Young Americans Should Be Raising Hell About Social Security

Summary

Podcast Summary: “Young Americans Should Be Raising Hell About Social Security”

Podcast: Optimist Economy
Hosts: Kathryn Anne Edwards (economist) & Robin Rauzi (editor)
Date: July 14, 2026

---

Overview of the Episode

This episode, hosted by Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi, is a deep dive into Social Security, aimed especially at young Americans. Edwards and Rauzi debunk the common misconception that Social Security is only a concern for the old, arguing instead that young people have the most to lose if the program is cut or compromised. They break down the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, the political stakes in upcoming elections, and the many risks Social Security covers—making an impassioned voter’s guide for Millennials, Zoomers, and anyone uncertain about their retirement future.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Social Security Matters—Especially Now

• Urgency: The new Trustees Report projects that Social Security’s Old Age Trust Fund will be depleted in Q4 2032—a move up from previous estimates, placing the crisis in the immediate political term.
  • “We are in Social Security elections... This isn’t speculative anymore.” —Kathryn, [00:49]
• This Affects Young Americans: Skepticism about Social Security’s future is exploited politically to push for cuts, but young people have more at stake because they face the greatest future risks.

2. How Social Security Works (and Common Confusions)

• Social Insurance Explained: Social Security is compulsory insurance run by the government, distinct from general welfare programs. Funding is through payroll taxes, separate from income taxes.
  • “There are two pots of money. One goes to Congress, one goes to the Social Securities Trust Fund, and they don’t touch.” —Kathryn, [07:06]
• Contrast with Private Insurance: Private insurance is elective, whereas Social Security is universal and guaranteed by government policy.

3. The Political Manipulation of Youth Skepticism

• Historic Skepticism: Young people have always doubted Social Security would be there for them; this has been used politically to argue for cuts.
  • “The skepticism is a feature of the young.” —Kathryn, [11:19]
• Stock Market Alternative Myth: The notion that individuals would do better investing on their own ignores a century of volatile economic history and the decline of employer-provided pensions.
  • “On what planet would it benefit you to get rid of your insurance? Because that’s what Social Security is, it’s your insurance.” —Kathryn, [25:03]

4. What Happens if the Social Security Trust Fund is Depleted

• Trust Fund Mechanics: In Q4 2032, without Congressional action, the trust fund runs dry. This would trigger automatic benefit cuts (estimated at 22%-17%, depending on fund restructuring).
  • “If the Social Security trust fund is depleted... the benefits are cut by a flat amount for all current and future beneficiaries to make the program solvent.” —Kathryn, [36:30]
• Household and Economic Impacts: Eliminating or cutting Social Security would return America to an era where old-age dependency forced multigenerational households and economic precarity; young people would inherit financial burdens for their elders.
  • “You’ll have an influx of multigenerational households because Social Security grants tens of millions of elderly Americans economic independence.” —Kathryn, [22:02]

5. Why Cutting Social Security Hurts Young People the Most

• Insurance Against Life’s Uncertainties: Social Security provides protection against five risks: premature death, disability, inadequate savings, extreme old age, and inflation.
  • “Death, disability, insufficient savings, extreme old age, and inflation... you cannot buy that protection [elsewhere].” —Kathryn, [31:17]
• Private Market Won’t Replace It: Employer-provided benefits are patchy and declining; Social Security is the only universal, inflation-adjusted, government-guaranteed safety net.
  • “This is the bird in hand. The bird in hand is worth, like, negative two in the bush. There’s no birds in the bush... You’re holding the bird.” —Kathryn, [27:38]
• Ownership Rhetoric: Politicians have successfully convinced younger voters that Social Security isn’t “theirs,” making it easier to dismantle. Edwards calls on the youth to reclaim ownership and demand expansion (“bigger and better”).
  • “It has been presented... as if it is not your program. And that has got to be one of the most successful political coup d’état conservatives have pulled off.” —Kathryn, [35:00]

6. Demographic & Political Dynamics

• Immigration and Solvency: Recent drops in immigration, and assumed future increases, are key to projections. If immigration remains low, depletion could come sooner.
  • “Immigrants are such a vital part of Social Security.” —Kathryn, [21:04]
• Geographical Impacts: Social Security cuts would hit rural and older states hardest, such as Maine—not just stereotypical retiree states like Florida.
  • “It would hit some states a lot harder than others... Maine is the most rural state.” —Kathryn, [37:13]
• Upcoming Elections: The stakes are now, as politicians across parties (e.g., Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Moreno) put forth proposals, often hinging on eliminating the payroll tax cap.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Bird Metaphor for Social Security:
  • “This is the bird in hand. The bird in hand is worth, like, negative two in the bush. There’s no birds in the bush... You’re holding the bird.” —Kathryn, [27:38]
• On Employer Benefits vs. Social Security:
  • “You have from now until 2075; will every job have a long-term disability benefit and a life insurance benefit? If you don’t know, then your... the only one that is guaranteed is Social Security.” —Kathryn, [26:34]
• On Risks Covered by Social Security:
  • “If you can’t sufficiently or efficiently save for something, you need to have insurance. If the private market doesn’t find it profitable... that means the government needs to provide it.” —Kathryn, [32:53]
• Political Appeal:
  • “For you to not have ownership over it is such a win for conservatives. So don’t give it to them.” —Kathryn, [35:21]
• On Why Young People Should Care:
  • “You have so much more to lose than someone who is older. So if you take ownership over this program, I think it would be shocking politically... but, yes, you have the most to pay in now, but you have far more to lose than you’ll pay in.” —Kathryn, [38:13]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:33] Data update: Oklahoma child savings account outcomes
• [04:41] Explaining “social insurance” & distinction from private insurance
• [09:50] Setting up why Social Security skepticism is persistent among young voters
• [14:33] The new Trustees Report timeline and trust fund mechanics
• [18:57] The role of immigration—unauthorized workers and trust fund stability
• [21:04] Projection uncertainties and the unsung role of immigrants in solvency
• [25:03] “Bird in the hand” metaphor: why private markets and employers won’t replace Soc. Sec.
• [30:41] Enumerating the five risks Social Security covers
• [35:00] Conservatives’ rhetorical success: convincing youth Social Security “isn’t yours”
• [36:30] What actually happens if the trust fund is depleted—a flat benefit cut
• [37:13] Who is hit hardest if cuts happen (hint: not just Florida)
• [38:13] Final appeal: Young people have the most at stake

