The baby boomers are getting screwed, after financing the retirements for their parents, when they're ready to retire there will be little if any money left for them.
========================================================================
More Companies Ending Promises for Retirement

The New York Times
January 9, 2006

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

The death knell for the traditional company pension has been tolling for some time now. Companies in ailing industries like steel, airlines and auto parts have thrown themselves into bankruptcy and turned over their ruined pension plans to the federal government.

Now, with the recent announcements of pension freezes by some of the cream of corporate America - Verizon, Lockheed Martin, Motorola and, just last week, I.B.M. - the bell is tolling even louder. Even strong, stable companies with the means to operate a pension plan are facing longer worker lifespans, looming regulatory and accounting changes and, most important, heightened global competition. Some are deciding they either cannot, or will not, keep making the decades-long promises that a pension plan involves.

I.B.M. was once a standard-bearer for corporate America's compact with its workers, paying for medical expenses, country clubs and lavish Christmas parties for the children. It also rewarded long-serving employees with a guaranteed monthly stipend from retirement until death.

Most of those perks have long since been scaled back at I.B.M. and elsewhere, but the pension freeze is the latest sign that today's workers are, to a much greater extent, on their own. Companies now emphasize 401(k) plans, which leave workers responsible for ensuring that they have adequate funds for retirement and expose them to the vagaries of the financial markets.

"I.B.M. has, over the last couple of generations, defined an employer's responsibility to its employees," said Peter Capelli, a professor of management at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. "It paved the way for this kind of swap of loyalty for security."

Mr. Capelli called the switch from a pension plan to a 401(k) program "the most visible manifestation of the shifting of risk onto employees." He added: "People just have to deal with a lot more risk in their lives, because all these things that used to be more or less assured - a job, health care, a pension - are now variable."

I.B.M. said it is discontinuing its pension plan for competitive reasons, and that it plans to set up an unusually rich 401(k) plan as a replacement. The company is also trying to protect its own financial health and avoid the fate of companies like General Motors that have been burdened by pension costs. Freezing the pension plan can reduce the impact of external forces like interest-rate changes, which have made the plan cost much more than expected.

"It's the prudent, responsible thing to do right now," said J. Randall MacDonald, I.B.M.'s senior vice president for human resources. He said the new plan would "far exceed any average benchmark" in its attractiveness.

Pension advocates said they were dismayed that rich and powerful companies like I.B.M. and Verizon would abandon traditional pensions.

"With Verizon, we're talking about a company at the top of its game," said Karen Friedman, director of policy studies for the Pension Rights Center, an advocacy group in Washington. "They have a huge profit. Their C.E.O. has given himself a huge compensation package. And then they're saying, 'In order to compete, sorry, we have to freeze the pensions.' If companies freeze the pensions, what are employees left with?"

Verizon's chief executive, Ivan Seidenberg, said in December that his company's decision to freeze its pension plan for about 50,000 management employees would make the company more competitive, and also "provide employees a transition to a retirement plan more in line with current trends, allowing employees to have greater accountability in managing their own finances and for companies to offer greater portability through personal savings accounts."

In a pension freeze, the company stops the growth of its employees' retirement benefits, which normally build up with each additional year of service. When they retire, the employees will still receive the benefits they earned before the freeze.

Like I.B.M., Verizon said it would replace its frozen pension plan with a 401(k) plan, also known as a defined-contribution plan. This means the sponsoring employer creates individual savings accounts for workers, withholds money from their paychecks for them to contribute, and sometimes matches some portion of the contributions. But the participating employees are responsible for choosing an investment strategy. Traditional pensions are backed by a government guarantee; defined-contribution plans are not.

Precisely how many companies have frozen their pension plans is not known. Data collected by the government are old and imperfect, and companies do not always publicize the freezes. But the trend appears to be accelerating.

As recently as 2003, most of the plans that had been frozen were small ones, with less than 100 participants, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures traditional pensions. The freezes happened most often in troubled industries like steel and textiles, the guarantor found.

Only a year ago, when I.B.M. decided to close its pension plan to new employees, it said it was "still committed to defined-benefit pensions."

But now the company has given its imprimatur to the exodus from traditional pensions. Its pension fund, the third largest behind General Motors and General Electric, is a pace-setter. Industry surveys suggest that more big, healthy companies will do what I.B.M. did this year and next.

"There's a little bit of a herd mentality," said Syl Schieber, director of research for Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a large consulting firm that surveyed the nation's 1,000 largest companies and reported a sharp increase in the number of pension freezes in 2004 and 2005. The thinking grows out of boardroom relationships, he said, where leaders of large companies compare notes and discuss strategy.

Another factor appears to be impatience with long-running efforts by Congress to tighten the pension rules, Mr. Schieber said. Congress has been struggling for three years with the problem of how to make sure companies measure their pension promises accurately - a key to making sure they set aside enough money to make good. But it is likely to be costly for some companies to reserve enough money to meet the new rules, and they - and some unions - have lobbied hard to keep the existing rules intact, or even to weaken them. So far, consensus has eluded the lawmakers.

"If Congress will not do its job and clarify the regulatory environment, then I think more and more companies will come to the conclusion that, given everything else that they've got to face, this just isn't the way to go," Mr. Schieber said of the traditional pension route.

Defined-benefit pensions proliferated after World War II and reached their peak in the late 1970's, when about 62 percent of all active workers were covered solely by such plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a Washington organization financed by companies and unions. A slow, steady erosion then began, and by 1997, only 13 percent of workers had a pension plan as their sole retirement benefit. The percentage has held steady in the years since then. The growth of defined-contribution plans has mirrored the disappearance of pension plans. In 1979, 16 percent of active workers had a defined contribution plan and no pension, but by 2004 the number had grown to 62 percent.

For many workers, the movement away from traditional pensions is going to be difficult. Already there are signs that people are retiring later, or taking other jobs to support themselves in old age. Participation in a pension plan is involuntary, but most 401(k) plans let employees decide whether to contribute any money - or none at all. Research shows that many people fail to put money into their retirement accounts, or invest it poorly once it is there.

Even skillful 401(k) investors can be badly tripped up if the markets tumble just at the time they were planning to retire. Mr. Schieber of Watson Wyatt ran scenarios of what would happen to a hypothetical man who went to work at 25, put 6 percent of his pay into a 401(k) account every year for 40 years, retired at 65, then withdrew his account balance and used it to buy an annuity, a financial product that, like a pension, pays a lifelong monthly stipend.

He found that if the man turned 65 in 2000 he would have enough 401(k) savings to buy an annuity that paid 134 percent of his pre-retirement income. But if he turned 65 in 2003, his 401(k) savings would only buy an annuity rich enough to replace 57 percent of his pre-retirement income.

When a company switches from a pension plan to a 401(k) plan, the transition is hardest on the older workers. That is because they lose their final years in the pension plan - often the years when they would have built up the biggest part of their benefit. They then start from zero in the new retirement plan.

Jack VanDerhei, an actuary who is a fellow at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, offered a hypothetical example. If a man joins a firm at 40, works 15 years, and is making $80,000 a year by age 55, he might expect to have built up a pension worth $16,305 a year by that time, Mr. VanDerhei said. If he keeps on working under the same pension plan, that benefit will have increased to $27,175 a year when he retires at 65.

But if instead when the man turns 55 his company freezes the pension plan and sets up a 401(k) plan, the man will get just the $16,305 a year, plus whatever he is able to amass in the 401(k). It will take both discipline and investment skill to reach the equivalent of the old pension payments in just ten years, Mr. VanDerhei said.

For women, the challenge is even tougher. They have longer life expectancies, so they have to pay more than men if they buy annuities in the open market. It turns out the traditional, pooled pension offered them a perk they did not even know they had.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

I have no problem with this.  It's the individual's responsibility to prepare, plan and pay for retirement.

Quoted: I have no problem with this.  It's the individual's responsibility to prepare, plan and pay for retirement.

+1

The sooner we "retire" this idea of a "pension" the sooner more people will get back to buying cars made in this country.

Quoted: Quoted: I have no problem with this.  It's the individual's responsibility to prepare, plan and pay for retirement. +1 The sooner we "retire" this idea of a "pension" the sooner more people will get back to buying cars made in this country.

+2

Start saving for retirement now! Doesn't matter how old you are.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have no problem with this.  It's the individual's responsibility to prepare, plan and pay for retirement. +1 The sooner we "retire" this idea of a "pension" the sooner more people will get back to buying cars made in this country. +2 Start saving for retirement now! Doesn't matter how old you are.

So true. After all, by the time we are done paying for the grasshopper we will hardly have enough left for ourselves.

"I.B.M. has, over the last couple of generations, defined an employer's responsibility to its employees," said Pe0ter Capelli

Wow! I missed when pensions became entitlements!

Mr. Capelli called the switch from a pension plan to a 401(k) program "the most visible manifestation of the shifting of risk onto employees." He added: "People just have to deal with a lot more risk in their lives, because all these things that used to be more or less assured - a job, health care, a pension - are now variable."

Shifting risk to employees? Pensions always were a case of having your eggs in one basket. If the company does poorly - you are out. Pensions have always depended upon the company growing continuosly, not only in size but in profitability. Of course, this is impossible in the long term. Eventually you will have more retirees than workers.

Pensions - a stupid idea whose time has passed.

I have 7 years to go until I collect my Govt. Pension and Soc. Sec.
These plus some investment income will allow me to live comfortably.
I will also have good health care at a reasonable cost.

I will NOT be Wealthy however.

I am sure I could have done better had I gone into business for myself ;
IF I had been successful , and IF I had invested wisely.

However , when I started working , over 40 years ago , Pensions and Social Security were
as good as gold (probably not so now and in the future)

Fortunately , my Pension is as guaranteed as anything , and SS will be solvent until I am
in the Grave.

I worked and contributed $$ to get both my Pension and SS , and my fellow employees
and the govt. got the use  of the money.

I made a deal - a Contract - with my employer and with  Society.

In return ,I get a small Lifetime income. (not a great investment return , but sufficient)

So , In my opinion , I am Entitled

Quoted: I worked and contributed $$ to get both my Pension and SS , and my fellow employees and the govt. got the use  of the money. I made a deal - a Contract - with my employer and with  Society. In return ,I get a small Lifetime income. (not a great investment return , but sufficient) So , In my opinion , I am Entitled

Of course you are. That's not what I meant.
What I meant is that working for a company doesn't entitle one to a pension, unless, of course, there is an agreement.

But agreements notwithstanding, I think anyone who will retire more than 15 years from now and is depending upon a pension is foolish. The Gov't pensions will last longer, but I'll bet that 90% of corporate pensions either go bust or will be discontinued in the next 20 years. The Gov't will not be able to cover all of the liabilities. After all, they won't even be able to cover Social Security.