Social Security: Effects of Illegal Immigration

[Teallaura]

Ry made the following comment in another thread:

Most illegals are not working picking strawberries, and they aid in preventing the collapse of social security because of their high birth rate.

This intrigues me. Now, my understanding is that Social Security is (very) basically a bloated Ponzi scheme. I can see where a new infusion of taxpayers would support it short term but wouldn't it just make it more likely to implode long term? Who's gonna supply the babies to support those babies when they are ready to retire - especially since those born here are citizens and we can't just deport them at 64 1/2 (draconian, no?).

I'm just asking - I'm trying to understand the logic here. (Economics for me was that 8:00 am class with the goofy looking older guy. Nice guy - don't remember much beyond that... :uhoh:)

[Ryokan]

Ry made the following comment in another thread:


This intrigues me. Now, my understanding is that Social Security is (very) basically a bloated Ponzi scheme. I can see where a new infusion of taxpayers would support it short term but wouldn't it just make it more likely to implode long term? Who's gonna supply the babies to support those babies when they are ready to retire - especially since those born here are citizens and we can't just deport them at 64 1/2 (draconian, no?).

I'm just asking - I'm trying to understand the logic here. (Economics for me was that 8:00 am class with the goofy looking older guy. Nice guy - don't remember much beyond that... :uhoh:)

its not a Ponzi scheme, it just requires a stable rate of growth, so all generations are the same size. What immigrants do is close the disparity between our generation and the big baby boomer one. More immigrants, less gap, less gap, less deficit. You see?

[Teallaura]

Um, that doesn't sound very stable long term, actually. As people move up economically they generally have fewer kids. So we do what - keep importing people? Isn't the current ratio of recipients to workers part of the problem? If so, won't sustaining that long term (generationally) be extremely difficult?

:shrug:


Oh, technically, I'm a Baby Boomer. Made it by a whisker but I am. The youngest Baby Boomers are 42 and the oldest 62.

I dunno. I've read some economists who think the inflation/unemployment cycle of the 1970's was caused initially by the emergence of the BB into the workforce. The reverse is likely to be just as painful - but is sustaining that particular pop size actually desirable overall? :shrug:

[Ryokan]

Um, that doesn't sound very stable long term, actually. As people move up economically they generally have fewer kids. So we do what - keep importing people? Isn't the current ratio of recipients to workers part of the problem? If so, won't sustaining that long term (generationally) be extremely difficult?
In the long run no, we won't want to sustain. We aren't trying to match baby boomer in size. Want we want is a less steep drop off, so we can pay to our real equilibrium over time. Immigrants help with that, as would a raised retirement age to something like 67 years.
:shrug:


Oh, technically, I'm a Baby Boomer. Made it by a whisker but I am. The youngest Baby Boomers are 42 and the oldest 62.

I dunno. I've read some economists who think the inflation/unemployment cycle of the 1970's was caused initially by the emergence of the BB into the workforce. The reverse is likely to be just as painful - but is sustaining that particular pop size actually desirable overall? :shrug:
I am of the mind that the federal reserve and the oil crisis caused the stagflation problem. This is the mainstream view, though I have heard of that. As far as what pop. size, etc. is optimal, well it depends on the situation. Right now we are at replacemtn rate, which seems pretty good to me. WIth immigration we are growing slowly.

[Teallaura]

In the long run no, we won't want to sustain. We aren't trying to match baby boomer in size. Want we want is a less steep drop off, so we can pay to our real equilibrium over time. Immigrants help with that, as would a raised retirement age to something like 67 years.Okay, that makes sense.


I am of the mind that the federal reserve and the oil crisis caused the stagflation problem. This is the mainstream view, though I have heard of that.I believe the thesis was that it was a large contributing factor and not the sole cause - but it's been a long time since I read the book.

As far as what pop. size, etc. is optimal, well it depends on the situation. Right now we are at replacemtn rate, which seems pretty good to me. WIth immigration we are growing slowly.Okay. Thanks.

[Puddleglum]

It's a dirty ponzi sceme; it works when more more are paying in than are getting cash. When it was first instituted most people never saw a dime because they died before they could see it. We are about to be in much more massive debt than we already are if we do not master the political will to phase out the foolish enterprise. And yes, massive immigration could provide a quick fix I suppose, but unless we pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship the cure sounds worse than the disease.