Cory Booker slams Obama campaign ad attacking Romney’s Bain Capital record

[Malcolm Wright]

That's essentially how my pension works.

Ok, then there's something I don't understand about the GS Technologies story.
How did they lose part of their pensions if the company was making regular payments every pay cycle, to a third party that did not suffer the collapse of the company?

Hmm...

[jwreck]

Haha, so your example of 'evil government' somehow means any talk of 'evil priveate business' propaganda? Its an either/or situation?

I don't want to make it about you anymore than you force me to. I started trying to make basic, personal examples to bring something home to you that you are pathologically keeping at a distance. But that's ok - arguing with a sociopath because you want him to have more compassion is like arguing a cat should sprout wings. I realize that's not realistic

All good, mate. I'm done. As usual its all been a learning experience.

M.

Your reading comprehension has gone to shit.

[Chachma v'Oz]

That's essentially how my pension works.

That's my understanding of how the Teamsters pension plan works, too. No matter where they work, as teamsters a part of their pay is directed to their pension plan, administered by the union. It ain't free, by any stretch of the imagination.

[jwreck]

Reductio ad absurdum is apparently now Malcom's theme.

[Lulu]

How does it work in the US?
In NZ and Australia, companies pay into a pension fund that is independently managed, every pay cycle. So the money is already paid over to a third party, and gets released at retirement.

M.

Works pretty much the same here. However, if the company was running short or wanted that money back, they can do that. It's not fair but as they say, life isn't fair. This is a very different working environment than 40 years ago and people have to adjust their planning and thought processes imo.

[jwreck]

That's my understanding of how the Teamsters pension plan works, too. No matter where they work, as teamsters a part of their pay is directed to their pension plan, administered by the union. It ain't free, by any stretch of the imagination.

Ours isn't technically administered by the union, it is a seperate private board (staffed by union members of course).

[Lulu]

I think the bottom line is you don't realize your value to the company and are willing to work for less than you're worth without realizing it. Your employer isn't giving you anything and you seem to feel that even that's actually more than you're earning for him.

No wonder some employers discourage employees from organizing. Union workers know their value to their employer and are compensated appropriately for it, contractually, just like professionals negotiate compensation packages based on their worth to the company.

Thank Goodness for workers who feel like you do. Without those, there'd be less for managers, supervisors and union workers to take home on payday. There's only so much allotted for labor costs, and the less some employees expect, the more left over for those who understand their value.

No one should put all his eggs in one basket if it's avoidable. I negotiated for a pension plan but also invested in IRAs on my own. We all need a plan B, but that doesn't mean we can be cavalier, or think we're not paying for, plan A too.

Heh, if only you knew how grossly overpaid I am for the job I do and how many hours I actually work So even though yes, ^^ that is patronizing, I'm just keeping it real with what my worth is. I have to go now to do my overpaid job with a company that has a bloated infrastructure and too much middle management and corporate waste.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Ours isn't technically administered by the union, it is a seperate private board (staffed by union members of course).

I generalized because I'm not sure of the details, just the concept (of which I approve. Industry/union pensions are much more stable and dependable than company pensions).

My pension may be insured by the PBGC, but I don't consider it to as good as gold. When I was in the workforce I was in direct control of our household income. Once I retired we are dependent on others to meet their contractual obligations to us, obligations made over many years of employment and that now cannot be replaced. That can evaporate in a heartbeat if the company, or plan administrator, files for bankruptcy and pleads that the pension plan is unaffordable. All it takes is a judge to agree and the pension disappears.

If enough companies take that route to renig on their obligations to past employees, the PBGC will disappear too.

That's why we need a plan B. We can't protect ourselves from every catastrophic scenario, but we can be prudent in how we arrange our affairs to minimize their impact individually on our security once we no longer represent a marketable skill set.

There's a lot to be said for planning ahead.

[Chachma v'Oz]

So even though yes, ^^ that is patronizing, I'm just keeping it real with what my worth is.

