>I hope we look more carefully at "everyone looks forward to
>retirement." It's true, but it's a surface truth, due I think to our
unwillingness to accept age as it is. Also, the joys of retirement are
suggested and reinforced by all sorts of ads. As most of us actually reach
retirement, we undergo a wrenching change in life when our age makes it
harder to deal with. Retirement is a modern event, the result of capitalism
I have read.>>
I'd call it one of the working class's most significant advances. Clearly there are some who would prefer to work for whom the institution of retirement is a negative factor, by one means or another, but for a high majority I would suspect it is a boon.
>Question on the -.58 imbalance. First, did I read the Greenspan report
right, and Social Security *was* left with an imbalance?
>Second, was that within the mandate of plus or minus 5 percent of actuarial
balance?>>
In 1983 the Greenspan commission thought that had fixed the 75 year imbalance. Fixing entailed building up that one-year reserve, and still does.
Not too many years later payroll tax revenues exceeded projections, giving rise to Senator Moynihan's proposal to cut the payroll tax now and raise it later. (That would have kept the program in balance). Not too long after that the projections turned south, giving fuel to those with a privatization agenda to foment hysteria about the shortfall expected 30 years from now.
The other night Mark Russell made an effective defense of the "so what" position.
MBS