The question that forms the title of this article has been posed by economists for decades. Since the 1970s, there have been lingering concerns over whether or not the Social Security programs, which pay out tax proceeds from current workers to retired Americans, could survive the stresses of long-term population growth. Several initiatives have been begun to put Social Security on a more "sustainable" path, but most of these – including then-President George W. Bush's aborted privatization plan – were abandoned soon after conception.
A recent blog post by Charles Hugh Smith, an independent economist, draws some parallels between the steady decline of jobs for those in the 21-35 age bracket and climbing outlays for Social Security. Relying on data from the Federal Reserve, Smith argues that a demographic time bomb isn't just a conspiracy theory. Social Security, he shows, risks insolvency due to the ongoing economic deterioration.
"If the global economy slides into recession in the years ahead, as seems increasingly likely, full-time employment in the U.S. could slip to 100 million while the number of beneficiaries continues to soar by 10+ million a decade," Smith wrote. "Anyone who cares about the viability of Social Security had better wake up to the widening divergence of full-time employment and SSA beneficiaries. Believing official reassurances based on Fantasyland projections of ever-rising payroll taxes and employment does not magically make the system viable."
You can read the full article and accompanying graphs by clicking here. This evidence suggests that folks who have been planning on Social Security to aid them during retirement may not have all the financial security they need post-employment. Learn more by exploring GreatWealthStrategies.com further today.