If You Thought Social Security Was Sustainable . . .

Social Security may not be sustainable, but if so, it has pretty much nothing to do with the contents of that article. The article talks about global birthrates dropping, but gives not much of an inkling as to whether/when we have to be concerned about birthrates continuing to drop to the point where they hypothetical point concerning SS (the number of workers cannot support the retiree population) is a more tangible issue.

Nor does the article talk about how long the declining birthrate trend is likely to persist, or steps that might be taken if it persists to mitigate its impact on SS.

it expressly talks about how in the U.S., the population is being supplemented through immigration and floats the idea of people working past the current retirement age.

And of course that only means Social Security as it's formulated now.

There's no reason that we can't refocus our programs to support them with better taxation and spend less money on 'foreign adventures.'

Considering we have the capability to nuke civilization into the stone age a hundred times over, there's very little question that would not put the US itself at risk.

I believe Chile had such a program and decades later average people are finding their benefits to be inadequate.

Any serious, socially sound program has to be redistributive. It can't just be people getting what they pay in plus interest, because for many that's not going to be enough. There needs to be a socially-guaranteed floor on living standards for the retired and elderly.

now wading through this thread but the obvious reply to the OP is "well duh. The question is, what KIND of changes?"

I'm thinking I don't have to describe the sort I favor.

I mean, just the fact that we only fund it through payroll taxes - and even then the low end of those - when so VERY much income is made by transactions that are not "payroll"...

Even a tiny tax on market transactions, for example, would flood that whole SS/Medicare system with cash.