Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6s36s$8re$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156267 |
On 08-Jan-16 12:36, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 07-Jan-16 11:36, hancock4 wrote: >>> Selling a home under duress is costly in itself. >> >> That depends on the market, of course, but if this is likely to >> become a problem, then one should do it _before_ one is under >> duress. > > Naturally, but sometimes a person doesn't have warning. > > For example, suppose a major employer contracts. It both closes a > major facility and cuts pensions. Pensioners living in such a town > suddenly have lost value in their house because everyone needs to go > move elsewhere to keep working. That's one of the dangers of living in a small town, and it's not exclusive to pensioners. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people living in such a town don't have pensions (either current or future), and they're just as screwed. Still, as far as the pensioners go, that's yet another reason why we should not allow employers to control (or raid) pension funds. >>> Some elders have lived in a location for a long time. They may >>> have no mortgage, but some old neighborhoods (or houses) decay >>> and aren't worth very much to sell (or need expensive fixing >>> up.) >> >> If it's not worth much, then the property taxes shouldn't be >> onerous. > > Sometimes a desperate community will _raise_ property taxes to make > up for a shortfall. They'll also raise them to pay for increased > social services and police due to being a poor community. It might be > stupid economics, but politicians don't think that way. There difference in tax rates in poor vs rich communities here is not significant; they're all about the same. When a poor community has a budget shortfall, they cut spending, not raise rates. > Well, here's another example of how employers screw retirees: Let's > say the employer (public or private) agreed to pay for retiree health > care. At the time it cost $1,000/year per employee in a group plan. > The costs became much higher so the employer decides to eliminate the > benefit. See above; they shouldn't be in control of that in the first place. > What employers then do is eliminate _all_ retiree health care > coverage. If they wanted to be at least fair about it, they could > continue maintaining a group plan (which are a lot cheaper), and keep > paying the first $1,000, and letting retirees pay the rest if they > chose. That's not how most group plans work; all members of the group must be covered unless they qualify for an exemption, e.g. they already have coverage from a spouse's plan. Otherwise, people would simply wait to sign up until they needed the benefits, which defeats the entire point of insurance. That is also why group plans never had the preexisting condition limitations that were (until Obamacare) standard for individual plans. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <df7rmeF6iqmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156165 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't "lavish", > though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. > > For multi-employer plans (common at union jobs), PBGC guarantees 100% of > the first $11/mo and 75% of the next $33/mo per year of service. For > instance, if you worked 30 years and were supposed to get $3,000/mo, > then PGBC pays only $495/mo (16.5%). That certainly isn't "lavish". I compute his revised pension as: (30*11*1.0) + (30*33*.75) = $1072/month. That's only twice as much as what you said, but still .... What did I do wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6n188$chs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156220 |
On 07-Jan-16 13:13, Osmium wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't >> "lavish", though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. >> >> For multi-employer plans (common at union jobs), PBGC guarantees >> 100% of the first $11/mo and 75% of the next $33/mo per year of >> service. For instance, if you worked 30 years and were supposed to >> get $3,000/mo, then PGBC pays only $495/mo (16.5%). That certainly >> isn't "lavish". > > I compute his revised pension as: (30*11*1.0) + (30*33*.75) = > $1072/month. That's only twice as much as what you said, but still > .... > > What did I do wrong? *scratches head* That's what I'm getting now too, so I must have messed up the original calculations somehow. Still, $1072/mo puts you in food stamps territory. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfaajgFp6naU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156231 |
On 2016-01-08, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
[21 lines snipped]
> Still, $1072/mo puts you in food stamps territory.
Not surprised. My (elderly, poorly, living (*) in a "retirement living
community") Mother makes about $3K/mo (entirely from various pensions) and
has to budget *very* carefully. If it wasn't for Medicare and some medical
insurance from my late father's employment, she'd be fucked. As it is,
I have to supplement her income. The USA is no place to be old and 'poor'.
