Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 35901
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35901 Activity:very high
1/26    Democrats illustrate once again they are dumbasses by falling into
        obvious Republican trap.
        (1) Republican figure makes comments about how social security payments
            may be tied to race and sex, without elaborating
        (2) Less than 48 hours later, official e-mail petition circulates
            Democratic Party mailing lists, condemning proposed tie.  70,000
            sign petition over two days.
        (3) Dubya tells the world blacks are being fucked by the current
            social security system because they die on average 9 years earlier
            than whites, and the funds are generally not inherited once the
            parents die.
        \_ At least one Democrat saw it as obvious bullshit, deleted the
           email, and got pissed off.
        \_ Dubya tells world that blacks die, on average, 9 years earlier, and
           Dems fail to call him on the fact that this stat is due to more
           blacks living in poverty, dying in violence, and reaping the
           whirlwind of years of backsliding on the gains made in Civil Rights
           in the 60s.
           \_ The (alleged) reason doesn't change the fact.
              \_ Can you also claim "blacks put in less"?  Not that I am
                 advocating looking at the fairness issue in these terms.
              \_ However, better facts should trump worse facts.  Blacks do
                 not die 9 years earlier than whites.  Apparently neither
                 Dubya nor the pps understand how life expectancy works.
                 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/2/110
                 \_ This article says that black men have a greater than
                    9 year shorter life expectancy. Maybe you should
                    elaborate, because this article seems to contradict you.
                    \_ Average life expectancy is pretty useless for discussion
                       of SS benefits.  The correct measure (that the framers
                       had in mind) is expectancy after 65.  They predicted
                       that it would increase, and were off slightly on the
                       high side.  There is no damn crisis.
                       \_ Why is it expectancy after 65?  If you die before 65
                          you've paid into the system and don't get anything
                          back.  Besides, if Congress changes the retirment
                          age, 65 is irrelevant.
                          \_ The difference in full life expectancy comes from
                             higher infant and young mortality rates.  If you're
                             going to compare benefits, you have to compare
                             apples to apples.  In comparing how benefits are
                             dispersed, it's dishonest to say "because more
                             kids died in your demographic, you're going to
                             receive lower benefits."
                             \_ So a better stat would be of people who
                                survived to working age, not those who survive
                                to 65.  And my guess is that general mortality
                                is closer to that than the paper cited (though
                                I can't read anything more than the abstract).
                                \_ My guess is your guess is wrong.  The reason
                                   this is still not apples to apples is that
                                   SS is a societal contract.  You pay into it
                                   until you draw benefits.  Until you start
                                   drawing benefits, it doesn't matter whether
                                   you get anything back.  If you want to live
                                   here, you pay.  If you don't want to pay,
                                   go somewhere else.
                                   \_ So your disagreement is philisophical.
                                      So is mine.  You should own what you
                                      save.
                                \_ And your guess would be wrong.  Consider
                                   link:csua.org/u/aum where the life expectancy
                                   of blacks and whites generally converge as
                                   they get older.
                                   \_ So when you start paying into SS (age
                                      15-20) is closer to birth than age 65.
                                      So you're wrong.
                    \_ "Sixty-five-year-old black men had a lower total life
                       expectancy (11.4 years) and active life expectancy
                       (10 years) than white men (total life expectancy,
                       12.6 years; active life expectancy, 11.2 years),
                       although the differences were reduced after we
                       controlled for education."  The difference between
                       65-year old black and white male life expectancy (both
                       total and active) is 1.2 years.  The article goes on
                       to say that the difference for women is 0.
                    \_ pwnd!
              \_ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib161
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/3/2-12 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53735 Activity:nil
3/1     My sister works for the county and pays into CalPERS instead of
        Social Security. This year she got a second (private sector) job
        which paid more than her government job and paid into Social
        Security. Does she have to contribute to both retirement plans?
        That seems like a waste. I STFW and cannot find the answer.
        \_ You don't pay into CalPERS if you don't have a public sector job.
	...
2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:50587 Activity:nil
7/15    My mom's fixed annuity is maturing and we're wondering what we
        should be doing with it. She's 70 and we gotta put the money
        where it is safe (no stock market, no 401k). What are some good
        choices to make now, considering that the US economy is failing
        and the banking industry is fubar?
        \_ I would buy another fixed annuity with enough of it so that
	...
2008/6/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:50318 Activity:low
6/20    Hinchey still thinks nationalization of refineries is a good idea, but
        doesn't think it's likely
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369321,00.html
        \_ It's a stupid idea.  He should be shot.  Building more refineries
           and not having 8 zillion different blends for ego stroking reasons
           is a good idea.
	...
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50277 Activity:high
6/17    When I first came to California many years ago my advisor invited
        me to his house and gave me an advice that I never really thought
        about until recently. It was dead simple, and had nothing to do
        with what I was studying-- if you ever buy houses in California,
        DON'T SELL THEM. Keep them around, because in time, property tax
        will be so low that it'll take an act of stupidity to sell them. As
	...
2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high
11/19   Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
        thing.  No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
        properties sold to pay for the tax.
        http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
        \_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
	...
2007/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:48327 Activity:moderate
10/15   First Baby Boomer files for Social Security.  DOOM!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security
        \_ Oh shit! They're going to bankrupt the nation. Let's kill them.
           \_ How so?  Social Security is a cornerstone of the socialist
              promise.  You don't want SS but you want universal health care?
              *boggle*!
	...
2007/9/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47896 Activity:very high
9/4     "Annual job growth has definitely not reached pre-recession levels in
        1990s. In California, 200,000 jobs were added last year compared to
        400,000 (annually) between 1997 and 2000. In the United States, we're
        still nowhere where we were in annual job additions as a whole." The
        200,000 increase was unable to keep up with the state's increasing
        population, with unemployment jumping to 5.2 percent in the last 12
	...
2005/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38363 Activity:very high
6/29    Bush administration cancelled a border survey after the results weren't
        positive.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/5350.shtml
        I'm pretty much ready to sell my vote to whoever will actually control
        the border. -emarkp
        \_ who cares?
        \_ So in other words, controlling our border is the most important
	...
2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37757 Activity:moderate
5/19    David Brooks, moderate conservative of the NY Times, on Newsweek
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?hp
        \_ Thank you.
        \_ David Brooks is an intellectually dishonest man.
           \_ Examples?
              \_ He's a master of the false dichotomy.  A canonical example:
	...
Cache (1644 bytes)
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/2/110
PubMed Citation ABSTRACT Background and Methods Persons of low socioeconomic status are^ known to have reduced life expectancy. In a study of the relation^ of socioeconom ic status to disability-free or active life expectancy^ among older pers ons, we analyzed prospectively gathered data^ on 2219 blacks and 1838 wh ites who were 65 years of age or older^ in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. We defined disability^ as the inability to perform independent ly one or more basic^ functional activities such as walking, bathing, dr essing, eating,^ and using the toilet. For subgroups defined by sex, rac e, and^ education, statistical models were used to estimate, for persons ^at each year of age, the probability of transition from not^ being disa bled or being disabled at base line to not being disabled,^ being disabl ed, or having died one year later. T he estimates for 65-year-old^ black women (total life expectancy, 187 y ears; At the^ age of 65, those with 12 or more years of education had an active^ life expectancy that was 24 to 39 years longer than the values^ for those with less education in all t he four subgroups defined^ by sex and race. Full Text of this Article This article has been cited by other articles: * Hardy, S E, Gill, T M (2005). Factors Associated With Recovery of Independence Among Newly Disabled Older Persons. Robine and Michel's "Looking Forward to a Gen eral Theory on Population Aging": Population Aging Across Time and Cultures: Can We Move From Theory to Evidence?. E ducational Differences in the Prevalence of Mobility Disability in Old Age: The Dynamics of Incidence, Mortality, and Recovery.
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib161
Adobe Acrobat / PDF You're in good hands with Social Security But privatization proposals would unravel its ability to insure against l oss of income, disability, and death by Christian E Weller and Michelle Bragg President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, having apparen tly discovered that it can't rely on sound economics to defend partial p rivatization, has instead chosen to falsely discredit the existing progr am by suggesting it is a bad deal for African Americans and women. a ilure to restructure Social Security poses a disproportionate threat to the overall retirement security of women," the commission stated in its July report, adding, "African Americans are disproportionately threatene d by the financing shortfalls facing the current system." But the commis sion's tactic is transparently belied by facts: for the past 66 years, S ocial Security has offered a safety net for workers and their families i n the event the primary source of family income is lost due to retiremen t, disability, or death. In these situations, women, children, low-wage workers, and African Americans benefit greatly from Social Security. Social Security is a three-pronged insurance program: it insures against loss of income due to retirement, death, or disability. About two-thirds of Social Security's expenditures pay for retirement benefits. The aver age elderly household receives 58% of its income from Social Security, a nd without these benefits an additional 39% of the elderly would fall in to poverty. Moreover, Social Security's retirement benefit program offer s insurance both against low lifetime earnings, since lower lifetime ear ners receive relatively higher benefits than do higher lifetime earners, and against old-age poverty, since it pays guaranteed, inflation-proof benefits