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• Social Security isn’t just for your grandparents—it’s foundational insurance for everyone, especially young people facing an uncertain economic future.
• Current elections are Social Security elections. Every senator you vote for now will make decisions affecting solvency and scope.
• The only universal, inflation-protected, long-term insurance against a host of life risks is Social Security; employer plans and personal savings aren’t sufficient.
• Don’t buy the political rhetoric that says Social Security isn’t for you—demand it be protected and expanded.
• The program’s fate is tied to demographic shifts and immigration; policy changes now will have long-lasting impacts.

---

For Further Engagement

• Comment or leave feedback about Social Security on the Optimist Economy YouTube channel.
• Visit optimisteconomy.com for more info, merch, and to support the podcast.
• Email questions for future episodes: [e-mail]

---

Hosts’ Tone: Data-driven, humorous, candid, and passionate about empowering listeners to be proactive in shaping economic policy—especially around complex topics like Social Security.

Transcript

[A]

Getting a note from production that this falconry metaphor might play because Ren Faire is really big with the youth right now. Hello, and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm economist Kathryn Ann Edwards.

[B]

I'm editor Robyn Rousey.

[A]

On this show, we believe the US Economy can be better, and we talk about how to get there one problem and solution at a time.

[B]

Foreign. And today on Optimist Economy, what are we talking about, Katherine?

[A]

Social Security. Social Security. If we're talking about Social Security, it's

[B]

like a birthday gift to you. It's Catherine's favorite topic. Is this, like, our fourth Social Security episode?

[A]

I mean, if we need to count, we can, but doesn't it feel like there's never enough? Okay, sorry. We're talking about Social Security for the young. We just got the release of the trustees report from Social Security that tells us how long until the trust fund is depleted, and that is in 2032, which means that we have entered the Social Security elections. If you're voting for a senator right now, you are voting for a senator that will have to vote on Social Security. So this isn't speculative anymore. We are in Social Security elections, and so we wanted to do a voter's guide to Social Security.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Especially new young voters who are maybe naturally skeptical of the program.

[B]

Sounds good. Okay.

[A]

Announcements, Announcements.

[B]

Do you have any announcements?

[A]

I don't have any announcements.

[B]

I just have one announcement, which is that if you are a person who likes to hear an economist swear, we have a feed for you.

[A]

Yeah, we do.

[B]

If you just heard a loud beep, you wouldn't have to if you were listening to the show on YouTube. So there you go. I did that at the behest of several listeners who keep asking if we have an unbleeped version of the podcast.

[A]

What's funny is how much I try not to swear when we record, but it's. I have a mouth. I mean, I curse like a sailor. That's just who I am.

[B]

Andy is typing in all caps. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel. You can also comment on YouTube about this specific episode. This is also maybe a good reminder to say you could leave a review for us on Apple Podcasts. That's also handy. Retcon.

[A]

Retcon.

[B]

And if you're new here. If you're new here.

[A]

If you're new here.

[B]

I'm sorry.

[A]

I mean, welcome to the jungle. If you're new here. We start off the show with a segment called Retroactive Continuity, where we try to fix things that we said before but already aired or just give updates and reflections on past episodes.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

I have one bit of retroactive continuity, which is that in episode six of this season. Can $1,000 at birth make us a country of savers? I mentioned that the child savings accounts that was in the one big beautiful Bill act and is in the process of being rolled out right now has been piloted successfully on the state level in Oklahoma and they're called seed. Okay. Accounts. And seed O was very demonstrative of how important auto enrollment is. Well, kind of a update to that is those kids in seed. Okay. Turned 18 recently. Recently. And we now have data on what they did when they turned 18. About 27% spent the money when they turned 18 and about 2 thirds of those who spent money, it went to post secondary education. And a lot of them, it was the full balance of their account.

[B]

And so two thirds is like whatever 18, 19% of them.

[A]

Yeah, on average it was about 2,300 bucks. Females were 19 percentage points more likely than males to have a distribution.

[B]

Have a distribution at all.

