| Social security spending is currently about $1.5T a year, with receipts slightly lower than that and reserves of ~$3T [1]. US corporate profits are around $4 trillion a year [2]. I view that $4T as the exploitation of surplus labor value. Put another way: it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for labor. A mere 10% of that would make a significant difference to Social Security. As for your contention that a 60 year old is capable of working. Doing what? The prospects are already dire for people who are laid off in their 50s. You want them to be cashiers at Safeway at minimum wage? Minimum wage isn't even a living wage. Many of these people have done physically demanding but completely necessary jobs their entire lives. Their bodies can be wrecked. I don't know your circumstances but generally speaking I see a lot of "tech-hubris" on HN. People who skew younger and are very privileged to work in tech. The hubris part is being young, many think this will go on forever. The reality is ageism is rampant in tech. The other part is thinking you won't be impacted by automation (and AI). Will you be bagging groceries until you're 67-69 because Amazon made an AI that now does your job? [1]: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html [2]: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_corporate_profits_quarterl... |
Not to speak for the other commenter, but if you want to see some real change in people's voting patterns, do exactly that.
As far as their bodies being wrecked, well, that's the actual intention of OASDI, more popularly known as Social Security. Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. If we stopped giving out checks to people just for getting to 65, we might be able to preserve that safety for future generations. After all, it's in the name: insurance. You don't get to collect any other sort of insurance just for being alive past a certain time, because that would make that insurance fund unsustainable.