On June 1, 2012, Jonathan Peterson writes in the AARP Bulletin about proposals that could make the Social Security Program more helpful, fair and long-lasting.
“In just 21 years, Social Security will be able to pay only three-fourths of its promised benefits, an outlook that guarantees debate about the future of — and the meaning of — Social Security in American life. Yet the projected shortfall is not the only challenge facing the program and those who depend on it. Changes in lifestyle, demographics and the economy are bringing insecurity to many older Americans.
“Experts have put forth a number of proposals that in some combination could sustain Social Security for the long haul, while making it more helpful and fair. Here are 10 options now on the policy table in Washington:
1. Increase the cap2. Raise the payroll tax rate3. Consider women’s work patterns4. Adjust benefits5. Set a minimum benefit6. Modify the COLA formula7. Raise the full retirement age8. Give the oldest a boost9. Establish private accounts10. Cover more workers
While these options have their pros and cons, Society Security is based on “job employment,” and no one is addressing the needed solutions to providing economic security long-term as we deal with the impact of the tectonic shifts in the technologies of production, which represents a future Third Industrial Revolution. As this scarnio advances, fewer and fewer people will be needed to fill job opportunities. Private sector job creation in numbers that match the pool of people willing and able to work is constantly being eroded by physical productive capital’s (the non-human factor of production) ever increasing role.
If we as a society are to assure ALL Americans prosperity, opportunity and economic justice, and empower them to earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement, then we will have to direct policy making at building an economy of universally productive individuals and households.
The majority of Americans, dependent on labor worker wages, no longer think that jobs and labor wages will return suddenly—if at all—and at a livable earnings level, that the value of their homes will rebound, or that their limited retirement funds will soon be fully restored. Americans are scared but attribute their worsening finances to job losses, reduced hours, wage givebacks, and overall reduced earnings. They do not understand the role of productive capital driven by technological innovation and science and the requirement for them to become capital workers, as well as labor workers, to earn a viable economic future. And until we, as a society, understand how wealth is produced, how consumers earn the money to buy products and services and the nature of capital ownership, we will not be able to set a course to obtain an affluent quality of life for middle and working class citizens, where everyone can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.
We are absent a national discussion of where consumers earn the money to buy products and services and the nature of capital ownership, and instead argue about policies to redistribute income or not to redistribute income. If Americans do not demand that the contenders for the office of the presidency of the United States, the Senate, and the Congress address these issues, we will have wasted the opportunity to steer the American economy in a direction that will broaden affluence. We have adequate resources, adequate knowhow, and adequate manpower to produce general affluence, but we need as a society to properly and efficiently manage these resources while protecting and enhancing the environment so that our productive capital capability is sustainable and renewable. Such issues are the proper concern of government because of the human damage inflicted on our social fabric as well as to economic growth in which every citizen is fairly included in the American dream.
