No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by uranrising on Mar 16, 2016 9:04:12 PM
Media people pensions

Do the pension arrangements of staff journalists, editors etc, broadcasters, editors etc and all such media peeps make them immune to the developing governmental policies on pensions?

On another thread, answer came there none. More sensible to ask here, I hope.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Shabbyman - 16 Mar 2016 21:15:18 (#1 of 32)

A media person writes:



No. We're fucked.

xDiggy - 16 Mar 2016 21:16:49 (#2 of 32)

Developing policies such as what?

dreams99 - 16 Mar 2016 21:17:02 (#3 of 32)

Why do you think that journalists have comfortable pensions? Have you noticed the state of the media industry?

Urvile - 16 Mar 2016 21:23:19 (#4 of 32)

Does the thread starter imagine there is a conspiracy of silence around the extraordinary fuxkedness of pension provision? The thread starter is mistaken if so. Although it may be true that people are distracted by the housing crisis.

uranrising - 16 Mar 2016 21:36:03 (#5 of 32)

xDiggy

Developing policies such as what?

Such as the changing ages at which you can retire.



dreams99

I have not the faintest idea about the nature of media people pensions, hence my question.

I have noticed the great churn and some shrinkage and movement online in the media industry. So my question is partly in response to that situation, too.



Urvile

I don't know if there's a conspiracy of silence, but the increasing delays in people being able to retire doesn't seem to have resulted in much in the way of even implied revulsion. The other day, Digby Jones or some such was envisioning people perhaps not being eligible for retirement until maybe even 80. The interviewer didn't audibly turn a hair; not protest that the reason (we're living longer) is unrelated to when the human body tires, nor whether work is supposed to be the point of life.

It just made me wonder if that sort of scenario simply wouldn't apply to media people at least of the sort I come across on radio or tv.

Just wotIwondery of the ignorant.

Tangent - 16 Mar 2016 21:39:00 (#6 of 32)

The basic answer is that, even though pensions are of growing importance, the complexity of many areas of pensions policy, and the result difficulties in explaining options and choices available to ministers, puts the general media off reporting pensions except when they have concrete and digestible nuggets to work with.

uranrising - 16 Mar 2016 21:40:48 (#7 of 32)

My question was more about their own pensions than about the reporting of the subject.

Urvile - 16 Mar 2016 21:43:35 (#8 of 32)

I think people in the media are exactly as fucked as nearly everyone else in the private sector. The whole thing is completely broken and nobody has even the beginning of a solution. That doesn't make for particularly appetising news.

xDiggy - 16 Mar 2016 21:46:27 (#9 of 32)

The most notable recent media thing relating to pensions was the way the whole of fleet street eagerly front-paged a story about not getting state pensions until age 75 - the entire source of which was a PR plant from a private pension provider.

uranrising - 16 Mar 2016 22:02:27 (#10 of 32)

Thanks for all responses.

I have a fuller picture now.

cozzer - 16 Mar 2016 22:12:20 (#11 of 32)

the increasing delays in people being able to retire doesn't seem to have resulted in much in the way of even implied revulsion.



Surely people realise that it's sensible not to stick to a retirement age which was derived 90 years ago, when people's lives and living patterns have changed beyond all recognition, and so they are not being revolted by that.

Urvile - 16 Mar 2016 22:16:40 (#12 of 32)

Well in practice longer lives really don't translate to longer full time working lives, for all sorts of reasons.

Personally I think if there's one thing that will actually cause profound economic change in the long term it will be this, not the bankers or the housing market. But its a way away yet.

uranrising - 16 Mar 2016 22:21:19 (#13 of 32)

cozzer

Are you saying people can reach an older age before they start to feel tired during the day than used to be the case?

I think people start to need rest during the day at much the same age as 90 years ago; it's just that we can live longer.

cozzer - 16 Mar 2016 22:25:24 (#14 of 32)

Are you saying people can reach an older age before they start to feel tired during the day than used to be the case?



Yes. It's pretty clear that my parents are much fitter and more active than their parents were at the same age. It's not just that people are living longer, they're aging better too.

And in any case, something is going to need to change. The current pension age was arrived at a time when people weren't expected to live much more than 9 years after retirement. Even if people still need to retire at the same time, which I doubt, it's going to be impossible to be paying them all a pension for two or three times as long.

uranrising - 16 Mar 2016 22:42:58 (#15 of 32)

Thanks. That's all clear.

I agree with parts.

FreddyMalins - 11 May 2016 14:45:49 (#16 of 32)

It's not just that people are living longer, they're aging better too

Did your father do a physical job?

cozzer - 11 May 2016 14:49:27 (#17 of 32)

No

FreddyMalins - 11 May 2016 15:28:58 (#18 of 32)

Well, maybe that goes a bit of the way to explaining his sprightliness. If he'd been a roofer or a coal miner, for example, things might not be so rosy.

RosyLovelady - 11 May 2016 15:34:01 (#19 of 32)

< the human body tires >

I think that's something that's officially our own fault nowadays.

JohnIlly - 11 May 2016 15:41:17 (#20 of 32)

If governments had taken the longer term view they would not have done so much to discourage smoking. That has caused people to live longer and draw their pensions for many more years than was planned for.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Money