The Coming Democratic Schism

[Emily Lake]

I explored the reason.com website Noble Savage dismal linked to in his post and have reason to doubt its information is accurate and not skewed by right wing interests. I cannot trust such a source. Taking a poll of misinformed individuals give skewed results.

Social security should be strengthened. Millenials have not been invested sufficiently to experience the losses older people know about.

Fixed that for you.

Aside from that... what's your complaint? Are you discounting the source out of hand because you believe it to be politically biased, therefore anything it says is a lie? Or are you dismissing it because you believe the survey respondents are misinformed by the survey takers in some fashion? Or are you dismissing it because you believe the survey respondents are misinformed in general, and are simply too dumb to be allowed to take surveys that you will trust?

Aside: I don't particularly care one way or another, I just find it irksome when people dismiss information and data because of their own biases and beliefs, rather than because the information is actually flawed or false.

 

[dismal]

some people won't save unless the government "makes" them save via payroll deduction to SS.

SS is not forced saving. The money is taken and spent as it comes in. Transferred from the young to the old. The government could, of course, create the equivalent of a forced savings account for each of us, but SS is not that.

 

[arkirk]

Emily Lake: Go to the site and explore the quality of the articles the site contains. It is a right wing site, obviously funded by vested interests. If you just read the Social Security "survey" you might miss the slant of the entire site.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have mixed feelings about this. First, I'm a partner in an LLC, so I end up paying double the normal amount of SS. I would much rather invest my own money. I'd put it in something very stable with enough growth to keep up with inflation -- something like TIPS.

I figure whatever I get back from SS is going to be pathetic. However, I know there will be countless people who just blow their money if they are not forced to save it. If we stick to strong libertarian principles we have to say to these people who are 70 and can't work -- tough shit -- you didn't save when you had the chance -- now go live under a bridge and die. I don't think society would put up with that and then we would end up creating some new social welfare program.

Are you a millennial? You sound awfully insensitive to me. I am 70 and can't find any work, though I am health and able to work. SS gives me a pitifully small pension. Have you ever seen people on the street in deep need up close? Has it ever occurred to you that some of them are there because they had their investments stolen from them? I frankly am appalled by your calloused attitude.

I don't think you're reading what NobleSavage is trying to say. I could be wrong, in which case, he is welcome to correct me.

It appears to me that he is saying something like this:

On the one hand, what he thinks he'll get from SS is going to be tiny, and nearly useless to him (much like your pension from SS is pitifully small). And he would rather be allowed to use the money he has to contribute to SS to invest on his own, because he believes he'd get better returns and have a more stable retirement fund that way.

On the other hand, if we adopted such a libertarian approach, where each person was expected to look out for themselves without the goverment doing it for them... then there would undoubtedly be some people who fail to put money away and would would end up with no money when they retire. Then we as a society would essentially be telling them "tough shit, go die under a bridge".

NobleSavage doesn't think that society would be willing to go with option 2.

That is how I read his post... which I believe makes your reaction somewhat misplaced. If he had said what you appear to think he said, however, I believe your reaction would be spot on.

- - - Updated - - -

some people won't save unless the government "makes" them save via payroll deduction to SS.

SS is not forced saving. The money is taken and spent as it comes in. Transferred from the young to the old. The government could, of course, create the equivalent of a forced savings account for each of us, but SS is not that.

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

 

[dismal]

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

It's pertinent to the topic in that if enough young people decide they don't want to pay this money to old people it will stop.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily Lake: Go to the site and explore the quality of the articles the site contains. It is a right wing site, obviously funded by vested interests. If you just read the Social Security "survey" you might miss the slant of the entire site.

I don't care about the slant of the site, akirk. If I cared about the slant of the site, I'd have to reject 90% of the stuff on the internet Almost everything is slanted to one side or the other. If I reject all of the right-slanted stuff, then for the purpose of integrity I must also reject all the left-slanted stuff. Eventually I'll be left with Simon's Cat and I Can Haz CheezeBurger as my only sources!

