Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 84

Thread: OT - Pension Benefits Now and Then

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by tommie317 View Post
    My own pension: rental properties
    Why not REITs?

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by burritos View Post
    Why not REITs?
    Which ones give me 300% return in 3 years and 100% increase in monthly income? Non leveraged. You see rents out there? It's legal highway robbery
    Last edited by tommie317; 02-22-2017 at 12:25 PM.

  3. #18
    I suspect, outside of HRO, not many know how many veterans are in the work force. When my son-in-law became a state trooper half of the new
    troopers were vets. When he retires he will have a military retirement, a state retirement including his military service and Social Security. It's not
    surprising that in DOD there are a high number of veterans as well as other occupations that carry guns; when I was a park ranger all the
    supervisors were retired military (we even had uniform inspections).

    As far as firemen; it seems we share similar thoughts. On some Navy bases it was common for a fireman to retire having never fought a real fire
    on base. Many times our fire crews would respond to civilian, off-base fires just for the experience even if it left our base unprotected. 25 years ago
    it cost the Navy a million dollars a year for the salaries of the crew of a single truck (last time I did a cost study), I suspect it has doubled since.
    Many years ago CalFire offered a lucrative buyout to employees, a cousin's brother in law received a 93% pension based on a salary that included overtime
    and 25 years service. Part of the legislative problem is that thanks to term limits, office holders are completely clueless about most personnel decisions and
    rely on lobbyists who are not working for the good of the state.



    Quote Originally Posted by CAL6371 View Post
    Thanks for the interesting response. You present a very interesting set of facts (many unknown to me).
    Although I was a prosecutor, I do not get a law enforcement pension and was never compensated for overtime (nor should I have been imo).
    I seriously doubt that 39% of public employees are veterans - that is way too high in my experience. Double dipping should be outlawed imo.
    The greatest abuse of public employee pensions are those of firemen. It is rare for a fireman in California to retire without a disability pension. They are the most coddled public servants I have ever seen - paid to sleep, can accumulate huge amounts of overtime pay to raise their pension payout, very few are badly injured in counties like mine, no one shouts abuse at them, they don't get pelted with rocks and garbage by onlookers, no one shoots at them, everyone is glad to see them etc. That is one of the hidden scandals no one discusses.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by 71Bear View Post
    I just retired in December from a private employer and received a very handsome pension. They still exist. You just need to find the right employer.
    Most private companies I've worked for have pensions for your generation but do not offer them for newer employees. Not saying all - just most.

    I'm against pensions in general. I am in favor of strong social security and retirement savings. I would also support a temporary pension for cops, etc. that ends when you reach social security age.

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by dajo9 View Post
    Most private companies I've worked for have pensions for your generation but do not offer them for newer employees. Not saying all - just most.I'm against pensions in general. I am in favor of strong social security and retirement savings. I would also support a temporary pension for cops, etc. that ends when you reach social security age.
    Honestly they (ss, pension, some investments) are all at some risk of insolvency as babies of baby boomers retire. Best to not have all your eggs in the "system"
    Last edited by tommie317; 02-22-2017 at 12:48 PM.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by tommie317 View Post
    Which ones give me 300% return in 3 years and 100% increase in monthly income? Non leveraged. You see rents out there? It's legal highway robbery
    Wow. That's impressive. Can't argue success.

  7. #22
    Loyal Bear Strykur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by burritos View Post
    Wow. That's impressive. Can't argue success.
    REITs are not volatile, but not very sexy investment vehicles either since they hedge by going into many rental markets for stability, whereas owning a property in the Bay Area will keep you afloat with the exception of a severe local downturn.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strykur View Post
    REITs are not volatile, but not very sexy investment vehicles either since they hedge by going into many rental markets for stability, whereas owning a property in the Bay Area will keep you afloat with the exception of a severe local downturn.
    Nothing against REIT, they are fine investment vehicles and certainly does not require any time/effort commitment. I was fortunately to have parents who got in to the landlord game and I learned from them. I'm actually fairly conservative in my investment style and probably left a lot of money on the table (and a wife that wants a big house).

  9. #24
    Loyal Bear Strykur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by tommie317 View Post
    Nothing against REIT, they are fine investment vehicles and certainly does not require any time/effort commitment. I was fortunately to have parents who got in to the landlord game and I learned from them. I'm actually fairly conservative in my investment style and probably left a lot of money on the table (and a wife that wants a big house).
    Could be worse, my mom does not even know what a money market account is. My day is working his way up the UCSF tenure ladder and hopefully my parents will have nothing to worry about later in life.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Strykur View Post
    REITs are not volatile, but not very sexy investment vehicles either since they hedge by going into many rental markets for stability, whereas owning a property in the Bay Area will keep you afloat with the exception of a severe local downturn.
    Sexy investor I definitely am not. The bulk of my shtuff is in vanguard target funds, yawn.

  11. #26
    True Blue Golden Bear Phantomfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,056
    Quote Originally Posted by travelingbears View Post
    Pension benefits are worse off now because pensions are a huge financial burden to a company/ organization; it's a huge competitive disadvantage. People are living longer and pensions really put a hindrance in an organization's ability to compete with limited resources.

    While I did work for a company that offered a pension, I have very mixed feelings about pensions and social security overall. Most employees don't have pensions to rely on when they retire; that's where saving for your own retirement (e.g., 401k) come into play.

    I might be in the minority with my feelings, but wanted to offer a different perspective for a healthy conversation.
    On the same note: The expectations of the '50s and especially '90s are entirely unrealistic.

    Those were exceptional times, massive booms with few left behind. Basing expectations on the best of times is a mistake. I feel that "millennials" (the ones who started work during and after the breakdown of expectations) will have a healthy understanding of what to expect (ie little).

    Just my 2 cents.

    FWIW, I asked my grandfather what his investing strategy was when he started. He said, "I knew I wouldn't have a pension, so I invested in companies that would provide a good steady cash flow when I retired." His fist stock buy cost him about 4x the price of the share he bought. He started at Cal the year after we last won the Rose Bowl (as an aside).

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Go!Bears View Post
    We don't get a pension for free. Why do veterans?
    Please. Nothing is free. Our veterans have earned their benefits through service and sacrifice.
    If you want to debate the level of benefits we as a society grant our veterans, fine. But don't imply that those benefits are not earned. Suggest you visit Arlington if this concept is still unclear to you.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by MarylandBear View Post
    Please. Nothing is free. Our veterans have earned their benefits through service and sacrifice.
    If you want to debate the level of benefits we as a society grant our veterans, fine. But don't imply that those benefits are not earned. Suggest you visit Arlington if this concept is still unclear to you.
    You might want to reread it again if you think that is the tone that I struck. The line you chose to spark your grievance was part of a paragraph: "Why would a pension system give service credit to someone who had not purchased it? In my system we pay 8+% of our salary annually for a year of credit (and it is going up). We don't get a pension for free. Why do veterans?"

    The pension system is giving them years of service credit without service - for free. If you had paid any attention to the rest of the post you might have seen that my point was not that veterans do not deserve pensions but that the Federal government is the agency that that owes them, not a state public pension fund.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by burritos View Post
    Sexy investor I definitely am not. The bulk of my shtuff is in vanguard target funds, yawn.
    Nothing wrong with that burritos. I bet they outperform 80% of the people in the market. And too, just remember, you are in as opposed to being catatonic

  15. #30
    Like most pensions, the bulk of the benefit accrues near the end years. Federal pensions are geared toward 30 years minimum on the job for civil service - less is much less. Life insurance is supposed to pay for the difference between the pension payout anticipated and the actual payout. However, the feds do not necessarily have a great life insurance policy for active workers - you have to buy in for more.

    For active duty, a better payout - especially if caused by work related incidents. If her death was caused, even a portion, by a work related incident, then there could be a workers comp claims / benefit that would supplement the pension.

    Almost all pensions are now with governmental entities. Almost no private employers have them, unless negotiated by a union, and there are fewer and fewer of those. Pensions all started to be eliminated in the 90s when the accounting people started to require employers to account for their pension liabilities and medical care liabilities on a current basis. So the big hit to all the companies profitability caused employers to eliminate pensions, as the new dot com companies did not have those things, and they were the new economy. That was the end of the pensions. Plus, it made it that much harder to sell your company to someone else, and it made it an easy target to be bought if your pension was fully funded (I think lots of 90s corporate raiding was related to plundering the pension funds - Carl Ichan was a treasure).




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •