I have regurgitated your point about 1983 in face-to-face conversations until I am blue, because it reframes the whole thing. The demographic argument has been wrong in the same way for 43 years, and it shows up again on schedule anyway.
That's what gets me. When I get a fact wrong, and I do, despite incessant fact-checking, I just stop saying it and probably trip over myself apologizing. When a claim gets corrected this many times and keeps coming back, I don't think I'm watching a mistake. I think I'm watching something being maintained, the way you keep equipment running because you plan to use it again.
And I think that's why these attacks never feel like they're trying to actually win the argument. A real "fact fight" wants a conclusion. This one seems to want the question left open, because as long as "is it sustainable‽" sounds contested, privatization stays on the table. The doubt is the whole point. Whether any single claim holds up barely matters to the people repeating it. Shhhh... don't tell anyone, but this is epistemic warfare.
You laid out the actual fiscal story, which is the wage cap eroding, and again, what gets me is that it's fixable. I think that's exactly why it gets skipped. A problem with a solution ends, and they don't want this one to end. So they keep reaching for the demographics, even after your own chart shows the 1982 projections basically nailed 2015.
Anyway, thank you for writing the companion piece. I send people your stuff constantly.
The actuary's testimony is the most underread document in this debate. He's essentially saying: the math was right, the economy moved. When wage growth concentrates above the cap, the program's funding base quietly erodes — not through fraud, not through demographics, but through structural drift in how the economy allocates income. That's a different kind of problem than the one most reform proposals are trying to solve."
I’ve been trying to make this same point. It’s a tough sell, but income inequality is a big problem and today, we can add immigration crackdowns.
The cons would rather blame waste and fraud (which you correctly state is nonsense) rather than claim their own chickens that have come home to roost.
Inequality took a toll!
I have regurgitated your point about 1983 in face-to-face conversations until I am blue, because it reframes the whole thing. The demographic argument has been wrong in the same way for 43 years, and it shows up again on schedule anyway.
That's what gets me. When I get a fact wrong, and I do, despite incessant fact-checking, I just stop saying it and probably trip over myself apologizing. When a claim gets corrected this many times and keeps coming back, I don't think I'm watching a mistake. I think I'm watching something being maintained, the way you keep equipment running because you plan to use it again.
And I think that's why these attacks never feel like they're trying to actually win the argument. A real "fact fight" wants a conclusion. This one seems to want the question left open, because as long as "is it sustainable‽" sounds contested, privatization stays on the table. The doubt is the whole point. Whether any single claim holds up barely matters to the people repeating it. Shhhh... don't tell anyone, but this is epistemic warfare.
You laid out the actual fiscal story, which is the wage cap eroding, and again, what gets me is that it's fixable. I think that's exactly why it gets skipped. A problem with a solution ends, and they don't want this one to end. So they keep reaching for the demographics, even after your own chart shows the 1982 projections basically nailed 2015.
Anyway, thank you for writing the companion piece. I send people your stuff constantly.
The actuary's testimony is the most underread document in this debate. He's essentially saying: the math was right, the economy moved. When wage growth concentrates above the cap, the program's funding base quietly erodes — not through fraud, not through demographics, but through structural drift in how the economy allocates income. That's a different kind of problem than the one most reform proposals are trying to solve."
Exactly. The biggest threat Social Security faces is economic mismanagement.