A Call for Universal Human Dignity

Preamble

As we stand on the shoulders of giants and the progress of human innovation steadily ratchets up the ceiling on the realm of possibility, human society must vigilantly attend to the foundation on which that innovation was permitted to thrive, lest both crumble. As we continue to accrue the technological capital to allow a few in our society to approach a power that our ancestors would have considered god-like, we have the responsibility to ensure that even the lowest among us are able to live beyond the means of the kings of those same ancestors. It is with these sentiments that a call is issued for society to pursue and preserve a universal dignity for all of its members.

Tenets of Universal Human Survival

While nature abhors permanence and no individual being will live forever, the threshold of dignity cannot be bestowed upon someone who is unable to survive. Therefore, to support human dignity, these tenets of Universal Human Survival should be sought first and foremost for current and future generations.

1.          Clean Water, Air, and Food

2.         Basic Healthcare and Exercise

3.          Personal Safety and Shelter

4.         Reproductive Agency

Tenets of Universal Human Dignity

To ensure that no person is subjected to mere subsistence or servitude and that each person is able to experience as dignified an existence as nature will allow, a mutual bond between humans living in a free and modern society must concede the following tenets of human dignity to each individual member of society so long as it does not preclude the survival or dignity of another or put an undue burden on the society as a whole or the environment that supports it.

1.          Information and Education

2.         Communication and Expression

3.          Organization and Identification

4.         Mobility and Exploration

5.         Creation and Productivity

The Call

Similar to the physical laws of the universe, human society must counter entropy with work to prolong the values that we hold most dear. It is only through persistence of innovation and quality of character that human greatness can forestall the perils of time. By asking to ensure the rights of current and future generations, these Tenets do not leave room for waste, sloth, or pollution. However, where and whenever circumstances and technology permit, society should endeavor to cleave the tenuousness of human survival and dignity from unstable economic pressures, leaving only as much linkage as is necessary to perpetuate the institutions and systems that support Universal Human Dignity.

This is the first section of a longer document I wrote, originally published on the Revolutionary Peace Blog.

Climate Change Pledge

Hello Readers,

I would like to propose a simple climate change pledge that all politicians seeking elected office should be willing to take. Over the past several years, a number of members of congress and other public officials have made wild pledges, which have entrenched their political positions, such as the now infamous Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes. However, pledges to never or always do something are absurdly rigid in the face of an ever changing society and economy. Instead, I would like to propose the following pledge:

I acknowledge that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that human society and technology have the ability to influence and change the Earth's climate on a global scale, and I will consider the potential impacts of climate change, among other factors, when executing the duties of my office.

I believe that any elected official, who is not able or willing to make such a basic claim, is not fit to serve in office in the 21st century. If you agree with this sentiment, please contact to your elected officials and candidates, to kindly request that they take this pledge.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond
@WarmestGenrtion

Data Privacy & Decoupling Communications Utilities

Hello Readers,

I will start by acknowledging that this is the topic is a little outside of the sphere of my normal sustainability discussions. However, as more and more communications and data privacy issues have come to light over the past year, I have become increasingly concerned about the social and political ramifications of what governments and certain corporations are doing on the Internet. Because of the prevalence of these issues in the news, I will limit my preambulatory commentary.

The Internet is a technology and a concept that is so far beyond the wildest imagination of people in the 18th and 19th centuries that we need to explicitly address it in the US constitution, so that societal expectations for the Internet are clear. Therefore, I propose that we amend the US constitution to address and protect the inherent, unwritten freedoms that have thus far been the hallmark of the public Internet. While I will not attempt to offer specific wording for such an amendment, I suggest the following tenets of an amendment:

• Decoupling Communications Utilities: There should be a clear distinction between media content providers and communications infrastructure providers. In the same way that many states have now 'deregulated' electricity markets by drawing a line between owners of electric generators and grid operators to ensure that monopolies are as limited as possible, the Internet should be similarly segregated. It should be illegal for owners of communications infrastructure (e.g. broadband networks, cable providers, telephone lines, cellular networks) to create, provide, and develop the data or media content that is transmitted across its own infrastructure. Similarly, communications infrastructure owners should not be allowed to offer preference to content providers or charge variable rates based on the type of content that is transmitted.
• Data Privacy from the Government: The United States Federal government should pass and enforce laws that promote the active protection of the data, content, and information that is created, held, and transmitted by its people. As a matter of the Rule of Law, this protection requires the US government to provide a transparent judicial mechanism for reviewing attempts by US government agents to acquire citizens' data (as though data were physical property) as provided for by the 4th Amendment of the constitution.
• Data Privacy from Corporations: The US government should pass and enforce laws that protect its citizens' data from foreign and domestic corporate interests. The invasive and often secretive nature through which data is collected and redistributed over the Internet is unacceptable. Recognizing that some citizens may be interested in risking the trade-offs related to disclosing their data to reap the potential benefits of 'big data', it might be fair enough to create an opt-in 'tracking allowed' list. Such a list could allow people to be tracked when corporations explicitly notify them that they (and their data) are being tracked and where their data is being sent. Furthermore, corporations should be required to regularly provide their users access to a record of all the data that has been collected about themselves. Finally, people should be able to opt-out of such a list at any time for any reason without the possibility of legal action.

I'm sure their are many other possible issues to address with regard to the Internet. However, I have found the above issues the most troubling with the greatest possible 'slippery slope' consequences.

Regards,

Sean Diamond

Climate Change: How we can act!

Hello Readers,

I have found a TED Talk with a very important message for the Warmest Generation... How do we work together to solve the issues in front of us?





Let's give it a try!

Cheers,

Sean

Climate Change: Why we must act!

Hello Readers,

This week I'm going to post two TED Talks for the Warmest Generation. This first video is by James Hansen, and it describes why we must act on the threat of climate change! (Warning: The first half of this video provides some potentially depressing information if you are new to the climate change debate.)






Check back soon for information about how we might just be able to initiate some real action!

Cheers,

Sean

Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In this series so far, I introduced a premise for (and reasoning behind) a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will put forth a possible mechanism or strategy for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

To begin this process in a politically tenable and socially agreeable manner, we need to start at the current baseline and move incrementally toward the goal(s) of this reform.

Currently, the social security pie is nominally set to give 100% of the funding allocation pie to slice number 1 (Funds paid out to all current retirees). However, the baseline according to ssa.gov's 2012 annual report summary:

"...The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086."

In essence, social security will not survive in its current form past 2033 (before anyone born in the 1970's or later starts collecting). Thus, it does not seem unreasonable to aim for reform to be fully implemented by 2030. In the graph below, I have offered one possible trajectory for social security fund allocations.

I would recommend implementing the various slices slowly at a rate of roughly 1% per year. I would introduce slices 2 and 3 (the generational and personal slices) starting in 2014, and I would cap their percentages at 15% and 10% respectively. In this way, no more than 15% of an individual worker's social security payments would go to their generational trust fund. Likewise, no more than 10% of an individual worker's social security payments could be diverted to a personal retirement account. 

Similarly, I would recommend introducing slice 4 (the national debt slice) starting in 2018 at a capped rate of 1% and let the cap grow to 10% in 2028. Starting in 2029 and beyond, I would recommend allowing slice 4 to fluctuate between 0% and 10% based on some reasonable measure of the federal government's deficit spending over the preceding decade.

While I am not in a position to determine which metric this slice 4 percentage is tied to, I would simply hope that the calculations would be clearly defined in such a manner that deficit spending results in a reduction in the amount of money allocated to social security spending. Thus, Congress would be heavily incentivized to reduce deficit spending (and thereby proportionately increase the amount of spending allocated to current retirees). Similarly, it would encourage current retirees to hold members of Congress accountable for short-term deficit spending.

***

In summary, I believe that each of these implementation timelines should be slow enough that there will not be any huge/unexpected shock to the economic system. Also, in the long-term, this will: (1) ensure that at least some small part of an individual's retirement funding will be secured regardless of when they are born or how many current workers there are, and (2) ensure that reducing the national debt is no longer simply an exercise in letting future generations resolve the issues of today.

I look forward to your thoughtful criticisms and suggestions on this matter.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In the previous post, I introduced a premise for a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in the next post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

1. Funds paid out to all current retirees

The reasoning behind the first slice "Funds paid out to all current retirees" is perhaps the most obvious. This appears to be the original intent of the social security program, allowing funds from the actively working body politic to help support the currently retired. This helps senior citizens mitigate the negative impacts of any short-term personal financial hardships during or immediately before retirement.

Thus, as long as social security survives, a certain share of any social security funds will need to be spread across all current retirees, who are actively receiving benefits. Perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (the living) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we are not going to leave senior citizens to fend for themselves.

2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees

The reasoning behind the second slice "Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees" is a new, subtle adjustment to the current social security scheme. Originally, (when social security was created) there would have been an expectation that with most citizens not surviving long enough to collect social security (or not surviving long enough to collect it more than a few years) that there would always be a sufficient number of active workers to fund the needs of living retirees.

However, today, with the 20/20 vision afforded to us by basically 80 years of practice, it is clear that for social security to function in perpetuity from generation to generation: each individual generation needs some certainty about their own retirement. By immediately spreading all incoming social security funding across the needs of current retirees, we will inevitably encounter situations (such as the crashing of the baby-boom retirement wave) where the working generations cannot reasonably be expected to support the needs of current retirees without putting in peril their own needs in the future.

Thus, I would suggest that one way to mitigate the impact of these fluctuations over time is to move away from a current workforce supporting current retirees model toward a current workforce supporting future retirees model. In this way, each generation would more directly be supporting itself, and (likewise) the size of each generation of retirees will be proportionately supported by a generation of roughly the same size (i.e. the younger version of itself). As such, perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (our generation) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we should not forget about our future selves even as we work to support the ones we love.

3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds

While the original version of the social security program appears to have had provisions that limit the level of benefits an individual is eligible to receive based on the amount of money they paid into the program during their working life, it does not appear that the program was ever intended to give individuals any autonomy over how their own funds were invested. As a result, citizens, who do not (whether by choice or circumstance) set up other retirement plans (e.g. pensions, 401k's, IRA's) for themselves, have little-to-no direct control over the future of their own retirement funds.

Understandably, this format runs contrary to the 'spirit of rugged individualism' upon which many citizens pride themselves, and I believe that ultimately the degree to which this 'spirit' is real or perceived (a not uncommon point of contention) is irrelevant. Politicians (typically on the left) will ignore this popular sentiment at the peril of the program they support.

I believe that for social security to have any real chance at surviving in the long-term that: (1) it is necessary to offer some autonomy to those who desire it, and naturally (2) the government should only offer up such a concession under auspices of a mutual understanding that - for those who opt for autonomy - there is some risk of failure (and some risk of loss).

In practical terms, I am suggesting that individuals be able to designate (each year they are working) a certain portion of the social security funds (that would otherwise be withheld from their pay) to be diverted to some sort of personal retirement account. Then, in a complementary manner, whatever portion of a retiree's pay had been diverted to their personal retirement account over the course of their working life would be deducted from the pay-out they would otherwise receive from the more traditional social security fund(s).

At this point, I do not have any preference regarding who would run such an account (whether run by the government or -more likely- the private sector), and I do not think that the administration of such a program would need to be any more complicated than the current system of claiming a tax credit for money deposited in an IRA at the end of each tax year. Instead, it is more important that Congress just settle on something that works - politically and practically.

All things considered, this slice of the pie might easily be renamed the "rugged individual" slice of the pie... allowing those who would desire it, the ability to take a chance to earn (or lose) a little bit more than their neighbors.

