We are finding it more and more difficult to fund Social Security....

[wadestock]

because people are living SOOOOOOOOO much longer.

Have you heard this lately on the news?
Stuff like....well back then someone would start collecting at 62, live till 65, and only collect for a few years.

NOW....well now people are living till their 80s!!!!!

Facts:

Life expectance at birth (all races) –
1930 – 59.7 years
1980 – 73.7 years
1998 – 76.7 years

Yes, this reflects a BIG spread, a 17 year total difference
But why base such statements on Social Security on life expectancy at BIRTH?
Why not look at figures that show what life expectancy is if you live to a certain age?
How can one collect on Social Security if they don’t live long enough to even qualify for its benefits?

How about look at life expectancy assuming you live to age 50. (source 1986 Almanac)

Life expectance assuming you first make it to 50 years old (white males) –
1982 – 25.6
1960 – 23.22
1950 – 22.83
1940 – 21.96
1930 – 21.51
1920 – 22.22
1900 – 20.76
1890 – 20.72
1850 – 21.6

Meaning a spread of just 4 years over this entire span for those likely to even collect on Social Security

Anyone have figures for all races? I couldn't find any....but I bet they reflect similar spreads.

[MisterP]

1. like the average Roman age of death being 19:

you didn't conk when you were 17-23 and so had to be married at 4 or whatever hack historians say; the 50% infant mortality rate skewed the results

[mdhunter]

2. That's really interesting

And being in the field of public health, I'm somewhat embarassed that I didn't know those statistics.

Good luck finding all race data - (according to the establishment) minorities didn't count for much until mid-century.

[unblock]

3. it's probably more fair to look at it from age 20 or so

when people enter the workforce and start contributing to social security.

in any event, one thing that IS different is that, back when our economy was heavily based on manufacturing, it was difficult to work effectively after 65. true, a mandatory retirement age was probably never a good idea, as individuals vary, but demanding physical jobs can be rough for the over-65 crowd, broadly speaking.

in today's "service-oriented" economy, it's quite feasible in many jobs to work into your 70's. this means that tweaking the social security retirement age is not as much of a hardship today as it would have been in the 1930's.

[amazona]

6. people in service jobs have to stand up!

Service jobs are very physical. Try standing behind a counter for 8 hours a day and get back to me on how well you're going to be able to do that at age 65.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[unblock]

7. hey, i have a hard enough time sitting at a desk!

especially after my 2-hour longass commute!

yes, of course, some service jobs are quite physically demanding, e.g., waitstaff. my point was that there are more desk jobs than there used to be and the physically demanding jobs aren't as physically demanding as they used to be.

[papau]

4. Bullshit as usual - the important number is life expectancy at age 65.

But your age 50 data gives you the same understanding - the 4 yr increase is not a big deal.

The Trustee's report Actuarial section gives the life expectancy being used

and the "future" projections change that number for each new years retirees -

so all the data should be in the 04 report.

[unblock]

9. in terms of predicting future liabilities, yes

if you don't survive until retirement, you impose no liabilities on the system. technically, there are some quirks in that you can elect early retirement at 62, and the full retirement age is now around 65 1/2 due to the phase-in of the rise to 67. but those just complicate the discussion.

however, it's also relevant to the overall fairness of the system how many people receive zero benefits. once you start contributing, you deserve a fair shot at collecting on the other end. if the retirement age is raised to the point where only 10% of workers ever see a dime, then the system may be perpetually solvent, but horribly unfair. there's no simple statistic that fully captures this, but it is quite relevant to evaluating social security.

[papau]

10. It is an insurance system with disability, survivor and death benefits

In insurance if you at age 20 buy a term to 65 life insurance policy, and reach 65 without dying - and therefore without collecting - are you lucky, or unlucky?

Did the system take advantage of you if you lived to 65?

[unblock]

11. if the retirement age is raised to 120,it's no longer a retirement program

at that point it's just a tax.

your example is backward because the term life pays if you die before age 65, whereas social security retirement benefits pay only if you survive.

with insurance, there's some good news either way; either it pays off, or you live a long time. with social security, if you die before 65, you paid AND you get nothing (well, your spouse might get a tiny death benefit, but we're really just talking about the retirement program).

[papau]

13. this is the classic whole life vs term ins discussion, but with SS you do

get the "whole life" benefits in the sense there are benefits if you live, and if you die or become disabled.

The immediate death benefit is tiny - but the survivor spouse and dependent program is a huge death benefit. "we're really just talking about the retirement program" is just not true since the size of the benefits under the survivor and disability programs are coming off of the size of the benefit under the Soc Sec retirement program.

Granted that by paying more, you will get more - just as whole life costs more but gives you more - including residual cash values that grow over time - compared to term insurance.

In this case the numbers are a $10T "problem" for current system versus a $15 trillion hole if we add private accounts (all numbers are over 75 years) without adding an addon voluntary payroll tax deduction to pay for those accounts.

The neat thing is that, with reasonable assumptions as the GDP GROWTH - say 25% below our average growth - the current system shows a zero problem over 75 years! You need to assume that we will only grow at 1/2 of the rate of past growth in order to get the "Soc Sec Problem" numbers being tossed about by Bush.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Higher infant mortality in the 30s skews the average.

nt

[wadestock]

8. Yes indeed, I'll run the figures later tonite if possible.....

I collect Almanacs.....every one is a bit different. I had to go to the 1986 one to get these figures, but I have most of them at home. I'm going to continue this research.

Truth is....we're being seriously lied to.
They're finding new and innovative ways to sell BS.

[not fooled]

12. "They're finding new and innovative ways to sell BS."

yep...they excel at coming up with half-truths and sound bites designed to sound plausible to the naive, ignorant, or partially-informed 'Murkan.

Such as: people living longer; fewer people working per retiree, etc. Maybe true but if examined critically not really supportive of their aim that SS is doomed. Nevertheless, uncritically parroted by the MSM.

No doubt all of their statements are rigorously tested, not for veracity but to determine which are most effective at sounding plausible or scaring the sheeple.