MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Global sea levels rising higher than forecasted because of ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica
Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica, The long-held view has been that the world's seas would rise by a maximum of just under a meter by 2100. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis article is utter nonsense. It seems to be based on “findings” of “experts” even though the Greenland ice sheets are growing again this year, as is the case in Antarctica.
May 22nd, 2019 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2Merco Press is much better than this. It is sad to see it publishing global warming hysteria as fact.
Do you also object to MP posting 'hysteria' like the idea that smoking causes cancer, and the germ theory of disease?
May 22nd, 2019 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1There are scientists [“experts”] with the R&D + their concrete proofs [“findings”] who are genuinely concerned about the climate+environment+pollution. BUT they have miserably failed to unite, to make their voices heard and to motivate the populations to force the governments all over the world; to do SOMETHING! ALL one witnesses; are the complaints, frustrations, helplessness and the everpresent whining!
May 22nd, 2019 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@ :o))
May 22nd, 2019 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It's like when someone needs to lose weigh. Excuses and denial are much easier than getting on with it.
@DemonTree
May 23rd, 2019 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0You summarized it ALL!
DT
May 25th, 2019 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(cont. “Bzln Military cautions B”)
1) comparing UK / Bzln pension rules doesn’t make sense; 2), too generous, compared to what ? what I can buy with it ? (not enough, ‘n I don’t splarge) ; 3) it’s 6 times less than Congressmen’s, who besides only having to contribute 8 years, have absurd benefits which no one in the private sector does…’n how about inflation ? does UK’s hover between 5 ‘n 10% /year ? Are yr pensions readjusted by full inflation ? here, private sector pensions aren’t, 'n usually way under, while the Congress adjusts its own salaries/benefits/pensions by 15% plus.
It’s not that the system was generous to me, it’s under-generous to those on minimum wage (who alrdy work 40 years plus, ‘n retire after 65), ‘n over-generous to politicians ‘n civil servants; It’s far more complicated than you can imagine, th4 difficult for you to grasp.
In my case, retiring at 61, i/o at 65, made sense, not only because of the mathematical advantage (revenue received in the 4 years would not be compensated by a higher pension 4 years later), the difference of which was not all that much, but because I could get out of the rat race.
Equalizing public sector pensions to those of the private sector is one of the main proposals of the reform. “Good Lord” ? easy, when they start screwing around at age 13 or 14…promiscuity in the lower classes is pretty high…especially up in the NE, where until quite recently it was quite common to have 10 or more children. At the end of 1963, the government passed a law implementing the “salario família” (family salary), or an ‘extra’ for each kid. This simply added fuel to families having more kids, in the erroneous belief that it would benefit them…but as it was a mere pittance, it just aggravated the situation.
Re Trump, the Laws are ‘already’ in place…what’s making Trump unpopular with rgds to immigration, is that he is trying to enforce the law. He’s not saying to kill them, just ‘don’t let ‘em in’.
1. Why not? It's the same principle when deciding whatever to retire early.
May 25th, 2019 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 02. Too generous compared to what Brazil can afford, as you've been saying all along. I did say people would be losing out as a result - even people like you.
3. Obviously the special rules for Congressmen should be first on the chopping block, followed by evening up the public and private sector. After that, increasing the retirement age. In the UK the state pension is increased by inflation, more sometimes, but I don't know about workplace pensions. I think I have to buy an annuity with mine and can likely get it inflation-protected in return for a lower amount. I think public sector pensions get increases, but not sure.
If you weren't already retired and the reform would force you to work until 65, would you oppose it? Or would you continue to support it for the overall good of the country?
“easy, when they start screwing around at age 13 or 14”
Even so, that's quick work. With several young kids, how the heck do they find time to screw around? But at least they've mostly stopped having 10 kids each. That's a textbook example of unintended consequences.
Re Trump, it's the things he says that I was talking about, that have divided the country and set Americans against each other. Sure he didn't say kill them, but he's said some pretty unpleasant things, and he wasn't at all disapproving when that guy in the audience suggested the idea.
DT
May 27th, 2019 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) I'm presuming that a UK pension allows a retiree to live comfortably, with the basic essentials; here, once you retire, you are virtually on your own, healthwise...spend half yr pension on yr plan, or die.
