Abandoning the semi-monthly match will save the company big bucks and, while Big Blue didn’t feel the need to be honest with workers about its motives in gutting the 401(k), company savings no doubt was the reason. The fact that many workers will never receive the annual 401(k) match and will be exposed to greater investment risks by the action apparently is causing no loss of sleep among company executives. What are IBM 401(k) participants to do?
Unfortunately under the applicable federal pension law (ERISA), participants generally have no express legal right to participate in the administrative and investment decisions related to the plan itself. (Of course, collective bargaining agreements may provide participants some role in such matters.) The structure of the plan, the investment menu offered, and any matching contributions are all pretty much left to the employer. Certainly IBM as the sponsor to the 401(k) could choose to include an employee or participant representative, or two, on the committees that oversee the plan. However, that’s not likely to happen. ...
My advice to IBM’s 401(k) participants is that they establish their own “shadow” 401(k) fiduciary, or retirement benefits guardian, whose role will be to vocally represent their interests solely. I call it a “shadow” fiduciary, or guardian, because, while this organization will be every bit as legitimate as the fiduciaries to the 401(k) selected by IBM, it will not legally have the power to make decisions on behalf of the plan. However, it can, if equally knowledgeable about retirement plan practices, tenacious and ever-present, possibly keep the company on the defensive, i.e., both keeping workers educated and thwarting further efforts to weaken the 401(k).
The goal is to prevent an employer-retirement plan sponsor with infinite resources, assisted by expert advisors, and limited incentive to tell the truth, from using arcane devices to pursue its own objectives whilst workers are kept in the dark.
What IBM 401(k) participants need is nothing short of expert counter-intelligence. ...
For far too long, workers have relied upon spoon-fed retirement industry advice which aided and abetted employer fleecing of plans. It’s not too late to fight back, but I wouldn’t wait much longer.
In May 2010, IBM originally announced it would hire up to 800 people by the end of December 2012 at its new Columbia center. KOMU 8 News later learned that when the company signed a contract with the state, it actually agreed to hire 600 people by the end of 2015--a much later date it did not publicize widely.
As part of the contract, the state offered IBM $28 million in tax credits and job training funds. In an email, John Fougere with the Department of Economic Development said IBM has been receiving those incentives in increments based on the number of employees it has hired so far.
To get these incentives, IBM must file annual reports with the state documenting the number of people it has hired in the year. KOMU 8 News requested those documents from the DED and learned that as of June 30, 2012, IBM reported 469 employees with an average wage of $27.30 per hour. When it responded to our request, the DED said the June 2012 figure was the latest from IBM, meaning there is no year-end number that would state whether the company reached its original public goal of as many as 800 employees. ...
In addition to the state's $28 million incentive package to be paid in full by 2015 if IBM meets its goals, the city of Columbia agreed to pay $3 million over a ten-year time span to purchase a building for IBM on LeMone Industrial Boulevard. The city agreed to lease the building to IBM for a dollar per year for ten years. Despite taking millions in public money, McDavid said the company has no obligation to share its employment information.
The second part of this research is to wait a few months and ask what Costco would charge with CVS insurance. They could not check for me this time as the CVS computers said its too early to reorder... thus no price info.
Anyone else have any data with using CVS Caremark card at Costco? I am specifically interested in what shows up against the yearly cap. I am in a situation that I blow thru this limit by October.
Price your meds at PlanetDrugsDirect.com. Call the friendly USA Call Center if needed. You will be amazed at your savings.
All you need is a scan of your current prescription, typically in the form of a .pdf file to send to them. Been there, done it.
We looked at the top five brand name drugs by sales today to highlight the incredible price discrepancies between US pharmacy and international online pharmacy prices.
Petition Statement: Supreme Court: Review the appellate decision in the AT&T pension reduction case, which was used as a precedent to dismiss several other national corporate pension reduction cases.
Petition Background: In 1997, AT&T changed its pension plan from a traditional, defined-benefit plan, to a cash-balance, defined-contribution plan. In 1998, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the conversion was done in an age-discriminatory manner, causing older employees to lose large portions of the amounts that had previously been accrued in their pensions. (Editor's note: IBM did the same in 1999.)
At the time, this lawsuit was the largest age discrimination lawsuit in US history; 24,000 class members who opted-in, and $2 Billion in damages. I was identified as the employee who had the worst case of “wearaway”; I had 19 years of service at the time of the conversion, but the new plan took away 13 years, leaving only 6 years of my service in the new plan. (See link below to where this fact is mentioned in court documents). I never even had the chance to recover those lost years, because AT&T offshored my job and laid me off in 1999. This happened to tens of thousands of other employees.
