Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
crankedup said:
Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post.
Agreed and I am attempting to convince others posting in here that the dilution of reward simply reduces the competitiveness of the supplier. It will encourage academics to consider alternative providers offering a more competitive package.
Where can they obtain a 'more competitive package'?Agreed and I am attempting to convince others posting in here that the dilution of reward simply reduces the competitiveness of the supplier. It will encourage academics to consider alternative providers offering a more competitive package.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Didn't Carillion increase the dividend whilst their DB scheme deficit increase?
You're confusing fluctuations in deterioration in a scheme's solvency position due to market movements, with a fundamental shift in the affordability of DB pension schemes due to significant changes in economics and demographics.sidicks said:
Countdown said:
If only there were a group of people who were paid to forecast things like life expectancies, interest rates, bond yields etc.... we could call them Actuaries or somesuch...
No, actuaries are paid to project things like life expectancies, interest rates, bond yields etc. That's quite different. Economists are paid to predict the key economic factors.
Why not just admit the actuaries got their forecasts (sorry..."projections") massively wrong?sidicks said:
Countdown said:
I could be wrong here but wasn't there a time in the past where lots of DB schemes were in surplus and Employers took pension contribution holidays....? What happened to the money they saved?
You mean 20+ years ago before interest rates collapsed, before equity markets collapsed, before demographic effects had fully taken effect, when HMRC sought to prevent companies from contributing to DB pensions thereby mitigating corporation tax?Before Gordon Brown removed the tax benefit on equity dividends you mean?
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post.
Agreed and I am attempting to convince others posting in here that the dilution of reward simply reduces the competitiveness of the supplier. It will encourage academics to consider alternative providers offering a more competitive package.
Where can they obtain a 'more competitive package'?Agreed and I am attempting to convince others posting in here that the dilution of reward simply reduces the competitiveness of the supplier. It will encourage academics to consider alternative providers offering a more competitive package.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
NO I am fully aware of that, but has absolutely nothing to do with this scenario that we are discussing.
So nothing to do with 'cost and 'affordability' then. Er, ok.crankedup said:
From an establishment that is prepared to offer, we do live in a competitive World. It’s no different to any other business wishing and needing to attract the very best that they can afford.
What if their current arrangements are already much more generous that anything else available? Where's the justification for retaining massively expensive DB schemes that have resulted in significantly increased costs already and are likely to continue to do so in the future?sidicks said:
crankedup said:
What are you talking about? i have already covered that area earlier in our discussion. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
You appear not to even be able to follow your own argument, not that it actually stands up in the first place.[/quoteOh please do come off it. Your posts are becoming increasingly desperate and at times plain daft.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
From an establishment that is prepared to offer, we do live in a competitive World. It’s no different to any other business wishing and needing to attract the very best that they can afford.
What if their current arrangements are already much more generous that anything else available? Where's the justification for retaining massively expensive DB schemes that have resulted in significantly increased costs already and are likely to continue to do so in the future?Just to get you back on track, this is me suggesting that if the rewards of academics are to be diluted this could lead to those people finding an alternative employer. An employer they may not be in the U.K. It’s all about being competitive, something you fail to grasp it seems.
Edited by crankedup on Saturday 24th February 15:46
crankedup said:
What if ? yeah OK it’s down to that now is it.
Says the person who is claiming that if we take away DB pensions for University lecturers, even if we replace them with DC schemes with the employer paying 18% (compared to the private sector average of 4.2%), these academics will up sticks and leave to China...crankedup said:
It’s all about being competitive, something you fail to grasp it seems.
And yet you've still failed to show how an 18% DC contribution isn't competitive, nor have you shown how the ongoing DB scheme (with it's £12bn+ deficit) is affordable.But no change there.
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th February 17:03
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
What if ? yeah OK it’s down to that now is it.
Says the person who is claiming that if we take away DB pensions for University lecturers, [b]even if we replace them with DC schemes with the employer paying 18% (compared to the private sector average of 4.2%), these academics will up sticks and leave to China...crankedup said:
It’s all about being competitive, something you fail to grasp it seems.
And yet you've still failed to show how an 18% DC contribution isn't competitive, nor have you shown how the ongoing DB scheme (with it's £12bn+ deficit) is affordable.But no change there.
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th February 15:49
You are deliberately being obtuse now, refusing to accept the basic points that I have raised and yet these points are fundamental in business. I think I will park this now as you clearly wish to argue over the semantics.
crankedup said:
I have no need to show or illustrate any of the points you raise, I can understand that you have a desire to move the debate into the technical side as this is your profession. What point is there in looking at the funding of the pension pot when I am arguing from a different perspective.
The perspective that ignores the economics and demographics and seeks to defend something that you clearly don’t understand and where you don’t seem to have any evidence to support your viewpoint?crankedup said:
You are deliberately being obtuse now, refusing to accept the basic points that I have raised and yet these points are fundamental in business. I think I will park this now as you clearly wish to argue over the semantics.
