Stumbling With Age

David Hogberg

Over at Turgid Polemic Memo, Joshua Marshall makes an absolute hash of a new New York Times poll. According to Marshall, “many take it for granted that time (in the sense of years, not months) favors Republicans because the young seem less resistant to privatization than their elders.” Yet the poll increases his “skepticism about the prevailing assumptions about youth attitudes toward Social Security and what it foretells for the program's future.” And what evidence does Marshall marshall in support of his dubiety? (Okay, cheap pun—I’m sorry.) This:

...if you look at the data in the recent New York Times poll you can see a few of the questions were also asked in June 1981. One of those questions, which the Times pollsters apparently hadn't asked in twenty-four years was: "Would you favor or oppose making the Social Security system voluntary, so that people can choose not to pay Social Security taxes and not to get benefits?" Last month, 37% favored the idea and 59% opposed it. In late June of '81, 53% favored it and only 41% opposed. Another question was: "Do you expect to get back more money than you've contributed to Social Security, less money than you contributed, or about the same amount of money?" Last month, 12% said more, 39% less and 44% said the same. In 1981 it was 15%, 50% and 28%, respectively. Clearly, in both cases, public opinion was significantly different and in both instances less favorable toward or less confident in Social Security than Americans are today.

There is an explanation for those changes in public opinion, and Marshall seems to stumble right over it:

Perhaps twenty years from now, when these 25 year olds are 45, they'll think more like 45 year olds today. After all, the young tend to have a difficult time really getting their heads around the idea that they too will one day grow old and die. That doesn't mean we're moving toward an immortality society; it means they're young. They'll learn.

Perhaps if Marshall had done a bit of research into the statistics on aging, he wouldn’t be so skeptical that the young are not disposed toward privatization. If we can assume that people are more likely to believe Social Security will be around for them the closer they get to retirement, i.e. as they grow older, then the changing poll results can easily be explained by an aging population. And that’s exactly the case. In 1980 the median age in the U.S. was 30; in 2003 it was 35.9 (page 12). In 1980 there were almost 60 million people over age 50; in 2003 the number was just shy of 100 million. Then Marshall digs himself even deeper:

On two other questions, there change was minimal. The one question for which the Times has regular data going back to 1981 was: "Do you think the Social Security system will have the money available to provide the benefits you expect for your retirement?" Last month it was 34% yes and 49% no. In 1981 it was 30% yes and 54%. Here, as noted, there's less change. But even that cuts against (though we'd have to see the break-out data) the idea that today's youth have less confidence in the system than earlier generations.

Actually, what is remarkable about the data for that question (page 17) is that it has changed so little over time given an aging population. If it cuts against anything, it’s the idea that people have more confidence in Social Security as they get older. Like Marshall, I wish to see the data broken out by age. But I suspect that he’s going to be more disappointed in the result than I.
Posted by David Hogberg on March 10, 2005 6:37 PM to Social Security Choice