After this case was stalled in the courts by AT&T for 13 years, it was thrown out in 2011 in the Federal Appellate Court in Philadelphia by a 3-judge panel, presided over by Judge Trump Barry, who is Donald Trump’s sister. Judge Trump Barry showed her attitude against retirement and pensions by stating, “I keep thinking of my father’s words, “Work is its own reward.” You know, just keep working no matter how old you get”. (See link to transcript below to see her statement)
The 24,000 class members, who suffered age discrimination at the hands of AT&T via pension reductions and subsequent mass layoffs, never had their day in court.
Judge Trump Barry’s decision to throw out the case was then used by other corporations to throw out the pension cases of tens of thousands of employees of El Paso and of Solvay, and of many other national corporations currently. Because all these pensions have been greatly decreased by corporations having reneged their fiduciary responsibilities to their former employees, there is a cascading significant loss to Federal and State income tax revenue, as well as a significant loss of money going back into the economy through consumer spending.
The lead attorney in this case was Stephen Bruce of Washington DC, a recognized expert in the pension field, who had previously testified in Congressional hearings on pension issues. Mr. Bruce had successfully argued a similar case for Cigna employees in front of the Supreme Court, and he won the case (see link to Supreme Court decision below). However, the Supreme Court denied hearing the AT&T case, even though the Appellate court had ruled differently on the AT&T case to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Cigna case.
Please sign this petition to ask the Supreme Court to review Judge Trump Barry’s decision in the AT&T case, and to review the decisions of the cases that have been thrown out subsequently.
WHY THIS PETITION IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO SIGN, even if you did not work for AT&T:
This is an issue important to ALL Americans!
It's all scams that the US Courts continue to dismiss; it's all a big travesty. It's worse than a huge shame.
I know people that have told me they put down and would not finish reading Ellen Schultz's "Retirement Heist" book since they "don't understand it" and "can't believe corporations and companies are so evil that they can do this top their valued employees and ex-employees that are now retirees".
The truth HURTS. But it is the TRUTH.
When is everyone going to wake up and protect their earned retirement from these corporate robber baron thieves?
Cons: There is tremendous pressure on sales team to meet quotas—so consulting engagements are always over sold and over promised.
Once the contract is signed the sales team moves on to sell the next engagement. The sales teams incentives seem to be based on sales numbers and not on project delivery or profitability. The delivery team instead is measured on client satisfaction and profitability, making it very challenging in all oversold assignments.
This over promising of assignments together with a team that is mostly average or mediocre performers puts a lot of pressure on experienced hires to deliver—thus most client engagements end up being 60 to 80 hours a week including weekend work to meet the client expectations.
The available technical talent at GBS is made up of a limited number of star performers and a large majority of average or mediocre performers. Most GBS projects have an abundance of contract employees from other staff augmentation firms. There is no control on the quality or delivery of these contract consultants. GBS Partners are OK with this arrangement as long as there is a mark up that is being made from the contract employees.
A very small percentage of star performers stay back to attempt at promotions; a large majority just move on after getting burnt out in a couple of years.
Advice to Senior Management: Tie GBS sales bonuses with delivery and profitability measurements. Stop being bureaucratic in all your processes. Even the process of promotions is enough to turn off the most committed employee. Understand what work and life balance really means and make sure the partners know how to apply this across all employees in the field.
Cons: They keep you hanging in terms of salary increase, changing the contract to a slightly more legal one, keeps people terrorized at the idea of losing their job while piling up more and more responsibilities. I have had so far a very negative experience as I have worked in those kind of work centers where officially you`re not even a real IBM er but work with intermediary companies so they can clean up the mess if they don`t give you the benefits you`d expect with seniority.
People leave after six months and the company likes it like this as they don't want to actually use people's skills, just their knowledge in foreign languages.
Also all the propaganda of how great the company is and their high earning while being told there will be no improvement in conditions, pay. I know for a fact in different countries, different treatment, but it's time big companies stop taking advantage of the "crisis" and benefit from the thin line of outsourcing and granting people some benefits according to geography and the dignity, pay people expect.
Advice to Senior Management: Less chain mails, less talk about figures and more about the people, make this company about people for a change and invest some money in their training.
