Pension Storm Coming: "This Will Become One Of The Most Heated Battles Of My Lifetime"

By John Mauldin from Mauldin economics

This time is different are the four most dangerous words any economist or money manager can utter. We learn new things and invent new technologies. Players come and go. But in the big picture, this time is usually not fundamentally different, because fallible humans are still in charge. (Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart wrote an important book called This Time Is Different on the 260-odd times that governments have defaulted on their debts; and on each occasion, up until the moment of collapse, investors kept telling themselves “This time is different.” It never was.)

Nevertheless, I uttered those four words in last week’s letter. I stand by them, too. In the next 20 years, we’re going to see changes that humanity has never seen before, and in some cases never even imagined, and we’re going to have to change. I truly believe this. We have unleashed economic and technological forces we can observe but not entirely control.

I will defend this bold claim at greater length in my forthcoming book, The Age of Transformation.

Today we will zero in on one of those forces, which last week I called “the bubble in government promises,” which I think is arguably the biggest bubble in human history. Elected officials at all levels have promised workers they will receive pension benefits without taking the hard steps necessary to deliver on those promises. This situation will end badly and hurt many people. Unfortunately, massive snafus like this rarely hurt the politicians who made those overly optimistic promises, often years ago.

Earlier this year I called the pension mess “The Crisis We Can’t Muddle Through.” Reflecting since then, I think I was too optimistic. Simply waiting for the floodwaters to drop down to muddle-through depth won’t be enough. We face an entire new ocean, deeper and wider than we can ever cross unaided.

Storms from Nowhere?

This year marks the first time on record that two Category 4 hurricanes have struck the US mainland in the same year. Worse, Harvey and Irma landed directly on some of our most valuable and vulnerable coastal areas. So now, in addition to all the problems that existed a month ago, the US economy has to absorb cleanup and rebuilding costs for large parts of Texas and Florida, as well as our Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands territories.

Now then, people who live in coastal areas know full well that hurricanes happen – they know the risk, just not which hurricane season might launch a devastating storm in their direction. In a note to me about Harvey, fellow Rice University graduate Gary Haubold (1980) noted just how flawed the city’s assumptions actually were regarding what constitutes adequate preparedness. He cited this excerpt from a recent Los Angeles Times article:

The storm was unprecedented, but the city has been deceiving itself for decades about its vulnerability to flooding, said Robert Bea, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and UC Berkeley emeritus civil engineering professor who has studied hurricane risks along the Gulf Coast.

The city’s flood system is supposed to protect the public from a 100-year storm, but Bea calls that “a 100-year lie” because it is based on a rainfall total of 13 inches in 24 hours.

“That has happened more than eight times in the last 27 years,” Bea said. “It is wrong on two counts. It isn’t accurate about the past risk and it doesn’t reflect what will happen in the next 100 years.” (Source)

Anybody who lives in Houston can tell you that 13 inches in 24 hours is not all that unusual. But how do Robert Bea’s points apply to today’s topic, public pensions? Both pension plan shortfalls and hurricanes are known risks for which state and local governments must prepare. And in both instances, too much optimism and too little preparation ultimately have devastating results.

Admittedly, public pension liabilities don’t come out of nowhere the way hurricanes seem to – we know exactly where they will strike. In many cases, we know approximately when they’ll strike, too. Yet we still let our elected officials make impossible-to-fulfill promises on our behalf. The rest of us are not so different from those who built beach homes and didn’t buy hurricane or storm surge insurance. We just face a different kind of storm.

Worse, we let our government officials use predictions about future returns that are every bit as unrealistic as calling a 13-inch rain in Houston a 100-year event. And while some of us have called pension officials out, they just keep telling lies – and probably will until we reach the breaking point.

Puerto Rico is a good example. The Commonwealth was already in deep debt before Irma blew in – $123 billion worth of it. There’s simply no way the island can repay such a massive debt. Creditors can fight in the courts, but in the end you can’t squeeze money out of plantains or pineapples. Not enough money, anyway. Now add Irma damages, and the creditors have even less hope of recovering their principal, let alone interest.

