Heres the thing about gambling grandpa, just because you bet on the wrong horse doesnt mean I have to pay YOUR debts

Thats my stock reply when I hear seniors complaining about pension reform and Social Security shortfalls

Gamblin' Grandpa didn't bet on Social Security. The money was taken from him under threat of fine or imprisonment.

It was taken with the promise it would be returned with interest.

While he should have supplemented it with other investments, he's owed the money that was taken from him.

The unsustainable pension funds, on the other hand, were extorted from the taxpayers with the quisling assistance of spineless politicians.

Those same politicians then decided they didn't actually have to fund the retirement they promised and used that money for pet projects.

As a result, the pension fund is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and the retirees are crying "woe is me" while the politicians are kicking the can further down the road.

For what it's worth:

I asked a lefty friend recently if he thought, maybe, Obama's decision on illegal aliens had to do with the drop in American birth rates; after all, trying to turn illegal adult aliens into reliable taxpayers just might be a better bet than trying to nag unwilling (or poor) Americans into breeding more children who just might not BECOME employees/taxpayers for one good reason or another.

Nope, he said, it's all about the fact that Obama's just a Republican, really, and even if Republicans complain the most about illegals, they really, really want them for slave labor to the 1%.

(Mind you, my friend is quite the contrarian, but he usually means what he says, despite his sense of humor.)

maybe, Obama's decision on illegal aliens had to do with the drop in American birth rates; after all, trying to turn illegal adult aliens into reliable taxpayers just might be a better bet than trying to nag unwilling (or poor) Americans into breeding more children who just might not BECOME employees/taxpayers for one good reason or another. ~ Posted by: lenona at November 25, 2014 10:09 AM

I'd almost respect Obama on his amnesty program if that were his reasoning behind it, but Obama hasn't shown enough economic literacy to devise that kind of strategy. He's a naif when it comes to running an economy, a country, or even a small business.

Besides, with illegal immigrants, there's still the matter of skill-levels and cultural assimilation for that to the be easy solution.

In order to grow, modern economies need a growing population. A new generation comes along and forces markets to innovate to accommodate more numbers and deliver products and services more widely, frequently, and to more people.

The US has always achieved that growth through a combination of immigration and birthrate. On the other hand, Japan's economy is stagnating because Japan doesn't have any immigration to speak of and the birthrate has fallen precipitously.

Nope, he said, it's all about the fact that Obama's just a Republican, really, and even if Republicans complain the most about illegals, they really, really want them for slave labor to the 1%. ~ Posted by: lenona at November 25, 2014 10:09 AM

That's just a ridiculous statement. Your friend's buying into stereotypes.

There's a difference between slave labor and cheap labor. And too much imported "slave" labor displaces the native unskilled labor and leaves it desperate for support, requiring the expansion of the welfare state to avoid riots. And the expanded welfare state increases the cost of skilled labor (taxed to feed the masses), which leads to economic stagnation and collapse.

The solution to a cheap labor crisis is not widespread illegal immigration, it's reducing the minimum wage and being able to assimilate legal immigrants.

Gamblin' Grandpa didn't bet on Social Security. The money was taken from him under threat of fine or imprisonment.

Da fuck you say?

Social security started out as safety net for war widows and people unlucky enough to survive longer than expected with no family.

When implemented expected age of death for most men was 62, SS didnt kick in for another 3 years and you didnt get it automatically, or at all if you had a shit ton of money to pay for your own retirement.

These day fortune 500 CEO who retire at forty are eligible for their SS benefits.

People voted for politicians who promised to expand payouts and expand eligibility requirements and to charge their offspring just a little bit more than they were charged.

The continued to vote for said politicians even with news story after news story of how they were "borrowing" from SS to fund other programs justifying it by saying it meant "less taxes*"

So yes gramps bet the fucking farm, so fuck him, and his goddamn whining about how unfair it is that his lock turned out to be a longshot or how he is "owed" what he paid in when he already been paid out ten times more than he ever paid in.

Greedy bastards are willing to hobble toddlers so they can trick out their golf carts and ay for their greens fees. Motherfuckers are lucky I'm not in charge, I'd institute Last Day ASAP

* for now but we'll have to pay for it some time

My mom is one that complains SS doesn't pay enough, yet she hasn't worked since the 1970s. Then complains how expensive it is to have to pay for Medicare too. Sorry, but in a year she's been paid out more than she ever paid in and I want to slap her for having the audacity to complain about her meager checks. Same with my grandma. She's been collecting SS for 30 years now and still bitches about it and how everyone is trying to take it away. Really, you worked for 15 years in a factory and think that somehow entitles you to 30-plus years of "free" money? They just think people my age are selfish assholes for wanting to reduce it, change it, etc.

Conan the Grammarian is right on. But his comment pre-supposes that we're talking about public pensions. The private companies, to the extent that they gave up managerial control to the unions, are still on the hook; but they have better options. See GM for example. They've got buyouts, bankruptcy, negotiations with the UAW; and time. God do they stall for time. Plus, they have the option of sales increases to fund pension shortfalls. That's a lot more sporting than the demand for tax increases the public unions will insist on.

Conan,

I disagree with you on Japan. Their problem is they are a static economy. Of course that is what happens when you have significant welfare. Hence their economy is yoked to US imports. Europe has a similar issue.

As someone who works in the private sector, what is a pension?

More seriously, almost no one working in the private sector has a traditional pension. The main counter example is a couple of old car companies constantly on the verge of going out of business. So this is essentially a public finance problem. Seems like it is long past time to end pensions in general. Put the government workers into 401ks just like the rest of us.

Ben,

Read Michael Porter's The Competitive Advantage of Nations. He makes a good case for population growth driving economic growth, in fact, being a necessary component of economic growth.

Without a significant population pushing from the bottom, there is little incentive for economic development through innovation, improvements to productivity, etc.

Japan has been a homogeneous nation and culture for thousands of years. Without immigration, they must grow their population via birthrate. And they're not. Hence, economic stagnation.

Europe is suffering from a similar issue. They have a low birth rate coupled with significant immigration. However, in their case, their biggest problem is they're not assimilating their immigrants due to fears of losing their distinct culture. This leaves the immigrants economically and culturally isolated with no incentive to "buy into" the country's social construct - a road down which the US is in danger of heading.

Accepting immigrants means changes will be imposed on the country's culture, something the [mostly] homogeneous societies of Asia and Europe are resisting.

Of course, Porter's theory is dependent upon a country's ability to absorb the population growth (assimilate immigrants, train new workers, educate more children, etc.). Countries like India and China are having issues dealing with a the large subset of uneducated and unskilled in their existing populations.

Rampant and non-assimilated population growth (especially in the uneducated and unskilled) can have deleterious effects on a nation and its economy. That's the problem underlying your welfare states (and many Third World countries today).

I still disagree Conan. At one time Japan was growing tremendously. The Asian tiger and all that. Then they hit a fixed percentage of the US economy and flatlined. Then you had all the jobs going to India. Same story. Next was all the jobs going to China. Guess what, same story.

Population growth doesn't guarantee change. But refusing to change does guarantee economic stagnation. There were a number of Soviet nations that had high birth rate and hence population growth. That lead to societal collapse and anarchy.

The truth is Japan like many others doesn't want change. They want a fixed society that doesn't vary. Since they have set themselves up as an export economy that mainly exports to the US they must keep their goods cheaper than US alternatives or there is no reason for the US to buy their goods. Hence they grow to a fixed percentage of the US and stop. Then they inflate their way to poverty giving them room to grow again.

Population growth is a side issue. Cultural and economic stagnation are the main course.