Cons: In one word: technical company driven by non-technical people. Practically, this means:
Advice to Senior Management: There is a shortage of talented software engineers on the market. If you want top products, which translates into outstanding customer experience, try to attract and retain top engineers. Lead by example and truly show you care about your employees, stating it over and over without concrete actions does not make it a fact; you cannot fool people. -Inject more technical people into senior management and exec roles.
Employers and labor-market experts say the pendulum is swinging away from offshore labor strategies and toward a more home-grown approach. That is, U.S. employers are recognizing the limits of shipping work abroad and looking to beef up operations domestically. The reasons include skill sets largely specific to the U.S., increased costs of overseas operations and a desire by U.S. employers for a more stable workforce, even when using contingent labor. ...
Ravin Jesuthasan, global practice leader for talent management at consulting firm Towers Watson & Co., says organizations in some cases rushed to send work overseas and didn't recognize the downsides. Offshoring human resources processes could lead to a lower-quality employee experience and potentially reduce productivity as U.S. workers and managers seeking HR support are not served well by foreign call centers, he says. Now there's growing interest in bringing some operations back to America's shores. ...
More than just labor savings and social responsibility are behind the re-shoring trend. Companies are recognizing the value of physical proximity when it comes to their teams. InterContinental Hotels Group requires key people on its Web development team to work out of its regional headquarters in Atlanta, says Keith Credendino, vice president for global e-commerce technology. The hotel chain still sends some technology work, such as software testing, overseas to countries including India and Russia. But for strategic tasks such as rebuilding the InterContinental website, it is important for developers to be co-located with company business partners, Credendino says. ...
Greater interest in workforce stability also is spurring more work to be done in America, says Wade Hughes, managing partner at consulting and staffing firm The Intersect Group. He says clients are requiring their staffing providers to complete assignments with workers who are "W-2" employees rather than contractors or employees at a subcontracting firm. Clients seem to be imposing the W-2 requirement to ensure that their technology projects and other assignments are staffed with a reliable set of workers, Hughes says. "They want continuity."
More and more of us find ourselves unable to juggle overwhelming demands and maintain a seemingly unsustainable pace. Paradoxically, the best way to get more done may be to spend more time doing less. A new and growing body of multidisciplinary research shows that strategic renewal — including daytime workouts, short afternoon naps, longer sleep hours, more time away from the office and longer, more frequent vacations — boosts productivity, job performance and, of course, health. ...
In most workplaces, rewards still accrue to those who push the hardest and most continuously over time. But that doesn’t mean they’re the most productive.
Spending more hours at work often leads to less time for sleep and insufficient sleep takes a substantial toll on performance. In a study of nearly 400 employees, published last year, researchers found that sleeping too little — defined as less than six hours each night — was one of the best predictors of on-the-job burn-out. A recent Harvard study estimated that sleep deprivation costs American companies $63.2 billion a year in lost productivity. ...
More vacations are similarly beneficial. In 2006, the accounting firm Ernst & Young did an internal study of its employees and found that for each additional 10 hours of vacation employees took, their year-end performance ratings from supervisors (on a scale of one to five) improved by 8 percent. Frequent vacationers were also significantly less likely to leave the firm. ...
Our own offices are a laboratory for the principles we teach. Renewal is central to how we work. We dedicated space to a “renewal” room in which employees can nap, meditate or relax. We have a spacious lounge where employees hang out together and snack on healthy foods we provide. We encourage workers to take renewal breaks throughout the day, and to leave the office for lunch, which we often do together. We allow people to work from home several days a week, in part so they can avoid debilitating rush-hour commutes. Our workdays end at 6 p.m. and we don’t expect anyone to answer e-mail in the evenings or on the weekends. Employees receive four weeks of vacation from their first year.
Our basic idea is that the energy employees bring to their jobs is far more important in terms of the value of their work than is the number of hours they work. By managing energy more skillfully, it’s possible to get more done, in less time, more sustainably. In a decade, no one has ever chosen to leave the company. Our secret is simple — and generally applicable. When we’re renewing, we’re truly renewing, so when we’re working, we can really work.
Shift to 401(k)s. Only about half of the workforce is offered retirement benefits through their employer, according to a recent Employee Benefit Research Institute analysis of Census Bureau data. And even when benefits are offered, 401(k)s are now the dominant type of retirement benefits. Many workers choose not to participate in their company 401(k) plan or contribute only small amounts. "Workers fortunate enough to have pension coverage increasingly have to assume the responsibility of saving for their retirement in 401(k) plans, hopefully getting a match, and bearing the volatility of 401(k) plans," says Sara Rix, a senior strategic policy advisor for the AARP Public Policy Institute. People in their 50s and 60s who haven't saved enough or invested well may need to delay retirement to give their savings additional time to accumulate.