I apologize for being patronizing. I'm trying to express, based on my experience, that you appear to be a bit naïve as to how your total compensation is arrived at. I assure you that the entire cost of your compensation package does not exceed your value to the operation, at least not for long.

If you were compensated as the result of sitting down with your employer periodically and hammering out the details, you might have a better appreciation of where it comes from, how much it really is, and exactly who's paying for what. I assure you that nobody gets anything for free, ultimately.

[Malcolm Wright]

This seems to epitomize the difference between union thinking and non-union thinking. Union types tend to think that once you've secured a job, your professional life is complete. All that's left to do is collect your step raises and senority based promotions until you retire.

I certainly don't think the union way. I've worked for more companies than I can recall. But for those who settle down with a mortgage, and had kids to put through college, I can empathize with them counting on their benefits and pensions to actually be honored. That's the difference, as we've established many times already - empathy.

As far as contracts, the contract wasn't with Bain as far as I know, it was with the original company. When that company is no longer feasible, the contract goes away. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Seems obvious to me too. But the reason there was no money to paid out into pensions when the company went under is that Bain made a conscious decision to remove that liquidity from the company.

You have not ONCE made even passing reference to this in all my attempts to get you to discuss it, so we'll just have to leave it at that. You close your eyes, plug your ears, and speak about generalities. I guess you don't want to take a closer look.

M.

[Malcolm Wright]

Works pretty much the same here. However, if the company was running short or wanted that money back, they can do that. It's not fair but as they say, life isn't fair. This is a very different working environment than 40 years ago and people have to adjust their planning and thought processes imo.

Over here, they can't do that.
Its more than not fair, its ridiculous.

Its no different from if they were able to dip into your bank account and take out the past couple of months of salary they paid you. You should feel the same way about the pension dipping as you would about that.

M.

[Malcolm Wright]

Your reading comprehension has gone to shit.

Oh. Did I imagine you giving an example of treacherous government, then concluding:

"So all this hand wringing about the evils of private business is just so much propaganda."

M.

[jwreck]

What exactly would you like me to say? The purpose of buying a company is to obtain any assets the company may have and try to make money off them. That's the nature of the business. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on that.

Just because I don't think that this is all somehow evil and the work of the devil himself Romney doesn't mean I don't empathize with those it happened to. Its really gotta suck to realize you've tied your horse to a losing proposition. That doesn't mean that companies like Bain should be blamed for it. If they hadn't come in the company would have failed anyway and these people would still be SOL.

[jwreck]

Over here, they can't do that.
Its more than not fair, its ridiculous.

Its no different from if they were able to dip into your bank account and take out the past couple of months of salary they paid you. You should feel the same way about the pension dipping as you would about that.

M.

So don't accept a pension as compensation.

[jwreck]

Oh. Did I imagine you giving an example of treacherous government, then concluding:

"So all this hand wringing about the evils of private business is just so much propaganda."

M.

Its called a counterpoint. It means that not EVERY case is the same. It is not an either/or situation. But then you knew that.

[hadit]

What exactly would you like me to say? The purpose of buying a company is to obtain any assets the company may have and try to make money off them. That's the nature of the business. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on that.

Just because I don't think that this is all somehow evil and the work of the devil himself Romney doesn't mean I don't empathize with those it happened to. Its really gotta suck to realize you've tied your horse to a losing proposition. That doesn't mean that companies like Bain should be blamed for it. If they hadn't come in the company would have failed anyway and these people would still be SOL.

And therein lies the problem. Right now, Romney is the Republican candidate, so of course democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) are going to cast every move he's made in his life (apparently high school counts now) as evil. It does, however, put them in the uncomfortable position of characterizing as heartless actions that preserve more jobs than they destroy. I have put this out several times, and have yet to see a valid answer.

If a company cannot afford to pay all its workers, what should it do if it cannot lay off a thousand people to save the jobs of tens or hundreds of thousands of other people? IOW, is it morally superior for a company to go out of business than to lay off some workers and keep going? And yes, that includes management too. The company I work for now is small enough that when we were faced with a budget shortfall, the top two layers of management took pay cuts and saved enough money to avoid layoffs. Large companies often just don't have that ability.

