Not being realistic

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on June 14, 2005 - 8:14am.
on

Quote of note:

If the elderly were willing to work longer, there would be lower taxes on everyone and fewer struggling young families. There would be more national wealth and tax revenue available to help the needy, including people no longer able to work as well as the many elderly below the poverty line because they get so little Social Security.

Is anyone thinking what raising the retirement age would do to the job market?

The result is a system that burdens the young and creates perverse incentives for people to retire when they're still middle-aged. Once you've worked 35 years, more work often yields only a tiny increase in your benefits (sometimes none at all), but you still have to keep paying the onerous Social Security tax, which has more than doubled over the last half century.

Welcome to EuroAmerican Capitalism. The whole trick of EuroAmerican Capitalism is summed up in the term net present value. We leverage the future with every financial decision made.

Anyway...

The Old and the Rested
By JOHN TIERNEY

Men in their 70's raced on bikes for 40 kilometers in this month's National Senior Games in Pittsburgh. A 68-year-old woman threw the discus 85 feet, and a 69-year-old man hurled the javelin nearly half the length of a football field.

Is it possible that people this age are still physically capable of putting in a full day's work at the office?

I realize I'm being impolitic. In the Social Security debate, the notion of raising the retirement age is the elephant in the room, as Robin Toner and David Rosenbaum reported in The Times on Sunday. Both liberal and conservative economists favor the change, but politicians are terrified to even mention it to voters.

Americans now feel entitled to spend nearly a third of their adult lives in retirement. Their jobs are less physically demanding than their parents' were, but they're retiring younger and typically start collecting Social Security by age 62. Most could keep working - fewer than 10 percent of people 65 to 75 are in poor health - but, like Bartleby the Scrivener, they prefer not to.

The problem isn't that Americans have gotten intrinsically lazier. They're just responding to a wonderfully intentioned system that in practice promotes greed and sloth. Social Security is widely thought of as a kumbaya program that unites Americans in caring for the elderly, but it actually creates ugly political battles among generations.

With the help of groups like AARP, the elderly have learned to fight for the right to retire earlier and get bigger benefits than the previous generation - all financed by making succeeding generations pay higher taxes than they ever did themselves.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by James R MacLean on June 15, 2005 - 4:51am.

Tierney is using the most misleading trick in journalism: anecdotal evidence to argue for a monumental policy change. Look, let's go to a club for seniors who ride mountain bikes.

Talk about observation bias!

Suppose you wanted to prove that a Shakespeare craze was sweeping the land. You find a meeting of a chapter of the Society for Creative Anachronism, a few Shakespeare clubs, and go to the Ashland Festival. The USA is going mad for the Bard. Right? All these people walking around, some with babies strapped to their backs, some with bare midriffs and pierced navels, discussing The Tempest. We should really change TV programming to an all Shakespeare, all the time, format. Right?

Another way of supporting an argument that is weak is to say the opposite position is all the rage. One's own POV is heresy, and no one has given it a moment's thought. Tierney does that, too: I'm retiring at 67, possibly later. When I was younger, the retirement age was 65. A two-year shift may sound minor, but remember the demographic shift that counts is mean life expectancy at approx. 20, which has not changed as much as life expectancy at birth. An increase to 70 would indeed have a dramatic effect on net present liabilities of the SSA, even if the change occurred in (say) 2020.

Tierney needs to look at something called the "effective retirement age," which is around 60 for most OECD countries, including the USA and workaholic Japan. Usually, detailed statistics on retirement illustrate that statutory retirement ages (SRA) lag effective retirement ages (ERA); in plain English, where ERA leads, SRA follows.

I'd love to update SSA to accommodate the more complex nature of the modern workforce, and the ideal way for careers to end, but I doubt any of my proposals would make Mr. Tierney very happy.