site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What would privatizing Social Security look like?

”No one’s gonna take away your grandma’s pension.” - José Piñera, Minister of Labor and Social Security in Chile, right before he took away your grandma’s pension.

Privatizing Social Security has been a conservative pet issue for as long as I can remember, despite being politically unlikely and unpopular. Even Paul Ryan, who paid for his college tuition with SS survivor funds, still reminisced on halcyon days of planning with his Delta Tau Delta bros to privatize SS at keg parties. If it were possible, what would it even look like?

The Background

Social Security is a defined benefit, "pay-as you-go-system," funded by the $1 trillion Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and $142 billion Disability Insurance trust funds, paid via payroll taxes, plus a $63.78 billion Supplemental Security Income from the General fund.

Before FDR passed SS, senior citizens were the poorest demographic in America. Nowadays it’s one of the most popular programs and everyone wants to preserve it in some way.

Problem is, we’re going broke.

Since 2010, the fund that SSA uses to pay benefits to retirees has been paying out more money than it has been receiving in taxes. At the current rate, the fund's trustees estimate that it will exhaust its reserves in 2033 and be unable to pay full scheduled benefits.

What if Ayn Rand was Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration?

It should be said that the freest of free market solutions here still imagines coercion of mandatory contributions. Still, the position advocates switching to a privately managed, defined-contribution system, which would get a higher returns by investing in the private market instead of government securities.

Because these are personal accounts, hopefully you fix the problem where an increasingly smaller working population pays for swelling retirees. In reality, those old obligations don't disapear:

Social Security has accumulated trillions of dollars in liabilities to workers who are already retired or who will retire soon. To make room for a new private system, policymakers must find funds to pay for these liabilities while still leaving young workers enough money to deposit in new private accounts. This requires scaling back past liabilities – by cutting benefits – or increasing contributions from current workers. Most large-scale privatization plans also involve major new federal borrowing.

Given that this transition would be pretty expensive and the main benefit is getting to invest in the private market, the counter is: why not just let the government invest in the private market? Such a case is made here.

More Consumer Choice?

A privatized system should give individuals more control over their investment decisions. It’s hard to weigh that benefit against the risk of dumb people ending up with less retirement savings than they get under the current system.

Would Management Costs be Lower?

Surprisingly hard to figure out! SS obviously has no marketing costs and boasts astoundingly low administrative costs of >1%. However, some admin work is outsourced, ie employers and the IRS collect the funding.

But hey, the government’s gonna keep doing all that stuff anyway; a privatized system would just have to duplicate them elsewhere, plus means testing, plus marketing costs.

Costs in proposed plans vary a lot:

In some privatization plans, contributions would be collected by a single public or semi-public agency and then invested in one or more of a limited number of investment funds…By pooling the investments of all covered workers in a small number of funds and centralizing the collection of contributions and funds management, this approach would minimize administrative costs, but it would limit workers’ investment choices.

Another strategy is to allow mutual fund companies, private banks, insurance companies, and other investment companies to compete with one another to attract workers’ contributions in hundreds or even thousands of qualified investment funds. This strategy would permit workers unparalleled freedom to invest as they chose, but administrative costs might be high.

But forget all these technical hypotheticals. The question we’re all wondering is, what does this look like in practice what would a South American military dictatorship do?

El Ladrillo

The largest scale example of a country privatizing its retirement system is under the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. Initially their rollout was a big success with high returns. However, even Niall Ferguson, a prominent advocate for their system, notes many of the downsides I wondered about above:

There is a shadow side to the system, to be sure. The administrative and fiscal costs of the system are sometimes said to be too high. Since not everyone in the economy has a full time job, not everyone ends up participating in the system. The self employed were not obliged to contribute to Personal Retirement Accounts and the casually employed do not contribute either. That leaves a substantial portion of the population with no pension coverage at all…

On the other hand the government stands ready to make up the difference for those whose savings do not suffice to pay a minimum pension, provided they have done at least 20 years of work. And there is also a Basic Solidarity pension for those who do not qualify for this.

That public pension was in fact created by a socialist government specifically to make up for extremely low coverage under the neoliberal system. I find it pretty damning that the most extreme example of a privatized retirement system ran into all the problems its critics said it would, and handled it in the same way every public system does - through backup government funding. If we’re going to end up doing a mixed market system anyway, it might behoove us to keep our publicly managed system but give them leeway to invest privately, rather than pay a ton to transition to a privatized system then pay more later to fix the holes that left:

Chile’s system hasn’t worked as promised or expected. The creators anticipated that the average worker would save enough to earn 70% of their salary in retirement; the reality has been closer to one-third. They thought the new system would expand the number of workers with retirement funds; instead nearly 40% of Chileans have nothing to fall back on. Rather than improve the lives of Chile’s elderly, most pensioners live on less than the minimum wage...

The private system hasn’t let the government off the financial hook either. The transition period was always going to be expensive as the government footed the bill for those retiring on the public dime without receiving payroll taxes (as these contributions all headed to private accounts). But the government has also had to backstop far more of the new system’s retirees than expected. Officials thought less than 10% of wage earners would rely on public largesse for a minimum pension. Today, more than 40% need the government to step in.

A broader review of the other countries that followed suit seems similarly disapointing:

Starting in Chile in the 1980s, and then in Mexico, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia, Argentina, and Bolivia in the 1990s, countries turned to systems where contributions would be deposited directly in workers’ individual accounts...

the system has done little to stimulate voluntary savings; few workers have channeled additional resources to their accounts. Further, the market for workers’ individual accounts has been far from competitive. On the demand side, workers as consumers of financial products for retirement had difficulty comparing the various combinations of fees and investment options offered by pension fund administrators, particularly when the “product” that workers were buying (or rather, were being forced to buy) would be delivered many years from today. On the supply side, there were few private firms competing, partly because the presence of economies of scale in the administration of funds naturally led to a monopolistic market structure.

Less Radical Funding Solutions

  1. Raise Payroll Taxes - “even a modest change, such as a gradual increase of 0.3 percentage points each for employees and employers (or less than $3 per week for an average earner), could close about one-fifth of the gap.”

  2. Raise the payroll cap - The payroll tax is actually regressive, exempting incomes over $160,200. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that subjecting earnings above $250,000 to the payroll tax in addition to those below the current taxable maximum would raise more than $1 trillion in revenues over a 10-year period”.

  3. Widen the tax base - “In 1982, 90 percent of earnings were subject to the Social Security tax, but by 2017 the share had decreased to 84 percent.” “Including employer-sponsored health insurance premiums could close over one-third of Social Security’s solvency gap; including other fringe benefits could close one-tenth.”

I suspect the government will raise the payroll cap to the point where it doesn’t matter(there are simply not enough people with million dollar salaries to make any difference whatsoever), and then lie about inflation numbers when adjusting SS payments to make up the difference.

What makes you say this, based on the CBO report that raising the cap could raise an extra trillion?

The government will somehow find a way to come up short.

I think what’s getting left out is how 1) this probably won’t raise an extra trillion, because wealthy people use tax avoidance strategies(and to my knowledge payroll taxes are specifically on wages, not on passive income- eg ceo pay is often structured to give compensation in terms of assets which appreciate to reduce tax burden, and it’s not inconceivable that this could extend down the ladder to cope with a sudden large tax increase on high wages) and 2) inflation isn’t going away, so social security outlays are going to continue to rise because they’re inflation adjusted(which is absolutely ruinous to an optimistic planning model for a pay-as-you-go system based off of payroll taxes when wages rise slower than inflation), and also people are living longer(and thus drawing social security for longer). Yes, yes, I know that average US life expectancy is dropping, but that’s mostly due to premature deaths of people who wouldn’t have drawn much social security anyways- both because they weren’t going to push the average lifespan up regardless, and because they were poor and social security outlays are tied to your working income.

This seems like an uncharacteristically low effort take from you.

That’s true. I’ll edit in a steel man to one of my posts above when I have more time to think about what that entails.

No worries & no rush

All right, it’s in the post two above that one.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats