Boston U. Econ. Prof. calculates $202 Trillion US Fiscal Gap

[Arraya]

Maybe we need to end the recent phenomena of decreased infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. It seems people have grown an entitlement to modern medicine. Perhaps the chronic elevated unemployment can fix that, rather than having people work until death. If we kill them off earlier, via no healthcare, there will be less drawing from their retirement entitlements.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

Your point is well taken, but allow me to use actual government statistics (for what that’s worth) to get more precision on this issue as it relates to Social Security.

In 1935, the infant mortality rate was 5.5% (that is, 5.5% of all children born in 1935 died within their first year of life). So, between 1920 and 1935 infant mortality declined precipitously. Although, admittedly, it continued to decline to the roughly 1% level we see today. But, again, since we’re talking about Social Security we may as well start at the correct year since the stats are available.

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/birthstat_1935.CV.pdf

As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

So, assuming that the historical stats from the article you site are accurate, I will acknowledge that 5 of the 13 “additional” years of life expectancy that we see today are from lower infant mortality. But… that still leaves 8 years of additional life expectancy for adults reaching 60 years of age (and perhaps 9 years at 65, but I’m just speculating here), as compared to the days when Social Security was being enacted. So, while you make a very good point (and one that I hadn’t thought about, frankly), there’s still a very large “real” gap. So, I think we can say that “real” life expectancy has increased at a steady pace since Social Security was enacted, but not as much as the raw statistics would suggest.

And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

Quick Edit: I was close. Looks like the “real” gap was 7 years. From the paper below, “In 1935, 65-year-olds could expect to live 12 additional years on a gender-blended basis, while a 65-year-old in 2004 could expect an additional 19 years of life.”

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/08-062.pdf

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

Your point is well taken, but allow me to use actual government statistics (for what that’s worth) to get more precision on this issue as it relates to Social Security.

In 1935, the infant mortality rate was 5.5% (that is, 5.5% of all children born in 1935 died within their first year of life). So, between 1920 and 1935 infant mortality declined precipitously. Although, admittedly, it continued to decline to the roughly 1% level we see today. But, again, since we’re talking about Social Security we may as well start at the correct year since the stats are available.

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/birthstat_1935.CV.pdf

As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

So, assuming that the historical stats from the article you site are accurate, I will acknowledge that 5 of the 13 “additional” years of life expectancy that we see today are from lower infant mortality. But… that still leaves 8 years of additional life expectancy for adults reaching 60 years of age (and perhaps 9 years at 65, but I’m just speculating here), as compared to the days when Social Security was being enacted. So, while you make a very good point (and one that I hadn’t thought about, frankly), there’s still a very large “real” gap. So, I think we can say that “real” life expectancy has increased at a steady pace since Social Security was enacted, but not as much as the raw statistics would suggest.

And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

Quick Edit: I was close. Looks like the “real” gap was 7 years. From the paper below, “In 1935, 65-year-olds could expect to live 12 additional years on a gender-blended basis, while a 65-year-old in 2004 could expect an additional 19 years of life.”

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/08-062.pdf

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

Your point is well taken, but allow me to use actual government statistics (for what that’s worth) to get more precision on this issue as it relates to Social Security.

In 1935, the infant mortality rate was 5.5% (that is, 5.5% of all children born in 1935 died within their first year of life). So, between 1920 and 1935 infant mortality declined precipitously. Although, admittedly, it continued to decline to the roughly 1% level we see today. But, again, since we’re talking about Social Security we may as well start at the correct year since the stats are available.

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/birthstat_1935.CV.pdf

As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

So, assuming that the historical stats from the article you site are accurate, I will acknowledge that 5 of the 13 “additional” years of life expectancy that we see today are from lower infant mortality. But… that still leaves 8 years of additional life expectancy for adults reaching 60 years of age (and perhaps 9 years at 65, but I’m just speculating here), as compared to the days when Social Security was being enacted. So, while you make a very good point (and one that I hadn’t thought about, frankly), there’s still a very large “real” gap. So, I think we can say that “real” life expectancy has increased at a steady pace since Social Security was enacted, but not as much as the raw statistics would suggest.

And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

Quick Edit: I was close. Looks like the “real” gap was 7 years. From the paper below, “In 1935, 65-year-olds could expect to live 12 additional years on a gender-blended basis, while a 65-year-old in 2004 could expect an additional 19 years of life.”

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/08-062.pdf

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

Your point is well taken, but allow me to use actual government statistics (for what that’s worth) to get more precision on this issue as it relates to Social Security.

In 1935, the infant mortality rate was 5.5% (that is, 5.5% of all children born in 1935 died within their first year of life). So, between 1920 and 1935 infant mortality declined precipitously. Although, admittedly, it continued to decline to the roughly 1% level we see today. But, again, since we’re talking about Social Security we may as well start at the correct year since the stats are available.

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/birthstat_1935.CV.pdf

As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

So, assuming that the historical stats from the article you site are accurate, I will acknowledge that 5 of the 13 “additional” years of life expectancy that we see today are from lower infant mortality. But… that still leaves 8 years of additional life expectancy for adults reaching 60 years of age (and perhaps 9 years at 65, but I’m just speculating here), as compared to the days when Social Security was being enacted. So, while you make a very good point (and one that I hadn’t thought about, frankly), there’s still a very large “real” gap. So, I think we can say that “real” life expectancy has increased at a steady pace since Social Security was enacted, but not as much as the raw statistics would suggest.

