3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[healthmyths]

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

Actually it only adds to your willingness to compare apples and auto parts. It takes 45 years for a person to go from entering the work force to retirement. Looking at the cost and numbers at the start is useless. The ratio of workers to retirees from 1980 is roughly where these ratio have any value at all - and that is very limited considering the rising in the costs. In the 1980s, the ratio was roughly 3.2-3.4 to 1. That ratio was sufficient to generate a $2.9 trillion surplus. So talking about the data from 1935 is simply a conclusion in search of data.

It is both a reduction in ratio and increase in the number of retiree.

Social Security History

Is the Number of Workers per Social Security Retiree Declining?

I'm more than a bit curious about your assertion that the 1990s was a result of the dotcom bubble. Certainly that was there, but we're a service economy now. For gnp purposes it doesn't make any difference if we're service or manufacturing or what causes a recession or decline in yearly gnp. We had a soc sec tax surplus largely because we had not yet seen the increase in boomers retiring. See graph 1

G5000 is largely correct in terms of the % of workers living long enough to receive benefits. He is, imo, not so much correct in the viability of increasing the working age ... unless we expand disability programs.

Please read below FACT more people are NOT retiring at 65!
Why More Americans Are Working Past Age 65
The proportion of people age 65 and older in the workforce grew to 16.1 percent by 2010, up from 12.1 percent in 1990, according to a recent Census Bureau report. And the percentage of people between ages 65 and 69 who are working grew 9 percentage points to 30.8 percent in 2010.
These numbers are expected to further increase as baby boomers continue to reach retirement age.
A recent Conference Board survey found that 62 percent of people ages 45 to 60 plan to delay retirement, up from 42 percent in 2010. Here's a look at some of the reasons people are increasingly working during the traditional retirement years:
Health conditions are better managed than they were in the past and that makes it possible for workers, even with health limitations, to remain in the workplace," says Rix. There's also a growing realization that if you retire at age 65 and live until age 95, you will need to save enough to pay for 30 years of retirement.
https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...11/why-more-americans-are-working-past-age-65

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

Actually it only adds to your willingness to compare apples and auto parts. It takes 45 years for a person to go from entering the work force to retirement. Looking at the cost and numbers at the start is useless. The ratio of workers to retirees from 1980 is roughly where these ratio have any value at all - and that is very limited considering the rising in the costs. In the 1980s, the ratio was roughly 3.2-3.4 to 1. That ratio was sufficient to generate a $2.9 trillion surplus. So talking about the data from 1935 is simply a conclusion in search of data.

It is both a reduction in ratio and increase in the number of retiree.

Social Security History

Is the Number of Workers per Social Security Retiree Declining?

I'm more than a bit curious about your assertion that the 1990s was a result of the dotcom bubble. Certainly that was there, but we're a service economy now. For gnp purposes it doesn't make any difference if we're service or manufacturing or what causes a recession or decline in yearly gnp. We had a soc sec tax surplus largely because we had not yet seen the increase in boomers retiring. See graph 1

G5000 is largely correct in terms of the % of workers living long enough to receive benefits. He is, imo, not so much correct in the viability of increasing the working age ... unless we expand disability programs.

I provided a link from CPER. GDP is not relevant to the collection of captial gains taxes. These are earnings that are captured over years that are forced into a single year. In terms of balancing the budget, day trading moved the investment returns into a single year.

The %s may be correct. They are not relevant. The Cardinals batting average for example was below .300. While it is true, it has nothing to do with the state of Social Security. The worker to retire ratio is similar in this discussion. The only difference is that it appears relevant. The # of workers does not tell you about the earning power of the system. That by itself should tell you that it is worthless. The # of retirees does not tell you about the cost of the program. It is a conclusion in search of data.

 

[healthmyths]

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans to clock off

Social Security History

 

[gipper]

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

 

[bendog]

I still think your focus on gnp and cap gains is irrelevant to econ performance and more importantly to soc sec revenue and benefits

 

[Norman]

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

Sounds like you were responsible and it paid off.

Lots of people could learn from this story.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I still think your focus on gnp and cap gains is irrelevant to econ performance and more importantly to soc sec revenue and benefits

We were talking about the Clinton "balanced-budget", not Social Secuirty. Interesting point though, I have written about the poor connection between GDP and Social Security.

 

[gipper]

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

Sounds like you were responsible and it paid off.

Lots of people could learn from this story.

I think you are right. Many people do not know how to control their expenses. They spend what they make and more. Then when one loses a job, they quickly are in the poor house. I don't understand people like this.

My father had nothing during the Great Depression. He often went days with almost nothing to eat, as a very young boy. He instilled the values of no debt and saving money, in me. Thanks Dad...love you and miss you.

 

[sartre play]

What would you do with the people collecting SS who are dependent on it for half or more to live?
it was never intended to pay for every thing it was to supplement what you saved, built or invested.
no wonder some people are angry, do nothing save nothing go on SSI. there has to be a solution, we can't throw our old people under the bus.

 

[healthmyths]

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

 

[gipper]

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

 

[beagle9]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

. I call bullcrap... Nothing but bullcrap talking points IMO - We are all living longer so we should be working longer is the buzz phrase for the day ? Working anyone to 70 years old against their will (holding back the earned benefits from them instead of them receiving those benie's at 62 years old) is pure corrupt thinking on some people's part in this nation now. So corrupt thinking or schemes is the only hope in straightening out the thing anymore eh ?

