Is raising the age for collecting social security racially biased?

[lcordero]

Study: Life expectancy for blacks less
Major reason for racial gap is more homicides for blacks. Whites living to 75



The Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- Life expectancy is about six years shorter for blacks than whites, and homicide is a leading contributor to the racial gap, a government study said Thursday.

Homicide adds about seven months to the gap, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in what it called the first report analyzing life expectancy by race and cause of death.

Overall life expectancy is about 75 years for whites and 69 years for blacks, the CDC report said.

Keep in mind that a lot of politicians are advocating raising the age all the way to 70 years of age. I feel that racism is not dead, it has taken a new form.

[pasadenaboy]

1. what will be the life span

once these changes are enacted?

I'm 33. I expect life expectancy to keep getting higher and higher with advances in medicine.

I know everyone hates to hear it, but if life expectancy gets greater than 80 or 85, there is no way we can fund a retirement age of 65.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. You're assuming that people who live to be 80 will

"use up" Social Security but their "extra" years are offset by the people who die before they reach retirement age or after drawing benefits for only a year or two (or whatever the actuaries "allowed" for.) Is it a statistically perfect offset? Probably not but I think we can adjust for any problems by putting more money into Social Security by taxing all the income that's currently exempt from FICA.

I know that at 33 you feel like you'll never draw any Social Security but I think it's the children of your generation who'll run into a problem and that's only if we don't stop politicians from taking money out of it. The real danger is not longer life expectancies but privatization and other schemes to rob the system. Someday the average life expectancy may go up enough that the retirement age will need to be raised. On the other hand, pollution and both old and new diseases will work against an increased life expectancy. People who believed the EPA assertions that the air in NYC was OK after 9-11 may have a diminished life expectancy. Many chronic diseases are increasing, especially those related to the immune system. Asthma, diabetes, lupus, multiple sclerosis and others are increasing. Alzheimers. Then there's West Nile, Lyme disease, malaria, dengue fever, AIDS, ebola. Remember the SARS epidemic? Mad cow disease is associated with CJ in humans. And terrorism may start being a more routine cause of death here. Tuberculosis was a big problem in FDR's time and it's been making a comeback. Bottom line: nobody gets out of here alive.

The Social Security system makes money off people who die before retiring unless they have a surviving spouse and/or children who draw benefits. Many people don't realize how the system works. Someone I know has been counting on her husband's Social Security for her retirement and thinking that whenever he died, she'd collect. When a friend pointed out to her that she would not collect unless he was over retirement age when he died, she developed a great interest in preserving her husband's health!

Another woman I know has had to go back to work following her husband's death last year. He was older than she, had been ill for years, and they had been living on his Social Security since his retirement. She quit working when he retired in order to spend time with him and care for him because doctors had told him that his heart was so bad there was nothing more to be done for him. When his heart finally gave out, so did his Social Security benefits because she's not old enough to collect.

When she does reach 65, she will probably draw his benefits rather than her own (most men draw more because of higher salaries and not being out of the workforce due to having children) but in any case, she's had to go back to work after fifteen or twenty years out of it. He had no life insurance because no one would insure him with his bad heart. For nearly a year after his death, her daughter and other family and friends were supporting her because she was distraught about her husband's death and not able to go back to work. In a lot of places, this woman wouldn't be able to find work. She's a neat person and a good worker but her age and years out of the job market would go against her with many employers. I think she was able to find employment because she knows so many people in this area.

Think of all the women not as fortunate. If she hadn't found work, I expect she would have soon had to sell her house (a simple, small house bought many years ago, probably more cheaply than renting.) Her car's fifteen years old if it's a day and has no air conditioning so it's not much of an asset. The neocons would say he should have had life insurance but the man had a bad heart when he was young so he could never get insurance. (Lesson: Get life insurance and medical insurance as soon as you can, before you develop any "pre-existing conditions" that will make you uninsurable!) Savings? How do you save when all your money goes to medical expenses and food?

Her family should take care of her? Well, she only has one child. And she has an elderly mother of her own to look after! Many of us baby boomers have only one child, or none at all. My parents had four children who lived to adulthood but only two of us had children and we each have only one. Sometimes that scares me and makes me think I should have had more kids, so they could share the burden of looking after me when I'm old. I'd have really liked having more kids but it didn't seem like a responsible choice, financially or environmentally. When you're 20 and 30 you make the best choices you can, trying to anticipate what the situation will be when you're 40, 50, 60, 70. It helps a lot if you inherit millions to start with.

Enough rambling. If anyone reads this, thanks!

[Mairead]

29. Lovely, DB! Thanks!

You touch on what I think will be the biggest problem -- it already is a giant problem, and Si Kahn captured it poignantly in his song 'Aragon Mill':

At the east of town,
At the foot of the hill,
Stands a chimney so tall,
That says "Aragon Mill"

CHORUS
And the only tune I hear,
Is the sound of the wind,
As it blows throught the town,
Weave and spin, weave and spin

But there's no smoke at all,
Comin' out of the stack.
The mill has shut down
And it ain't a-comin' back.

CHORUS

Well I'm too old to work
And I'm too young to die.
Tell me, where shall we go,
My old gal/man and I?

CHORUS

There's no children at all,
In the narrow, empty street.
The mill has closed down,
It's so quiet I can't sleep.

CHORUS

Yes, the mill has shut down,
It's the only life I know.
Tell me where will I go,
Tell me where will I go?

CHORUS

We're living longer, but--as Dennis recognises--we're not working longer because there are too few jobs. There'll be millions of us 'too old to work and too young to die'.

We have to fix it.

[wuushew]

2. why just confine the argument to race

women live longer than men, no difference in their social security.

Why not adjust for medical conditions or other factors?

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. I also was thinking gender biased

since women tend to live longer than men.

[lcordero]

5. Because the same system is skewed against women too

Women get paid less and they get less in social security.

[w4rma]

3. "under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age."

…
The actions of this President and this administration are threatening the soundness of our Social Security system and of our private pension systems as well. By creating the largest deficits in history and adding irresponsibly to the federal debt, he has given Americans worried about their retirement even more cause for concern.

As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.

The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I'm prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.

The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world's largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7343

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Kucinich would roll back retirement age to 65 -- it's now 67

for some people. Depending on when you were born, you may be able to retire at 65, 66, or 67. Kucinich would end the cap on taxable income to do this. As it is now, when you make over about 70 K, income over the limit isn't taxed at all. Now, Dean is saying he might raise the cap, and he won't raise the retirement age. Has he changed his position?

On June 22, 2003, on Meet the Press, Dean said twice (not once, but twice) that he would "entertain" the idea or "look at" raising the retirement age to 68, suggesting it might have to be done.

In 1995, he said the retirement age should be raised to 70. Remember, in June, Dean thought 68 was acceptable. On August 5, at the AFL-CIO debate, he flatly denied that he had ever favored raising the retirement age to 68 or 70. The next day, he admitted that he "misspoke." Did he really forget what he said on national television in June?

Is this the September version of Dean's policy on retirement age?

More importantly, will he change his mind again? What if Dean gets elected to the presidency and then decides to raise the retirement age to 70 or even 75?

Dean has been running for the presidential nomination for a year or more (and I've read he considered running in 2000.) After pursuing the presidency this long, shouldn't Dean have his act together on financial questions like this?

Remember how the media didn't report about Dubya's record as governor of Texas? Let's look at what's not being reported about Dean's record as Vermont's governor. Dean threatened to cut aid to various groups (elderly, disabled, etc.) when he was governor of Vermont. Why? Because he was obsessed with a balanced budget. And it's because of his obsession with balanced budgets that Dean suggested raising the Social Security retirement age.

Dean also said in the June 22 interview that it might be necessary to amend the Constitution to require a federal balanced budget because, according to Dean, the people in Washington don't understand money.

I know Dean supporters don't like to deal with this issue. They will tell you it's not an issue. Just like the GOP will tell you Bush*'s story about uranium being sold to Saddam is not an issue. But most of us want the truth from people who want to lead us. Is Dean being truthful?