[Malcolm Wright]

What exactly would you like me to say? The purpose of buying a company is to obtain any assets the company may have and try to make money off them. That's the nature of the business. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on that.

I've explained why I'm hung up on it. Because people and the environment suffer immensely at the hands of these mechanisms devoid of ethics and morality. You avoided that whole topic by saying I'm exaggerating but we've come full circle and you here again show that you basically accept this system as it is. So my suspicions about you rubber-stamping the root cause of our greatest problems were well founded.

You see the smart, compassionate capitalists realize the only way they can argue that capitalism can be a positive force in the world is by relying on the ethics of individuals doing business. If you favor a system in which there is no built-in mechanism of philanthropy, no safety nets, then the respect of ethics in conducting business becomes your last bastion of honor. Once you've lost that, you have no honor. You have become a profit machine, an unthinking slave to the corporate scheme, and you won't even realize the harm you do anymore: its all part of the game after all, right?

Just because I don't think that this is all somehow evil and the work of the devil himself Romney doesn't mean I don't empathize with those it happened to. Its really gotta suck to realize you've tied your horse to a losing proposition. That doesn't mean that companies like Bain should be blamed for it. If they hadn't come in the company would have failed anyway and these people would still be SOL.

Bain can be blamed very accurately to the tune of the profits they made at the direct expense of the health care and pension benefits that were owed those employees. Sorry, Jwreck. You can invoke the law of the jungle as much as you like - there is still a very direct and simple relationship of cause and effect at work here.

[Malcolm Wright]

Its called a counterpoint. It means that not EVERY case is the same. It is not an either/or situation. But then you knew that.

Ah perfect. It was your articulation that went to shit then, not my reading skills. If that is what you meant, then you should have said:

"So all this hand wringing about evil springing solely from private business is just so much propaganda."

Instead of:

"So all this hand wringing about the evils of private business is just so much propaganda."

I know, it is frustrating when people don't understand what you're saying because you don't find the right words. But blaming the other person for it won't ever help. I misspeak too - but I also happily admit when something I say was not clear.

M.

[Chachma v'Oz]

"It's not the target's responsibility for the arrow to hit the bull's eye."

-- Chachma v'Oz

[hadit]

This is a very interesting campaign already!
I watched the video, then read the Reuters write up:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8050LL20120108

In the end, my feeling is that although Bain Capital's operations are more or less accepted practice: they are none the less deserving of blame when they go horribly wrong for the workers, yet still make a pretty penny for Bain Capital.

Its called responsibility. Either you believe Bain Capital should be responsible for its actions, or you don't. It really is as simple as that.

The line is a fine one and I think it is demarcated by how much profit a firm like Bain makes on the death of one of its companies. That makes this instance fairly clear cut for me. Thousands of workers lost their jobs, health care benefits, and saw their pensions slashed. Bain Capital walked away with millions of dollars. The workers interviewed in this campaign piece have every right to feel like they were sucked dry.

If Bain Capital had forfeited their profit to help cover the loss of health care, benefits and pensions, it would not have bridged the gap for the workers entirely, but it would have been a significant help - instead of just letting the federal government step in to provide minimum benefits for the workers, effectively making the American taxpayers pay for Bain Capital's failure. Bain Capital still would have walked away with close to a million dollars in 'management consulting fees' - not a small sum considering their management consulting resulted in terrible management decisions and contributed to the ultimate demise of the company. But Bain Capital chose to run with millions of dollars in profit from the merger they orchestrated and the debt they took out in the name of the steel works company.

I'm afraid I agree with the campaign ad.

M.

1. Bain invested millions in the company and held on to it for 8 years. That is not your typical buy 'em, gut 'em and move on corporate manuver.
2. Romney wasn't even with Bain for two years before the steel company finally went under.

Do you still see no disagreement with the ad at all?