i never said it was a good system, i just feel that if they're managing *my* money, they'd better manage it correctly (which out of their absolute greed, the republicans refuse to do).
but yeah, the system is based on faulty 40s/50s post-new-deal reasoning that simply doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) apply today. It also was based on the "average" lifestyle of the "average" middle class, one of the many things based on social statistics (which were common justifications for many socialist reforms, in America and Europe, for the previous 100 years).
One of its original tenants was the idea that by the time a family retires, they own a house and aside from property taxes, have no "rent" so the income they get only has to go to food and clothes. It utterly failed to account for facts like most people won't own a home or will have to sell it because they're too old to maintain it, or because they get sick and have to move into a nursing home (at 2 to 3 times what they would pay for a "normal" apartment or mortgage of the same size).
It was sold to the American public as providing an "ideal" retirement lifestyle for an "average" person, when neither of those ever existed or could ever exist outside of the hollywood-influenced imagination.
so no, i don't think we're disagreeing all that much here. but just as long as they *do* have my money, i'm going to want it back someday. maybe if it gets abolished, i'll send them a bill.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 09:28 am (UTC)but yeah, the system is based on faulty 40s/50s post-new-deal reasoning that simply doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) apply today. It also was based on the "average" lifestyle of the "average" middle class, one of the many things based on social statistics (which were common justifications for many socialist reforms, in America and Europe, for the previous 100 years).
One of its original tenants was the idea that by the time a family retires, they own a house and aside from property taxes, have no "rent" so the income they get only has to go to food and clothes. It utterly failed to account for facts like most people won't own a home or will have to sell it because they're too old to maintain it, or because they get sick and have to move into a nursing home (at 2 to 3 times what they would pay for a "normal" apartment or mortgage of the same size).
It was sold to the American public as providing an "ideal" retirement lifestyle for an "average" person, when neither of those ever existed or could ever exist outside of the hollywood-influenced imagination.
so no, i don't think we're disagreeing all that much here. but just as long as they *do* have my money, i'm going to want it back someday. maybe if it gets abolished, i'll send them a bill.