I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
The questions are like " Do you feel you have been unfairly denied a promotion" which find that 50% of women say yes. Did they ask the same question to men? If it is also 50%? Almost all the questions have this same issue.
These Pew research studies are either poorly done or have an agenda.
"Now ask men if they have ever been denied a promotion because they are male. Apples and oranges 7:29 AM.
2/20/2020 1:24 PM"
No it is not because you have to assume why you where denied a promotion. The question is do you feel you where unfairly denied a promotion and 50% said yes, and some assumed that it was because they are women but they actually do not know. Now they should also ask the men the same questions suppose they get 50% of men said yes. You could also ask why and they can only assume certain reasons but again they do not know. Look this is not that hard to understand, you need some kind of control when you do these kinds of studies. This is one of the reasons for the so called "reproducibility crisis" that is so prevalent in social sciences.
An agenda? Perhaps, but agendas are not limited to diversity research studies. There is not much that is organic about diversity and inclusiveness at the Labs. To a large degree, Lab diversity efforts are a construct required of federal contractors and are monitored by the OFCCP. Annually, the Labs generate diversity reports, recommendations, and goals called an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) which are examined by the OFCCP, not an option for the Labs. The AAP has Lab support as noted by the plethora of Lab management signatures. Lab minorities who had voiced their own discrimination concerns are often promoted to diversity managers and become the point of contact for OFCCP encounters. As to the past diversity concerns of newly promoted diversity managers, those were just misunderstandings taken out of context you see. Use caution with the word agenda because there is plenty to go around.
How would women or men know the reasons they where denied a promotion? They just have to take guess as to why. By the how many did they ask? I think you would need at least 500 people of either gender to proper statistics. How where the questions asked, where they leading questions act. Pew research is generally very low quality in terms of actual statistics and analysis. This may be deliberate to get the narrative they want.