365 Comments
User's avatar
Allan's avatar

1. Spend a disproportionate amount of the budget on medicare and social security

2. Wage earners are taxed and parental benefits are cut to pay for this

3. People feel it's too expensive to have kids

4. The electorate skews older and votes for more spending on medicare and social security

5. And the cycle repeats

Expand full comment
Ben Krauss's avatar

So own the libs by increasing immigration. And with a bigger tax base, we make social security solvent without having to significantly increase taxes or cut parental benefits. Thereby, increasing U.S. citizen birth rates.

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

Yeah that's my preferred solution.

Owning the libs to do liberal things is generally a good approach to policy.

Expand full comment
SD's avatar

Yeah, I really don't understand the Republican stance against almost all immigration since immigrants from many countries are more likely to be conservative

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

Conservatism is substantively against changes in the population composition, even if the new people are conservative in their own ways.

Expand full comment
Edward's avatar

People have legitimate concerns about changes in culture. All people everywhere have this concern. It is not just an American White Nationalist concern. My guess is it goes back a very long time and is embedded in our tribal instincts. It is rooted in a very deep instinct for survival.

Expand full comment
Milan Singh's avatar

Hint: skin color

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

Neither party seems to understand this. Don't know why.

Expand full comment
Avery James's avatar

How much is Biden's controversial asylum legal immigration reducing entitlement costs by? I feel like I would've heard him brag about it by now if it was a big number...

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

It doesn’t reduce costs at all - it just increases revenue and keeps the actual costs (which remain unchanged) affordable for longer.

Expand full comment
Avery James's avatar

I should've said shortfall instead of costs, thanks for clarifying. But my question remains what fraction of that shortfall is being fixed by Biden's move.

Expand full comment
Gstew2's avatar

I agree with this broadly, but given the wage structure of our current immigrants, it is not true in a broad sense. Yes, more immigrants will help SS and Medicare/Medicaid, but given the wage structure of our current immigrants, the total costs exceed the total benefits for about a generation. This is one reason you see states (who actually fund the services used) freaking out about immigration, even (or lately especially) blue states.

I would like to see more immigration (a lot more actually) but balance it so that it allows more highly skilled immigrants who will make above median wages and roughly the same amount of lower-skilled immigrants. We need more people, period. This approach would also lessen income inequality, and I suspect it would introduce a less conservative political balance. It would also increase the benefits of immigration to lower skilled US workers by increasing demand for their skills, further decreasing income inequality and potentially building support for more immigration.

Unfortunately, I do not see this happening as Republicans are generally opposed to immigration, and the democratic political base of upper-middle-class professionals has been resistant to allowing people with comparable skill sets into the country.

Expand full comment
mathew's avatar

The amount of immigration needed to fix the problem would be unacceptable to about 80% of the population

Expand full comment
Binya's avatar

It’s not just spending, it’s regulation too. Retirees are less likely to support pro growth regulation because they have far less participation in the upside. They’re gonna be impacted by the disruption of building that new semiconductor fab but they’re not gonna get a job working there or even live to see the majority of the economic benefit it will provide for the community.

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

The biggest example is housing imo.

Expand full comment
Edward's avatar

Not only do they not support growth but they believe they have the greatest standing in being against it. I’ve lived in this community for 35 years and….

Expand full comment
Josh G's avatar

A lot of it is status quo bias. Older people have already went through a lot of existing hoops, and reforming various regulations puts them in a position to be worse off.

Now, if those laxing of regulations makes it so that there is more wealth around, people feel like starting up families and working more, then the case is obvious that the old would be better off.

Expand full comment
Deadpan Troglodytes's avatar

I agree that some regulations can support growth - by building confidence in new, unknown technologies or procedures - but in what sense is building a semiconductor fab "pro growth regulation"? Did you mean *removing* regulations, like land use? Or were those two different thoughts? (And it's hard to imagine seniors objecting to the regulations I'm talking about here).

Expand full comment
Dan Quail's avatar

I think the main problem is housing, not income transfers.

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

Yeah my thinking is you're right

Expand full comment
David Abbott's avatar

Ok, but how elastic is fertility to parental allowances. Don’t most of the European countries with child allowances have low fertility? Would $350/monty really make you want to go out and get someone pregnant?

Expand full comment
MondSemmel's avatar

Reposting an earlier comment (from https://www.slowboring.com/p/sunday-thread-49d/comment/51365554 ):

Zvi has looked into the topic of whether government policy can increase fertility, and IIRC his conclusion was that it was definitely possible in principle, but that governments typically don't make efforts commensurate with the size of the problem. See here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/fertility-rate-roundup-1 and https://thezvi.substack.com/p/fertility-roundup-2

Quote: "The core point here is merely to illustrate that yes, government policies absolutely can increase birth rates, and can do so at reasonable prices. Prospective parents choosing how many children to have, or whether to have children at all, very much respond to incentives about what their lives and finances would look like."

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

“Would $350/month really make you want to go out and get someone pregnant?”

I’d do it for free.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

We really need more female commenters here on Slow Boring.

I don't want to attempt to speak for them but . . . . ewww.

Expand full comment
Ben Krauss's avatar

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and second that.

Expand full comment
srynerson's avatar

I find it very weird that that Ken in MIA's comment is what's getting the pushback. David Abbott's comment was the creepy one.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

It was a ferocious battle for first place. I think the making it personal pushed Ken's into the winner's circle.

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

Am I *that* hideous?

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

Stop digging that hole, Ken.

Expand full comment
Glenn's avatar

yeah

Expand full comment
Lisa C's avatar

Boy's club hyuk hyuk sex joke nonsense like this always just makes me think of dogs going around pissing on streetlamps and fire hydrants to mark their territory.

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

If I may speak in my own defense, I found David A's idea that men "go out and get someone pregnant" funny, but unintentionally so. If I was marking my territory, it was only to say, hey, bud, I write the punchlines here.

Expand full comment
Deadpan Troglodytes's avatar

This is the whitest, most middle class comment I've ever seen on SB (with Ben's being #2).

Expand full comment
Andy Hickner's avatar

Re the female commenters or lack thereof, I’m curious how much this has been a topic of discussion behind closed doors in meetings of SB management

Expand full comment
California Josh's avatar

Basically every online forum in the world that isn't about a female-coded topic is heavily male.

Men love to share opinions!

Expand full comment
Lisa C's avatar

It's not that forums have to be female-coded. They just have to be female-dominant. I'm in plenty of forums or online social circles for gender-neutral interests (genre fiction, art, outdoor activities, etc.) that are female-dominant, but usually they were started by a woman or had a big female userbase early on that generated some gendered momentum.

The politics forums tend to be male unless female-coded, though - but female-coded tends to be about schools or reproductive rights or healthcare, and those are all pretty big topics people get passionate about.

Expand full comment
Catherine's avatar

I'm a female subscriber! But not a commenter. I love sharing my opinions in real life. On the internet? Not so much.

Expand full comment
Bo's avatar

Socialist! : D

Expand full comment
REF's avatar

That really is the biggest complaint about Ken, around here. Too much goddamn socialism.

Expand full comment
Bo's avatar

I know! It's like KEN stop talking about dialectical materialism and the inevitable failure of the capitalist class!

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

Charity is not socialism.

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

A weird half-baked idea that I have is that we should have a massively generous child tax credit (like $10K+ a year or something) but it should be non-refundable. It won't incentivize people to have kids they can't afford and would be a net transfer from childless adults to parents.

Expand full comment
Ben Krauss's avatar

Always want to hear more half baked ideas in the comment section

Expand full comment
NYZack's avatar

Isn't this exactly the opposite of proposals to extend and enhance the Child Tax Credit (i.e., making it more refundable)?

I've read so much commentary about how the pandemic-era expanded Child Tax Credit was an unparalleled way to end child poverty, without even mentioning the possible negative consequences it might have for child-bearing behavior.

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

income and education are negatively correlated with fertility (because opportunity costs)

Expand full comment
California Josh's avatar

How much is choice based around opportunity cost and how much is way fewer unplanned pregnancies?

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

seems like those are endogenous

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

France and Sweden have much more generous family benefits than the rest of Europe and they also have non-catastrophic TFRs, although still below replacement. I think the Occam's Razor approach to declining fertility is to spend as much as France before seeing if other steps are needed. (The benefits would be expensive, but the US doesn't have a value-added tax so bringing one in would be an option for financing them.)

Expand full comment
Ethan Duffy's avatar

According to Ezra’s guest in a recent podcast episode the TFR for the US is 1.66. The TFR for Sweden is 1.67. Is that an improvement we should shoot for? How much should we spend on it?

Expand full comment
Ben Krauss's avatar

That was an interesting episode! But it really just cemented the fact that the factors driving lower birthrates in developed economies are so deeply multifaceted and seemingly non-solvable.

Expand full comment
Joachim's avatar

There are so many different factors in play, you can't just isolate one. For example, the religiosity of Americans probably cancels out some of the effects.

Expand full comment
Ethan Duffy's avatar

In that case I consider it a little weird that the Swedish rate so closely followed ours from 2015-today despite our significant cultural differences.

Expand full comment
Joachim's avatar

But do you think that Sweden’s policies (visavi the US) only adds up to a 0.01% increase in TFR? That sounds weird. I think it increases it (a bit) more but there are other factors which increases US fertility.

Expand full comment
SD's avatar

I don't think we should be doing it to improve the birth rate. I think we should be doing it out of concern for kids and families. That episode also discussed how little we seem to care for you g families - not just financially, but culturally - than peer countries.

Expand full comment
Ethan Duffy's avatar

Desired fertility rate is a thing and building a society that doesn’t care about it causes real people real pain. Native-born American women deserve to have the children they want to raise and we should prioritize ways that allow them to do so.

Expand full comment
David Abbott's avatar

I just googled, and the Swedish allowance is 1250 kroner (~$120) a month.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

They also have free public child care, which must cost a lot more. (I don't think that's the right approach; it should all be cash so parents have freedom of choice.)

A cash benefit of $1000 per month for every child under 18 would cost a little over 3 percent of GDP. Since the US is a low-tax country with no VAT, that could easily be done if the political will existed. And I think it would virtually wipe out poverty among families with children, not to mention making the old-age programs more solvent.

There's no other type of welfare state expansion that could potentially get buy-in from the right, so this is worth pushing

Expand full comment
Joachim's avatar

"I don't think that's the right approach; it should all be cash so parents have freedom of choice."

The Swedish Christian Democratic Party still advocates for - and managed to implement once in the past - giving a lump sum of money to parents which they can spend on kindergarten or on themselves to stay at home with the kids, but it was abolished (rightly so IMO) since the left thought it was bad for women (more women staying home which affects all women's career opportunities and makes some women dependent on their husbands for pension etc) and the right thought it was bad for the economy since it kept many women from participating in the work force.