Puerto Rico is presently in a new form of bankruptcy that Congress authorized last year. Court proceedings will probably drag on for years, but the final outcome isn’t in doubt. Creditors will get some scraps – at best perhaps $0.30 on the dollar, my sources say – and then move on. We’re going to find out how strong those credit insurance guarantees really are.

“That’s just Puerto Rico,” you may say if you’re a US citizen in one of the 50 states. Be very careful. Your state is probably not so much better off. In 10 years, your state may well be in the same place where Puerto Rico is now. I’d say the odds are better than even.

Are your elected leaders doing anything about this huge issue, or even talking about it? Probably not.

As it stands now, states can’t declare bankruptcy in federal courts. Letting them do so would raises thorny constitutional issues. So maybe we’ll have to call it something else, but it’s going to end the same way. Your state’s public-sector retirees will not get what they were promised, and they won’t take the outcome kindly.

Blood from Turnips

Public sector bankruptcy, up to and including state-level bankruptcy, is fundamentally different from corporate bankruptcy in ways that many people haven’t considered. The pension crisis will likely expose those differences as deadly to creditors and retirees.

Say a corporation goes bankrupt. A court will take all its assets and decide how to divvy them up. The assets are easy to identify: buildings, land, intellectual property, cash, etc. The parties may argue over their value, but everyone knows what the assets are. They won’t walk away.

Not so in a public bankruptcy. The primary asset of a city, county, or state is future tax revenue from households and businesses within its boundaries. The taxpayers can walk away. Even without moving, they can bypass sales taxes by shopping elsewhere. If property taxes are too high, they can sell and move. When they take a loss on the sale, the new owner will have established a property value that yields the city far less revenue than it used to receive.

Cities and states don’t have the ability to shed their pension liabilities. They are stuck with them, even as population and property values change.

We may soon see an example of this in Houston. Here in Texas, our property taxes are very high because we have no income tax. Your tax is a percentage of your home’s taxable value. So people argue to appraisal boards that their homes are falling apart and not worth anything like the appraised value. (Then they argue the opposite when it’s time to sell the home.)

About 200 entities in Harris County can charge taxes. That includes governments from Houston to Baytown to Hedwig Village, plus 20 independent school districts.

There’s a hospital district, port authority, several college districts, the flood control district, a multitude of utility districts, and the Harris County Department of Education. Some homes may fall within 10 or more jurisdictions.

What about those thousands of flooded homes in and around Houston; how much are they worth? Right now, I’d say their value is zero in many cases. Maybe they will have some value if it’s possible to rebuild, but at the very least they ought to receive a sharp discount from the tax collector this year.

Considering how many destroyed or unlivable properties there are all over South Texas, I suspect cities and counties will lose billions in revenue even as their expenses rise. That’s a small version of what I expect as city and state pension systems all over the US finally face reality.

Here in Dallas I pay about 2.7% in property taxes. When I bought my home over four years ago, I checked our local pension and was told we were 100% funded. I even mentioned in my letter that I was rather surprised. Turns out they lied. Now, realistic assessments suggest they will have to double the municipal tax rate (yes, I said double) to be able to fund fire and police pension funds. Not a terribly popular thing to do. At some point, look for taxpayers to desert the most-indebted cities and states. Then what? I don’t know. Every solution I can imagine is ugly.

Promises from Air

Most public pension plans are not fully funded. Earlier this year in “Disappearing Pensions” I shared this chart from my good friend Danielle DiMartino Booth:

Total unfunded liabilities in state and local pensions have roughly quintupled in the last decade. You read that right – not doubled, tripled or quadrupled: quintupled. That’s nice when it happens on a slot machine, not so nice when it’s money you owe.

You will also notice in the chart that much of that change happened in 2008. Why was that? That’s when the Fed took interest rates down to nearly zero, meaning it suddenly took more cash to fund future payments. Also, some strapped localities conserved cash by promising public workers more generous pension benefits in lieu of pay raises.

According to a 2014 Pew study, only 15 states follow policies that have funded at least 100% of their pension needs. And that estimate is based on the aggressive assumptions of pension funds that they will get their predicted rate of returns (the “discount rate”).

