Reader comment on: Times Journalists Post Pension Video
Submitted by Fred Van Bennekom (United States), Apr 20, 2012 08:35
Notice the line that says the NYT wants to shift the risk of managing retirement account from the company to the employees. More accurately, it shifts the risk from current employees to future employees. Consider, if the Times doesn't get the necessary return to pay the guaranteed pensions, from where does it get the money down the road? Probably by cutting future expenses.
Guaranteed pensions promote intergenerational conflict.
I would love to see a study that examines the trade-off people feel between 1) a self-managed retirement account -- that has both downside risk and upside potential -- 2) guaranteed defined-benefit pensions. In other words, how much less would you take if it were guaranteed?
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Other reader comments on this item
|⇒ Risk shifting [114 words]||Fred Van Bennekom||Apr 20, 2012 08:35|
|Amazing [48 words]||Michael Caponiti||Apr 20, 2012 07:50|
|↔ Exactly my response Michael [145 words]||Steve Donovan||Apr 25, 2012 15:32|
Comment on this item