Skip Navigation
Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. More

Megan was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra-dry skim-milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster-recovery firms at Ground Zero … all before the age of 30.

While working at Ground Zero, Megan started Live From the WTC, a blog focused on economics, business, and cooking. She may or may not have been the first major economics blogger, depending on whether we are allowed to throw outlying variables such as Brad Delong out of the set. From there it was but a few steps down the slippery slope to freelance journalism. She has worked in various capacities for The Economist, where she wrote about economics and oversaw the founding of Free Exchange, the magazine's economics blog. She has also maintained her own blog, Asymmetrical Information, which moved to The Atlantic, along with its owner, in August 2007.

Megan holds a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. After a lifetime as a New Yorker, she now resides in northwest Washington, D.C., where she is still trying to figure out what one does with an apartment larger than 400 square feet.

The Problem with Social Security

By Megan McArdle
May 12 2009, 3:42 PM ET Comment

It's time for every journalist's favorite annual kabuki ritual, the one where Social Security and Medicare trustees release their reports, and conservatives interpret it as a sign of the coming geezer apocalypse where all life on earth will be extinguished by the sheer weight of outstanding medical bills, while liberals argue that Social Security is just fine and Medicare is the problem but we'll solve that problem by making some unspecified cuts at some unspecified point in the future.

This year the "it's fine" arguers have a tough uphill climb.  The year that Social Security goes bankrupt and cuts benefits by 25% moved up four years, to 2037.  The surplus fell 25%.  The date that Social Security starts becoming a drain on the general fund, rather than subsidizing it, moved forward a year, to 2016.  And suddenly these dates don't sound so comfortably far off, do they?

I'll agree with the liberals on this:  the numbers are large, but they are not, economically speaking, catastrophically large.  It is theoretically possible to pay for the program.

But I'll disagree with them on this:  Social Security is an immense problem.  But the problem is not the cash outflow of benefits draining the economy; it is political risk, and structural inefficiency.

The political risk is that whatever the economic theory, we will not politically be able to continue benefits at planned levels.  People who counted on those benefits will thereby be made much worse off, because they will have saved too little on the assumption that the benefits would be there.  (We will leave aside, for the nonce, the moral possibility of an unjust distribution of consumption between workers and retirees).

The structural inefficiency arises because Social Security encourages people to retire as early as possible.  We may raise the retirement age slightly, but this takes forever (the current increases, which started only recently, were enacted in the early 1980s).  And even after we've raised it, we're still encouraging them to retire as early as possible; we've just moved that date up slightly.  Meanwhile, people are able to work longer than ever, and they're living longer.  Retirements cannot lengthen indefinitely without massive gains to productivity, or increases in the supply of younger workers; the math doesn't work.  Eventually, living standards start to fall.

The combination of the deadweight loss from taxation and the shift of workers from production to dependence makes it harder to pay for the retirement benefits--effectively, Social Security undercuts its own political sustainability.  This is the real problem we face, and it's barely hinted at in the Trustees report.


Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Using the Internet as Matchmaker: The Drawbacks to Online Dating Internet as Matchmaker: The Drawbacks to Online Dating
translating the Bible—Into an E-Book That Works on Any Phone Translating the Bible—Into an E-Book That Works on Any Phone
Why Does Maine Have a Two-and-a-Half-Month Caucus? Mitt Romney Wins Maine's Two-and-a-Half-Month Caucus
Video Shows Syrian Anti-Aircraft Tank Firing Randomly Into Peoples' Homes Video Shows Syrian Anti-Aircraft Tank Firing Into Random Homes
A Western Diet High in Sugars and Fat Could Contribute to ADHD A Sugary, Fatty Western Diet Could Be Contributing to ADHD

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Special Report
Election 2012 Reuters Election 2012
The destination for full politics coverage, from the primaries to the White House. Read more ›
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

The Civil War, Part 3: The Stereographs

Feb 10, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Megan McArdle
from the Magazine

Why Companies Fail

GM’s stock price has sunk by a third since its IPO. Why is corporate turnaround so difficult…

The Graduates

Busted banking careers, crashed consultants, and shrunken incomes: the author attends her 10-year…

Romney’s Business

The Republican contender touts his business experience—but does it really matter?