Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course, Bolivia has a life expectancy of 63 for men, 68 for women.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jf2AU...

Bolivia has lowered the country's retirement age to 58, bucking the global trend where countries are pushing people to work longer to ease the financial burden of rising life expectancy.

</snip>


intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While Bolivia is very interesting to know about, I hope you do understand that when Social Security was enacted in 1935, life expectancy was 61.7. I have read, but could not verify that less than 10% of US workers lived long enough to collect. Part of that maybe men's life expectancy is shorter (and in 1935 the labor force was primarily male) plus many people were not part of social security when it was enacted. (i.e. Railroad workers, teachers, many government employees, etc.)

So the idea that the full payment age might increase to 70 would hardly get us back to that situation.

Gordon
Atlanta
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
TwoCybers,

You wrote, Part of that maybe men's life expectancy is shorter (and in 1935 the labor force was primarily male) plus many people were not part of social security when it was enacted. (i.e. Railroad workers, teachers, many government employees, etc.)

FWIW, most teachers and a number of state and federal workers still don't participate. Most states have some TRS / pension plan that covers teachers and often a number of state workers as well; if you're eligible for a TRS plan you are exempt from FICA. I believe there's something similar for federal workers, though I don't have any personal experience with it.

From what I understand, any state or local government can be exempted from the Social Security tax portion of FICA if they can show that they have a qualifying defined benefit pension plan that covers their employees.

- Joel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I hope you do understand that when Social Security was enacted in 1935, life expectancy was 61.7.

It's an irrelevant statistic, because it includes the then large number of child and infant deaths, which are entirely immaterial in the calculation of Social Security. (They never pay in, they never take out. They simply do not exist in the system.)

Below is linked a chart showing life expectancy at certain ages. Using Age 20 as a base (since that's when people tend to begin contributing), we find that the average man will live around another 48 years, the average woman, another 51 years. Therefore, the average person will live long enough to collect something for at least a few years.

Taking it a step further, we find that some people die before they ever reach the age 65, of course, so looking further up the scale we see that those who survive to age 50 (for example), men will live an additional 20 years, and women will live an additional (almost) 25 years.

Most people collected Social Security.

I have read, but could not verify that less than 10% of US workers lived long enough to collect.

Abjectly false.

The stats are from this chart:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

I've used the era 1939-1941, since that is the closest segment to the payments from Social Security in 1937, and I've used "white" men and women, since they formed the overwhelming majority of compensated workers in that era.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the Bolivian situation is like much of the rest of the developed world, we have two competing forces at work here.

One is demographics and rising life expectancy which seem to call for a higher retirement age.

The other is high unemployment and rampant age discrimination in employment and hiring, which seems to call for a lower retirement age in order to shrink the size of the job-seeking population. I believe at least part of the justification for Social Security in the 1930s was to shrink the size of the workforce by getting everyone over 65 after it (potentially freeing their jobs for other unemployeds).

Not sure how these two diametrically opposed economic and demographic forces can be reconciled in any sane economic manner. They are both compelling national interests, IMO, that happen to be at odds with each other.

#29
Print the post Back To Top