Social Security

[aphar]

A trivial solution:

• Make the age when the Social Security benefits start depend on the current demographic situation, e.g., the oldest 10% of the population get the benefits.


• The specific age when this happens should be computed annually by the BLS.


• For women, the age should be augmented by the number of their children (i.e., a mother of 3 starts to receive Social Security benefits 3 years earlier than a childless woman born the same year) [ouch! sexism!]

Comments

[ymarkov.livejournal.com]

Cute, однако!

This will make planning a tad difficult. Also, the pressure to increase the quality of the final years of life will spike. If, say, you have to be 75 to be in the oldest 10%, the last 5-10 years of work are going to be difficult. I'm not sure if this is a good thing.

[aphar.livejournal.com]

This will make planning a tad difficult.
planning what?

Also, the pressure to increase the quality of the final years of life will spike.
WDYM?

If, say, you have to be 75 to be in the oldest 10%, the last 5-10 years of work are going to be difficult. I'm not sure if this is a good thing.
no, this is not a good thing, but do we have a choice?!
an "alternative" is to do "means-testing" (which will result in people stopping saving in IRA and 401k) which will only reduce the starting age a little bit.
I think encouraging child-bearing should take care of a part of the problem (it should change the demographic pyramid in the right direction) - but it might have the unintended consequence similar to that of welfare...

OTOH, if we believe Kurzweil (who says that immortality is just around the corner) all this is mute and social security has to be abandoned altogether.

[ymarkov.livejournal.com]

planning what?
One's retirement.

The last 5-10 years of work are going to be difficult, hence people will clamor for ways to improve the quality of their lives. Which means even more R&D towards geriatrics. Which may or may not be a good thing, depending on where the money comes from.

We already encourage child-bearing with tax breaks - those credits cut my federal bill in half.

As for choice, IMHO private accounts are a big step in the right direction. Much remains to be worked out, of course.

[aphar.livejournal.com]

We already encourage child-bearing with tax breaks - those credits cut my federal bill in half.
not enough. education and day care credits and vouchers are in order.

As for choice, IMHO private accounts are a big step in the right direction.
maybe not.
what if the markets crash when the people start retiring?
retirement money is not an ordinary investment.
if you are saving to buy a house and market crashes, too bad - but you just wait 5 years and buy then.
if you are saving for your retirement and the market crashes, you might be dead in 5 years, you cannot wait.

Much remains to be worked out, of course.
yes.

[ymarkov.livejournal.com]

Go vouchers!

As for the rest, this is the difference between short- and long-term investing. For a house, you probably shouldn't be saving in stocks anyway.

The argument is that even with demographic swings in the market you will still do better than Social Security's 2.2% return.

[aphar.livejournal.com]

The argument is that even with demographic swings in the market you will still do better than Social Security's 2.2% return.
statistically across all ages, maybe.
note that this is no longer statistics.
a major part of retirees - baby boomers - are certain to lose money in this scheme because when all of them retire at once and take the money out of the market, the stocks will plummet.