The deep problem is we developed expectations and made promises when there were 6 people of working age for every retiree, and the ratio is going to fall to 2-to-1 or worse. Money can't bridge that unless we invent magic ai robots in a hurry.
Either we are willing to accept the full cost of that, which means taking care of our own, or we're going to pay hard because of what happens when we don't take care of our own.
So which is it?
Getting 1x social security is not going to work when you get rent that is going up 2x as fast. But somehow the market basket of goods will still stay at 2%yoy…
Or we could just start having large families again like some groups (Hasidic Jews, Amish, some Evangelicals) do but I don’t think there’s much political will for that.
Just caring for one another is one of those labors and it is significant. Enabling our elders to have income lifted a heavy burden off the middle class. Having enough buying power to support the whole family, whether cohabiting or not was and remains a big deal.
We did that for our parents and their Social Security made a huge difference in how our kids grew up and our overall quality of life.
On a side note, universal health care would have a similar, positive impact on all but very large business.
We are going to need to value things differently.
We can pay people more, have them work fewer hours, allow flex in work time, place, manner.
It simply is not necessary to force everyone to work until they drop.
Again, taking the value out of everything has skewed things toward an artificial scarcity of time. Does not have to be that way.
I do not believe it should be that way.
If we somehow insist, fail to value things in ways that help us live better, the ripple impacts will just cost more.
A whole lot boils down to what we value and why.
Right now, for example, we do not value taking care of our own, instead focusing on money. We do not value basic labors well either.
These two have a serious, negative impact on things like social security, our general ability to compete with other nations and more.
Those basic labors save us doing not so basic labor a ton of time, for example, yet we pay a pittance, shame those performing them, and somehow expect the some 40 some Trillion those people did not take home to pass unnoticed?
We can run the nation leaner than we do, and we should. And those lower numbers mean those doing the labor should live well, seeing as how there is plenty to do.
If we do that, their buying power will grow our economy nicely. Liquid dollars and high demand are good things.
If we raise and or had raised our contribution caps, the program would be running just fine.
If we need to run a deficit on that for a time, so what?
Maybe we can cut back on endless war.
There are enough people, is enough technology to do just fine.
All of this is a priority problem and our priority at present is not well aligned with our people's needs and that can amd should change.
Say we do need more labor.
Fine, make being an American easy again. Plenty of people will step right up and do it.
Bring us your tired, your poor...
That's why I won't be retiring.
This is all a priority discussion.
It is not for some real constraint or other.
And simply making that choice for everyone is not necessary, and is poor policy that will cost us a whole lot more than getting our priorities right would.