6 ms·

That's amusing. I'm 45 and said the same thing when I was in my mid-20's. And now I think it's just naive. The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively

by cmurf 10y ago

That's amusing. I'm 45 and said the same thing when I was in my mid-20's. And now I think it's just naive. The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. If Social Security were just done away with, I guarantee you the violent revolution they'd be considering wouldn't involve clever devices that take people's heads off cleanly, quickly and painlessly like the French did. Vlad the Impaler would be seen as a massage therapist in comparison. So if Social Security (and don't forget Medicare it's part of the same FICA taxation) were to go away, it definitely means some nasty calamity happened first, like Yellowstone or a meteor just blew up half the country, in which case we've got other problems. The thing to be concerned about is privatizing it. That's a con game to dump a shit ton of money into the stock market, with the ensuing distortion inflating the stock prices of the very wealthy. It's about helping them. It doesn't do squat to help the people who will depend on Social Security. They will not make more money. And just like with getting rid of it, there's no way it's tenable to tolerate the inevitable short term loss of asset value with recessions. We can't have retirees experiencing 5% let alone 20% loss of income for 1 month let alone 1 year let alone 5-8 years for a recovery. Old people would sooner pick up axes and make you shoot them, because shooting your grandma in the head is kinder than this Republican privatization of Social Security nonsense. Grandma is not going to go back to dumpster diving and living under a bridge again like the 1930's. And you've got the same financial concern with an unbalanced 401K - that could leave you in a lurch the same way a privatized Social Security plan can. So take the risks in that 401k while you're young, but at some point probably in your 50's, you'll want to start moving it to inflation indexed treasuries. Young people right now are more likely to be savers, because of 2007/2008. They saw what it did to the unprepared, so they know that sort of thing can happen. Gen X and the Baby Boomers didn't have anything nearly that scary.

monocasa 10y ago
> The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. I guess I'm afraid of a slow rollout. ie. everyone who's 40 and older gets normal social security, if you're ~35 now, you'll have to wait a few years more. It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for.
- RestlessMind 10y ago
  Honestly, I don't think its such a bad idea. Life expectancy in 1935 was 62. Today its 79. So if we want the program to be solvent, we have to adopt one or more of the following solutions: keep increasing the SS-eligibility age in tandem with life expectancy, increase the FICA tax, cut benefits
  - monocasa 10y ago
    I mean, the FICA taxes were increased in 1983 in part as preparation for the Boomer's retirement. When that bubble is past us, we shouldn't need to increase again for a couple generations, even accounting for increased average lifespan.
  - jellicle 10y ago
    You could also choose what the U.S. is choosing now, which is to reduce U.S. life expectancy.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Grandfathering would be unjust though.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Dependency ratios (the number of workers compared to the number of people dependent on workers) may actually be lower than they were in the 60s simply because fewer people are having children. Even if that weren't true, the idea that we have to keep putting the age up is predicated upon productivity remaining static. Productivity has gone up consistently and will likely continue to go up. Curiously some people are breathlessly optimistic about automation when it's a convenient scapegoat for high unemployment but immediately lose all faith in it when it comes to social security projections. These people probably don't have our best interests at heart.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    You left out adding more people into the system, although that's usually considered in the context of demography rather than mortality. One accounting reason to consider it from this perspective, though, is that adult immigrants have typically been raised and educated at some other country's expense so their productive entry to the US workforce is free of any debt overhang, ie no public monies were spent by the US on educating so they're basically coming to help out with the national debt for free. Of course the flip side of this is a brain drain for countries that see too many people leave.
TheBeardKing 10y ago
Only there's now bi-partisan recognition that SS is insolvent and something must be done. The left wants to increase taxes and remove the cap, who knows how far they could get to taking that if the populist Sanders side takes over, and the right wants to reduce benefits and/or privatize. If the stagnation keeps up until retirement, I guess they'll just quit writing checks.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Social Security insolvency is a myth. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html https://www.nasi.org/research/2016/social-security-finances-findings-2016-trustees-report https://www.nasi.org/research/2016/social-security-finances-... The risk to a stable society (the purpose of Social Security, which is part of its name) is essentially zero by raising the cap. The risk is substantial by either reducing benefits or privatizing. And I know this because the instant the conversation goes down this road the contra agent devolves to this: I will pick a pocket first, and shoot grandma in the head second, before this nonsense of reducing benefits or privatization. Benefit reduction, a risk of which is endemic to privatization (grandma might become rich, or she might get kicked out of her apartment, who is to say except the glory of the free market), is objectively more unethical than either picking pockets or shooting old people.

by cmurf 10y ago

monocasa 10y ago

> The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. I guess I'm afraid of a slow rollout. ie. everyone who's 40 and older gets normal social security, if you're ~35 now, you'll have to wait a few years more. It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for.

RestlessMind 10y ago
Honestly, I don't think its such a bad idea. Life expectancy in 1935 was 62. Today its 79. So if we want the program to be solvent, we have to adopt one or more of the following solutions: keep increasing the SS-eligibility age in tandem with life expectancy, increase the FICA tax, cut benefits
- monocasa 10y ago
  I mean, the FICA taxes were increased in 1983 in part as preparation for the Boomer's retirement. When that bubble is past us, we shouldn't need to increase again for a couple generations, even accounting for increased average lifespan.
- jellicle 10y ago
  You could also choose what the U.S. is choosing now, which is to reduce U.S. life expectancy.
- hx87 10y ago
  Grandfathering would be unjust though.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Dependency ratios (the number of workers compared to the number of people dependent on workers) may actually be lower than they were in the 60s simply because fewer people are having children. Even if that weren't true, the idea that we have to keep putting the age up is predicated upon productivity remaining static. Productivity has gone up consistently and will likely continue to go up. Curiously some people are breathlessly optimistic about automation when it's a convenient scapegoat for high unemployment but immediately lose all faith in it when it comes to social security projections. These people probably don't have our best interests at heart.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  You left out adding more people into the system, although that's usually considered in the context of demography rather than mortality. One accounting reason to consider it from this perspective, though, is that adult immigrants have typically been raised and educated at some other country's expense so their productive entry to the US workforce is free of any debt overhang, ie no public monies were spent by the US on educating so they're basically coming to help out with the national debt for free. Of course the flip side of this is a brain drain for countries that see too many people leave.

TheBeardKing 10y ago

Only there's now bi-partisan recognition that SS is insolvent and something must be done. The left wants to increase taxes and remove the cap, who knows how far they could get to taking that if the populist Sanders side takes over, and the right wants to reduce benefits and/or privatize. If the stagnation keeps up until retirement, I guess they'll just quit writing checks.

cmurf 10y ago
Social Security insolvency is a myth. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html https://www.nasi.org/research/2016/social-security-finances-findings-2016-trustees-report https://www.nasi.org/research/2016/social-security-finances-... The risk to a stable society (the purpose of Social Security, which is part of its name) is essentially zero by raising the cap. The risk is substantial by either reducing benefits or privatizing. And I know this because the instant the conversation goes down this road the contra agent devolves to this: I will pick a pocket first, and shoot grandma in the head second, before this nonsense of reducing benefits or privatization. Benefit reduction, a risk of which is endemic to privatization (grandma might become rich, or she might get kicked out of her apartment, who is to say except the glory of the free market), is objectively more unethical than either picking pockets or shooting old people.