[phil21]

The date was always in the 2030-2040 range since I started reading about it in the 90's. At my first job I planned my retirement around the trust fund running out by the time I retired, and benefits being cut passively via cost of living not matching inflation.

This is largely due to congress actually taking action in the early 80's, which pushed this date back to the current 2030ish estimate. As the date draws nearer, it gets more refined. If they had not taken action, those previous articles would have been correct.

If congress had done their jobs and done another round of reformation 20 years later in around 2003 we would not be having this discussion now. The date would have either been pushed back or eliminated. It was exceedingly clear what was going to happen back then if no action was taken, and those workers simply did not vote for folks who were going to raise taxes (or reduce benefits) for them. Collectively speaking they would rather have their children pay instead.

From my standpoint the reporting has been very consistent on the subject. It's pretty easy math to report on.

[Schiendelman]

The first projected failure date I know of was 1979, which was reported on in the early 1970s.

There were amendments in 1977 that should have helped, but the 1980-81 recessions made it bad again; by 1982 the Trustees said it would be insolvent in 1983.

In 1983 the Greenspan Commission and the resulting amendments believed they pushed solvency through the 2050s.

In 2005 that was down to 2041, in 2010 it was 2037, and since then it's sat around 2033-2035.

In Jane Jacobs' book "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" in 1984, she saw the pattern, and brought up that you'd have to keep amending it forever.