But how do you know everyone who is isn't employed anymore is on disability? Do you have a source for that? Because I think it could also be that a lot of adults choose to study more years in college. Some may opt for paternity leave or (however unlikely) feel that they can afford to live on their spouses salary.
Either way, 68.7% > 67.6% so my point about the US doing better is correct.
Yeah, that's why I said "up to". Apologies for overstating the case. The truth is that it's hard to pinpoint the exact value.
SSDI applicants accounted for around 30% of the drop in the labor force participation rate, according to a couple of studies. That means that around 1% of the working population was shifted onto disability. Two estimates I've read by researchers suggest that about half of all applicants to SSDI were sufficiently physically disabled to prevent them from working. The other half were economic refugees. So if half of that 1% did so for economic -- not physical -- reasons, then we've just shifted around 0.5% of the workforce since 2010 onto a federal welfare program that's going bankrupt.
And disturbingly few analyses of employment data discuss the many elephants in the room: The workforce is rapidly aging, the social safety net is massively underfunded, health care costs keep rising, and wages have been stagnant for a decade or more. This means that each retiree/disabled worker/kid on SSDI costs more to take care of at exactly the same time that each additional job in the economy pays less. And while these problems aren't as pronounced in the US as they are in Japan and Germany, they're exacerbated by spiraling health care costs.
So no, the US isn't necessarily doing better because the picture is bigger and more nuanced than "68.7% > 67.6%". Your employment rate numbers simply mean that a greater percentage of Americans are working than were before. The tax revenue and value produced by that 1.1% who have found a new spot in the workforce does not necessarily offset the costs produced by the 0.5% who have been permanently placed on disability, collecting a monthly stipend and having their medical costs covered. In fact, I'd argue it's probably a net negative.
But now you are talking a lot of "points" without citing any statistics. Like "the social safety net is massively underfunded". I grant you that that can be true, but is it more underfunded today than it was in 2008? This is the point I'm trying to make; you can make a lot of talk about things are getting worse, but when you look at the numbers they are getting better (or at least aren't getting worse).
> Like "the social safety net is massively underfunded". I grant you that that can be true, but is it more underfunded today than it was in 2008?
The Social Security trustees themselves noted in their last several reports that the retiree trust fund would be cashflow negative by 2028 and totally insolvent by 2034. And as recently as 2015 the SSDI fund was projected to run out by December 2016. So last year, to prevent catastrophe, Congress quietly transferred some case from the retirement fund into the disability fund.
I'm sure you can see why this might be a problem.
They made a few minor (but important!) changes to the eligibility rules for disability, but no structural changes. As things stand, this means that they negligibly lengthened the viability of SSDI by removing the runway for Social Security. Both programs -- Social Security and SSDI -- are now slated to be insolvent within a decade or so. And many economists and demographers think that the trustees are being optimistic.
With several wars ongoing and rising medical costs, programs like the VA and Medicare are also chewing through funds at a faster rate than projected. By last estimate, Medicare funds run out in 2028. Feel free to read the always sobering Trustees Summary for this year: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
So yeah, the social safety net is massively underfunded. As things stand, we can expect to completely lose federal retirement assistance, disability assistance, and medical aid within the next 15 years. Any attempts to revive these programs would require sweeping changes to their structures and a huge tax increase.
> But now you are talking a lot of "points" without citing any statistics.
I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job of providing stats to back up these points, but I assumed they were common knowledge. I'll try to cite my sources better.
> This is the point I'm trying to make; you can make a lot of talk about things are getting worse, but when you look at the numbers they are getting better (or at least aren't getting worse).
Please show me the numbers that show things are getting better. Otherwise, you're running the risk of me using your own quote against you. ;-)
Regardless, we're discussing a prognosis for the future.
Another prognosis is about Global Warming. Climate scientists now in 2016 believe the world will be warmer in 2040 than what they believed in 2008. The prognosis has indeed gotten worse.
In sharp contrast to the prognosis about how much funds will exist in Social Security. No serious economist in 2016 believes that Social Security in 2040 will be in a worse shape than what they believed in 2008.
> > This is the point I'm trying to make; you can make a lot of talk about things are getting worse, but when you look at the numbers they are getting better (or at least aren't getting worse).
> Please show me the numbers that show things are getting better. Otherwise, you're running the risk of me using your own quote against you. ;-)
I cited three: unemployment, homicide and violent crime rate. I could cite more, like infant mortality rate, education level, subjective happiness rating, life expectancy.. Really don't think it will change your mind :)
FYI, I don't care about your stupid American presidents. A lot of things got better during Bush's eight years presidency too.
Either way, 68.7% > 67.6% so my point about the US doing better is correct.