BABIES AND SOCIAL SECURITY: Reply to Phillip Longman, via Ramesh Ponnuru
..."Personally, I wouldn't have any beef
if the spousal benefit were traded for a child's benefit like a tax cut, since it's a more effective way to raise fertility, but I wouldn't look to this to rescue us.
"Longman's also wrong that it was Social Security that caused the decline in fertility. Before stocks and mutual funds were widely available, there weren't many ways for people to save for retirement. Having and investing in kids was a way to transfer assets over time. But once financial capital became readily available, people would invest in stocks or bonds rather than kids. Now, SS probably reduced the amount that people save (as Feldstein argues), but if there weren't SS there would be more money in stocks/bonds, not necessarily more kids."
more
posted by Eve at
1:00 AM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home