4 ms·

This disparity in receipt of SS benefits has been known about by the people who run/regulate these things since its inception. I'd be shocked if they didn't kn

This disparity in receipt of SS benefits has been known about by the people who run/regulate these things since its inception. I'd be shocked if they didn't know this would happen even before its inception. Can you name a single mainstream politician who has made a serious effort to correct this problem? Maybe a couple exist, but I've personally never heard it uttered by a candidate.

cgy1 10y ago
I believe this was one of the reasons for George W. Bush's push for privatizing part of social security.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Privatizing it still doesn't address any of the systemic issues regarding ageism, classism, sexism, racism which have impacts on longevity. This argument is fundamentally absurd. It's like saying that public schools in predominantly rich, white districts are better than schools in predominantly poor, black districts so we should get rid of all public schools because poor blacks get a poor education so it's racist. No, we should address the problem of the schools and opportunities themselves, not eliminate it (though that may still be part of the solution). Here, with pensions, they serve a need. Eliminating them will actually hurt the poor, and minorities, more despite the discrepancies in payouts. The focus should be, why do they have worse life expectancies and what, if anything, can be done to address that. Why do they have worse savings rates so what can be done to increase their savings rates, or increase their wages so they're more able to save.
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    It's unfashionable to recognize it publicly, but there really are minor physiological differences between different races. Race is a dumb word, but people with DNA from different regions will be susceptible to different types of problems. And doctors who aren't racist at all will provide different medical care based on these things because of what tends to work best for different groups. Hell, we even know red heads need more anesthesia, and that's just a hair color, not even a race. Even correcting for income, education, and all that blacks and hispanics have a lower lifespan than whites and Asians. Additionally, women live longer than men.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Even correcting for income, education, and all that blacks and hispanics have a lower lifespan than whites and Asians. Hispanics in the US (which even those who believe race is a real thing consider an ethnicity that crosses racial lines, not a race) have longer life expectancy than non-Hispanic Whites. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a8.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a8.htm
      - Consultant32452 10y ago
        Thank you for the correction on hispanics and life expectancy, but it doesn't change the racist nature of the system just because one of the groups that would benefit the most might happen to be a minority.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I believe this point is valid, but I'm unsure how to relate it to the discussion at hand. That said, while it's true there are differences in different genetic ethnicities and in different sexes, that we choose to downplay these currently is probably mostly for the best. Until there is much more acceptance for the idea that we're all actually much more similar than we are different, and that natural variability based on specific, non-racial genes and upbringing overwhelms most group differences, promoting the idea that we are all the same is probably the most beneficial path. The alternative is that these small differences get blown far out of proportion and are used as explanations and excused in inappropriate ways.
      - Consultant32452 10y ago
        The difference is significant. On average a white woman out-lives a black man by 10 years. That's a lot of wealth redistribution. The SS retirement age is surely intended to correlate to something akin to stage of life, ability to perform labor, etc. There have to be better ways to do this than simply drawing a line in the sand that applies to every group. One of the many ways this could be done, and I only mention it for its relative simplicity, would be to privatize and switch to a defined contribution system rather than a defined benefit system. This has other problems, of course, but it would at least allow a person to pass on whatever they accumulated to their children, even if they didn't get to use it themselves.
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    >Privatizing it still doesn't address any of the systemic issues regarding ageism, classism, sexism, racism which have impacts on longevity. There are potentially many solutions to this problem, but privatization would be a huge step forward compared to the current system. At least with privatization you could pass on your accumulated wealth to your children, even if you didn't get to enjoy it yourself.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      That certainly would be a benefit, but that changes it from a traditional pension to a retirement savings/investing account. Traditional pensions are typically not inheritable (except, potentially, by a spouse) and, also typically, offer guarantees on payout. You will get $3000/month. A retirement savings/investment account can make no such guarantees.
Shivetya 10y ago
Well the question you fail to ask is, are the conditions the same at inception to today? Why is every imbalance a racial issue? Is that the issue guaranteed to induce the most debate? Are rich insert-minority-here have similar lifespans to rich-non-minority peoples? How much does location affect the outcome? Inner city poor are likely to be disproportionately affected by violence; murder where as those in rural areas might not get quick response to medical emergencies. All that really matters is that people who get to the appropriate age are paid similar benefits. If you want to mitigate longevity then what is the option, terminate benefits after twenty years? sorry I just find it abhorrent how some see race in every system and how it must be purposeful when declared
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  >Well the question you fail to ask is, are the conditions the same at inception to today? Except for the fact that at inception nobody had spent their entire life paying into the system: yes. The demographic lifespan differentials are similar. >Why is every imbalance a racial issue? This is a system that, on average, redistributes money from poor black people to wealthy white/Asian people. Simple as that. The article already covers the wealth issue, but even correcting for wealth blacks/hispanics have lower lifespans than whites/Asians. >All that really matters is that people who get to the appropriate age are paid similar benefits. That's the WHOLE point of my argument, is what the "appropriate age" is based off of. Presumably it has something to do with ability to perform labor at various life stages. The life expectancy differential between a white woman and a black man is over a decade. That we treat those two groups the same with regard to how we calculate their life stage is insane.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> This disparity in receipt of SS benefits has been known about by the people who run/regulate these things since its inception. The "disparity" is a change from 1980; the whole article is comparing the current state to that of 1980. The charts show that the absolute surplus of benefits over contributions was highest in the lower quintile in 1980, and the surplus since then has dropped in that quintile and raised in the other four. I'm fairly sure that at the inception of Social Security in 1935 it was not known that changes after 1980, including a growing discrepancy in rich v. poor lifespans, would drrive a greater share of social security benefits to wealthier retirees than had been the case in the past. Note that Social Security has measure built in that mitigate the advantages of wealthy contributors that were known in the past, including benefit caps and "bend points" in the calculation of benefits from contributions, which give wealthier retirees (that is, those with higher lifetime covered income) a lower proportion of annual benefits to wage-indexing contributions.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  Income isn't the racist factor here I'm talking about, but lifespan. The life expectancy differential between a black man and a white woman is a decade. It's not the amount of each individual check someone gets, it's the fact that some groups collect checks for many years longer.

cgy1 10y ago

I believe this was one of the reasons for George W. Bush's push for privatizing part of social security.

Jtsummers 10y ago
Privatizing it still doesn't address any of the systemic issues regarding ageism, classism, sexism, racism which have impacts on longevity. This argument is fundamentally absurd. It's like saying that public schools in predominantly rich, white districts are better than schools in predominantly poor, black districts so we should get rid of all public schools because poor blacks get a poor education so it's racist. No, we should address the problem of the schools and opportunities themselves, not eliminate it (though that may still be part of the solution). Here, with pensions, they serve a need. Eliminating them will actually hurt the poor, and minorities, more despite the discrepancies in payouts. The focus should be, why do they have worse life expectancies and what, if anything, can be done to address that. Why do they have worse savings rates so what can be done to increase their savings rates, or increase their wages so they're more able to save.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  It's unfashionable to recognize it publicly, but there really are minor physiological differences between different races. Race is a dumb word, but people with DNA from different regions will be susceptible to different types of problems. And doctors who aren't racist at all will provide different medical care based on these things because of what tends to work best for different groups. Hell, we even know red heads need more anesthesia, and that's just a hair color, not even a race. Even correcting for income, education, and all that blacks and hispanics have a lower lifespan than whites and Asians. Additionally, women live longer than men.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Even correcting for income, education, and all that blacks and hispanics have a lower lifespan than whites and Asians. Hispanics in the US (which even those who believe race is a real thing consider an ethnicity that crosses racial lines, not a race) have longer life expectancy than non-Hispanic Whites. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a8.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a8.htm
    - Consultant32452 10y ago
      Thank you for the correction on hispanics and life expectancy, but it doesn't change the racist nature of the system just because one of the groups that would benefit the most might happen to be a minority.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I believe this point is valid, but I'm unsure how to relate it to the discussion at hand. That said, while it's true there are differences in different genetic ethnicities and in different sexes, that we choose to downplay these currently is probably mostly for the best. Until there is much more acceptance for the idea that we're all actually much more similar than we are different, and that natural variability based on specific, non-racial genes and upbringing overwhelms most group differences, promoting the idea that we are all the same is probably the most beneficial path. The alternative is that these small differences get blown far out of proportion and are used as explanations and excused in inappropriate ways.
    - Consultant32452 10y ago
      The difference is significant. On average a white woman out-lives a black man by 10 years. That's a lot of wealth redistribution. The SS retirement age is surely intended to correlate to something akin to stage of life, ability to perform labor, etc. There have to be better ways to do this than simply drawing a line in the sand that applies to every group. One of the many ways this could be done, and I only mention it for its relative simplicity, would be to privatize and switch to a defined contribution system rather than a defined benefit system. This has other problems, of course, but it would at least allow a person to pass on whatever they accumulated to their children, even if they didn't get to use it themselves.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  >Privatizing it still doesn't address any of the systemic issues regarding ageism, classism, sexism, racism which have impacts on longevity. There are potentially many solutions to this problem, but privatization would be a huge step forward compared to the current system. At least with privatization you could pass on your accumulated wealth to your children, even if you didn't get to enjoy it yourself.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    That certainly would be a benefit, but that changes it from a traditional pension to a retirement savings/investing account. Traditional pensions are typically not inheritable (except, potentially, by a spouse) and, also typically, offer guarantees on payout. You will get $3000/month. A retirement savings/investment account can make no such guarantees.