[A]

Yes. About 43% of the distributions that went to schools went to trade schools or two year schools and 57% went to four year colleges. So.

[B]

But it is surprising that nearly three quarters of them didn't spend it at all. I mean, it could be that they're waiting to see what their book bills are like in year three of college or something.

[A]

So I mean, that's kind of exactly what we wanted them to do was to cash it out and spend it on school. So great job.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. Great. Next up is terms and conditions. Katherine, looks like you have a real on the nose one.

[A]

Head on head on. My term and condition is social insurance. Social insurance is basically an insurance program that you participate in that is brokered by a public agency. It's a government insurance program. And most of the time you pay your premia through the tax system and you are legally required to participate in it. There's two ways to think about it is how it differs from the rest of government versus how it differs from private insurance. So you buy a phone, you decide to get like insurance for your phone.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

It's elective private insurance. You don't have to buy it, but you can. And if you do, you buy it from a private company. All right. Then you move over one and then we have compulsory private insurance. You have to have insurance, but you buy it from a private company. This would be like your car insurance and homeowner's insurance. One step over is social insurance. It's compulsory. You have to have it. And it's run through the government. And in the US That's Social Security. It's also unemployment insurance. And it's the premium, rather than being paid like a check that you write every year, it's just lifted right out of your paycheck through payroll taxes. That is your premium. And then if you make a claim, it'll be based on the premiums you paid in. The other way to think about it is, like, where it comes from relative to other government spending. So if you think of a program like food stamps.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The way that you pay for it is through general revenue.

[B]

Just comes out of regular tax dollars.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. You have income taxes, and some of it you spend on defense, and some of it you spend on, you know, food stamps. And then to be eligible for food stamps, you just have to meet some set of conditions. And it's really a transfer of, like, people are paying taxes in and you're getting the benefit out. Social insurance doesn't rely on general revenue. It relies on the taxes collected through the payroll system. Your income tax does not support Social Security.

[B]

I think this is confusing to people because they pay it as an income tax or they see it as an income tax, even though, like, to most people, I think that's a distinction without a difference.

[A]

Oh, so a payroll tax is flat or regressive. Whatever you earn, you pay 6.2% for, for Social Security, up to a cap. The income tax is a progressive system, so the more you earn, the higher the rate is. And it's a tax on all income, whereas Social Security is a tax on wage income. And there are two pots of money. One goes to Congress, one goes to the Social Securities Trust Fund, and they don't touch.

[B]

Okay, what's yours?

[A]

It looks devastating.

[B]

Well, I stumble across these terms often when I'm reading the Economist, which I don't do all the time. But. But it seems like the British have, like, they just have slightly different terminology for things. They organize things in different ways. But the term was economically inactive. And this is how the UK Office of National Statistics, this is how they lump together anybody who's working age and is not a student but isn't looking for a job. So this could be people who are caregiving, who are parenting, who are themselves ill. Uh, but it could also include discouraged workers, but also people who retired early. You are just economically inactive.

[A]

God, the Brits are so devastating.

[B]

I don't know. I was like, my wife isn't retired. She's just economically inactive.

[A]

But, like, that's not true. Because she buys things. Like, she's still out there buying things. Like she's participated in the economy.

[B]

You think it's bad to be economically inactive? I thought it means, like, kind of early retired. And I was. I was pro. I was all for it.

[A]

Oh, I guess. Okay. I saw it as kind of like, well, that's a really mean thing and kind of inaccurate thing to say. Wait, why are you reading the Economist? You hate yourself.

[B]

Exactly. Sometimes. Sometimes I do. We'll be back in a second for the Big Pilcrow. We're back for the Big Pilcrow. The Big Pilcrow is where we talk about a new idea. The Pilcrow being the symbol for a new paragraph, which is where we introduce a new idea.

[A]

We got a lot of advice when we started a podcast, and one of them was, you're gonna wanna find an in joke, put it into some random episode, and then talk about it for years to the point where you don't even remember where you first said it. It just becomes part of the show and it's a way to make sure people feel like they can't listen, you know, that was a really key piece of advice we got. Build the show to be exclusionary as possible. You're already talking about such a lightweight subject. Put some roadblocks up. The biggest Pilcrow is about Social Security, right? A subject we have talked about before, but it was pointed out to me by a listener that we do tend to start maybe three fourths of the way through the Social Security book, where there's lots of basic, like, so how does it work? And I'm like, anyway, about 10 to 99, income tax. Someone said Social Security to me, which is an excuse for us to do another episode about it.

[B]

I think that was me, right?

[A]

I said, yeah.

[B]

But I do think you make a good point, which is that as you approach retirement, Social Security becomes really vital to you and you begin to really think about it and scrutinize it. But, you know, I don't think people start to think about retirement maybe as early as they should. But if this is going to become an election issue in the next two election cycles, we want everybody to understand what Social Security is, how it works, why it matters to you, and why. Why people need it.

