Here's what I learned after playing devil's advocate on Social Security...
My previous diary explored why discussing the retirement age is such a big cause for conflict, and I think that I got more than a few great points to frame the debate a little better - I also got some slaps on the wrist for even broaching the subject, but that was to be expected when you play devil's advocate. :)
I asked, in a nut shell, why we don't consider raising/adjusting the retirement age based on actuary data in order to solve the Social Security crisis. I'll try and sum up what I learned from your comments, beyond the fact that I'm obviously a young punk who should stop dreaming about about pushing grandma to the steel mill in her wheelchair. (I swear I never had that intention!)
What crisis?
First of all, it took a while (around 50 comments) before anyone thought to reject the basic premise of my question - that is, that there actually IS a a crisis in Social Security. Irate summed it up pretty well:
Since it was "reformed" last time during the Reagan administration, Social Security payroll taxes have provided our government with a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus. Our government, both parties, have used this surplus to fund other programs and to provide tax breaks to the wealthy. If the "borrowed" money is to be repaid as it should, the money should come from general tax revenues.
So the "crisis" in Social Security comes from having the surplus used on other programs by various administrations since 1983, when the Greenspan Commission reformed the program. Now, if that's how the changing Bushies financed their taxcuts for the wealthy, that's one of the worst generational moneygrabs I've ever heard of, and it ought to be criminal.
No raise in life expectancy
Others pointed out that we don't really live that much longer, which I am surprised to find out is actually true for the US and most industrialized countries
Since life expectancy means the average age for all children born, I'd like to see how long people live PAST retirement age today compared to the 1950s. I got a hunch that statistic will show a steeper curve than just avg life expectancy, but the basic point remains the same.
Breaking new ground
One of the arguments that I don't know if I'd ever have thought of myself, was to use the current stimulus fund to provide early retirement to a group of older workers. Someone pointed out that Social Security was partly done to get older workers out of the workforce and reduce unemployment.
It's the first time I heard of that idea, but it makes sense on just about every level - the question is if there's a problem of scale, where it would have to be done on such a massive scale that it would be too expensive.
If anyone has more to read in this direction, I'd love to see it.
Slight traction with practical limitations
I seemed to find slight traction for my suggestion that physically taxing jobs should be allowed to retire on Social Security before jobs behind a desk. This traction was quickly tempered by concerns over how to implement the system in a fair manner, and some were afraid it would be seen as "class warfare".
As a desk worker, I still find no problem with the notion that anyone working a hard physical job might need to retire before I have to. My mind may degrade, but as long as I can type and move the mouse, I can do my job - but a brick layer with shot knees needs to get special attention, somehow. And having recently cleared out 3 square meters of bamboo from the garden, I feel CONVINCED that physical labor on a daily basis degrades your body. ;)
Maybe it's not a retirement issue as much as it's about job retraining and in the worst cases about disability. But there must be jobs that have to be done, and that generally hurts those who do them more than others.
Anyways...
Playing Devil's Advocate brought out the passion in people, and that made me a lot smarter on the issue - there were some truly insightful links and posts in the comments, thanks all.