Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SocSec: Six Thumbs on the Scale (Brad deLong)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 12:58 PM
Original message
SocSec: Six Thumbs on the Scale (Brad deLong)
The 2005 Social Security Trustees Report

The 2005 Social Security Trustees Report lowers the estimate of Social Security's deficit through 2079 to 0.6% of GDP. Last year's Trustees Report pegged the deficit through 2078 at 0.7% of GDP.

---snip

Social Security's financial status improved even though the new forecast window adds a big deficit year--2079--to the calculation. And its financial status improved even though the Bush administration assumed:
1-Reduced earnings on the part of the young.
2-Reduced death rates on the part of the old.
3-Lower labor force participation on the part of the young and old.
4-More short term inflation.
5-No change in long-run productivity growth (in spite of very good productivity news).
6-No change in immigration (in spite of immigration running ahead of assumptions).
---snip

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/03/the_2005_social.html

---------------

The more I hear, the more dishonest the numbers become. This is unbelievable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oecher3 Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. lower labor force participation...
it would be nicer to see that they expect labor force participation to increase, with all the frustrated long-term unemployed that dropped out of the labor force. But I guess according to the population pyramid the participation has to drop with baby boomers retiring soon.

But I agree the numbers do look finelined and bend to their will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. To Make The Numbers Come Out to Favor Private Accounts,
I think the team had to go through every variable in the model and give it the most negative value they thought they could get away with.

For example, they assumed that economic growth would be 1.9% over 75 years, but that stocks would return 6.5%. There is something extremely wrong with that combination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC