Welcome to PatsFans.com

GM to re-institute matching 401K

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,903
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    I heard this morning that GM was considering re-instituting a matching 401K program after suspending it for a few years....WTF??

    ONe thing American workers and our federal gov't need to focus on is not allowing American corporations to take away benefits from American workers. Of course it's all done under the guise of "We need to do this to stay competitive on a world-wide basis" bullsh1t.

    50 years ago, employees contributed nothing as GM provided all employees with full pensions, and co. paid life insurance. Hell, all companies did. Now US workers across the country have had this burden placed strictly upon them for retirement programs. We can not allow them NOT to contribute towards 401K's.

    The next thing you know, companies won't pay you for vacations and you'll have to work over-time for regular pay. This is the stuff revolutions are made of people. I'm looking forward to watching labor unions once again take back their power to fight the eroding compensation to US workers!

    DON'T LET IT HAPPEN TO YOU!
     
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Not all companies match 401Ks and how much they match varies. Matching is an optional benefit, 401Ks are still a great deal, as you know, as they're tax deferred. Relax :D
     
  3. atomdomb

    atomdomb Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Agreed. I don't understand the big deal about matching 401k. That's good for the American worker. The loss of a pension may be what he is referring to but I am not sure.
     
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    I think he was complaining that the matching was previously taken away.
     
  5. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,453
    Likes Received:
    631
    Ratings:
    +1,714 / 12 / -15

    #75 Jersey

    Matching is a win-win for everyone.

    The employee wins (obviously).

    The employer wins (matching contribs are tax-deductions for the corp, employee is happier, better recruitment tool).

    The nation wins (more investment, less wasteful spending by the idiot consumer on flat screentv's that brew coffee at the same time).

    My guess is that (with the timing of this) the matching is simply part of the argreement with the Feds for the portion of the $15-25 billion the US auto industry is getting.
     
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,903
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    But compared to the full pensions companies USED to provide, they are far from a great deal. Everything is relative and the truth is, 401K's were developed to take the cost of providing pensions and shift the bulk of the cost to their employees. Why did we allow that to happen?

    Of course not all companies used to provide pensions just as all don't provide 401K's. They are tools to recruit skilled and educated workers (college degrees).

    The point of this thread is we as citizens need always remember that corporations exist to serve society...not the other way around. they are a means to end and that is all. This is why our constitution only protects individuals and not corporations.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,903
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    Excellent points shmessy. I wasn't even thinking about it from an economic benefit perspective. I especially agree with the point in bold!
     
  8. STFarmy

    STFarmy In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    But shmess, they DESERVE it. Haven't you heard them? They've worked hard (40 hours a week), and every now and then they deserve to treat themselves. Who cares if they have to put it on a credit card with a 20% APR because they can't afford it? They'll worry about that later. No big deal. They deserve it!

    I have to physically restrain myself every time I hear that logic. The "idiot consumer" is the perfect term for it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    First of all, why is it the obligation of a company to privide a pension for an employee? An employer shouldn't be obligated to do anything but provide what is required by law. Anything above and beyond that, is their choice. If a company wants to pay minimum wage, with no benefits, it has the right to. Good luck finding quality help though. Second, offering life insurance, health insurance for life, full pensions, etc. sound nice and all, but they come at a cost. Just cuz the employee doesn't pay it, or it doesn't come out of your pocket, someone does foot the bill. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own future. Requiring that a company provide that future, at no cost to the individual, is not practical.
     
  10. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,453
    Likes Received:
    631
    Ratings:
    +1,714 / 12 / -15

    #75 Jersey


    I must be missing something. I see nowhere in this thread where anyone said it was an obligation of an employer to match 401(k) contributions.
     
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    It's in the original post.

     
  12. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,453
    Likes Received:
    631
    Ratings:
    +1,714 / 12 / -15

    #75 Jersey

    Gotcha. Well, I disagree with that particular sentence.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    I want companies to offer retirement plans, and encourage them to. I think it's in their best interests to do so. I just don't think any company is obligated to. When I was running a small masonry business, one of the first things I did was provide a retirement plan to the employees.
     
  14. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,453
    Likes Received:
    631
    Ratings:
    +1,714 / 12 / -15

    #75 Jersey

    I couldn't agree with you more.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>