How many times will Social Security be . . .
 

A thread topic for the next few years? Robert Samuelson from the WaPO and Economics Professor Peter Kutner each appeared on NPR this morning to discuss the Social Security Fund's solvency and approaches to addressing it's solvency. Samuelson was gloom and doom, suggesting that the government over-promised and now we are in a crisis situation in which the SS fund is facing a crash. He wants to cut benefits and increase the retirement age. In response to concerns that an advanced retirement age would fall particularly harshly on those who have been involved in hard physical labor during their working life, he said that public policy "cannot be based on the concerns of even a significant minority." At the same time, he defended the tax cuts for the top 2%. I wonder if 2% is more than a significant minority.:confused:

Despite his gloom and doom, he acknowledged that SS is fully funded for the next 28 years, and that if wages had kept up with productivity, there would be no problem.

Peter Kutner suggested that a "Social Security Crisis" does not exist. He pointed to Samuelson's necessary acknowledgment that SS is fully funded for 28 more years to demonstrate the lack of any real crisis. Kutner noted that the concern about the impending retirement of the baby boom generation was addressed in '83 by the increased withholdings for social security. About the only thing he agreed with Samuelson is that if wages had kept pace with increases in productivity, there would be no issue with long term funding. Even with the increase in productivity being absorbed by the investment class, Kutner suggested that minor adjustments would further secure future benefits, one of those tweaks being a significant increase in the cap on contributions. Finally, Kutner suggested that the talk of crisis was mostly a smokescreen by those who disagree with social insurance for political reasons.

I know my bias shows through in my summary of their positions, but what is your position of the status and future of Social Security.

Regards,

D-Ray

excellent post thank you

Oh, ferfuksake. Check the history. The GOP has been out to kill SS since 1935. The damn slavedrivers are afraid someone will stop working and NOT starve to death as a consequence. That's what this is all about. It wouldn't matter if SS was running an eighty trillion surplus, they would still be sneaking around trying to poke holes in the hull.
And everyone here knows it.

"Finally, Kutner suggested that the talk of crisis was mostly a smokescreen by those who disagree with social insurance for political reasons."----BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Dave

You are not insinuating that the honorable Congresspersons from the GOP do not have the cajones to attack Social Security head on, are you? Actually, I wish they would - that would most certainly restore a democratic majority.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, I am.

Dave

do you really think so?

I don't. Not till they got a check that was smaller.

If the current profligate spending habits of our friends inside the beltway do not change, SS doesn't stand a chance. The blue print for hijacking SS funds is being laid out across the pond right now:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Th...ivate-pensions

Even our friends at the CBO are less than optimistic. From their 2009 report:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2043.1 (Unless otherwise stated, the years referred to in this report are calendar years.) Thus, if the law remains unchanged, CBO projects that 34 years from now, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will not have the legal authority to pay full benefits."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc...ity_Update.pdf

Well paid boomers continue to retire, and corporate gains in "efficiency" suggest that fewer workers are coming in behind to replace the retirees. Sooner or later, the math catches up. The only difference is that when the government does it, its legal. When Bernie Madoff does it, its a crime.

Oh, so the new doomsday is 2043? Wasn't it 2037 about ten years ago? And, I think I saw something a while back that said it was predicted in the late 1930s that SS was unsustainable and wouldn't last past 1970, or something like that.

"Well paid boomers continue to retire, and corporate gains in "efficiency" suggest that fewer workers are coming in behind to replace the retirees."

So, the real problem is that people are overcompensated, live long enough to retire and the corporations are screwing it up with efficiency gains? We should all live like peasants and die before we reach retirement age? Are you suggesting that corporate efficiency gains are a bad thing?

Another old memory just popped into my head. I read an article in a trade magazine years ago about a factory in Japan. It was a glowing article about an injection molding shop that was so highly automated it could literally run itself without any people, for a few days. Then, of course maintenance folks would have to go in and service the machines, and they still needed administrative and managerial types. But, in years prior, it took nearly five times as many people to run the place. What stuck in my mind was a comment left at the end of the article; "When we've finally reached this level of automation and efficiency worldwide, what do we do with all of the low and unskilled people?"

That is an interesting question isn't it?

Look closely at the pictures. They're all unemployed and homeless people in Japan. Tent cities and unemployment lines. And these are current photos.

Dave

The entire SS discussion is bogus. All we need to do is stop raping it and take off the cap.
Then we will not only not have to have this conversation but we could afford to pay the elderly and disabled substantially more and not keep them hungry and cold.

It's a much different system than here.