Pain Inequality and the Social Security Retirement Age

Should we raise the Social Security retirement age?:

Pain and inequality, Crooked Timber: The results of this new study on pain assessment by Princeton’s Alan Krueger and SUNY Stony Brook’s Arthur Stone are for the most part not particularly surprising. As it turns out, ... even physical pain is unequally shared. For example, the Krueger/Stone study found that respondents with low socio-economic status experienced “significantly higher pain occurrences and severity.”...

Occupational status seems to play an important role, given that

the average pain rating for blue collar workers is 1.00 during work and 0.84 during nonwork, and for white collar workers it is 0.61 during both work and non-work episodes.

And in an interview, Krueger said, “Those with higher incomes welcome pain almost by choice, usually through exercise,” he says. “At lower incomes, pain comes as the result of work.”

It’s a pretty decent study; though the response rate was low enough (37%) to be worrying, the sample was weighted to reflect the composition of the general population. It’s also an improvement on earlier surveys...

The results aren’t exactly news; other studies have shown that pain and socioeconomic status tend to be inversely related. But Krueger said the relationship between pain and socioeconomic status was “stronger” than he expected.

What are the policy implications? Well, for one thing, the authors say:

The strong association between self-reported disability status and pain is notable given concerns by economists and some policymakers that able-bodied individuals may seek benefits from the Disability Insurance system.

So maybe, just maybe, all those people applying for disability aren’t just a bunch of perfectly able-bodied fakers and whiners after all?

Also, one expert says the results demonstrate “the need for pain preventing measures [in the workplace] such as better ergonomics.” Well maybe, but it’s hard to see how even the most high-quality ergonomic devices are going to make life much easier for people who make a living by scrubbing floors all day, or lifting heavy boxes. And sure, a health care system that provided universal access and did a better job at pain management would help things, too.

Given that pain is higher among blue collar workers than among white collar workers, and given that pain tends to increase with age, retirement has got to look to very different to blue collar workers who have done physical labor all their life, than it does to their more sedentary white collar counterparts. Conservatives and other Social Security crisis-mongerers love to scream about how if we don’t raise the retirement age the Social Security fund will go bankrupt. The more honest ones don’t claim Social Security is going to go under any time soon, but they do say that, given increased life expectancy, increasing the retirement age only makes sense.

In fact, I once heard a University of Chicago economics professor make that very argument. It was a lecture so I couldn’t interrupt, but it was exasperating to listen to. Easy for you to say, Mr. Economics Professor! You can do your job until you’re 100, or until senility sets in, at least.

But what about the people who scrub toilets for a living? Or health care workers who spend much of their work day manually lifting patients? Asking people to do highly physically demanding jobs like those until they’re 65 is already asking quite a lot. There’s a reason why the classic union steelworker contract had a “30 and out” pension provision. After 30 years on the job, a lot of those guys’ bodies had taken so much that they weren’t physically capable of doing physical labor anymore.

So please, let’s not hear anything more about raising the Social Security retirement age... (H/T: Shakesville)

What do conservatives say about people who want to raise taxes? That nothing is stopping them from sending the government more money voluntarily, or something like that? I suppose we could say the same thing here - if you think people should work longer, nothing is stopping you from doing so - except, perhaps, your health. We could make people with physically demanding jobs get a new job somewhere else, probably a much lower paying job than they are used to given the difficulty finding employment as age advances, just to be sure they have done their part for society. After all, doing physical labor day in and day out, and in some cases giving up their bodies and their health to produce stuff for the rest of us isn't enough, we need more than that before we give them a few years in peace.

[See also: The Costs and Benefits of Raising the Retirement Age, and Indexing for Longevity.]

Comments

[anne]

Brilliant, thoroughly brilliant.

[anne]

When last I recall, weren't we finding a selective leveling and actual reversal of life-span for poorer women, and some men, in this most developed of countries? Aging then is differently experienced, even pain is differently experienced, but just which groups of Republican-Democrat thinkers have been discussing increasing the qualifying age for Social Security? Which Democrats have been assuring us that there will be no move to universal health care in 2009 because of budget limits and 2010 because of, well, another election?

[odograph]

I think the answer is at the other end ... 2 years national service after high school or college (kid's choice).

With longer lives 2 years aren't what they used to be, and get this, if everyone who does 2 years gets health benefits then we've snuck that one in the door.

... and of course 2 years can be doing the things a graying society needs

[David]

I think we need to find a way to make the retirement age more flexible. Physically demanding jobs should be "compensated" with getting full social security benefits earlier, whereas the retirement age can be raised for those with office jobs.

There's really no physical need to retire at 65 for someone with a white collar job, at most it's something felt as "deserved." Quite different from being physically incapable of continuing to work.

Instead of raising the age at which you can get social security by mandate, maybe there's a way to design better incentives. Maybe working a few years longer and not receiving any social security money could lead to higher benefits at retirement? I'm not sure how exactly benefits are structured in the US, maybe this is the case already.

[ken melvin]

That about the toil of labor, known for hundreds of years, is bang on. Having people work longer isn't an answer. We don't need extra workers. Earlier retirement and the 32 hour week make more sense.

[me]

This debate is academic since most people get fired in their 50s anymore, at least those with knowledge jobs.

[eightnine2718281828mu5]

---
if you think people should work longer, nothing is stopping you from doing so
---

And anyone who argues that capgains taxes should be lower because they believe Paris and Bill are under-capitalized are free to send them some extra cash.

[Barkley Rosser]

This post is on the money. I completely agree. And trying to set up some kind of variable scheme for different jobs is just going to get messy. After all, there are people who spend time in different kinds of professions, including manual and non-manual labor. All the more reason to leave the social security system as it is. It ain't broke, and it don't need no fixin'.

[Bruce Webb]

Barkley (and anyone else) I landed the SS gig at AB. Constructive and desructive critiques are all more than welcome. A certain recent Deputy Commissioner of Soc Sec has already weighed in. Its early days but to some extent open battle has been joined at long last. We even have been deploying this odd thing known as 'numbers'.

[Lower it to 50]

The Amish routinely retire at ate 50, using no modern technology. Why on earth can't we do better than that using the full array of technological helpers?

Of course, we could just eliminate inflation so people could actually save money for their old age. Then they could choose their own retirement age. The obsession with encouraging everyone to spend every last dime lest it be inflated away has gone overboard.

[Jim]

If a person were forced to invest 15% of their income (the amount that goes to the employer and employee shares of social security), they would be better off than in the coming dystopia, where very few workers will fund one retiree.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mark . . .

This is beyond fascinating for me. The study validates what I have long observed.

I am close to two individuals. The men were born a year apart. They both enlisted in the service during World War II. The chap whose family had wealth and pull had a very different experience in the military than the one whose relatives were all working class folks.

Each would tell you they worked hard for a living. The more affluent gent, went on to make much money after his tour of duty ended. He experienced little physical strain. The other whose life was labor intensive, relatively speaking did well financially. However, he suffered many aches and pains. His monetary gains cannot begin to compare with those of the way wealthier man.

Each has lived a long and happy life. However, the less well off fellow has had two hip replacement surgeries. He needs another; yet, his age and health concerns preclude the possibility.

The affluent man, had his first scary injury this year. He healed well. Although age has affected him, or so he says, from appearances he does very well. His attitude and joy in everyday life are great.

The same is not true for the less well-off man. Content, yet, with much discomfort might best define the poorer man's demeanor.

In my own life, and in the lives of others, I have seen how a job can affect the physical and emotional well-being.

I believe, those who think to raise the retirement age do not suffer at work. They believe they can go on longer or forever, for their careers are fulfilling. Of the two men I mentioned, the poorer of the two retired decades ago. The richer works; however, he labors for himself. He invests money for pleasure.

I once had a job that I hated. I began to grind my teeth in my sleep. I felt as though I could not quit. Dental insurance became a priority because I had this "occupation." I have known many with similar stories.

I share what I think interesting. The wealthier man I spoke of explained to me, in America, most people are economic slaves.

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[outsider.com]

Ah, hey.

I 've worked in Mental health hospitals for over 20 years. Net result, 2 times allegations of abuse to face, five bite scars, one broken ankle, too many bruises to count, countless problems avoided because I know how to fall and block from my military training and some Asian fighting schools training. These skills let me survive during a one to one supervision with a "patient over 5 years" who crippled 5 staff over 2 1/2 years before this. Good old State benefits are what I retired on. The benefits peak at age 62. After that, my old bones were more likely to break, and it is more economically advantageous to get me retired. The benefits rose rapidly to age 55, then faded in growth, rapidly, and age benefits ceased. (Get the picture has been?). I am however greatful. I am doing better than most of my peers. The CEO's of KBR and Haliburton, of course, can wax 'Super Alpha males" forever with fantastic Golden parachutes no matter how they screw up in terms of competence.

The Aristocracy. Others die, others slave, We control for the good of our ideology.

20 years ago, I heard from my private sector friends, "well, it's great the ones that can't make it can have Government jobs. The less than able can still have a life, even accepting lower pay for the benefits. I, of course, choose to get added pay with no benefits because I will always be so valuable" . Now I hear "' These Government parasites are sucking up benefits that kill productive jobs with undeserved higher pay." The Long Wave by David Hacket Fischer explains much.

Social Security pays for itself. The 1 to 5 trillion dollar war that "borrows" from Social Security works?...Thanks to you Ideologues that are paid by the the Chaney Rove White House.

[Barkley Rosser]

Jim,

Oh, you mean like the about the number of workers that currently fund a retiree in many European countries such as Germany, where they even have larger pensions than we do in the US? Have you actually compared the demographic structures and dependency ratios across countries and realized how nonsensical what you are saying? Or, as is probably the case, are you just repeating stupid crud you heard somewhere without actually looking at any data or thinking about it seriously?

[SanFranciscoJim]

I don't know any computer programmers in their 60's. As they say, "Your first layoff after 50 is your last layoff."

[Bruce Webb]

Not all office work is physically unchallenging. I spent ten years at a job where I stood behind a counter or walked around fetching files for about seven out of my eight hours. To say nothing of the psychic strain that comes from serving customer after customer particularly if the service you provide is by nature confrontational. That is I went from working the tax counter where I got to explain why taxes were going up to working the permit/zoning counter where I had to explain why you couldn't do whatever you wanted to do with your property and then why you had to pay hundreds or thousands or dollars in permit fees to do the limited things we allowed you to do. And of course you could make similar points about just about every service job.

People at the supervisory level or in the professions or in academia I think tend to underestimate the physicality involved in line work whether that be office, store or clinic. After a while you just get tired, physically and mentally and just not want to be at the beck and call of the alarm clock and then your supervisor.

There is a line between the Protestant work ethic and chaining someone to their oar that some people don't get. The implied and sometimes expressed notion that accumulation is always and everywhere superior to leisure, generally held by people who themselves manage to get in a round of golf on Wednesday, is just to privilege one point of view. Oddly enough some people would prefer to spend some times with their grandkids. To force them to continue to work for years just to protect your marginal tax rate is just another form of class warfare.

[Arne (not anne)]

If people have the temerity to continue to live longer, SS costs will go up. SS needs to have a mechanism to deal with it. With reality that health care costs simply cannot continue to rise as they have, with the reality of rampant obesity, and with the reality of diminishing returns, the SS report estimates look overblown to me, but having a mechanism for dealing with increasing longevity does not mean the mechanism must be exercised if lifespans (and therefore SS costs) do not end up increasing.

My review of SS reports makes it clear to me that we don't know what the balance will be in 30 years. I think it will be 10 years before we know enough to make a reasonable decision. But if it turns out more like IC than LC, particularly in the longevity piece of it, I do not see a better mechanism than increasing the retirement age for full benefits.

My retirement age for full benefits is 67. I can still retire at 62 with reduced benefits. 10 years from now they may see that the following generation has to work to 68 or 69 and would see that benefits at 62 are reduced further for them than they were for me. Yes, that is a problem for some folks who put in a full career, but given that outgo cannot exceed income 40 years from now, (and LC is not assured), what is the alternative?

[Arne (not anne)]

Pondering what I wrote above led me to the following:

Increasing the payroll tax is obviously an alternative to increasing the retirement age. Longer retirements entail greater costs per person, which in turn requires more income (taxes) per person.

Another alternative would be to increase the wage cap. This makes sense if higher incomes are a proxy for longer lives. The wage cap currently rises with AWI. Since SS is insurance and above a certain wage level people do not need more retirement insurance, AWI seemed to me a good compromise - that fact that a higher percentage of wages is exempt now is a symptom of increasing inequality, not an indictment of the way SS acts as insurance.

Still pondering.

[Larry]

Abolish today's fixed retirement age in favor of an approach that rewards those who continue working with ongoing increases in their SS payments, but have those payments increase slowly enough that on an actuarial basis, SS becomes healthier as people do so.

Those who want to retire earlier can do so also, albeit with reduced income.

Overall, we're living longer and healthier (the average lifespan has been increasing at ~3 months/year for decades.) The pension system has not changed to reflect this, which is why taxes are going to have to rise so much to pay for boomer retirements.

[Icarus]

Does 'stress' not count as physically demanding?

This idea is absurd...to compensate those who have to toil for their wages, with an extra subsidy. Come on guys...we're going off the philosophical deep end.

[Todd Schafer]

Conservatives also like to say that social security was never meant to be a substitute for funds that good squirrels save away during their working years.
SS is meant to be a safety net, to provide a low level sustenance so people don't end up out on the street.
I think the solution is to start saving your money at an early age, and don't rely on the gov't to bail you out of poor saving habits.