Thomas Edsall devotes his blogpost this week to Walter Russell Mead and a number of others who tell him that demographic change is going to wipe out the welfare state. The problem is that the projections don’t support this story. The impact of projected future demographic change on the budget is actually fairly limited.
In 2001 Social Security cost 4.1 percent of GDP (Table F-5). It current costs 5.1 percent of GDP (Table 3-1). Over the next two decades the cost is projected to increase by roughly the same amount as it did in the last dozen years. That doesn’t seem like an insurmountable burden. In fact, if the projected shortfall in Social Security funding for the rest of the century were filled entirely through an increase in the payroll tax, the necessary tax increase would amount to 7 percent of projected wage growth over the next two decades and just 4.0 percent of the wage growth over the next 40 years. (This assumes that workers get their share of productivity gains, which is a key issue that has little to do with demographics.) The tax burden would be lessened insofar as part of the projected shortfall was filled by making the tax more progressive (e.g. raising the cap) or cutting benefits.
The rise in Medicare costs is projected to be larger, but this is due to the projected rise in per person health care costs, not demographics. (People don’t age any more rapidly in the Medicare program than in Social Security.) This emphasizes the need to control health care costs, which are already more than twice as much per person in the United States as the average for other wealthy countries. This ratio is projected to grow to 3 or 4 to 1 in the decades ahead.
It is wrong to refer to the projected explosion of health care costs as a demographic issue. It stems from an inability to confront the powerful lobbies (drug companies, medical equipment companies and doctors) who profit from the waste in the U.S. health care system. The actual impact of demographic change is swamped by productivity growth. It is probably also worth noting in the context of this piece that the ratio of interest on the government debt to GDP is near a post-World War II low.
Source: Social Security Trustees Reports and Author’s Calculations.
This $800 billion shortfall is less than 0.4 percent of projected GDP over the next 30 years, the time horizon in which most of these benefits are projected to be paid. That is less than one fourth of the increase in military spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the additional money projected to flow to the pharmaceutical industry as a result of government granted patent monopolies.
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economy and Policy Research. He also writes a regular blog, Beat the Press, where this post originally appeared.



8 Comments

Bottom line: Both major political parties [b]want[/b] to cut entitlements.
Inasmuch as it is the will of both major parties, which become more indistinguishable from each other by the day, the rest of us have to accept that.
Any questions?
Edsall’s take down on the chained cpi was good:
Liberal Democrats forget that the bottom two quintiles on income, depend between 84 and 90 per cent for their total retirement income on Social Security. Affluent Democrats proceed obliviously over their own self-inflicted political cliff by cutting benefits for lower income and middle income retirees through the proposed chained cpi.
Thanks for the link, Mr. Baker.
I also liked how Edsall points out that so-called affluent Democrats appear to get all weak kneed when the idea of raising the Social Security cap from 113,700 to high enough to cancel out the projected actuarial gap for the future years. Supporting a war on the poors chained cpi while getting the chills around lifting the FICA cap is going to cost them politically, big time.
How? People who object to that are not going to choose the Republican candidate over the Democrat. And, as we saw on this board prior to the 2012 election, most will find an excuse to vote Democratic, rather than voting left.
That is why going right will never cost Democratic politicians. They will hang onto Democratic votes and they could give a rat’s ass how reluctantly those votes may have been cast.
So they have zero incentive to do anything but go further right, which is exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing since McGovern’s historic loss.
So, lesser of two evils voting helps move the country further and further to the right with every election in which Democrats get away with their rightist crap.
Dean, thanks for all of your input on our economic and financial atmospere. In spite of all of your good work, I think nixonclinbushbama above has it correctly limned, so you are howling in the wind. More of the big boys are starting to push harder for raising the retirement age to 70. The business roundtable wants this to happen and will meet with o to push the agenda. See it here.
Yet another way to divide the country. Youth vs Elderly.
Yes, of course you are correct. Every move by the 1% has to be viewed as “what evil are they up to now?”
The folks at SSA don’t think that an unexpected demographic surge is coming. They just published a Note objecting to complaints that they have underestimated the size of the now retiring generations. They believe that we are ‘right on target’ for expectations made years ago.
But I am sure that will not stop corporate CEO’s from complaining that this is all wrong in their view. Let’s face it. They hate programs which make people free from being dependent on serf wages from low wage jobs.
The average productivity growth from 1974 through 1995 was 1.5%. Living standards fell during that time for wage slaves even though debt propped them up.
The “1%” don’t acknowledge their intent, nay the necessity, to continue plundering wage slaves. The liberal “left” pretend the 1% are confused.
Thus they achieve a consensus on fraud.