Social Security is doomed, yet it is a remarkably popular government program among Americans of all political stripes (particularly liberals, but certainly not only liberals). Obscenely, unfathomably expensive, Americans my age and younger, who have been paying for it our entire working lives, will never reap any benefit from it, as it will collapse well prior to our projected retirement age.
Why is it so popular, then? Denial? Short-sightedness? Definitely. All those traits that characterize American political attitudes so perfectly and thoroughly.
It might be fuelled by a general optimism – We’ll keep on doing all we can for the old right now, even if it’s apparently unsustainable, because we hope that in the near future something will happen that will make it so the next round of old folks will also be able to receive the support they need. Perhaps it will be a technological breakthrough which makes food incredibly cheap, housing incredibly cheap, or health incredibly cheap – perhaps something that means people can be expected to keep working to the age of 100 because the new round of 100 year olds will be as healthy as the old round of 60 year olds.
I’m not saying this optimism is correct, but it’s a possibility about why people keep throwing money at social security.
UPF - Obscenely, unfathomably expensive, Americans my age and younger, who have been paying for it our entire working lives, will never reap any benefit from it, as it will collapse well prior to our projected retirement age.
Sanjay - It is very easy to take things for granted and being ungreatful to ancestors, besides complaining for present and future. Let us not look only what we have not got or going to lose, but also what we got without much efforts.
Your present living status is grounded deeply in the efforts and sacrifices of millions of your fellow past countrymen. If you do not understand it, ask to the people of countries like Somalia and Angola. They will tell you what is meaning or importance of having good heritage.
It takes a lot of wisdom and sacrifices to build a successful nation. And, it has to be a continuous process, not a one time effort. That is why you also have to contribute to your society what is necessary.
It is your duty to give some portion of that back which was provided to you, even without asking.
This is probably right on in large part. It’s like when people rationalize unhealthy behaviors with the idea that future improvements in medicine will cure whatever ailments they develop as a consequence of those behaviors.
i fully agree. But pouring massive amounts of money into big social programs that are clearly failing and insolvent is far from being a good way of giving back to society. That money would be better invested in sustainable programs.
Do you realize the US government spends substantially more money on social security alone than on the its entire military? Social Security is the single largest government program. It is somewhere in the range of being twice as expensive as the military. Think about how unnecessarily expensive and bloated America’s military is (it is far and away the most expensive military in the world, after all) to put into context how much money is being spent on social security.
Very nice piece.
I think that part of the problem is with the way people’s interests change with age. The “future” of the country is not in the self interest of those too old too live. Putting off cashing in is not a good idea. Because of this, and the electoral weight they possess, making certain changes to SS is impossible. Even changing the way the report is done, with a cautious and pessimistic bias will not alter the elderly’s rush.
But there are other factors at play. For example demographic changes are one of the variables considered in these reports- the forecast of a ratio between old people versus young people. France, which has a more open immigration policy has a slower decrease in the ratio of able workers to retirees (businessinsider.com/5-demogr … rld-2014-4). Youth will become a commodity with high demand and the US has a lot of youth banging at its door. Expanding immigration will maintain the balance and slow down (not eliminate) the demise of SS.
Of course that creates the conditions for a future boom of older retirees that will take the place of the boomers, but one can hope that the US can use the money it saves in avoiding international skirmishes (which might be the new normal regardless of which party holds office), and country-building, to invest in creating more jobs and more opportunity currently being bleed by globalization and offshoring. The US could, in theory, flex a competitive advantage in attracting companies, investors and entrepreneurs to its shores just as it attracts young men and women.
If all else fails then I plan to become a house pet for one of the 1% super-rich.
Upf, there are two different issues here. One is about to the contribution to the society and the second one is about the merits of social security program. I have talked about the former only.
As far as social security program is concerned, I do not mind the amount of spending but I have some issues with its priorities.
In my opinion, three areas should be completely free and equal to all citizens; education, medical facilities and legal help.
Means, no private educational institutions, private hospitals and legal consultancy should be allowed. These three facilities should be provided by the government free of cost and without any discrimination at all citizens, no matter how much money it takes. Besides that, the government can provide very basic living facilities to the needy ones.
