I mean more severance then regular salaries. They should have gone into administration far earlier. Facing criminal charges will give them an inventive to open talks with govt officials earlier.
Sears Canada
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
Sears collapse will ripple through the economy
https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/10/11/sears-collapse-will-ripple-through-the-economy.html
https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/10/11/sears-collapse-will-ripple-through-the-economy.html
It's all lip service IMO and too late for the pensioners or current workers. This case will dragged on through the courts for years. I believe it took 10 for the Nortel pensioners and the lawyers and creditors took a good chunk of that. Defined benefit plans simply don't work since they're a massive liability.
Is Hudson's Bay Company next?
https://www.thestar.com/business/20...rom-becoming-the-next-sears-canada-olive.html
https://www.thestar.com/business/20...rom-becoming-the-next-sears-canada-olive.html
fuckin' horse radish! Not Hudson's Bay Company
this is starting to sound like the Weinstein lineup
I was in the Bay in Sherway last weekend. (Bay Days)
To say it was packed wouldn't be correct. It was fucking packed.
I like the Bay in Sherway and downtown. (With the exception of the massive cosmetics department which makes me dizzy from the chemical stench.)
It would be an abject tragedy if they floundered.
But reading that link, it seems to me that the kiss of death is that it's a public company where decisions are made by banksters with the sole motive of lining their own pockets. No different than sears (there was a great article recently in the Globe and Mail) and Stelco in Hamilton.
The list is endless.
I'm seeing far more retailers fail in the private equity space. PE borrows money to buy a business (leveraged buyout), and if that business doesn't grow at a healthy rate it can't make its loan payments. I've had three different billion dollar clients go bust in the last two years. One was making profits of $100M per year, which is a nice healthy bottom line, but their debt payments were around that much as well.
Sad, mostly because of the tens of thousands of front-line retail jobs lost. The people losing these jobs are the ones who can least afford it.
KK
This make me laugh. The hypocrisy of the statement in the Sears context.
The whole point of the company pension plan is for Employee A to put in X amount and Company B to put in Y amount, thus providing a certain level of pension when you retire. Which is another way of saying the employees can rely on their employer to feed them for the rest of their lives after they retire (you know, the whole concept of a pension plan?).
With Sears going bankrupt, all those contributions go POOF! It's effectively the same thing as your bank wiping out your savings or RRSP account and saying, "Sorry! We're bankrupt!"
Those contributions (employee and company) belong to the employees. And they're getting fucked out of it because Sears couldn't manage their business effectively.
The government legislates the fuck out of pension plans yet they don't provide pension protection from creditors. That's what needs to change.
The exsting pension reserves don't go poof. They would remain to provide reduced pensions for eligible people. The trouble is the reduced part; the pension shortfall is a liability that is not treated with priority.
The real failure here on the pension was corporate governance which allowed massive dividends out to the US owners while the pension shortfall was not addressed. These dividends were possible due to the sale of the prime leases. Removing that money and not reinvesting in the business was stupid if they were really trying to compete. Removing that money as profit instead of addressing the pension liability should likely be criminal.
You catch on real quick,... but you still missed the part about people not relying on somebody else for their future,... and having an actual understanding pension plans.
You should educate yourself on pension plans before you make everybody here laugh at you.
Edit: But I do agree with you that the portion of the pension plan that was contributed by the employee, should be fully protected, needs to change.
Last edited:
I wish more people were responsible with their money. But that's not going to happen. If they were, there wouldn't even be pension deductions. People could get paid a larger amount, but self govern their own paycheques and budget wisely for retirement. The only pensions that could be paid out is for dirt poor people with bad jobs who never had a chance to bankroll big bank accounts, or people (let's say stay at home parent), who never paid into it. The majority of the working person pensions could theoretically be scrapped (let's say a tiny amount is taken off to pay for above).
But people are treated like morons and deductions are done, so that it gets paid back when you're in your 60s (basically your own money) because many people spend money like it's nothing and they'd be broke at 65.
So basically the nanny state is giving a senior citizen an allowance because Old Man Timmy couldn't plan his own money for the past 40 years.
A retarded process, but that's the way it is.
Say you have 1000 retirees, and each need to independently 'budget wisely' for their retirement. Each would need to save money to provide income for some worst case scenario, say they budget to live to age 95 (or 105 or whatever) before they die. They need to ensure that they won't outlive their savings, else they are fucked at the worst possible time.
In reality, those 1000 people collectively won't each live to 95 (or 105 or whatever). Some will die young. They collectively all don't need to set aside for the worst possible case; if they set aside for the average in a pool of money, their retirement will be collectively cheaper if they pool their risks. That's what a pension is.
Think about it from an employer perspective. If employees really understood how much their retirement will cost, everyone would demand more in salary to be able to set aside the worst case scenario cash fund. With a pension, the employer can pay less overall. Employers have it great at the moment; people are generally clueless about how much their retirement will cost and can get rid of pensions by giving people a bit more, but likely not enough, cash.
