4 ms·

You skipped the dollar number for entitlement spending. It may surprise you how much it costs to give $15k/yr to 50million people.

by Snoptic 14y ago

glesica 14y ago
About $750 billion per year? What portion of that did they save previously by paying into the system? Why is it that productivity has skyrocketed since the social security system was introduced, which should account for the longer lifespans, yet we still find ourselves having these conversations? It is a matter of priorities, plain and simple. Just because it isn't a high priority for you doesn't mean it isn't a question of priorities.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  Much more than $750 billion a year, when you factor in the costs of the huge government bureaucracies that administer it and all their employees.
  - asveikau 14y ago
    Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a DC native that I react this way, but what exactly are you talking about? The federal government does a fine job at a great many things with low overhead, lest you'd be getting all your mail via FedEx. I recall during the big health care debate, there was the statistic going around that the overhead of medicare was 2%, vs. somewhere around 30% for private insurance. (What those people spend on advertising alone could pay all of that "bureaucracy".) Readers of this site should be keenly aware of these issues and what they're really about; we work in an industry with rampant age discrimination where people are encouraged to spend their early 20s working all night to make someone else rich, people routinely burn out before 30 ... do you expect to be pulling all-nighters at your Rails startup at 70? No? Then you should pay attention and get pissed off about this stuff.
- Evbn 14y ago
  They didn't "save" anything by "Paying into the system". They directly supported retirees of the past, as today's workers support them now. Don't put priorities in my mouth.

You skipped the dollar number for entitlement spending. It may surprise you how much it costs to give $15k/yr to 50million people.

by Snoptic 14y ago

You skipped the dollar number for entitlement spending. It may surprise you how much it costs to give $15k/yr to 50million people.

glesica 14y ago

About $750 billion per year? What portion of that did they save previously by paying into the system? Why is it that productivity has skyrocketed since the social security system was introduced, which should account for the longer lifespans, yet we still find ourselves having these conversations? It is a matter of priorities, plain and simple. Just because it isn't a high priority for you doesn't mean it isn't a question of priorities.

greenyoda 14y ago
Much more than $750 billion a year, when you factor in the costs of the huge government bureaucracies that administer it and all their employees.
- asveikau 14y ago
  Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a DC native that I react this way, but what exactly are you talking about? The federal government does a fine job at a great many things with low overhead, lest you'd be getting all your mail via FedEx. I recall during the big health care debate, there was the statistic going around that the overhead of medicare was 2%, vs. somewhere around 30% for private insurance. (What those people spend on advertising alone could pay all of that "bureaucracy".) Readers of this site should be keenly aware of these issues and what they're really about; we work in an industry with rampant age discrimination where people are encouraged to spend their early 20s working all night to make someone else rich, people routinely burn out before 30 ... do you expect to be pulling all-nighters at your Rails startup at 70? No? Then you should pay attention and get pissed off about this stuff.
Evbn 14y ago
They didn't "save" anything by "Paying into the system". They directly supported retirees of the past, as today's workers support them now. Don't put priorities in my mouth.