Thursday, February 23, 2006

Numbers runner runs the numbers...You decide

[From an anonymous runner of numbers]

How can anyone say that the LANS retirement package is equal to the UCRP?

I have gone to the UC on-line calculator and plugged in some real numbers in order to get real results. I suggest you do the same.

Lets look at what retiring at 52 in 2006 would yield verse what retiring at 65 in 2019 would yield, assuming a scenario where I would never get another a pay raise for the next 13 years because we are over market.

Then lets look page 42 of the Mercer presentation where it shows what you will get for the same age and time, but with social security and savings. From what I can see there is absolutely no comparison between what LANS is offering and what we have under the UCRP. To add insult to injury you must realize that if you were allowed to continue under a retirement plan that mirrored the UCRP and were able to continue saving at the same rate in your 403b you have acquired over $1M dollars in your account. Rolling that alone into a fixed lifetime annuity would yield approximate $5K a month. Adding that to your monthly income from your UC retirement and you'd be set. Taking into account that both your UC retirement and your lifetime annuity would allow you survivor's benefits, your spouse would have been set for life after your death too. So again where is the similarity and how can the LANS offer be considered even remotely close to UCRP? The simple fact is that it is not.

Please take the time and run the numbers for yourself and give your input to DOEAL. As of today HR LANS reported that DOEAL has only received about 600 e-mails for consideration. You have one day left to voice your concerns.

The question then will be. Will DOE listen or will they choose fantasy over reality and lose a lot of good people?

How 87% of your base pay from UCRP without social security and savings sound, in comparison to the 36% you will get from LANS at age 65 sound?


[Editorial comment: 36% sounds just a little better than 33% from the US Govt retirement insurance, which will NOT apply to LANS, as I understand it.]

Per UCRS, the average retirement age of LANL employees has historically been age 59. Then, why has LANS used age 65 in their handouts?
Because they know at 65 you are entitled to state medical care and that you will only live on the average of 18 months after you retire and you can get social security. This is very common. Very good planning on their behalf.

Legally they have to use the national retirement age for their calculations.


I read that study.. but it still does not pass the smell test in that the average retirement age for people is 65 in the country and the average death age of retirees is 74 these days... which isnt 18 months later.

author and the rest:

Here is the real sad part, I dont think people have noticed:

The LANS plans are functionally equivalent to UCRP.. as LONG as you realize it has to be capped at 105% of industry standards picked by DOE/NNSA. In fact you are getting a lot more than they have to give under that cap.
Well I tell you what you do. You stay and work for LANS until you are 65 and lets see. I am leaving at 52. I tried to post a file that shows a 10 year study done by Boeing Aerospace. It clearly shows where a person who retires at 65 will live until they are ~67, but a person who retires at age 55 will live until at least 85. I hope to milk this to death.
Why retire early? Is working for LANS going to improve your heath or increase the odds of living longer?

Maybe this will help:
You might live longer if you retire earlier in the real world when it's on your terms. But in LA we don't live in the real world. You are being FORCED to retire earlier, which adds much more stress, and therefore, probably decreases your life span. Great pie in the sky scenario, but not fully applicable to us... well maybe. I may test the theory here shortly if I take a full retirement and start the clock ticking. Will keep you posted. Just don't look for an obit discussing butthead's demise. I'll be going by another name.

I am not saying not to retire earlier.. I am saying that Boeing study is flawed if given at face value. They dont break out that they are tracking 2 different sets of employees in their study (those who have to work til 65 for health/money reasons and those who can retire earlier).. and they also dont go over that the study was made to actually try and lower pension costs for Boeing.

YOU dont give statistical probabilities in your talks but give items at face value. This and other comments make sure that if I were knowing your name any scientific papers with it attached would have to be severely reviewed again. [I may disagree with Brad on many issues, but he lists where his statistical areas are good and where they can not be used for furhter analysis.]
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?