CSotD: It’s the most Scroogiest time of the year!
Skip to comments
Signe Wilkinson sounds a warning from the Detroit bankruptcy, in which the court ruled that the city's pension obligations could be part of the negotiations, which, she notes, should scare anyone on a public pension these days.
Well, yes. And I am not a lawyer,but I don't think even the lawyers are going to have a real handle on what this means until it unfolds a little further.
Here are a few things I do know, and a few I think I know:
There are people out there who blame pensions for bankruptcies, and there is no denying that pensions can be a large item on the spreadsheet. Not the only one, but a large one certainly.
From there, it gets a little dodgy, because of how pensions are paid for, which is to say, ideally you have a fund that generates enough profit/interest to pay your obligations. Which leads us into the Land of the Beancounters, which in turn summons forth by happy coincidence today's Candorville:
With the right hired guns, you can prove any damn thing you want, and pensions make an attractive target because not only can the numbers be lined up readily, but any opportunity to blast unions in a public relations sense is welcome, given that blasting them in a literal sense is still somewhat frowned upon.
But for all the ins-and-outs, the bottom line is this: You can't just weasel out of your pension obligations on the claim that the amounts are excessive.
The real hypocrisy in all the union-bashing around this issue is that the same crew who claim that companies should not be held to their pension agreements because the amounts involved are unfair are the heartless economic-Darwinists who insist that people who signed up for ruinous subprime mortgages have only themselves to blame.
If a corporation, or a town board, or a school board, made foolish obligations, well, they had more access to expert advice than the couple who were talked into a mortgage they couldn't afford.
Maybe neither should be let off the hook, but, if you're only going to make excuses for one, the non-jackass choice is B.
So here's what I suspect will happen: In any bankruptcy, there are secured and unsecured debts, with "secured debts" being those that may include collateral or which are essential to continued operations. For instance, if you can't make the product without a lathe, you need to make the payments on the lathe.
"Unsecured debts" are those to people who really have no recourse, such as a caterer who set up a banquet that is now well in the past but who never got paid. There's nothing to repossess and you don't need banquets in the future, so he goes to the back of the line.
Having put the pensions on the table, the judge seems (to me, perhaps not to an attorney who has read the full ruling) to have left open the issue of whether they are secured or unsecured debt, but, in either case, barring a successful appeal by unions, retirees will take a cut — more if they are at the end of the line, less if they are in the secured pool.
About 70 percent of public pension holders also pay into Social Security, but, if they end up getting pennies-on-the-dollar for their primary retirement fund, even with Social Security (which will be reduced based on the remainder of their public pension), it sure won't be what they planned for.
It was the failure of the Studebaker pensions that led to federal legislation securing private pensions, and I was in South Bend at a time when women clearly in their late 70s were behind the snack bar counter on campus. I remember one woman who was unbearably slow and often confused, and you avoided her section if you had to get to class, but how could you get mad at someone with a good 10 or 15 years on your own grandmother?
That question is not entirely rhetorical. You may get a chance to answer it.
Oh, and about those people with the subprime mortgages? The ones who survived the crash will soon be passing the point where their wonderful interest rates stop being so wonderful.
Fasten your seatbelts.
No pension for this little guy, either
As noted in the comments a little while ago, Norm Feuti's strip "Gil" has been cancelled by King Features. It's a shame, because the strip won me over — and has been featured here several times — despite my initial concerns about some elements, primarily the irresponsible father seen in today's episode.
Norm not only answered the concerns of this divorced dad, but did it with a strip that was above most of the kid-strips out there. As has been proven time and again, however, literary and artistic quality are not the prime factors driving success in syndication, and sizzle trumps steak more often than vice-versa.
I'm not trying to be cynical. Selling strips is a tough, specialized business. Sometimes good stuff fails, sometimes dumb stuff makes it.
It's all about the sizzle.
Somebody in the comments on the Gil page suggested a book like "Wimpy Kid" or "Big Nate" and I can tell you, as someone who works with middle school kids in my day job, those semi-graphic, semi-text books are leaping off the shelves.
I don't know if that's the answer, but I hope we haven't seen the last of this little fellow.
Anyway, who needs a pension?
Some day when I'm feeling ambitious, I'd like to do a primer here on some of the harsh realities involved in generating that requisite sizzle, not just for syndication but for success on the Web as well.
Though, of course, if I ever do figure it out, I won't tell you. I'll just quietly go do it and then re-emerge in a cravat and suchlike.
I'll wear togs, that's what I'll do: I'll wear togs and a cravat.
Comments 1
Comments are closed.