Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

It takes 9 McJobs to cover the cost of an average Social Security check

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
finecraft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:42 PM
Original message
It takes 9 McJobs to cover the cost of an average Social Security check

(snip) "According to the Social Security Administration, the average retirement check in August was $926.90. The largest possible check for retiring this year at full retirement age is $1,793.61. If we put the minimum wage, $5.15 an hour, in the calculator, we learn each hour produces 64 cents of employment tax using the full 12.4% employer/employee rate (another 2.90% goes to Medicare).

That, in turn, means it takes 1,451 hours of minimum-wage work per month to produce the average retirement check. That's about nine full-time workers -- a lot of workers. Since the actual ratio of workers to retirees is currently about 3-to-1, we're fortunate that many workers earn a good deal more than the minimum wage.

The average worker at Wal-Mart is reported to earn about $9.70 an hour with minimal benefits. That means a Wal-Mart worker generates $1.20 an hour in employment taxes and would need to work about 770 hours a month to produce that $926.90 check. So it would take nearly five full-time Wal-Mart employees to produce one average Social Security check.

With national average hourly earnings at $15.30, the average worker generates $1.90 an hour in employment taxes. The worker would need to work 489 hours a month to generate the average retirement check. That's roughly equal to three full-time workers."(end snip)

YIKES! So I guess that means if the Idiot-In-Chief wants to change Social Security so that workers can put 2%-4% of their Social Security contributions into private accounts, that will push the total up to 11 or so "McWorkers". I guess I'll need to start planning on adopting a whole shift of workers at McDonalds or Taco Bell in order to make sure my Social Security check will be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is the real, and unreported problem with Social Security.
Social Security basically relied on an increasing standard of living of workers. But their wages have steadily eroded. That is the real cause of the "crisis". The only solution is to take off the "cap" and take contributions all the way up. The possibility of workers receiving any share in future wealth gains in this economy is zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. The original scheme was a fraud
A couple of things to remember about this- the payout age of 65 was established when life expectancy was lower than that, and even the proponents of the system admitted that it was a ponzi scheme that depended on an ever-increasing number of workers and retirees dying early.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Get rid of the $87,000 cap
Hell, if they did that they could lower the tax from 6% to something lower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tech3149 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That seems so apparent to any thinking person
I can't see anyone questioning it. When that cap was established, $87K was enough to keep you livin' large even with champaign tastes. I never made that much, but my wife exceeded that regularly (and usually double or triple)since the late 80's. The couple of percentage points that would have affected our income would have been nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
argyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is an argument used to justify cutting benefits, raising retirement
ages,privatizing SS, or simply doing away with the system entirely.I've heard young people just entering the work force use this as justification for cutting back or dismantling the program. While the numbers are correct(I've seen it as high as seventeen workers for one retiree)it doesn't tell the whole story.

As SS benefits are paid out of the general revenue fund SS taxes are in turn collected, put into the general fund and spent.So,I feel that a more accurate portrayal of how many workers it takes to support one senior drawing SS is by the total federal taxes paid in by said workers.

Please don't consider this as a rant against your post; far from it.I do get upset hearing young people, just beginning their careers,using these stats and crying about the oppression of it all.These kids have gotten all the benefits of money collected from SS taxes and are just now going to have to pay into the system.

The ones with the gripe are people such as myself, and,I assume, you, who have been paying into it for years (starting in 1967 for me)and who know that in fifteen or twenty years,when our time comes to collect,there will be little or nothing left for us.

I'm gotten into it on more than one occasion with people with this opinion, and although they can agree with my logic they still don't feel they should have to pay in.

All these kids classify themselves as Libertarian. Why is it that the people who call themselves Libertarian are invariably soft,pasty nerd types who would be devoured if their espoused philosophy were to come to pass? I guess that's another rant.

Once again, this is not directed at you. I just get tired of hearing this out of these rugged little Libertarians. If any Libertarians are reading this, go back to FR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
finecraft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No offense taken
Though I interpreted the article to be pointing out the fact that for a variety of reasons, this being one of them, we need to start creating jobs that pay higher wages than "McJobs", and a litany of other service sector jobs that just won't sustain our economy. And if anything should point out the absurdity of attempting to privatize even a portion of Social Security, this is it.
And yes, you are correct, I am of an age where I get really nervous about anyone fiddling around with Social Security. I too have heard the rants from young people about how "unfair" it is...but you know what I tell them? Life is not meant to be "fair". This is one of the prices you pay to live in our country. Your parents and grandparents worked and paid their fact they did even more! They built our interstate system, that we can't manage to maintain. They brought clean water, telephones and electricity to rural america...and we went and gave it away to big corporations. They built an education system (including the buildings that many of us still use today for our schools, that we can't seem to maintain either). We owe them a debt, and you're repaying what we owe them. Somewhere over the past 20 years, our children forgot that our country was built on the backs of their ancestors, and these little snots think WE owe THEM something, instead of the other way around.
Like I said in the beginning, no offense taken, and in fact, I think you will agree....we can show them a thing or two about going off on a rant! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 20th 2017, 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC