Oh. I thought you were trying participate in a debate. I didn’t realize that you were just ranting. I won’t bother to respond to your posts in this thread again.
The problem with this idea–that we can as a society pay money into social security now, let it accumulate interest, and then in the future use the interest to pay future social security payments–is that it doesn’t take into account what interest IS.
We already do such a thing. Social Security is running a surplus. That is, more funds are collected via social security taxes than are paid out. So where does the rest of the money go? Into the “Social Security Trust Fund”. And what’s that? It’s treasury bills. And what does that mean? It means that the rest of the government borrows the money from Social Security, and promises to pay them back the same amount (plus interest) in the future. And then we use that borrowed money to pay for our current expenditures, like blowing up villages in Afghanistan, explosives aren’t cheap.
The problem is, how are we going to pay back social security with interest? The only way we can pay it back in the future is to have higher federal taxes in the future. Now, if our economy grows at a decent clip, we can make these payments fairly easily, and in fact our tax rates might even be lower even though the total amount collected by taxes would be much larger. If the economy is twice as big in 50 years, we can collect twice as much in taxes even if the tax rates stay the same.
But interest always means that somebody in the future is going to have to pay back that money. Interest isn’t paid by some central computer server, it’s paid because people agree to borrow that money now and repay it later. In other words, workers of the future are going to have to work harder to pay for the retirees of the future. It doesn’t matter if you say that the money is invested with interest, or if you just promise to raise taxes in the future, the money has to be paid in the future by future taxpayers. And since we’re going to have more and more retirees who live longer and longer, that means higher and higher payments.
If our economic growth increases faster than the increase in social security, then this is not a problem. However, if it doesn’t that means future workers are going to be impoverished to pay for the legions of retirees. It doesn’t matter how you arrange it. If a retiree needs food, workers have to plant the crops, harvest them, transport them cross country, cook them, and put the food on a plate. If a retiree needs blood pressure medication, some worker has to manufacture it. If a retiree needs a car, some worker has to build that car.
And complaining that you were promised this money is pretty hollow, because who promised you the money? The people your age and older? Or the workers who are going to have to work to provide it? Just because some guy who’s now dead promised you a pile of money doesn’t mean that some poor kid in the future is bound by that promise.
Note that this is a problem whether we’re talking about private retirement savings or public pensions. The economy depends on people working, and if everyone retires to live on their savings, those savings will be worthless because no one is working. Obviously that’s not going to happen, but as we collectively do less work we collectively produce less which means savings will be worth less. The only reason you as an individual can lend out money and get your money repaid with interest is because somebody figures they can use that money to make even more money, and be able to pay you back and still have money left over for themselves. If they go bankrupt before they can pay you back, you’re screwed unless there’s some sort of protection or insurance. But in the case of a country of 300 million people we’re insuring ourselves, there’s no outside entity that can pick up the check if we find we don’t have enough money on hand.
The 20% of the population that is “not getting by” is not going to be able to stand up against the 70% “getting by and not willing to risk that - many who don’t want to see their lot get worse supporting the 20%” or the 10% doing “a lot better than getting by and holding the resource cards.”
Those ain’t good odds for a revolution - or even a riot.
The trouble is that a large percentage of those ‘20% of the population that is “not getting by”’ are kids under 18 years old, and that’s because those kids are in starter jobs making minimum wage. And those kids aren’t likely to start to riot, since in general they accept that they aren’t going to make a lot of money when they are first starting out. I mean, I doubt many people on this board started out differently. I worked my share of minimum wage jobs, sometimes having to work several just to make ends meet.
From Wiki:
Again, while this is a problem, it’s a fairly minor problem wrt imminent riots in the streets. Americans are, by and large food secure…and even those who aren’t food secure for the entire year are something like 15% of the population, of which a smaller percentage are insecure with hunger…according to the above you are talking about less than 4% of the total population. 4% of the population, or even 10% are just not enough to start the dreamed about left wing revolution in the US or any other country. When and if that number goes to 40%, or 50% or more…well, THEN this discussion will be meaningful wrt riots in the US. Until then it’s just a lot of hand wringing and hot air.
