

   -- Don






---------------------------------
     YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "ibmretiree" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  ibmretiree-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
  Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't think the issue is about who is a boomer.  we're re all old and
getting older.

No matter who "caused" it, the sad fact is that no one is accountable.

Carl

Paly wrote:
> The boomers came after 1945/46
>
> Don <depeter@...> wrote:          --- In ibmretiree@yahoogroups.com, rsked
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>   >
>   > you need to check your facts also... the "generation after"  yours
>   > is the boomer generation...
>
>   You need a fact check also.  I'm in the generation after Retired and
>   I'm not a boomer.  They came after me.
>
>   -- Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>     YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "ibmretiree" on the web.
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  ibmretiree-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
>  Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>