TONIGHT'S SOCIAL SECURITY ROUNDUP. Just One Minute has been busy. Hie thee hence, and explore.

I particularly liked Dead Parrot Society's smackdown of the idea that Social Security is defensible as an insurance program. (It is always heartening to read people who recognize that it is no defense of a poor investment program to note that it is bundled with a poor insurance program. Read on.)

To Angry Bear's credit, he isn't trying to argue that Social Security isn't a great financial deal on its own; he's just arguing that we should put up with it because it resembles "insurance". Insurance works, of course, because people are willing to pay to avoid risk. Let's restrict ourselves to the main Social Security retirement program, aside from widower's benefits and disability benefits, and ask ourselves what risk has Social Security protected us against?

That's particularly pertinent for new entrants to the work force.

Let's take a male child born in 2005. Let's tell that child that if he signs up for Social Security, he will, on average, lose between 15 and 30% of the present value of his payroll taxes. In return, we tell that child that if he ends up being a low wage earner, we'll be so generous and actually give him back all his payroll taxes. Oh yeah, and if he dies early, tough luck, his estate loses it all.

Deinonychus also chews on the insurance argument.