-XT
If you have a good savings account, then you must know that the interest doesn’t pay enough to buy a years medication for many people. I see people who stand in front of me in the drug store and are paying up to $400.00 for 2 prescriptions. The interest rates are inane. Paying out less than 1% ! We saved for years, didn’t get into debt,now, in our 80’s if we had to live on our savings alone it wouldn’t pay for a severe illiness if we needed it and SSI on pays a percent of our medical expenses. Of course if, and when you get to our age, you will be happy to just die( or suffer for a couple of months or years first)? We have insurance and it doesn’t pay that much only a percent of what SSI pays. Most of the people in my generation has little or no medical help,when SSI started we were young and payed in from the time we were in our teens.We didn’t have cars or the luxeries the youth has now; but we wouldn’t deprive them of medical help if needed. The conservative idea of "let em die they had their life " well, we will see how your generation does when you(if you are luck enough) to live to your 80’s.
My first job I got no pay, just room and board, I was 13. Then after I graduated from High school I worked for Woolworth’s five and dime. I earned $12.00 a week My friend and I each payed $9,00 a week for our apartment that left us $3.00 for food, clothes etc. I would buy a head of blue cheese and lettice, she bought peaut butter and bread, and that is what we lived on. I saw an ad in the paper for a job in a Chcago suburb for $25.00 per week. I came there with 25 cents in my pocket. I was 17 at the time. I had to pay $100.00 a year income taxes. Then I got a job Baking in a restaurant, for75 cents an hour. I didn’t eat from Friday night until Monday morning. I had no food stamps or public support. When I was ill I just had to self medicate and missed work of ccourse so I had even less to live on. I had met my husband then and when we were first married we lives on beef kidney stew and rice.
I cooked in a Hillsbury coffee can and fried in the lid. Times are different now!
Oh, yeah?! Well, I had to grow up without even basic cable! 
In answer to the OP: The riots start when the government stops redeeming the food stamps.
If I do some napkin math - the job at 13 would be somewhere tail end of the depression - but past the worst part. By 17 you are talking early WWII?
The problem is that there is no proof that 70% are going to lose their prosperity to save the other 20%. Especially since a lot of the other 70% are increasingly worried about joining that 20%.
And yes, a country can be dragged into ruin if 20% of the populace rebels. The economy tanked when unemployment hit 10%, or even before that. Imagine the level of disruption 20% could cause, merely by fleeing the country. Which is probably why so many barriers exist to keep them from doing so…
No, but they’d have to risk it.
And yes, the country can be dragged to ruin if 20% of the populace rebels. Which is why 80% of the populace is going to stamp that out HARD if it happens. (See risking your prosperity).
It’s next to impossible for any 80% of any MODERN population to CRUSH the other 20% before things get so bad (disruption, chaos, lawlessness, total uncertainty) it’s not worth salvaging anymore. If a fifth of any modern population has an uprising your prosperity is already GONE.
But 20-80 is a fantasy scenario anyway. Here’s how things will go in the United States. Look at last November’s election results. If you discount white voters the Republican party lost BIG TIME. White citizens are, as of 2010, having less kids than non-whites. Non-whites do not typically vote for the rich and do not vote for crap like free trade or prolonged foreign wars. They are CERTAINLY not pro-globalism. By 2050 that potentially rebellious “20%” will be 40-50%. All we brown people have to do is bide our time and wait the current majority out. The white liberals will be the last nail in that coffin.
By 2050 the recession will have been long over. Unemployment will be back to normal. There will be no reason to riot.
Le Jac seems to be under the impression that by 2050 the US will be essentially an isolationist and self sufficient economic entity with nearly full employment (due to forcing US flagged businesses and manufacturing entities to move back to the US and produce all their goods and services using red blooded American workers, instead of whatever color blood other countries workers have) and massive tariffs on imports that will assure and ensure a happy and productive public and economic freedom for the country as a whole. This will be after the great revolution where right thinking Americans will throw off the shackles of economic slavery and the false gods of globalization and free trade/free market economics and hang all of the so called economics experts. We will adopt the right thinking methodologies of Intel to lead our collective businesses into the light…
Or something.