Kentucky, for instance, has unfunded pension liabilities of $40 billion or more. This month the state budget director notified local governments that pension costs could jump 50-60% next year. That’s due to a proposed reduction in the system’s assumed rate of return from 7.5% to 6.25% – a step in the right direction but not nearly enough.

Think about this as an investor. Do you know a way to guarantee yourself even 6.25% average annual returns for the next 10–20 years? Of you don’t. Yes, some strategies have a good shot at doing it, but there’s no guarantee.

And if you believe Jeremy Grantham’s seven-year forecasts (I do: His 2009 growth forecast was spot on), then those pension funds have very little hope of getting their average 7% predicted rate of return, at least for the next seven years.

Now, here is the truth about pension liabilities. Let’s assume you have $1 billion in funding today. If you assume a 7% compound return – about the average for most pension funds – then that means in 30 years that $1 million will have grown to $8 billion (approximately). Now, what if it’s a 4% return? Using the Rule of 72, the $1 billion grows to around $3.5 billion, or less than half the future assets in 30 years if you assume 7%.

Remember that every dollar that is not funded today means that somewhere between four dollars and eight dollars will not be there in 30 years when somebody who is on a pension is expecting to get it. Worse, without proper funding, as the fund starts going negative, the funding ratio actually gets worse, sending it into a death spiral. The only way to bring it out of the spiral is with huge cuts to other needed services or with massive tax cuts to pension benefits.

The State of Kentucky’s unusually frank report regarding the state’s public pension liability sums up that state’s plight in one chart:

The news for Kentucky retirees is quite dire, especially considering what returns on investments are realistically likely to be. But there’s a make or break point somewhere. What if pension plans must either hit that 6% average annual return for 2018–2028 or declare bankruptcy and lose it all?

That’s a much greater problem, and it’s a rough equivalent of what state pension trustees have to do. Failing to generate the target returns doesn’t reduce the liability. It just means taxpayers must make up the difference.

But wait, it gets worse. The graph we showed earlier stated that unfunded pension liabilities for state and local governments was $2 trillion. But that assumes an average 7% compound return. What if we assume 4% compound returns? Now the admitted unfunded pension liability is $4 trillion. But what if we have a recession and the stock market goes down by the past average of more than 40%? Now you have an unfunded liability in the range of $7–8 trillion.

We throw the words a trillion dollars around, not realizing how much that actually is. Combined state and local revenues for the US total around $2.6 trillion. Following the next recession (whenever that is), the unfunded pension liabilities for state and local governments will be roughly three times the revenue they are collecting today, and that’s before a recession reduces their revenues. Can you see the taxpayer stuck between a rock and a hard place? Two immovable objects meeting? The math just doesn’t work.

Pension trustees don’t face personal liability. They’re literally playing with someone else’s money. Some try very hard to be realistic and cautious. Others don’t. But even the most diligent can’t control when the next recession comes, or when the stock market will crash, leaving a gaping hole in their assets while liabilities keep right on rising.

I have had meetings with trustees of various government pensions. Many of them want to assume a more realistic discount rate, but the politicians in their state literally refuse to allow them to assume a reasonable discount rate, because owning up to reality would require them to increase their current pension funding dramatically. So they kick the can down the road.

Intentionally or not, state and local officials all over the US made pension promises that future officials can’t possibly keep. Many will be out of office when the bill comes due, protected from liability by sovereign immunity.

We are starting to see cities filing for bankruptcy. That small ripple will be a tsunami within 7–10 years.

But wait, it gets still worse. (Do you see a trend here?) Many state and local governments have actually 100% funded their pension plans. Some states and local governments have even overfunded them – assuming they get their projected returns. What that really means is that the unfunded liabilities are more concentrated, and they show up in unlikely places. You think Texas is doing well? Look at some of our cities and weep. Look, too, at other seemingly semi-prosperous cities all over the country. Do you think the suburbs of Dallas will want to see their taxes increased to help out the city? If you do, I may have a bridge to sell you – unless you would rather have oceanfront properties in Arizona.

This issue is going to set neighbor against neighbor and retirees against taxpayers. It will become one of the most heated battles of my lifetime. It will make the Trump-Clinton campaigns look like a school kids’ tiddlywinks smackdown.