[A]

Exactly, exactly. And what I want to get across in this episode specifically is why Social Security is so important to young people.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Not like in a, like, nanny state of, like, one day you'll appreciate this, but more of a, like, it's important to young people. Today that Social Security is currently working even if they're not getting the cash benefit like you want Social Security in our economy and society, it is good for you. And Frank, you have the most to lose if Social Security goes away.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay, so that's the goal. Let's start with some context, which is Social Security is 91 years old. There was a Social Security act of 1935. There has been extensive polling on Social Security over its nine decades of existence. And what's interesting about it is that Social Security has always been really, really popular, but it is also the case that young people are skeptical of Social Security being there.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Also always the case. So.

[B]

So the way that was the case even when it started, I mean, the

[A]

good polling we have on that starts there's kind of some, like, gaps there because they didn't do a ton of polling on Social Security, like during World War II. Sure, yeah. I mean, like, when the boomers were young, they were like, Social Security won't be there for me because there's just

[B]

too many of us and we're.

[A]

There's too many of us and we won't get it. Or, you know, it's too far away. And like, the government can't do. And now that the boomers are almost all retired, they're like, Social Security is the most important program in the history of the world. And it's amazing, right? The skepticism is a feature of the young. Over the past, I would say 30 years, 40 years, youthful skepticism has been held up as a reason to cut it, like, politically.

[B]

Politically, like, well, the kids don't think they're gonna get it anyway, so we might as well cut it.

[A]

Some old ass guy in Congress is taking natural youthful skepticism of something 50 plus years in future that you're just not 100% convinced on as evidence that we need to cut the most beloved program in history. That's where we are. That is one of the most consistent cases that they make is, you know, young people don't want it, and young

[B]

people don't want it is different than young people don't.

[A]

No, but it's like this, this is an echo chamber of like, young people don't want Social Security. They know they can make more money in the stock market and they don't know what'll be there for them. So, like, young people don't want Social Security. It's an artifact of an older age. So this, this, like, youthful skepticism is vitally important to the political economy of Social Security because it's, it's often Manipulated in political debates.

[B]

Well, they. They absolutely say things like, if you took 6.25% of your income and invested it, this is how much money you

[A]

would have, because no one's ever lost money on the market before and you won't either.

[B]

Right, right, exactly. Do you think that this is also because when Social Security started, most people didn't have access to the market. They didn't have money in the. In the stock market. Not that everybody does, but far more people do now than did probably in the 40s.

[A]

Yes. And that's partly a function of that. You wouldn't need to invest in the stock market if you had a pension. Oh, this point of, you can make more money in the stock market is not something you would say if you were in the era in which, like, 75 of workers had a defined benefit pension plan from their employer. The idea you'd be like, hey, so you could just go gamble in the stock market and make more money. Like, that argument only makes sense in a world where employers have completely shed the risk of your retirement savings that they used to take on. They have shed it. They have put it on to you. And now people are like, and you know what's awesome about that? We shouldn't have Social Security either. Of like, my God. Like, how much do you think one worker can do, especially if their wages are stagnating?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. And it's. And it's not enough like, it should. The benefits should be higher, but they're good, but they're not. On average, they replace around 40% of people's earnings.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So. So I wanted to do a quick, like, timeline of what is going to happen to Social Security and why we. Why these elections matter now. And then I want to do, like, a pitch two young people about Social Security.

[B]

Who is the youth in this?

[A]

I always say under 30.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I'm sure someone's 29 and a half, and they're like, yeah, I'm the youth. And then there's some guy who just turned 30 who's like, this is a sad day for me. I mean, from Social Security's perspective, I think the youth goes up to, like, 40.

[B]

I was just saying, if you've been told that it won't be there for you, I can tell you the youth extends to age 56.

[A]

All right, all right, so let's do Millennials and zoomers.

[B]

All right, so the Social Security trustees just came out with this report saying that the trust fund will be depleted in, I think it's the final quarter of 2032. It used to be 2035, and just in the last few years, it's gone to 2032.

[A]

Now, one confusing part is that there's two trust funds, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, which pays out most of the benefits that you've heard of. And then there's the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. And the reason why there's two trust funds is because these programs were created 21 years apart.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So when they started disability insurance, they started a new trust fund, the Old Age Trust Fund, that pays retirement benefits that is expected to be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032. The reason why this is huge news is because it's moved into 2032, which means it's moved up an election cycle. Oh, that. That is why I think there's so much news around it. But the Disability Insurance Trust fund is actually expected to be depleted. Never. It's solvent over the 75 year window. Now it's a lot smaller. But the kind of assumption is in 2032, Congress probably won't have a solution. They will turn to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund and basically bar, like take from the disability. Yeah, they'll basically redirect the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to old age benefits. They did this in the 1980s because we've been here before. Social Security's old age fund borrowed from its disability fund to extend the like timeline. And then after they reformed the program, they paid back the disability insurance fund. So if you look at the Old Age Insurance Trust Fund depletion date, it's the fourth quarter of 2032. That is during. That is like, that's like Election Day. It's election Day. Right. If you look at the combined trust fund, it's 2034. So I think experts like myself, we tend to look at the combined trust fund. But the first big thing has to happen is 2032. The reason why it moved up is no good. Right. The one big beautiful bill act reduced Social Security's revenue.

[B]

Right. You want to talk about how that it did that? Yeah.

[A]

You've probably heard that there's a tax on benefits. If you are a current Social Security beneficiary, typically benefits aren't subject to the income tax. However, if you make a lot of money from things that aren't Social Security, when you're retired, a portion of your Social Security benefits can be subject to the income tax. And if you pay taxes on Social Security benefits, it goes back into Social Security. It doesn't go to Congress.