This basic mens very basic things like two time food and a bed which does not open to the sky. It does not include things like minimum wages or job guarantee. Let the people fight and make efforts if they want more and better.
I am not against creating wealth or rich people. Let them have what they can or deserve. They can afford all luxuries except those three above mentioned things.
The point is that a son of a begger should go to the same school in which the children of Bill Gates are studying. The wife of the begger should get the treatment in the same hospital I’m which Michael Obama gets treatment. The same should be applicable in the case of justice procedure too. No private advocates should be allowed. The judge or the jury should give verdicts on the findings of investigating agencies alone.
Competition should be there in all verticals of the life and people should fight for their piece of the cake but with those three above mentioned exceptions. The amount of money spent is not the issue.
You see the problem is that this is an era of stagnation. The only available jobs are petty busywork that just perpetuate the era of stagnation.
There needs to be more jobs for creative types, intellectuals, genius. The current social attitude is to scorn them, not give them the jobs they deserve, and perpetuate the era of stagnation. Getting a job at 711 does not create jobs. In order for jobs to be created, there must be a creative force. There is no creative force, only an era of stagnation.
Not according to the article i just linked to. Wikipedia is a pretty neutral, and i’m sure i could find any number of graphs, pie charts and whatnot that reaffirm the fact that we spend more on Social Security than on defense. That in itself isn’t a critique of Social Security, but given how excessively we spend on the military, it provides an idea of just how expensive Social Security is.
Social Security isn’t an expenditure, but a debt to USA citizens. If they renign on their debt to their own people, no one else will trust them for anything. And the USA dollar goes to zero over night.
Of course the USA is pretty much an expended crop, so the dollar is doomed pretty soon anyway, in which case, there will be no social security or any other kind of security. The “lords” are independent of any nation’s currency so such currencies are used merely to usurp and extort more power. When a crop is expended (a nation), the field is burn for sake of a new crop, a new nation (aka “NWO”).
Democratic politics. It's an entitlement, which by definition means there's a voting bloc that benefits from the entitlement. If you try to reform/reduce the entitlement, the voting bloc will in large numbers turn against you. So, claiming there's nothing wrong with an entitlement and demonizing people who want to reform/reduce/eliminate it is a very easy way to get votes.
Well, medicine and housing and things are expensive sure. But we need them. So cost can be a factor, but it can’t become the main factor and result in people not having medicine or housing.
Like imagine a household who’s telling themselves, “we need to save more money”. Then one guy says, “hey I just did the math, and to save more money we’re going to have to stop eating”. So is it still smart to save money there? Or should they spend it?
Got it from Time Magazine ten years ago. Due to inflation it’s probably even more now.
“Defense” spending does not include “offense” spending.
You seem to be igorig the major mathematical issue, which is simply there aren’t any jobs. If SSI was cut off there would simply be a trade, people losing jobs so new people can take their jobs. The net level of unemployment would remain almost the same.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that we live in a culture of idiocy and stagnation, bright minds and good ideas are often shunned and ignored whilst leadership jobs are given to people who just stagnate and contribute to a broken, retarded society. I am sure you are aware of this, your username seems somewhat along those lines of philosophy. Stupid people aren’t aware of the meme “Stupid people breed like rabbits” Therefore such is a dying meme, therefore the world is being overrun by stupid people.
i think the world has always been overrun by stupid people. i’m not ignoring that fact at all. Indeed the title i gave the thread implies it.
High unemployment is bad of course, but when Social Security inevitably goes bankrupt, all the people that work for that particular bureaucratic regime are going to lose their jobs anyway. Fact is, Social Security doesn’t really promote job growth. It promotes retirement and and helps people who can’t find jobs. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being retired or helping out people who can’t find work, but neither of those things is going to solve the problem of too few jobs, even if you believe that’s really the central problem. So proposing that we need to keep social security to assuage unemployment doesn’t convince me.
And as far as i know, all military spending is classified as “defense” spending. Obviously, it’s often a misnomer, but that’s why our defense spending is such a huge portion of the budget.