Expand full comment
Nick's avatar

lol I love how a policy where some women choose to stay home with their children is labelled “bad for women” and required changing to remove this choice and put a thumb on the scales of women going back to work and having someone else care for their child. I think feminists should take a hard look at themselves if they favour this position.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

OECD data on "family policy" expenditures as a share of GDP:

https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/family-benefits-public-spending.htm

France comes in at just under 3 percent, with Sweden at 3.4. So these wouldn't be crazy levels of spending, especially for an economy that's already lower-tax than Europe's.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 26, 2024
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
SD's avatar

Totally agree, and my kids are mostly grown. I know so many people who miss days of work because of child care issues. On the lower end of the income spectrum, this means people losing their jobs, high turnover, etc. it seems like a program for under 5s would be good for business too.

I would love to see the program also pay for training and certification of child care workers. There are not enough people doing this job, and it is something that would not take a lot of training to give people interested in working with kids a way to a job. With subsidized care, those jobs might be more stable, too.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

You could structure it a lot of different ways. (I think benefits should be much higher for the first child than for subsequent children, because it's with the first child that women's lifetime earnings take a huge hit. And they should probably be higher in the first few years than afterwards.)

I just wanted to put a number down that shows the right order of magnitude for total spending. Three percent of GDP is what France and Sweden allocate, and it does seem to make a significant difference to the birth rate.

Expand full comment
Seneca Plutarchus's avatar

What's the native born birth rate compared to immigrant birth rate in those countries?

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

I think the gap in Sweden is pretty large. They have a sizable Muslim underclass due to their generous asylum policies in the past.

This may be one reason they've stuck with the free public daycare. It's not worth anything to a family where the mother stays home, so one effect is to encourage migrants to adopt more Scandinavian gender norms.

I suspect a lot of white voters think the incentives of an all-cash family policy for those communities would be... suboptimal.

Expand full comment
Deadpan Troglodytes's avatar

Except, as Ruxandra Teslo writes, echoing Anna Rotkirch, research director at the Family Federation of Finland’s Population Research Institute: "there is no obvious policy-level explanation for the European country with the highest birth rate - France" (https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/culture-over-policy-the-birth-rate). Not to say it's hopeless, and she argues otherwise in the rest of her piece (as does Zvi in the pieces MondSemmel linked). Nonetheless it is not simple, and I am very pessimistic, as industrialized countries have struggled just to claw back a tiny fraction of our premodern birth rates.

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

I don't care about TFR. What I do care about is the reality that productive abilities are more broadly distributed in the population than income is. It's bad for the future productivity of the nation to be constrained by the luxury childcare preferences/economic indifference of the electorate.

Expand full comment
Ethan Duffy's avatar

Ezra just did a podcast on how Sweden provides a heavenly level of benefits compared to the US and still hasn’t managed to raise its birth rate more than one-hundredth of a kid above ours; that’s what, a . The route to more naturally born citizens does not run through increased parental/childcare benefits.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

I think that's the wrong comparison. Sweden's TFR is well above the European average. So unless there's a specific reason to think they're more culturally similar to the US than to the rest of Europe, the spending does seem to have an effect.

Expand full comment
Michael Sullivan's avatar

Yeah, it certainly seems like a deeply shady assumption to say that Sweden's natural TFR is equal to America's, and the marginal effect of their natalist policies is +0.01 TFR.

My general impression of Sweden is that it's very culturally different from America, and kind of nihilistic.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

"Songs from the Second Floor" is one of my favorite films. But you can see how those people might just give up on reproducing the human race

Expand full comment
Polytropos's avatar

Population aging is a consequence of things that most of us— correctly— consider desirable (economic growth, medical technology improving, lengthening lifespans), but it really has created a bunch of tough political problems. I’ll be interested in seeing how Japan and South Korea try to handle it; they’re the closest to having population pyramids which break everything.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

Yes. So we need to figure out how to manage those pyramids with better productivity and distribution of assets. We ain't going to breed our way out of it short of handmaid's tale forced birth.

Expand full comment
James C.'s avatar

But we may need to only delay it for a few more generations before AI/robots essentially solve the problem for us (for good or bad depending on your outlook!).

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

"but it really has created a bunch of tough political problems."

The population aging isn't what caused those problems, it's anti-growth policy all the way down. Restricting supply and stimulating demand, in tandem, in many areas of the economy.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

(A) key error here is that it is wage earners rather than consumers that are being taxed. Substitute a VAT for the wage tax.

Plus deficit drag on growth contributes to fewer kids.

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

"3. People feel it's too expensive to have kids"

Again, as talked about a few days (?) ago in here, this is part of the reason, just like I'm sure the ordenous regulations at the corners, and that combines why our TFR in 1.67, not 1.87, but the main reason is all women in the US are far more educated (including young barely high school educated girls via 16 & Pregnant + IUD's not having as many babies), raising a baby is a tough time, especially with heightened non-economic expectations for being a good parent, plus as noted below, even programs I support as a good social democrat who believes in a welfare state, not natalism, doesn't seem to help things.

I don't think the cost of child rearing is why TFR is declining greatly basically everywhere but some African countries and among ultra-orthdox people in Israel.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

As a woman, I always find these conversations really creepy. I have one kid because I want one kid. I could afford another but it would limit my career options, free time, public engagement, and time that I get to spend with my current child. You could offer to pay me $300 a month or $3,000 a month and I am not having another kid for you to avoid a population age distribution problem.

I think we should be supporting families with kid more because I care about the families and kids in my community and because I think supporting families and kids is a good investment in our future.

I do think that there are probably women who would be having a few more kids if there were better financial supports for both infertility treatment and parenting. But I think that is going to be on the margin. For them, great because people who want to parent should have that opportunity.

But I think we may just have to deal with the reality that in a society in which women have both free access to family planning and anything approaching economic and social equality we are going to see mostly smaller families which appears to be a widespread preference by women. Where you see big families it is mostly in areas with low rates of equality for women, limited access to birth control, and low rates of infant survival. Most women are not looking to go back to that.

So we are going to need to come up with solutions that don't involved forcing or ineffectually bribing women to birth more babies. Some of that is allowing for immigration into richer countries to spread the young around. But it probably also involves actually using increased productivity in more socially meaningful ways so that a smaller group of younger people can economically afford to support a large aging population.

Expand full comment
splendric the wise's avatar

Right now, our society is structured such that having kids comes with very high costs, in terms of both money and time, that are not borne by childless adults.

I don’t think of pro-natalist policy as being about bribing people to be parents. I think of it as restructuring our modern economy and society sufficiently that people are not dissuaded from having children due to these kinds of costs.

Within our existing primarily market-driven system, a person can say, “I really love to travel, so I’m not looking to have kids anytime soon.” and this is completely comprehensible and rational on its own terms.

But imagine if taxes, transfers, airline tickets, hotels, and childcare worked in such a way that the one thing didn’t really have anything to do with the other. If DINK couples and couples with young kids both went on similar numbers of vacations per year. That kind of rough equivalence is the goal as I see it, and I don’t think it requires rejecting modernity, family planning, or equality.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

I guess, I just see a significant part of those costs in time and opportunity loss and lifestyle limitations as being baked into the parenting package independent of expense.

When someone says, as my of my friends do, "I don't want kids because I really love to travel," they are not primarily thinking about the costs of bringing along extra bodies in terms of airline tickets and hotel rooms. They are thinking that they want the sponiatity to travel whenever they want without regard to school vacation schedules. They want to be able to visit romantic or exotic locations without having the romance ruined by having a crying toddler at the table or having to worry about how to keep a little kid safe. They want to be able to go a museum and linger over art without having to worry about a six year old's attention span or stay out late eating dinner in Madrid without worrying about bedtime meltdowns.

Having kids necessitate a reduction in your freedom of movement and time. They are little dependent humans whose needs are going to have take priority over yours or at least be considered with them. I can't think of anything that would necessitate a larger lifestyle change than taking in a elderly parent with dementia or inviting a friend with an ongoing heroine addiction to move into your place.

The research suggests that kids actually do reduce the day to day happiness of their parents in meaningful ways even as they increase their sense of purpose, meaning, and joy. It's a real trade off. Each additional kid adds differently to each side of that scale.

The only way to have my happily childless friends not face those tradeoffs would be to give them so much stinking money that they could hire a full time nanny which doesn't seem like a viable option.

When I think about my friends who would ideally like to have kids but don't or don't have as many as they might the reasons are usually tied up with either not have stable romantic partnerships, disability concerns, or issues with fertility. There are probably some policy changes we could make that would make it easier for folks to marry and maintain marriages by reducing economic stress for everyone and we could certainly work to make fertility treatments more widely available.

But my friends who don't want kids are not going to bought at a price anyone wants to pay them and honestly probably shouldn't have kids. They love hanging out with mine but are happy to hand her back when they are done. Folks who don't find the idea of parenting joyful or enticing may just not be the right people to parent. We can find them other "it takes a village jobs." My friends who have small families also never mention cost as why they don't have more.

The only things I have heard with regard to expense and kids is folks who say they are delaying having kids because they want to buy a house or pay of student loans first. That might be a population who would parent if they could afford it but they would probably need to be bought with debt forgiveness and cheaper housing prices rather than a per child credit.

Again, all about the child tax credit because parenting is important and should be done well and money helps. I just don't see it making anything but a tiny shift in family size.

Expand full comment
Stasi Call Center's avatar

"The research suggests that kids actually do reduce the day to day happiness of their parents in meaningful ways even as they increase their sense of purpose, meaning, and joy. It's a real trade off. Each additional kid adds differently to each side of that scale."

This has been my exact experience since becoming a parent. Especially as a relatively older one who really enjoyed his day-to-day life prior to becoming a father.

Expand full comment
Evil Socrates's avatar

Most of the declining fertility rate, I believe, is explained by smaller family sizes not childless couples. That is an easier problem to solve (though still very hard) and doesn’t squash quite so many preferences. For example, earlier family formation is highly correlated with more kids. People have their first kid at 22 are much more likely to have multiples than the recent trend of late twenties / early thirties. There are a lot of things baked into our society to delay family formation, which we should consider changing.

Expand full comment
splendric the wise's avatar

I’m not saying tax credits wouldn’t be part of it, but it feels like there’s a lot of non-monetary low hanging fruit as well.

How are parents’ lives different if public schools are actually trying to optimize for parental convenience, rather than mostly ignoring that as a concern? How many more people do get full-time nannies if the State Department’s Consular Bureau is instructed that their new top priority is making it maximally cheap and easy for American parents to hire an au pair?

It feels like right now there are a lot of areas where we’re just not even trying.

Expand full comment
Smarticat's avatar

This ^^, as a fellow having-bred female ;P I completely agree. I would add as well that pregnancy itself is hard, I went through it once, and I am so very grateful for my one son and would never trade him for anything, but pregnancy was not overall physically easy, and my delivery was not ideal (required a C-Section and had some complications), I could not see going back through what was a very taxing physical experience on purpose - even for a refundable tax credit lol. And I was relatively younger (27 at the time), healthy and fit (not overweight or experiencing any pre-existing health conditions) - the risk of complications increases the older a woman and of course the less healthy so if it was hard for me, it's probably even more of a potential physical risk for the current generation of childbearing aged women that is overall heavier and on average older before their first pregnancy (the average I think now is around mid-30's!)

I would also add that our society is particularly not very friendly to the "post-pregnancy" body that most women will experience, even under the best circumstances, and there may be some more subliminal incentives from women not wanting to undergo the physical changes that will mark them as "less attractive" in our society - which is not just an abstract concern as these "ideals" can be very much filtered down to and expressed by their partners... It just seems that up through the Boomer generation of parents, it was a lot more common (and acceptable) to "look old" as soon as the 30's hit. I can look at photos of my parents, relatives and their peers from that era and it's very noticeable how much older adults in their 30's presented up through the 90s even than adults in their 30's present today (and it's not just the styles of the era but the big distinction between how a "mom" dressed and styled versus single women in their 20s even in the styles of that era, where now that distinction is a lot blurrier). And they had more kids (although Boomers definitely had fewer kids than their parents, my mom from a family of 9 where this was not uncommon in the 1950s had only 2, and 2-4 kids was about the norm for suburban/middle class families in the 80s I think?), which accelerated that "older" appearance, whereas today having more kids and leaning into "old" seems much less the norm. And the appearance as very much hand in hand with adapting into an "older" lifestyle habits that is also becoming more socially normed for people well into their late middle ages to continue having "fun" and "experiences" whereas for my parents in the 80s settling into the middle class "family" lifestyle was the expectation and norm, whereas now there are many other options that have been "normed" for what early-to-mid-to-late middle age can and even "should" look like (or aspire to).

Lifestyle, culture, the sheer physical difficulty of pregnancy/childbirth, appearance and attractiveness standards, yeah these are all likely pretty salient (dis)incentives that may be factoring in sub-consciously (or not) in the decisions to not have/limit child bearing that go beyond the (relatively more) simple solvable-by-policy prescriptions of the cost factors. Shallow (or not, I don't think it's shallow IMO), women don't want to be prematurely aged by their 30's, having had multiple by then pregnancies perhaps as they saw their grandmothers and mothers experienced, their partners likely also would not prefer to have (or to be prematurely aged themselves in companionship), young singles/couples enjoy having a longer young adulthood it seems with options for leisure, travel and personal/career development that childbearing necessarily interrupts (at best), etc.

Not to say we shouldn't be better subsidizing of those families that do want to have more children - we should! And particularly for the lower income end of the scale where considerations like "taking more vacations" and "looking fit and sexy at age 35" are probably not as salient disincentives for not having kids but costs really are. But it shouldn't be expected as the cure-all for an overall lower birthrate across society, as I do strongly think there's a lot of non-monetary reasons for that.

Expand full comment
Jacob Manaker's avatar

"I could afford another but it would limit my career options, free time, public engagement, and time that I get to spend with my current child."

Well, I think the point is that to the extent we can shift the American economy so that a second child does *not* reduce your "career options, free time, [and] public engagement," we should do so. It's fine to say that a tweak to tax policy can't do that, but I don't think it's justified to give up entirely on the project and assume "that in a society in which women have both free access to family planning and anything approaching economic and social equality we are going to see mostly smaller families."

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

I don't see how the "economy" could be shifted to accomplish this. Parenting a second child would take time from my career, free time, public engagement, and time with my current child" simply because parenting in the way most of us understand it is time consuming and time is a finite thing and choices have tradeoffs. I think the only thing that could change that really would be a change in expectations about how much time parenting requires.

Some of that could be relatively easily reduced by providing free or reduced childcare before and after school so that was more universally available. But otherwise, I think we hit up against some cultural norms that are hard to shift. I personally think it would be lovely to reduce some of the ultracompetetive norms and keeping up with the Jones parts of modern parenting.

But ultimately, I think that part of what makes parenting more time consuming is the desire on the part of both parents to spend time with their kids and having meaningful careers and lives. Some of us grew up in the first generation where a lot of mom's worked and that meant less active care than a prior generation of stay at home mom's could provide. Many of us wanted something different. We could do that by not having careers or we could do that by starting families later in life and having fewer kids.

I am a parent of an only child and was an only child. My parents both had very successful and high pressure careers. My mom in particular broke a lot glass ceilings in her profession, mostly by working twice as hard as her male colleagues. I had a good childhood and a lot of good quality time with my parents because they prioritized it. But there were still a lot of mixed school concerts, making my own dinner, and unsupervised time in my teens. If I try to imagine the attention that I got and splitting it in half, it would have been less than I needed.

I opted for a career with a more flexible schedule but still one kid so I would be as torn as my mother was. I can't imagine having two or three more and not feeling spread too thin. Frankly, I end up picking up a ton of slack for the parents of my friends who have more kids. I end up doing the carpools, chaperoning the field trips, and planning activities for lots of my daughter's friends. I don't mind but I don't feel like there is this whole untapped capacity for parenting in my world other than the ones who don't have kids at all. Folks who wanted two have two. Folks who wanted three have three. Folks who have four got hit with twins they weren't expecting.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

Correction. I do have friends who want more kids than they have but that is because of fertility issues. I do think more universal access to fertility treatment would be good for many reasons and would result in more kids.

I also have friends who birthed fewer kids than they intended because they ended up adopting one or more dids out of the foster care system and took up their capacity to parent. One of my friends was planning to have two kids. She signed up to be a temporary foster parent for 18 months until the 12 year could be placed with family members who needed to prove they could stay drug free. She got pregnant and three months before she had her kids, DHSH let her know the family had failed to be in compliance and they were going to put her foster daughter up for adoption. They offered to adopt her and she said she would like that but what she was most looking forward to with going to her family was being able to live with her two siblings who were also in other foster care homes and asked if they would adopt all three of them. So within 3 months they went from having 0 kids to 4 kids aged 0, 10, 12, and 14.

I have several other friends who also signed up to foster and ended up adopting one or more kids. One adopted their first and then ended up adopting each of their siblings as they were born to their first's birth mother as her parental rights got terminated each time due to drug use. They ended up with five kids in the end without having any bio kids of their own.

These adoptive parents are all great but they face real challenges with kids who have to deal with some early life trauma or medical issues.

My overall sense is that the US ought to be doing a much better job of taking care of the kids we have now in terms of feeding them, housing them, providing them adequate medical care and mental health services, and providing them with safe communities and excellent public education before we start trying to figure out how to churn out more.

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

Yup, it also doesn't help that even supposed liberal-minded people who say, write books about this issue and the reason behind it, and claim don't want to shame women who don't want kids or single mothers, end up openly allying with conservatives who openly talk about their support for lessened reproductive rights and general conservative policy, because of seemingly a couple of overheated negative reviews.

Expand full comment
Evil Socrates's avatar

I think defeatism about fertility is dangerous. It is going to cause huge problems and as you note one reliable solution is to restrict the freedom of women. Which is bad!

Increasing productivity is good in its own merits of course but “we just need to make this giant problem no longer a problem with unspecified productivity gains” doesn’t fund pensions or increase the workforce.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

I think slow population decline combined with better productivity and sharing of resources is a path that has some benefits in terms of our taxing of natural resources. To the extent that is happening quickly in some places while it grows in others, I am good with immigration as a solution.

Expand full comment
Evil Socrates's avatar

The problem is that a TFR 1.5 (Germany) or 1.3 (Japan, Italy) nothing of the .9 and falling rate of Korea, are not compatible with a slow decline nor are they holes small enough to be filled with any remotely plausible amount of migration from Africa and SE Asia (though more immigration absolutely helps and should be encouraged).

They are just a recipe for extreme degrowth and elderly poverty (which, I fear, will actually be a recipe for a bunch of rollbacks of women’s liberation and for other extreme political movements).

It’s also not great that all the nicest places in the world with good institutions have a declining relative population.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

I think that Japan, Italy, and Korea are going to face some real challenges. I also think that they have sufficient wealthy and a culture of taking care of elders that they can get through this period without widespread elderly poverty. But they may have some some periods of stagnating growth or even recession until they get over their grey waves. We may also get to learn some lessons from them on how they address that.

I don't think US TFR is in the panic threshold yet especially since we are a country that has a long history of immigration to buffer us. What concerns me about the grey wave in the US isn't how distorted population groups may become but that we have a horrible system for taking care of our elderly. Private nursing homes and end of life care in a health care system that is largely profit driven leads to insane costs and not very humane outcomes. It contributes to having an aging population be an unsustainable option.

I work in elder law. The aging baby boomers are kicking the legal system in the ass right now. They have much lower rates of planning in terms of wills or durable powers of attorney which means that when they get sick or die, the court needs to make a lot of decisions on their behalf. A huge part of my workload is acting as a court investigator when the court needs to make decisions about end of life care or address fights between adult children about care options. It is weird work. It feels very strange for me as a stranger to be determining what quality of life might mean for a stranger and it is very expensive.

As a practical matter, our benefit system makes nursing home care a much easier option than in home care even when in home care would be cheaper and better.

The only plus I can see is that when this wave passes we are going to have a lot of excess nursing home space and assisted living space that we might be able to convert for hospital space and housing in areas that need it along with reclaiming a lot of underused housing that seniors are sitting on that would be better used by young families.

Expand full comment
JCW's avatar

Gerontocracy is bad.

Expand full comment
Spencer Roach's avatar

The clear solution is to limit voting to ages 18 through, say, 70

Expand full comment
Bo's avatar

What about just having a monarchy? Just some sort of philosopher king? That would fix things! : )

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Elect the philosopher king. Bring back the Holy Roman Emperor!

Expand full comment
Jacob Manaker's avatar

Genuine history question: did the Holy Roman Emperors ever claim to be *philosopher* kings? Universal monarch, sure, but never a philosopher-king I think.

Expand full comment
Jason Christa's avatar

Why would that change anything? Millennials have been the biggest voting block for a while now, and they fall neatly into that age range.

Expand full comment
p b's avatar

This would solve basically all problems in the US

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

It's wrong to blame declining birth rates on the cost of child rearing, birth rates are declining everywhere, even in nations that have done a lot to decrease the cost of having kids. There is very little correlation between cost and birth rate.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

The "cost" is high if you define "cost" by how much of a pain in the ass we have made child rearing as a society. It is so much more work than it used to be.

- schools are closed a lot more than they used to be, and generally spend less time there.

- day care is expensive. Yes, this is a money problem, but it also thereby becomes a *time* problem. Kids in daycare less == parents working harder to care for kids

- societal expectations are whack. I don't want to be "old man yells at clouds" but it is just crazy how we do not allow kids to be alone, like, ever. When I was a kid, I walked a mile home from school alone, from the second grade on. Now we don't even let 6th graders walk alone from the house to the bus stop.

Expand full comment
sp6r=underrated's avatar

It is very clear that voters are going to demand the government provide entitlement programs such that they can retire after decades of drudgery.

It is upto policymakers to avoid the cycle you outline but no old-age entitlements is a complete dead end politically.

Expand full comment
Avery James's avatar

This is smart, except what are some parental benefits that have been cut in the last two decades? I can't think of any. Most of what's happening is just additional debt that could require middle class taxes to go up in the future. Policy-wise, the tax credit and tax cut is king right now. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich fought, Jack Kemp won.

Speaking to the piece, Matt's central argument is Democrats will create a bold new coalition to significantly raise government revenue for more social democracy. They didn't pull that off in 2009 and 2021. And if you look at the past 50 years[1], it's not clear anybody ends up doing that. Revenue has been at 17-18% of GDP for a while. It's smart to eloquently lay out the items you think your party should prioritize and the other party should not.

But Obama did the same thing in his negotiations that went nowhere, as Bob Woodward documented in The Price of Politics. At one point in the book, Biden comes to the realization that many items the Congressional Dems are asking for in a compromise do not actually have the votes in their own party. An interesting question is if the Democratic party's rhetorical move leftward on economics has made them more or less aware of that fact. The same could be said for rhetorical plays to younger culture politics and reliance on defending costly entitlements for older voters.

[1] See first line graph: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59946

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

It's worth pointing out that the "Social Security cliff" isn't real.

If the system isn't reformed ahead of time and the trust fund runs out, Congress will not vote to make drastic cuts in current benefits. They just won't. They'll vote to use general revenue to cover the shortfall and run up the budget deficit even further.

The trust fund is a meaningless accounting fiction—the federal government is lending money to itself, which makes the balance in the fund both an asset and a liability—so there won't be any macroeconomic impact if that happens. There's no difference between running down the volume of Treasury bonds owned by the fund (which is what the shortfall does before exhaustion) and running up the volume of Treasury bonds owned by private investors (which is what it would do after exhaustion).

The reality is that Social Security funding is a long-term problem which gets gradually and continuously worse as long as you don't fix it. There may be a sudden crisis at some point if the ratio of federal debt to GDP becomes visibly unsustainable, but exhaustion of the trust fund isn't a crisis point.

Expand full comment
David Abbott's avatar

Matt’s pedantry has a firmer basis. Benefits cuts are written into current law. The accounting fictions would trigger benefits cuts absent Congressional majorities choosing to kick the can. Yet we all know the can would be kicked.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

That's right. The trust fund was created to provide an artificial sense of urgency about making one particular set of taxes match one particular set of expenditures. But since the real issue is the overall solvency of the federal government, it doesn't actually matter if they match. And since Congress knows the urgency is fake, they probably won't make hard decisions that they'd refused to make previously.

Expand full comment
Loren Christopher's avatar

Worked for a bit on budget projections, this problem happens all over the place because Congress writes lots of expenditures to have an expiration date for CBO scoring reasons even though everyone knows it's a fiction and will be changed. The way the people doing the projections dealt with it was to do two different projections:

- "current law" with fake expirations

- "current policy" with realistic can-kicking included

And then just highlight the current policy projection in all your charts.

Expand full comment
Matt Ball's avatar

+100

Uncap FICA

Expand full comment
policy wank's avatar

But they might. The just might. 2032 is 8 years from now, as is 2016. Think about the changes in the country since 2016. Let's not pretend we can predict the future that well. We have no idea who will be in power when we go over the cliff nor what the Republican Party will be like.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

I think artificial intelligence makes this entire set of issues a lot less interesting, to be honest.

Nobody has any idea how AI is going to affect productivity growth, or life expectancy, or healthcare costs. We also don't know whether it's likely to exterminate humanity ten or fifteen years from now, or to elevate us to some unimaginable utopia within a similar timeframe.

Maybe we should be thinking about those things, rather than trying to project when the Social Security trust fund will run out.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

Well said.

Matt wrote one odd thing today: "[Trump's] plan is to make no changes to Social Security, run off the exhaustion cliff, and then everyone’s benefits are exhausted."

I assume that was a result of too fast writing, since Matt obviously doesn't think that (and said as much a couple paragraphs earlier).

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

I don't know. If it takes an act of Congress to prevent cuts then it's not hard to imagine Congress not getting it done. If there's a conservative majority in Congress at that time, I have a hard time imagining them intervening to run up the deficit further.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

Every Republican congressman who allowed Social Security benefits to be cut would be voted out of office, regardless of how conservative their districts were. It would make "Dobbs" look like a walk in the park.

Expand full comment
Steven's avatar

I think this was true in 2004, but I'm not sure about 2024. Most Trumpist seniors I've seen would happily starve in the street if it meant Trump in power and minorities worse off.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

There is no fury greater than the fury of seniors facing Social Security cuts. Ask Dan Rostenkowski.

Expand full comment
Charles Ryder's avatar

>They'll vote to use general revenue to cover the shortfall and run up the budget deficit even further.<

I hope you're right. I wish they'd take that vote now.

Expand full comment
mathew's avatar

To the extend the trust fund being exhausted helps motivate needed reforms it's a good concept

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

Of course it will not make much difference but I wish we WOULD agree, no champion, raising the retirement age. We should destroy the social norm of age-based "retirement" and open up space for mid-career education to make longer working careers more productive. [This could be especially beneficial to women who take (a smaller % of) time out of working life for children.]

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

Maybe if you're a a lawyer or coder, this sounds like a great idea, but if you've spent your whole life working as a grocery store clerk, a construction worker, or in nursing, I doubt you want another 10 years of a "productive career."

Plus, part of the reason for some of our stagnation is the Boomers won't stop bleeping working.

Expand full comment
John from FL's avatar

I half-liked your comment! The first part is spot-on. The last sentence assumes facts not in evidence -- we are not in stagnation. Our economy is the best in the developed world.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-are-young-liberals-so-depressed

https://www.slowboring.com/p/debbie-downer-progressives-arent-3ab

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

Oh, economy for lower-income and even many middle-income and such people is great! I'm all on Yglesian/Stancil thought on that.

But, there is stagnation in the middle/upper middle class seemingly, even if not directly economic, but through lots of complaints about a lack of upward trajectory in their professional lives, compared to prior generations, is because the old boss who would've died from a heart attack at 66, is now living to 80 and enjoys his job, which means your manager can't become the big boss, and you can't become the manager.

So, you may even get a raise, but you feel stuck in space, and that's something a raised retirement age will make even worse.

Expand full comment
John E's avatar

Meh, the stagnation seems more that people assume they can move into a role once their boss retires. If you want to be in charge of something, go start something new.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

Need faster growth (boo deficits!), more firms with more VP's. :)

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

Your later comment reflects to tired old "lump of labor" view: there are only a certain number of jobs and we have to ration them out ("immigrants take 'our' jobs") or on the margin, "create" them with "jobs programs" ( to gesture to both the right and left wing version of it).

Expand full comment
Lisa C's avatar

I've always preferred the idea of retirement ages being dependent on work history and the type of work. Social Security already categorizes people's work history for disability assessment, so it's not like it's beyond them to interpret someone's employment and make assumptions about how demanding the physical labor is. SSA already has a mechanism in place to determine if someone's been doing arduous labor, if they can return to that labor, and if they have transferrable skills to other jobs.

The disability process is a nightmare, but I could see some of the functional aspects of it being repurposed to determine if someone should work until 70 or not. Do they have transferrable skills to a job that isn't exertionally demanding? Can they continue their laborious job as is? No? Eligible for early retirement at 62, full retirement at 67. Yes? Early retirement at 67, full retirement at 70.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

I get the idea that some people want to "retire" and even "need to" retire at 67. I just want to make it (as someone said) "fuzzy." But for sociological ground. NOT to reduce the taxes that will be needed to pay for whatever benefit we can decide on.

Expand full comment
Jonah A's avatar

I love that idea. I have a recurring daydream where we create massive programs for the hiring of the capable elderly as extra hands and eyes for childcare. Maybe even a minimum wage carve out, if we’re considering unpopular policies.

Research seems to be moving in the direction of retirement being bad for health, but at the same time there are so many jobs that you just can’t (or don’t want) to keep doing. Meanwhile we’re suffering from a lack of affordable childcare, a loneliness epidemic that hits the oldest people hardest, and we’re struggling at the margins to subsidize retirement. Seems to me it would kill three birds with one stone.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

That could be one dimension. But I also want to see more years of engagement with conventional jobs, though perhaps with more flexibility/less than top lifetime pay.

Expand full comment
Ted's avatar

Indeed. It would be very useful to have a much fuzzier border between employment, training, and retirement.

Expand full comment
Jonah A's avatar

Oh, 100%. That’s just the rider I’d add to your comprehensive bill.

Expand full comment
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt's avatar

"Raising the retirement age" is a deeply misleading phrase. Currently, Social Security can be taken starting at 62, and the maximum benefits are available if you wait until age 67. The RSC proposal (and everything else that uses that phrase) is about changing 67 to a higher number, which is functionally a benefit cut for anyone who retires from 62-67. No one has proposed (that I know of) to raise the minimum age from 62. Furthermore, because both retirement and Social Security enrollment are complex and significant financial decisions, they do not always happen at the same time -- many people retire before taking Social Security, people keep working while on Social Security, people enroll in SS and Medicare at different ages, etc.

The "retirement age" is a cultural notion (AARP allows you to enroll at age 55). Cutting Social Security benefits is not going to change it meaningfully.

Expand full comment
MagellanNH's avatar

>> and the maximum benefits are available if you wait until age 67

As I understand it, 67 is considered full retirement age, but retirees get maximum benefits by waiting until age 70 to start receiving benefits.

I believe the way it works is that every year they delay starting benefits between full retirement age and age 70 increases their lifetime monthly payment by 8% (adjusted for inflation) versus starting benefits at their full retirement age.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

I agree. I'm talking about changing norms, which could be reflected in 67 gradually increasing. And the norms include both worker expectations and firm's policies. This is related to the issue of falling fertility rates and possible disruption of careers by AI. The desirability of reducing the part of the defect coming from Social Security is just a nice hook.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 26, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

"The less one has to work for money during one’s life the better"

Ah yes, democracy at its finest, where everyone must behave according to one group's specific preferences.

Maybe we should, instead, have a reasonable safety net, and then just let everyone do what they want, like in a .... free country?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 26, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Why are young people more worthy than old? Who decided 55 is "old"?

I am guessing that the answer to the second question is that you did, and is highly correlated to why you, who are younger than 55, think that those older than you are less worthy to work.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 26, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Jacob Manaker's avatar

"Screw that old people working keeps the young out of jobs."

As Thomas Hutchinson pointed out elsewhere in the thread, this is the lump of labor fallacy. An old person working doesn't "keep the young out of jobs"; it means the young need to develop different skills from the previous generation so they don't have to compete with them.

Expand full comment
Wigan's avatar

Maybe this is even more infeasible, but it might make sense to raise the retirement age for white collar workers only.

Expand full comment
srynerson's avatar

The problem there is that white collar voters are (generally speaking) the most politically influential class of voters since they are more likely to vote, more likely to donate money, and more likely to actively lobby their elected officials.

Expand full comment
Wigan's avatar

True, but pissing off some of the electorate is better than pissing off all of it, and maybe class resentment would even win you some votes. It's probably true that the most successful white collar workers would be the most against it but fwiw a few years of SSN income is trivial for many of those people.

Expand full comment
A.D.'s avatar

I think means-testing benefits is the closest thing to this. Richer workers will take less in retirement which is _kind of_ like retiring later.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

But do all white collar workers really WANT to stop working?

I say raise for all but with easier (but enforced) disability. Like maybe being dismissed for cause as evidence.

Expand full comment
Wigan's avatar

The thing about the retirement age is it doesn't directly stop you from working, it just stops you from taking benefits that *could* replace your income.

Very successful white collar workers who either love their jobs or have plenty of money are the least effected by changes in retirement age.

A 65 year old school secretary is a different matter, she (or he) probably wants to stop working but needs the income. For a 65 year old partner at a law firm a couple years of SSN income don't matter.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

Let's just raise the cap on taxable earnings first. Then, down the road and if we're still in a hole, maybe then we can talk about changing the retirement age.

Expand full comment
srynerson's avatar

The problem as some other people have noted here is that we're close enough to running out the SS surplus that lifting the cap on taxable income only pushes the date of insolvency back by a short period of time. (If it had been done a couple decades ago, it would have extended the insolvency date far more.)

Expand full comment
California Josh's avatar

I have been supporting this for years, but can't see how it would ever happen practically.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Or just cut SS benefits for high-income retirees.

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

I used to think this was a terrible idea politically, because it'd turn SS into a 'welfare' plan instead of an entitlement, but old people vote anyway, but I'd still want this to be a "hard" compromise that a future Democratic President has to make after a Republican congress makes him, not something a Democratic trifecta agrees too.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

SS has always been welfare. It is an income transfer from currently working people to formerly working people. Politicians just lie about what people put in is what they get out.

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

Oh, I agree - I just necessarily don't trust the voters to be OK with their Social Security now being welfare, especially if the GOP can try to attack it. In a perfect world, yes, it's welfare, and that's a good thing.

Expand full comment
mathew's avatar

Yes, raise the retirement ageand index it to life expectancy

Expand full comment
Smarticat's avatar

Doesn't that require a job market that wants to hire and retain older workers though? Age discrimination is a real thing for workers starting in their 50s across the board. In white collar/corporate/office type jobs they either become too costly salary-wise when employers start weighing the trade-offs of letting them go and hiring an entry level college replacement for much less and managing the experience gap, and then there's the company health plan where age is one of the few rating variables allowed (and having more older workers on a plan means it costs more for everyone). In other jobs and professions it's a physical ability issue if the job is manual labor or otherwise physically demanding - even in professional jobs, like, do you want to be operated on by a 75 year old surgeon with arthritis and shaky hands, even if they're mentally "on top of their game"? Do we want 70 year old cops doing beat duty?

It does nothing other than shift the costs off the government's books to make some policy decision about holding back full SS benefits until age 72 or whatever they want if employers overall do not want to hire 72 year olds to work for them or keep workers on the job until they're 72. And there are very strong market signals that we have from the past decades that employers barely want to hire and retain 65 year olds, so what do we expect will happen by raising the retirement age other than helping the government's books, but offloading the cost of that onto a demographic share that will just have their most precarious employment years extended (and while the cost of their health care in particular will dramatically increase during this time - which is another consideration, what's the over under on how private insurers will rate private health care plans before a Medicare age of eligibilty into the 70s??) before they can "fall" into the safety of SS and Medicare - and that's even if they have private savings, which they now run through in that precarious time (if allowed to tap) which will make them even more dependent on Medicare and SS when they finally do qualify.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

I agree that this is more than just "raise the retirement age. Paying (less) for (declining) performance is fine. It's a mind set I'm talking about. Firms ought to actually manage worker skills. not just the birthdays. But as lifespans have increased, presumably too has peromant of the oldest workers. Oh of course the crazy US system of having employers buy health insurance for their workers is a problem.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 26, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Jacob Manaker's avatar

"that’s what the money printer is for"

You mean, besides inflation?

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

"Critics sometimes analogize Social Security to a “pyramid scheme” which I think is unfair"

It owns no revenue-generating assets except US gov't debt with almost no returns. It relies on funding from future contributors to pay current contributors. It's not a scam, it's upfront about what it's doing, but of course it's a pyramid scheme in structure.

Honestly, the best solution historically would have had nothing to do with taxes or benefits. It would have been to make the trust fund instead be a sovereign wealth fund investing in assets that generate actual returns. There's no reason whatsoever that "15% of everyone's income up to >$160k" shouldn't be enough to provide a much *higher* level of benefits to everyone than we currently have. Even for an individual, that's a high enough contribution rate to replace your entire (non-retirement-fund-contribution) income in retirement, assuming 8% average investment return and a 40 year working life. Pension funds can usually do better for lots of reasons. The $1T that was in the trust fund in 2000, properly invested, would have been worth $1T/yr in 2032, aka around 70% of current total social security spending.

At this point it's likely too late for that to push back the 2032 date too much.

Expand full comment
Ethics Gradient's avatar

Absolutely. The restriction to wasting the SS surplus on treasuries truly does seem like a staggeringly stupid own goal.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

I think the sovereign wealth fund could make a killing here. For example, it could put a lot of money into, say, Lockheed Martin and then -- amazingly! -- Lockheed Martin wins the next big fighter jet contract and its share value soars!

Of course, the government could sue itself for insider trading.

Expand full comment
Lost Future's avatar

>Of course, the government could sue itself for insider trading

The Matt Levine column on this would be off the hook

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

Even that would basically just be a weirdly distributed stimulus package, putting lots of money in the hands of lawyers and paying itself fines to build up the treasury.

Now I'm wondering what would've happened if we'd responded to the dearth of 2009-era "Shovel ready" projects by hiring a bunch of lawyers to sue everyone doing something wrong.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

That would have been the equivalent to Keynes' program of digging holes and burying money in them.

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

Correct.

Expand full comment
Tokyo Sex Whale's avatar

A sovereign wealth fund may make sense for smaller countries because it would largely be invested in the overall world economy. A US fund would be mostly invested in the US economy and, thus, dependent on US economic growth. But that is equally true of the tax system.

Expand full comment
evan bear's avatar

It isn't a pyramid scheme because no one has a right to the funds they paid in. If you pay in for 40 years and die at age 60, then you get nothing back. That's why it's correctly characterized as a form of insurance, specifically insurance against living longer than expected and thus having more living expenses than expected. It may be the case that the actuarial calculations for this insurance program as presently run don't add up, but they could be made to add up, with or without subsidies. There's no reason why the program would be necessarily doomed to collapse, whereas a pyramid scheme is inherently doomed.

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

Yes, legally no one has a right to the money they put into social security, or to anyone else's money in the future. It's all very public, how it's organized, and not illegal in any way. Everyone *should* know that they're paying today for someone else's benefits, not for their own benefits in the future.

A large fraction of people, though, *don't* know that. 80 years of rhetoric to the contrary isn't law, but woe betide anyone who actually has to make those possibly-necessary changes. Once multiple entire generations have organized their life plans and lifetime savings strategies around a program's existence, it might as well be law for practical purposes. Hence all the can-kicking.

But just to be clear, following your reasoning: If I were running an actual pyramid scheme, but had fine print where I technically reserved the right to just tell people "Sorry, no more payouts," it would no longer be a pyramid scheme? Because it wouldn't be necessarily doomed? I don't buy it. I suspect that wouldn't save a private actor in court. I think that would come down to the degree to which the person running the scheme deliberately deceived those giving them money, both about what they're doing and about future expectations.

I guess the private sector equivalent would be if you ran a charity which took donations to give cash grants to people who need them. Nothing wrong with that! But constantly talking about how the same program will be there for those people in the future, without actually making preparations to shore up the economics to ensure that? Not the same thing!

Expand full comment
evan bear's avatar

I think everyone knows that if they die at age 60, they won't get any Social Security.

Expand full comment
Lost Future's avatar

I thought surviving spouses get their husband/wife's SS benefits if they die?

Expand full comment
evan bear's avatar

They do, but not everyone has a surviving spouse. The point still stands, that this is an insurance program where getting benefits is dependent on meeting the terms of the policy. It isn't a property right the way an investment is. A pyramid scheme is only a pyramid scheme because every investor in the scheme has been given a property right. If that feature isn't present, then it is by definition not a pyramid scheme. It may or may not be a well-designed insurance program, but it is an insurance program.

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

That's true.

Your spouse, if any, still may, though.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

You’re assuming facts not in evidence. The US is so large and so rich it very much remains to be seen if global markets could absorb that kind of capital.

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

I agree that trying to invest $1-3T at once would be very hard to absorb, but by 2000 we'd been building the surplus up gradually for decades, at a rate of <$200/American/year. It seems... unduly pessimistic to think the market wouldn't be able to find productive uses for an extra $40-80B/yr. That'd be roughly equivalent to saying, "If the average American family skipped a long weekend vacation a few hours drive away once a year, and put the difference in savings, global market returns would be substantially lower, and after 40 years the market still wouldn't be able to adjust and make use of the increase."

Considered another way, total global wealth was around $450T in 2000, and the trust was $1T, so we're talking a quarter percent difference in total wealth at that time? Still <1% if we only look at stocks and bonds instead of total wealth?

There are several sectors today that I'm confident could absorb tens of billions in investment a year, each, especially if they had a couple of years warning it was coming. And even if not, frankly, why is it the US government's problem if world market returns are slightly lower than they would be counterfactually?

Also, in the world where social security was well managed and invested like a large pension plan, we'd plausibly also see somewhat less private retirement savings, and increased spending, but I'm less sure of that.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

“ There are several sectors today that I'm confident could absorb tens of billions in investment a year, each, especially if they had a couple of years warning it was coming.”

We’re talking about $1.6 trillion a year which is nearly double the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund. Double! Per year being injected into global capital markets. And I assume we’re investing in all global markets? Argentinian cattle ranches, Indian power plants, Chinese electric car manufacturers…? Russia? Because if your limiting it to only our strongest allies or especially domestic markets then the problem is even bigger.

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

Per year? The social security trust fund is <$3T, total, currently. Over time, we've been putting tens of billions of new savings into it annually to get to that point.

Yes, if we'd been investing it all in the market since 1980 we'd now be increasing the size of the fund by about $1.5T annually as of 2024. This is equivalent to suggest US GDP could be 6% higher today if we'd had better economic policy since Reagan took office. Some of that would be due to growth, some would be due to us owning more of the rest of the world, and some would not happen due to lower world market returns. In all three cases the US is in a better position than it actually is, and the world as a whole would be net richer.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

Did you mean a simple one off conversion of the trust fund to a sovereign wealth fund? 3% of 9T is $270billion that’s not nothing but it’s not all that much in terms of federal budgeting.

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

Sorry for not being clear. I meant, I think this is how we *should have* been handling the trust fund all along since it began, and/or how we should handle it moving forward for new money going into the fund. If we were to convert the current trust fund to a wealth fund, I agree that it would need to be done carefully and judiciously, not just dumping trillions into the market all at once willy-nilly.

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

What area of government spending is on revenue-generating assets? Is military spending or Medicaid spending also a pyramid scheme?

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

No, in part because of how it's being presented.

Military: "You're going to give us money, and we're going to hire people to do a thing we need done."

Medicaid: "You're going to give us money, and we're going to spend it on goods and services for someone else."

Social security: "You're going to give us money, we're going to give it to another group of people who we took money from in the past, and you can hope that when you're old or disabled we'll still be doing that, but in public we'll talk about it as if it's a pension fund."

Also: There is government spending on revenue generating assets. Just not much of it, and most of it generates revenue for the public through externalities instead of profits flowing straight back to the government. And many assets that generate some revenue still operate at a loss, often intentionally.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

How did social security begin? Did it really start with no one collecting benefits, and people paying in while it built up a trust, until the people who paid in started retiring? With twenty years until anyone had paid in the full twenty years to collect full benefits?

Expand full comment
srynerson's avatar

No, people started getting paid benefits almost immediately after the program launched. (My recollection is that the first recipient only paid into the system for a few weeks and then collected benefits for like 20+ years before their death.)

Expand full comment
AnthonyCV's avatar

This. It was 1937, part of the New Deal, and a lot of people who were too old to keep working and couldn't have found employment needed help immediately.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

That’s what I assumed, which meant that current proceeds were needed to fund these benefits and there was no time for an investment fund to build up.

Expand full comment
Cassandra's avatar

Yes, and I think until quite recently almost all of the shortfall was due to the system initially paying out much greater benefits vs contributions to those first retirees

Expand full comment
p b's avatar

Not to mention a massive shot in the arm for investment into productive companies etc

Expand full comment
John Freeman's avatar

Reading about Republicans' desire for huge cuts to low income health care, I couldn't help but reflect on how good they are at keeping quiet about their unpopular ideas, the exact opposite of the Democrats. I mean, just imagine a bizarro universe where there was a large activist class of young Republicans who held tremendous sway at universities, legacy media, and prestigious institutions more generally. Any time someone on their side suggested easing up on proposed cuts to Medicaid, they screamed at that person and called them a Communist, socially and professionally shunning them. At the same time, Democrats focused heavily on advertising their support for things like affordable childcare and a living wage, while keeping any support for de-facto racial quotas, banning gasoline-powered vehicles and making it very difficult to purchase firearms on the DL.

Expand full comment
Polytropos's avatar

Vocal young educated Republicans who take serious policy stances actually are pretty repulsive to normal people— Blake Masters is pretty representative of the type— but there just aren’t many of them. (Smarter conservative-leaning young people tend to focus on just making money.) The downside for the Rs is that this deficit makes it much harder for them to construct policy and staff government with people who will advance their interests.

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

The difference is the number of people who want say, Mediciad cut to ribbons or the ability to spill pollution into rivers are very small, but they're powerful, and know the politicians directly, so they can be assured the politicians are on their side.

OTOH, the people who want various things you think are unpopular or bad ideas are less connected to power and don't trust the poltiicians will pass what they want, so they have to be loud and pressure the Democrat's.

Also, the GOP has laid out these plans concretely before - but as the Obama team would tell you in 2012 when they showed people the Romney/Ryan plan, low-info voters literally didn't believe it was true.

Expand full comment
Joachim's avatar

There are lots of odious Republican activists out there but Democrats are terrible at playing offense and attacking, while Republicans and their noise machine is great at the game of politics (and terrible at governing).

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

Also, this. GOPers say plenty of crazy things, but even MSNBC is less partisan than FOX News, and there isn't a whole completely partisan left-wing interconnected heavily funded by rich people group of organizations with massive reach.

Like, I know progressives are a punching bad here. But, even folks like Hasan, Chapo Trap House, The Young Turks, Majority Report, and so on are basically all listener/viewer supported for the most part, while The Daily Wire has tens of millions of dollars of right-wing backing and that's just one group. That's not even getting into Prager U, and so on.

If instead of reactionary to fascist politics, those billionaires got behind spending hundreds of millions on Larry Hoganism or Charlie Bakerism, the GOP would be the LDP of America.

Expand full comment
mathew's avatar

Really? Let's compare Texas or Florida with California or Illinois

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Every year the CBO releases a long list of potential taxes and spending cuts to close the future gap between Social Security and Medicare revenues and spending. The Manhattan Institute has summarized those recommendations, found here:

https://ibb.co/7N1MJkV

Expand full comment
John from FL's avatar

The single biggest lever to reduce the national debt is inflation. And the annual deficit can only be lowered with higher taxes for everyone (not just "the rich"). The future looks like higher taxes and higher inflation.

Everything being talked about by the Republicans is fantasy, until the reality sets in sometime in the future.

Expand full comment
Polytropos's avatar

Re: inflation— Japan’s example suggests that population aging has intense deflationary effects, to the extent that they had huge difficulty getting their inflation rate positive even with interest rates at zero, a lot of QE/debt monetization, and huge fiscal deficits. I’m not sure if that effect would dominate in the same way in the US, and I wouldn’t want us to go down Japan’s path, but it’s probably worth incorporating the scenario into your range of possible futures.

Expand full comment
Dan Quail's avatar

Republicans can remain irrational longer than the country can remain solvent.

Expand full comment
Colin Chaudhuri's avatar

I’d actually dispute we’re in for a future of higher inflation (I’ll agree with you about taxes. And to be bipartisan about this; hey Democrats you can’t pay for the programs you want with just taxes on the rich).

I’ve been convinced by Noah Smith that we are on the cusp of a pretty profound improvement in productivity (batteries, AI, etc). Improving the productive capacity of the country should create downward pressure on inflation. Also, a world where we move definitively to one not based on oil is a world way less susceptible to inflationary pressures of oil price volatility (it’s my argument to centrist and right of center ppl who may not be convinced of green energy for its impact on global warming. Moving away from oil has a lot of other benefits to our society). In addition, if god willing, Biden wins, we should still have some pretty healthy immigration (though hopefully more legal and less chaotic than now).

Point being there are a lot of real reasons to suspect there should be downward pressures on inflation (in America at least) that should keep it in check medium to long term.

Expand full comment
Charles Ryder's avatar

It's possible productivity increases will stave off higher inflation, sure. But higher taxes look absolutely baked into the cake to my eyes unless we're willing to green light a fairly major increase in immigration and/or let grandma starve.

Expand full comment
Avery James's avatar

If we are on the cusp of a large rise in productivity, shouldn't the gains of it mostly go to workers rather than government coffers?

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

Eliminating Medicaid and a lot discretionary spending would lower inflation.

Expand full comment
REF's avatar

By unemploying large swaths of doctors? By killing off the poor? What is your theory here?

Expand full comment
Allan's avatar

ending a demand-side subsidy will lower demand (that doesn't mean that, like, it's a good idea)

Expand full comment
REF's avatar

Ah, agree that in the simplest sense that is true. Medical costs would fall. I do think that such a dramatic change could have unexpected consequences (inflation related or not) which might far outweigh that particular consideration.

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

The theory is that the federal government spends too much.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

So getting rid of the payroll tax ceiling brings in just 0.9% of GDP, whereas the shortfall is 5.5% of GDP?

I thought those two figures were closer. Hasn't someone estimated that this would resolve about half of the problem?

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Maybe for Social Security only. Medicare has a larger future revenue shortfall than SS, and the 5.5% of GDP shortfall is from both programs combined.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

I wish they'd included higher alcohol taxes (one of Matt's favorite options, I think). My napkin calculation was that raising them to $1 per drink would bring in about 1% of GDP if alcohol consumption didn't decrease. Of course it would decrease, which is part of the point, but maybe that would cut Medicare expenses down the line.

Expand full comment
Nude Africa Forum Moderator's avatar

Total alcohol spending seems to be around 1% of GDP (about $280B annually of a $28T economy), so a tax that raised that much in revenue would mean alcohol spending as a share of the economy would double.

I know you weren't claiming there would be no decrease in consumption. But this seems to suggest 1% of GDP in revenue in just alcohol taxes would be hard to manage. Of course, there's also second order benefits to factor in (economic cost of excessive alcohol consumption was estimated at $250B in 2010, can't find a more recent estimate).

Then again, maybe we'd just be shifting people from alcohol to illicit substances of abuse: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2650484&download=yes

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

Shifting people from alcohol to marijuana would be a net benefit, I think.

Expand full comment
Nude Africa Forum Moderator's avatar

It’s possible, but have you considered that I don’t care for marijuana, while I enjoy alcohol very much? Surely this should shape the calculus somewhat.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

Probably a federal tax on marijuana would be reasonable too.

Expand full comment
deadbeef's avatar

To the extent that lower alcohol consumption results in longer lifespans, it could make Social Security and Medicare finances worse.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

That's known to be true for cigarettes (smokers would subsidize nonsmokers via Social Security even if there were no tobacco taxes) but I'm not sure it's true for alcohol.

The health and safety risks of drinking are much more externalized than those of smoking, which is why the optimal alcohol tax is very high.

Expand full comment
deadbeef's avatar

If by "externalized" you mean that my drinking is a risk to others as well as myself (e.g. drunk driving), from the perspective of an amoral AI government accountant, all early death is beneficial whether caused by my own actions or those of another. Early deaths from homicide, suicide, natural causes, all are "good" for SS finances.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

I don't know the statistics. Is alcoholism more of a problem for older people or younger people?

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

No idea. But I've read that more than half of total alcohol sales are to people who consume six or more drinks per day, which is the standard definition of alcoholism.

(I wonder what voter turnout among that group is. It might not be as politically risky as everyone assumes)

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Six drinks a day is wild.

Expand full comment
Seneca Plutarchus's avatar

Six drinks a day is way more than is required to be an alcoholic.

Expand full comment
Dan Quail's avatar

It's a big problem among Millennials. Cirrhosis rates among women of my cohort have all shot way up.

Expand full comment
Lisa C's avatar

The pandemic didn't help. I don't know if alcohol abuse rates among my cohort will ever recover.

Expand full comment
Dan Quail's avatar

This is where things like drug price negotiating and price setting come in.

But alas, Americans hate paying taxes but they want all these things.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Unpopular opinion: there should be an international treaty on pharmaceutical payments amongst the US, Canada, UK, EU, and Japan. Sure, Medicare can unilaterally pay less for drugs. But all the other rich countries won't start paying more to make up for America paying less. They like free-riding on America. Decreasing pharma company revenues will lead to less innovation. We need a world where America pays less and other rich countries pay more for pharmaceuticals.

Expand full comment
Jeff Rigsby's avatar

Matt wrote a substack about this! The solution is to make drug trials and approvals easier, so the pharma companies don't have to take massive risks on drug development and don't have to be compensated for those risks with massive profits on the drugs that work.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

I don’t think Matt made an estimate of how much would be saved/cost by those particular changes.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

That will help, but developing the very first dose (before trials begin) of a new drug costs a lot of time and money.

Expand full comment
REF's avatar

"Don't have to be compensated for those risks with massive profits on the drugs that work." So you are suggesting that they should, instead, be compensated with profits on the drugs that don't work???

Expand full comment
Charles Ryder's avatar

I've seen people citing the figure "70%" for the amount of Medicare (alone) funding gap reduced by eliminating the cap. That sounds plausible.

Expand full comment
City Of Trees's avatar

Eliminating the FICA cap is the clear place to start for me.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

4.6% of GDP to go.

Expand full comment
City Of Trees's avatar

Oh I know, that's why I said it's the start.

Expand full comment
Sean O.'s avatar

Raising payroll taxes and taxing employer-sponsored health insurance would close most of the gap. Add in some cuts to SS benefits for high-income retirees, change the inflation calculation, and having more immigration would finish closing the gap.

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

The bipartisan commitment to endlessly perpetuating our current system of government guaranteed retirement benefits is the most toxic dynamic in American politics.

Expand full comment
John from FL's avatar

The sad reality is the country would be in better shape if the Social Security privatization push back in 2004 would have been successful. At this point, it is one of the most toxic political ideas around. The Republicans couldn't formulate a way to do it without pairing it with tax cuts and people made sure it was forever branded as "dangerous and mean-spirited". Nice work, everyone!

Expand full comment
A.D.'s avatar

Serious question - how do you solve the moral hazard problem?

I was not opposed to the idea and it sounded good to me at first, but when I looked into it, I couldn't see a way around it.

If a low-income worker invests all their SS money in stocks and the bottom falls out of the marker - do you think we are going to let them be that poor in retirement or are we going to top them up? I don't see any political way we don't top them up, and then we're incentivizing even riskier investments.

Or do you think the gains would still out class it? If you're going to do that though, why privatize and why not just have the federal government have more of a sovereign wealth fund?

Expand full comment
Andrew Burleson's avatar

I think the solution is to share the upside and downside. The main problem is people have to be forced to save for retirement, so if you just started by turning SS into a 401k type plan where your taxes go into a safe default portfolio, then you’re off to a good start. We know that employer matching incentivizes savings, so doing some “government matching” can help incentivize more and also support low-income earners.

To mitigate the market timing risk, the fund should have rules where there’s a minimum and maximum return on your portfolio, so in great years part of the excess return is paid to the government, and in exchange some minimum annuity value is paid out by the government even if the market value of the person’s fund couldn’t cover that annuity that year.

Expand full comment
John from FL's avatar

The moral hazard problem is theoretical. If someone contributes over a 40 year career there is historically a zero percent chance of not having positive real returns.

And if the market is down over a 20-40 year span then we have bigger problems.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

“ there is historically a zero percent chance of not having positive real returns.”

That’s extremely inaccurate. A sizable portion of investors panic at market lows and sell and then panic again when markets do well such that their returns end up very negative.

If your plan at any time involves changing human nature then it needs a rethink.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

I think the idea is that people wouldn’t be able to choose when they put in and take out - it would be forced.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

And not choose the investment mix either? Who would chose it?

Expand full comment
A.D.'s avatar

That's true if you're following the general stocks+bonds investment advice. But the people who most need social security aren't the best at doing that.

Are you only allowing them to contribute to specific investments or are they allowed to do whatever they want with it? Am I allowed to try NFTs? Individual stocks?

If it's only specific investments - why not simply a sovereign wealth fund that handles this on its own?

Privatization theoretically adds two things:

1) Lets you get the "index" return

2) Lets you have a choice of investments

I agree that with #1 there's little risk of things tanking - but you could get that other way.s

With #2 that's where privatization is the only solution, but also where all the failings come in.

Expand full comment
Ethics Gradient's avatar

This is it exactly. Why does it make any sense to allow discretion in investment when (1) the optimal investment strategy for non-professional traders is already known ("buy index funds") and widely employed, and (2) The people who are most selected for needing these funds are *also* selected for low financial wherewithal and experience? What's the upside of making this subject to any kind individuated discretion? Particularly in view of the moral hazard issues.

You can individuate the *entitlements* (like we do with SS)--heck, if you must perhaps you can even allow people to do things like borrow against them as they for 401(ks)--but it's not clear that it makes sense to treat these as "private accounts" in the sense that that word is typically employed (i.e., with full discretion as to allocation).

Expand full comment
Lost Future's avatar

I'm not personally pro-privatization, but I think the argument is that the Social Security fund would be investing in private assets and then sending a check to retirees every month. Not that every retiree would have their own personal 401k with SS that they could invest in whatever

Expand full comment
City Of Trees's avatar

So if we had made it so people couldn't cash out to ~60-65, and we restricted the investment to index funds, would we get positive enough returns? And did Dubya's plan have these limitations, or was there the ability to choose more risk?

Expand full comment
Ethics Gradient's avatar

At that point though why are we privatizing it instead of running it as a sovereign wealth fund? Why allow people discretion instead of saying "you must buy VOO / VTI"?

Expand full comment
JCW's avatar

The problem is that no one--literallly, no one--knows what the actual outcome of such a policy would be. It's a sufficiently large amount of money and a sufficiently large amount of political pressure flowing into the stock market that the outcomes are just unknowable. To take one obvious case, the market crash associated with the housing crisis / Great Recession that came on what would have been the immediate heels of implementation would have played out politically in different ways--maybe small, maybe large, but different.

This is why, even though I'm pretty sympathetic to the theory on privatization, I just really don't think it would "work" in the way that you or I might hope. It would change the existing dynamics of the market in ways that are literally unpredictable. Maybe that would end up better, maybe it would end up worse, but I think it's probably a true coin flip to know.

Expand full comment
REF's avatar

The sad reality is that a successful privatization of SSI works great until the next "Great Depression." Then everybody's retirement savings gets wiped out and we need an SSI 2.0 on top of SSI 1.0 to eliminate the old people starving in the streets.

Expand full comment
John from FL's avatar

This is the "dangerous and mean-spirited" branding at work.

Expand full comment
Polytropos's avatar

It’s probably worth noting that replacing social security’s fixed payments with equity investments would have some bad macroeconomic properties— the program would exacerbate business cycles instead of helping to dampen them as it does now.

Now, you could imagine another alternative world where the Social Security trust acts like CalPERS, makes fixed payments, and tries to use a broadly diversified investment strategy to generate the relevant returns. But that would also be tricky— the SS trust is arguably bigger than the capacity of existing alternative investment strategies, and there would be a lot of pressure for the fund to invest in ways that promoted particular policy objectives but don’t necessarily provide great returns for beneficiaries.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

You’re assuming that a sudden infusion of capital wouldn’t have serious negative impacts to global markets and investment returns.

Expand full comment
Avery James's avatar

But it wouldn't have solved the cost at all and would've created a new political football stock index for politicians. As Chris Pope notes, "Republican proposals to add private accounts to Social Security would have slightly raised federal spending on the program from 2020 to 2060."[1] Between this, comprehensive immigration reform, and the surge, the Bush administration's playbook after reelection was just remarkable in burning political capital for not-really solutions.

[1]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/private-accounts-are-no-silver-bullet

Expand full comment
Charles Ryder's avatar

Agreed. Our country's commitment to guaranteeing a modicum of dignity and comfort to older Americans is a travesty.

Expand full comment
Ethics Gradient's avatar

I mean, fiscally speaking, yes, obviously…

(Ed.: actually on further consideration I’m less certain that this is true, tongue-in-cheekness of the original response notwithstanding, depending on how social relations would be otherwise distorted to privatize the burdens of prime age workers doing more to care for elderly relatives.)

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

I mean, a look at the elderly poverty rate shows a lot of people either couldn't or didn't care for elderly relatives. Also, hoping your kids aren't SOB's (or you weren't a SOB to your kids) is not a good plan.

Expand full comment
Binya's avatar

What's toxic about it? People really like it?

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

It's incredibly toxic that so many of the incentives align to prop up these bad, wildly costly programs at the expense of good ones. It's a disaster for the country that such a gigantic share of discretionary spending gets absorbed by relatively well off retirees instead of promoting future productivity. Matt admirably covers all the good stuff we could be doing absent these unsustainable albatrosses.

Expand full comment
MagellanNH's avatar

As I understand it, the way SS taxes and benefits are structured, relatively well off retirees have subsidized less well off retirees for their entire lives.

Perhaps this is wrong, but I believe that if a well off retiree's lifetime payroll deductions (and their employer's contributions) had been separately accrued in an account earning a treasury note interest rate, they'd get higher lifetime payments than they get under social security.

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

The problem with the program is that it takes money from workers and transfers it to people who there's no justification for transferring anything to at all. Every dollar SS pays out to some rich person is a waste. Period. The fact that some of the taxes they paid back in the day to fund retirees benefits when they were workers were called "social security" taxes doesn't actually mean anything.

Expand full comment
Flume, Nom de's avatar

> Every dollar SS pays out to some rich person is a waste. Period.

This is a long-standing argument, but I agree with team "give social security to everyone" because the politics of a universal program are better than those of a targeted poor person program (see Medicare vs. Medicaid).

Expand full comment
MagellanNH's avatar

This ignores the fact that social security was created and passed by congress under the justification that it was more of an insurance program than an entitlement program.

I believe it's still best to conceive of SS as an insurance program for the elderly, rather than a welfare program for the elderly.

Of course we can argue about the details of what that exactly means, but do you think that fundamental framing is wrong?

Expand full comment
Avery James's avatar

SS was going to be more of an old age insurance program than a middle class entitlement program at a few points in the 1930s. So far as one can tell, it became the latter due to a couple interventions by FDR and the maneuvers of Southern Democrats.

"Why did America end up with a public-pension system that flouted popular opinion while violating both the egalitarian values of the left and the small-government objectives of the right? To find the answer, we must dig deeper into the political maneuverings and influences behind Social Security's development, beginning in the 1930s."[1]

[1] https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/why-is-social-security-regressive

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

I think that fundamental framing was and always has been a lie hidden by the quasi pyramid scheme structure of the program. SS taxes have never been meaningfully tied to SS benefits, even now no one seems to believe that cutting benefits when the accounting fiction "trust fund" runs out is how it's supposed to work.

Expand full comment
Binya's avatar

GDP isn’t everything. If social security was actively harming the economy like NIMBYism does that’d be one thing. But it isn’t. So I don’t really see how one can object to Americans’ overwhelming desire to support this program. There certainly seem worse elements of US fiscal policy.

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

Transferring tax dollars from workers to wealthy retirees absolutely is actively harming the economy.

Expand full comment
A.D.'s avatar

Generally agree - I'm against increasing payroll taxes without increasing benefits, but I think it's a good thing to means-test (with phase-out, no cliff) the paid out benefits. Something like take away $1.50 of social security annual income for every $100 of 'liquid' wealth I have. (Assuming the 3% "safe" investment rule, then this would be -$1.50 for every $3.00)

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

Does that mean zero payments at the level of savings an average upper middle class person will have? If there are still payments at that level of savings, then this will discourage savings, which seems bad.

Expand full comment
A.D.'s avatar

I would think it would be the opposite, that zero payments discourages savings - you're not getting paid while you have savings, so splurge!

This would still provide payments so that there's no incentive to "waste" your money. Like, if you spend your savings pre-retirement buying a bigger house, then your "income" drops by more than SS pays you back.

On the margin if you could buy a bigger house or buy a permanent annuity. If the annuity would pay $10,000 annually, that would drop your SS income by $5,000 annually. So you're still up $5,000. If it dropped your SS income by $10,000 annually you'd have no reason to "save" on this annuity, but at half you can be income richer and not splurge on that house etc.

Expand full comment
Milan Singh's avatar

That’s democracy Dave! Most people support this!

Expand full comment
Dave Coffin's avatar

There's the normal layer of objections I have to majoritarian democracy, and then there's whatever the hell kind of vaguely corrupt, personal financial reliance interest induced voter behavior the statutory construction of SS results in.

Expand full comment
City Of Trees's avatar

Without offering an opinion on the merits of what you posted, I would add that almost everyone believes that there's something that has majority support is bad and should not be allowed to become law. That's the whole basis of the Bill of Rights and much more of the Constitution.

Expand full comment
ZFC's avatar

Wise words. Now time to take a big sip of coffee and tab over to a slow-boring immigration thread

Expand full comment
David Abbott's avatar

Matt’s post ignores history. Since Reagan, Republicans have promised to pay for tax cuts by cutting entitlements. They’ve never really done this other than some smallish changes to food stamps. At least 90-95% if

of Republican tax cuts have been deficit financed. This practice is a far better predictor of Republican behavior than Paul Ryan’s ten year plans or the musings of the Republican Study Committee.

A Republican trifecta would probably mean higher inflation and interest rates. They’d probably cut the benefits of some especially unsympathetic poor people. However, I seriously doubt they would stand by and let social security benefits decrease by 23%, much better to borrow the money and spread the pain via inflation.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

Matt writes: "illegal immigrants working with fraudulent documents are especially valuable to Social Security because their employers pay taxes into the system but the immigrants don’t collect benefits."

True, but let's do a reality check. Social Security pays out about $1.4 trillion per year. Undocumented immigrants pay in about $13 billion into the fund annually (https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/)

That's less than 1% of Social Security's annual payout. (Because although the about 8 million undocumenteds make up about 6% of the workforce, they make very low wages, thus pay low Social Security taxes.)

1% is a nice addition, but it's far from a game changer. Letting in more high-skilled immigrants would help a lot more.

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

Thanks for the numbers!

Expand full comment
Allan Thoen's avatar

Getting the federal government out of the business of being a claim-level insurance plan could be a positive thing, provided that the replacement isn't just a for-profit private insurance organization that pays claims but doesn't itself provide healthcare or operate under the control of healthcare providers.

When Medicare and Medicaid were created, hospitals, medical practices and other providers were small entities that lacked the cash flow and scale to bear insurance risk. That's not true anymore. A wave of concentration in healthcare means that almost every state now has at multiple large IDNs that can bear insurance risk for their patients.

I.e., it would now be possible to cut the insurance middlemen out, and instead of paying an independent entity to bear insurance risk and pay claims for a patient, pay a subscription fee directly to a large healthcare entity such as an IDN, which then agrees to assume responsible for taking care of all of the patient's healthcare needs -- an update to the original Blue Cross model.

If a state wanted to structure it's Medicaid program that way, it should be allowed to do so.

It

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

Alternately, eliminate Medicaid altogether at the federal level and let the states figure it out.

Expand full comment
drosophilist's avatar

“Let the states figure it out” = “poor people in red states can FOAD when they get sick”

Not great, Bob!

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

What do you think is going to happen when the federal government defaults?

Expand full comment
drosophilist's avatar

Your question implies a false dilemma: either let the government default or defund Medicaid. There are other options, like cutting funding for something else or increasing taxes.

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

Sure, I’m being provocative, but something’s got to give.

Expand full comment
Jesse Ewiak's avatar

We aren't, because we're the reserve currency, #1 economy, global hegemon, and so on. Now, if the GOP decides cutting Planned Parenthood spending or whatever is more improtant than that, yeah, things will be messy, but it'll be that which screws up our credit, not social spending.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

Florida would face a heavy burden as Matt mentioned Medicaid is the largest funder of nursing home care. FL would suddenly be on the hook for all those demented Snowbirds.

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

Florida can write its own laws.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

Laws can’t reverse the economic and political reality that FL voters aren’t going to let the demented elderly wander the streets.

Expand full comment
Green City Monkey's avatar

I wouldn't bet on that. There are still ways to fall through the Medicaid cracks and folks do. There are 100% demented elderly living on the streets in Seattle.

Expand full comment
Ken in MIA's avatar

I think it's a paucity of imagination that causes you to believe there's no way to make snowbirds pay for their own care.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

I notice you didn’t offer any suggestions.

Expand full comment
MagellanNH's avatar

>> They also resurrect a version of Ryan’s old plan to replace Medicare with a “premium support” program that would work like the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans actually tried this in New Hampshire and it was a disaster, maybe for a surprising reason.

The program lasted just one year, after which Republicans hastily reverted back to the old dedicated Medicaid system.

The problem was that the Medicaid population turned out to be much less healthy than the general ACA population and combining the Medicaid risk pool with the ACA risk pool caused insurance premiums to skyrocket for folks with ACA policies. This didn't matter so much for lower income ACA policyholders receiving subsidies, but it really killed higher income folks and many of them happened to be republican small business owners.

Expand full comment
Al Brown's avatar

Here's the thing about "tax the rich", or anybody else. The American people demand a certain level of publicly provided services. In a constitutional, democratic republic, elected officials either have to provide the services that the people demand in a constitutionally permissible way, or explain to the people why they can't have them and/or shouldn't want them. And they need to be honest about what those services are going to cost, and who's going to be taxed to pay for them.

NEITHER party has been willing to level with the American people on that since George H. W Bush and Bill Clinton. The Republicans have been worse, in my opinion, but both parties have just taken the easy way out, said "yes", and passed the bill on to our kids and grandkids. That has to stop.

Once you decide to be honest, you tax where the money is. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in the society we want. As long as the taxation is applied fairly and not confiscatorily, I for one am pretty agnostic as to level. We're pretty lightly taxed compared to most of the developed world. Deciding what we need, what we want, what we're willing to pay, and where those three things meet is something that regular people of good will and some comity should be able to work out for themselves. The Founders thought that we could, and so do I.

Expand full comment
Peter Gerdes's avatar

I appreciate the coverage of the boring stakes. However, those are also the things that are most likely to not happen due to political pressure and are relatively easy to undo if the public doesn't like them.

Trump has never been particularly loyal to any ideological viewpoint and any legislative agenda he isn't personally tied to (and even ones he is) seems likely to be something he reverses course on if people don't like it.

In contrast the effect he has on the integrity and general quality of the federal bureaucracy is something that can't just be repealed and is baked into Trump's management style. So while not unimportant I can't agree the boring stuff is the most important.

Expand full comment
David Abbott's avatar

Is Matt’s post campaign messaging or political analysis? It may be effective messaging, but assuming Republicans will do the unpopular things they propose in seldom read documents is naive.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

"Do" and "try" are different things.

They *tried* to privatize Social Security and repeal Obamacare etc. They weren't able to *do* these things because they're terrible at legislating.

Expand full comment
Milan Singh's avatar

They came within one vote of repealing the ACA in 2017 and John McCain is gone now. If Trump wins again who will be the pivotal member of the GOP Senate majority? What is their stance on the ACA?

Expand full comment
An observer from abroad's avatar

The 'Social Security Trust Fund' is an economic fiction, of course. All that happens is that taxpayers pay tax and this is then given to old people. There's fiscal fat to trim in Social Security, it's just the Republicans are going to just let shit happen without a plan.

Expand full comment
MagellanNH's avatar

Idk, this "economic fiction" characterization of the SS Trust Fund seems very strange to me.

I mean sure, all of accounting is economic fiction if you want to put it that way. OTOH, anyone who's ever taken an accounting 101 course understands the concept of accrual accounting and that's what the SS Trust Fund is. Accrual accounting is a widely used accounting practice in corporate finance, so if you're going to call it an economic fiction, you're essentially calling all of corporate finance economic fiction.

For me, the key with the Trust Fund is that it reminds us that specific taxes were levied to pay for social security and the taxation model for those taxes is very different from the model used for general income taxes. IMO, that justifies it being called a trust fund.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

And all your money is sitting in a vault in a bank and you can go pick it up anytime.

Expand full comment
Tiger Lava Lamp's avatar

Jeremy Horpedahl tweeted recently that in 1983 when the social secuity retirement age was last raised, 2/3rds of people opposed it but Congress did it anyway to make the system solvent for 30-40 years, which is now. I know Matt is all about popular positions and talking about things that he thinks making democrats win elections, but I'm worried that in the current political climate, we won't see the a similar unpopular but smart decision get made. Is this something that secret congress can do?

https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1772369236041531513

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

I don’t think Secret Congress can do a thing that will be heavily reported on afterwards. Because the heavy reporting afterwards is going to strongly associate the policy with the current president’s party, meaning that one of the two parties will rebel if the policy is either popular or unpopular.

Secret Congress is great for technical issues, like the ones listed in Matt’s first post on the topic:

The Every Student Succeeds Act, a major rewrite of federal K-12 policy

An overhaul of the Department of Veterans Affairs, spearheaded by Bernie Sanders and John McCain

The FAST Act, which authorized $305 billion over five years in infrastructure spending

A ban on incorporating plastic microbeads into health and beauty products

Then, during the Trump era, there was:

A ban on surprise billing

The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which created tougher standards for shell companies and cracked down on money laundering

A $35 billion investment in clean energy research and development, and a reduction in the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas

Raising the age of tobacco purchase from 18 to 21

https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-rise-and-importance-of-secret

Expand full comment
Tiger Lava Lamp's avatar

I would tend to agree, which means I don't know how a solution to this happens. Brian Reidl on the Reason podcast claims that taxing the rich doesn't raise enough money to cover the costs of SS + Medicare. What's the path then to making this not be a debt bomb? Hope for drastic GDP gain from AI advancements?

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

I’m not sure it’s smart. A lot of 65 year olds have already lost a fair bit of physical and cognitive ability.

Expand full comment
Lost Future's avatar

Either in this piece or another one last week Matt suggested exempting 65+ year old labor from income taxes, or at least greatly reducing them. To incentivize work without requiring it. Personally, I think more part-time work for the retired would be healthy both for them and for the economy

Expand full comment
Tiger Lava Lamp's avatar

Then they should probably save money when they have their cognitive ability or use the money from selling their house and moving somewhere smaller. A top heavy population pyramid makes it harder for the people who are still working to subsidize those who aren't/can't anymore.

Expand full comment
BronxZooCobra's avatar

The burden, as I understand it, is that when you have 2 retired people for every 1 working person the work of society needs to be done by a smaller number of people. Those working need to “carry” those that are no longer working. Saving money doesn’t change that fact.

Think of it this way with current returns Norway’s sovereign wealth fund would be able to let everyone in Norway retire. Would that actually work barring a huge influx of immigrants? No, it wouldn’t. Having various slips of paper doesn’t change the fact that work needs to be done.

Expand full comment