4. Funds diverted to paying down the national debt

The reasoning to include this "Funds diverted to paying down the national debt" slice of the pie may be much less obvious (and much more controversial) than any of the others. However, this slice of the pie stands firmly on principles of sustainability and inter-generational equity.

It has been rightly pointed out (no pun intended) that the United States federal government is spending a large amount of money that it does not have by borrowing money from other countries... and in essence from future generations, who will be forced to pay off that debt (or possibly go to war to avoid paying the debt if it is too burdensome). In any case, it is a fundamental issue of inter-generational equity that each generation do their best to pay for the governmental programs (especially those with one-off benefits) they benefit from in their own lifetime, rather than leaving that burden to those that follow them.

Also, in perhaps a more tangible way (especially for those born of since 1970 and/or those familiar with the Greek debt crisis): what good is it to have retirement benefits promised to you in the future, if the overall functionality of your government may come into question due to astronomical national debt?

I believe that by tying the overall pool of social security benefits to the amount of national debt (or lack thereof) incurred by each generation, every generation will be incentivized to manage government spending more prudently. While this concept may seem intimidating - and I can't promise that it isn't - it may be less intimidating than trying to address the national debt issue from fiscal year to fiscal year.

****

I have offered the best (brief) reasoning that I can muster for including each piece of the social security funding scheme that I am proposing. In the next post, I will do my best to offer a good way to implement the social security reforms that I am proposing.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)

Hello Readers,

Earlier this month, I offered a letter to the newly re-elected president, in which I discussed the need for swift and decisive action on climate change and the national debt crisis. I reasoned that by taking action on issues that will greatly impact my grandchildren's grandchildren, we can see immediate improvements in the short-term while moving in the right direction overall.

This week, I would like to take some time to see if we cannot help future generations and current generations (old and young) all at the same time. To do so, I propose that we dance on another third rail (perhaps the sixth rail?) of politics: social security reform.

Over a year ago, in the summer of 2011, I offered a detailed '3 year plan' proposal for implementing automatic adjustments to the social security retirement age. With much clarification provided in the posts (links provided at the bottom of this post), the proposal boiled down to this:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

After carefully re-reading and re-considering my thoughts from last year, I stand by that proposal, and I would like to offer up some more thoughts to President Obama and the Congress as they swerve to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" at the end of this year.

Before I start to layout my new proposal to re-cut the social security pie, I would like to point out that I know that my idea will not be perfect (and will need a lot of collective thought and will-power to implement effectively). Thus, I strongly encourage my readers to consider the spirit of my proposal fundamentally set while considering the numbers in my proposal to be entirely negotiable.

Now, as I understand it, many people have argued about the merits of whether or not the 'social safety net' of social security should exist (even if some elected officials equivocate in public for the benefit of gaining senior citizen votes). However, for the sake of moving towards action, it is important to come to an understanding that whether or not you believe that social security should exist or not, it does exist.

It exists, and millions of people now depend on it as at least one of their primary sources of income.  It exists, and it will not be politically feasible to (safely) dismantle it (even if you would like to see it go). It exists, and it directly impacts most of the country (whether they are paying into it whenever they are working or they are receiving payouts now or are expecting to receive payouts soon).

As such, I hope that all of my readers, will concede that social security exists, so it is important to address its viability now to avoid potentially devastating financial consequences that will span generations. To address this viability in the fairest and most politically actionable manner, I propose that we start in the middle of the middle of all reasonable proposals for social security reform (at least of those that I have come across) and then add a little bit more.

In essence, I suggest that we begin to divide up the social security funding allocation pie.** While this may superficially seem to make the process more complicated, please stay with me and hopefully it will make sense at the end. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In the next post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in another post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

Regards,
Sean

**Throughout this entire series I am focusing solely on the social security program as it pertains to retirees, and I am not proposing to make any adjustments to parts of social security benefits for the disabled or other non-retirees.**

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

The previous "Adjustable Retirement Age" series:
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

A letter to the president

Hello President Obama,

I obviously want to start off by congratulating you on a well fought electoral campaign and, of course, your re-election. On Tuesday, I voted for you for a second time, and I wanted to let you know why.

