11 ms·

The SSA's master records, the Numerical Identification (NUMIDENT) files, store dates in text as either CCYYMMDD or MMDDCCYY strings according to their archived

• CSMastermind 2y ago
  Social Security started paying out in 1940: https://www.proquest.com/docview/146227490?sourcetype=Historical%20Newspapers https://www.proquest.com/docview/146227490?sourcetype=Histor... With anyone 65 years or older eligible to start receiving checks. The 1875 date almost certainly comes from that. I wouldn't be surprised if someone set it as a default for anyone they didn't have a birth date for because you could safely assume someone was older than that if they were receiving social security when it first started _or_ because there are some of those initial payments that truly were never discontinued.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • EdwardDiego 2y ago
    That makes a lot of sense.
  • Aloisius 2y ago
    They didn't use computers in 1940 for it though. All this was stored on paper where using days since 1875 wouldn't have made much sense. That would lead to most of the beneficiaries having a negative number. They didn't get their first computer until 1956 and by that point, the 1875 date would have made little sense. It simply makes more sense there was data entry errors. Indeed, we know there are since the SSA makes records available for dead people. They show people supposedly born as early as 1800: https://aad.archives.gov/aad/fielded-search.jsp?dt=3059&tf=F&cat=all https://aad.archives.gov/aad/fielded-search.jsp?dt=3059&tf=F...
    • masswerk 2y ago
      > All this was stored on paper Rather, as also mentioned in the answers, on Hollerith cards, 5-digit encoded (2 for the year, 3 for the day of year). Punch-card appliances were very much a thing. (WWII logistics were run by punch-cards.)
      • Aloisius 2y ago
        They used IBM cards, not Hollerith cards (they used IBM 077 collators and 405 accounting machines). They were coded with 6 digits: 2 for month, 2 day and 2 year according to the SSA. https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/yourss55.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/yourss55.html
        • masswerk 2y ago
          Notably, this is from December 1955, already on computers. There's no mention of how data was handled before this. (Also, pre-WWII, people used do talk of "Hollerith cards" in a general way – and the system started in the 1930s.)
          • Aloisius 2y ago
            It's mentioned on IBM's site: https://www.ibm.com/history/social-security-act https://www.ibm.com/history/social-security-act https://www.ibm.com/history/punched-card#The+Social+Security+Administration https://www.ibm.com/history/punched-card#The+Social+Security... And the SSA site mentions using IBM machines for it in 1936. IBM machines only used IBM cards: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html The checks used to pay people were also IBM punchcards.
  • kuhewa 2y ago
    The very first recipient, Ida May Fuller, would be 150 years old currently.
  • erik998 2y ago
    In 1875, the American Express Company established the first private pension plan in the United States. I can also see a situation where the SSA recipient in 1940 was born in 1875. The recipient age 65 could have married someone very young for 10 years. That younger person could be on survivors benefits and continue receiving payments. Here is an example: https://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/survivor/eligibility https://www.ssa.gov/survivor/eligibility So if in 1965 this retired person married someone age 18... Then that person at 18 never remarried. Could they end up in a situation where they receive survivors benefits from the original applicant? The recent spouse would be born in 1947 and marry in 1965 for 10 years until their spouse's death... not have remarried or worked, then at age 60 in 2007, derive survivors benefits from original applicant?
    • hylaride 2y ago
      > So if in 1965 this retired person married someone age 18... Then that person at 18 never remarried. Could they end up in a situation where they receive survivors benefits from the original applicant? "In order to receive this (spousal) benefit, you must have been married for at least 10 years, and both you and your ex must be at least 62 years of age". Basically, you could but you wouldn't get much to make it worthwhile. I do know that veterans benefits did (at one time?) payout to spouses in the way you ask, though. IIRC benefits from the American Civil War were paid out into the 21st century due to a handful of cases where old veterans married young women. The last known "civil war widow" died in 2008 having married an 86 year old at 19. A daughter received her father's benefits until 2020. There was also another spouse who died in 2020, but she never collected the pension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_widows_who_survived_into_the_21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_widows_who_...
      • Projectiboga 2y ago
  • qingcharles 2y ago
    Also factor in there were civil war widows legitimately eligible for pensions from their dead soldier husbands until the last one died just a couple of years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_widows_who_survived_into_the_21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_widows_who_... Also can be via your father, this lady was collecting a civil war pension until 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Triplett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Triplett
    • zten 2y ago
      Can’t wait for Musk’s team to finally peel back these layers, realize that the code actually implemented the laws, and have to admit they are the idiots and apologize for wasting the government’s money on a poorly-run audit.
      • thecopy 2y ago
        They wont admit anything
        • flir 2y ago
          At least we'll get a good example for the Chesterton's Fence wiki page.
          • krger 2y ago
            Until the Heritage Foundation succeeds in dismantling Wikipedia.
            • flir 2y ago
              That makes me wonder what the Wikimedia Foundation's disaster recovery plan looks like. The crucial bit of infrastructure (and the most vulnerable point right now) might be the domain name.
              • 2y ago
  • erik998 2y ago
    There is so much more info on their site. https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/index.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/index.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/operations.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/operations.html Early Operations Social Security Bulletin Volume 1 - June 1938 - Number 6 ACCOUNTING OPERATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF OLD-AGE INSURANCE Joseph L. Fay and MaxJ. Wasserman Bureau of Old-Age Insurance. Mr. Fay is Chief of the Baltimore Accounting Operations Section and Mr. Wasserman is Chief of the Statistics Section. They were assisted by Edward O. Manning of the Statistics Section. https://www.ssa.gov/history/fay638.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/fay638.html
  • gonzobonzo 2y ago
    > The 1875 date almost certainly comes from that. Here's 1875 the claim that's been all over Twitter these days[1]: "Social security runs on COBOL, which does not use a date or time type. So the > date is stored as a number using the ISO 8601 standard. The epoch for this is 150 years ago (1875) - aka the metre standard." "So if you don’t know the date of something, it will be a 0 value, which in COBOL will default to 1875 - 150 years ago." Weirdly this post itself didn't get a lot of attention (only 2.2k likes), but a ton of people took a screenshot of it and passed it around as fact, which got a lot more attention. For instance, post like this[2] with 56 thousand likes (there are a bunch of them on Twitter right now, all with a screenshot of this original post). It's a good example of how misinformation spreads like wildfire, and how extremely few people bother to check to see where or not its accurate. I'm not sure it's useful trying to figure out reasons for a 1875 date when we don't actually have any indication that this was actually occurring, and the discussion started because some made an erroneous claim. [1] https://x.com/toshiHQ/status/1889928670887739902 https://x.com/toshiHQ/status/1889928670887739902 [2] https://x.com/enkday/status/1890808249663869204 https://x.com/enkday/status/1890808249663869204
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • chrisco255 2y ago
    The 1875 date is a made up thing. There's millions of records more than 100+ years old, some as old as 229 years old by birth date. And, it's still very much a problem if the first people to receive SS are still receiving it, or if the system is still cutting checks because their death wasn't ever recorded.
    • skissane 2y ago
      > or if the system is still cutting checks because their death wasn't ever recorded. My speculation: there are a small handful of long dead people, for whom the SSA has never received proof of death, and they fall through some bureaucratic loophole in the "assume people over 115 are dead" rules, so the SSA is still printing them checks. But these checks haven't been deposited in a bank account in many decades, and the SSA doesn't even have a current address to send them, so it just sticks them in a filing cabinet in their basement. No fraud, the government isn't really losing any money since the checks aren't being deposited or cashed, just a little bit of bureaucratic stupidity that no doubt adds up to a rounding error in the federal budget. But you can see how Musk/Trump/et al could spin this to sound a lot worse than it really is.
      • kolanos 2y ago
        > But these checks haven't been deposited in a bank account in many decades, and the SSA doesn't even have a current address to send them, ... While this is likely true for a majority of cases. I am confident that there are both bank accounts and addresses that have remained valid since the 1940s. For example, ABA routing/account numbers on checks go back to 1910. Presuming checks are being printed, it would not surprise me if they are being sent through the U.S. postal system. What happens to them after that, though, is anyone's guess. Banks generally stay on top of deceased customers. But even then, a bank account can be transferred to beneficiaries and retain the same account number. i would expect that banks would flag a check being deposited in the name of a known deceased former account holder. But there have already been cases mentioned in this thread where someone can receive SSA benefits on behalf of a deceased spouse/parent. As such, it is conceivable that those checks could be deposited.
• blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  How can anyone on the outside make all these guesses about the code and databases? It feels like a lot of speculation to try to prove a claim wrong, but without evidence.
  • EdwardDiego 2y ago
    Yeah, exactly, and no-one can see Musk is tweeting about either. But we're generally assuming that he's clinging to anything that justifies a pre-existing narrative.
  • brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    Indeed, how can an outsider like Musk and his DOGE compatriots make any claim at all? I think it is far more likely that Elon was mistaken, or lied, than the SSA is paying out to multiple non-existent 150 year-olds. In fact, that there are so many plausible explanations that don't involve fraud, it really behooves us to be skeptical. Elon made the claim: he is responsible for supplying the evidence. Note that the doge.gov website has a section called "savings," which originally said "Receipts coming by Valentine's Day." Now it says "Receipts coming over the weekend!", and seeing as it's 11:50pm on the East Coast of the US right now, that seems unlikely, too.
    • zten 2y ago
      I’ve gone rushing to my boss in the past with similarly hastily researched claims and conclusions to what Musk is tweeting. In my experience, they were usually the result of me having performed insufficient research, and did not have nearly the impact I thought they would. However, these kind of junior level mistakes make for great propaganda. Anyone can read his conclusion and the chart and with zero critical thought, think “duh! The government is so stupid! I knew I couldn’t trust them to run a benefits program correctly!” And that’s exactly what Musk wants us to conclude. As you note, however, we cannot conclude that - there is a much, much higher burden of proof we should be demanding.
    • mike_hearn 2y ago
      Given that other systems do have problems with paying out to dead people or people who are alive but faking their age, it'd be impressive if the US system had zero such cases. The claim isn't unlikely on its face, especially given what he said about Treasury never denying payments for any reason in order to minimise complaints. As to "how can he make claims at all", it's because civil servants have been told to work for him, which means he is supposed to have access to more information than actual outsiders do (everyone on this thread).
• russdill 2y ago
  Also they do a heck of a lot more than retirement benefits. And really, it could actually be a survivor benefit and the deceased person could have been born 150 years ago and the survivor still living.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• masswerk 2y ago
  Let's say, someone grew up in an orphanage in the 1940s with an unknown date of birth. This was before any computer systems and the date would have been recorded on punch-card, probably in 2+3 digits, here defaulting to `00` for the year for a missing value. It's plausible that this would have been transitioned as-is to any more modern date encodings.
• Aloisius 2y ago
  After much searching, I found documentation on SSA's Master Beneficiary Records format from after the Y2K update. Date of Birth in some of these records is stored as days since January 1, 1800. There's no reference to 1875 anywhere. See section 2.3 Date formats: https://omb.report/icr/200704-0960-012/doc/2576801 https://omb.report/icr/200704-0960-012/doc/2576801
  • masswerk 2y ago
    But it was common to encode missing two-digits data as something in the high-90s, maybe specifying a reason in the least significant digit. (I was taught to do so at university and did so myself for a project.) So, if the start date is indeed 1880, the code for missing date could still have been 95.
  • jedwards1211 2y ago
    I’m still kind of surprised they would store days since 1800, but it makes a lot more sense than 1875. At least with 1800 the last two digits are the same, so debugging it is somewhat sane.
• ein0p 2y ago
  As a person to whom all of this is "clear", and who "understands" everything, could you please explain how a system whose entire function depends on knowing the person's birth date would function without knowing the birth date?
• dvogel 2y ago
  My understanding of the claim is that the mainframe data is stored in a high fidelity format but some records simply lack a full year. At the time social security was instituted it was common for people to not know their own age precisely. Beyond memory issues arising from old age, most people just didn't have a pressing reason to track it. So social security benefits were granted to people who seemed old enough even though they didn't have a birth certificate or similar. The claim, as I've heard it, is that the DOGE dolts transferred this data to a more modern system where they blindly passed incomplete or placeholder values into an 8601 library implementation that uses the 2004 standard's reference date of 1875 by default.
  • NoPicklez 2y ago
    That theory could track since DOGE did seek approval to use SQL visual query software, the software may have parsed those birth dates in that regard. Again why it is so irresponsible of Musk to have addressed the public in the way he did without (presumably) all of the facts and without nuance