Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is what the governments created based on ancient tradition that children are to take care of their parents --- farm, business, family legacy, whatever, for the last thousands of years. Doesn't matter that most children today went, to heck with that noise, I'm doing my own thing.
A person's government retirement is paid by the person's children's taxes, aka ponzi scheme. (social evolution happened and here we are)
So when China looked at the vast majority of aging in their country, they went . Other countries soon followed suit. Some of those countries (that were staunch on immigration) have even changed their immigration laws to allow in more workers who do what? Pay taxes. So as, to help cover the costs of their aging citizens who are going to need care, plus, since there is more of them than their are of young people, the pull on government retirement is going to be strong, with less being put back into it. It's either allow in more migrants or take out bigger loans from foreign countries to help with the domestic costs. People are also living longer ...
Of course you're looking at less people the greater possibility of saving the human habitat. You might be right, however, during Desert Storm (x-husband was in military) thousands of troops were sent to the Middle East ... and with in a few weeks, their crystal blue lakes turned into muddy waters ... wanna guess how that happened? It wasn't from fossil fuels.
Humans are destructive creatures. It doesn't matter if its 2 billion of 'em or 10 billion of 'em ... seriously, it won't matter. No one is going to give up their conveniences to save the planet. And if you're familiar with George Carlin the comedian, 'the planet isn't going anywhere, we are.'
Good thoughts.
Part of the problem is that all - and I think I mean ALL - the economic models in existence depend on growth to make them work out. Can you imagine a Social Security system that works for a shrinking population, because I can't.
Add in the educational systems that steadily lose students, corporations with decreasing revenue, fewer working people, and a government with ever smaller revenue and it looks to me like some countries are in real trouble. There is a portion of my state covering about a dozen counties where some of those conditions exist, (the Mississippi delta region) and it is not a pretty sight. Closed schools, unmaintained road infrastructure and no meaningful jobs.
Those who think, "Population decline. GREAT! That means more for each of us and less pollution! We are saved.", have not really thought out the issue.
Some younger folks seem very upset with paying into SS since it’s paid out to older folks. Guess what? I’ve been doing that since 1973 when I got my first job at 15. And I’ve experience 10 increases in the rate I pay since. And had 2 years added to my formal retirement age.
IMO one problem is we haven’t had a rate increase since 1990. Look at the increases prior in the link below. Almost every year. So either we need to increase rates (sorry younger folks it’s your turn) or we need to increase the retirement age again (like they did to those of us born at the tail end of the Boomer generation) or cut payouts.
If young folks don’t like option 3, they need to accept one or both of the other options just like I had to do. Some of them act like they’re the only generation who’s faced the likely bankruptcy of SS. Not hardly. They’re just the first that hasn’t yet felt any pain in keeping it solvent.
is there a chart or graph somewhere that indicates worldwide (not just one country or another) of how many people in each age group there are? I realize that these numbers change daily, and that there will be very wide variations from country to country. I'm curious just about Earth itself. Then, if the numbers are available, a breakdown by continent and/or nation.
If young folks don’t like option 3, they need to accept one or both of the other options just like I had to do. Some of them act like they’re the only generation who’s faced the likely bankruptcy of SS. Not hardly. They’re just the first that hasn’t yet felt any pain in keeping it solvent.
A strong remedy - maybe not a full solution, but definitely an improvement - is massive immigration, and right away... especially given our shortage. If the wealthy countries and upper-middle-income countries accepted a billion refugees from the Global South - and yes, I did as a billion, maybe more - we just might start having a remedy for the distorted demographic pyramid.
But politically, it won't happen. There's just not enough support for it. Voters around the world will insist on "preserving their birthright" and stifling immigration.
Well, the decline of Roman Empire with its civil institutions and democratic values; architecture- marble domes and flooring, plumbing, etc; their agricultural and military power; medicine; the arts and culture - theatre, philosophy, literature, sculptures, etc was followed by the “Dark Ages” -with its indentured population, squalor, dirt floors, illness, illiteracy, draconian restrictions on liberty, the power of religious inquisition etc
It happens
The Bronze Age collapse was even more dramatic and regressive than the fall of the western Roman Empire.
Btw the best Roman domes were made of concrete not marble; concrete is the much more technologically cool material. Europeans lost the knowledge of how to make concrete for centuries.
Imagine seeing the Pantheon in 1000 CE and wondering how there were no seams in the stone.
is there a chart or graph somewhere that indicates worldwide (not just one country or another) of how many people in each age group there are? I realize that these numbers change daily, and that there will be very wide variations from country to country. I'm curious just about Earth itself. Then, if the numbers are available, a breakdown by continent and/or nation.
Some younger folks seem very upset with paying into SS since it’s paid out to older folks. Guess what? I’ve been doing that since 1973 when I got my first job at 15. And I’ve experience 10 increases in the rate I pay since. And had 2 years added to my formal retirement age.
IMO one problem is we haven’t had a rate increase since 1990. Look at the increases prior in the link below. Almost every year. So either we need to increase rates (sorry younger folks it’s your turn) or we need to increase the retirement age again (like they did to those of us born at the tail end of the Boomer generation) or cut payouts.
If young folks don’t like option 3, they need to accept one or both of the other options just like I had to do. Some of them act like they’re the only generation who’s faced the likely bankruptcy of SS. Not hardly. They’re just the first that hasn’t yet felt any pain in keeping it solvent.
This is akin to saying 'As I have suffered, so must you as well.'
It doesn't even matter to me who ss is paid out to; it is simply not sustainable in its' current design.
The ratio of workers to ss beneficiaries when ss first started was ~16:1. Today that ratio has decreased to <3:1.
SS was initially designed to provide a safety net for older citizens who might not have enough retirement savings or other means of support in their later years. But over time, ss has evolved to provide benefits to a wider range of people, including survivors and people with disabilities, and the population has aged, leading to a decrease in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio.
The inherent problems of a decreasing worker-to-beneficiary ratio were not fully taken into consideration by policymakers as ss was initially designed to be a relatively minor safety net for senior citizens and it was not anticipated that it would become the primary source of retirement income for some people.
Why does this gasping, dying horse need to be perpetually flogged over and over again? It no longer is viable and should be reformed to reflect current demographics, current longevity, and any other pertinent factors, and not unduly harm one subset of the population at the expense of another subset of the population.
I don't understand why black and white logic fails to inform opinions on this topic.
Less than 3 workers for every 1 beneficiary.
Increasing payroll taxes or reducing current benefits to sustain ss will only serve to bring us diminishing returns, regardless. There are a number of factors that point to the necessity of re-examining ss in the current context of our economy and situation. Why do people resist this logic?
Thank you for that link, the graphics are amazing. By upping the years you can see the trouble years where the older population has the wide bars and by reducing the years you can see the rise of the baby boom years.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
This is akin to saying 'As I have suffered, so must you as well.'
It doesn't even matter to me who ss is paid out to; it is simply not sustainable in its' current design.
The ratio of workers to ss beneficiaries when ss first started was ~16:1. Today that ratio has decreased to <3:1.
SS was initially designed to provide a safety net for older citizens who might not have enough retirement savings or other means of support in their later years. But over time, ss has evolved to provide benefits to a wider range of people, including survivors and people with disabilities, and the population has aged, leading to a decrease in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio.
The inherent problems of a decreasing worker-to-beneficiary ratio were not fully taken into consideration by policymakers as ss was initially designed to be a relatively minor safety net for senior citizens and it was not anticipated that it would become the primary source of retirement income for some people.
Why does this gasping, dying horse need to be perpetually flogged over and over again? It no longer is viable and should be reformed to reflect current demographics, current longevity, and any other pertinent factors, and not unduly harm one subset of the population at the expense of another subset of the population.
I don't understand why black and white logic fails to inform opinions on this topic.
Less than 3 workers for every 1 beneficiary.
Increasing payroll taxes or reducing current benefits to sustain ss will only serve to bring us diminishing returns, regardless. There are a number of factors that point to the necessity of re-examining ss in the current context of our economy and situation. Why do people resist this logic?
Agree that changes/total revamping are sorely needed. But neither political party has the will to do so. I guess they’re content to let it crash and burn while hoping it doesn’t happen on their watch.
This is akin to saying 'As I have suffered, so must you as well.'
It doesn't even matter to me who ss is paid out to; it is simply not sustainable in its' current design.
The ratio of workers to ss beneficiaries when ss first started was ~16:1. Today that ratio has decreased to <3:1.
SS was initially designed to provide a safety net for older citizens who might not have enough retirement savings or other means of support in their later years. But over time, ss has evolved to provide benefits to a wider range of people, including survivors and people with disabilities, and the population has aged, leading to a decrease in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio.
The inherent problems of a decreasing worker-to-beneficiary ratio were not fully taken into consideration by policymakers as ss was initially designed to be a relatively minor safety net for senior citizens and it was not anticipated that it would become the primary source of retirement income for some people.
Why does this gasping, dying horse need to be perpetually flogged over and over again? It no longer is viable and should be reformed to reflect current demographics, current longevity, and any other pertinent factors, and not unduly harm one subset of the population at the expense of another subset of the population.
I don't understand why black and white logic fails to inform opinions on this topic.
Less than 3 workers for every 1 beneficiary.
Increasing payroll taxes or reducing current benefits to sustain ss will only serve to bring us diminishing returns, regardless. There are a number of factors that point to the necessity of re-examining ss in the current context of our economy and situation. Why do people resist this logic?
SS has been examined and re-examined continuously since its inception. Logic may say that it needs to change, but examination and experience has not yet determined process to replacing it in a manner that doesn't hurt the people that are most in need, or those that currently pay into the system. And, any change which threatens the wealthy in any way, no matter how minuscule, is fought tooth and nail.
But right now ss is paid for almost entirely by poor and middle class people to themselves (one can say that employers also pay, but the tax itself is employee based, not just income or earnings based - self employed contract workers must pay their own tax, for example). Wages above $160k (currently) are not taxed, and roughly 15% of workers earn more than 160k. But that top 15% is also receiving 50% of all wages in the US, so that means 50% of wages in the US are not subject to social security taxes. Now, throw in the fact that interest and dividends are not subject to withholding, and its clear that wealthy people are hardly contributing anything at all (as a percentage of income) to the sustainability of the system.
Bottom line is that any system needed to support poorer people, whatever the cause, by definition has to come from those that are less poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Other countries soon followed suit. Some of those countries (that were staunch on immigration) have even changed their immigration laws to allow in more workers who do what? Pay taxes. So as, to help cover the costs of their aging citizens who are going to need care, plus, since there is more of them than their are of young people, the pull on government retirement is going to be strong, with less being put back into it. It's either allow in more migrants or take out bigger loans from foreign countries to help with the domestic costs. People are also living longer ... 
looking for a chart
