Unfunded Private Pensions Bad, Unfunded Public Pensions Good
Sep 04 2006, 19:03 EDT [updated Sep 04 2006, 19:13 EDT]
The New Yorker recently published The Risk Pool which does an OK job of explaining the origins of company pension plans and a good job of explaining their current and inherent problems.
    The most influential management theorist of the twentieth century was Peter Drucker, who, in 1950, wrote an extraordinarily prescient article for Harper's entitled "The Mirage of Pensions." It ought to be reprinted for every steelworker, airline mechanic, and autoworker who is worried about his retirement. Drucker simply couldn't see how the pension plans on the table at companies like G.M. could ever work. "For such a plan to give real security, the financial strength of the company and its economic success must be reasonably secure for the next forty years," Drucker wrote. "But is there any one company or any one industry whose future can be predicted with certainty for even ten years ahead?" He concluded, "The recent pension plans thus offer no more security against the big bad wolf of old age than the little piggy's house of straw."
It is hard to go wrong when quoting Drucker but they do a good job of it. In the freshman primer for Socialists there must be a chapter titled "Capitalism's small failures demonstrate they aren't thinking big enough." After pointing out all the ways that unfunded pensions were bad the New Yorker asserts that those same ideas would have worked just fine if they had been born by the whole population. GM and Beth Steel are slammed for making promises they had no ability to keep (pensions for all workers now to be paid for by future workers that might not exist). The article laments that the collective version preferred by the unions of the times wasn't tried. Somehow it doesn't manage to mention Social Security which is exactly the collective version of the company pension plans and which is failing for exactly the same reasons. Failure does scale but for some reason the author wants the reader to think the big version hasn't been tried. This is really stunning when the meat of the article is talking about the ratio of workers to retirees.

The article has a couple cute mentions and omissions.

    The president of General Motors at the time was Charles E. Wilson, known as Engine Charlie. Wilson was one of the highest-paid corporate executives in America, earning $586,100 (and paying, incidentally, $430,350 in taxes). He was in contract talks with Walter Reuther, the national president of the U.A.W. The two men had already agreed on a cost-of-living allowance. Now Wilson went one step further, and, for the first time, offered every G.M. employee health-care benefits and a pension.
The mention is that taxes used to be much higher (yay!). The omission is that health care benefits and pensions were offered as compensation because they were tax exempt. Every dollar an employee got in health benefits was a dollar they didn't have to split with the tax man. GM could either spend $1 and have the workers receive that $1 (to offset health costs) or spend $1 for their workers to receive part of that. From both the worker's and management's perspective providing health care was a slam dunk.

0.10 seconds
jackdied.com 2003-2007