Shivetya 10y ago

Well the question you fail to ask is, are the conditions the same at inception to today? Why is every imbalance a racial issue? Is that the issue guaranteed to induce the most debate? Are rich insert-minority-here have similar lifespans to rich-non-minority peoples? How much does location affect the outcome? Inner city poor are likely to be disproportionately affected by violence; murder where as those in rural areas might not get quick response to medical emergencies. All that really matters is that people who get to the appropriate age are paid similar benefits. If you want to mitigate longevity then what is the option, terminate benefits after twenty years? sorry I just find it abhorrent how some see race in every system and how it must be purposeful when declared

Consultant32452 10y ago
>Well the question you fail to ask is, are the conditions the same at inception to today? Except for the fact that at inception nobody had spent their entire life paying into the system: yes. The demographic lifespan differentials are similar. >Why is every imbalance a racial issue? This is a system that, on average, redistributes money from poor black people to wealthy white/Asian people. Simple as that. The article already covers the wealth issue, but even correcting for wealth blacks/hispanics have lower lifespans than whites/Asians. >All that really matters is that people who get to the appropriate age are paid similar benefits. That's the WHOLE point of my argument, is what the "appropriate age" is based off of. Presumably it has something to do with ability to perform labor at various life stages. The life expectancy differential between a white woman and a black man is over a decade. That we treat those two groups the same with regard to how we calculate their life stage is insane.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> This disparity in receipt of SS benefits has been known about by the people who run/regulate these things since its inception. The "disparity" is a change from 1980; the whole article is comparing the current state to that of 1980. The charts show that the absolute surplus of benefits over contributions was highest in the lower quintile in 1980, and the surplus since then has dropped in that quintile and raised in the other four. I'm fairly sure that at the inception of Social Security in 1935 it was not known that changes after 1980, including a growing discrepancy in rich v. poor lifespans, would drrive a greater share of social security benefits to wealthier retirees than had been the case in the past. Note that Social Security has measure built in that mitigate the advantages of wealthy contributors that were known in the past, including benefit caps and "bend points" in the calculation of benefits from contributions, which give wealthier retirees (that is, those with higher lifetime covered income) a lower proportion of annual benefits to wage-indexing contributions.

Consultant32452 10y ago
Income isn't the racist factor here I'm talking about, but lifespan. The life expectancy differential between a black man and a white woman is a decade. It's not the amount of each individual check someone gets, it's the fact that some groups collect checks for many years longer.