Doug Lemons, a retired Social Security Administration executive, produced a comparative analysis for the Journal of Financial Planning of three different ages at which many people consider taking Social Security. These are:
Alliance Reply: It is common knowledge that IBM management and HR "monitor" Alliance@IBM's web site as well as ANY employee advocate or IBM employees discussion groups. Of course, it is ILLEGAL for them to spy on us. That's why you were told you would be fired if you said anything. If we could prove by documentation that IBM is breaking the law , we would take action publicly. BUT We already have taken action publicly, by being a consistent IBM employee advocate; through this web site and through many direct action demonstrations and press releases for nearly 14 years.
Obviously, IBM fears us more than we fear them. IBM employees need to understand that the power we have as a collective group, is far greater than IBM's brute abuse and bullying of IBM employees. All that is needed, is for us to join together as a force to be reckoned with; and then we move forward and we assert our voice in the IBM workplace. Join Alliance@IBM and let's get busy fighting for our jobs...because if we don't, we may as well get busy losing our jobs. It's that simple.
Today Walmart has fewer than 130 clinics and is closing locations faster than it’s opening them. Meanwhile, CVS Caremark Corp., which already has about 630 MinuteClinics, is opening about three a week, and aims to have 1,500 within four years. It’s promoting the clinics heavily on TV and the web. While industry figures are hard to come by, CVS says its clinic business has grown at a compound annual rate of 39% in the last six years.
Walmart, which farmed out the operation of the clinics to third-party operators, hasn’t adequately promoted its clinics to shoppers or made it easy for them to pick up their prescriptions. Thomas Charland, who runs Merchant Medicine, a research and consulting firm specializing in walk-in health care, has heard “lots of complaints” from operators that they get little support from Wal-Mart, and he characterized the company’s efforts as “trial and failure.”
The Medicare cuts are part of a larger "reform" of health care in the United States, which ultimately serves to shift the cost of health care off the backs of corporations, placing the burden firmly on the shoulders of working people.
The main reason that health care reform became a national priority for Obama is because it was a priority for big business: corporations have long complained that their employee health care costs were too high. And they've always hated paying payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Obama has responded gallantly to these grievances, as he did to the banks when they demanded to be bailed out with taxpayer money.
Obama has remained mostly quiet about his Medicare plans, but has stated repeatedly " all options are on the table" (his favorite Bushism). The secretiveness is based on the unpopularity of the options, all of which have already been openly discussed in the media in the last two years of bi-partisan "Grand Bargain" haggling.
Churning is the policy wonk term for those who qualify and are covered by a public program like Medicaid and who then have access to a private insurance plan through a new job that offers it or through a family member’s coverage but who then lose that coverage and end up back on the public insurance for which they qualify. They churn. And they suffer.
Churning doesn’t happen in an orderly or smooth way. There is a person with health care needs churning. There may be weeks or even months during which that person has no coverage and therefore only the access that money can buy them, and we all know how far that will go. Sometimes there are children involved who churn with their parents. Kids with illness for which they need care can suffer during delays of approvals for both public and private plans. How do we explain churning to a child up in the middle of night with asthma symptoms or other problems? “Sorry, sweetheart, mommy is churning this week, and we do not have the money to buy that inhaler. Maybe the insurance will come through next week.”
"But dependency on government has never been bad for the rich. The pretense of the laissez-faire people is that only the poor are dependent on government, while the rich take care of themselves. This argument manages to ignore all of modern history, which shows a consistent record of laissez-faire for the poor, but enormous government intervention for the rich." From Economic Justice: The American Class System, from the book Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn.
The chained CPI is a twist on that: It measures living costs differently because it assumes that when prices for one thing go up, people sometimes settle for cheaper substitutes (if beef prices go up, for example, they'll buy more chicken and less beef).
Bottom line: Cost-of-living adjustments would be lower with the chained CPI than with the plain old CPI. So depending on which formula is used, the amount of your Social Security payments could change over time. ...
With the chained CPI, you would be getting $1,267.50 — or $3.75 less a month and $45 less a year. Again, that might not seem like a big reduction, but if the COLA is the same next year, the difference increases to $7.61 a month and $91.32 for the year.
You start to get the picture. The gap accelerates and begins looking like real money. If you're 62 and take early retirement this year, by age 92 — when health care costs can skyrocket and more than 1 in 6 older Americans lives in poverty — you'll be losing a full month of income every year.
