Social Security, Climate Change, and Generational Justice

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 non-sensical 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 another reply by James O'Brien, who argued that Social Security is a modern pyramid scheme.

James O'Brien MD:

Arguably the biggest issue with Social Security is that the participant isn't collecting on the decades of his own employment, with interest, but is paying for those drawing benefits today.

Back in the late 1970s when I was in college, a finance professor said that if a person could instead put the amount that came out of his paycheck for Social Security into his bank account (then paying 5%), he would have 5 times more money available at age 65 then he would from Social Security.

I have read several reports that Social Security might well collapse in 25 years or so.

People working today might be well advised to opt out of the Social Security system. Today, there are websites that give step-by-step directions how to do that. Back in the late 1970s, nobody knew how to do that.

Walter Veit:

James' arguments have been criticized by others in the comments section of my article for trying to abolish all social security systems. I don't think that criticism is fair. James instead seems to suggest that our current system isn't fair to the young generation that will be plagued with debt. If you've read my previous posts, it becomes, unfortunately, all too real to see how easy it becomes to create present welfare and benefits — such that it results in costs for future generations.

If this only goes in one direction it would clearly be unjust. James seems to have interpreted my argument differently, however:

James O'Brien MD:

An ethical trade off is only possibly without force and with full consent of both parties who consent and are capable of consent.

According to the logic of "it's a tradeoff so it's ethical," even if one party cannot consent, then it would be OK to walk into a nursing and take the demented patients' gold watches if you left a penny by the beside. The children who are adversely affected by SS aren't and can't agree to participate in the trade off. It's financial child abuse, delayed onset.

I'm with you that forced savings with a real investment account is probably the least bad alternative, since many Americans just are not adult enough about this issue.

Walter Veit:

I agree largely with his suggestions here. Our current system isn't just and will lead to more suffering for future generations than would be necessary. Real change would require a change in our political institutions that put weight not only on the present concerns of society but also those that cannot vote yet, and those that are yet to be born. This is a problem that has to be similarly recognized when it comes to climate change.