Live Long And Prosper - Paul Krugman

[WillyT]

Live Long And Prosper
Paul Krugman - NYT
August 13, 2010, 2:36 pm

<snip>

Live Long And Prosper

But actually it’s the other way around. And the fact that, to a growing extent, the less prosperous don’t live as long has important implications.

You see, the buzz increasingly suggests that the catfood deficit commission will call for a rise in the age at which people can collect full Social Security — justified by rising life expectancy.

This is a really terrible idea, for at least three reasons.

1. The retirement age has already been increased to 66, and is scheduled to rise to 67. So any further increase would mean pushing retirement back to unprecedented ages. Yes, a lot of people live to 70; how many of them are really able, easily, to work that late into life?

2. While life expectancy is rising, life expectancy at age 65 — which is what is relevant here — isn’t rising nearly as fast.

3. Finally, disparities in life expectancy have been rising sharply, with much smaller gains for disadvantaged socioeconomic groups and/or those with less education than the average. Yet these are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security.

Here’s a chart from the CBO documenting points 2 and 3:



The point is that raising the retirement age sounds reasonable to well-educated, highly-paid people, who can expect a long, rich life after 65. But they’re not the people who need Social Security in the first place.

Update: It turns out that the good people at EPI got there well ahead of me. They point us to this study by the Social Security Administration, which shows (Table 4) that men in the bottom half of the earnings distribution saw their life expectancy at age 65 rise only 1.1 years from 1982 to 2006. Over the same period, by the way, the retirement age — under current law — rose 8 months.

<snip>

Link: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/live-long-and-prosper-2/

:shrug:

[northernlights]

1. um, Paul, you don't seem to get it...

the point behind raising the age to collect social security is to have old people die on the job so they don't ever collect social security. Voila. Nonexistant problem solved.

[riderinthestorm]

2. Yup, Paul's actually looking at it with compassionate eyes instead of cynical eyes

and the catfood commission isn't compassionate at all. They are the well fed, and the ones who can expect to lead a rich life after 65 so actually having everyone else die before they collect is great for them and their families.

[Lorien]

6. Yep, and both the FDA and EPA are doing their part to make that happen! nt

[SoCalDem]

7. AND a major reason why gay marriage is so loathed by congress

Some "claim" it's for "morality" issues, but it's plain ole dollars & cents. As long as gay people have to remain single, when they die, there is no "spouse" to lay claim to their SS...and until very recently, gay people usually did not have children to claim any of it . As the government recognizes gay people as equals and makes them "full citizens, there is a price to pay for that...from SS.

Our government has been quite content to have a relatively stable percentage of the population remain single...payers-in....but not takers-out..

Follow the money.

[Kat45]

3. Absolutely right. Not only is working until 70 impossible for many people,

particularly due to reasons of health. There is also the problem that workers in their fifties (and up) are often let go from their jobs, and discriminated against in the job market due to age. WTF are these people thinking?!

[mrcheerful]

4. What Wal mart needs folks over 50 to be greeter which is a fantastic job

for the older workers and they won't need SS to keep them above water :sarcasm:. Just as the senate hopeful of Nevada, you know the one who is after Harry's job.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Thank God for a voice of reason with a platform