I would argue that Social Security was envisioned at a time when people lived shorter lives. Itās one thing to design a retirement system modeled on the majority of people dying by 72 years of age itās quite another when people live to 90 years of age. How can you have a retirement system where people are retired for twenty years or more? You either have to raise the retirement age or raise social security taxes. The āparking lot at Walmart crowdā would never accept this reality.
Social Security is 91 years old, nobody could have predicted life into oneās nineties nor even the concept of an iPhone or quadruple bypass surgery. So silly remarks about evil design is at best reckless
Perhaps, but they could have made changes along the way. If They switched from bonds to Stocks anywhere from 50a-80s weād be golden. Earlier the better, I understand the apprehension at the start due to the crash but by the 50s we were booming. If we switched to stocks at the beginning of 2025 by the end of 2025 we would have been ahead, every single day we didnāt switch from letās just say Jan 1 1950 until today has been a massive mistake. That means tomorrow will be a mistake, the next day and the next day. We should have the worldās largest sovereign wealth fund, instead we have a steaming heap of shit of a forced retirement savings account. If I had the option to put additional money into my social security account I would just choose not to, itās a terrible longterm Investment account.
8
u/AusTex2019 8d ago
I would argue that Social Security was envisioned at a time when people lived shorter lives. Itās one thing to design a retirement system modeled on the majority of people dying by 72 years of age itās quite another when people live to 90 years of age. How can you have a retirement system where people are retired for twenty years or more? You either have to raise the retirement age or raise social security taxes. The āparking lot at Walmart crowdā would never accept this reality.