[B]

It doesn't go into the general Fund or whatever, it just, it stays in the Social Security ecosystem.

[A]

It stays in the Social Security system. The problem with this is that the level for defining high income has not changed in nominal terms since 1983. So if you made $25,000 from private retirement accounts in 1983, you probably were high income. That's not the case anymore. And more and more seniors are seeing their Social Security benefits subject to a tax. So the one big beautiful Bill act did not fix or change this. What it did was it gave seniors an additional two deductions to help reduce the taxable income on the private income side so that they'd be less likely to hit the cap to have their Social Security benefits subject to the income tax. So this is a fresh reminder that Christopher Nolan actually designed our tax system, but it reduces the number of people who end up having to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits, reducing Social Security's revenue and accelerating the trust fund depletion. I can't think of a worse way to address this problem, but maybe I could if I tried really hard. Anyway, the other thing that's happening, in addition to changes to a tax law that only lasts through Trump's term, it ends in 2028. But the other thing that's happening is that Social Security relies on immigrants in more ways than one. And the changing state of immigration in the US Is hitting Social Security because

[B]

they pay into the system and rarely

[A]

draw out of it unauthorized immigrants. People who do not have permission to be in the United States but are working pay into Social Security. I mean, it's lifted right out of a paycheck for almost every worker in the United States. But they are never eligible to receive benefits based on those contributions, even if they become citizens. It's a small windfall to the program. It's not nothing. And Social Security gets money from it. So if that goes down, it affects Social Security's bottom line. The real immigration question is what happens going forward?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So Social Security makes this prediction every year of how much money will be going into the program via taxes and out of the program via benefits. And they have to make this prediction over a 75 year period. It's why we've known that the trust fund has been running out for almost four decades, because they first predicted that in 1985. And they're like, hey, we thinking about 50 to 60 years, the trust fund is going to be depleted. So they make these massively long projections for finances. But part of their projections of that what happens over 75 years is based on immigration they have to make an assumption of how many people on net are coming to the US to work. In this report, they said immigration took a hit in 2025, but they basically assume immigration goes back to normal and we have a million plus new people coming in.

[B]

They assume it goes back to normal when?

[A]

I think in 27. Oh, maybe it's 26 or 27. I don't know the exact year. But they basically assume immigration goes back to a million plus people a year, which is a very tenuous assumption. Yeah, it's not made maliciously. They're like not meant to respond to like the news of the day. Like they're very like, if we make

[B]

it looking through the inflation like the

[A]

Fed, they're looking through basically everything going on to what are the underlying long term trends. So a like hateful year of immigration policy does not make a 75 year trend. And so that is their positioning. But if this keeps up, we won't have until 2032 because immigrants are such a vital part of Social Security.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Those are the stakes, y'. All. Do we feel like we are caught up on the Trustees report and why this is such a high stakes moment?

[B]

I do.

[A]

Okay, 2032, the fourth quarter of 2032 is the latest. We think that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted, which means Social Security elections have begun. Looking at you, Georgia.

[B]

Looking at you, Georgia. Yeah, good point.

[A]

So that's, that's why this is high stakes. So now if you're a young person, my like more cynical, which I don't like to be on the show in particular, but my more cynical take is the conservative plan of attack is to go through young people to say you're paying for older people and they already have enough money and the boomers are wealthy and you should support benefit cuts because that's for you. And they're going to come out strong to say young people don't care about Social Security, they shouldn't vote on it, you should vote on other things and boomers will be fine because they have all the money and a better economy anyway.

[B]

Yeah, that's probably, I think if you're a betting woman, that's a, that's a good bet to make.

[A]

You know, people who have had experience with Social Security understand, even if they don't benefit from it, why it's so important. If you were to cut off Social Security, you'll have an influx of multi generational households because Social Security is grants tens of millions of elderly Americans economic independence and old age. You want to cut that they're not going to be dependent on the government, they're going to be dependent on their

[B]

families because that was their government. You just took away.

[A]

You just took it away. I mean there was some really interesting studies about like kind of the first generation of Social Security beneficiaries. The first benefit was paid to Ida May Fuller in 1940. The kind of wave of benefits after that were kind of slowly increased as you had longer work histories feeding into the benefit claiming. And there is a lot of evidence that the government transfers from Social Security supplanted private transfers from family and that this enabled a lot of people to spend more money down on their kids because they were no longer supporting their parents or grandparents. I think that that is hard to resonate with people. To put in this like hypothetical of like, if Social Security were to end, young people would be by far the worse off if even if they're not getting cash because then they lose the benefit in the future and they gain the responsibility. This is like I'm speaking to young people as a young person. So here's first pitch. Ready?

[B]

Okay. Okay, hit me.