(* In the US, for anyone who actually pays any attention to my postings and
has remembered that I am a Brit living in the UK.)
--
Today is Pungenday, the 8th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn90h16.2a0.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156262 |
On 2016-01-08, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-08, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > > [21 lines snipped] > >> Still, $1072/mo puts you in food stamps territory. > > Not surprised. My (elderly, poorly, living (*) in a "retirement living > community") Mother makes about $3K/mo (entirely from various pensions) and > has to budget *very* carefully. If it wasn't for Medicare and some medical > insurance from my late father's employment, she'd be fucked. As it is, > I have to supplement her income. The USA is no place to be old and 'poor'. > Francis stuart broadcast for Germany during WWWII, but was not prosecced because he was regarded generally as a nutcase. He wrote later, ``If you are looking for living on charity, don't go to Germany. In Berlin that winter, some people gathered beechmast for food. One of the Nurenberg accused reported that he felt guilty, in spite of the constant beatings for confessions , he was living so much better than his wife outsiide. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08580c70-6bf4-4a37-bb64-e4cd2782409d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155792 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 8:56:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Most US companies that had pension plans went bankrupt long ago, often > in large part due to those very pension plans because they were either > underfunded or the target of corporate raiders. FWIW, one of my friends will have to work until he's age 70 because his old company was raided and his pension substantially decreased. The successor company treats their people like serfs, and is very quick to remind those they kept that they're lucky to have a job. > Most of the few remaining ones offer pensions only to union employees or > those over a certain age; younger or non-union employees have only a > 401(k) or similar plan available. Many people who have a 401k have not done well with them. Individual everyday people do not have the skills to pick a competent fund manager nor manage the funds themselves. Many have not recovered from the 2007 crash. They'll also be working until age 70. (Not helping is that some fund managers were outright crooks, charging excessively high fees.) [snip] > > Many workers approaching retirement have discovered they won't have > > income and have to keep working. > > That's not uncommon. Most people don't plan ahead, so by the time they > realize there's a problem, it's too late to do anything about it. That > was part of the point of Social Security. > > OTOH, public sector workers can retire after 20-30 years and then live > off the taxpayers' largesse for another 40+ years. Ditto for many union > workers, at least until it bankrupts their former employer. Unfortunately, many of the workers who have gotten screwed did plan ahead--they were simply cheated out of their pension by corporate raiders or the like. For public employee, many of their pensions have been cut, even to retirees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ppmqlc-1b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #155878 |
In article <08580c70-6bf4-4a37-bb64-e4cd2782409d@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 8:56:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > >> Most US companies that had pension plans went bankrupt long ago, often >> in large part due to those very pension plans because they were either >> underfunded or the target of corporate raiders. > >FWIW, one of my friends will have to work until he's age 70 >because his old company was raided and his pension substantially >decreased. The successor company treats their people like serfs, >and is very quick to remind those they kept that they're lucky >to have a job. This is mostly a US-centric problem about how the pensions are organised. Most other civilised countries have stringent rules that the pension fund is cordoned off from the company funding it; organised as some form of coop (i.e. ruled by the benefactors) or non-profit, regulated company. They are also prohibited from investing a too large share into the company that funds it. This share is usually limited to 15-30% of the capital base. Some of these are co-managed by unions or professional associations. >> Most of the few remaining ones offer pensions only to union employees or >> those over a certain age; younger or non-union employees have only a >> 401(k) or similar plan available. > >Many people who have a 401k have not done well with them. Individual >everyday people do not have the skills to pick a competent fund manager >nor manage the funds themselves. Many have not recovered from the 2007 >crash. They'll also be working until age 70. (Not helping is that >some fund managers were outright crooks, charging excessively high >fees.) If you don't have an actual education