2) I have no idea what cost method is used by actuaries to calculate the amount someone must contribute to cover their pension, but what is “too generous compared to what Brazil can afford” is a relative concept, 'n the current distortion (benefits of civil servants & Congress x private sector workers) is what makes the system unbalanced/unfair.
3) Obviously...but will they cut into their own flesh ? and IF they do, will probably only affect the future politicians, who aren't already in the system. And the proposal for minimum age is the 65 (men), 62 (women). By the look of it, in the UK as well, the State favors its own.
By “buying an annuity” I presume you mean also invest in a private pension scheme, which many here (who can) already do.
”If you weren't already retired...would you oppose it? TBH, no. And in Temer' proposal, as well as the current PG one, a transition scheme will make landing as soft as possible, depending on how close you already are to retirement when the reform is passed. No one is going to get screwed, all situations have been analyzed.
Many women in the lower classes in the NE got pregnant very young, and most used to be in a state of permanent pregnancy until they were 30, 35. They were incapable of giving the same attention, or care, to 10 or 15 kids as a well-planned family with 2 kids. So the kids suffered the consequences. And until a few years back, they had no TV (nothing which depended on power).
I don't think what Trump's said has had the same effect in “dividing” the country, as much as the Democrats' constant whining that's made people who are more conservative, has...the democrats have done enough damage to themselves, by themselves. More like the more conservative got fed up, decided they wanted change.
1. Not really, if you mean the basic state pension. Someone like you would undoubtedly have an employer provided or private pension in addition. It's true that healthcare is covered, though.
May 28th, 2019 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 02. I think you, and everyone in Brazil, deserve to have enough to live on comfortably, especially as it's a scheme you paid into in order to get something back. I don't imagine you're getting any crazy level of benefits like Congress. BUT there's a limit to what the country can afford, that's why reform is necessary, and you can't assume it won't affect ordinary people, and yes, make them worse off.
3. They're not going to give up their own benefits easily, it's up to the press and people to push them on this.
Re the annuity, it's an employer pension scheme, similar to my previous job. Called a 'defined contribution' scheme, you pay in a certain percent of salary each month and your employer matches it. The scheme invests your money for you and there is no guarantee how much you get back. Depends on the stock market and the will of the gods.
“No one is going to get screwed”
Younger people are going to get screwed, same as here. There's a fundamental problem with pensions and that's the population pyramid turning into a column. It doesn't matter who saves what, it can't change the essential fact that the number of people producing is static while the number consuming keeps rising.
Re the NE, it's a whole different world, or used to be. Not a wonder people would prefer to move to a city, even if they're going to live in poverty there.
As for Trump, when Americans are saying they can barely talk to their own families now because certain members won't shut up about Trump, it's fair to say he's divided the country. That's not to say there weren't divisions before, but he's definitely made it a lot worse.
DT
May 28th, 2019 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Here the employee contributes 8% of his salary to the pension fund , complemented by an extra 12% from the employer. As to private pension, would depend on how much I could save. But decent healthcare chews up at least 50 % of the highest pension in the private sector...it's a killer.
2) You're right. Everyone contributes to the same kitty, but the public servants retire with 100% of their salaries....subsidized by ? the private sector. Why ? Because Congress said so.
The “ordinary” people, as you call them, make up the great majority, 'n earn btwn 1 'n 2 minimum wages...when they retire, they will receive at least 1 min wage, so in proportion to their salary, they'll receive abot 50% +....my pension was 15 % of my basic salary. A life changer, unless you've saved.
3) this is obviously the most difficult hurdle. They legislate in their favor - always.
Sounds like your 'annuity' is what my 8% contribution was, except the employer put in 1,5 times (12%). But if the funds are 'gambled' on the stock market (like the 401K in the US) you can get screwed.
Younger people have to realize that they have to conform to reality....but there is no reason they should not eventually - after 40 years contribution (as to versus current need of 35) and being 65 - be proportionately just as well-off / badly-off as today....all depends on inflation, how pensions are readjusted. One of PG's proposals within the pension reform - only to be implemented at a later, defined date - in a nutshell, is to change the general kitty system (that everyone pays into), into a personal and obligatory savings account, being adjusted by inflation. That way, YOU provide for YOUR future. It eliminates the factor that less people need to contribute for more....as it is today. The safety-nets for the really poor, continue.