I was heavily involved in politics at both the national and local levels in the 80s and 90s and much of the 2000s. Trust me, local politics is far nastier and more vicious. And there is nothing more local than police and firefighters and teachers seeing their pensions cut because the money isn’t there. Tax increases of up to 100% are going to become commonplace. But even these new revenues won’t be enough… because we will be acting with too little, too late.

This is the core problem. Our political system gives some people incentives to make unrealistic promises while also absolving them of liability for doing so. It also places the costs of those must-break promises on innocent parties, i.e. the retirees who did their jobs and rightly expect the compensation they were told they would receive.

So at its heart the pension crisis is really not a financial problem. It’s a moral and ethical problem of making and breaking promises that profoundly impact people’s lives. Our culture puts a high value on integrity: doing what you said you would do.

We take a job because the compensation package includes x, y and z. Then someone says no, we can’t give you z, so quit and go elsewhere.

The pension problem is going to get worse as more and more retirees get stuck with broken promises, and as taxpayers get handed higher and higher bills. These are irreconcilable demands in many cases. It’s not possible to keep contradictory promises.

What’s the endgame? I think much of the US will end up like Puerto Rico. But the hardship map will be more random than you can possibly imagine. Some sort of authority – whether bankruptcy courts or something else – will have to seize pension assets and figure out who gets hurt and how much. Some courts in some states will require taxes to go up. But courts don’t have taxing authority, so they can only require cities to pay, but with what money and from whom?

In many states we literally don’t have the laws and courts in place with authority to deal with this. And just try passing a law that allows for states or cities to file bankruptcy in order to get out of their pension obligations.

The struggle will get ugly, and innocent people on both sides will be hurt. We hear stories about retired police chiefs and teachers with lifetime six-digit pensions and so on. Those aberrations (if you look at the national salary picture) are a problem, but the more distressing cases are the firefighters, teachers, police officers, or humble civil servants who served the public for decades, never making much money but looking forward to a somewhat comfortable retirement. How do you tell these people that they can’t have a livable pension? We will see many human tragedies.

On the other side will be homeowners and small business owners, already struggling in a changing economy and then being told their taxes will double. This may actually happen in Dallas; and if it does, we won’t be alone for long.

The website Pension Tsunami posts scores of articles, written all across America, about pension problems. We find out today that in places like New York and Chicago and Cook County, pension funds have more retirees collecting than workers paying into the fund. There are more retired cops in New York and Chicago than there are working cops. And the numbers of retirees just keep growing. On an individual basis, it is smart for the Chicago police officer to retire as early possible, locking in benefits, go on to another job that offers more retirement benefits, and round out a career by working at least three years at a private job that qualifies the officer for Social Security. Many police and fire pensions are based on the last three years of income; so in the last three years before they retire, these diligent public servants work enormous amounts of overtime, increasing their annual pay and thus their final pension payouts.

As I’ve said, this is the crisis we can’t muddle through. While the federal government (and I realize this is economic heresy) can print money if it has to, state and local governments can’t print. They actually have to tax to pay their bills. It’s the law. It’s also an arrangement with real potential to cause political and social upheaval that Americans have not seen in decades. The storm is only beginning. Think Hurricane Harvey on steroids, but all over America. Of all the intractable economic problems I see in the future (and I have a vivid imagination), this is the most daunting.


phatfawzi man from glad Sun, 09/17/2017 - 21:53 Permalink

Most government employees are unionized, union bosses paid for officials to get elected, those same elected officials were the one negotiating on behalf of the tax payers. But they weren't negotiating, they gave them everything they wanted. No one was there to negotiate for the tax payers. so i say fuck them. A majority of them will start in the police department or fire at about 18. After 20 years they are eligible for their pension and they retire and work as contractors for the city or doing the same line of work. usually drawing double income so im sorry but i really don't fucking feel sorry for you guys. Cut all their pensions by whatever % to have them 100% funded and lets start all over again. Lets do it the legit way this time.  

