Why are non-members permitted to exercise great influence over retirees’ financial security?

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all the suggestions for changing the structure of the Retirement Fund, some of which have now resulted in the long term diminishment of the member’s future financial security, is that some of those government officials, consultants and legislators offering their opinions and effecting change are themselves not members of the Fund’s defined benefit plan.

If you are a retiree, or paying into the Fund as a member, I wonder if you also think about this intrusion into your personal life and financial future and that of your dependents by some people who are in the Commonwealth today in some official capacity but in all probability will be gone in a year or so. “Here today, gone tomorrow,” so to speak. Or using an island saying, “What the tide washes ashore, it will one day carry away.”

Much of the advice and influence from “non-member” non-indigenous advisors (and some legislators) has been advanced by people who have nothing to lose because they are not participants in the defined benefit plan. It’s not their money that is effected by their decisions.

I don’t know about you but, as a retiree, I just find something intrinsically wrong with a process that relies on the opinion of those who have no stake in the out come—for better or worse. This, of course, does not include those competitively selected and highly paid money managers who are closely monitored by Fund officials on their performance.

As a member of the Fund, the next time you encounter your representative, you might ask what he or she thinks of non-members influencing your future retirement.

The way politics appears to be shaping up in the NMI, there may well be a lot of changes and new faces on Capital Hill in a year or so. And what will the retirees be left with? Will it all have to be put back together again?

The following article by one Erica Goode may shed some light on the situation. It was published by the New York Times Service titled: “Blunderers Think They’re Doing Fine, Experts Say.”

The article points out:

“There are many incompetent people in the world.

“Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, finds from his research, most incompetent people do not know they are incompetent.

“People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies conducted with graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely confident of their abilities—more confident, in fact , than people who do things well.

“One reason that the ignorant also tend to be blissfully self-assured, researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize incompetence.

“The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper which appeared a couple years ago in the Journal of Personally and Social Psychology.

“Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois and Dunning.

“The findings”, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “he who knows best knows how little he knows.”

So, if you are a retiree and have ever wondered about the actions of some people, their statements, actions, policies, etc., that just don’t make sense and defy all reason and logic perhaps the above offers some insight. Your impressions have now been documented by a university study.