Nov 18, 2023·edited Nov 18, 2023Liked by Don Akchin
Don, bravo. Thank you for rightly pointing out the argument in that article is unreasonable. I wouldn't put much stock in the authors of that piece being "highly educated" . One is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, rightly (no pun intended) identified in Wikipedia as "the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas." In. other words, an economist who favors social security would be extremely unlikely to be hired by the AEI, and by "unlikely", I mean "not a snowball's chance in hell" This is why thinktanks are not a suitable substitute for universities, where departments long have had a variety of viewpoints represented among scholars. The other is not a scholar, but a retired NYT editor who teaches writing part-time at Stanford's Business School, itself not exactly the fan base for social security.
Contrary to what the public thinks, not all scholars agree with each other, or are even scholars. Their article is best understood as part of a long-term campaign to push back on social security. It's been around less than a century, and the forces that rebelled against FDR for introducing it have repeatedly regrouped again and again to push back against it. It's a nonsense to say that the country can't afford it. This is about political. choices.
Don Akchin is so realistic! Aging today has a new perspective, it should be seen as an opportunity!
"Just keep your eyes and ears open for more pundits and politicians trying to sweep you into The Guilted Age. Don't let me say. You didn't start this dumpster fire"
Thank you for this, Don! The article you cite was a particularly egregious example of the divide-and-conquer strategy that attempts to pit young against old as a way to distract from the true causes of income inequality. The Guilted Age, indeed. And while many in the anti-ageism movement encourage us to continue in a career, it’s just fine to enjoy the freedom our overworked years have bought us.
I just read this daily trivia factoid: "Of all the people in history that have reached 65 years of age, half of them are living right now." Glad I'm still living and NOT working!
Social Security has so many shortcomings that no one article can report, analyze, or defend them.
Note that a large percentage of people of our age who both work and collect social security get no increase in benefits from the social security we and our employers both continue to pay in (I would really hate to be paying in both halves of FICA as someone self-employed does), because the formula overweights early years of earnings compared to current or recent earnings. It is as if my federal income tax rate is 7.65% higher. And the social security we receive is almost all taxable income.
I still work full-time, because I like the challenge, the stimulation, and it's something I know how to do. It's like I pay to have fun.
Don, great article and thanks for the shout out. I'm going to share this on my social this week. It will take a coordinated effort to push back on this storyline.
Don, bravo. Thank you for rightly pointing out the argument in that article is unreasonable. I wouldn't put much stock in the authors of that piece being "highly educated" . One is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, rightly (no pun intended) identified in Wikipedia as "the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas." In. other words, an economist who favors social security would be extremely unlikely to be hired by the AEI, and by "unlikely", I mean "not a snowball's chance in hell" This is why thinktanks are not a suitable substitute for universities, where departments long have had a variety of viewpoints represented among scholars. The other is not a scholar, but a retired NYT editor who teaches writing part-time at Stanford's Business School, itself not exactly the fan base for social security.
Contrary to what the public thinks, not all scholars agree with each other, or are even scholars. Their article is best understood as part of a long-term campaign to push back on social security. It's been around less than a century, and the forces that rebelled against FDR for introducing it have repeatedly regrouped again and again to push back against it. It's a nonsense to say that the country can't afford it. This is about political. choices.
You go, Don! Your grass-roots, close-to-the-ground take on retirement and aging is right on the money. I look forward to the book. Judy
Working part time because I want to!
Looking forward to reading the book. Hard to balance all these demands in retirement.
No guilt here! Great essay and good luck on finishing your book! I’ll be first in line to buy it!
Don Akchin is so realistic! Aging today has a new perspective, it should be seen as an opportunity!
"Just keep your eyes and ears open for more pundits and politicians trying to sweep you into The Guilted Age. Don't let me say. You didn't start this dumpster fire"
Absolutely agree. Talk about passing the buck.
"Puritanism" provides convenient cover for scoundrels, it seems.
Thank you for this, Don! The article you cite was a particularly egregious example of the divide-and-conquer strategy that attempts to pit young against old as a way to distract from the true causes of income inequality. The Guilted Age, indeed. And while many in the anti-ageism movement encourage us to continue in a career, it’s just fine to enjoy the freedom our overworked years have bought us.
I just read this daily trivia factoid: "Of all the people in history that have reached 65 years of age, half of them are living right now." Glad I'm still living and NOT working!
Dear Don,
Social Security has so many shortcomings that no one article can report, analyze, or defend them.
Note that a large percentage of people of our age who both work and collect social security get no increase in benefits from the social security we and our employers both continue to pay in (I would really hate to be paying in both halves of FICA as someone self-employed does), because the formula overweights early years of earnings compared to current or recent earnings. It is as if my federal income tax rate is 7.65% higher. And the social security we receive is almost all taxable income.
I still work full-time, because I like the challenge, the stimulation, and it's something I know how to do. It's like I pay to have fun.
Good luck on the book!
Well put. Your book will e awesome I'm sure! Will wait for it.
Don, great article and thanks for the shout out. I'm going to share this on my social this week. It will take a coordinated effort to push back on this storyline.