And that's the problem.
Most people have no clue how their expenses tally up. They probably have a idea if they have leftover money or not at the end of the month, but all someone has to do is a basic document showing money-in and money-out. By the time someone retires at let's say 65 (or whenever someone stops working), your monthly income is pension and whatever income someone has from any investments.
You assets is whatever everything is worth totaled up and estimated into the future, including home equity which is paper assets. And hopefully your mortgage is paid off which means the full value of the home is yours.
Estimate what monthly costs are and compare cashflow style money in and out.
And then someone will see if they are still gaining, or losing out which means their asset pool is dropping.
Not hard to figure out. I've been doing it since I got my first real job 20 years ago when my first bunch of years were breaking even on a monthly basis. Literally zero savings..... maybe $1,000 end of the year.
Anybody with a spreadsheet can do it. But I bet most people don't and they just wing it. It's really an amazing thing because once you get the spreadsheet working, you can really see the net result of what happens 20 years from now if I let's say cut my cable package to a shittier tier, or if I get a raise and assume I don't blow it all buying stuff, or I increase or decrease my monthly take out food. It's something someone with half decent spreadsheet skills can figure out ad get up and running in an hour.
Actually there are units of math that cover budgeting, investing, using mortgage calculators/tables, interest etc. They've been part of the curriculum for decades. Actually now that I think about it you get some financial math in grade 11 regardless of which course you take.
Your life is your responsibility. It's not the guidance counsellors fault people pick less useful paths. It's not your math teacher's fault you choose to lease cars, buy TVs etc. The difference between older generations and younger generations isthat the kids want it all now. Watch how often kids flip phones, cars, tech. Trips and vacations are also much more common. What happened to starter homes, saving up a large down payment etc?
But hey, easier to blame someone else.
Oh and before you get upset.... when I say "your" it means people in general not you/FAST.
There is no incentave to be resonsible
As there is one segment of the population who will always push for somebody else to take care of them,... very common with union demands, "I want my job guaranteed".
Every generation "wanted it all",... but with the increasing influence of the Liberal left,... much more pronounced today.
A good example you gave, was starter homes, now its brand new right after marriage, followed by vacations to Mexico with crying babies, in an aluminum virus incubator.
Another problem today is, those who are financially responsible, are rewarded by taxing,... and helping out those who are not.
This also applies to individual health, the lazy ass obese, cost the system a fortune, while those who look after themselves, are not compensated by lower taxes.
This has nothing to do with "math",... but a philosophy of,... as you put it,... of "blaming someone else",... for being irresponsible.
As there is one segment of the population who will always push for somebody else to take care of them,... very common with union demands, "I want my job guaranteed".
Every generation "wanted it all",... but with the increasing influence of the Liberal left,... much more pronounced today.
A good example you gave, was starter homes, now its brand new right after marriage, followed by vacations to Mexico with crying babies, in an aluminum virus incubator.
Another problem today is, those who are financially responsible, are rewarded by taxing,... and helping out those who are not.
This also applies to individual health, the lazy ass obese, cost the system a fortune, while those who look after themselves, are not compensated by lower taxes.
I agree with you. You're the one who brought up the idea that kids are not taught this stuff. And I was just telling you that you are wrong.
This is not a matter of liberal politics I am sure there are plenty of right wingers who want it all as well.
Actually there is incentive to be responsible.... sure you will pay some taxes when you draw from your TFSA and RRSP but your lifestyle will be better than the person who was perpetually in debt. The person in debt won't be able to retire, that's a shitty way to grind out your golden years,
I don't know when high school life classes started, but I know they weren't available in my school. I remember economics (supply/demand stuff), and a generic business administration class. But nothing to do with budgeting, life skills, etc....
The closest thing to budgeting and interest calculations was an accounting or finance class where they taught net present value, and how a bond or whatnot matures and is valued 20 years later. Wasn't geared to life, but more related to corporate finances.
Hopefully, these life classes are effective and kids learn something from it because they should be starting college or university a few years later when it kicks in.
The closest thing to budgeting and interest calculations was an accounting or finance class where they taught net present value, and how a bond or whatnot matures and is valued 20 years later. Wasn't geared to life, but more related to corporate finances.
Hopefully, these life classes are effective and kids learn something from it because they should be starting college or university a few years later when it kicks in.
Totally agree with this.
People who take care of themselves financially and health wise are penalized to cover costs of assheads who do stupid things in life they have complete control of like blow all their money or smoke cigarettes starting at 14 years old.
If anything, people in these situations should be penalized the most. That way it could be a deterrent to help prevent people doing it, so they spend their time and money better.
It's should be like a parking ticket. Don't park in a handicap zone if you don't have the badge and you won't get a ticket. Don't be dumb and you get no fine. But get a ticket and you pay it off yourself. You don't get the rest of the law abiding people to pay it off for you even though you knew what you were doing.
