John Deere strike imminent?

[Sigmapolis]

I’m not referring to the warm and fuzzy… I’m referring to you making an idiotic statement for something that currently happens today.

People and a lot of them live in a one income home and survive as the OP was amazed by.

Are you too dense to realize the subtext there is "you can't do this anymore?"

The last line from the OP was, "The world has changed so much, in worker-unfriendly ways."

And my retort was, "Sure you can, if you're willing to tolerate a much lower standard of living."

Very few people are just actually willing to do that.

My point follows from there and you haven't even tried to refute it -- you just pounded your chest.

Build a 1950s standard of living up on modern prices and it's incredibly affordable.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I am more tolerant of the disability insurance elements of Social Security than I am the old age income elements of it. You could have the former without the latter very easily and only need to collect a fraction of 12.4% of your income that the system currently collects from workers and employers.

That being said, disability insurance was a financial product that people bought before Social Security came into existence. Why not mandate employers have to buy disability insurance for their employees based on the actuarial risk of the work? After all, a bank won't give you a loan for a home without insurance on it and you can't drive a car on the road without insurance, so why not for having employees, too?

Plus, Social Security's version of disability insurance is higher cost than it needs to be. The product could be cheaper if the "insurance company" (really SSA) was investing at a 5% return instead of a 0% return like it is. So there's even an inefficient cost for the program beneficiaries baked into that aspect of it.



I do think this is a fair and good faith concern.

But suggesting a compromise...

Still collect the money. But make the default an S&P 500 index fund and not U.S. bonds.

Long-term real rate of return more like 5-8% instead of 0%.

My father never received any Social Security because he had railroad retirement instead. And the Railroad Retirement Board works like SS -- mandatory contribution of a certain share of your income -- but then it invests the money on behalf of beneficiaries to generate a return. The RRB something like a 6.5% return on his savings throughout his lifetime, which was worth (to give vague ranges out of modesty) something between $500,000 and $1 MM once he reached the typical retirement age.

There's a reason the RRB (and the railroad unions) have resisted being folded into Social Security and demanded their separate system remain separate for decades. They have smart accountants and attorneys that have told them how much better their special system is than general SS.

Any program that does not have to worry about paying out money to others is always going to give out a greater retire. Does the RR retirement program pay for the kids of the family down the street that just lost his life? No, only to the family of the retire when they pass on. But does SS pay for the those kids, it sure does.
So not only are you paying for yourself and your future, but the future off those less fortunate. Its one of the threads that holds our society together.

If pension plans were a rip off and was a poor deal for the company, they would still have them. Companies figured out years ago, by moving too a 401K program you can sell it to the worker on the idea "its their money, and when they leave it goes with them." But to get anything, you have to contribute to the program, they know that many young workers have little money left over to save for retirement, so it costs them less to match that money. But in a defined retirements program, the employer and employee are paying into the system from the first check onward.
Yes, you give up control of where the money is invested, but you are also guaranteed a set return, after 30 years based on your salary. If the worker passes away, his beneficiary gets a set amount of money, worth the value of the retirement when they pass away. They can also give a fixed amount to the heir of choice when they pass.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Any program that does not have to worry about paying out money to others is always going to give out a greater retire. Does the RR retirement program pay for the kids of the family down the street that just lost his life? No, only to the family of the retire when they pass on. But does SS pay for the those kids, it sure does.
So not only are you paying for yourself and your future, but the future off those less fortunate. Its one of the threads that holds our society together.

If pension plans were a rip off and was a poor deal for the company, they would still have them. Companies figured out years ago, by moving too a 401K program you can sell it to the worker on the idea "its their money, and when they leave it goes with them." But to get anything, you have to contribute to the program, they know that many young workers have little money left over to save for retirement, so it costs them less to match that money. But in a defined retirements program, the employer and employee are paying into the system from the first check onward.
Yes, you give up control of where the money is invested, but you are also guaranteed a set return, after 30 years based on your salary. If the worker passes away, his beneficiary gets a set amount of money, worth the value of the retirement when they pass away. They can also give a fixed amount to the heir of choice when they pass.

I'm not getting into the DC/DB thing with you again.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I'm not getting into the DC/DB thing with you again.

You were the one talking up the RR retirement plan, which is a defined benefits program. The only difference is it does not pay into SS, while programs like IPERS does.

 

[Sigmapolis]

You were the one talking up the RR retirement plan, which is a defined benefits program. The only difference is it does not pay into SS, while programs like IPERS does.

The point about RR isn't DB/DC. Didn't discuss that at all.

The point was RR is invested in the market -- like IPERS -- and generates a real rate of return (unlike SS). You're right that RR is structured much more like a typical DB pension... and SS is not.

Therefore, RR gives its participants much more for their buck than does SS for the general population.

I just don't see why you can't do it for SS if it works so well for RR and IPERS. Forcing poor Americans to save but giving them market-average returns in the long term would be a big upgrade.

 

[jsb]

You could still do all that on one income today pretty easily.

If you're willing to live in a house and drive a car with the amenities of the same from 1950 and you swear to forego and medical treatments and technologies that were invented after 1950.

And if you want to eat the bland canned and processed food that dominated American diets at the time, only have one tiny TV, no cable or Internet or mobile phones, and no air travel.

You want to live for next-to-nothing in rural Oklahoma working at a carbon black plant, then I'm sure you'd be able to do it. But very few people actually want to go back to living like that.

This is dumb because the standard of living you are describing from the 50's WAS a big deal back then. It isn't like that was scrimping and saving. That was the standard middle class life. TVs cost at least $150 in the 1950's. That's like $1700 today. I paid $250 for a cheap 43 inch TV last year.

 

[isucy86]

Why would anyone want to be a CEO if they didn't make a bunch of money. The whole point of striving to get in that position is money. Try paying someone a little more than the normal employees and see if they take that job. It's bizarre to me that some people strive to be the best and people think they should not be rewarded. I would want nothing to do with being a CEO of a huge company.

I don't think the issue is CEO's making substantially more than the average employee. It's that CEO pay has grown exponentially over the last 30 years while pay for mid-level management and below has grown maybe 3-5% annually.

I worked for a Fortune 10 company out of college in the late 80's and the companies CEO was considered one of the pre-eminent CEO's in the world and he made like $8M annually plus bonus, options and perks that doubled his salary.

About 10 years later in 1999 he was making over $90M annually plus benefits & perks. When he retired less than a decade later he was paid a lump sum of over $300M and received an annual pension close to $100K. And that pales comp for top corporate CEO's is today.

Being a CEO is a tough job and they deserve making big bucks. But mid-level manager and below employee pay is lagging. And that is an issue. And it is not only Corporations- pay for people at the top has grown far faster than mid to entry level employees.

 

[Sigmapolis]

This is dumb because the standard of living you are describing from the 50's WAS a big deal back then. It isn't like that was scrimping and saving. That was the standard middle class life.

This only complements my point.

You wouldn't need very much income -- far below the median income, or even the median income for workers without a college degree -- nowadays to have a 1950s standard of living.

A plywood box for a house. An old beater car that barely works the whole family has to share. Canned food on the shelves and frozen food in the refrigerator. One small TV with rabbit ears. No cable, Internet, maybe a landline at most for a phone, virtually no medical or dental care in terms of our modern understanding of the same, and certainly no air travel or really travel outside of your county/state. No consumer electronics, of course, few kitchen appliances (e.g., no dishwasher), and definitely no air conditioning.

That more-or-less describes a 1950s standard of living.

A truck driver in 2021 could afford all that -- easily -- with plenty left over.

It took all of one income back then. Wouldn't take much of one income to do it now.

The problem isn't the labor market. The problem (if it is one) is we collectively want a higher standard of living than that and, in most cases, women want to work (and they should if they do).

Somebody could very easily have that "1950s ideal" if they wanted it, though.

 

[BCClone]

This only complements my point.

You wouldn't need very much income -- far below the median income, or even the median income for workers without a college degree -- nowadays to have a 1950s standard of living.

A plywood box for a house. An old beater car that barely works the whole family has to share. Canned food on the shelves and frozen food in the refrigerator. One small TV with rabbit ears. No cable, Internet, maybe a landline at most for a phone, virtually no medical or dental care in terms of our modern understanding of the same, and certainly no air travel or really travel outside of your county/state. No consumer electronics, of course, few kitchen appliances (e.g., no dishwasher), and definitely no air conditioning.

That more-or-less describes a 1950s standard of living.

A truck driver in 2021 could afford all that -- easily -- with plenty left over.

It took all of one income back then. Wouldn't take much of one income to do it now.

The problem isn't the labor market. The problem (if it is one) is we collectively want a higher standard of living than that and, in most cases, women want to work (and they should if they do).

Somebody could very easily have that "1950s ideal" if they wanted it, though.

I figured you were going to save they had a 12.3% jump on today’s workers right away.

 

[jsb]

This only complements my point.

You wouldn't need very much income -- far below the median income, or even the median income for workers without a college degree -- nowadays to have a 1950s standard of living.

A plywood box for a house. An old beater car that barely works the whole family has to share. Canned food on the shelves and frozen food in the refrigerator. One small TV with rabbit ears. No cable, Internet, maybe a landline at most for a phone, virtually no medical or dental care in terms of our modern understanding of the same, and certainly no air travel or really travel outside of your county/state. No consumer electronics, of course, few kitchen appliances (e.g., no dishwasher), and definitely no air conditioning.

That more-or-less describes a 1950s standard of living.

A truck driver in 2021 could afford all that -- easily -- with plenty left over.

It took all of one income back then. Wouldn't take much of one income to do it now.

The problem isn't the labor market. The problem (if it is one) is we collectively want a higher standard of living than that and, in most cases, women want to work (and they should if they do).

Somebody could very easily have that "1950s ideal" if they wanted it, though.

but that 50’s standard of living COST A LOT of 1950’s dollars then. Of course that standard would be cheap now. But back then it wasn’t cheap.

 

[3TrueFans]

This only complements my point.

You wouldn't need very much income -- far below the median income, or even the median income for workers without a college degree -- nowadays to have a 1950s standard of living.

A plywood box for a house. An old beater car that barely works the whole family has to share. Canned food on the shelves and frozen food in the refrigerator. One small TV with rabbit ears. No cable, Internet, maybe a landline at most for a phone, virtually no medical or dental care in terms of our modern understanding of the same, and certainly no air travel or really travel outside of your county/state. No consumer electronics, of course, few kitchen appliances (e.g., no dishwasher), and definitely no air conditioning.

That more-or-less describes a 1950s standard of living.

A truck driver in 2021 could afford all that -- easily -- with plenty left over.

It took all of one income back then. Wouldn't take much of one income to do it now.

The problem isn't the labor market. The problem (if it is one) is we collectively want a higher standard of living than that and, in most cases, women want to work (and they should if they do).

Somebody could very easily have that "1950s ideal" if they wanted it, though.

Your argument is that in 2021 you could live at a standard of living 60 years in the past on one income?

If in 2021 it takes only part of 1 income to live at a standard of living of the 1950's does that mean families with one income in the 1950's were living like it was 1890?

 

[mramseyISU]

For the strikers?

I’m assuming so. I took a drive over by Engineworks a bit ago and they have temporary fencing set up along with the big Musco lights by the roads leading into the parking lot.

 

[BCClone]

I’m assuming so. I took a drive over by Engineworks a bit ago and they have temporary fencing set up along with the big Musco lights by the roads leading into the parking lot.

Just hope it stays peaceful. My BIL was unemployed once and took a job while a strike was happening. They slashed his tires at work and came to his home and threatened him and my sister. There were other incidents but I remember those specifically.

 

[mramseyISU]

Just hope it stays peaceful. My BIL was unemployed once and took a job while a strike was happening. They slashed his tires at work and came to his home and threatened him and my sister. There were other incidents but I remember those specifically.

Yeah I hope it does too. Us salary people will have to come build product starting on Friday if it comes to that. Nobody really wants to do that but that’s the job for now.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

The point about RR isn't DB/DC. Didn't discuss that at all.

The point was RR is invested in the market -- like IPERS -- and generates a real rate of return (unlike SS). You're right that RR is structured much more like a typical DB pension... and SS is not.

Therefore, RR gives its participants much more for their buck than does SS for the general population.

I just don't see why you can't do it for SS if it works so well for RR and IPERS. Forcing poor Americans to save but giving them market-average returns in the long term would be a big upgrade.

Its simple, SS was set up to help those that need it, not just those that are family of those that are working. So you want to throw SS into the market with the idea that it will increase returns, there is no guarantee that will happen.

I guess I just do not understand how some people cannot just be fine with the idea that their SS payments will help them down the line when they retire, but also others today that need the help now. The system you are talking about would lock up the money only for you and your family, but not others.

SS is the best idea to help the old, sick and injuried that has ever occurred, not only does it provide a safety net for those that need it now, it also is one part of a retirement plan for you future.

 

[isucy86]

The point about RR isn't DB/DC. Didn't discuss that at all.

The point was RR is invested in the market -- like IPERS -- and generates a real rate of return (unlike SS). You're right that RR is structured much more like a typical DB pension... and SS is not.

Therefore, RR gives its participants much more for their buck than does SS for the general population.

I just don't see why you can't do it for SS if it works so well for RR and IPERS. Forcing poor Americans to save but giving them market-average returns in the long term would be a big upgrade.

Agree 100%. Social Security was a solid program when formed back in the depression. But today its a tool that keeps lower income working folks, lower income retirees. It helps perpetuate vast class income differences.

Most middle class and upper middle class folks are invested in the stock market through their companies 401K plans and outside investments. PLUS they will get SS at retirement and likely proceeds from a home sale (assuming they downsize) or move to senior housing.

Most lower income people don't have the flexibility to save (at least to level as middle class workers) during their lifetime, so they basically have SS at retirement and possibly proceeds from a home sale.

Sure a lot of politicians like to demonize investing in the stock market, but it can be the easiest way to accumulate wealth over a working career that spans 40 years. Index funds comprised of the top 500 or 1000 companies have returned over 12% annually over the last 15-20 years.

 

[BCClone]

Yeah I hope it does too. Us salary people will have to come build product starting on Friday if it comes to that. Nobody really wants to do that but that’s the job for now.

Note to self, don’t buy a tractor made from 10/15/21 to…….

 

[NWICY]

There was a time several decades ago when a high school graduate could be a wage worker at Deere and adequately support their family on their one income. Over the years, those wages and benefits have declined so much that those days are long gone.

Deere just reported around $6 billion in profits, their CEO raked in millions, but they're having difficulties filling their wage positions. If there ever was a time for their union to strike, it's now.

The challenge is these wage workers can't afford to strike for very long, but management can't afford a long shutdown either, so the game of chicken begins.

Depending on how long they've been there and what they are making, you might be able to strike for quite a while or take a new job and not be behind. Anecdotal but a friends son over at the windmill factory in Newton says many there have left and have got a raise for leaving.

 

[Macloney]

@CycloneJL I was curious about how many picket lines you would say you've been to?

Because the one I used to visit friends at was the same one that Joe Biden visited in Kansas City, KS in 2019. I was a little bummed out that they only had Busch Light, but the sunshades and variety of food made up for it.

 

[mramseyISU]

Note to self, don’t buy a tractor made from 10/15/21 to…….

Don’t worry they’ll probably work fine with all the dumbass proofing that’s been done out there.