in finance you are well advised to invest in some index tracking fund with good liquidity, like the QQQQs. That will get you the average of the stock market, which is pretty good in the longer term. >[snip] > >> > Many workers approaching retirement have discovered they won't have >> > income and have to keep working. >> >> That's not uncommon. Most people don't plan ahead, so by the time they >> realize there's a problem, it's too late to do anything about it. That >> was part of the point of Social Security. >> >> OTOH, public sector workers can retire after 20-30 years and then live >> off the taxpayers' largesse for another 40+ years. Ditto for many union >> workers, at least until it bankrupts their former employer. > >Unfortunately, many of the workers who have gotten screwed did plan >ahead--they were simply cheated out of their pension by corporate >raiders or the like. For public employee, many of their pensions >have been cut, even to retirees. That a corporate raider can get at more than a single digit percentage of an employee pension fund. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49069cb4-62d9-4203-97c9-87ad1b66d00c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155888 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:39:05 PM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote: > That a corporate raider can get at more than a single digit percentage > of an employee pension fund. What often happens after a corporate raid is that the resulting company is loaded down with heavy debt. Pension debt is one of the things that becomes 'unsustainable' and somehow, corporations are able to convince the courts to be allowed to shed it. For instance, on the very same day, the business page of the Phila Inqr reported that the owners of American Airlines reported record profits, as well as reporting that same owners went to the courts to abrogate their pension obligations as being too onerous. The raiders have found all sorts of loopholes and tricks to shed or minimize pension obligations. Some state governments are doing likewise. Years ago pensions had more protection. For instance, I don't believe pensions were impacted during the Penn Central bankruptcy. Nor were pensions hurt when New York City has its infamous default. Howeer, today, bond payments are often considered more important than pensions for both public and private sectors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6f789$pds$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155895 |
On 04-Jan-16 12:59, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Morten Reistad wrote: >> That a corporate raider can get at more than a single digit >> percentage of an employee pension fund. > > What often happens after a corporate raid is that the resulting > company is loaded down with heavy debt. Pension debt is one of the > things that becomes 'unsustainable' and somehow, corporations are > able to convince the courts to be allowed to shed it. The only way a corporation can "shed" a debt, including pension debt, is to declare bankruptcy. However, pension debt falls under unpaid wages, which is one of the _last_ debts to get paid in bankruptcy proceedings, and a bankrupt company usually runs out of assets long before reaching that. A typical corporate raider would sell junk bonds to generate cash to fund a hostile takeover, pay off those junk bonds with the company's pension funds (and any other assets they could sell), keep whatever was left for themselves as a "management fee", and then let the company go bankrupt because it had nothing left to pay its own debts. > For instance, on the very same day, the business page of the Phila > Inqr reported that the owners of American Airlines reported record > profits, as well as reporting that same owners went to the courts to > abrogate their pension obligations as being too onerous. I see nothing in the news about AA's pensions since early 2012, which was related to filing for bankruptcy in late 2011--when AA was facing record losses, not profits. Unlike its competitors, AA didn't take advantage of a 2006 law allowing airlines to defer pension contributions; in 2014, they asked Congress to extend the deadline so they can be on an even footing, but that doesn't affect their obligations. When the bill eventually comes due, all of the airlines will be back in bankruptcy court yet again. I wonder if they get frequent filer miles? > Years ago pensions had more protection. No, raiders (and execs) are just getting better at exploiting the holes that have always been there--and that Congress refuses to fix. > For instance, I don't believe pensions were impacted during the Penn > Central bankruptcy. Penn Central never _had_ a pension plan; they were part of Railroad Retirement, so they didn't need one--unlike non-railroad employers who were/are stuck with inferior Social Security. However, the bankruptcy of Penn Central and many other railroads did indirectly force Congress to restructure Railroad Retirement so that workers could move between the two systems without starting over. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29059220-49dd-4b59-ba04-5317d2b893fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155926 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > However, pension debt falls under unpaid wages, which is one of the > _last_ debts to get paid in bankruptcy proceedings, and a bankrupt > company usually runs out of assets long before reaching that. We need to have a worker protection law, so that wages go into escrow the minute they're earned. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8nrlt.2rv.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #155967 |
On 2016-01-05, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> However, pension debt falls under unpaid wages, which is one of the >> _last_ debts to get paid in bankruptcy proceedings, and a bankrupt >> company usually runs out of assets long before reaching that. > > We need to have a worker protection law, so that wages go into escrow the minute > they're earned. > > John Savard They had laws in the UK some years ago for all that, until Robert Maxwell arrived, I don't think much was ever recovered. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6h1p3$jd3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155967 |
On 1/5/2016 8:27 AM, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> However, pension debt falls under unpaid wages, which is one of the >> _last_ debts to get paid in bankruptcy proceedings, and a bankrupt >> company usually runs out of assets long before reaching that. > > We need to have a worker protection law, so that wages go into escrow the minute > they're earned. > So true. Gonna be hard so long as corporate interests are the primary financiers of politicians, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a7ad5d7-4ca9-4b91-ad59-c08f75590930@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155976 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:27:15 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > Gonna be hard so long as corporate interests are the primary > financiers of politicians, though. Yes, and that's a big reason that I'm pessimistic about the future. Corporate lobbyists have incredible power and despite widespread public awareness, there seems to be no desire to stop it. Further, the abilities of "super political action committees" have been expanded, so outsiders can fund candidates and movements, and there are organiations doing just that to protect businesses and screw individual workers. It's obviously legalized bribery, yet no one seems to mind. Years ago, there seemed to be more checks and balances against the rabid greed we see today, but the safety devices are gone. When a business is called to task for outrageous behavior, it's atonishing that they were able to get away with so much for so long. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20160105_Malvern_firm_faces__1_75M_bill_to_pay_workers_denied_bathroom_breaks.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6eg6f$4ec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155888 |
On 04-Jan-16 11:30, Morten Reistad wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> FWIW, one of my friends will have to work until he's age 70 because >> his old company was raided and his pension substantially decreased. >> The successor company treats their people like serfs, and is very >> quick to remind those they kept that they're lucky to have a job. > > This is mostly a US-centric problem about how the pensions are > organised. Most other civilised countries have stringent rules that > the pension fund is cordoned off from the company funding it; > organised as some form of coop (i.e. ruled by the benefactors) or > non-profit, regulated company. They are also prohibited from > investing a too large share into the company that funds it. This > share is usually limited to 15-30% of the capital base. > > Some of these are co-managed by unions or professional associations. Indeed, and this has been a problem in the US for decades; employers often "managed" their pension funds by giving low-/no-interest loans to themselves rather than having to pay market rates. That is one of the reasons why employers _wanted_ to offer pensions--until the bill came due and they had no cash to pay out retirees' benefits. By far, the most notable part of the GM bankruptcy and bailout was the transfer of its pension to UAW; as soon as that paperwork was done, GM was instantly solvent and profitable again. IMHO, this should be done with _all_ pensions--and perhaps we'd see more companies offering them again if that were the case. You may hear about 401(k), 403(b), IRA or other retirement plans; these are often mistakenly called pensions, but they're not. What's relevant here is that their funds _are_ held in trust by a third party, unlike pensions (other than the GM/UAW exception). >> Many people who have a 401k have not done well with them. >> Individual everyday people do not have the skills to pick a >> competent fund manager nor manage the funds themselves. Many have >> not recovered from the 2007 crash. They'll also be working until >> age 70. (Not helping is that some fund managers