In reply to by man from glad

The Alarmist Adullam Mon, 09/18/2017 - 05:24 Permalink

If he's a good Christan, he needs to read John 16:33 and chill, ' cos God's got him covered.

That 100-year storm thingy was probably not a lie, just stupidity: A lazy bureaucrat in Houston called a lazy bureaucrat at Austin and asked what that might be. The lazy and unknowlegeable bureaucrat in Austin didn't have the information at hand, so they called an unmotivated researcher at UT Austin. Unmotivated researcher was too busy worrying about Greenland icecap melt, because there's bigger grant money in worrying about that than predicting rain in Texas, which everyone assumes is mostly dry, and assumed the Austin bureaucrat wanted info for Austin, so that is what landed on the desk in Houston. Our civil servants aren't dishonest ... no, that would never happen on the good pay and pensions we give them.

BTW, Mauldin should check the basis for his opinion, because civil service pay at practically all levels skyrocketed during the "War for Talent" days of the early 2000s, so that their basic pay is disproportionate when one takes job security and benefits into account. So the haircut even for average teachers, fire, and police persons will not be unconscionable. It's the pre-2000s people who are still alive who will get royally screwed ... after the taxpayers, that is.

In reply to by Adullam

assistedliving Five Star Sun, 09/17/2017 - 23:06 Permalink

you guys are too young to remember Meredith Whitney.  Sued for being right...just a few years earlyOn December 19, 2010, in an interview on the CBS television program 60 Minutes, Whitney stated that 50 to 100 counties, cities, and towns in the United States would have "significant" municipal bond defaults totaling "hundreds of billions" of dollars, and that "it'll be something to worry about within the next 12 months."[3] Since the record amount of municipal bond defaults in one year was just over $8 billion at the time, Whitney's comments about hundreds of billions in defaults briefly shook the market and drew a great deal of attention, much of it critical.[20][21] She later described her forecast as a "guesstimate" involving "fifth-derivative dimensions".[7] Her prediction was far in excess of what actually occurred in the following years, including record-setting defaults by Jefferson County, Alabama in 2011 ($4 billion debt, $1 billion loss),[22] Detroit in 2013 ($18 billion debt, $7 billion loss),[23] and even Puerto Rico in 2017 ($74 billion debt, with loss to be determined by bankruptcy court).[24]

In reply to by Five Star

The Alarmist Supafly Mon, 09/18/2017 - 05:29 Permalink

Diageo, the beverage company in Europe, funded its pension deficit in part with what they called "maturing whisky spirits" which is a technical term for scotch that needs to be aged. The value of this inventory increases each year.

But for me, the real value of this is if things go pear-shaped, they can still distribute the scotch to their pensioners to help them drown their sorrows.

In reply to by Supafly

OverTheHedge DontGive Mon, 09/18/2017 - 04:58 Permalink

This problem can be fixed. All they need is a few years with above average returns. Easy way to get that is to inflate. Interest rates rise, stock markets rise, and we are all good. A world where the interest rate is 10%, inflation 15-20%, and corporate debt fixed prevously at 1%, should make for some magnificent returns. Of course the poor retiree will lose all buying power with their pension, but they will still get a pension, so that is ok. People are odd sometimes, with what they will put up with.

In reply to by DontGive

post turtle saver OverTheHedge Mon, 09/18/2017 - 08:27 Permalink

I remember that "fix"... it was called the Carter administration... coming straight off the heels of the Ford administration and "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now)...that gave us two terms of Reagan in office and one of the largest sea changes in US politics ever witnessed... not to mention the resulting seed for today's government deficit...what you seem to forget is that, of all the voting blocs out there in the USA, the largest and most active is _old people_ - they will not put up with that shit and will eat their own young to "get what's theirs"... THAT you can take to the bank...

In reply to by OverTheHedge

phatfawzi phatfawzi Sun, 09/17/2017 - 22:21 Permalink

And its not like these fuckers learned a lesson from all of this , pensions are still a benefit of majority of municipal employees. Pensions have pretty much gone extinct in the corporate world and your lucky if you have a 401k but im still suppose to pay for these fuckers. i have to fund my own retirement why don't you. They are ill gotten gains you have no rights to them. How is this different than daca because someone stole it for you than its yours to keep.   And When your pension check stops coming don't worry i know exactly how you feel. i don't get one either. 