regardless of life expectancy. Low-wage workers and women (who tend to live longer than men and have lower lifetime earnings than men) benefit especially from these retirement insurance features. Social Security is also a large disability and life insurance program -ab out a third of expenditures pay for survivorship and disability benefits -and African Americans, women, and children are the major beneficiaries. While African Americans make up just 12% of the population, they consti tute 18% of disability beneficiaries; These insurance features make Social Security a good deal for the average worker in general and for low-wage workers and women in particular. The average rate of return from Social Security for workers born between 19 56 and 1964 is 27%, substantially higher than the 2% that could be expe cted from a privatized system. Partial privatization will likely result in cuts to all benefits Social Security privatization would be a bad deal for women, children, Af rican Americans, and low-wage workers, since it would significantly weak en Social Security's insurance function. Diverting a portion of Social S ecurity revenue into individual accounts will result in less income for Social Security itself, meaning that retirement, disability, and survivo rship benefits will have to be cut. Indeed, past proposals for partial privatization generally included cuts in all three types of benefits. Aaron and Reischauer (1998) estimated that the loss of income to Social Security would require a 20% across-the-board cut in retirement, disability, and survivorship benefits. To cover the income shortfall, retirement and disability benefits were to be cut substantially, by about 30% to 40% for high- and moderate-income workers (Aaron and Reischauer 2001). Individual account savings will not compensate for benefit cuts The cuts to Social Security could be offset to some degree by savings in individual accounts. But these accumulated savings will on average cover only one-third to one-half of the loss in benefits (Aaron et al. The share of lost benefits a worker will be able to recover with the accu mulated savings depends on several factors, the most important of which is the rate of return. Future real rates of return, though, are likely t o be lower than in the past. Real rates of return on stock markets depen d on economic growth, and Social Security's trustees assume that economi c growth over the next 75 years will equal only half that of the past 75 years, 16% compared to 3%. Hence, real rates of return should be equal ly lower, meaning that we can expect an average rate of return of 36% f or the next 75 years (Baker 1997). Another factor cutting into rates of return on private accounts will be t he administrative charges on individual accounts and premiums for privat e insurance to pay for survivorship and disability benefits. In addition , Social Security will be expected to honor promises made to workers who already paid into the system, therefore requiring current workers to pa y twice, once into their own accounts and once for the benefits already promised. Consequently, the effective rate of return from stock market i nvestments will be around 2% (Baker 1998), applicable to every worker re gardless of demographic or economic background. Moreover, even if rates of return for the next 75 years equal those of th e past 75, some workers will, on average, be more likely to experience a substantial loss in benefits than others. For instance, low-wage worker s and workers with long average life expectancies will have an even hard er time than their higher-earning but shorter-lived counterparts in reco vering their loss in retirement benefits through savings in individual a ccounts (Aaron et al. Currently, Social Security redistributes funds toward low-wage earners, y ielding them a higher rate of return on their contributions. While the a verage worker born between 1956 and 1964 can expect a rate of return of 27%, men with low earnings can expect a 47% real rate of return and wo men can expect a 68% return (Cohen, Steuerle, and Carasso 2001). Also, as Social Security pays benefits based on lifetime earnings without adju stments for life expectancies, workers who can expect to live longer, pa rticularly women, receive higher lifetime benefits than others. Women bo rn between 1956 and 1964 can expect a real rate of return of 37%, compa red to 17% for men (Cohen, Steuerle, and Carasso 2001). With individual accounts workers will be on their own, though. It will be harder for lower-wage workers and for workers with longer life expectan cies to recover across-the-board benefit cuts with savings in individual accounts. Assuming different rates of return on individual accou nts, Baker (2000) estimates that a married average-wage worker could rec over 28%, and a married low-wage worker 20%, of lost benefits. The calculations for average-wage workers mask differences between demogr aphic groups. Two factors are of particular importance-life expectancy a nd earnings. Women, for instance, have a higher rate of return under Soc ial Security than do men because they live longer, thus getting more out of Social Security's guaranteed, inflation proof, lifetime benefit, and they earn less, thus taking advantage of the more-generous benefits to lower lifetime earners. In other words, in order to receive the same ben efits as under Social Security, women would have to have accumulated mor e relative to their earnings than men to compensate for the fact that th ey tend to live longer and earn less over their lifetimes. Moreover, survivorship and disability beneficiaries are likely to recover less in terms of lost benefits than others. If a worker becomes disable d before reaching retirement age, disability benefits are converted to r etirement benefits when the disabled worker reaches retirement age. Unde r a privatized system, workers with a complete working life would have a chance to build up savings to compensate partly for the loss in Social Security retirement benefits. But disabled workers have to rely on the a ccumulated savings from much shorter working lives. Consequently, disabi lity beneficiaries would experience an above-average benefit cut. Similarly, if a worker dies, Social Security operates like life insurance and provides benefits to surviving spouses and chi...