fractalnavel

today is “spend some time learning more about social security” day.  there is a lot of interesting stuff out there; i put a few links on my “reading” list.

i'm not going to try to interpret that all for anyone.  there are a lot of issues to consider, and i'm not at a “conclusions” point yet.  i'm pretty certain no one can actually conclude anything without some serious poring over of actuarial studies and doing a lot of calculations themselves.  sure doesn't stop our politicans and interest groups, though, now does it ? ;-)  especially after they hear things from the technical experts third or fourth (or twentieth) hand, with everyone putting a spin on the discussion in inverse proportion to their distance from the decisionmakers. 

which kind of brings me to the point i do want to talk about:  what exactly constitutes an interest group in this context ?  doesn't it seem that the majority of those making decisions and throwing their weight around are those who will be least affected ?  those in the government (civil servants, politicians) are not affected.  current aarp members are not affected. 

our current elected officials also do not fairly represent those (directly) affected.  i guess the idea is that “we're all in this together”.  but are we ?  as in, why should some retiree on florida be able to vote on what retirement will be like for a teenager in wisconsin ?

i wonder if there should be some sort of proportional voting rights in this case.  and there are probably other cases as well that may benefit from such a precedence.  actually, the precedent already exists.  geography, for example.  and non-geographical associations such as professional memberships, etc.  not to mention global considerations.

but since the real focus on social security reform is not so much financial as it is socio-political, maybe this doesn't apply.

or maybe it always applies.  should people be given a vote proportional to their life expectancy ?  how about in inverse proportion to their financial health (a way of accounting for power already in hand) ?  maybe the factors should vary according to the issue - ?  just what is democracy, anyway ?  surely nothing as simple as “one man, one vote”.  no one really has that anyway.  nor is there equal opportunity for candidates.

pragmatically, it's all managing expectations, i guess.  teach people what they should expect (value, prefer), and make sure that's what they think they're getting.  kind of hard to go wrong when you control every part of the equation.  it's all sheepherding.

bu truth - ah, now that's a different matter.

i think i'll take a stab at this book that's been sitting on my shelf for ages: Princeton Symposium of Social Insurance Its Philosophy Impact and Future Development. not something you're likely to find at amazon.com ;-)  there's essays by the book's honoree at J. Douglas Brown; will take a shot at that too.  stuff i used to deal with from way back in my actuarial days.

counterpoint from an essay:

But suppose we got a Townsend-type of administration in power in Washington, somebody who wanted to change everything. What would be our best protection? The people who had contributed under the old system, because they wouldn't be too sure the new system was going to pay off, especially if we did something foolish.

--- J. Douglas Brown