6 ms·

You know what else would help? Since the risk curve bends sharply upward at age 60, immediately allow anyone to start drawing full social security payments at

by thrill 7y ago

You know what else would help? Since the risk curve bends sharply upward at age 60, immediately allow anyone to start drawing full social security payments at age 60, without any sort of penalty. Those companies that value their older workers would now be in the position of making work-from-home a full-fledged option, because the bargaining power would shift to where it belongs - the worker.

zymhan 7y ago
That would both put a massive strain on the Social Security trust and not pressure employers at all, since they'd likely be happy to have the most expensive employees retire early.
- thrill 7y ago
  If we can afford a $1.5 trillion injection into the markets, then we can afford moving the SS retirement age to 60 where the most vulnerable exist.
  - OscarCunningham 7y ago
    The money being "injected into the market" is in exchange for assets. They're not just giving it away.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    The $1.5 trillion injection doesn't actually cost any money. The Fed is making short-term fully-collateralized loans.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Yes, just like how poor people can get 1.5 trillion in subsidized payday loans to cover the gap between pay checks...oh wait. It’s absolutely a bailout.
      - ivalm 7y ago
        Payday loans are generally not overnight and are typically not collateralized; they are in fact very risky. Repo's are overnight borrowing collateralized by the US Treasuries. Basically it is borrowing to maintain capitalization requirements in these high volatility times. From the perspective of the US government they have literally 0 risk (you are guaranteed to get back either USD denominated money or US treasury).
        SilasX 7y ago
        If you want to use that analogy ... You should compare it to a payday loan that is collateralized [1]. And then where the collateral happens to be insufficient because a glut of that item just came on the market (analogous to the sudden rush of banks needing to convert their Treasurys to cash). For the ordinary person, "Sorry, can't help you, you just have to deal with the fact that everyone else is selling that product too and so it doesn't provide the value you want and you have to take a big loss or an interest rate corresponding to higher risk." For banks, "Omg! You can't sell your bonds at par because everyone else is trying to sell before maturity? You poor thing, let me buy them up for you with new money!" [1] Sometimes referred to as "title loans", as you might e.g. put up your (remaining equity in your) car as the collateral.
        ivalm 7y ago
        Except for they are not using random bonds, they are using Treasuries. This isn't random toxic debt, it's the debt of the US government to itself. More akin to "if banks are insolvent this ensures a certain degree of quantitative easing", which is a good thing since we are undershooting our inflation targets as is.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    The $1.5 trillion thing is a bit confusing. That came from the Federal Reserve, not the US Treasury so didn't it just essentially chip away a little bit at the value of all dollars in existence instead of adding to the national debt? The Fed just created that money out of thin air (or zooming electrons) as far as I can tell. A small inflationary tax on everyone holding dollars?
    - ComputerGuru 7y ago
      They’re technically short-term loans only (like, overnight) to avoid that issue.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    You will gt downvoted like there is no tomorrow here, but you are factually correct. Sadly people do not grasp our fiduciary currency based financial system. We create money all in extreme amounts all the time. Money is not some sort of 'ore' which we have to mine out of the planet through hard labor. It's a resource we create at will by simple agreement and at the push of a button in unlimited quantities. The 'downside' is that 'new' money potentially can devalue existing money, as there is just more to go around. Giving the massive amounts of money we create daily to those that need it, for instance to retire after a reasonable lifetime of work, in some twisted logic feels 'bad', where lavishing it on those that do not need it, so they can use it just to hoard, speculate, or buy back their own stock, seems to be accepted as 'fine'.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Comparing fed injections to expanding social security spending is not "factually correct" though, it's a very weak analogy and two very different things. You can be critical of QE, monetary policy, and the general priorities of the government but it doesn't make OP's point a helpful one. Especially considering the lack of centralized control, let alone the various other major differences between it and entitlement spending.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Oh right because all of our pensions systems are based on people actually dying after 60, keep forgetting that.
larrywright 7y ago
Social security is based on what you paid in, so the earlier you start withdrawing the lower your monthly check is. You couldn’t allow people to receive the full amount starting at 60 without bankrupting the program.
- dsr_ 7y ago
  Ahem. Social security is not self-funded, it's funded by current payroll tax receipts, plus a 2.6 trillion trust fund, plus about 5 trillion in debt owed to it by the rest of the government.
  - surge 7y ago
    Right, SS is already in a risky position, most millenials question if it'll even be standing when it comes to their turn (especially if population drops since they're having less children who will pay in), what they're suggesting would make it worse.
    - rlt 7y ago
      Well... it's a morbid thought, but if COVID-19 kills a large number of old people quickly, maybe SS will work itself out (FWIW it was my elderly dad who pointed this out to me) Related: according to Twitter, kids are starting to call COVID-19 the "boomer remover" https://twitter.com/BaileyCarlin/status/1238147875143647234 https://twitter.com/BaileyCarlin/status/1238147875143647234
    - thawaway1837 7y ago
      Yeah, except that’s not true at all. SS is not in a risky position. The worst that can happen to it is current SS receipts do not pay out enough money for the current SS recipients to live a reasonable quality of life. SS is a transfer of funds from current earners to current retirees. People trying to scare people about SS talk about the trust fund depleting, but the trust fund is simply a bonus that was created to account for the fact that when the baby boomers started retiring, their numbers would be much greater than the numbers of working people to maintain a healthy SS system. So they set aside some additional money so the large number of baby boomers, who in their prime had to pay for a relatively smaller number of retirees, were paying some money towards their own retirement and so wouldn’t place too much of a burden when they retired.
gnopgnip 7y ago
Being able to collect social security early is not as big of a negotiating tool as you would expect. It just doesn't pay enough to be an alternative for a lot of people, and it wasn't designed to be
onetimemanytime 7y ago
Maybe a one time payment from the Government, say $3K for 2 months, without changing anything.
- zymhan 7y ago
  I wonder if the Social Security program is allowed to do something like a one off payment, I've never heard that floated before.
cameldrv 7y ago
On the other hand, the whole Coronavirus response is largely the young sacrificing for the old. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, but older people should not get special financial consideration.

by thrill 7y ago

zymhan 7y ago

That would both put a massive strain on the Social Security trust and not pressure employers at all, since they'd likely be happy to have the most expensive employees retire early.

thrill 7y ago
If we can afford a $1.5 trillion injection into the markets, then we can afford moving the SS retirement age to 60 where the most vulnerable exist.
- OscarCunningham 7y ago
  The money being "injected into the market" is in exchange for assets. They're not just giving it away.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- QuesnayJr 7y ago
  The $1.5 trillion injection doesn't actually cost any money. The Fed is making short-term fully-collateralized loans.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Yes, just like how poor people can get 1.5 trillion in subsidized payday loans to cover the gap between pay checks...oh wait. It’s absolutely a bailout.
    - ivalm 7y ago
      Payday loans are generally not overnight and are typically not collateralized; they are in fact very risky. Repo's are overnight borrowing collateralized by the US Treasuries. Basically it is borrowing to maintain capitalization requirements in these high volatility times. From the perspective of the US government they have literally 0 risk (you are guaranteed to get back either USD denominated money or US treasury).
      - SilasX 7y ago
        If you want to use that analogy ... You should compare it to a payday loan that is collateralized [1]. And then where the collateral happens to be insufficient because a glut of that item just came on the market (analogous to the sudden rush of banks needing to convert their Treasurys to cash). For the ordinary person, "Sorry, can't help you, you just have to deal with the fact that everyone else is selling that product too and so it doesn't provide the value you want and you have to take a big loss or an interest rate corresponding to higher risk." For banks, "Omg! You can't sell your bonds at par because everyone else is trying to sell before maturity? You poor thing, let me buy them up for you with new money!" [1] Sometimes referred to as "title loans", as you might e.g. put up your (remaining equity in your) car as the collateral.
        ivalm 7y ago
        Except for they are not using random bonds, they are using Treasuries. This isn't random toxic debt, it's the debt of the US government to itself. More akin to "if banks are insolvent this ensures a certain degree of quantitative easing", which is a good thing since we are undershooting our inflation targets as is.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  The $1.5 trillion thing is a bit confusing. That came from the Federal Reserve, not the US Treasury so didn't it just essentially chip away a little bit at the value of all dollars in existence instead of adding to the national debt? The Fed just created that money out of thin air (or zooming electrons) as far as I can tell. A small inflationary tax on everyone holding dollars?
  - ComputerGuru 7y ago
    They’re technically short-term loans only (like, overnight) to avoid that issue.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  You will gt downvoted like there is no tomorrow here, but you are factually correct. Sadly people do not grasp our fiduciary currency based financial system. We create money all in extreme amounts all the time. Money is not some sort of 'ore' which we have to mine out of the planet through hard labor. It's a resource we create at will by simple agreement and at the push of a button in unlimited quantities. The 'downside' is that 'new' money potentially can devalue existing money, as there is just more to go around. Giving the massive amounts of money we create daily to those that need it, for instance to retire after a reasonable lifetime of work, in some twisted logic feels 'bad', where lavishing it on those that do not need it, so they can use it just to hoard, speculate, or buy back their own stock, seems to be accepted as 'fine'.
  - dmix 7y ago
    Comparing fed injections to expanding social security spending is not "factually correct" though, it's a very weak analogy and two very different things. You can be critical of QE, monetary policy, and the general priorities of the government but it doesn't make OP's point a helpful one. Especially considering the lack of centralized control, let alone the various other major differences between it and entitlement spending.
rolltiide 7y ago
Oh right because all of our pensions systems are based on people actually dying after 60, keep forgetting that.

larrywright 7y ago

Social security is based on what you paid in, so the earlier you start withdrawing the lower your monthly check is. You couldn’t allow people to receive the full amount starting at 60 without bankrupting the program.

dsr_ 7y ago
Ahem. Social security is not self-funded, it's funded by current payroll tax receipts, plus a 2.6 trillion trust fund, plus about 5 trillion in debt owed to it by the rest of the government.
- surge 7y ago
  Right, SS is already in a risky position, most millenials question if it'll even be standing when it comes to their turn (especially if population drops since they're having less children who will pay in), what they're suggesting would make it worse.
  - rlt 7y ago
    Well... it's a morbid thought, but if COVID-19 kills a large number of old people quickly, maybe SS will work itself out (FWIW it was my elderly dad who pointed this out to me) Related: according to Twitter, kids are starting to call COVID-19 the "boomer remover" https://twitter.com/BaileyCarlin/status/1238147875143647234 https://twitter.com/BaileyCarlin/status/1238147875143647234
  - thawaway1837 7y ago
    Yeah, except that’s not true at all. SS is not in a risky position. The worst that can happen to it is current SS receipts do not pay out enough money for the current SS recipients to live a reasonable quality of life. SS is a transfer of funds from current earners to current retirees. People trying to scare people about SS talk about the trust fund depleting, but the trust fund is simply a bonus that was created to account for the fact that when the baby boomers started retiring, their numbers would be much greater than the numbers of working people to maintain a healthy SS system. So they set aside some additional money so the large number of baby boomers, who in their prime had to pay for a relatively smaller number of retirees, were paying some money towards their own retirement and so wouldn’t place too much of a burden when they retired.

gnopgnip 7y ago

Being able to collect social security early is not as big of a negotiating tool as you would expect. It just doesn't pay enough to be an alternative for a lot of people, and it wasn't designed to be

onetimemanytime 7y ago

Maybe a one time payment from the Government, say $3K for 2 months, without changing anything.

zymhan 7y ago
I wonder if the Social Security program is allowed to do something like a one off payment, I've never heard that floated before.

cameldrv 7y ago

On the other hand, the whole Coronavirus response is largely the young sacrificing for the old. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, but older people should not get special financial consideration.