Well, it is perhaps worthwhile steppping back and asking if there really is a problem. It is not clear that there is, despite the very loud huffing and puffing that has been going on, with folks from the right wing through Senator Moynihan all in a frenzy about how "something must be done." Every news article I read, and I'm not talking about the editorial columns, states it as a fact that the social security trust fund will be bust in 20 years, or some such number.. Baloney.
According to the 1998 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Fund, p. 128, assuming current funding and allocation arrangements, the ratio of the combined funds to outlays will rise and then not fall below 300% ever, if the following conditions hold: 1) annual US GDP growth between is 3.1% in 1998 and from 1998 to 2007 averages 2.4% annually and averages at least 2.2% annually thereafter, 2) inflation averages 2.2%, and 3) unemployment averages 5%.
Well, guess what, folks? Current numbers are better than all those on all counts. Certainly our current good fortune may not persist, but a projection based on all variables being somewhat worse than current performance yields a solution of no problem at all ever for the social security trust fund. We are dealing with a hysterical crock and should be asking where it is coming from?
BTW, one can find an articulate presentation of this and related arguments in Robert Eisner, "Save Social Security from its Saviors," _Journal of Post Keynesian Economics_, Fall 1998, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 77-92. I note that Professor Eisner died last week. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:10:20 EST JayHecht at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-11-28 18:55:30 EST, you write:
>
> <<
> Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The classic pattern
> of the demographic transition is for the death rate to drop
> first, thus increasing the numbers of the elderly, and then
> for the birth rate to drop later. That has held true in
> pretty much every nation in the world. I am not aware of
> any exceptions to that generalization (although there are
> some where the birth rate has yet to decline, and others
> where the death rate has gone back up again either due to
> wars or AIDS epidemics). >>
>
> Here's my take w.r.t. funding soc sec:
>
> There have been several "dynamics" at work so that the original actuarial
> assumptions behind SS have had to be modified:
>
> 1) Increased life expectancy + increased real cost of living has to increase
> the "pure cost" of the annuity. Thus, those longer-lived workers who did not
> bear the full actuarial cost of the program (and are still alive today) need
> some sort of subsidy.
>
> 2) Slower economic growth (1973-1996?) has also hurt the funding, but I'm not
> sure this is really a problem.
>
> 3) The "baby bust" (1965-1982) has created a potential problem - not all
> workers born 1946-1964 had as many kids as the pre-boomers. Thus, the
> potential imbalance in workers/retirees
>
> 4) We could EASILY afford the soc sec system if we taxed every god damn $ of
> UNEARNED income at something like 2-3%
>
> Jason
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu