The big problem with having 7 billion people: They’re too old
The world’s population is expected to hit 7 billion sometime today. And the biggest part of the story, for me, is that we’ve reached this figure in large part by extending lifetimes rather than by having more babies.
Check out these two graphs — the first is from the Washington Post and depicts rising life expectancies at birth; the second is one I generated on Google with data from the World Bank, and it depicts falling birth rates:
Life expectancy at birth by region; graph produced by Washington Post with U.N. data
—
Fertility rates world-wide and in top 5 economies; graph produced on Google Public Data Explorer with World Bank data
These trends suggest some serious implications: for the use of resources, for the future strength of today’s strongest economies, etc. For today, I want to focus on what they mean for the systems the United States and other rich countries have built to redistribute wealth from the young to the old.
(And before someone objects, “Hey, I paid for my Social Security and Medicare! There’s no redistribution!” No, you didn’t; and yes, there is. You paid for your elders’ Social Security and Medicare, in exchange for the promise that future generations would pick up the tab for you. And that tab will be greater than the amount you paid in, just as your elders ran up a larger tab than they paid in. It is how the system was built, and the chief reason it is not wrong to liken it to a Ponzi scheme. How we reconcile past promises made and present/future financial realities is the question before us.)
The top five economies in the world are, in descending order: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany and France. In 1960, the fertility rates of all but Japan were above the so-called replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. In 2009, the latest year for which data are available, the closest any country comes is the American rate of 2.05. China is at 1.77. Japan and Germany are both below 1.4. For most of these countries, fertility rates have been below the replacement rate since the 1970s. World-wide, the fertility rate is 2.52 — about half the rate a half-century earlier.
The trend lines for the largest emerging economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, aka the BRICS — are similar. Russia alone is experiencing a bit of a baby boom…all the way up to a fertility rate of 1.55.
Simply put, leading economic powers will be less able to direct their resources toward economic growth as their populations age and their pension systems are strained. Modern medicine has made great strides and is expected to continue doing so, but it has yet to enable 75-year-olds to be as productive as 35-year-olds.
Where’s the economic growth going to come from?
The irony is that our allocation of resources is getting out of whack in large part because of “population bomb” fears. Malthusians have long preached that the world’s growing population would sap the planet of resources. Societies have slowed their birth rates partly in response to such predictions, China’s one-child policy being the most dramatic example.
But it is more reasonable at this juncture to ask whether the problem isn’t that we will have too many people using up resources, but that we will have too few prime-age people working to produce innovations in the types of resources we use and the ways we use them. The trend for innovations in the energy sector, to name one example, is to make available resources more expensive in order to encourage the use of resources that are harder to harness. Working-age people stand to be ever-more burdened as they are asked to maintain old-age welfare systems built for a differently proportioned population.
In a way, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has cottoned onto this problem, with their emphasis on college debts (to the degree the OWS crowd can be said to have an emphasis, that is). But there’s no indication that they want to deal with this problem by making a college education cost less, only to make students less responsible for paying the cost of a college education. Nor is there any indication that they recognize the seriousness of the problem at the other end of the spectrum, that younger Americans will also be asked to pick up a larger and larger tab for their elders.
Speaking of Wall Street, it’s possible that the aging of the population will undermine equity markets’ ability to continue generating the wealth retirees need. If pensioners each consume less while, as a group, representing more of the population, it will be more difficult for companies to produce the profits needed to make investments in them pay off. That goes for private retirement accounts as well as public-sector pensions.
Absent a series of technological breakthroughs and/or a sudden, large uptick in birth rates, the growing-yet-aging population will be one of the political conundrums of the coming decades, here and abroad. And there is little evidence that elected officials and policy makers are prepared to deal with it.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
90 comments Add your comment
Middle Man
October 31st, 2011
12:16 pm
First!
Jefferson
October 31st, 2011
12:18 pm
You younger Americans need to step up and earn your keep, you have obligations (not entitlements) to keep. Move out and grow up.
carlosgvv
October 31st, 2011
12:24 pm
Kyle, common sense would tell you that this planet cannot keep adding people, young or old, and not eventually run out of resources. You are one of the few who would worry about “equity markets’ ability to continue generating the wealth we need”. And, which party is against abortions and planned parenthood? And, yes, I have paid for my Social Security, and no, I will never get back all that I paid in since, in the years I contributed, the dollar was worth much more than it is now.
Hillbilly D
October 31st, 2011
12:41 pm
One thing to think about, is that “people are living longer” is something of a misconception. If you walk through the graveyards up here in the Hills, (and a lot of other places, I would suspect) you’ll see a lot of 100-150 year old graves, of people who died in their 80’s and 90’s. You’ll also see a whole lot of children’s graves. It’s true that due to the drop in childhood mortality, and several other things, the average life expectancy is more than it was. People who lived to be old then, lived just as long as people who live to be old now, though. So people don’t live to be older, just more people live to be old.
Human population is like a lot of other things, you can’t stake your future on perpetual expansion. You have to figure out another way.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
12:41 pm
“You are one of the few who would worry about “equity markets’ ability to continue generating the wealth we need”
——–
Responsible people save and invest over their lifetime in preparation for retirement, so they are rightly concerned with the performance of equity markets.
ragnar danneskjold
October 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
Good essay. Not as sexy as calling socsec a Ponzi scheme, but argues the same with actuarial theory.
Southern Comfort
October 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
Absent a series of technological breakthroughs and/or a sudden, large uptick in birth rates, the growing-yet-aging population will be one of the political conundrums of the coming decades, here and abroad. And there is little evidence that elected officials and policy makers are prepared to deal with it.
Sounds like another forthcoming installment of the unintended long term consequences of short term thinking/planning. With the current crop of politicians we have now, that does not surprise me at all.
saywhat?
October 31st, 2011
12:43 pm
One ray of sunshine in this doom and gloom scenario, at least in the U.S., is that the people getting on in years right now are the baby boomers, and they are the ones with most of the money. Of course that means less inheritance for their kids, but, oh well.
Brain
October 31st, 2011
1:06 pm
Kyle- I agree completely with your initial thesis, but you’re departure into the realm of partisanship again shows you’re no more serious about solving this than the Occupy crowds are. Nothing about tax policy, regulation, etc, deals with the challenge the growing, aging world population presents us. Nothing.
Yet, there you are again tossing out barbs at the OWS crowd, in particular, and dems in general.
Speak for your own gene pool, Kyle!
October 31st, 2011
1:10 pm
I take issue with your comment regarding 75 year olds not being able to work like 35 year olds. I see 75 year olds working circles around 35 year olds on a daily basis. My 90 year old uncle works part-time, my 84 year old mother works full-time. Both hold jobs that require college degrees and require problem solving skills–and they both still pay into social security.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
1:11 pm
“Nothing about tax policy, regulation, etc, deals with the challenge the growing, aging world population presents us.”
——
Nonsense. What we need to deal with an aging population is economic growth, which isn’t happening right now due in large part to tax policy and regulation.
Travis Tritt
October 31st, 2011
1:13 pm
The problem will eventually fix itself…. Not in a good way. For the old, just hope you don’t live to experience the crash. For the young…. Start studying foreign languages.
Kyle Wingfield
October 31st, 2011
1:14 pm
Speak: I have no doubt there are exceptions. But surely you’re not arguing this is true on the whole.
Kyle Wingfield
October 31st, 2011
1:17 pm
Brain: Of all the times I’ve been accused of partisanship, I must say I find this one the most puzzling. I’m not sure how what I wrote about OWS could be considered a “barb.” Are you aware of some over-arching mission statement from the group? Have you heard them calling for lower college costs, or only more subsidies for students?
And where do you find a barb directed at “dems in general”?
Hillbilly D
October 31st, 2011
1:23 pm
Speak for your own gene pool, Kyle!
That’s a valid point but what about the folks who have to do the physical labor? There will always be a need for those people doing those type of jobs. What becomes of them?
You folks are unbelievable!
October 31st, 2011
1:24 pm
@LBB: I’m so sorry you are so bent out of shape by a black man being elected president. Call us when you graduate from Harvard. And yes, if Obama had actually been a Kenyan socialist liberal Muslim, the vetting process would have told us. Ask Herman Cain. Today.
@@
October 31st, 2011
1:26 pm
…the growing-yet-aging population will be one of the political conundrums of the coming decades, here and abroad. And there is little evidence that elected officials and policy makers are prepared to deal with it.
Our left-wing policy makers are. Abortion on demand and Obama”cares”.
schnirt
DixieDemons
October 31st, 2011
1:37 pm
@ Travis Tritt
I have to agree with you on this one. ……..no health insurance , no regulation by the FDA , high priced medication, sedentary lifestyle choices, obesity, pill popping, disdain for education and common sense ( too elitist ), no social welfare safety nets ( too expensive) I don’t know about the rest of the world , but the problem will correct itself in our country. Everyman for himself and Congress for the 1%.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
1:38 pm
Enter your comments here
Ayn Rant
October 31st, 2011
1:52 pm
Too many, too old, too fat, too ugly, too freaky!
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
1:55 pm
Sorry about the double post folks.
Kyle, The first thing Congress (and you) need to learn is that Social Security and Medicare are not government funds. These entities are funded by the public for the benefit of the public with public funds directed specifically to those entities for allocation for specific purposes. They are not part of the federal general fund nor part of the federal budget and are not funded by citizen income tax dollars.
Every worker receiving a pay check since 1937 has contributed to Social Security with an equal amount coming from his/her employer. As a worker (since the age of 12) AND a business owner I have done both — gladly.
Social Security is not an entitlement it is the publics’ money. It does not belong to the government.
Every pay check and every Social Security check issued since 1966 has included a deduction to fund Medicare. Public contribution to a designated entity for a designated purpose for distribution back to the public as determined by the publics’ need at a later date. Again, the funds therefore are not part of the general fund or the federal budget. They are not federal income tax dollars paid to the government. Therefore, they are not entitlements.
Why is this so hard for to comprehend ?
As soon as the R’s and D’s get this through their thick heads perhaps they can move on to finding practical, implementable and legal solutions to the budget and debt issues.
First of all, it must be understood that Social Security has never increased the federal deficit by a single dime. “Unfunded obligations” are a sleight-of-hand in federal accounting. Social Security has always, every year since its inception, taken in more money than it paid out. The problem that arose was what to do with this surplus of money. The answer has been to “buy” U.S. Treasury bonds – which are, in essence, government IOUs that pay interest. In the meantime, the real excess dollars go into the general fund and the politicians spend the real money, leaving the Social Security program with the interest earning bonds – the so-called unfunded obligations.
Intelligent people realize that politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have spent the excess Social Security money in the general fund on all sorts of things — you can pick the poison. Now SS is hamstringing business? Growth?
Please.
Currently, in a stroke of genius, the Congress, led at this time by Republicans, have seized on this accounting sleight-of-hand to try and renege on paying back the money to Social Security and end the whole program, as we know it, in one fell swoop, leaving America’s working people holding an empty bag in their old age. This is somewhat easier today as most of the people actively engaged in this argument have no memory of the Great Depression. Not coincidentally, the average American’s knowledge of U.S. History is at an all-time low. Talk to someone who lived through 1929 until the early 40’s in a major cities across this country. SS was designed as a failsafe to keep that misery from occurring again.
To continue to insist that Social Security is increasing the federal deficit and bankrupting the country is extremely naive in the least, and an outright lie at worst. It should be corrected, not perpetuated, by the press — Fourth Estate my a@# — on opinion pages, blogs and slanted news networks.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
2:03 pm
The latest lie being fed to the Republic by the partisan machinery is that regulation somehow stifles business growth. Consider the source(s) here:
“Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.”
“Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today,” writes Bruce Bartlett. He’s an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, “It’s just nonsense. It’s just made up.”
Government and industry studies support his view.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies’ reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor “business demand.”
Many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates.
The rating firm Moody’s says the roughly 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010. That’s 11 percent more than a year earlier.
Small businesses rate “poor sales” as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the “political climate.”
We are our own worst enemy.
UGA 1999
October 31st, 2011
2:03 pm
The world is no where near being overcrowded…. all of that is nonsense.
The Truth
October 31st, 2011
2:03 pm
Let’s see… Republicans say that the ‘job creators’ will create jobs if we cut taxes. Bill Clinton raised taxes and 22 million jobs were created during his eight year term. On the other hand, George W. Bush cut taxes and only 2 million jobs were created during his eight year term AND he created huge deficits and got us into two unfunded wars. So regardless what Fox News says, the ‘job creators’ DON’T create jobs when their taxes are cut. That the truth, Ruth!
UGA 1999
October 31st, 2011
2:06 pm
The Truth….hmmmm lets see….so you believe if we raise taxes on large businesses, which means their overall expenses are going to increase….you believe that will make them want to hire employees? HAHAA WOW!
UGA 1999
October 31st, 2011
2:07 pm
The Truth….BTW ever hear of something call the “internet bubble”?
Not really an Entitlement
October 31st, 2011
2:31 pm
I went online and did a calculation one day – I took all the money I’ve ever put into Social Security, plus anticipated future contributions, plus calculated a “fair” rate of return. I then assumed that I would live 30 years past retirement and the estimated amount of social security that I would collect.
The amounts turned out to be roughly equal. However, the problems are this: 1. The retirement age will likely be raised past what I calculated. 2. 95 years old is well past my life expectancy. Therefore, in all likelihood, I will collect much LESS than what I put into social security. Especially considering I figured a modest 5-7% rate of return on the money. Teachers Retirement reported a 22% return on investment this year – more than three times what I calculated for my rate of return.
It is not my fault that Congress and the Presidents have raided the Social Security trust fund over the years. If they had left it alone, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess right now.
The Truth
October 31st, 2011
2:37 pm
@UGA 1999 OK, so let’s see… Does lowering taxes on large businesses result in more jobs? Apparently not, because the only thing corporations and large businesses do is keep the money, and they don’t reinvest it or pay dividends to their stock holders. Ask the stock-holders at Bank of America about that one… 22 million jobs versus the 2 million job pittance that the famous ‘Bush tax cuts’ created. You are dreaming if you think that trickle-down economics works to improve job creation. That’s a creation of Fox News and their cronies.
Please prove how many of the 22 million jobs created by Clinton were a result of the ‘internet bubble’ versus how many of the sorry amount of 2 million jobs that were created by the ’spectacular’ Bush tax cuts. Ever heard of the housing bubble that burst in 2008?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
2:41 pm
The job creators are fleeing the country because we regulate too little, don’t tax enough, and show an extreme reluctance to hassle business.
Does that make sense, even to you publicly educated libtards?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
2:43 pm
Do we really have slack demand for oil and gas? Why aren’t we creating more jobs in THAT industry?
Junior Samples
October 31st, 2011
2:43 pm
Props to Real Athens, very well stated.
UGA 1999
October 31st, 2011
2:43 pm
The Truth….Your comments hold not truth or validity. So you are saying that the economic times and intenret bubble had no bearing on the Clinton years? Even James Carville knows that fact. Bush suffered one of the most difficult presidencies of all time. Between 911, Iraq, Afganistan and the real estate collapse….there is NO way he could have raised taxes.
Even Obama admitted this fact. Obama said himself….”in hard times we cannot increase taxes”!
Not really an Entitlement
October 31st, 2011
2:49 pm
Just to give concrete numbers… I’m in my mid-30’s. Since I started working full-time twelve years ago, I’ve had approximately $45,000 contributed to the social security trust fund in my name. If I were to work the rest of my life with *ZERO* pay raises, I’d contribute $5,400 a year to social security. Assuming an average rate of return of 7% (which is entirely feasible with the right fund managers – and probably very conservative actually), I will have an ending balance of $1,029,027.68 dollars when I am eligible for retirement in 32 years at 67 years of age.
Do you know what the dollar return is on $1,029,027.68 at 7 percent? $72,031.89. They could keep my million dollars and pay me $72,031.89 per year on interest alone. Currently, social security tells me that I will earn about $36,000 dollars a year when I retire.
Please tell me again how this is an entitlement program and not a retirement program that I vastly overpay for?
The Truth
October 31st, 2011
2:55 pm
@UGA 1999 They must have not taught you critical thinking at UGA. I gave you facts and figures and asked you to prove your point, and instead you change the subject. Are you sure you graduated at UGA in 1999? Now you’re an apologist for Georgie pooh?
Please bring some facts if you’re going to troll this blog. You’re a joke! No wonder Georgia is ranked at the bottom half in education in this country!
Marsten12
October 31st, 2011
3:01 pm
If Social Security were a private retirement fund, where the managers of the fund were bound in a fiduciary relationship to investors, there would be nothing to worry about. But with Social Security, there is no such fiduciary relationship. We were forced into a relationship with a public entity. They rewrote the contract without notifying the taxpayers and we let them slide.
UGA 1999
October 31st, 2011
3:02 pm
The Truth….apologist? No. Realist, yes.
Please explain how raising taxes on corporations will force them to hire more people. Once you do that I will tell you why it will simply force more jobs to go overseas. Waiting…….
Politi Cal
October 31st, 2011
3:04 pm
Got more than a few Malthusians here on thois blog. Unfortunately, that theory was debunked decades and decades ago. What we need to do is more research/work in improving agricultural yield per acre cultivated. There is more than enough land avaiable in the U.S. alomne to fee several times seven billion. The very people who object to such research are know-it-all Leftists to want a return to the garden of Eden, spelling doom to milloions they CLAIM to speak for. Criminals!
The Truth
October 31st, 2011
3:23 pm
@UGA 1999 How weak… You keep turning the question on me and changing the subject when I asked you at 2:37 pm to prove how lowering taxes on large businesses resulted in more jobs for hard-working Americans. George Bush did a great job of exporting jobs overseas by giving companies tax-breaks for doing so. Did you forget about that one?
I’ve been waiting since 2:37 PM for your answer, but you’re obviously one of those Fox News know-nothing trolls. Still waiting…
1961_Boomer
October 31st, 2011
3:24 pm
“Not really an entitlement” is correct. Those figures are very similar to my own. The amount that I receive from SS won’t approach what I paid in until I live well past 100. If my parents/grandparents are any indication. I won’t make it to 80. This is not an “entitlement”. I am OWED this pittance for what was involuntarily taken from me for my entire life.
Hillbilly D
October 31st, 2011
3:42 pm
Real Athens
GMO’s are basically a scheme to control the world’s seed supply, in my opinion.
jconservative
October 31st, 2011
3:43 pm
Net Jobs Created in the US(by decade)
1960’s – 31%
1970′a – 27%
1980’s – 20%
1990’s – 20%
2000’s – 0%
(from BLS)
Anyway you spin the numbers the numbers are what they are.
In the 60’s and 70’s corporate taxes were out of sight high. And net jobs created were trending down.
In the 80’s we cut taxes and the net jobs created continued to trend down.
In the 2000’s we cut taxes again and net jobs created fell off the table.
Has it occured to anyone that taxes have nothing to do with job creation?
Jobs are not being created because with better technology you need less people to make widgets.
Jobs are not being created in the US because 95% of the market for products and services is outside the United States. Seven trillion people in the world and only 310 million in the US. Why would anyone build a factory to make widgets in the US when 95% of the market is outside the US?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
3:44 pm
unfortunately the research/work done at Monsanto, Con Agra, etc. today is more geared toward increasing profit
———–
Ignorance is such a sad thing when it’s intentional. Anyone with a functioning brain stem understands that product development is only successful if it results in a product someone, a farmer for example, wants to buy.
And where does your loathing of profit spring from?
Kyle Wingfield
October 31st, 2011
3:49 pm
Real Athens:
1. SS went “cash negative” last year. This year, it will cost $46B in general revenues to pay SS obligations, plus another $105B due to the payroll tax holiday. If the payroll tax holiday is kept next year, the bill will be $267B. None of those figures include Medicare costs.
2. The trust fund, for the most part, comprises debts that the federal government owes to the SS trust fund. One way to look at it is that taxpayers will have to come up with an extra few trillion dollars in the coming years to pay those debts. Another way to look at is that the federal government chose to spend that money in a way other than on SS (since Congress determines SS benefits). Or you can split the difference. Any way you slice it, we’re in a heap of fiscal trouble.
3. The Urban Institute this summer published a study of FICA taxes paid vs. expected benefits, for various scenarios (singles, married-one-worker, married-two-workers, average income, low income, high income). In every scenario, no matter which year someone turned 65, the expected benefits were higher than the accumulated taxes paid (which were adjusted for inflation and interest).
We’re no closer to a solution.
Kyle Wingfield
October 31st, 2011
3:56 pm
Also, Real Athens: Long cut-and-pastes from other publications (e.g., your GMO article) are not allowed on this blog. Please re-post with a link, attribution and a short excerpt. Thanks.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
4:23 pm
Kyle:
Will do — aka cut and paste.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides
“For most of its 75-year history, the program had paid its own way through a dedicated stream of payroll taxes, even generating huge surpluses for the past two decades. But in 2010, under the strain of a recession that caused tax revenue to plummet, the cost of benefits outstripped tax collections for the first time since the early 1980s.”
Your Post article basically states the same thing I wrote earlier — regarding the congressional stewardship of the program. Funny, the program becomes insolvent in the 80’s (Reagan tax cuts) and the 90’s (extension of the Bush tax cuts by Obama). Hmmm.
Hillbilly: You think? Profit at the expense of the health of mankind.
LBB: I corrected your post. (My) sic “Ignorance is such a sad thing when it’s intentional. Anyone with a functioning brain stem understands that product development is only successful if it results in a product someone, a farmer for example, wants to buy.”
Read the damn article. Farmers don’t “have a choice”.
MarkV
October 31st, 2011
4:24 pm
Kyle: “Hey, I paid for my Social Security and Medicare! There’s no redistribution!” No, you didn’t; and yes, there is. You paid for your elders’ Social Security and Medicare, in exchange for the promise that future generations would pick up the tab for you. It is how the system was built, and the chief reason it is not wrong to liken it to a Ponzi scheme.
Kyle, this is mostly a falsehood, which has been repeated so much that many people accept it as truth. The only tab the future generations pick up are the difference between benefits paid out and the money that will have been paid into the trust fund. While this is becoming a problem if no changes in SS are made, any comparison with a Ponzi scheme is offensive and has no basis in truth.
The fact that the SS trust fund money has become part of the national debt is a completely different issue, which does not alter any of the above.
@@
October 31st, 2011
4:24 pm
In a way, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has cottoned onto this problem, with their emphasis on college debts (to the degree the OWS crowd can be said to have an emphasis, that is). But there’s no indication that they want to deal with this problem by making a college education cost less, only to make students less responsible for paying the cost of a college education. Nor is there any indication that they recognize the seriousness of the problem at the other end of the spectrum, that younger Americans will also be asked to pick up a larger and larger tab for their elders.
I couldn’t help but laugh when I read ^^^ that. The OWS crowd is squabbling over how they should spend their $500,000 stash (donations).
Should they buy warm socks or repair their drums and build a shed where they can be stored.
I suppose it would be kind if they died none the wiser. Ignorance IS bliss…or so I’ve heard.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
4:38 pm
“Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to trademark name”
———–
I’m guessing that a majority of these (literally) jerkoffs think it’s OK to share pirated music files though.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
4:42 pm
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s campaign denied allegations Sunday that he was twice accused of sexual harassment while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.-Urinal 12:46 a.m. Monday, October 31, 2011
A Monday morning first of the week news dump coordinated among all of the White House stooges, the AJC/ Politico/ CNN obozo propaganda crew, a thoroughly racist attack without any evidence, proof or basis in reality and it’s blowing up in their goony little lib faces.
You hacks just elected our nation’s first black president and I’m not talking about obozo.
Thank you very much, AJC/ White House.
Mental Floss
October 31st, 2011
4:49 pm
The right people aren’t have enough kids and the wrong ones are having too many!
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
5:11 pm
I Report … : I didn’t realize Karl Rove still worked for the White House.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67223.html
Don't Tread
October 31st, 2011
5:21 pm
Adding to the “population bomb” is the fact that kids cost too much to raise these days. It now costs an average middle-income American family $222,360 to raise a child from birth to 18, according to the NYT. This does not include the cost of college.
Now multiply $222,360 x the number of protesters involved in OWS and you get some idea of how much money is wasted these days. (This is just the tip of the iceberg, though.)
1961_Boomer
October 31st, 2011
5:29 pm
Kyle said “In every scenario, no matter which year someone turned 65, the expected benefits were higher than the accumulated taxes paid (which were adjusted for inflation and interest).”
But, that is for the AVERAGE worker making the AVERAGE salary. If one makes much more than the average for very long, he/she will pay in WAY more than will ever receive.
Jefferson
October 31st, 2011
5:33 pm
SS solution is simple, remove the cap, raise the rate .25%.
saywhat?
October 31st, 2011
5:58 pm
Jefferson
October 31st, 2011
5:33 pm
“SS solution is simple, remove the cap, raise the rate .25%.”
But, but, but, haven’t the wealthy suffered enough?
Michael H. Smith
October 31st, 2011
6:00 pm
In a way, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has cottoned onto this problem, with their emphasis on college debts (to the degree the OWS crowd can be said to have an emphasis, that is). But there’s no indication that they want to deal with this problem by making a college education cost less, only to make students less responsible for paying the cost of a college education.
Glad you chimed in on this point too, Kyle.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
6:07 pm
Look^^ at the clown^^ who believes what Politico has to say, hahahaha, what a maroon.
What’s next, sap, you gonna tell us that the Urinal is credible, compelling and complete?
~~~~~~
“Other than Hoover and Obama, no modern American leader has presided over negative job growth for a comparable period,” he reported, drawing on data from David Weir’s “A Century of U.S. Unemployment: 1890-1990″ and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Herbert obozo, meet baraKKK Hoover.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
6:14 pm
SS is simple. Save for your own retirement so you don’t become a parasite living off your neighbors while excoriating them for being greedy.
redneckbluedog
October 31st, 2011
6:21 pm
The GOP will soon be the GVOP (Grand, Very Old Party)….Yikes…Better come up with something other than privitizing Social Security, destroying Medicare, denying Climate Change, defaulting the US credit, and Rush Limbaugh…..or you will soon be the (Gone Old Party)…..
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
6:30 pm
November 2010
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
6:34 pm
An a@$ clown quotes an opinion piece from The New American — out of context — that was hatcheted together from National Review, Keystone Research Center, Investor’s Business Daily and Fox News and complains about media bias.
Sheesh. Advice for I Report: When at the urinal, pay attention to the task at (in) your hand or wind up the next Larry “wide stance” Craig.
Hope & Range
October 31st, 2011
6:41 pm
Gingrich has carved out a solid place for himself and will doubtless continue to strut his stuff in the 14 remaining televised candidate debates, not to mention his latest vanity project: a “Lincoln-Douglas style” one-on-one tilt with Herman Cain in Texas. And while it would still take a miracle or some apocalyptic development for him to win the nomination, there’s no denying that Newt has survived the earlier disasters of his campaign, just as his spokesman Rick Tyler predicted in a press release for the ages back in the dark and stormy nights of May:
A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.
Thirty-eight years after his first, failed run for Congress, the ever-talkative former history professor isn’t going anywhere—and against all odds, a new generation of Republicans is eating it up.–CBS
Keep your eye on Newt. Experience is beginning to matter.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
6:47 pm
I guess when you’re dreaming about gay sex you can’t read.
drawing on data from David Weir’s “A Century of U.S. Unemployment: 1890-1990″ and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I wouldn’t know.
MarkV
October 31st, 2011
6:54 pm
The weakness of Kyle’s arguments is that he only incidentally mentions technology (“Absent a series of technological breakthroughs …). Advances in technology and resulting increases in productivity can balance the decrease in birth rates. This makes it important to distribute the wealth more fairly among those who create it, so that the consumption keeps the economy growing, rather than to use the increased productivity to enrich the already wealthy
Cal
October 31st, 2011
7:01 pm
Axelrod (Oct. 30): “Obviously the American Jobs Act, all economists agree would have a marked effect on economic growth and would create millions of jobs. We just have to get the Congress to act on it.”
Axelrod’s claim is particularly cheeky. Obama himself has been much more cautious — claiming that “independent economists” say his jobs bill “would create nearly 2 million jobs.” But even that was an exaggeration, as we reported Oct. 18.
[snip]
And those are high estimates compared with those of 28 economists who estimated how many jobs would be created by the bill in a survey taken by Bloomberg News. Of those, 28 economists estimated how many jobs would be created by the bill. The median estimate was 275,000 jobs in 2012 and 13,000 jobs in 2013, for a total of 288,000 jobs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-10-31/axelrod-jobs-bill-claim/51015592/1
Hallucinating hyperbolics!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
7:28 pm
“distribute the wealth more fairly among those who create it”
————————
Wealth isn’t distributed, it’s earned. If you’re not getting any, it’s because you haven’t earned it.
David Green
October 31st, 2011
7:31 pm
Kyle wrote: (And before someone objects, “Hey, I paid for my Social Security and Medicare! There’s no redistribution!” No, you didn’t; and yes, there is. You paid for your elders’ Social Security and Medicare, in exchange for the promise that future generations would pick up the tab for you. And that tab will be greater than the amount you paid in, just as your elders ran up a larger tab than they paid in. It is how the system was built, and the chief reason it is not wrong to liken it to a Ponzi scheme. How we reconcile past promises made and present/future financial realities is the question before us.)
___________________________
Kyle when in office on the advice of a commission that ronald reagan asked alan greenspan and daniel patrick moynihan to form reagan nearly doubled the social security tax for the express purpose to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers. This money was to be placed in the social security trust fund however- reagan’s tax cuts on the wealthy led to massive deficits so on the advice of alan Greenspan reagan used the money collected from the baby boomers to pay for their retirement to hide the deficits leaving ious in the lock box.
So not only did reagan cut taxes on the wealthy by more then half he also created the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation which hit the working-class exclusively then borrowed that money on the advice of alan greenspan to hide the deficits his tax cuts on the wealthy created. As did george h. bush – bill clinton and george w. bush.
So not only did the baby boomers pay for their elders retirement they also paid for their own only to have 3 conservative republican and one democrat potus steal it from them leaving nothing but worthless ious in it’s place.
You can verify this by reading chapter 12 The Truth about the Trust Fund in Screwed the undeclared war against the middle class written by Thom Hartmann copyrighted 2006 – 2007.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
7:36 pm
I report:
Draw on the rest of David Weir’s opus on Employment in America:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/259727-you-don-t-get-to-make-up-facts-when-debating-jobs-picture
Tool.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
7:53 pm
Where’s the change your Nobel-winning genius was going to deliver? You remember, jobs, green energy, jobs, lower sea levels, and jobs?
Fail.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
7:54 pm
Hey, if Herman Cain is guilty of sexual harassment, that means all the dummycrats will be voting for him too, doesn’t it?
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
8:15 pm
Hey, what a bummer that in your world harass is still two words.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
8:22 pm
I haven’t the time to read through your gibberish, stooge, I’ve already got the statistics from your beloved government and the undeniable reality that no president has created fewer jobs than Herbert obozo has.
Go play in the street, Nancy.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
8:34 pm
No one here expects you to read. Why start? You just type what you’re told to. For the sake of it I’ll quote from the last paragraph:
“W’s economy was the weakest period for the decline in the unemployment rate in that entire period”
Tool.
Oki
October 31st, 2011
8:48 pm
“Speak” actually makes a relevant, if not statistically stated point. The increase in average lifespan *has* accompanied an increase in healthspan. This is a phenomenon that is also well studied in the lab (where I spend my time). Manipulations of experimental animals (whether they be genetic or environmental) that increase lifespan all *inevitably* increase healthspan. 65 year old people today are indeed healthier and capable of more productivity than 65 year olds of generations past.
A part of the problem with social security not addressed in this article is that the retirement age hasn’t been pegged to lifespan. While the average lifespan of a 65 year old has gone up from 78 in 1940 to 83 in 1990 and the % of population of US adults reaching age 65 has increase from ~57% in 1940 to ~77% in 1990 (http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html), the age of retirement has only increased by 2 years in the 75 year history of social security.
That this needs to change is nearly a mathematical certainty. This shouldn’t be looked at as a bad thing either: numerous studies extoll the benefits (psychological and physical) of not retiring to human health.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
8:50 pm
Let’s try again, this time real slow for the simple minded among us.
No. president. has. created. fewer. jobs. in. his. first. two. and. a. half. years. than. barakkk. Hoover. has.
Take that Bushie pacifier out your mouth, stooge.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
8:54 pm
Harpy.
Just because you write it, doesn’t make it so — no matter how poorly you type.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
8:55 pm
Real Athens: “W’s economy was the weakest period for the decline in the unemployment rate in that entire period”
——————————–
Nine percent unemployment. Not on our President Bush’s watch.
Real Athens
October 31st, 2011
8:58 pm
Again. Sigh.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/259727-you-don-t-get-to-make-up-facts-when-debating-jobs-picture
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 31st, 2011
9:00 pm
Lil B- Not to mention that Nasty Pelosi controlled the House in 2006.
Who would hire any workers with that Freakshow in town?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
9:00 pm
Record numbers on food stamps. Not on our President Bush’s watch.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 31st, 2011
9:04 pm
I don’t blame you for spinning, Real Athens. It has to be a huge letdown to see Obozo flailing and failing so badly. Such high hopes. Such elevated expectations. All based on…talk. Next time, vote for someone with actual qualifications.
