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.
Take heart--some of them achieve this prior top their high-school graduation!
Put it this way, $2.5K a year for 45 years at 8% interest would leave you with $1 million in the bank.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And what will that buy after 45 years of inflation which the government tries to hide by juggling the figures? I am only 61 years old and I remember when a person who had one tenth of that in the bank at any age would have thought that work was purely voluntary for them. A projected lifetime of earnings back then amounts to one good year now.
That's why they're called SHEEPLE.
A million to a million five in today's money is a hell of a lot for one person to survive on for 15 years.
If you really want to see fear of choice, ask a senior about when new Medicare plan that are choosing. You see some real fear. I know men who were corporate managers who are scared to death of selecting a Medicare plan. They don't want to investigate and make a decision. It's scary.
That amount can be figured, with a few assumptions:
Average inflation: 3.5% (that's been the rate from 1915-present)
Amount Needed to Retire Comfortably in 2006 Dollars: $50,000 (just for starters...substitute your own number if you like)
Inflation Multiplier: 4.8 (I believe multiplying today's amount times this number will get you a comparable amount 45 years from now, but it's been awhile, someone may want to check that calculation).
If we use $50K as the base amount, you'd need around $240K annually to retire at the same level of spending in 45 years. So if your investment is yielding a 6% return, you'd actually need $4 million in the bank to live on interest alone.
Given all this, a 25 year old planning to retire in 45 years with a goal of $4 million in the bank will need to contribute $10,349 annually and achieve an 8% return.
(Obviously, drawing on the principle as well as the interest/yield would require less savings.)
A million to a million five in today's money is a hell of a lot for one person to survive on for 15 years.>>>>>>>>>
Of course it is! My question was how much is it going to be worth 45 years from now! When I was a lad one hundred thousand was a hell of a lot for one person to survive on for 15 years!
Over 45 years from now I would assume that your contributions would increase as your salary increased.
Over 45 years from now I would assume that your contributions would increase as your salary increased.>>>>>
That might be the case if salaries were increasing as fast as inflation but in this area they are far from keeping up with inflation. The average wage earner here has less buying power with each passing year.
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.