If you want to learn more, the AARP Public Policy Institute has done a deeper dive on the chained CPI.
Its politicians, however, are stupid and bought off by everybody from Oil Billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Saudi sheiks, to transnational corporations and defense contractors.
Which is problem one. Our Supreme Court has said that money is the same thing as speech. It's not. It's money.
Our Supreme Court has also said that corporations are persons. They are not. They are voluntary associations. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the East India Company - it was written to protect individual people. ...
Does it mean that government should be hysterical about how much it's spending, when our government is spending about half as much of its GDP as most other developed nations, and our own spending compared to ourselves is at levels lower than in most of the past half-century? No, that's stupid, too.
Those are manufactured hysterias to get our government to do things that will further destroy the middle class and enrich the banksters and billionaires. They have nothing to do with the purpose of government.
If the job of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - what the Constitution repeatedly refers to as the "General Welfare" - then the real issue government should be laser-focused on is obvious. It's jobs.
Back then, the U.S. was in the catbird seat – poised to lead the world down this astonishing new superhighway of information and innovation. Now many other countries offer their citizens faster and cheaper access than we do. The faster high-speed access comes through fiber optic lines that transmit data in bursts of laser light, but many of us are still hooked up to broadband connections that squeeze digital information through copper wire. We’re stuck with this old-fashioned technology because, as Susan Crawford explains, our government has allowed a few giant conglomerates to rig the rules, raise prices, and stifle competition. Just like standard oil in the first Gilded Age a century ago. ...
What's happened is that these enormous telecommunications companies, Comcast and Time Warner on the wired side, Verizon and AT&T on the wireless side, have divided up markets, put themselves in the position where they're subject to no competition and no oversight from any regulatory authority. And they're charging us a lot for internet access and giving us second class access. ...
It's fair to say that the U.S. at the best is in the middle of the pack when it comes to both the speed and cost of high speed internet access connections. So in Hong Kong right now you can get a 500 megabit symmetric connection that's unimaginably fast from our standpoint for about 25 bucks a month. In Seoul, for $30 you get three choices of different providers of fiber in your apartment. And they come in and install in a day because competition's so fierce. In New York City there's only one choice, and it's 200 bucks a month for a similar service. And you can't get that kind of fiber connection outside of New York City in many parts of the country. Verizon's only serving about 10 percent of Americans. So let's talk about the wireless side for a moment, you know, the separate marketplace that people use for mobility. In Europe you can get unlimited texting and voice calls and data for about $30 a month, similar service from Verizon costs $90 a month. That's a huge difference. ...
Beginning in the early 2000’s we believed that the magic of the market would provide internet access to all Americans. That the cable guys would compete with the phone guys who would compete with wireless and that somehow all of this ferment would make sure that we kept up with the rest of the world. Those assumptions turned out not to be true. It's much cheaper to upgrade a cable connection than it is to dig up a copper phone line and replace it with fiber. So the cable guys who had these franchises in many, most American cities, they are in place with a status quo network that 94 percent of new subscriptions are going to. Everybody's signing up with their local cable incumbent. There is not competition for 80 percent of Americans. They don't have a choice for a truly high speed connection. It's just the local cable guy. Competition has just vanished.
One reason is that the truly wealthy employ all kinds of legal means to minimize their tax liability, including shifting income around the world, deferring gains on their assets and many other sophisticated strategies. Another, though, is that taxes on ordinary income simply don’t apply to inheritance or investment, principal sources of wealth.
Under legislation that Congress approved on New Year’s Day the top marginal income tax rate for 2013 has risen to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for individuals on ordinary income over $400,000 and for couples on income over $450,000, while tax deductions and credits start phasing out on income as low as $250,000. But what is being taxed is often just a small portion of the income and wealth of the very richest Americans; unearned income, including unrealized gains and gains on investments, is either not taxed or taxed at a fraction of the top rate on wages.
Taxing wealth in addition to income is one way to make sure that the rich contribute more to government coffers. That would essentially be a tax on household assets like property, stocks, bonds, unincorporated businesses, trusts, art and yachts. The idea is to aim at the wealthiest part of the population, perhaps the top 1 percent, a group that has seen the most significant and consistent accumulation of wealth over the last few decades. ...
Mr. Altman proposes replacing the income tax with a wealth tax. He estimates that a flat wealth tax of 1.5 percent would be more than enough to replace the revenue from current income, estate and gift taxes. But he proposes establishing tax brackets according to wealth levels. For instance, no tax might be imposed for a household’s first $500,000 in wealth, 1 percent for the next $500,000 and 2 percent for wealth above $1 million.
