Improving, not just saving, Social Security

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You’ve heard it all before. Social security is not looking so secure, but why does it really matter? I think most people would probably say because it would certainly be nice to get that monthly check in the mail once they’ve retired, particularly when 7.5% of every paycheck is taken out for it. Who likes to pay something for nothing? After all, the current system is projected to take in less money than it pays out around 2017, which means it will eat up the budget, which means even tighter capital markets and higher future debt. And then of course it’s projected to go bankrupt in 2040. It’s all very boring.

But the bigger reason we should fix social security - and not just patch it up with a million clever little ideas, say by lowering the inflation index or pushing back the retirement age, which will succeed only in postponing insolvency and making people work harder for less, but not really improve anything - is because of the enormous… opportunity cost! I wish it could cut aluminum cans in half or something, but we’ll have to settle for opportunity cost. Think about the difference between every dollar of your paycheck that goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, and then is subsequently spent immediately and preserved in the form of debt, versus every dollar going going into a well balanced mutual fund and earning interest. And then multiply over, oh, say four decades. Say on average you make a real income of $50,000 a year for the next 40 years, and the standard 7.65% of this is contributed to payroll taxes, this is $153,000 in principal. When that money goes into the Trust Fund, the government at best will nullify the deleterious effects of inflation, and worse yet, may actually lose purchasing power depending on the spread of government bonds versus inflation, or still worse, may decide never to pay it.

On the other hand, pick any ten year period of the stock market, any 10 year performance period of Wall Street, and the average returns will never be below 7%. Not during the Great Depression, not during S & L or dotcom, not now, not ever. Business cycles are real, they happen, but the ups and downs average to a healthy trend. Saying something is reliable because it has never failed is all you can really go on. For instance, people banking on the Social Security Trust Fund paying them out around the middle of this century often cite how much more reliable a Government IOU is because the government has never defaulted on its debt. True, but then the rationale of the safety of Wall Street is no less reliable. The government has never defaulted on its obligations. And Wall Street has never produced less than 7% per decade in returns, let alone a loss. So say over the 40 years you’ve contributed that $153,000 to the government and the market just hits the bottom of that 7% return, you still turn that money into over $600k. Assuming the best, this is a 400% difference from what the government would pay out, a very steep opportunity cost. Now there are no guarantees. And if people would like to play the “more conservative card” of just paying into the fund and getting a government guarantee, they should be able to. But, just like U.S. Senators, people should have the choice to contribute their income into actual funds. The Regular ol’ Person system could be essentially the same design as the Senators’. There would be a pension board that oversees 5 or so broad investment plans, divided by their equity/fixed income ratio, but all diversified and managed by professionals and overseen to regulate leverage and risk (something missing since about 2004 when the SEC removed net capital holding requirements). The point is people couldn’t just invest wherever the mood struck them, there would be a small menu of balanced funds to choose from. And because of the simplicity of the rules - 5 plans, no more than 10:1 or so leveraging, it would be clear whether funds were being abused/Madoffed in any way.

I hope that any future modification to Social Security does not reflexively deny individuals a choice in how their earnings are used. I think this is the compromise that can be struck - people who like the current system (retooled with some painful actuarial adjustments) can stay with it. But not allowing individuals a choice to place their payroll earnings into a balanced fund seems to me to be denying people an awful lot, and for nothing but the concerns of other people who would be unaffected. It would have the added benefits of freeing the government up from a lot of debt and providing much needed private capital injections to our financial institutions. A lot of this could be used to do things like deploy clean energy, build smart grids, in short create good jobs. And of course there are details, there always are. When money from current workers is placed in an investment fund, and not siphoned towards current retirees, there will have to be bridge financing in the form of more debt. Yet so long as much of Asia has a 30% savings rate, and so long as there are sovereign wealth funds, there will be ample capital to absorb a few more government securities. Plus, paying these off in the future will be easier than waiting for the system to slide into debt and paying then, as the pension system will be more sustainable and profitable thanks to new productivity from deeper capital markets and decreased government retirement obligations - meaning a broader economic base. And there will have to be cut off points for when people can make the transition. And there will have to be a little bit of private earnings skimmed by the Board as reserves to provide insurance to people who might pick particularly unlucky times to retire – in this way they would be guaranteed a minimal payment not below the regular system. Bueller?

But the point is, legitimate debate about the system doesn’t have to ruin anything. Those who think the government is the best universal retirement planner and want that legal guarantee can have it. And those who would prefer to fund government managed private investments with their money can do that. Now this is bipartisanship This isn’t a parlor room discussion or a game of gotchya between editorialists (oh how Stiglitz, Krugman, Summers, Brooks et. al. love to seem the smartest guy in the room). It’s a very pragmatic day-to-day kitchen table decision. And I think given the choice, people should be given more opportunity, not less.

On another note, the CBO recently scored the House stimulus bill. It estimates 7% of the energy investments will be spent within 2 years and less than 50% of the transportation dollars spent in 4 years. This is too slow to provide immediate stimulus and generally conforms with what the Council of Economic Adviser's new chair Christina Romer has shown in her work. I think the second half of TARP ($150b to buy up worst assets, $150b for continued recapitalization and $50b for mortgage refinancing, which could save 1m+), combined with a more focused $100b stimulus could have great effect.