April 26, 2005
MR. KRUGMAN IS NOT AMUSED:
The Proof's in the Pension (JOHN TIERNEY, 4/26/05, NY Times)
I made a pilgrimage to Santiago seeking to resolve the Social Security debate with a simple question: What would Pablo Serra do?I wanted to compare our pensions to see the results of an accidental experiment that began in 1961, when he and I were friends in second grade at a school in Chile. He remained in Chile and became the test subject; I returned to America as the control group. [...]
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds. He has more money in it than most Chileans because his salary is above average, but lower-paid workers who contributed to that fund for the same period of time would be in relatively good shape, too, because their projected pension would amount to more than 90 percent of their salaries.
By contrast, Social Security replaces less than 60 percent of your salary - and that's only if you were a low-income worker. Typical recipients get back less than half of their salaries.
Mr. Tierney's column begins to fulfill its promise. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 26, 2005 9:22 AM
Bet there are some nasty notes being passed back-and-forth through the Times' inter-office e-mail system today over this one.
Posted by: John at April 26, 2005 9:43 AMThese are the kinds of numbers that have to be put out there by the President. Another case (along with "give every nominee a vote") of a quite simple, slam-dunk argument that just isn't being made until long after the Dems define the playing field, if at all.
Posted by: b at April 26, 2005 10:48 AMThese numbers don't surprise me. And, if there were greater detail given, you'd also see that this same comparison wipes out the entire "Wall Street Fat Cats" argument from the left as well. We use some of the same fund advisors that Chile's system utilizes for our clients' portfolios. They're almost entirely passive, deeply grounded in efficient market theory and advised by the who's who of investment science: Fama, French, Ibbotson, Sinquefield, Miller, Scholes, et al.
Posted by: John Resnick at April 26, 2005 11:13 AM"Mr. Tierney's column begins to fulfill its promise."
OJ: I thought you were not pro-Tierney?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 28, 2005 12:22 AM