In reply to by phatfawzi

WernerHeisenberg phatfawzi Sun, 09/17/2017 - 22:19 Permalink

Has anyone who started working the in private sector in the last 30 years been offered a pension???  Meanwhile, (formerly low paid) public jobs surpassed the compensation in the private sector.  I was supposed to fund my own retirement out of an ever dwindling (real) income.  If the .gov drones were too stupid to fund their own retirement as a plan B, screw them.  They have been screwing us for decades.  Yes, police revenue raising thugs and communist common core teachers included.  Screw them all.

In reply to by phatfawzi

7againstThebes WernerHeisenberg Mon, 09/18/2017 - 08:26 Permalink

I don’t think Mauldin or any of you are grasping the nature of the problem.    Think about what is happening.  Call it the mafiazation of the American political arena.  It long ago happened at the national level.  Stripped of BS, and of patriotic claptrap, the CIA and similar agencies in Washington are mafias.  When core interests are challenged they kill. (John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and many more since then, including one of their own, William Colby, are examples).     The same tendency towards forming mafias behind the façade of government is emerging at the local level. When the pension crisis lands full force, firemen and especially police are not going to disappear into the night.  They are going to use intimidation and maybe somewhere, at some moment, kill somebody.   It won’t take much violence to get their point across. We citizens have let ourselves become helpless.   Sure, we may have a gun in the closet, but we have no social structures to use to coordinate resistance.   We have no traditional families to look to for leadership, for example, with people who are loyal to them.  We are de-linked, except for the links provided by government, and don’t think for one moment that those in government won’t take advantage our social isolation and weakness. 

In reply to by WernerHeisenberg

Ace Ventura 7againstThebes Mon, 09/18/2017 - 15:17 Permalink

But, but.....we have social media!! Sigh. I've been around a long time, and looking around today all I can think of is we're doomed as a society. Not just here in the US, but western society as a whole has been successfully neutered. Outliers exist of course, as many here on ZH have been taking the red pill for quite some time. Nevertheless, we are seriously outnumbered on so many levels it's mindboggling. If there was a way to successfully Go Galt with sufficient like minded people, as lone-wolfing it in the coming shit-storm is a recipe for disaster.

In reply to by 7againstThebes

NoDebt man from glad Sun, 09/17/2017 - 21:56 Permalink

If I wrote an article about pension funds (God help you) it would read exactly like this one.  I have no idea who John is (well, OK, sorta, but I don't know him personally or professionally), but he's hitting all the salient core issues right in the 10-ring.  Listen to this man.  He knows what he's talking about.  

In reply to by man from glad

greenskeeper carl NoDebt Mon, 09/18/2017 - 01:26 Permalink

He does hit all the points. Whats amazing is how obvious all of this is, annndddd still nothing is done about it. There is no politcally accpetable solution to this, since neither reduced benefits or higher taxes will go over well, so they will do nothing, which will cause the most damage. The best part will be all the talking heads proclaiming "no one could have seen this coming" a la 2008, when then, as now, plenty of people saw exactly what was coming.

In reply to by NoDebt

Ace Ventura greenskeeper carl Mon, 09/18/2017 - 15:25 Permalink

They will do both.....that is they will cut benefits AND raise taxes. Most likely they will start by raising taxes in order to keep LEOs pension funded, as they will heavily rely on them to 'keep order' when the peasantry at large starts to truly get angry at the non-stop tax oppression. Here at the local county level, there has been an incessant wail about the 'need for more police officers' (you know, for da chilrenz safety) ever since the crash in 2008. Funny that, because I've lived in different states and even different countries....and I've never seen the sheer number of local county cops (or any other kind) as I see here in central VA.Well, check that. Recently went to Oklahoma City for work....and the thing I saw the most while driving from the airport to the hotel and during the next few days.....cops, cops, and more cops. Cop cruisers all over the place. I think they may have as many cops per capita as we do here.