‘Semantics’?Whether these pensions are affordable?
Whether these pensions are available in equivalent jobs?
Whether the alternative offered is appropriate or even generous?
Whether those receiving these pensions actually understand the issues?
Those sort of ‘semantics’?
Priceless
crankedup said:
What if ? yeah OK it’s down to that now is it.
Just to get you back on track, this is me suggesting that if the rewards of academics are to be diluted this could lead to those people finding an alternative employer. An employer they may not be in the U.K. It’s all about being competitive, something you fail to grasp it seems.
These employers abroad, what DB pension schemes are they offering?Just to get you back on track, this is me suggesting that if the rewards of academics are to be diluted this could lead to those people finding an alternative employer. An employer they may not be in the U.K. It’s all about being competitive, something you fail to grasp it seems.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
What if ? yeah OK it’s down to that now is it.
Says the person who is claiming that if we take away DB pensions for University lecturers, even if we replace them with DC schemes with the employer paying 18% (compared to the private sector average of 4.2%), these academics will up sticks and leave to China...crankedup said:
It’s all about being competitive, something you fail to grasp it seems.
And yet you've still failed to show how an 18% DC contribution isn't competitive, nor have you shown how the ongoing DB scheme (with it's £12bn+ deficit) is affordable.But no change there.
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th February 17:03
Not mention that academics could just move to a post 92 university and instantly join the DB TPS. Which is why the new offer (which is 13 % employer contribution , not 18 %. The 18 % includes what employers will have to continue to contribute to the DB scheme.) isn’t competitive - you can move to a better deal even within the same sector in the UK. (Although your new employer would likely have worse facilities for your research and less bright students - on average - than your old one).
sidicks said:
These employers abroad, what DB pension schemes are they offering?
In Germany, for example, academics don’t have to pay the 20 % of salary up to about €65k that private sector employees have to contribute towards their state pension.Incidentally in Germany the state pension is determined by your average salary - you can get €2-3k a month if you are at the upper limit.
But German academics don’t get the normal state pension, they actually get something better. They can get up to about 70 % of their final salary, for 0 contributions.
Edited by travel is dangerous on Sunday 25th February 08:13
travel is dangerous said:
Which is why the new offer (which is 13 % employer contribution , not 18 %. The 18 % includes what employers will have to continue to contribute to the DB scheme.) isn’t competitive - you can move to a better deal even within the same sector in the UK.
You mean the difference is the 5% contribution that is required to fund the deficit (and other benefits) in the DB scheme that you claim doesn’t exist.Currrently the employee is paying 18% and you are paying 8% into the DB scheme.
Using your figures, the new contribution rate will be 8% + 13% instead of 8% + 18%, so roughly 80%.
The scheme’s funding methodology assumes investment returns of around 3% - please explain how you expected to you expect to be 40-60% wise off, when contributions are only 20% lower and your own investment assumption (5%) is so much higher.
Or, isn’t it true that your previous claims about the existing scheme have been (to use your words) ‘a lot of drivel’?
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 09:18
travel is dangerous said:
In Germany, for example, academics don’t have to pay the 20 % of salary up to about €65k that private sector employees have to contribute towards their state pension.
Incidentally in Germany the state pension is determined by your average salary - you can get €2-3k a month if you are at the upper limit.
But German academics don’t get the normal state pension, they actually get something better. They can get up to about 70 % of their final salary, for 0 contributions.
Do you speak German?Incidentally in Germany the state pension is determined by your average salary - you can get €2-3k a month if you are at the upper limit.
But German academics don’t get the normal state pension, they actually get something better. They can get up to about 70 % of their final salary, for 0 contributions.
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
In Germany, for example, academics don’t have to pay the 20 % of salary up to about €65k that private sector employees have to contribute towards their state pension.
Incidentally in Germany the state pension is determined by your average salary - you can get €2-3k a month if you are at the upper limit.
But German academics don’t get the normal state pension, they actually get something better. They can get up to about 70 % of their final salary, for 0 contributions.
Do you speak German?Incidentally in Germany the state pension is determined by your average salary - you can get €2-3k a month if you are at the upper limit.
But German academics don’t get the normal state pension, they actually get something better. They can get up to about 70 % of their final salary, for 0 contributions.
There are hundreds/thousands like me.
The UK already spends less than all of it's major competitors on research and development as a fraction of GDP. If we're going to have a strong economy we need to invest properly in science and education. Paying people competitively is one aspect of this. You appear to take particular objection to crankedup in this thread making that point, but I am almost certain I have seen you make the same point about e.g. RBS employees in other threads on executive pay and similar. You can't have it both ways.
PS one of your previous posts asked me "which is it? is there no deficit? or is there a deficit, and your arguments are (now) based on your 'worth'" (paraphrasing). The answer is that it is possible to hold both of those opinions simultaneously. I think the (size of, not the fact of) the deficit is an artefact of requiring a multi-employer scheme to meet the same standards as a single employer scheme. I think that it's important to pay highly skilled people properly.
