The point was that Equitable tried to reduce other benefits to make up for the expensive promise of a GAR. In other words, they tried to pay for what they promised by taking something else off holders of GAR's (ie lower bonuses than those without GARs).
The flight meal story above is not the same, the whinging woman next to me didn't lose out by me having a meal.
*abruptly*
It's not fair that some people live longer than others. Therefore should we kill people off who reach a certain age to make things fairer? Nobody gains, some people lose, but hey, it's fairer.
Er, nobody has lost, one person has gained. As above, what if one twin dies young, should the other commit suicide to make things fair?
A sudden change where some people get more that they expected is not as bad as a sudden change where some people get less than they expected.
My spell checker's being serviced.
My grammar checker is next.
That is not entirely clear.
She did not lose out in the sense of getting less than what she expected and had paid for, but she did lose out in the sense that she paid for something she could have had for nothing (as you did).
Also, as a regular customer she might have lost out as a future passenger, when the airline would have increased fares (or meal surcharges) earlier or by more (or both) than it would otherwise have done, in order to recover the extra cost of the booking system fault.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
According to that logic, it would be better to increase benefits to all white people than to decrease benefits to all black people. Do you really think that either of those is OK?
But she would have had to make plans around not having the meal (as I did).
Unlikely in a competitive market. Prices are set by what the competition is charging, so if one company in a competitive market loses money due to a c*ck-up, it's unlikely they can just increase prices to make up for it, they'd probably have to cut dividends or board bonuses.
According to your logic, it'd be OK if there was a sliding scale of benefits dependant on exact skin tone, but not if there were a cliff-edge where you are defined as one or the other.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Equitable tried to pay holders of GARs & those without GARs the *same* level of pension, even though some people held a policy "with GAR" and others "without GAR".
Your airline tried to give all passengers the *same* service (flight + meal), even though some passengers held a ticket for "flight with meal" and others "flight without meal".
That's the SAME!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
She lost out by having paid *more* for the *same* service!
standard
No they didn't. They tried to pay less bonuses to GAR holders than non GAR holders, ie they were saying "because you have a GAR you get less bonus than those without a GAR"
No it's not. Those who ordered meals didn't get lesser treatment in any other aspect to make up for them getting a meal.
Erm, no.
No she didn't. The airline lost out by giving some people something for free.
Diddums. Now you're claiming that *you* lost out, by having to eat the free meal *and* the cheese butty you'd packed in your briefcase?
OK, so the woman might have been a shareholder.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Which logic is that, then? [Your description of "my logic" above is incorrect - neither alternative is acceptable.]
Sometimes changes with time are required to get from one (fair) situation to another (fair) situation. Changes with skin tone are never *required*!
You suggested that increases for just one group are better than decreases for just (the other) group. I don't agree. Increasing one group is just as unfair between groups as decreasing the other group.
Eh? I'm not whinging that I lost out. The only loser in all this is the airline and it was their fault, so serves them right.
So might I.
She didn't "lose" anything, apart from her sense of perspective - she got what she paid to get! She then threw a wobbly because someone else struck lucky.
people.
You seem to think it's OK to pay significantly different benefits to people with a large age gap between them, but not to those with a small age gap between them. You then try some silly analogy with race, which I simply took the piss out of.
You're the one that introduced it. I was only suggesting a change with time, you say that's acceptable.
That's just pathetic. If I die at 50, will you commit suicide at 50, so as to be fair? If not why not?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Err - yes they did!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
That was just a device to give them the same pension...
In other words, if the bonuses are lower but you then apply the GAR (to both guaranteed amounts plus lower bonuses), rather than applying a market AR to guaranteed amounts plus higher bonuses, then you get the same pension.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I assume that they got one less "free meal" than the other passengers?
Or are you suggesting that *everyone* got a free meal, so that those having paid for one actually got two meals?
Erm, what do you think the point of a GAR was? People bought a pension with a GAR because they wanted to benefit from the GAR. Equitable were trying to effectively take that benefit they were promised off them by reducing their bonuses.
It's nothing like the flight meal scenario. It would be if they'd said "we've only got 50 flight meals, which 50 people have paid for, but we've got 100 passengers, and we don't know who's paid, so everyone gets half a meal".
But they didn't. Nobody on the flight got less than they would have got had there not been a c*ck-up with the system.
passengers?
I said "other aspect".
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Yep.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No, that analogy wasn't compared to "big age gaps are better than small age gaps" but rather compared to (your immediately preceding comment, on) "increases are better than decreases".
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Erm - *who* is being pathetic? :-(
Yes. If a wonder drug comes out that stops some people prone to heart disease dying young, is it fair that people prone to heart disease are given it, when a similar drug has not yet been invented which stops people prone to cancer dying young?
That's your logic. Better to benefit nobody that only benefit some people.
You. See above.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Perhaps to give them a minimum pension at retirement based on their guaranteed benefits?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Yep. But did Equitable try to offer anyone a pension which was *less* than the GAR applied to their *guaranteed fund* ? I don't believe so...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Not really. They didn't really try to *reduce* any bonuses (that had already been granted). They just tried to give lower terminal bonuses for those with GARs than those without. Terminal bonuses aren't guaranteed before they are added, you know!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Same with what Equitable tried. No-one should have been expecting to get any particular level of terminal bonus, as terminal bonuses were not guaranteed. So those with GARs, who were being "offered" slightly lower terminal bonuses than those without GARs, wouldn't have got less than they had expected.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Yes, I know. You mean they "... didn't get lesser treatment in any other aspect than the aspect in which they got lesser treatment". That's a bit silly, isn't it?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
In which case, you'd gain the value of the meal (which you got for free), but might lose about half the value of the meal (on your shares). On the other hand, she just loses half the value of the meal (on her shares).
It looks like she's just had to pay for half of your meal!
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.