I shouldn’t be laughing at this, but I am:
Policymakers and citizens pondering the merits of Social Security reform should consider new evidence showing that “social security” adversely affects decisions to marry and have children.
A new University at Buffalo study, examining the experience of 57 countries over a 32-year period, concludes that in the U.S. and other countries where social security is instituted as a defined-benefits, pay-as-you-go system, marriage and fertility rates fell sharply over time â€” partly as a result of social security itself.
Those declines were not found in countries utilizing government-managed personal savings accounts or privatized pension funds as a basis of their social security system.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen such a naked political shill from a university. They really went full bore here, from lower-casing Social Security and putting it in quotes, to making a specific case for privatization.
This is just a guess here â€” I’m really not an expert on the subject at all â€” but it seems to me that countries with privatized public pensions are probably mostly those that have been forced into privatization by the IMF and World Bank. Think Argentina. Think poverty. Think cultural values having nothing whatsoever to do with pension. I’d be willing to bet that Ehrlich (an unfortunate last name if ever I’ve heard one) has wandered pretty far out onto a long, thin limb to make his argument, but I suppose I should reserve final judgment for people smarter than me.