The reduced income I anticipate from the DC scheme compared to now for me, even with better investment returns, is based on the fact that to guarantee an annual income until death (what the DB schemed does) I would have to buy an annuity. The lower annual income than present is because as an individual buying such an annuity there is no prospect of mitigating longevity risks as happens in a scheme that pools risk like the current USS scheme. The proposed new scheme foists all of the risk of stockmarket fluctuations and longevity onto employees.
travel is dangerous said:
Yes, I worked there previously and actually I turned down a job offer there to work in the UK. I also have research funding from the EU that I can take to any university in the EU and which is substantial enough that many would have me.
There are hundreds/thousands like me.
The UK already spends less than all of it's major competitors on research and development as a fraction of GDP. If we're going to have a strong economy we need to invest properly in science and education. Paying people competitively is one aspect of this. You appear to take particular objection to crankedup in this thread making that point, but I am almost certain I have seen you make the same point about e.g. RBS employees in other threads on executive pay and similar. You can't have it both ways.
What are the DB pension arrangements in Germany?There are hundreds/thousands like me.
The UK already spends less than all of it's major competitors on research and development as a fraction of GDP. If we're going to have a strong economy we need to invest properly in science and education. Paying people competitively is one aspect of this. You appear to take particular objection to crankedup in this thread making that point, but I am almost certain I have seen you make the same point about e.g. RBS employees in other threads on executive pay and similar. You can't have it both ways.
You need to make your mind up whether you want to go with the "because I'm worth it" argument or the "because it's totally affordable" argument. I suggest you stick to the former, because the latter is "drivel".
travel is dangerous said:
PS one of your previous posts asked me "which is it? is there no deficit? or is there a deficit, and your arguments are (now) based on your 'worth'" (paraphrasing). The answer is that it is possible to hold both of those opinions simultaneously. I think the (size of, not the fact of) the deficit is an artefact of requiring a multi-employer scheme to meet the same standards as a single employer scheme. I think that it's important to pay highly skilled people properly.
Then you are wrong.travel is dangerous said:
The reduced income I anticipate from the DC scheme compared to now for me, even with better investment returns, is based on the fact that to guarantee an annual income until death (what the DB schemed does) I would have to buy an annuity. The lower annual income than present is because as an individual buying such an annuity there is no prospect of mitigating longevity risks as happens in a scheme that pools risk like the current USS scheme.
That's nonsense - that's exactly what an insurance company does, pool longevity risks between annuitants, so the risk of living longer is offset by those who die sooner than expected.travel is dangerous said:
The proposed new scheme foists all of the risk of stockmarket fluctuations and longevity onto employees.
These risks have a cost which you are ignoring and which is why there is a massive deficit in the fund, despite your nonsensical claims!Of course if the DC theme you will get all of the benefit of stockmarket upside!
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 11:07
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
Yes, I worked there previously and actually I turned down a job offer there to work in the UK. I also have research funding from the EU that I can take to any university in the EU and which is substantial enough that many would have me.
There are hundreds/thousands like me.
The UK already spends less than all of it's major competitors on research and development as a fraction of GDP. If we're going to have a strong economy we need to invest properly in science and education. Paying people competitively is one aspect of this. You appear to take particular objection to crankedup in this thread making that point, but I am almost certain I have seen you make the same point about e.g. RBS employees in other threads on executive pay and similar. You can't have it both ways.
What are the DB pension arrangements in Germany?There are hundreds/thousands like me.
The UK already spends less than all of it's major competitors on research and development as a fraction of GDP. If we're going to have a strong economy we need to invest properly in science and education. Paying people competitively is one aspect of this. You appear to take particular objection to crankedup in this thread making that point, but I am almost certain I have seen you make the same point about e.g. RBS employees in other threads on executive pay and similar. You can't have it both ways.
You need to make your mind up whether you want to go with the "because I'm worth it" argument or the "because it's totally affordable" argument. I suggest you stick to the former, because the latter is "drivel".
There is no logical reason that both of the arguments I posit cannot be advanced simultaneously. They are both valid and are not contradictory.
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
PS one of your previous posts asked me "which is it? is there no deficit? or is there a deficit, and your arguments are (now) based on your 'worth'" (paraphrasing). The answer is that it is possible to hold both of those opinions simultaneously. I think the (size of, not the fact of) the deficit is an artefact of requiring a multi-employer scheme to meet the same standards as a single employer scheme. I think that it's important to pay highly skilled people properly.
Then you are wrong.sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
The proposed new scheme foists all of the risk of stockmarket fluctuations and longevity onto employees.
These risks have a cost which you are ignoring and which is why there is a massive deficit in the fund, despite your nonsensical claims!Of course if the DC theme you will get all of the benefit of stockmarket upside!
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 11:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff