|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Pension cuts and inequality wiping out retirement for American
workers
By Jonathan Keane
24 April 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
For a growing number of US workers, dreams of a decent retirement
are quickly evaporating as companies shift retirement costs onto
workers, in the form of deductions from already declining wages,
in order to maintain profits in a competitive global economy.
In the wake of the post-World War II business boom, US workers
were granted certain limited concessions in a three-legged system
of retirement security that included individual savings, government
programs and private employer pensions. Between the 1940s and
the 1980s, private pensions with a guaranteed payout (also known
as defined-benefit pensions), became a standard component of compensation
for a large section of the American workforce.
However, in the early 1980s, defined-benefit pension coverage
peaked and then fell in part due to that decades deindustrialization.
The service sector jobs that supplanted industrial jobs had, for
the most part, lower wages, fewer employer-paid benefits and less
job security.
According to a recent study by the Aon Corporation, a consulting
firm, a majority of over 1,000 US employers surveyed believe that
a large portion of the US workforce will not have enough income
to retire at a reasonable age. Of the employers surveyed, 32 percent
said that between half and three-quarters of their employees would
not have the needed income to retire between the ages of 62 and
65. And 37 percent asserted that one-quarter to nearly half of
their employees would not be able to retire in this age range.
A growing number of companies are shedding their pension
plans, accelerating a trend that has resulted in the loss of nearly
three-quarters of pension plans during the past two decades,
Tami Luhby wrote in Newsday April 3. Just under 47,000
companies offered defined-benefit pensions in 2001...down from
more than 170,000 in 1985.
Company after company is now freezing its pension plan, replacing
defined benefits with employee-paid 401(k) defined contribution
plans. These include Alcoa Inc., General Motors Corp., Hewlett-Packard
Co., IBM Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp., Sprint-Nextel, Unisys Corp.
and WellPoint Inc.
Whatever differences there are in the new plans being implemented,
what all of these corporations have in common is their desire
to drastically reduce their exposure to retirement costs under
conditions in which declining equities markets and falling interest
rates have drained pension plan assets and driven up liabilities.
A study of 100 large employers by actuarial consultant Milliman
Inc. showed plan assets from the end of 2001 to the end of 2002
fell by approximately $90 billion, or about 10%, while plan
liabilities increased by about that amount, or nearly 11%.
Milliman also found, as the New York Times reported (Pension
Rule Could Lower Net Worths, April 14), that new accounting
rules for pensions that are scheduled to take effect at the end
of this year, will wipe away about 8 percent of corporate
Americas net worth, revealing hidden weaknesses all across
corporate America. Companies with financial difficulties
and troubled pension funds will face the biggest crises, in some
cases seeing their entire net worth wiped out. General Motors
is one potential example. Overly optimistic assumptions about
pension fund growth have inflated assets currently held on company
balance sheets that do not really exist. The new rule reevaluates
pensions with numbers pegged to realistic market-based pension
values.
A recent study by Demos, a national think tank on business
and society (Shredding the Retirement Contract by
Heather McGhee and David A. Smith), relates, Today, less
than half of households nearing retirement include someone earning
a traditional, employer-provider defined-benefit pensiondown
from almost two-thirds in 1983. The decline is even more pronounced
among younger workers. The Demos study underscores the shift
away from defined-benefit pensions toward defined-contribution
plans, like 401(k)s and IRAs, which rely on employee savings and
individual stock market choices rather than employer contributions.
The latter plans are now utilized by 40 percent of American households.
The shift to reliance on individual contributions for retirement
will make retirement for many untenable, especially since real
wages have fallen and debt has increased.
The personal savings rate has reached the lowest level since
the height of the Great Depression. McGhee and Smith report that
In 1981, the average family saved 11 percent of income and
held 4 percent in credit card debt. In 2000, the average family
held 12 percent of income in credit card debt and saved1
percent. The resources of working people have been stretched
to the breaking point by rising costs in education, health care
and child care while hiring has also been increasingly geared
to a contingent labor force that has meant less regular employment
for millions of workers. The result is that many American workers
cannot afford to make contributions to either savings or mutual
fund investments for retirement.
McGhee and Smith predict given the nations growing
wealth inequality, that a greater reliance on the individuals
retirement contribution will create more income inequality among
elderly households in the decades to come. The authors go
on to say that seniors are now the fastest growing age group in
bankruptcy courts. One out of every five middle-to-low-income
seniors on fixed incomes faces debt hardships, spending more than
40 cents of every dollar on debt payments.
The gap in wealth between the top 20 percent and the bottom
20 percent was 30-fold in 1960. In four decades, that gap increased
to more than 75-fold. Stagnant or declining real incomes for the
bottom 60 percent have been the reality for working families now
approaching retirement. US stock ownership is extremely concentrated:
its majority is held by the wealthiest 5 percent of the population.
Mutual funds are now held by 21 percent of pre-retirement households
(i.e., those between 55 and 64 years old), however, with a base
of only $20,000 in median defined contribution pension wealth,
this inadequate amount has put more pressure to have more savings
to make up the difference.
Congresss proposed pension reform bill provides no solutions.
The bill only hands out more tax breaks to high earners who stand
to gain by increasing the amount of allowable tax-exempt 401(k)
contributions. The legislation would make permanent the $15,000
contribution cap (rather than returning it to $10,500), while
automatically raising it each year with inflation. As only 5 percent
of US households have enough money to contribute that much to
a 401(k), only the wealthy and the most privileged sections of
the middle class will benefit from this provision. Meanwhile,
as with other tax breaks for the rich, it will leave the government
with a reduced revenue base to fund social services.
Thus, the proposed legislation will only intensify the inequality
that finds its consummate expression in the destruction of pension
plans for hundreds of thousands of workers by corporate executives
who themselves rack up retirement benefits worth tens if not hundreds
of millions.
IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano, for example, is on track to receive
an annual retirement benefit worth $4 million. At the beginning
of this year, IBM announced a freeze on the pensions of 113,000
of its employees, with an anticipated savings for the company
of $3 billion over the next four years.
Pfizer CEO Henry McKinnell is expected to receive the largest
executive retirement package, worth more than $6.5 million annually
when he reaches age 65. McKinnell is chairman of the Business
Roundtable, one of the principal backers of the Bush administrations
proposal to privatize Social Security.
To cite another recent example, Richard C. Green, chief executive
for the utility firm Aquila Inc., stands to earn an annual pension
of $900,000 despite an unprofitable tenure that saw the companys
stock plummet to barely 10 percent of its previous value and approximately
1,000 of its employees laid off.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |