The Vanishing Male Worker

[Hugh R]

For the $300,000+ that SS has taken from me and my employers over the last 40+ years (actually all of it from me, if you believe in market clearing price of labor) it will take me ten years just to get back the principle, let alone any interest.

[Por_sha911]

It never was for you. It was designed for pushing socialism into the American system. Like the ACA, they couldn't tell you that up front. Like the ACA it is unconstitutional. Like the ACA, the SCOTUS judicial activists interprets the laws based on what they want rather than what the Constitution states.

[Crowbob]

SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and SS (Social Security) are two different things. Both are administered by the Social Security Administration.

SSI is a needs-based medical welfare income program originally designed for the very poor and elderly. The recipients need not have paid into the program to be eligibile and the money comes out of the General Fund (the BIG Bucket O' Money).

SS was originally designed as a supplemental retirement income program for the elderly and was maintained by a so-called Social Security Trust Fund (OASI). Beneficiaries must become eligible by virtue of paying into the fund through payroll deduction (FICA) plus employer paid taxes. The beneft amount is a caluclation based on what the individual paid in. There is, however, no dedicated individual account.

Over the years, both programs have been corrupted by the socialists in DC. Specifically, SSI was extended to cover the children of indigent people, immigrants, refugees, and adult children of disabled people and other special groups as ammened by the socialists from time to time.

SS retirement was extended to provide an income of the 'disabled' (commonly referred to as 'Disabiity') and numerous groups were added over the years to include the spouses and children of 'covered' individuals who expired or became disabled prior to normal retirement age (full retirement eligibility originally began at age 65, early eligibility for a reduced benefit amount begins at age 62).

In 1964 with Lyndon Johnson, the SS Trust Fund was taken off the books and ceased to be included in the federal accounting for future liabilities. In addition, the money in the fund at the time (and all future increases in that fund) was replaced with a federally guaranteed IOU that is currently kept in a file cabinet somewhere in Baltimore, MD or Wilkes-Barre, PA or wherever. Essentially it consists of a piece of paper that says 'IOU'. That is the famous 'lock-box'. Both programs are now completely unsustainable. The exact dates at which each program becomes 'insolvent' changes with the changing demographics and by changing statute. However, those projected dates of insolvency have inexorably crept closer and closer to the present.

In addition, Medicare (among other things) is the Federally funded medical 'insurance' program one automatically becomes eligible for two years or so after one becomes 'disabled' or at age 65 whichever is sooner. The welfare counterpart to Medicare is Medicaid. Medicaid is a needs-based medical care program one becomes automatically eligilbe for if one eligible for SSI.

Originally, both SSI and SSDI (The 'disability' part of Social Security) had very strict medical requiriements for eligibility. Today, not so much. The socialists and bureaucrats have eroded the requirements by various mechanisms, including changing the definition of disability, reducing the documentary requirements and/or appointing like-minded disability 'judges'. In addition, numerous legal challenges were made over the years claiming certain classes of individuals' civil rights were violated by their having been denied disability beenfits. All of these have had profound long-term and incremental effects on the viability and sustainability of these so-called 'entitlements'.

Currently, political considerations prevent any of these programs being repaired and it was just a matter of time before the people, along with the advocacy groups, lawyers, bureaucrats and others discovered that really there is no botom tp the pot of 'gold'.

Edit: This is an extremely truncated synopsis of these messes. The details of which can and do change with each passing day. Please consult you local bureacracy for more (or less) accurate information.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

In 1964 with Lyndon Johnson, the SS Trust Fund was taken off the books and ceased to be included in the federal accounting for future liabilities.

JFK tried to issue a direct US (Government) Dollar.
LBJ socialized the S.S. slush fund.
Nixon separated the dollar from the gold standard.
Ford pardoned all before him.
Carter was left with a steaming pile to build a castle.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and SS (Social Security) are two different things. Both are administered by the Social Security Administration. ... etc etc

For the first couple of paragraphs I thought you were serious. It was almost as if you knew what you were talking about. Then ...

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

For the $300,000+ that SS has taken from me and my employers over the last 40+ years (actually all of it from me, if you believe in market clearing price of labor) it will take me ten years just to get back the principle, let alone any interest.