@@
October 31st, 2011
9:26 pm
Lawd ah mercy! jay’s hit Cain with two pieces, back to back.
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply anymore? Even when the accused is a leftist, I reserve judgment.
Things have really turned ugly.
Sensationalized “journalism” contributes to much of what ails us.
Kyle’s was a thought-provoking piece.
I predict this WILL come to pass:
Transatlantic threat to Obama
Ironic! Obama sought to emulate Europe in so many ways, and yet…
what he so admired will bury him.
Oh well!
Not an Entitlement
October 31st, 2011
9:26 pm
OK. Let me walk you through this a step at a time…
1. Statistics suggest that the average rate of return on conservative mutual funds is 6-9 percent. However, good fund managers can earn much more than the 6-9 percent. As I said before, TRS reported a 22% rate of return for this year.
2. With the exception of the tax holiday, a total of approximately 12% social security tax is witheld from paychecks between the employee and employer contribution.
Now for my assumptions…
Let’s assume that a worker started working at age 25 and made $25,000 per year for ALL of his life. He would work for 32 years to collect full retirement. This would mean an annual contribution of $3,000 per year for his Social Security.
If the federal government earned 7% annual rate of return, he would have $353,800 in his social security account at retirement.
The federal government could pay him back at 99% of his salary for the REST OF HIS LIFE and never touch the principal. If we worked until age 60, they could pay him 56% of his salary for the rest of his life and never touch the principal.
The problem is *NOT* that we are underpaying into Social Security. The problem is that the federal government has for years mismanaged and raided the trust fund.
I’m not sure what study you are referencing Kyle but I encourage you to check my numbers for yourself. You’ll find they are right on the money.
Obviously, the more money you make, the better funded your social security account is – especially as the interest compounds.
Fast and Furious Spending
November 1st, 2011
12:15 am
Kyle,
Good article…. Mark Steyn writes somewhat on this issue in America Alone at least regarding American and European birth rates and consequences. You should definitely read it if not already.
What you say regarding central planning ought to be yet another argument against central planning. Paul Ehrlich, great prophet of doom from the left, will never be proven wrong in leftist circles anymore than the dippy truthers, haunting Jay Bookman’s blog.
Yet another reason to distrust the political left so much that the rule for conservatives this election season might be: do everything that makes our liberal/progressive countrymen hopping mad.
marko
November 1st, 2011
6:09 am
Americans pay much more for health care than any other people on earth. After wasting the better part of two years debating the problem we come up with zilch. Perhaps we should stop worrying so much about the care and feeding of billionaires, and figure out why hard working Americans are required to pay so much for inferior services. Congressional approval ratings currently stand at 9%. I can’t figure out why they’re that high. I guess their mothers still like them.
Buzz G
November 1st, 2011
8:28 am
And if we don’t don’t get our southern border under control, a couple billion of those people will reside in the US of A. $7.50 will not be minimum wage, it will be maximum wage.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 1st, 2011
8:59 am
marko, dear leader got his health care power grab passed and insurance premiums are still rising multiples of the rate of inflation. Mine went up over 30% for next year. Thanks so much for that health care deform.
Obozo: Fail.
Shunquantell
November 1st, 2011
9:50 am
All this talk about overpopulation and too many geezers got me thinkin about one of my favorite movies from years ago, Soylent Green.
Brandon
November 1st, 2011
12:35 pm
Enter your comments here
Audra
November 1st, 2011
3:09 pm
The problem with Social Security is simply that we don’t have the funds to pay for what we promised. Why? Because overall people are living longer and the birth rate has declined. I think this is Kyle’s point. So the funds that people have paid in are now not adequate to cover our obligations, especially given the fact that the program has been expanded several times and now is not what it was meant to be when it was created – a safety net for the elderly without means.
Also, yes, this is an entitlement. An entitlement is simply a payment based only on your fitting into a certain group: in this case, it’s people over 62. If you fit that description, you’re entitled to the funding. Look it up. But why does it matter anyway? We just need to fix it, no matter what we call it. Let’s not get hung up on rhetoric and lose sight of this.
The program’s budget is not calculated using projections (as would a business model) to estimate future population, so that everyone pays their “fair share.” It simply takes in x amount from paychecks and pays out via its stated obligations – if you fit into the criteria (age), you are entitled to Social Security. What we all have to come to grips with is that there are going to have to be fundamental changes to the program for it to survive. I have no idea why this is anathema to some people – I am not talking about taking money from current retirees, but changing the guidelines so that people in MY age group (30’s) will not expect and rely on social security the way that past generations have. This is simply applying the “you can only spend what you have” approach to a government program, which if you ask me is a pretty good idea! I wouldn’t think that so many Republicans would oppose it. No doubt the AARP has a really strong lobby!
Either way, Kyle is right, we need leaders who will do the dirty work of addressing this long-term issue, and so far no one on either side has had the political will to do that.