Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP

"Spender" <Spender@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2m6bi7lssd6la7u4el7n0k3ri26v5flfqs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:19:18 -0500, "RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Spender" <Spender@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r269i7h0hg0mr74ifltktii61rde0aprbj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now you are suggesting that 65 year old Americans are generally "ready to
drop"? The AARP - while adoring your love for the Social Security system
- might take issue with that.

Let's not be disingenuous now, I was talking about your suggestion that 80
should be the retirement age, not 65.

That is a reference to the retirement age being many years higher than the
average life expectancy when Social Security was originally instituted. I
ask if you thought Social Security was a failure back then.

And once again, there's the issue of infant mortality, which as it turns out
dropped by more than a factor of 4 in the US from 1950 to 2003:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779935.html

Yes, and a brilliant example of the actual source of the increase in life
expectancy. In this case it was antibiotics and vaccines. The seemingly
low life expectancy prior to that was the result of it being so risky to
make it to the age of 5.

And would likely be dead before reaching retirement age. That isn't my
doing. That is the way the system was created.

Really? You've looked at actuarial tables to see what the likelihood of a
58-year-old in 1950 reaching age 65?

He had already past the average life expectancy. Doing so does not mean
that one is dead. It does imply that he was not a coal miner.

Nope, but can a guy who's worked in construction become a systems analyst at
age 40? Not impossible, I grant you, but a stretch on average. People
working blue-collar jobs tend to stay in blue-collar jobs, even if it's not
the same one.

I think you are underestimating people. I guy I knew when I was in
college was a former truck driver who had injured his back after falling
off the truck. He was on disability (private and SSD) so he choose to go
back to college during his down time. He was in his mid-40s and had
entered the same program I was in - Computer Programming and Systems
Analysis. He had never even touched a computer previously.

A fair number of blue collar workers have jumped on board the burgeoning
health care boat. Nursing assistants, x-ray/ultrasound/eeg/ecg techs,
phlebotomy, etc.

I did do that. When they first created Social Security it was based on
funding the average number of years a person was likely to survive after
retirement, and retirement was long after the average life expectancy.
Now both factors have increased. Far more people make it to age 65 *and*
they live more years past age 65 than did retirees in 1950.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying 80 is rather extreme.

I was just reflecting the fact that when it was founded, the Social
Security retirement age was already higher than the average life
expectancy. Note, I believe they actually do use actuarial tables as the
life insurance industry does.

But even if you want to assume a much higher fatality rate on the job back
then, it means that the system was built with the knowledge that many of
those who pay in will be dead by the time they are eligible.

Obviously that doesn't mean I want them to start dying again. I'm saying
that the much lower ratio of workers to retirees (about 2-1 now as opposed
to 16-1 in the 1950's) is a major problem that has been ignored for
decades.

In other words, the system was designed for catastrophic cases of those
who outlived their friends, not for everybody. There were about 16.5
workers per Social Security recipient back in 1950. Now the ratio is
about 2 to 1.

Yup, the system has changed from the original intent. Because people wanted
that.

The system has barely changed at all. That's the point. What has changed
are the demographics, for which the system was not designed.

And that 2:1 ratio is partly a result of the baby boom. It's gonna get
worse before it gets better.

And the baby boomers had fewer children. It bodes not boot.
Maybe Hispanics will help out. They are the fastest growing voting
population and tend to have more kids.

Or maybe the Amish. They take care of these things themselves. They also
have an exemption from the health care law because they take care that
themselves also.

That isn't going to work. Since it is a Ponzi scheme - paying current
recipients from the contributions of current workers - it can't survive.
Not unless today's workers start having boatloads of children.

That's plainly illogical. If the ratio of retired to current workers kept
increasing without limit, you might have a point. But actual data on
expected age ratios doesn't support that hypothesis. Even if birth rates
don't increase, the ratio approaches a steady state. And with *reasonable*
increases in age limits, the ratio will decrease.

A steady state of each two workers paying the freight for each single
recipient's retirement is an untenable situation. That is why they now
need to take money from the general fund to prop up Social Security.

Once again, the don't "need" to. They choose to because they're afraid of the backlash that would occur if they raised the limit or the rate.

.

Relevant Pages