And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

Quick Edit: I was close. Looks like the “real” gap was 7 years. From the paper below, “In 1935, 65-year-olds could expect to live 12 additional years on a gender-blended basis, while a 65-year-old in 2004 could expect an additional 19 years of life.”

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/08-062.pdf

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

Your point is well taken, but allow me to use actual government statistics (for what that’s worth) to get more precision on this issue as it relates to Social Security.

In 1935, the infant mortality rate was 5.5% (that is, 5.5% of all children born in 1935 died within their first year of life). So, between 1920 and 1935 infant mortality declined precipitously. Although, admittedly, it continued to decline to the roughly 1% level we see today. But, again, since we’re talking about Social Security we may as well start at the correct year since the stats are available.

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/birthstat_1935.CV.pdf

As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

So, assuming that the historical stats from the article you site are accurate, I will acknowledge that 5 of the 13 “additional” years of life expectancy that we see today are from lower infant mortality. But… that still leaves 8 years of additional life expectancy for adults reaching 60 years of age (and perhaps 9 years at 65, but I’m just speculating here), as compared to the days when Social Security was being enacted. So, while you make a very good point (and one that I hadn’t thought about, frankly), there’s still a very large “real” gap. So, I think we can say that “real” life expectancy has increased at a steady pace since Social Security was enacted, but not as much as the raw statistics would suggest.

And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

Quick Edit: I was close. Looks like the “real” gap was 7 years. From the paper below, “In 1935, 65-year-olds could expect to live 12 additional years on a gender-blended basis, while a 65-year-old in 2004 could expect an additional 19 years of life.”

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/08-062.pdf

[blahblahblah]

[quote=davelj] Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).[/quote]

My mom is 74 and receives SS benefits of about $1200 a month. She is really enjoying her “leisurely retirement” on this princely sum, especially after paying into the system for 40 years or more. I’m sure you’ll tell me that her situation is entirely her fault and that she should have saved more. Perhaps that is true, but she paid into it for four decades. I love how SS is now becoming this huge luxury after its been in place since the 30s.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=davelj] Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).[/quote]

My mom is 74 and receives SS benefits of about $1200 a month. She is really enjoying her “leisurely retirement” on this princely sum, especially after paying into the system for 40 years or more. I’m sure you’ll tell me that her situation is entirely her fault and that she should have saved more. Perhaps that is true, but she paid into it for four decades. I love how SS is now becoming this huge luxury after its been in place since the 30s.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=davelj] Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).[/quote]

My mom is 74 and receives SS benefits of about $1200 a month. She is really enjoying her “leisurely retirement” on this princely sum, especially after paying into the system for 40 years or more. I’m sure you’ll tell me that her situation is entirely her fault and that she should have saved more. Perhaps that is true, but she paid into it for four decades. I love how SS is now becoming this huge luxury after its been in place since the 30s.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=davelj] Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).[/quote]

My mom is 74 and receives SS benefits of about $1200 a month. She is really enjoying her “leisurely retirement” on this princely sum, especially after paying into the system for 40 years or more. I’m sure you’ll tell me that her situation is entirely her fault and that she should have saved more. Perhaps that is true, but she paid into it for four decades. I love how SS is now becoming this huge luxury after its been in place since the 30s.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=davelj] Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).[/quote]

My mom is 74 and receives SS benefits of about $1200 a month. She is really enjoying her “leisurely retirement” on this princely sum, especially after paying into the system for 40 years or more. I’m sure you’ll tell me that her situation is entirely her fault and that she should have saved more. Perhaps that is true, but she paid into it for four decades. I love how SS is now becoming this huge luxury after its been in place since the 30s.

[davelj]

The problem, of course, is that the money paid into the system by each retiree – even adjusted for inflation and returns on the money paid in – doesn’t cover the average retiree’s benefits received. More specifically, the average beneficiary of Social Security takes out far more money in retirement than they paid into the system. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a problem. The simplest solutions to this problem are to (1) raise the ceiling on earnings to which the SS tax is applied, and (2) raise the age at which initial benefits can be received.

[davelj]

The problem, of course, is that the money paid into the system by each retiree – even adjusted for inflation and returns on the money paid in – doesn’t cover the average retiree’s benefits received. More specifically, the average beneficiary of Social Security takes out far more money in retirement than they paid into the system. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a problem. The simplest solutions to this problem are to (1) raise the ceiling on earnings to which the SS tax is applied, and (2) raise the age at which initial benefits can be received.

[davelj]

The problem, of course, is that the money paid into the system by each retiree – even adjusted for inflation and returns on the money paid in – doesn’t cover the average retiree’s benefits received. More specifically, the average beneficiary of Social Security takes out far more money in retirement than they paid into the system. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a problem. The simplest solutions to this problem are to (1) raise the ceiling on earnings to which the SS tax is applied, and (2) raise the age at which initial benefits can be received.

[davelj]

The problem, of course, is that the money paid into the system by each retiree – even adjusted for inflation and returns on the money paid in – doesn’t cover the average retiree’s benefits received. More specifically, the average beneficiary of Social Security takes out far more money in retirement than they paid into the system. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a problem. The simplest solutions to this problem are to (1) raise the ceiling on earnings to which the SS tax is applied, and (2) raise the age at which initial benefits can be received.

[Author]

Posts