were outright >> crooks, charging excessively high fees.) > > If you don't have an actual education in finance you are well advised > to invest in some index tracking fund with good liquidity, like the > QQQQs. That will get you the average of the stock market, which is > pretty good in the longer term. Most 401(k) and similar plans only allow selecting from a very short list of mutual funds, and there are usually several index funds; no "managed" fund in history has out-performed its relevant index over the long term, at least after the "management" fees are subtracted, so the choice is clear: put everything in indexes. Some plans offer the ability to invest in your employer's stock, but IMHO that is a very bad idea and should probably be illegal; that an employer would even let you do that is probably a sign that you shouldn't be working there, much less investing in their stock. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <df03rjF76smU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155896 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > You may hear about 401(k), 403(b), IRA or other retirement plans; these > are often mistakenly called pensions, but they're not. What's relevant > here is that their funds _are_ held in trust by a third party, unlike > pensions (other than the GM/UAW exception). When 401Ks started being popular my employer gave me a packet of literature about this new "retirement plan" I read it over and over and over and never did find a retirement plan. It drove me absolutely crazy that they couldn't have some English speaking person do their write-up. It was a plan to accumulate a pile of money, if you chose to you could, havling the pile, buy an annuity and have a simulated retirement plan. But from everything I saw, actually buying an annuity is a very poor choice for most people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df0aiqF7q4pU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155900 |
On 2016-01-04, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
>
>> You may hear about 401(k), 403(b), IRA or other retirement plans; these
>> are often mistakenly called pensions, but they're not. What's relevant
>> here is that their funds _are_ held in trust by a third party, unlike
>> pensions (other than the GM/UAW exception).
>
> When 401Ks started being popular my employer gave me a packet of literature
> about this new "retirement plan" I read it over and over and over and never
> did find a retirement plan. It drove me absolutely crazy that they couldn't
> have some English speaking person do their write-up.
It isn't in their interests that you understand it.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7435h$gfp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155900 |
On 04-Jan-16 14:43, Osmium wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> You may hear about 401(k), 403(b), IRA or other retirement plans; >> these are often mistakenly called pensions, but they're not. >> What's relevant here is that their funds _are_ held in trust by a >> third party, unlike pensions (other than the GM/UAW exception). > > When 401Ks started being popular my employer gave me a packet of > literature about this new "retirement plan" I read it over and over > and over and never did find a retirement plan. ... It was a plan to > accumulate a pile of money, if you chose to you could, havling the > pile, buy an annuity and have a simulated retirement plan. You seem to be equating "retirement plan" with "life annuity", but the latter is a subset; the former includes _any_ plan to provide income during retirement. Rather than cashing out and buying a life annuity with said pile of money, you could simply leave it invested in the market and take out a portion when you need some--and at much lower tax rates. Whatever is left over when you die goes to your designated beneficiary(ies). (For those not familiar with life annuities, they're essentially the opposite of life insurance: they pay out when you _don't_ die.) > But from everything I saw, actually buying an annuity is a very > poor choice for most people. The main benefit of a life annuity is protecting against the risk of living longer than expected. However, buying insurance has a cost in itself, and there's nothing left over when you do die. Pensions are essentially life annuities run by employers as a sideline rather than by an insurance company as its core competency. Does that really sound like a good idea if you're looking for security? > It drove me absolutely crazy that they couldn't have some English > speaking person do their write-up. I never had a problem reading the materials that my employers or plan administrators gave me. They didn't provide much direction in _how_ to invest within the plan, but there's no shortage of advice floating around the Web, and I've beaten the market every year for nearly 20 years with maybe an hour of work. OTOH, every year the best Wall St analysts lose to a monkey throwing darts, so it's not that tough. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <38igmc-5aa.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156560 |
In article <n7435h$gfp$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 04-Jan-16 14:43, Osmium wrote: >> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> You may hear about 401(k), 403(b), IRA or other retirement plans; >>> these are often mistakenly called pensions, but they're not. >>> What's relevant here is that their funds _are_ held in trust by a >>> third party, unlike pensions (other than the GM/UAW exception). >> >> When 401Ks started being popular my employer gave me a packet of >> literature about this new "retirement plan" I read it over and over >> and over and never did find a retirement plan. ... It was a plan to >> accumulate a pile of money, if you chose to you could, havling the >> pile, buy an annuity and have a simulated retirement plan. > >You seem to be equating "retirement plan" with "life annuity", but the >latter is a subset; the former includes _any_ plan to provide income >during retirement. > >Rather than cashing out and buying a life annuity with said pile of >money, you could simply leave it invested in the market and take out a >portion when you need some--and at much lower tax rates. Whatever is >left over when you die goes to your designated beneficiary(ies). > >(For those not familiar with life annuities, they're essentially the >opposite of life insurance: they pay out when you _don't_ die.) > >> But from everything I saw, actually buying an annuity is a very >> poor choice for most people. > >The main benefit of a life annuity is protecting against the risk of >living longer than expected. However, buying insurance has a cost in >itself, and there's nothing left over when you do die. > >Pensions are essentially life annuities run by employers as a sideline >rather than by an insurance company as its core competency. Does that >really sound like a good idea if you're looking for security? Only in America. This is forbidden, or so regulated it in practice is. Having the employer manage the pension fund, that is. Almost every other western country has strict rules for the management of these. Even a bank or a brokerage needs chinese walls between itself and the fund. There are, in most places, also clear limits to how much of the fund payment that can go to buy the company shares; with limits on the order of 15% or so. >> It drove me absolutely crazy that they couldn't have some English >> speaking person do their write-up. > >I never had a problem reading the materials that my employers or plan >administrators gave me. They didn't provide much direction in _how_ to >invest within the plan, but there's no shortage of advice floating >around the Web, and I've beaten the market every year for nearly 20 >years with maybe an hour of work. OTOH, every year the best Wall St >analysts lose to a monkey throwing darts, so it's not that tough. There are two main ways to try to beat the market. One works, reliably; the other doesn't; just as reliably. Stock picking; i.e. predicting which company/bond/fund will outperform the rest does not. Instrument picking; i.e. choosing cash, bonds, real estate, stocks to match the business cycle does. Almost everyone can tell where on the "cycle clock" you are, within 1-2 "hours"; and that is plenty to beat the market. At the recession side, 6 is the bottom, 9 is the recovery, 12 is the top. And 3 is the way down. I would say the US is at an 8, somewhat wavering; but the top may be passed in a few months. It is pretty easy to get a feel for where you are in this cycle; everyone sees so much of this that almost everyone gets the timing within 1-2 "hours". From around 6:30 to 11:30 hold stocks. They generally outperform everything else, but they only move ahead ca from 7 till 11. Otherwise stay in bonds or cash. When interest rates go down the bonds go up. Interest rates go up until ca 3:00, and then drop sharply; so stay in bonds during the dip. Get in at around 2:30. You can also generally get good interest on bonds, so they are sensible except when outperformed by stocks; or just on the very top of the cycle. They are a lot less volatile than stocks, so if in doubt go for bonds. This is an investment strategy that is forbidden for the large volume of managed funds out there. Allowing it for the large portfolios would wreck total havoc with the markets. But for your own, private 401 you can go right ahead. Most funds have fixed ratios; 40:50:10 is pretty standard; 40% stocks, 50% bonds and 10 varying (cash, stocks, bonds). -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n760o0$g1a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156564 |