-XT
If we do not change our current course of economic policy, things will be a lot worse then. First of all we’ll be bankrupt and our currency will be worthless.
But if we take the super idiot approach and go with European-style austerity, maybe enough minorities will starve to death that there won’t be enough to riot. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
If we do not change our current course of economic policy, things will be a lot worse then. First of all we’ll be bankrupt and our currency will be worthless.
[/QUOTE]
So, there won’t be any sort of transition? We’ll go from rich superpower with a high value currency to poor bankrupt nation with worthless currency? And this will happen soon? And you base this all on your vast financial experience that shows you that the US is headed towards bankruptcy and our currency will simply go from high value to low value with nothing in-between? Or, perhaps you don’t understand that if US currency drops in value relative to other currencies then it will give us a huge trade advantage for exporting OUR goods and services? Oh, but that’s right…in your world we don’t do this, don’t have billions of dollars of goods and services that we export to other countries.
When is this expected to start in Europe? I haven’t heard that masses of poor people are starving in Europe due to austerity measures…do you have a cite (snort As if)??
-XT
Iived through the great depression of the 30’s. and the recession of the last one that we are in, many people lived high on the hog. Bought houses that were larger than needed,cost more to heat, and bought a lot of things like a boat,snowmobile and then pay 100.00 to go to a sports even or concert, I stand behind people now inline that have food stamps then pay for liquor etc.with their own money, but buy things I wouldn't think of buying because those cuts of meat and prepared foods are too expensive. Even now I only buy coffee etc, if it is on sale. I won't pay the higher prices I would go without first! I make coffee cakes for one third the cost of prepared foods make most things from scratch. I buy chicken on sale and can get 2 meals for !.25 and some times less, there is many ways to streach chicken and Hamburger to make a nourishing meal! I worked and still canned or froze our foods, I buy muffin mix for .25 when it is on sale and freeze it, Most foods can be frozen. I know many people do not have a freezer but if they didn’t buy I phones,wii games etc. they could easily use that money to buy a freezer. or use it for food. There are many good second hand clothing stores, some even have new things that stores have donated. I could buy new but have bought a lot of thins second hand, I have a electric frying pan I bought at a garage sale 30 years ag that still works great, I even use it to bkae in the summer time so I do not need to heat the big oven. I used to do all my shopping in one store, then they went out and Doninic’s came in their prices were oo high so I started shopping the sales in all the storea and Aldi’s I save $,!000.00 the first year. Even when I started to work out side the home I made meals, worked the garden, canned and froze foods. It is amatter of priority! My husband fixes things so that also saves money.We are not rich but are comfortable and do not worry where our next meal is coming from.
And durng the great depression many people lost everything because they were in debt. The same now. Too many people didn’t think of the future when they purched a house that was so big and expensive, too many I know who have lost thier houses didn’t realize the Taxes, furnishings, heating, air conditioning,and up keep would cost so much. many of the young people eat out a lot. We seldom did and even now seldom do.
It is true, the banks should not have lent money and charged such high interests,nor should credit card be sent out to just any one, even my grandchildren who were not working, but in college had a credit card, and now are trying to pay that back, on top of large mortgages ad other expenses, both work and have to pay sitters. There is lots of blame to go around!
You have my deepest sympathy:(
Hell, why does 20% of a country have to revolt?
We’re being dragged under, economically speaking, with just 10% of Americans being unemployed. At that level we’re looking at $1.5 trillion of budget deficits and we’ll be nowhere better than $400 billion in the hole if we bring Freddie Kruger to write our next year’s budget.
If 20% of America was to revolt it would be because they are unemployed; the loss of income tax and property tax revenue from that alone would be more than enough to nuke our economy into oblivion.
20% of Americans would only have to stop participating in the economy; no use of force would be needed to destroy the country. The military wouldn’t act - what would they be shooting at? People who have little money and who are starving the system by not buying as much?
Go for it. Try not participating in the economy. The folks we are talking about aren’t the economic drivers anyway - pretty much only meeting their basic needs. Might be a little hard to get food and shelter by dropping out of the economy.
But if you can convince 10-20% of Americas to start subsistence living off the land in Montana (they’ll have to buy the land) and drop off the grid - good luck.