a valid question...

[acroyear]

"if Social Security privatization is supposed to be about making "younger workers" better off, as Bush has said, will he please explain why piling yet more debt on their backs should make them grateful?" -- Editorial on Social Security reform at the 'Post.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

and actually the problem today was one that couldn't have been predicted back then. the numbers that justified SS at the time were based on a population growth figure that made sense at the time, but didn't account for education leading to planned parenthood, improved health care extending the lifespan, and birth control causing the birth rate to hold relatively steady. (America grew from 210mil to 280mil from 1970 to 2000, compared to planet-wide growth from 3 billion to 6 billion).

had America grown at the rate of the rest of the world, the population between 20 and 40, paying for those who are 60, would have been 2 or 3 times what it is, and likely the money would be there no problem.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

It would have worked longer, but ponzi schemes always break down. What could have worked is if SS had been a bailout for the poor (as originally intended), and not a universal retirement plan.