You may have missed the point that actuarially those of us of higher SES in the skilled labor force yes have longer lifespans, but also longer healthspans: there is what is called “compression of morbidity.” Of course who knows for any individual? I could get hit by a car bicycling to work Monday morning. Suddenly find out I have metastatic melanoma. But by odds I am right now more likely to live to 89 or 90, and most of that time without significant disability.
Of course it is unfair that the unskilled low SES labor force is much more likely to not only die much younger but to spend more of those years with significant disabilities, both cognitive and physical! And unable to get their full retirement age benefits until they are much closer to statistically probable disability and death, if not already with some disability.
I’m not going to off myself early, stop engaging in my healthy nutrition and exercise habits, or not take advantage of the better than average healthcare I have access to, in the interests of fairness though.
Can you clarify who you believe are the “now-useless” are, and whether you are being sarcastic or not? I need to know whether or not to open a Pit thread.
Groups of people who receive social security: Retired workers and their dependents. Disabled workers and dependents. Widows and children of deceased parents.
In this context I was referring to the reason people are given social security, which is that it is no longer profitable to employ them, on average. Obviously everyone does not reach this point at the same age, but it would be cost-ineffective to continually evaluate people to see if they are still profitable to employ, and doing so would create opportunities for grift, so a certain average age is selected for everyone to receive social security benefits. In the country where I live, social security is given to people over the age of 65, whether they can work or not. If they can generate additional income they are welcome to do so, but they will have to pay tax if they earn too much. Most pensions are taxable as income if they put the receiver in a taxable income bracket.. Disabled people do not receive social security benefits, they receive disability benefits. I’ve never heard of widows being given their dead spouses’ social security pensions though some private pensions are transferred or activated in some occupations under certain circumstances (a police officer who is killed in the line of duty, etc). Dependents (children) do not receive benefits, their caregivers do, on their behalf, but there are typically no provisions by which their caregivers must prove they have disbursed those funds appropriately.
Have you specified which country you live in? In the US, Social Security is not a dole and is not given, it is earned, at least in so far as everyone with an income must contribute to the fund, and at the scheduled time they receive their benefits, partly based on how much they contributed. The collection and disbursement methods and standards may not be fair, which was the original subject of this thread.
This does not reflect the actual history of US Social Security. Before it was established, companies had no problem at all laying off people who they thought were too old, and leaving them with no income. During the depression, their families (if any) were themselves likely to be unemployed, and could not help support them. FDR and Congress established the program during the Depression, in 1935, and payroll taxes started in 1937, although apparently the first payouts came in 1940.
Several of your other statements about social security are not true for the US. I can’t say if they are true for your country, since as far as I know you haven’t said where that is (or I may have missed it). Anyway, in this post you have implied that it is not the US.
Which they could still legally do in most states until 1967 - and those protections weren’t extended to employees over 65 under federal law until 1986.