The Social Security Trust Fund has not been 'looted'.

[HiPointDem]

37. of course i know birthrates dropped after the 60s, but it's irrelevant, and here's why:

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

when SS started there were about 16 workers for every retiree.

within a decade (50s) it went to about 5:1. by the 70s, it was 4:1. currently it's a little over 3:1. projected to go to 2:1.

(note: those are rough figures; it's been awhile since i did the research, using real sources, not the often-wrong figures sometimes quoted in the popular/propagandistic media, but those are roughly correct).

so why hasn't it *already* collapsed, since the ratio has constantly gotten smaller?

because productivity has continually increased, with every generation producing more goods and services than the one before -- and productivity gains have continually outstripped declines in the ratio of workers to retirees. by large margins.

so if one worker can produce, say, $100 worth of goods/services in 1940, but $400 (inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1950, the worker of the 50s can support more dependents -- and so on, and so on, to the present day.

just like it took 100 workers to get a ton of corn in 1900, but only 10 today means 1 worker can feed a lot more people than the worker of 1900. should today's worker be paid what the 1900 worker was? no, because today's worker PRODUCES MORE VALUE, he should be paid more. If he's not, that means that extra value ALL GOES TO CAPITAL, while labor becomes increasingly poor in relation to capital.

keeping SS solvent is only a matter of giving workers a constant share of productivity increases. That hasn't happened, but it has nothing to do with demographics or social security, it has to do with POLITICAL POWER. And if workers' wages and share of productivity is the problem, which it is, that should be the issue, not cutting SS because 'we can't afford it'. We *can* afford it, and we can afford higher wages, but certain forces would rather give the gain to the rich.



With a pyramid, you know that you're making money off of future suckers, and hope you can get your piece of the pie before there's nothing left.

Your comparison of SS with a ponzi scheme is fraudulent, and here's why:

1. a pyramid scheme has no real 'investment' backing it. the fraudster simply takes A & B's money, then takes money from C & D & funnels some of C & D's money to A & B while keeping some for himself. rinse & repeat. The pyramid collapses BECAUSE THERE'S NO REAL VALUE OR INVESTMENT BACKING IT. THERE IS NO NEW VALUE CREATED, already-existing value is simply shifted around to different 'owners'.

in contrast, SS is 'backed' by real work, producing real goods and services, for as long as the US has workers, businesses, and produces goods and services.

2. Because a ponzi PRODUCES NO NEW VALUE, but simply moves already-existing value to different hands, it is completely dependent on growing the number of 'investors' in the money pool. If the pyramid doesn't grow at the base, it collapses.

In contrast, SS can work with a growing pool of 'investors,' or a declining pool of 'investors,' or a steady-state pool of 'investors' -- because NEW VALUE is being produced in every case. That is, the supply of goods and services represented in the form of workers' wages is constantly renewed.

There will *always* be 'something left,' so long as:

1. the politicians or the rich don't steal it by stealing workers' share of productivity (in which case, no other retirement/investment scheme will perform any better)
2. the economy doesn't collapse totally (in which case, no other retirement/investment scheme will perform any better)
3. the resource base doesn't collapse (in which case, no other retirement/investment scheme will perform any better)