Ford cancels Focus Active import plans due to China tariffs
09-06-18 | 06:40 PM
#122
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 91,715
Likes: 89
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
As I understood it, the old NAFTA agreement with Mexico is no longer valid. Trump signed a new agreement with Nieto a few days ago....or, at least, it was a revision to the existing one.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-06-18 at 06:59 PM.
09-06-18 | 06:50 PM
#123
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,752
Likes: 73
From: ON/NY
The current NAFTA agreement is in full effect. Nothing was signed. It was preliminary agreement. Congress will not pass any agreement without Canada.
09-07-18 | 12:18 PM
#124
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 58,376
Likes: 2,793
From: Maryland
The problem with pensions is the length of time people live.
Its all well and good to say somebody who has worked for a company or the government for 30 years is entitled to a pension for the rest of their life. But, if somebody starts working for a company when they're 20, and they work 30 years and retire at 50, nowadays that person can solidly live into their 80s, 90s etc. So that means they receive their pension for longer than they worked...which just doesn't make sense.
Its just practical, a company can't pay income to all their current employees AND every retired employee that ever worked for them.
Its all well and good to say somebody who has worked for a company or the government for 30 years is entitled to a pension for the rest of their life. But, if somebody starts working for a company when they're 20, and they work 30 years and retire at 50, nowadays that person can solidly live into their 80s, 90s etc. So that means they receive their pension for longer than they worked...which just doesn't make sense.
Its just practical, a company can't pay income to all their current employees AND every retired employee that ever worked for them.
09-07-18 | 05:14 PM
#125
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 91,715
Likes: 89
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
The problem with pensions is the length of time people live.
Its all well and good to say somebody who has worked for a company or the government for 30 years is entitled to a pension for the rest of their life. But, if somebody starts working for a company when they're 20, and they work 30 years and retire at 50, nowadays that person can solidly live into their 80s, 90s etc. So that means they receive their pension for longer than they worked...which just doesn't make sense.
Its just practical, a company can't pay income to all their current employees AND every retired employee that ever worked for them.
Its all well and good to say somebody who has worked for a company or the government for 30 years is entitled to a pension for the rest of their life. But, if somebody starts working for a company when they're 20, and they work 30 years and retire at 50, nowadays that person can solidly live into their 80s, 90s etc. So that means they receive their pension for longer than they worked...which just doesn't make sense.
Its just practical, a company can't pay income to all their current employees AND every retired employee that ever worked for them.
09-08-18 | 07:35 AM
#126
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 58,376
Likes: 2,793
From: Maryland
Most people, outside of uniformed services, even with pensions, don't retire at 50. The uniformed services let you retire after only 20 years (with a minimum pension) because of the hazards and sacrifices required of the job. Most people, though, don't retire till well into their 60s or later. I managed to get out at 55 with a good pension, but that was only because I, like some others, was grandfathered into an older system that no longer exists.
Even when people retire in their mid 60s now, they can legitimately live another 30 years in retirement. Pension plans were designed when people lived to be 70. Its just not realistic to expect a company to support a worker in retirement for as many years as they worked for them. That is a HUGE part of the struggles domestic automakers have.
My wife worked for a company (gov't contractor) years ago that had gotten down to 9 employees. They had like 500 retirees. Her job as one out of the 9 employees was to manage the pension benefits and health care for all of those retirees. Thats insane.
09-08-18 | 08:05 AM
#127
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,752
Likes: 73
From: ON/NY
The point is they COULD retire at 50 if they started when they were 20.
Even when people retire in their mid 60s now, they can legitimately live another 30 years in retirement. Pension plans were designed when people lived to be 70. Its just not realistic to expect a company to support a worker in retirement for as many years as they worked for them. That is a HUGE part of the struggles domestic automakers have.
My wife worked for a company (gov't contractor) years ago that had gotten down to 9 employees. They had like 500 retirees. Her job as one out of the 9 employees was to manage the pension benefits and health care for all of those retirees. Thats insane.
Even when people retire in their mid 60s now, they can legitimately live another 30 years in retirement. Pension plans were designed when people lived to be 70. Its just not realistic to expect a company to support a worker in retirement for as many years as they worked for them. That is a HUGE part of the struggles domestic automakers have.
My wife worked for a company (gov't contractor) years ago that had gotten down to 9 employees. They had like 500 retirees. Her job as one out of the 9 employees was to manage the pension benefits and health care for all of those retirees. Thats insane.
My guess, the UAW will continue to sink GM, Ford and FCA in the long run. Eventually a collapse of one of them will occur, leaving just two of the big three.
09-08-18 | 08:18 AM
#128
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 91,715
Likes: 89
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
While you are correct, in that pensions for these companies cannot sustain the length that people are living, you are not going to change the mind or opinion of mmarshall. Those with the pensions will never give them up (obviously), this is why there is the fight for them (I don't blame them).
But no, that does to change my basic view that those who faithfully gave many years of service to an organization should be compensated for it in retirement. Social Security covers part of that, but, in some ways, is inadequate.
Anyhow, again, I think we've gotten off topic...Ford Focus production.
