... in order to spread
TERROR! TERROR! TERROR! about the Social Security sky falling.
I suggest you look at the major changes in Social Security programs (OASDI) in the last 60 years, and particularly look at the major changes in how a "covered worker" is defined. That's one key to comprehending the charts used in the 'testimony' regarding the actuarial projections. Another key to comprehending the actuarial projections are the assumptions regarding future minimum wages and other equitable employee compensation issues. Another historical trend to examine is the institution (and abandonment) of defined benefit (and defined contribution) employer-provided pension programs that came into vogue in the 50s and lasted for about 30-40 years.
The URL at the bottom right-hand corner of the graph identifies the location of the Social Security Administration's data regarding the Average Wage Index which they develop and use to determine both the adjustment to benefits and the adjustment to the annual "wage cap." As a part of the development of this index, the SSA tallies the number of people for whom one or more W-2s were filed by their employer(s) during the year. These are the people who actually worked and paid FICA 'taxes.' It includes "covered workers" and other workers - including guest (and other visa) workers and workers not "covered" for various reasons.
But that only accounts for the numerator of the ratio. The denominator is the number of beneficiaries of OASDI. I obtain that number from
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/OASDIbenies.htmlYou're welcome to run the calculations yourself ... instead of letting others do your analysis for you. I heartily recommend that folks do their own analysis. You never know the agenda of someone doing it for you, do you?
But perhaps you still miss the point. When half the people in the country work and the other half don't, then (to one degree or another)
the ratio of workers to those supported by a worker is approximately ONE-TO-ONE! Unless we keep this firmly in mind, we get distracted by the statistical slight-of-hand that focuses on one manner in which one category of workers support one category of non-workers.Let me just try to make one point that may serve shed light on this. After WW2, we had the so-called "baby boom." Does it ever occur to people that the workers at this time were not only supporting the Social Security beneficiaries but were also supporting those very "babies" themselves?
When was the last time you saw a discussion of public policy where we tried to 'manage' the ratio of workers to children???Funny thing about that.
Again, the central issue of our economy (or any economy, really) is the equitable systemic distribution of the wealth that's generated by labor. (I call it "economic justice.") How equitable is the worker's share? How many people know that workers have been getting a smaller and smaller share for the last
thirty years?
What the "investor class" does NOT want to focus upon is the degree to which workers are supporting "The Life Styles of The Rich and Powerful." The 'villain du jour' in the melodrama played out on the corporate media stage is "those geezers" ... those evil, dastardly boomers.