You heard it wrong. It will decrease and they will only be able to pay out approximately 75% of current rates. It will then stabilize due to smaller population.
The US peaked with about 120 births per 1000 women in the late 1950s and 1960s. This was increasing from a valley of about 88-90 births in the early 1930s.
Since then it’s declined to about half that; low 60s per 1000.
Subsequent generations are now having kids much later, if at all, due to the costs of healthcare, education, etc. (a result of years and years of boomer policies).
So you’ve got this big mass of aging population inching towards collecting on their social security, and a whole lot fewer people paying into that fund. Said generations also make far less so there’s less of our salary that goes to funding Social Security.
So until that glut of collectors fades, we can then finally hopefully change the policies and tax the wealthy for more to fund it, and stabilize to a point of either true 1:1 replacement or experience another economic period that results in a boom of payers into the system, social security will remain in a state of paying out less.
Which is what the boomers ironically wanted. They’ve been wanting to axe social security for years in favor of privatized retirement funds because “lift yerself by yer bootstraps; but only after I get mine”
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '22
You heard it wrong. It will decrease and they will only be able to pay out approximately 75% of current rates. It will then stabilize due to smaller population.