SmartMoney Blogs

A blog about living in and planning for retirement

Rising Social Security Costs: It’s Not Just the Boomers


Alicia Munnell, the director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, is a weekly contributor to “Encore.”

The baby boom is beginning to retire and Social Security costs are rising.  Commentators often attribute the cost of Social Security to the retirement of the baby boom.  Others go so far as to suggest that the baby boom is “a pig in a python,” a large cohort just passing through and once the last member dies life will return to normal.  In fact, the baby boom has little to do with the ultimate cost of Social Security.  Rather those costs reflect the long-term aging of the population due to a decline in births and an increase in life expectancy.  The aging is not going to reverse itself.

The U.S. population has been growing older since the dawn of the republic. Over the 200 years between 1880 and 2080, the shape of the U.S. population is changing from a pyramid – with the base representing the younger population – to almost a rectangle as the relative number of old people increases and the relative number of children declines.  Note that neither of the dates in question has anything to do with the baby boom; 1880 predates the first boomer by more than six decades, and by 2080 virtually all the boomers will have died.  (The youngest boomers, born in 1964, would be 116 in 2080.)

For a host of reasons – reduced economic need for children, higher likelihood of child survival to maturity, and increased control by women over reproduction – fertility rates have been falling for much of the past two centuries (click on the chart below to see fertility rates in the United States from 1800 – 2080).  This decline – together with increased longevity –explains the low worker/retiree ratio and high Social Security costs in 2080.   The baby boom plays no role in terms of ultimate costs.

The bust-boom-bust pattern shown in the fertility chart does explain the unprecedented speed at which the population will age over the next decade.  Essentially, the fertility bust of the 1920s and 1930s – primarily due to economic pressures – produced a “demographic holiday” during the 1990s.  The over-65 population grew very slowly and the non-elderly population was swelled by the ranks of the post-war baby boom born between 1946 and 1964.  In fact, the percent of the population aged 65 and over remained virtually flat between 1990 and 2000, a very unusual occurrence (click on the chart above to see the percent of the U.S. population that is age 65 or older from 1880 – 2080).

After 2000, the story changed.  The first boomer turned 65 in 2011, and hordes of boomers will follow.   Given that fertility rates fell back to trend after the boomers, older Americans as a percent of the population will climb dramatically over the next twenty years.  After that, the percent 65 and over stabilizes and will remain stable as long as fertility rates stay at current levels.  Social Security costs will also basically stabilize, subject to some upward drift due to increased longevity.

In short, the story is not about “a pig in a python,” but about a long-term decline in fertility and  a bust-boom-bust pattern that explains the variation in the speed at which we reach our destination.


We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comments (5 of 21)

View all Comments »
    • Another unmentioned factor: Social Security programs have been used to cover oher government agencies’ obligations. One good example: When VietNam vets started to get sick after being contaminated by agent orange the Veterans’Administration buried the head in the sand, covered up as much as possible, denied responsibility and forced the disabled veterans, their spouses, and their children to survive on what they could get from Social Security. Many of those vets were in their early 30′s when they became disabled. Do te math, al lot of decades draning Social Security before boomers became old enough to collect. Social Security has also been used for people who never contributed to it because they never worked (born dsabled), etcetera. Another example of how Social Security has been pillaged and plundered, often to protect private interests such as those who manufactured agent orange and their insurance companies. Another dirty little secret hid from the American people.

    • There is other large factors, many people getting benefits long before retirement age and others never paid into it are also receiving benefits. I simply say if you don’t pay into with enough money or minimum amount, you get an adjusted dollar (down) from the normal benefit. Why should a guy that makes more get less?

    • I think the government doesn’t want the voting public to know how enormous is the percentage of ‘Social Security’ payments being paid to the so-called disabled: mostly young drug addicts and alcoholics. A visit to your local Social Security office will be an eye opener. More than 80% of the people there seem to be under the age of 40. Those of us who worked for 40+ years before collecting a dime in benefits are not the problem. What we receive is not an ‘entitlement.’ It is a return on money we and our employers paid into the system. The Social Security system is being brought to its knees by politicians pandering to the dregs of society. SSI is welfare. Disability Soc.Sec. is welfare.

    • Odd that your article doesnot address the huge number of “other” classes that get social security “disability” for things as mundane as antisocial behavior soft tissue injuries and other specious claims. Another government program where the unintended consequences bring the system down. Human nature always takes advantage….whatever we subsidize we get more of…

      Jon Hanson

    • Not just another Social Security Jeremiahad, the author views the bigger picture, and avoids blaming the Baby Boom generation for outnumbering the Silents.

About Encore

  • Encore examines the changing nature of retirement, from new rules and guidelines for financial security to the shifting identities and priorities of today’s retirees. The blog also explores news that affects retirement, from the Wall Street Journal Digital Network and around the web. Lead bloggers are reporter Catey Hill and senior editor Jeremy Olshan. Other contributors include The Wall Street Journal’s retirement columnists Glenn Ruffenach and Anne Tergesen; the Director for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, Alicia Munnell; and the Director of Research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, Michael Kitces, CFP.