Re Trump'ites, it's the same thing with Hillary'ites....both sides used the same type of rhetoric, only difference being the side it came from. Don't kid yourself.
1. I can understand how paying for healthcare would be a killer as you get older. That's why America created medicare, but Brazil already has a public scheme, so that's not going to help.
May 28th, 2019 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 02. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. And 15% is not generous at all. I believe the old final salary schemes here (employer provided pension) would pay around a third, even up to half in some cases. State pension, on the other hand, pays way less than minimum wage and doesn't depend on how much you pay in, only the number of years. But it's assumed you don't need as much when you're no longer supporting a family.
3. Yeah. Guedes can huff and puff and threaten to leave the country, but getting them to agree to that may be too big an ask.
I just checked my payslip and I was wrong. I'm paying 5%, my employer is paying 10%. I increased my contributions to the max both in my current and previous jobs; the default was only 2 or 3% with correspondingly less from the employer. That's on top of NI contributions which are higher, and don't really pay for my pension but for my parents' generation. And I'm still paying my student loan, should really check how much is left.
As I said, I don't and can't know what I'll get when I retire. Every year they send me an estimate, and it's alarmingly low. PG's individual accounts sound a bit like this type of pension, and if you're going to do that you may as well take it out of the government's hands completely.
Re Trump, I don't think Hillary ever had quite such a fan club as 'The Donald', so it's not really the same. She's just not that charismatic, if she was she'd probably have won the election.
My partner's (British) aunt and uncle are Trump supporters, and I foolishly argued with them about it once. They are NOT a good advertisement for him. They wanted to move to Norfolk because 'it's the whitest part of the country', and they believe every fake news story going.
DT
May 29th, 2019 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) ”...but Brazil already has a public (health) scheme, so that's not going to help”....yeah, Brazil already has one...but it is so deficient (and 'dangerous'), if you value your life, and can afford to, you wouldn't go near it. Except to be vaccinated.
2) I only maintain a reasonable standard of living because I invested privately, 'n have no debt. Most can't, or don't, which means that retiring from the private sector can be a nasty shock.
The current system here is basically a pyramid scheme....those entering pay for those leaving...but when far less enter than those leaving, you get the imbalance. That's why I'm inclined to support PG's idea about every worker contributing (obligatorily) to his own (personal) pension.
Before I retired I wasn't 100% sure how much I'd get when I did....but based on the level of the contribution (the highest), nbr of years, age, you could make a pretty accurate projection. As far as PG's idea goes, and it being taken out of the govts hands, I'm not sure but I think that the government (or a bank, with govt guarantee) might still control it, but it would only become accessible to the worker after complying with the conditions.
As to Trump 'n Hillary fan clubs, one might be larger , or smaller than the other, just depends on how organized and /or vocal they are. But ok, forget Trump and focus on Hillary....with her past, i.e., covering for Billie's affairs, attacking the women who accused him, screwing up the Benghazi incident (4 US diplomats killed by terrorists due to bad decisions), having a private server at her home through which she conducted private and official business (illegally) so as to not be tracked, then destroying thousands of messages, her and Bill's foundation scandal...'n knowing abt it, would u have voted for her ? imagine what she might have done, if elected.
As I've implied before, fake news has enormous influence over the uninformed, not to mention the press, when it misinforms.
1. That's what I thought. And Venezuelans do come to Brazil to vaccinate their kids, because it's still better than what we've got.
May 29th, 2019 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 02. That sucks. And in order to save money I'm sure the aim is to reduce public sector benefits, not increase private sector ones.
Our state pension is also a pyramid scheme. But the advice here is that if you have the chance to be in a defined benefit scheme, you should grab it with both hands. Personal pensions are better than nothing but they almost always perform much worse, so please bear that in mind.
“n knowing abt it, would u have voted for her ?”
Given her opponent was Trump, hell yes. I don't think she would have made a great President, but she at least had some experience and wasn't trying to vilify half the country. Previous presidents were not necessarily much better when it comes to scandals and screw-ups (how many hundreds of thousands did Bush kill looking for phantom WMDs in Iraq?). You didn't even mention the thing that would give me most pause: she was a hawk, and wanted to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria, potentially leading to war with Russia. But the Trump government is currently sabre rattling over Iran and Venezuela, so I'm not sure the world is better off there, either.
Imagine what she might have done... I'm more interested in what she wouldn't have done: start a trade war with China that risks a global recession, try to turn Americans against Europe, pass a tax cut that they'll have to pay for later, put two extremely conservative justices on the supreme court, threatening people's rights... Not really seeing the downside, here.
Global warming hysteria is meant to scare people to hand over control of their lives to the same politicians and bureaucrats who did such a good job of that in Venezuela and other socialist utopias around the world.
May 30th, 2019 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0the climate is changing, as it always has, long before the apes climbed from their trees and became “human” because they advanced from killing each other over a banana and killed each other over ideas. Like Castro, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.
Global warming has become the newest religion as admitted by several members of the IPCC in rare moments of telling the truth.
https://www.cfact.org/2017/05/22/can-we-discuss-the-climate-without-the-hysteria/
DT
May 30th, 2019 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Unfortunately, VNs have brought measles back to BZL. It was considered erradicated (by WHO) in mid 2015.
2) Right, remove absurd public sector benefits without increasing those of the private sector.
But in Congress, there's still a small group of lefties which keeps on advocating for the preservation of a few of them for public servants, such as lower age, less time of contribution to obtain 100% of the maximum. Just what screwed the system in the first place.
“Personal pensions are better than nothing but they almost always perform much worse, so please bear that in mind”...only a bit worse...if the funds are remunerated by full inflation, which is the intention. What I like about it, is that you'd no longer depend on others to be able collect your pension.
“Given her opponent was Trump, hell yes”...I told you to “forget” Trump...think of Hillary as sole candidate who'd be elected (or not) by a simple 'yes/no' majority. But even in comparison, I think she'd be worse - experience in politics is no guarantee of taking the right decisions, and based on her record, why would that change once in office ? NB: this is btwn Donald 'n Hillary.
“wasn't trying to vilify half the country”...no ? then who were the “deplorables” ?
She was Senator for 8 years (2002/09 incl), thanks to Bill's influence ; she was BO's Secretary of State - tks for mentioning her 'hawkish' qualities....which could've led to anything, if elected. And it's not a matter of the world being better or worse off with Trump, as afaic, the Iran 'n VZ situations are fare less explosive than getting into tangle with Russia.
You don't know what she “wouldn't have done”, or could've....but if she chose to accept the US x China trade agreement as it was, meaning China would continue to roll up trillionaire trade surpluse at the expense of the US, how good would that be for the US (in the long term) ?
“Not really seeing the downside, here”... not surprising - you favor the Dems, always.
“only a bit worse”
May 30th, 2019 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Take a look at the advice on here:
https://citywire.co.uk/funds-insider/news/should-you-leave-your-defined-benefit-pension/a595087?section=funds-insider
Personal pensions transfer the risk from the employer (or in Brazil's case, the government), to the individual. Beneficial for them, but not so good for you. And unfortunately there is no way not to depend on others. I depend on the pension company to invest my money wisely and not steal it or go bust, and also on the stock market and wider economy: the value of investments can fall as well as rise.
“I told you to “forget” Trump”
Okay, I'd probably have voted against her in the primary and for her in the election. Deplorables was a stupid thing to say, but it's a good description of a certain segment of Trump supporters. The kind who'd vote for him even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue because he says the (nasty, hateful, untrue) things they are too afraid to.
“thanks to Bill's influence”
So? I'm pretty sure Hillary's influence helped Bill become President for 8 years. She was always politically active but took a back seat due to practicality.
“the Iran 'n VZ situations are fare less explosive than getting into tangle with Russia.”
True, but I think Trump is overall more likely to start a war, and his sucking up to Putin is arguably worse. Saying America wouldn't come to the defence of NATO countries is like rolling out a big red carpet for the Russians. How come Trump can't get on with any of the democratic leaders of US allies but just loves dodgy dictators and autocrats?
The Iran situation seems to be escalating rapidly, I really hope it doesn't blow up... literally. And I hope even more that if it does, our government has the sense to stay out for once. Not much chance though, sadly. Vz is more your problem, as I suppose Brazil'd get another flood of refugees, and B shows a worrying tendency to want to join in on a possible invasion.
Run out of room for China...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!