At least you halfway have a hope of getting SOMETHING. I'm 34, I won't see a dime of MY money when I retire. It's just one more tax.

[jcommin]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

For the $300,000+ that SS has taken from me and my employers over the last 40+ years (actually all of it from me, if you believe in market clearing price of labor) it will take me ten years just to get back the principle, let alone any interest.

And the odds are in your favor to get it back. Think of those who put into the system when the life expectancy was allot less.

[fintstone]

I am not sure what SS has to do with the millions of men in the US who choose not to work. It seems to me that as long as folks can live reasonably well without working...many will make that choice. Isn't the problem really that there is little incentive to take most low wage jobs because social welfare pays so well? Then folks come into the country illegally to take those jobs. When I have been out of work, I always took the best job I could find until something better came along. It seems that people no longer do that.

[sugarwood]

Originally Posted by jcommin

In the 70's and 80's much of the steel making industry closed in Chicago. I worked in the mills for 7 years. The labor force made great money: big $/hr for what they did. When the mills closed, they put many out of work. There was a period when these unemployed workers refused to work for anything less than they made at the mills. There was a larger percentage that thought the mills would come back. None of this ever happened. Those folks were lost. They never recovered.

That is a fascinating anecdote. Can you tell us more about the aftermath? What became of the people who "never recovered"? What have they done for the last 30 years?

I have known people who lose a job for whatever reason, and refuse to get another kind or lower paying job, holding out for exactly what they want, or rather, think they deserve.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not sure what I would do in that position, frankly.

I would say that after 3-4 years of unemployment, maybe it's wise to consider taking a lower paying job (over nothing), or be willing to relocate.
Problem is, people refuse to identify themselves as a waitress or Wal-Mart worker or whatever, even if temporary.

I guess if you can get away with not working for years and years, then it's a rational response to the de facto incentive structure?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Fint I agree, when the government pays better than a menial job there is a portion of our population that will take the gravy train. Years ago I worked for a mobile home park, there was a significant portion of the residents that were fully capable of working but chose to stay home and milk the system.

[fintstone]

I think the current 99 weeks of unemployment is a big part of the problem. Many really don't look for work and few are willing to take lesser jobs until it runs out. After staying at home watching the big screen for a couple of years, one becomes used to sleeping in and living on social welfare. Then, you really are not very employable/marketable...even for minimum wage. Lots of folks who get laid off in their 50's who get laid off eventually turn their unemployment into "retirement"... Even if they had no intention if retiring beforehand. They just get used to sleeping in and realize that the money just keeps coming (albeit somewhat less). Someone else's money tends to go farther that what you earn yourself because it is often tax free, there are no work expenses like transportation and work clothes, and you have time to do things yourself that you might have paid someone to do if employed.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Fint I agree, when the government pays better than a menial job there is a portion of our population that will take the gravy train. Years ago I worked for a mobile home park, there was a significant portion of the residents that were fully capable of working but chose to stay home and milk the system.

Where I grew up in rural Appalachia, most who worked at low level jobs actually lived worse than those who chose welfare. Most already owned their shacks and land outright as the property had been in the family for generations (but usually so tied up legally that they could not sell due to generations without a will). The folks who stayed home could cut wood to heat their homes (and sell for cash so it did not affect their taxes/welfare), do odd jobs, and raise all their own food, hunt, fish, trap, etc. They did not have to have reliable transportation or work clothes. they did not endure a long commute or have to buy a lot of gas. Their life did not seem too bad. The only difference that I see between their lives and that of my family (who did not get social welfare and worked for low wages) was that their children are still there...doing the exact same thing (except few raise their own food any more because "food is free" through SNAP, WIC, etc)...and all the children of my family have gone to college, earned professional degrees, and are fairly affluent. We run the same risk throughout the US...raising future generations sired by parents who do not see value in work. Generally, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

[Scuba Steve]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

At least you halfway have a hope of getting SOMETHING. I'm 34, I won't see a dime of MY money when I retire. It's just one more tax.

I'm the same age and the wife and I see it exactly the same way. All of it is as good as gone. This has been a big factor for us trying to find our own path(s) when it comes to retirement. 401K/IRAs/a pension I built on for a decade/rentals are our strategy.