Proponents of a wealth tax also say it would encourage innovation and risk-taking because it wouldn’t tax wealth in its early phases, but only after it has been amassed.
USPS, which rankled some lawmakers last week with its announced plans to end Saturday mail delivery in August, could have turned a $100 million profit if not for a Congressional mandate that officials have said cripples agency finances.
The report, released Friday, shows the Postal Service paid $1.4 billion toward health benefits for future retirees. A 2006 law requires the early payment of 75 years worth of retiree benefits within 10 years. ...
The $1.4 billion in pre-funding charges this quarter accounts for all — and then some — of the overall red ink of $1.3 billion,” National Association of Letter Carriers President Frederic Rolando said in a statement Friday. “Since pre-funding went into effect, it accounts for more than 80 percent of the agency’s red ink.”
Here are a few things you need to know about the Postal Service “crisis”:
The Postal Service is a public service for We, the People, not a business. The Service is hamstrung by people who pretend it is supposed to compete and then won’t let it. They won’t help with taxpayer dollars and say it has to compete in the marketplace (again: the Department of Defense is not required to break even.) Then they give it rules that no private company could survive. Then when it gets into trouble, say that government doesn’t work, start laying people off, selling off the public assets, and saying it has to be “privatized” (so all the gains will go to a few already-wealthy people instead of to the public).
The consumer bureau has taken seriously its mandate to protect the public from the kinds of abuses that helped lead to the 2009 recession, and it has not been intimidated by the financial industry’s army of lobbyists. That’s what worries Republicans. They can’t prevent the bureau from regulating their financial supporters. Having failed to block the creation of the bureau in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, they are now trying to take away its power by filibuster, and they may well succeed.
The bureau cannot operate without a director. Under the Dodd-Frank law, most of its regulatory powers — particularly its authority over nonbanks like finance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders and credit agencies — can be exercised only by a director. Knowing that, Republicans used a filibuster to prevent President Obama’s nominee for director, Richard Cordray, from reaching a vote in 2011. Mr. Obama then gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled in another case that the Senate was not in recess at that time because Republicans had arranged for sham sessions.
He would advocate this even if he thought such banks would never have a crisis sufficient to threaten the financial system. He believes they are unhealthy for the financial system even when they are healthy. This is because there is a silent subsidy — an unfair competitive advantage relative to community banks — inherent in being deemed by the government, implicitly but clearly, too big to fail.
The Senate has unanimously passed a bill offered by Brown and Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, directing the Government Accountability Office to study whether banks with more than $500 billion in assets acquire an “economic benefit” because of their dangerous scale. Is their debt priced favorably because, being TBTF, they are considered especially creditworthy? Brown believes the 20 largest banks pay less when borrowing — 50 to 80 basis points less — than community banks must pay. ...
Brown is fond of the maxim that “banking should be boring.” He suspects that within the organizational sprawl of the biggest banks, there is too much excitement. Clever people with the high spirits and adrenaline addictions of fighter pilots continue to develop exotic financial instruments and transactions unknown even in other parts of the sprawl. He is undecided about whether the proper metric for identifying a bank as “too big” should be if its assets are a certain percentage of GDP — he suggests 2 percent to 4 percent — or simply the size of its assets (Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has suggested $100 billion).
By breaking up the biggest banks, conservatives will not be putting asunder what the free market has joined together. Government nurtured these behemoths by weaving an improvident safety net and by practicing crony capitalism. Dismantling them would be a blow against government that has become too big not to fail. Aux barricades!
“I would say 10 percent of the building are really full-time residents like myself, out of about 150 apartments,” Joanna Cutler, a real estate broker who has lived in the building since 2007, said last week as she sauntered through long, empty hallways. ...
Pieds-à-terre exist throughout the New York City condo market, a separate little world of vacation homes and investment properties. But the higher the price, the higher the concentration is likely to be of owners who spend only a few months, a few weeks or even just a few days each year in their apartments. This very costly form of desolation means that some of the city’s most expensive residential buildings stand mostly dark, lonesome and empty on the inside.
This site is designed to allow IBM Employees to communicate and share methods of protecting their rights through the establishment of an IBM Employees Labor Union. Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act states it is a violation for Employers to spy on union gatherings, or pretend to spy. For the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, notice is given that this site and all of its content, messages, communications, or other content is considered to be a union gathering.