On 12-Jan-16 18:27, Morten Reistad wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 04-Jan-16 14:43, Osmium wrote: >>> But from everything I saw, actually buying a[ life] annuity is a >>> very poor choice for most people. >> >> The main benefit of a life annuity is protecting against the risk >> of living longer than expected. However, buying insurance has a >> cost in itself, and there's nothing left over when you do die. >> >> Pensions are essentially life annuities run by employers as a >> sideline rather than by an insurance company as its core >> competency. Does that really sound like a good idea if you're >> looking for security? > > Only in America. This is forbidden, or so regulated it in practice > is. Having the employer manage the pension fund, that is. Yes, that was the context. > Almost every other western country has strict rules for the > management of these. Even a bank or a brokerage needs chinese walls > between itself and the fund. With good reason; we should do the same. Unfortunately, most of the damage is already done: pensions are almost gone in the US, victims of bankruptcy either due to incompetent managers or corporate raiders. > There are, in most places, also clear limits to how much of the fund > payment that can go to buy the company shares; with limits on the > order of 15% or so. Even that is questionable to me; if your employer goes bankrupt, it's bad enough that you lose your income, but also 15% of your pension? >>> It drove me absolutely crazy that they couldn't have some >>> English speaking person do their write-up. >> >> I never had a problem reading the materials that my employers or >> plan administrators gave me. They didn't provide much direction in >> _how_ to invest within the plan, but there's no shortage of advice >> floating around the Web, and I've beaten the market every year for >> nearly 20 years with maybe an hour of work. OTOH, every year the >> best Wall St analysts lose to a monkey throwing darts, so it's not >> that tough. > > There are two main ways to try to beat the market. One works, > reliably; the other doesn't; just as reliably. Stock picking; i.e. > predicting which company/bond/fund will outperform the rest does not. > Instrument picking; i.e. choosing cash, bonds, real estate, stocks to > match the business cycle does. Almost everyone can tell where on the > "cycle clock" you are, within 1-2 "hours"; and that is plenty to beat > the market. That's long been my theory, and it seems to be correct in practice. > From around 6:30 to 11:30 hold stocks. They generally outperform > everything else, but they only move ahead ca from 7 till 11. > Otherwise stay in bonds or cash. When interest rates go down the > bonds go up. Interest rates go up until ca 3:00, and then drop > sharply; so stay in bonds during the dip. Get in at around 2:30. I don't like keeping my funds in cash, so I just switch between stocks and bonds, and even that I only do when I have a feeling there is going to be a major correction soon. > You can also generally get good interest on bonds, so they are > sensible except when outperformed by stocks; or just on the very top > of the cycle. They are a lot less volatile than stocks, so if in > doubt go for bonds. Absent the above feeling, I keep age% in bonds and the rest split evenly between domestic and intl stocks. That's how new contributions and reinvested dividends get automatically split. I get a notice when any of the allocations gets 5% off target, and I rebalance. That's it. > This is an investment strategy that is forbidden for the large volume > of managed funds out there. Allowing it for the large portfolios > would wreck total havoc with the markets. But for your own, private > 401 you can go right ahead. Most funds have fixed ratios; 40:50:10 is > pretty standard; 40% stocks, 50% bonds and 10 varying (cash, stocks, > bonds). Yes; if a trillion-dollar managed fund moved all of its assets from one class to another, it could potentially _cause_ the shift that the manager is trying to anticipate and would be considered (potentially criminal) market manipulation. There's a lot of clever things you can get away with when you're too small to affect the market overall. Index funds, of course, don't have that problem--unless large numbers of people get in sync and move all their money from one set of indexes to another set at the same time, which obviously isn't the index fund's fault and wouldn't be market manipulation. But as long as the advice out there is so vague and contradictory, that doesn't seem likely. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87pox5nf62.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #156588 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > >> There are, in most places, also clear limits to how much of the fund >> payment that can go to buy the company shares; with limits on the >> order of 15% or so. > > Even that is questionable to me; if your employer goes bankrupt, it's > bad enough that you lose your income, but also 15% of your pension? > This is a case where a neutral fund manager would be to your advantage -- if you work for ReallyStableCorp (I would like to think of an example from today, but I can't) having 15% in your own company might actually be a perfectly reasonable risk. Imagine an extreme case thought experiment -- the fund manager has no idea who the employers of the participants actually is -- they are nothing more than account numbers. If investing in the company that happened to employ you were a good risk, for John Smith who works at OtherCorp, it should be a good risk for you, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web