Social security is designed to provide a minimum degree of security upon which a worker builds.

[quaker bill]

85. and it might have worked too

if the worker's share of profit from their own productivity as an employee had remained fairly constant. As this measure plummeted, so went the ability to save. We went from one worker households largely living on savings to two worker households living on consumer credit. Social Security was not designed with this economy in mind.

My grandparents were self employed business people. One ran carpentry business and another owned an awning shop, where she created custom awnings herself. They paid their taxes and saved and took the benefits when the time came, and until the Savings and Loan collapse, were largely able to live off their savings with SS as a supplement. Because they were self-employed, they were able to keep most of the profits of their productivity. Most people swinging a hammer these days don't do that well.

My paternal grandfather was a GM employee who due to union contracts was able to invest in GM stock. He retired very comfortably and mostly cashed out to more diverse holdings before GM declined. Because the percentage of his productivity he could retain was high, SS was just a supplement. I inherited a portion of the remains of his estate, and it paid for both of my children's college tuition.

We do not have the sort of economy where a guy swinging a hammer, or another guy doing brake jobs as a career leave estates to their grandchildren. However, Social Security was designed in that economy, not this one.

Now I do not know how to fix the economy to the point where labor is actually compensated fair value, but in the absence of that, the employer contribution to SS will have to rise at some point.