*SS, like other defined benefit schemes, allows for spreading the actuarial risk that you will live longer than expected. True, a life annuity could do this as well, but it is still a spreading of risk, and therefore insurance.

*SS spreads investment risk. A diversified portfolio could do this too (but at a cost), but SS can also spread systemic risk between age cohorts.

Finally, if Friedman is right and SS is just a tax and a (logically independent) program, then talk of a SS crisis distinct from the solvency of the US Government is meaningless.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, life expectancy hovered around 65, the retirement age. So there was a point in time at which outliving your ability to take care of yourself was unlikely, but possible, and therefore a “risk” to guard against.

Unlikely? The average worker entering the workforce in 1935 had a better than 50% change of reaching the age 65. Those that made it had a life expectancy of 13 years, not that much lower than today’s 17 years.

Your “facts” overlook the high infant mortality rate in 1935. If you made it through childhood, your life expectancy wasn’t that much lower than it would be today.

It’s not insurance against getting old, it’s insurance against ending up old without having done well in life and needing extra financial support to get by.

That’s not inevitable. But it’s not predictable, either, because shit happens during the course of 65 years.

It’s not insurance against getting old, it’s insurance against ending up old without having done well in life and needing extra financial support to get by.

That’s not inevitable. But it’s not predictable, either, because shit happens during the course of 65 years.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, life expectancy hovered around 65, the retirement age. So there was a point in time at which outliving your ability to take care of yourself was unlikely, but possible, and therefore a “risk” to guard against.

Unlikely? The average worker entering the workforce in 1935 had a better than 50% change of reaching the age 65. Those that made it had a life expectancy of 13 years, not that much lower than today’s 17 years.

Your “facts” overlook the high infant mortality rate in 1935. If you made it through childhood, your life expectancy wasn’t that much lower than it would be today.

*SS, like other defined benefit schemes, allows for spreading the actuarial risk that you will live longer than expected. True, a life annuity could do this as well, but it is still a spreading of risk, and therefore insurance.

*SS spreads investment risk. A diversified portfolio could do this too (but at a cost), but SS can also spread systemic risk between age cohorts.

Finally, if Friedman is right and SS is just a tax and a (logically independent) program, then talk of a SS crisis distinct from the solvency of the US Government is meaningless.