Comments on: Geezer Envy

By: Clint Lovell

Clint Lovell — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:48:46 +0000

As long as we are willing to think of fixing Social Security by increasing taxes or cutting benefits this is the shape of things to come.

By: herostratus

herostratus — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:13:02 +0000

A 65-year-old coal miner or longshoreman is simply older an less likely to be able to continue being productive than a 65-year-old philosophy professor or journalist. Yes, you would say that, being a knowledge worker. The fact is, the brain goes just as quickly as the muscles. It's just that, if you're a 65-year-old miner, and you can't do it anymore, nobody's going to carry you. If you're a 65-year-old lawyer, or professor, or whatever, they will carry you; they'll give you an office to fart around as long as you like. Of course, there are exceptions (just as there are in the mines or on the docks), but as a rule workers in their late 60s are just taking up space. This is not necessarily an argument against raising the retirement age. After all, we do live much longer than in 1932, so it's certainly something to consider. On the other hand, recognize that if you are asking businesses to begin retaining people in their professions or trades up to age 70, then you are asking businesses to lower their productivity.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:55:44 +0000

A 65-year-old coal miner or longshoreman is simply older an less likely to be able to continue being productive than a 65-year-old philosophy professor or journalist.

Assuming that the philosophy professor and journalist were being productive to begin with. ;-)

But as to the original article, both social security and welfare were born out of universal empathy after the great depression hit, which went a long way to providing that kind of empathy.

But it's a good argument for private accounts.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:36:40 +0000

Very good comments. An alternative way of looking at it, is to simple abolish SS and then provide ordinary welfare to those seniors who are in need. As the article said, the classic argument for SS was to prevent senior poverty and want; ordinary welfare, without the shell game of "lockboxes, etc" takes care of that (doesn't it?) without the incredible overhead.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:47:58 +0000

And just what makes you think that seniors will sit still and have their SS taken away.

You're more likely to lose your Social Security if nothing, or next-to-nothing (the Dems' alternatve) is done.

By: Wendall

Wendall — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:14:12 +0000

And just what makes you think that seniors will sit still and have their SS taken away. Even at 75 most of our trigger fingers function.

By: SteveL

SteveL — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:36:17 +0000

James, I agree with your comment to my post and I've added a clarification to the point I was trying to make.

By: Secure Liberty

Secure Liberty — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:13:58 +0000

Social Insecurity?
So what's Social Security all about after all? Via Outside The Belthway, I read the comments from Nicole Gelinas in the NY Post. But the centerpiece of Bush's plan would also protect workers from a subtler threat: As the Baby Boomers retire, our pe...