09-08-18 | 08:52 PM
#129
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,184
Likes: 109
From: Las Vegas
Defined benefit(aka, pension) plans are by and large unsustainable. They're not that common anymore in the private sector for a reason. Your pension plan is afloat because it's paid for by the US taxpayer. Companies can't just raise taxes on people to cover their pension obligations.
Most of us contribute instead to a 401(k) plan with some form of contribution matching from our employers.
09-08-18 | 09:24 PM
#130
Lexus Champion
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 12,601
Likes: 1,631
From: WA
I consider myself incredibly fortunate to work for a company that provides me both with a pension and a 401(k) program with generous matching. The tariffs are starting to have a negative impact on our sales/orders but I think it’ll play out ok.
09-08-18 | 09:26 PM
#131
While you are correct, in that pensions for these companies cannot sustain the length that people are living, you are not going to change the mind or opinion of mmarshall. Those with the pensions will never give them up (obviously), this is why there is the fight for them (I don't blame them). Some people only take jobs because of the pensions. Pension funds can also go to hell and collapse as well leaving those with out any.
...
My guess, the UAW will continue to sink GM, Ford and FCA in the long run. Eventually a collapse of one of them will occur, leaving just two of the big three.
...
My guess, the UAW will continue to sink GM, Ford and FCA in the long run. Eventually a collapse of one of them will occur, leaving just two of the big three.
second, while noble of mmarshall to say he'd accept temporary cuts in his pension, he's definitely in a minority. The majority would only do so in exchange for some kind of more secure deal for 'later' but the problem is, companies and governments can and do go broke and have no choice but to renegue on their commitments, ultimately decided by courts usually.
third, as far as these kind of pensions... in the private world they're becoming rarer than sasquatch, replaced by 401k's and ira's (rra's in canada?) requiring responsibility and risk taking by the employees. Uaw workers are retiring and passing away lowering the 'obligation' as time goes on. Those deals won't be back.
so ultimately i see the problem as self-correcting in time, although the govt will be the last place to fix the problem because it just spends without concern and runs up bigger and bigger deficits and debt, but that too will end, and it won't be pretty.
Last edited by bitkahuna; 09-08-18 at 09:54 PM.
09-08-18 | 09:45 PM
#132
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,752
Likes: 73
From: ON/NY
first off, people who retired with pensions were made a commitment, which should be honored if possible. Many took essentially thankless jobs in many cases without great pay in exchange for the comfort of 'knowing' they would have a secure retirement,
second, while noble of mmarshall to say he'd accept temporary cuts in his pension, he's definitely in a minority. The majority would onky do so in exchange for some kind of more secure deal for 'later' but the problem is, companies and governments can and do go broke and have no choice but to renegue on their commitments, ultimately decided by courts usually.
third, as far as these kind of pensions... in the private world they're becoming rarer than sasquatch, replaced by 401k's and ira's (rra's in canada?) requiring responsibility and risk taking by the employees. Uaw workers are retiring and passing away lowering the 'obligation' as time goes on. Those deals won't be back.
so ultimately i see the problem as self-correcting in time, although the govt will be the last place to fix the problem because it just spends without concern and runs up bigger and bigger deficits and debt, but that too will end, and it won't be pretty.
09-09-18 | 08:06 AM
#134
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 58,376
Likes: 2,793
From: Maryland
While you are correct, in that pensions for these companies cannot sustain the length that people are living, you are not going to change the mind or opinion of mmarshall. Those with the pensions will never give them up (obviously), this is why there is the fight for them (I don't blame them). Some people only take jobs because of the pensions. Pension funds can also go to hell and collapse as well leaving those with out any. I personally do not have a company pension, neither does my husband, but I would never work somewhere just because of one. I have been my own boss my whole life for the most part.
My guess, the UAW will continue to sink GM, Ford and FCA in the long run. Eventually a collapse of one of them will occur, leaving just two of the big three.
My guess, the UAW will continue to sink GM, Ford and FCA in the long run. Eventually a collapse of one of them will occur, leaving just two of the big three.
I wouldnt give up my pension that I earned either (if I had one). I've fought my whole life to be delivered what has been promised to me by companies. Its more just an understanding that going forward, companies and the government have to dramatically change or eliminate pension plan programs for current and future employees. Not fair to do that to current retirees who worked and planned on having that pension. Making good on that promise is the company's responsibility IMHO.
09-09-18 | 11:40 AM
#135
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,274
Likes: 296
From: ------
The problem with pensions is the length of time people live.
Its all well and good to say somebody who has worked for a company or the government for 30 years is entitled to a pension for the rest of their life. But, if somebody starts working for a company when they're 20, and they work 30 years and retire at 50, nowadays that person can solidly live into their 80s, 90s etc. So that means they receive their pension for longer than they worked...which just doesn't make sense.
Its just practical, a company can't pay income to all their current employees AND every retired employee that ever worked for them.
Its all well and good to say somebody who has worked for a company or the government for 30 years is entitled to a pension for the rest of their life. But, if somebody starts working for a company when they're 20, and they work 30 years and retire at 50, nowadays that person can solidly live into their 80s, 90s etc. So that means they receive their pension for longer than they worked...which just doesn't make sense.
Its just practical, a company can't pay income to all their current employees AND every retired employee that ever worked for them.