The Doomsters Are Wrong

The negative tenor and direction of today's discussions regarding old-age policies are worrisome and confusing to most Americans. Various merchants of doom—politicians, policy pundits, academicians and journalists—have characterized the aging of 78 million boomers as a demographic tsunami that will bring financial catastrophe to our nation. They also suggest that aging boomers are a political threat because they will engage in greedy intergenerational conflict to garner ever-larger benefits from the government.

To be sure, the doubling of our older population between now and 2030 presents substantial policy challenges. But the doomsayers argue that the Social Security and Medicare programs will be unsustainable when many boomers are older. They see little hope unless radical changes are made.

With the stage set by their exaggerated "crisis" scenarios, these forecasters propose "solutions" that will likely leave millions of tomorrow's older persons in dire straits. Among their proposals are privatizing Social Security, age-based rationing of health care, and requiring people to work longer and retire much later.

And if critics have their way, we will see a return to a poverty-ridden old age for increasing numbers of people. Also, the uncertain and spotty health care of earlier generations of older Americans may again become a reality. Those are exactly the conditions that underlay the establishment of Social Security and Medicare.

In our book Aging Nation: The Economics and Politics of Growing Older in America(2006), James H. Schulz and I argue that it is essential to maintain and strengthen the social insurance programs in place rather than promote radical change. Policymakers should be supporting programs that spread risk instead of making the individual primarily responsible for taking on the many uncertainties of work and retirement.

In addition, the public needs to understand the potential consequences of radical policy changes in terms of what they would mean in the future for older people, the nature of family obligations and lifestyles, and the fabric of social institutions that are integral to the daily life of all Americans.

For instance, far more elderly persons than today would be likely to become financially dependent on their families and their local communities. Because of financial necessity, we might see the return of three- and even four-generation households. Moreover, many adult children could be financially devastated by policy changes that lead them to pay the costs of health care and long-term care for their parents.

The issues that confront older people—individually and collectively—are not hermetically sealed from their families, their communities and society at large. Perhaps the best way to gain intergenerational political support for old-age policies is to frame options as family policies. In effect, this is what they will be. The beneficiaries of the future will be all of us.

Robert H. Binstock  is a professor of aging, health and society at Case Western Reserve University.

Additional Related Links

Who Will Care for You? (January 2007)

Healing Our System

What's the Big Idea (April 2005)

Social Security: 9 Ways to Keep the System Solovent