I care about the nature and reasonability of the information being presented in each article, and in particular the questions and the structure of the survey being used. Sometimes, the questions are clearly skewed or leading. Sometimes it's clear that the selection of respondents is biased. In this case, the selection of respondents and the structure of the questions doesn't appear to be overtly biased. Without access to the underlying survey questionnaire, screening criteria, demographic profile, and sample size, I can't given anything more than a high-level opinion on it. To me, it appears to be a reasonable survey. There appears to be no valid reason to reject the data.

Which to me means that you're rejecting it solely based on the source. Which implies that you would only accept those things which confirm your own bias... I believe there's a term for that.

- - - Updated - - -

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

It's pertinent to the topic in that if enough young people decide they don't want to pay this money to old people it will stop.

Well yes, but now you're talking both civil revolution and age-icide. I honestly didn't think this conversation was ready to go there

 

[dismal]

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

It's pertinent to the topic in that if enough young people decide they don't want to pay this money to old people it will stop.

Well yes, but now you're talking both civil revolution and age-icide. I honestly didn't think this conversation was ready to go there

Well, I was talking about using the democratic process to change existing laws.

 

[arkirk]

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

It's pertinent to the topic in that if enough young people decide they don't want to pay this money to old people it will stop.

If the government falls apart and all we have left is an oligarchical regime, lots of social policies and social programs will stop. True, there will be lots of jobs for grave diggers...but they only get minimum wage...er at that point...not even that.
We have had more than 30 years of the Reagan Revolution and our country is paying dearly for it now. Companies have dumped millions of dollars of pension obligations in phony bankruptcies. Millions of people have lost their homes and years of their income in the housing bubble. We need to build a stable relationship between the citizenry and the government and not just knock apart anything that gets in the way of corporate profits.

We currently have a legislative branch that is totally negligent in its duties to promote the general welfare of the people of our country. What has actually been abandoned is humanistic values. It has become supplanted with financial jargon and screw jobs. These millenials will be surprised when their fortunes turn inside out. We are in the midst of major environmental changes, declining crop yields, severe climatic changes, and the hollowing out of our economy and our ability as a nation to produce for itself. All of these issues are wanting attention and getting none.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

It's pertinent to the topic in that if enough young people decide they don't want to pay this money to old people it will stop.

Well yes, but now you're talking both civil revolution and age-icide. I honestly didn't think this conversation was ready to go there

Well, I was talking about using the democratic process to change existing laws.

Well... it's possible. I have some reservations about how probable it is. It would be nice, perhaps... but if we're rebuilding the country based on our druthers, I'm starting with bigger things

 

[arkirk]

I am aware of that. I understand the funding mechanism used in SS. But it smooths the conversation if we leave that aside, as it's not actually pertinent at this juncture .

It's pertinent to the topic in that if enough young people decide they don't want to pay this money to old people it will stop.

Well yes, but now you're talking both civil revolution and age-icide. I honestly didn't think this conversation was ready to go there

Well, I was talking about using the democratic process to change existing laws.

Well... it's possible. I have some reservations about how probable it is. It would be nice, perhaps... but if we're rebuilding the country based on our druthers, I'm starting with bigger things

Like buying a warplane for a cost far in excess of a trillion dollars perhaps? I have been here a long time and have seen these warmongers rob the people far too long to accept things like that. All our college grads (excepting the rich kids) owe so much for their educations (costs used to be reasonable) they may not contribute to either SS or an IRA because the financial sector will just reach into their earnings and hollow that out too. Our country is changing for the worse. It takes a little longer view than the evening news to see it.

 

[The Paul]

Well yes, but now you're talking both civil revolution and age-icide. I honestly didn't think this conversation was ready to go there

Well, you're new.

 

[untermensche]

All Social Security has done is lift millions and millions from destitution and misery.

The only people who talk about getting rid of Social Security are those too ignorant to know what life was like for the elderly before it was created.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well... it's possible. I have some reservations about how probable it is. It would be nice, perhaps... but if we're rebuilding the country based on our druthers, I'm starting with bigger things

Like buying a warplane for a cost far in excess of a trillion dollars perhaps? I have been here a long time and have seen these warmongers rob the people far too long to accept things like that. All our college grads (excepting the rich kids) owe so much for their educations (costs used to be reasonable) they may not contribute to either SS or an IRA because the financial sector will just reach into their earnings and hollow that out too. Our country is changing for the worse. It takes a little longer view than the evening news to see it.

I don't understand what you're attempting to imply here, akirk. Could you try again, please? I'm not particularly good at inferring the right thing in situations like this.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well yes, but now you're talking both civil revolution and age-icide. I honestly didn't think this conversation was ready to go there

Well, you're new.

Meh. I suppose so. The sysadmin was out of town, so I ended up lurking for several days before I cleared the moderation queue. And I lurked for a while before registration opened, off and on. I thought it was long enough to get a feel for the place... but maybe not. I confess I was slow to venture into politic though.

 

[Emily Lake]

All Social Security has done is lift millions and millions from destitution and misery.

The only people who talk about getting rid of Social Security are those too ignorant to know what life was like for the elderly before it was created.

Some yes, some no. Yes, it helps a lot of the elderly. But there are a lot of the elderly that it doesn't help enough... and there are at least some of the elderly that don't need the help - the baby boomers entering SS age now are some of the wealthiest people in the country. And since SS takes money from currently working people and gives it to currently retired people... one could make a reasonable argument that how it's working *right now* isn't all that great. Because younger people in the work force right now are facing some pretty tough times - it's still hard to find a job, let alone a good, stable, well-paying job. Unemployment has fallen, but a lot of people are under-employed. Incomes haven't risen as much as they ought to. So taking money from those who arguably need it right now, in order to give it to those who arguably don't need it right now... is maybe not the best policy ever.

On the other hand, if you take a long enough view of things, then maybe this is a blip. I personally have some problems with the funding mechanism that SS uses, but not with the concept of providing universal pension incomes. It's the pay-as-you-go schema that is a problem for me. It's just not well-designed.


ETA: I've noticed that politics doesn't seem to auto-append posts in series. Is there a reason for that, or am I just taking too long between posts?

 

[untermensche]

All Social Security has done is lift millions and millions from destitution and misery.

The only people who talk about getting rid of Social Security are those too ignorant to know what life was like for the elderly before it was created.

Some yes, some no. Yes, it helps a lot of the elderly. But there are a lot of the elderly that it doesn't help enough... and there are at least some of the elderly that don't need the help - the baby boomers entering SS age now are some of the wealthiest people in the country. And since SS takes money from currently working people and gives it to currently retired people... one could make a reasonable argument that how it's working *right now* isn't all that great. Because younger people in the work force right now are facing some pretty tough times - it's still hard to find a job, let alone a good, stable, well-paying job. Unemployment has fallen, but a lot of people are under-employed. Incomes haven't risen as much as they ought to. So taking money from those who arguably need it right now, in order to give it to those who arguably don't need it right now... is maybe not the best policy ever.

On the other hand, if you take a long enough view of things, then maybe this is a blip. I personally have some problems with the funding mechanism that SS uses, but not with the concept of providing universal pension incomes. It's the pay-as-you-go schema that is a problem for me. It's just not well-designed.

It's simply an inter-generational insurance plan. The people who are getting money, put in money.

Social Security has a few problems, but the plan is not the problem.

One problem is that wages for workers have stagnated or declined over the past 50 years. That means that Social Security gets less, because it is funded through payroll taxes. This problem with wages is tied directly to the illegal destruction and hindrance of unions over that same time, since unions raised wages for all workers, not just union members.

Another problem is that SS is only taxed for part of a person's income. If you make more than a certain amount you don't pay SS taxes on that amount. The limit should be raised.

Another problem is that SS itself is taxed. Which is absurd.

And it should be means tested.

Social Security is actually doing pretty good and should be alright for several decades. If we raised the limits for taxation and means tested we could make it last a lot longer without even doing anything about the problem of wage stagnation.