Yeah, good point Rich. Why would Americans want to have control of their OWN MONEY now that a bloated relic of the past is defaulting on some of its pension obligations.
 

Gee, I wonder what these bankrupt and soon to be bankrupt companies have in common (besides poor management)? Could it be their bloated union payrolls?
 

I don't see the logic to the first post; bloated relic of the past or no, United is still a private sector corporation. My point is that people's retirements have, in modern times, depended upon their pensions, their assets (homes, IRAs, etc.), and Social Security. The government hasn't yet defaulted on Social Security; now the private sector is defaulting on its pensions. That's what people will look at....

As to the second point: I have no idea how bloated United's unions are, but I suspect that current union obligations aren't the real reason for United's troubles—or at least, not the only one. (And I do know that airline pilots, anyway, don't make a lot of money.)
 

If a portion of social security is privitized, people will control their own assets, similar to the assets one would have in an IRA or 401(k) plan. What does United's default on its pension obligations have to do with money you have in your IRA? Do you feel that your IRA is less safe now? Of course not. You can argue against social security privitization all you want, but the United default has no bearing on the argument.

As for the government defaulting on social security, no it hasn't. But it has raised the retirement age in the past and will eventually have to raise it again (or reduce benefits) to keep it solvent. Do you feel that you social security is solvent? It's a big Ponzi scheme as presently constructed.

Lastly, why don't you take a look at the labor costs of the big, bloated airlines like United, Delta, and American and compare them to the labor costs of say a Jet Blue. Not a pretty picture. And take a look at the salaries of the pilots at those airlines.
 

My point is not about the reality on which public opinion is based; it's just about the reality of public opinion. So, logical or not, I think the United default will make the public more confident in the government—which is, after all, picking up (some of) the tab for United, and less confident in private sector pensions....
 

"I think the United default will make the public more confident in the government—which is, after all, picking up (some of) the tab for United, and less confident in private sector pensions...."

Agreed. Now what does this have to do with privitising social security?
 

See my new post on this subject...

But basically, they've now been sent a clear signal that private sector pensions can go poof! So they'll turn to the government for retirement security.