[A]

Okay. A person retiring today in 2026 was born in 1959 and they started work in 1977. So in their work life they've made it through six recessions, an energy crisis, the advent of computer, Internet and cell phones at work, the savings and loan crisis, the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, the financial crisis, the pandemic. A 13 year period in which the total return to The S&P 500 was zero. A career that was bookended with two inflation spikes. One at the start in the early 1980s and one at the end in the early 2000 and twenties. And they exited just as tariffs were the highest in nearly a century and 9% of private sector workers had a pension. That is what they lived through. Part of me is like, the poor, like that's so much. But if you are turning 18 today, you were born in 2008, you're turning 18 today, you will not retire until 2075. On what planet would it benefit you to get rid of your insurance? Because that's what Social Security is, it's your insurance. Like some guy is going to tell you 6.2% is going to make you $7 million in the stock market. Like, okay, when is the stock market going to crash? When's the next correction? When's the next bubble? There's the dot com bubble. The housing bubble led to a 13 year period in which the total return of the s and P500 was zero. If someone tells you how much money you can make investing in the stock market, ask them specifically, when is the next bubble and can I move my money right beforehand and can you tell me right before the next bubble hits? I mean, people will tell you that you can have a better life if you don't make any mistakes in investing and saving and working. You never become unemployed and you always pull your money out at the right time because you won't be left holding the bag. But like, y', all, that's a lot to put on yourself between now and 2075.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

This is your insurance. It, I mean, yes, you have grandparents. This isn't about them. This is about you. This is your insurance. I don't think people realize the risk that they face as a worker in the capitalist economy of just how many hits that they could take that they cannot possibly predict. Yeah, right now, I mean, I'd be

[B]

surprised if anybody can be looking at this economy right now and not understand risk.

[A]

Well, I mean, a lot of people, like, I mean, okay, I think that there's, if you're, if you're 18, you probably might have a low key understanding that you're immortal and like, you'll never die, you'll never get sick and nothing will ever happen. So I don't, I don't want to like, press too hard if like actually bad things are going to happen. But to say, like, who are you going to put your faith in? Like, it used to be the case that more than two thirds of workers had a pension from their employer and it's down to 9%. Like, you should take that as indication that you know your employer is probably

[B]

not going to be there, not going

[A]

to take care of you.

[B]

And not only that, most people don't work for one employer or a handful of employers anymore. The entire landscape of work has changed,

[A]

and I think it'll keep changing. And so are you going to bank on the fact that you'll always have a retirement plan from work or a disability plan from work, or a life insurance plan from work? You have from now until 2075, will every job have a long term disability benefit and a life insurance benefit? If you don't know, then your long term disability and life insurance benefit, the only one that is guaranteed is Social Security, because I know Social Security will have it. I have no idea what your employer is going to offer you as a benefit outside of wages in 2070. And you don't know. So don't get rid of the benefit. I mean, this Is the bird in hand. The bird in hand is worth, like, negative two in the bush. There's no birds in the bush. Employers are not holding birds. You have the bird in your hand. Is this. Am I using this metaphor correctly? I don't know, but this is like a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Is this. Come on, this is. All right, I am looking this up. Bird in.

[B]

But I don't think there's ever negative birds in the.

[A]

Well, that's just. Okay, so a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[B]

Two in the bush.

[A]

Okay. It's originated from medieval falconry, of course. And what I'm saying is that you don't have two in the bush. There ain't any birds in that bush.

[B]

There's no bushes.

[A]

There's no bushes.

[B]

There's no birds.

[A]

There's no birds in them. You're holding the bird. I'm not gonna lie. My Social Security chat is gonna kill me. They'll be like, what is this awful bird metaphor? Breaking the grounds. Why are we talking about birds, Catherine, And Social Security? How did you get into an extended bird metaphor? Maybe that one got away from me, but that is my pitch is that you don't know what's coming and that it's in church.

[B]

I like it. You're going to use the medieval. The medieval falconry metaphor to reach the youth.

[A]

Don't let Social Security be the bird that flew away but doesn't come back because you're not adept at falconry. Sorry. Really putting a heroic amount of weight on birds. Let's do some stats.

[B]

Okay. All right.

[A]

In 20, 25.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Around 59 of private sector workers had a life insurance policy through their job.

[B]

Sure. Okay.

[A]

And this would be the benefit is like one and a half times your salary.

[B]

Right.

[A]

37 have long term disability insurance.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And this will be a, like, fraction of your salary is paid out for some period of time.

[B]

Mm.

[A]

Not your entire life, I assure you. And then it bounces around. But roughly 70% of workers have access to a defined contribution plan at their job.

[B]

401k.

[A]

Like a 401k. That does not mean that the employer contributes to.

[B]

Just means they have some access.

[A]

They have some access to it. Okay. Okay. Because Social Security is 100, y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

It's a life insurance policy. It's a long term disability insurance policy, and it's a retirement plan. It's 100 and everybody gets it. That's. It's a hundred. That's why we have it.

[B]

Got it.

[A]

Yeah. So like you working until 2075, in order to maintain, say, long term disability insurance through your employer, you can't have any gaps in work. And you have to make sure that every employer has long term disability insurance, which only 37% of them do, versus every job you ever have will be covered by Social Security. Unless you're like a public sector worker in Ohio. They're part of the fractional, not covered.

[B]

Like my mom.

[A]

The people who aren't covered by Social Security are groups of workers that had existing really good retirement plans when Social Security was expanded. And so that was really just certain industrial sectors, like railroad workers and then public sector employees of state and local governments.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

How about this? Here are the five risks that are currently covered in your federal Social Security benefit.

[B]

Okay. Right.

[A]

Number one, you die before you reach retirement age. And you have dependents at home, either a spouse or children under 18. And if you die and you have kids at home or a spouse, they will get some Social Security. It has to be a dependent spouse.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Okay. Risk two, you become disabled. You don't reach retirement age because you have a permanent disability, and Social Security covers you and your dependent children. Risk three, you reach retirement without enough savings to last your whole life.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You outlive your savings.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Social Security covers you. Inflation erodes your savings. Social Security covers you. Those are the five risks that Social Security currently covers. Death, disability, insufficient savings. I don't know what to call the fourth one, like extreme old age and inflation. Because it's a lifetime inflation adjusted annuity, you cannot buy that protection. If you tried, especially the inflation adjusted lifetime annuity, like that Social Security is automatically adjusted for inflation every year. Sometimes that adjustment's big, sometimes adjustment small. It's probably not big enough compared to what old people spend their money on, which is health insurance and heating. But, like, yeah, you get an increase in your benefit every year that's not guaranteed anywhere on the private market. So this is a truly incomparable benefit that you have. So instead of someone telling you why you shouldn't be paying for it anymore, you should be telling them, actually, I want it to be bigger and better.

[B]

Yeah, that's kind of where I expected you to go with this, you know, which is like, if we can do this for old people and for people who suffer disability or for people who lose a spouse or a parent, why can't we do this for the other risks that people face in their.

[A]

Well, we totally can. We totally can. Social Security is the, like, the most effective tool in the public policy toolbox.

[B]

So you think of it as a, I don't know, like, as a tool, as a mechanism, not as a. I think people think of it as one specific retirement program. But you're like, no, no, it's. It could be all forms of social insurance.

[A]

You face risk over the course of your life that you cannot sufficiently or efficiently save for. If you can't sufficiently or efficiently save for something, you need to have insurance. If the private market doesn't find it profitable to take any old person and give them disability insurance, that means the government needs to provide it in a social insurance system. Those five risks are, like, far from the only risk that people face that the private market wouldn't insure. The private market has had decades to show you it will not find some kind of private paid family leave program profitable. If it's not efficient to save for, then you need to have insurance. And if the private market won't do it, it's public insurance. And that's a social insurance program. Like, to me, it's not just like, these are the things I like. Like, I don't think food insecurity is a good social insurance program. I don't think housing is a good social insurance program. Because it's not necessarily like a random risk that hits you, a health scare, an unemployment spell. Those are like you needing to stay home to take care of someone. Those are risk. I mean, arguably the only one that's not really a risk is newborn leave. Because paid parental leave is not a risk. It's a choice. I could see the argument. It's just, I don't think it's the. It's the same kind of caregiving responsibility. But, yeah, I mean, it's just, it's. It's whether or not it's a risk that needs insurance. And what makes it a risk is it could happen to you right then you need insurance.

[B]

So, any final pitches to the youth?

[A]

I think that our political economy has lots of problems and is broken. And there's these, like, truisms that we fall back on. Like, old people vote, so Social Security would never be cut. Like, it's off your shoulders. It has been presented in the political economy world as if it is not your program. And that has got to be one of the most successful political coup d' etat conservatives have pulled off is to convince you that this benefit isn't yours because it's old people's and they vote and it will always be okay for them. Like, I, I would not fall for it because this is potentially you having not just Life insurance, disability insurance, and basically retirement poverty insurance. This could be the way that you get paid family leave and this could be the way that you get better unemployment insurance in a short term and long term program for you to not have ownership over. It is such a win for conservatives.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So don't, don't give it to them.

[B]

Do you think that this will be the defining issue of the coming elections?

[A]

So just this morning of recording Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Moreno, who is the senator from Ohio, they wrote an op ed basically saying that we need to save Social Security and they kind of said by any means necessary and specifically that we need to get rid of the tax cap so that Social Security is collecting more in revenue and it's only fair that all workers pay the same rate and not rich workers pay a lower rate. There are going to be a lot of bipartisan proposals coming. I think a couple things could happen, but definitely one of them is if we lose a lot of immigrants again, that number is going to, that 2032. Q4 is going to move up. And I think if it takes another move up, I think people will start to freak out. Yeah, we're close enough that this depletion date is much more sensitive to current economic conditions than it was 15 years ago. So the reason why we think all this is happening is because I should have probably led with this. If the Social Security trust fund is depleted, you still have Social Security. The benefits are cut by a flat amount for all current and future beneficiaries to make the program solvent over the 75 year window. So basically it has 75 years of projected revenue, 75 years of projected benefits. It's gotta make a cut to make those lines cohere.

[B]

They say it was 22, 22%.

[A]

If they bring in the Social Security disability insurance trust fund, it would be 2034 at 17%. So that is why they're going to do something. Because that would be catastrophic. I mean, not just like people would be mad. I mean like that would be catastrophic for our economy. There are rural areas, areas where half of their income comes from Social Security.

[B]

God, really?

[A]

I mean, there's. Rural areas are a lot older than urban areas. The other thing that's kind of crazy is like it would hit some states a lot harder than others. And you're like, oh, Florida? No, no, no, Maine. It would hit places like Maine really hard. I think Maine is the most rural state. Think of states without a massive large principal city. Okay, well, those states tend to be whiter and they tend to be older and then they're going to have more of their. If you are white and old and don't have a principal city full of young ethnic people, Social Security cuts will hit you harder. I guess my pitch to young people would be you have so much more to lose. Maybe is the right way to say it, you have so much more to lose than someone who is older. So if you take ownership over this program, I think it would be shocking politically to a lot of sitting senators and sitting house representatives. But, yes, you have the most to pay in now, but you have far more to lose than you'll pay in.

[B]

We're going to take a break and we'll be back in a second for whatever the other stuff is we do.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Finish it off with edicts. Mainly petty. Our executive orders. Robin, what is your executive order for the week?

[B]

My executive order is in. In Rousey Republic, we will have age appropriate casting. I was thrown over the edge on this by Margo's got money troubles. Okay. Elle Fanning, you're in your late 20s. You're playing 19. All right. Your mother is being played by Michelle Pfeiffer. I didn't know how old Michelle Pfeiffer was, but I did look it up because I was like, I'm pretty sure Michelle Pfeiffer was acting in movies when I was still in school, like maybe middle school. And I am definitely personally too old to be the mother of the 19 year old in this show. Yeah. Michelle Pfaffer is 68 years old. Don't get me wrong. She Maybe doesn't look 68, but just because you're married to the producer of the show does not mean you are age appropriate for the role.

[A]

Okay. Mine is going to be. I don't mean to throw shade on Michelle Pfeiffer or anybody in particular, but I do think that if you have had cosmetic procedures, you have to disclose them if you sell beauty products.

[B]

Oh.

[A]

So my executive order would be like, if you were in a. Anything related to self and beauty care and you have had cosmetic surgery, you need to disclose it. Because it's like these women are like on Botox having had like their lips done and like a nose job and a chin job and there's like cheek jobs and they've had all this surgery and they're selling you makeup and they're

[B]

like, this face cream will change everything.

[A]

Yeah. All you need is this, this face cream. And like, that's the secret to happiness. So I, I'm, I'm like, yeah, if you just, if you have had cosmetic procedures you. You have. You can't sell. It's like truth in advertising gets extended to cosmetic procedures related to your face and the products you sell.

[B]

Okay, and spiritual sponsors. What's keeping you going this week?

[A]

You go first.

[B]

Damn it. Well, I mean, the World cup definitely keeping us going this week. My wife made me listen to part of a recent episode of A Touch More, the podcast with Megan Rapinoe, and she was waxing on about how great it is that people are visiting the country and going to places like BUC EE's and having this experience with, you know, bottomless chips and salsa and all sorts of things. But she did say it's kind of. It's a little. She called it like a tough mirror. And she said, I feel like we're like the inflatable bounce house of circus capitalism that's been maxed out in America, and everyone's just coming here in a big bounce house that's on a flatbed truck that's going to the biggest stadium you've ever seen. Oh, yeah, that's excellent.

[A]

My spiritual sponsor. Well, okay, so in addition to your spiritual sponsor, which is mine, too, my spiritual sponsor. Is that the exact word for the 250th anniversary came up on Jeopardy. And my husband said that I have never looked or sounded more triumphant in my entire life than when I yelled out to Ken. Semi coincidental. And I didn't get it. And I was like, the optimist led me here to this moment because we didn't know the word, and then they corrected the word, and then we talked about that. And so, like, my whole life was, like, my whole life led me here to just being able to yell at Ken Jennings. Semi quincentennial.

[B]

What was the category?

[A]

I think the category was, like, big words.

[B]

Big words.

[A]

The satisfaction of knowing an answer on Jeopardy. When none of them do. It doesn't come up that often. This is like. Like, this is like the solar eclipse. Like, this is a big moment that they don't know and I know, but semi quincentennial. That was great. That is my spiritual sponsor moment.

[B]

Great. All right, time for the credits.

[A]

The Optimist Economy podcast is edited by Sophie Lalonde. Our video production for social media is by Andy Robinson. We have just hit 50,000 followers on TikTok. Video clips from the show are available to share on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube or LinkedIn.

[B]

We're also on Facebook.

[A]

We just got on Facebook.

[B]

I actually have thrown down with Andy that Facebook will reach 60,000 followers before TikTok. Was that my bet, Andy?

[A]

There was some kind of bar bet made over follower account because we just got on Facebook and this is a throwback to Gawker. If you guys used to read Gawker. The olds love us. Buy a T shirt tote bag on our website optimisteconomy.com we are out of hats again and we're going to be selling some new T shirts and I think I'm going to go more is more on the design, but we'll see

[B]

Consuming leisure bucket hat. I see it coming. All right, if you're on subsec as a free or paid subscriber to Optimist Economy, you can join our chat room there. And of course, if you have the means to contribute at whatever level is comfortable for you, we'll take your [e-mail].

[A]

Note from Production let's keep rage baiting. Our rage bait on Facebook is we need to cut the number of corporate tax coupons that we give out so that we can adequately invest in children. And they're like the ruin of this country. She is a communist. And then there's people who are like, wow, but her parents are so proud of her. And then it's like she's running the country into the ground. Those are her Facebook comments. Come join us. There.