[SoCalDem]

6. I really don't think that was the goal, but it did turn out that way..

Men, in general, live shorter lives than women, so I guess it's statistically based against men in general :(

I don't mind them changing the collection age, BUT the age that YOU collect , should the the retirement age in effect when you STARTED paying in...

or it could be adjusted , based on "type" of work.. After a lifetime of physical labor, is it fair to require MORE years of labor, that the person may not even be cabable of doing?? What about the company that forces retirement on 55 year old guys/and women?? What do they do for the next 10 to 12 years??

[lcordero]

8. I don't feel that it's skewed against men since women are discriminated

against. Just think what the Dem. candidates say about women making 74 to 76 cents to the dollar.

[redeye]

30. So?

How is it relevant?

[Clete]

7. It's an ice floe.

There is a story that goes around that I don't think is true, but it states that the Inuit will put grandma out on an ice floe to freeze to death during a bad winter to preserve the scarce food for the children. I think the metaphor fits this situation.

The fascists in charge want to work seniors to death so they die before they can retire. Their excuse will be that if they had saved their money to retire they could have done so earlier and why should they have to pay for it with their hard stolen money.

[lcordero]

9. How will they save any money if Republicans are stealing their pensions

and their life savings?

[Clete]

10. Exactly. They know they are thieves, but they

concoct reasons like this to justify it to the gullible. You know, like the ones about the homeless being lazy and that they should get jobs. Never mind that a third of the people who are homeless do have jobs. They just can't afford to rent.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. And they want people to feel guilty every time they

go on vacation or make a "frivulous" purchase. "Don't enjoy life, just save for your old age" and "It's your fault if you don't make more money. You should have worked harder/ gotten more education/ gone into a different line of work." Lies, lies, lies. That's what you get from cheap labor conservatives.

[InkAddict]

25. I confess

I raised my children, baby through kindergarten, without daycare and free lunches and got a college degree without government loans though debt-ridden for kids college years. My car brought full market trade value after 10 years because I maintained it well and kept the miles low. But I pissed off the folks when I sold the junker that was my first car, held onto Grandma's dining room set, and when I pleaded for what would have been a short spell of sitting services from Grandma so I could get a second job while husband searched for over a year for a new position. Well, here we go again, but I've learned how to handle abandoment and betrayal. So now, once again, the thugs and their fundie followers have obstructed my ability to maintain my modest assets. Doesn't the government want the chunk of taxes we forked over now that the kids are grown and out of the nest; why have they set their sight on my home; don't they ever want the school loans back, and how can this couple obey the law to protect and care for an elderly pill-chugging parent with multiple chronic illnesses. Apparently, the cost-benefit analysis of our continued existence as US citizens has finally come up backwards, and it's more advantageous for them if about 10 million of us sign on to their more profitable social progrommes like welfare, prison, and shelter real estate maintenance. Guess we're just lazy dead-beats as charged! Perhaps, instead of picking on us, someone should have thrown (fundie)Momma from the train years ago. They shoot horses'(asses)don't they?

On edit: Oh, I get it - I'm white and live in a fairly-balanced integrated area of town. Maybe my neighbors are behind the circumstances - NOT!!!!

[unblock]

11. homicides are most likely 100% irrelevant

the relevany question is NOT 'what is the different life expectancy between blacks and whites' when considering raising the retirement age. if blacks have a lower life expectancy because fewer people make it to retirement age at all, then the system is ALREADY biased, but raising the retirement age wouldn't make it worse (at least not based on the single statistic of blacks dying before 65.

what IS relevant is 'do blacks who survive to the age of 65 still die off faster than whites who survive to the age of 65'.

i would think that homicide victims are mostly under the age of 65, so homicides would be a small factor in the real question. thinks like access to good health care, nutrition over the lifetime, smoking habits, etc., probably all are more significant than homicides.


that being said, raising the retirement age might well be racially biased, in fact i suspect it is; my point is simply that the analysis shown does not support this conclusion.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. You're correct, I think, that homicide is not

much of a factor in the survival rates of blacks over 65. Sure, elderly people are murdered, but not in the same numbers as younger people. I would think that blacks over 65 have a lower life expectancy than whites and that it's due to differences in medical care, nutrition, jobs (blacks being more likely to have more hazardous low-paying jobs.) Fairness might be lowering the retirement age for blacks and/or anyone whose job is so hazardous that it likely reduces their life expectancy. Or just lower it for blacks to make up for some of the inequality they've suffered.

[tom_paine]

13. Not race based, per se -- but do to the demographics

I think it is "unintentionally" discriminatory.

But I'm not sure you could make a case for arguing it on that level.

I wouldn't be in favor of addressing it in racial terms (would that then mean that African-Americans get access to Social Security earlier then? no way, that violates basic fairness directly!) either.

[amazona]

14. abso-frickin'-lutely it's racially biased -- and class based as well

This is just a lie to claim that blacks die younger because they are killing themselves and if they would just stop with the gun violence already...

C'mon. We all know that diabetes and heart disease kills blacks at an earlier age. We know that many refineries and chemical plants are put in the black neighborhoods. We know that they are suffering asthma which leads to heart disease which leads to death at higher rates.

To raise retirement age to 70 is to deny retirement not just to blacks but to ALL groups of working class people. Working class groups like coal miners also have life expectancies in the 50s.

They want the folks who do the hard, dirty work of the world not to get one moment of rest.

Sickening.

"Whites" living to 75. What whites are these? I know plenty of white males dying in their 50s as usual.

[lcordero]

15. oops

I forgot to include the link.
http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/091401/new_0914010031.shtml

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. It just is very interesting

in tort settlements how they take into account someone's potential life income so it's all too often that whites get far more settlement money than blacks due to occupation; yet on social security, their isn't any such allowance for the shorten life expectancy. Now why is that?

[TahitiNut]

20. Should it affect the payroll tax rate too?

:eyes: Remember, there's more to it than just the OA benefits. Survivors? Disability? Different rates for different ethnic groups? genders? DNA tests? How about hazardous vocations? avocations? Why do surviving spouses get paid benefits when they may have never contributed? Does that discriminate against single people? how about gays?

It's a virtual Pandora's Box.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Then let's be consistent.

Shouldn't tort settlements also be the same regardless of a person's occupation? Why are some lives worth more than others?

[TahitiNut]

22. A tort is a 'wrong' for which the guilty compensate

... a specific person or persons for the actual impact of the harm done to them by a responsible party. The "punitive damages" in a tort are irrespective of such losses and are set based on ability to pay. (If we followed this model, then the responsible persons <parents> should have to pay for the "harm" of your having to live.) :shrug:

OASDI/HI is "insurance" -- essentially "death insurance" at least in part. As "life insurance" pays when you die, "death insurance" pays when you live and as you live -- each day that you live and cheat death. The insurance risk pool is everyone who contributes at a certain level -- and their survivors.

Do insurance companies pay different benefits on identical policies based on age? Not really. They actually charge different rates based on actuarial risk. So, if you want to model OASDI/HI after any other 'system' try insurance -- then talk about different premium levels. But how would anyone do that? A fixed payment schedule irrespective of ability to pay?

Should we lower payments as one ages? After all, the opposite insurance ("life insurance") raises premium rates for older persons since the 'risk' being insured against <death> is more highly probable the older we get. By the same logic, OASDI should reduce rates as one gets older since the risk insured against <life> is less probable the older we get.

Think about it.


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Nice post.

Your response is well thought out. Here's another question I have: Why should the surviving spouse of a janitor who worked in the WTC building for years, and died on 9/11, get considerably less than a 6 month bond salesman who died in the same incident?

[TahitiNut]

24. FWIW ...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." — (from the essay “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[JohnKleeb]

19. more so economically biased but I see your point completely

I see your point completely though.

[nemo137]

26. no, it's not racially biased.

the pols trying to raise the retirement are looking to save money and roll back "creeping socialism." i seriously doubt they woke up and said "What's the life expectancey for black americans? why, let's make the retirement age 1 year more than that.

[frustrated_lefty]

27. This is idiotic.

The life expectancy for molecular biologists is 10 years less than the average American life expectancy. And, the vast majority of American molecular biologists are caucasian males. By the same reasoning used in the article, it is reasonable to conclude that the age for collecting social security is "occupationally biased."

[T Bone]

31. cordero you do know this is a new GOP talking point ?

I heard Rush blathering on about this one day. It appeared to me to be a GOP black voter recruitment tool of some kind. Something they are trying to nuance. I am not certain but I know I heard a right-winger a.m. radio diatribe on exactly this.