Is Social Security Really a Pyramid Scheme?

Are Generational Welfare Trades Always Unjust?

Source: Isaac Quesada On Unsplash: Free Use

In a recent post, I discussed a paper I published a few days ago with several bioethicists on whether trade-offs between generations are always unjust. Since I have received numerous replies, I would like to answer the questions that have been raised and respond to the criticism against our position.

(Context: We have defended the claim that welfare trade-offs between generations are inevitable. It is thus nonsensical to claim that we should prohibit all policies that allow such a trade-off, e.g., the vaccination of children to protect the elderly.)

Today, I respond to two interesting replies — one is anonymous the other from James OBrien, who argued that Social Security is a modern pyramid scheme.

Anonymous:

But, but, but... this means every talking head I listen to has been lying to me! I've been fooled! Fooled into adopting the evil attitude of the rich that no one other than the rich should have anything good in life! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!

James OBrien MD:

Three-year-olds don't get to vote against current adults leaving them with unpayable debt. Also it's not ethical to borrow from the future when you'll be dead so that you can enjoy yourself now. The most ethical thing one can do in one's lifetime is exit the stage making the world a better place, but saddling your descendants with your party tab isn't doing that.

"Democratic societies are not designed to tackle the problems of the future." Then they will have no future and that's why we have a republic. If a formerly prosperous society decides it can sustain unrealistic debt then they will print money to pay off the debt and suffer the fate of Weimar and Zimbabwe or a Madoff investor.

I think what you are saying is that evolved self-interest makes SS hard to resist, but that doesn't make it ethical. I fully get why we do it, and it doesn't reflect well on us.

The ethical way to do Social Security is make it a savings account with accumulated assets in one's name, but the politicians won't let that happen because they are thieves encouraged by the free stuff crowd.

My critics have taken my arguments here to imply that we cannot criticize inequalities in society. This, however, was not my argument. Instead, I argued that tradeoffs between generations are inevitable and hence should not purely be argued against on the basis that they exist. What matters is i) how large are these inequalities and ii) are they unjust?

James thus justifiably says "all forms of theft are a trade-off too" and we clearly object to those. I have no problem with James' argument.

Indeed, I agree with my critics that the current system isn't fair since it burdens future generations without giving them anything in return. We are solving current problems by creating bigger ones in the future. This isn't sustainable and if one agrees with James that our political system ought to be sustainable — as I do — then we need to change structures that aren't. Even if this requires a radical shift in current policies.