 

[Markle]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Baby boomers won't die off fast enough...

This isn't a boomer problem. Without the Boomers SS would have skidded into insolvency decades ago.

Sure it's a Boomer problem. I'm part of the first ripple of a tidal wave. I was born in 1944, for decades I had been paying the maximum every year. Now I'm collecting close to or at the maximum every month paying nothing into Social Security. For SS, I'm a problem.

 

[Markle]

Your thought on the money-was-stolen-meme is correct. The design of the system was fine. It was designed as a DC program, one that was supposed to be acturially sound. It was changed over the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, into the 1970s in to the mess that it is today.

That's true about any and all Progressive programs. They start with all good intentions and it's only going to cost "X" dollars. Then, as soon as it is in place, it explodes. Today Social Security make Bernie Maddof's pyramid scheme look like child's play.

 

[Markle]

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Of course, we're living longer. Our life expectancy at birth when Social Security was begun was actually less than the age of eligibility. It was intended as a supplement to people who outlived their working age.

Now it is common for workers to live for decades after they reach the SS retirement age.

In 1950 for women the retirement age was 62 and 65 for men. Average life expectancy in the US was 66.

Life expectancy of all Americans in 1961 was 70 years. Social Security benefits started at age 62 for women and 65 for men.

For those retiring today full benefits are at 67 with an average life expectancy of 78. Many, except for blacks, live well into their 80’s or 90’s.

The system is incredibly racist since blacks contribute as much, but their lifespan is far shorter.

 

[Markle]

Food for thought, all those who believe healthcare is a contributor to life expectancy should know that the last two years, long after Obamacare began, our life expectancy has SHORTENED.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Baby boomers won't die off fast enough...

This isn't a boomer problem. Without the Boomers SS would have skidded into insolvency decades ago.

Sure it's a Boomer problem. I'm part of the first ripple of a tidal wave. I was born in 1944, for decades I had been paying the maximum every year. Now I'm collecting close to or at the maximum every month paying nothing into Social Security. For SS, I'm a problem.

I have an article coming out about the Boomers. Without the boomers, the program would have skidded into solvency decades ago. The only way that the system works is if every boom creates a larger boom. On the other side, the Boomers did elect a Congress that largely exempted them from the clean-up of the mess. The 1983 reform largely said that people who had no vote in 1983 would pay for the taxes that their elders wouldn't. Then they have largely obstructed any sensible reform for nearly 2 decades.

I am the light side of criticism for the boomers - google "Generation of Sociopaths" by Bruce Gibney.

Your contribution to the imbalances is probably larger than most Boomers. People in your co-hort continually elected Congressman that told you that the program worked. That isn't much different than telling voters that gravity doesn't exist. It does, and it is my guess that the crisis in Social Security starts in your lifetime, and affects you. Of course, politicians are telling people that those in or near retirement have nothing to worry about. Maybe they are right.

 

[NightFox]

I think you are right. Many people do not know how to control their expenses. They spend what they make and more. Then when one loses a job, they quickly are in the poor house. I don't understand people like this.

My father had nothing during the Great Depression. He often went days with almost nothing to eat, as a very young boy. He instilled the values of no debt and saving money, in me. .

Don't look now but I think you solved your own mystery ......

You don't "understand people like this" because for the most part "people like this" did not have the values instilled in them regarding consumption and savings that you received from parents that went through the Great Depression, they have no concept of what REAL widespread economic hardship looks like and thus little incentive to defer consumption in order to secure against it.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

What would you do with the people collecting SS who are dependent on it for half or more to live?
it was never intended to pay for every thing it was to supplement what you saved, built or invested.
no wonder some people are angry, do nothing save nothing go on SSI. there has to be a solution, we can't throw our old people under the bus.

First of all, doing nothing is throwing old-people under the bus. It is throwing a future grandmother under a larger bus.

Second, Social Security isn't a welfare program or a safety-net. Maybe that is what you would like to do - that would save a lot of money. But let's be honest. If you want to add means-test and increase taxes on the rich and alter the benefits formula so that future seniors do not get as much. Just end the program and put the money into an actual welfare program. It is cheaper and faster than redressing Social Security into what the government already does else where.

 

[gipper]

I think you are right. Many people do not know how to control their expenses. They spend what they make and more. Then when one loses a job, they quickly are in the poor house. I don't understand people like this.

My father had nothing during the Great Depression. He often went days with almost nothing to eat, as a very young boy. He instilled the values of no debt and saving money, in me. .

Don't look now but I think you solved your own mystery ......

You don't "understand people like this" because for the most part "people like this" did not have the values instilled in them regarding consumption and savings that you received from parents that went through the Great Depression, they have no concept of what REAL widespread economic hardship looks like and thus little incentive to defer consumption in order to secure against it.

Agreed, but why do people not save for the future or for the possibility of financial hardship? I think this is reckless. It is common sense to at least have some money set aside, should something happen. One doesn't have to experience hardship to know that if you have too much debt and you lose your job, you are going to be in big trouble.