Posted on 03/14/2006 6:22:52 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Recent research by behavioral psychologists might shed some light on why President Bush had difficulty in selling his concept of private retirement accounts as a central feature of reforming Social Security.
As you might recall, the president promoted the plan through the idea of moving to an "ownership society" and providing the opportunity of choice regarding our retirement funds.
However, according to a team of psychologists from Swarthmore and Stanford, who discussed the results of their work recently in the New York Times, Americans do not uniformly welcome more choices into their lives.
Specifically, whereas higher income, better educated individuals welcome the empowerment of more choice, working class Americans, who represent the majority of our workforce, often do not. "For them, being free is less about making choices that reflect their uniqueness and mastery and more about being left alone, with their personality, integrity and well-being intact."
When college students were asked to pick adjectives that capture what "choice" means to them, those from homes with college educated parents were more likely to select the words "freedom," "action" and "control," whereas those from homes whose parents had only a high school education more often selected "fear," "doubt" and "difficulty."
Other tests that these psychologists report appear to confirm that those with more education put greater value on items that they were able to choose, whereas those with less education tend to value articles they receive the same, whether or not they chose them.
Polling on Social Security private accounts appears consistent with the general research of these psychologists on the issue of freedom and choice. According to polling done by the Pew Research Center about a year ago, 46 percent of those polled favored introduction of private Social Security retirement accounts and 38 percent were opposed to the idea.
Looking into the reasoning of those who favor private accounts, most said they favor them because "Individuals will have more control." This is twice the number who responded that they favor them because the accounts will earn more money.
Of those opposed to private accounts, most of the opposition came from those who expressed fear that the accounts would be potentially too risky.
Further examination showed breakdown that is consistent with education and income.
Fifty percent of those with a college education favor private accounts whereas only 35 percent of those with less than a high school degree do. More than half of those earning more than $50,000 per year favor private accounts whereas only 38 percent of those earning less than $20,000 a year do.
The specific polling on Social Security private accounts appears consistent with the more general work reported by the behavioral psychologists regarding the propensity to embrace more choice. Those who are better educated view it positively and as an opportunity and those more poorly educated view it negatively and as a threat.
Blacks, who are on average less wealthy and less educated than whites, are far less supportive of private accounts than whites _ 36 percent of blacks favor them compared to 46 percent of whites.
However, on the issue of school choice, blacks and whites are equally supportive of vouchers. Polling done by the Joint Center on Political and Economic Studies shows 48 percent of blacks and 48 percent of whites favor vouchers.
What conclusion might be drawn here? Why would polling regarding choice on private accounts appear consistent with more general research correlating level of education and preference for independence of choice but school choice not correlate?
I think that the inner city public schools are so bad that there leaves little question to blacks that they would be better off if they had the option of choosing where to send their child to school.
My guess is that the team of psychologists from Swarthmore and Stanford provides us with an accurate picture when they report that lower income, less educated individuals embrace freedom to choose less enthusiastically than higher income, more educated individuals. However, the correlation breaks down when a status quo blocking choice is so clearly unattractive that even those naturally disinclined to loosen the reins of control want choice introduced.
Regarding Social Security private accounts, it's been my view that the current system based on payroll taxes and government determined benefits hurts low income folks more than high income folks. For them the payroll tax confiscates the only funds they have available to save and invest.
But if my conclusions above are correct, we probably won't see private Social Security accounts until low income people in general conclude the status quo is not an acceptable option.
----------
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay. You can contact her here.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
PING!
And this will be the country's downfall. As people willingly give control over their own lives to a government that craves making choices for people, the rest of us who don't mind a little freedom where we can find it will find less and less of it.
The soviets won.
Right on. Never before have I heard it expressed in a way that reveals the truth.
The great Democrat Plantation. Don't you all worry your little heads about the future. We will take care of all your needs or we will euthanize you.
OK, just tell them there is no choice in the matter; you will have a private account :)
First thing I thought of reading this was the part in PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores" where he's at the worst housing project in New Jersey, complete hellhole, talking to a resident trying to explain the benefits of changes so that she'd actually own her apartment and have a role in the management of the building, and to everything he said, she said "I'm not havin' any of that."
Then let them go to Europe so that they'll leave the rest of us alone.
Just tell them Al Gore's going to give them an autographed key to their own lockbox.
since we will have to take care of them anyways, who cares what they think?
duh, I forgot...idiots can vote.
I'm not sure about their conclusions but it's true that people are fed up with the bureaucracy of the IRS and all the hurdles on has to go through. My health care savings account for prescriptions lasted just one year. One has to precisely estimate their prescriptions for the year, it's deducted and then you use it or lose it. For me it's not worth the trouble. I gave it up.
People are sick of needless complications in their lives and want simpler lives. I don't see how people do their taxes without software. I'm surprised there isn't a rebellion for a simple flat tax with no deductions and no paperwork. And no one in Congress seems to be talking about it and right about now people are getting serious about doing their taxes. This is what Congress should be talking about instead we have wasted cycles on dem talking pts. Incredible.
This article seems to pay lip service to freedom and choice, but having the government take away part of your paycheck and then dictate how and when you can use it isn't really all that much better than the Ponzi scheme it is meant to replace.
Actually, private savings would make people more money and allow employers to not have to pay in any longer hence improving profitability per employee by 7.65%.
Put it this way, $2.5K a year for 45 years at 8% interest would leave you with $1 million in the bank. That's with no matching investment by an employer. Do a 50% match and you have $1.5 million. With that kind of coin a person making 6% on their money is pulling in $90K a year income (taxable of course, bastards) and need not touch principal.
When they die, they can will the balance to their kids, friends or charity. No money for welfare or benefits for illegals. That type of plan will mean plenty of people would leave their heirs on much better shape and they themselves would live a comfortable life instead of scraping by on SS cheese.
Sweet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.