From the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
At a time of unprecedented inequality, the Washington Post is quick to seize on the country's real problems: a Social Security disability program that is too generous. ...
Just to get some orientation, the benefit that the Post considers to be too generous averages $1,170 a month. ...
The concern about the low employment rates (EPOP) in the United States is reasonable, but it bears no obvious relationship to the Social Security disability insurance program. The EPOP for prime age workers (ages 25-54) has fallen by almost four percentage points since 2000, with no increase in the generosity of the disability program. In fact, if we combine the number of workers receiving disability and workers compensation, there has been little change in the share of the working age population receiving benefits over this period.
In fact, the United States ranks near the bottom of OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a major international body] countries in the generosity of its benefits, yet it also ranks near the bottom in the employment rate for prime age workers. In its most recent data, the OECD put the EPOP for prime age workers in the United States at 78.2 percent. This compares 83.3 percent for the Netherlands, 84.2 percent for Germany, and 86.0 percent for Sweden, all countries that spend considerably more money on disability benefits than the United States. ...
15 comments:
It's sad that the large volume of uninformed BS about Social Security produced by some news sources and politicians makes articles like this necessary.
The nation mentioned are the size of states. It really isn't a fair comparison.
@9:26
That's true. Less populous nations and smaller geographical areas should make systems far less efficient given economies of scale.
I feel just the opposite, with fewer to care for and greater per capita income and higher tax rates, taking care of the lower number of disabled becomes easier.
We are not making car parts, we are providing social services. Two entirely different things.
Let's not forget that the European countries cited have much higher minimum wages. It's possible that the low minimum wage laws in the U.S. incentivize people to apply for, and stay on, disability. The European countries also provide more generous maternity leave and child care benefits. I see a lot of young women applying for disability after having children, possibly because it makes no sense to work at a low-paying job and having to pay someone else to watch the kids. We get what we incentivize. Europe incentivizes a good work-life balance, and people remain employed. The U.S. values profits and low taxes over quality work conditions, so it incentivizes people to find ways not to work.
11:58-BEST COMMENT EVER
I second that. Great Comment @11:58!
@11:52
Efficiency and easiness are not equivalent. Obviously smaller countries can more easily set up social programs, but I doubt they have administrative costs under 3%, as SSA does.
Further, I do not believe the government need only promote the general welfare, as is there charge under the constitution, when it is convenient only limited by feasibility.
@1:19, sorry used the wrong word, I forgot that I am dealing with lawyers and they will argue over anything.
So in that spirit, believe in one hand and cr*p in the other, tell me which one fills up first. The Preamble is just that, an introductory statement; preface; introduction. It carries no weight of law.
Are you intimating that other countries cannot run the retirement programs and disability programs at least as efficiently as SSA. That SSA is the world model in service! Please see this blog on stories of wait times both for processing and for getting into an office. And 3% of what? The trust funds are separate from funding for SSA staff.
11:58
to piggy back off that--it isn't just that they incentivize work. I'm sure that's a big part of it. But they provide other assistance. The US welfare state has been scaled back so greatly over the past few decades. We don't have cash payments in any meaningful sense--TANF is a joke, and that's basically all that's left of straight up welfare save for tiny programs in a few states and a few one-off tiny Federal programs.
Since disability is one of the few big federal sources of cash payments for folks (I mean, for people who aren't rich or big corporations...), everyone tries to get in its doors. Look at childhood SSI--if we provided better health, educational, social benefits for disabled children and assisted their parents with childcare, etc., we wouldn't need to have disability benefits for children. And it's such a strange logical stretch to justify them at all.
Every benefit SSA pays is supposed to be replacing somebody's income who can no longer work (a dead person, a retired person, or a disabled person--either for herself or her dependents). The tortured reasoning of, "well, the parents of disabled children lose income caring for them, etc." is the reason why there is child SSI in the first place. There wouldn't be a "well, parents of disabled lose income" argument to make if employers were forced to treat workers (with disabled children) better and the Federal government provided other benefits like so many actually-civilized western nations do.
@2:38
You actually didn't provide any indication why you thought it was an unfair comparison to compare the United States with the smaller countries of Europe, only that it was. I was uncertain whether you meant smaller in terms of population, geography, or both. I assumed you meant population because large geography didn't seem likely so I went with population. So you didn't use the wrong word, but rather no word at all.
In regard to the preamble not having force of law, I'm not sure where you drew that from. I didn't say it carried the force of law, I said it established the federal government was charged with promoting the general welfare.
In regard to whether I am intimating that smaller countries can run their disability programs at least as effectively as SSA, no they can and appear to run their programs a great deal more effectively just far less efficiently (i.e. cheaply). My point is SSA runs the program on a shoe-string budget and can do so due to it's vast size. I didn't say anything about their quality. To say the least, SSA's quality is quite poor and my point was the federal government should step up and actually devote considerable resources to fixing it, as opposed to falling back and just attacking the system by stating fixing it would be too difficult.
BRAVO, 6:29!
@2:38
What is this supposed to mean: "The trust funds are separate from funding for SSA staff"?
Administration of OASI and DI (but not SSI), including staff wages, is paid out of the trust funds.
what are you talking about, 9:16?
ODAR does plenty involving SSI and our budget is paid via an appropriation by Congress to SSA for its administrative budget.
The trust funds only cover benefits and things immediately incidental to them, not salaries, buildings, equipment, etc., costs for SSA.
@2:15: "The Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE) appropriation language provides the Social Security Administration (SSA) with the funds needed to administer the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), Disability Insurance (DI), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs, and to support the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in administering their programs, The LAE account is funded by the OASI, DI, and Medicare trust funds for their share of administrative expenses, by the General Fund of the Treasury for the SSI program's share of administrative expenses and through applicable user fees." -
www.ssa.gov/budget/FY17Files/2017LAE.pdf
Post a Comment