Solidarity or Speculation?
by Paul Precht
Dollars and Sense magazine, September/October
Those who would privatize Social Security ask us to give up
a pension with guaranteed benefits for a chance to do better on
the stock market. While the privatizers boast loudly of better
returns, they whisper about benefit cuts and wink at mutual fund
companies skimming off profits.
We're better off keeping a system that rewards work and guarantees
a decent retirement.
All the privatization plans currently on offer have three
things in common: they reduce the level of benefits; they take
money out of the Social Security fund for those benefits, and
they force you to use that money to play the stock market. With
no guarantee of return.
If the market is on the upswing when you retire or fall off
an I-beam, you can expect at least, maybe a little more, than
what is currently your right. That's because stocks earn more
than government bonds (where the Social Security Trust Fund invests
its surplus). They are also riskier. If the stock market crashes
on your retirement date and doesn't recoup its losses before you
die, you are in serious trouble.
But Social Security aims to make retirement a matter of solidarity
and rights, not luck. Society has a collective responsibility
to take care of its old and infirm -that's the solidarity part.
And we have a right to retire on a decent income once we've done
our share of work. We fulfill our responsibility by paying into
the system and by electing a government that guarantees our rights.
Because people are expected to live longer than in the past,
and because baby boomers will expand the rolls of retirees, pessimistic
projections have the system running a 23% deficit in about 30
years. To be prudent, we must come up with more money. That is
a painful political decision, but the privatizers avoid that by
promising a free lunch from the stock market.
There is no free lunch.
The privatizers' projections are based on a trick, as economist
Dean Baker of the Economic Policy Institute has shown. To fuel
the fear that Social Security is going broke, they predict slow
economic growth-not enough people working or people working for
lower wages means less money for Social Security. To present privatization
as the solution, they forecast high returns from the stock market.
However, the stock market usually provides high returns only during
periods of fast growth when profits are high. For both slow growth
and high returns to be possible, we would need a long-term speculative
bubble, with overly optimistic investors continually bidding up
stock prices. That's too risky for a system that provides 60%
of retirees with half their retirement income.
The more extreme versions of "reform" reduce monthly
payouts to about $400 per month, i.e. poverty level. Others are
more subtle, cutting payouts by recalculating increases in the
cost of living.
But does $700 - the average monthly retirement payment - seem
like a windfall that needs trimming?
The stealth reformers would also raise the retirement age
to 70. It's soon going up from 65 to 67 under a 1983 agreement,
so what's the big deal? Well, the '83 agreement virtually eliminated
the retirement of the average black man given his short life span.
The hike from 65 to 70 would cut the average white man's retirement
years nearly in half, since his median life span is 76.
The same politicians who are squeamish about raising the social
security tax on the wealthy have no problem tacking a mandatory
five years onto your working life.
That's because they have other agendas beyond shoring up Social
Security. Number one: greed. Mutual fund companies stand to make
millions managing the mandated individual retirement accounts.
Number two: ideology. Switching to individual retirement accounts
embeds in Social Security the principle that it is the individual's
investment savvy and not their work that guarantees retirement
or disability pay. It fosters the libertarian ideal that caring
for the disabled and elderly is not society's responsibility but
up to the individual. Good luck or bad, sickness or health, cushy
inheritance or low wage job, your on your own.
Those of us who don't share that world view face a challenge:
both to come up with practical solutions for Social Security and
to combat the view that the stock market provides a painless solution.
Why not increase social security taxes on the wealthy-only their
first $68,400 of wage income is currently taxed. Or fund shortfalls
out of general revenues by hiking corporate income taxes and cutting
A viable plan that spreads the pain among the classes will
go a long way towards combating public cynicism. So will an energetic
movement that makes social solidarity a real alternative to the
anxious and isolated scramble to secure a decent retirement.
Paul Precht is a printer, freelance writer and D&S intern