In reply to by greenskeeper carl

William Dorritt Newsboy Tue, 09/19/2017 - 11:04 Permalink

Roof antenna, cut the cableBasic pre paid cell phoneVegetable garden, maybe a fruit tree or two, applesNo debt or car paymentsGovt counter measures are Obamacare to extract money and higher property taxesAll republican controlled states need to go 100% sales taxes and zero property taxes to keep the welfare seekers and illegals out.All Republican states need to eliminate govt unions, 100% to keep the rent seekers outAll Republican States need to eliminate marriage licenses and family courts to eliminate rent seeking single mothers 

In reply to by Newsboy

Casey Jones Mr Pink Sun, 09/17/2017 - 22:39 Permalink

The same boat as the rest of us? my ass! LOL. Speak for yourself, please. You sound like such a victim. What the fuck did you do to take care of yourself? I went to college, and grad school on my own dime, started several businesses, worked in many companies, saved more than I spent, bought land and gold and yes equities and bonds, diversified my holdings in every way I could think of, sent my kids to college so they could get good jobs and start businesses and earn money outside of the government tit. I guess you could call me a baby boomer by virtue of my age, but fuck off if you want to redistribute my hard won wealth. My definition of a loser is the guy who wants to drag everyone down to his misery.

In reply to by Mr Pink

RafterManFMJ NemesisteM Mon, 09/18/2017 - 09:38 Permalink

Nice Guy Eddie: C'mon, throw in a buck!
Mr. Pink: Uh-uh, I don't tip.
Nice Guy Eddie: You don't tip?
Mr. Pink: I don't believe in it.
Nice Guy Eddie: You don't believe in tipping?
Mr. Blue: You know what these chicks make? They make shit.
Mr. Pink: Don't give me that. She don't make enough money, she can quit.
Nice Guy Eddie: I don't even know a fucking Jew who'd have the balls to say that. Let me get this straight: you don't ever tip, huh?
Mr. Pink: I don't tip because society says I have to. Alright, I mean I'll tip if somebody really deserves a tip. If they put forth the effort, I'll give them something extra. But I mean, this tipping automatically, it's for the birds. As far as I'm concerned they're just doing their job.
Mr. Blue: Hey, this girl was nice.
Mr. Pink: She was OK. But she wasn't anything special.
Mr. Blue: What's special? Take you in the back and suck your dick?
Nice Guy Eddie: I'd go over twelve percent for that.
Mr. Pink: Look, I ordered coffee, alright? And we been here a long fucking time and she's only filled my cup three times. When I order coffee I want it filled six times.
Mr. Blonde: Six times? Well, what if she's too fucking busy?
Mr. Pink: The words "too fucking busy" shouldn't be in a waitress' vocabulary.
Nice Guy Eddie: Excuse me Mr. Pink, but the last fucking thing you need is another cup of coffee.
Mr. Pink: Jesus Christ I mean, these ladies aren't starving to death. They make minimum wage. You know, I used to work minimum wage and when I did I wasn't lucky enough to have a job that society deemed tipworthy.
Mr. Blue: You don't care if they're counting on your tips to live?
Mr. Pink: [rubbing his middle finger and thumb together] You know what this is? The world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses.
Mr. White: You don't have any idea what you're talking about. These people bust their ass. This is a hard job.
Mr. Pink: So is working at McDonald's, but you don't see anyone tip them, do ya? Why not? They're serving you food. But no, society says don't tip these guys over here, but tip these guys over here. That's bullshit!
Mr. White: Waitressing is the number one occupation for female non-college graduates in this country. It's the one job basically any woman can get, and make a living on. The reason is because of their tips.
Mr. Pink: Fuck all that.
Mr. Brown: Jesus Christ.
Mr. Pink: I mean I'm very sorry the government taxes their tips, that's fucked up. That ain't my fault. It would appear to me that waitresses are one of the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a regular basis. If you show me a piece of paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. Put it to a vote, I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball. And this non-college bullshit you're givin' me, I got two words for that: learn to fuckin' type, 'cause if you're expecting me to help out with the rent you're in for a big fuckin' surprise.
Mr. Orange: He's convinced me. Gimme my dollar back!

In reply to by NemesisteM