I believe that we need to leave the planet and society in better shape than they were given to us.

I am not (especially) worried about myself, because I have been given the opportunity to share in a rich and on-going human experience: the opportunity to grow and learn and live. My main concern is that I leave the planet and society in such a state that my grandchildren’s grandchildren (which – for the record – are hypothetical, as are any children I may have in the future) will have the opportunity to say the same thing. I believe that if I live my life like this – asking for nothing that will detract from the human experience of my grandchildren’s grandchildren – my life, my neighbors’ lives, and my children’s lives will be enriched all the more.

I understand that none of our country's problems (financial, social, or environmental) materialized overnight nor could many of them be easily predicted (or avoided even if they were clearly predicted). Instead, the issues we face are the result of an accumulation of decades of (and in some cases generations of) complex decisions made with the best intentions.

I also understand that there are indeed limits to presidential power, and that it is necessary for a president to work with (or in some cases against) the Congress as well as many other parties. I understand that the social cost of not addressing our country's health-care system in your first term would have been great.

In short, I am very understanding. However, I voted for your re-election, because I believe that you genuinely care, speak and act sincerely, and possess the fortitude to that will be required to work through the issues at hand.

That being said, I must demand two things of you. The first, of which you are no doubt well aware, is that you do whatever it takes to get our nation's debt under control. The second, which you only mentioned in passing during your campaign and which in my mind is absolutely paramount, is that you put a truly unprecedented effort forward to implement substantial measures that address climate change - both its mitigation and (due to the unfortunately modest progress made on this issue thus far) our adaptation in response to the effects that can no longer be avoided.

You have been given 4 more years to accomplish both of these demands; however, the impact of your actions will determine the course of our history for the next 40 years or more. While others will demand necessary and useful short-term actions to fix the economy and provide more jobs over the next couple of years, any such short-term gains will be completely negated soon after the end of your term if a comprehensive long-term strategy is not initiated.

I have waited four years with patience and understanding. We cannot wait another four years. We need serious and comprehensive action now. We need to find solutions that work - whether they are government-based solutions or private-sector solutions or a little of both, I frankly do not care... whether it requires raising more taxes or making thoughtful spending reductions, I do not care. It simply needs to work. The rest of the details will sort themselves out over time, just make it work!

With high hopes and best wishes,

Sean Diamond
A member of the Warmest Generation

the Warmest Generation

Hello Readers,

This morning I stumbled across an interesting climatic tid-bit, in a New York Times article about the temperature extremes this past month.

The fact, which jumped out at me, reminded me of a quote from the radio show a Prairie Home Companion about Lake Wobegone: "the little town that time forgot and the decades cannot improve ... where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

However, the fact in the article is - unlike the No Child Left Behind mandate that all children achieve  'above average' test scores - entirely plausible albeit disturbing. As it turns out, according to a recent NOAA report, every child born since March of 1985 has only experienced months with temperatures above the global average temperature for the 20th Century!

Or as the NOAA website puts it: "February 2012 was the coolest February on record since 2008. However, February 2012 also marks the 324^th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20^th century average. The last month with below average temperatures was February 1985."

As someone born in the latter half of 1985, I have grown up hearing about older generations being called the 'Greatest' generation, the 'Baby Boom' generation, and 'Generation-X'. At the same time, I have heard the media try to apply a bevy of labels to my generation...'Millennials', 'Generation-Y',  'New Boomers', the 'Facebook' or 'Net' Generation... and the list goes on!

Of course all of these labels have been applied to my generation by older generations for arbitrary reasons: being young during the turn of the millennium, being born after 'Generation-X', being the children of 'Baby Boomers', the fact that we use the internet? None of these labels are have been made to define the challenge that our generation faces (such as the 'Greatest' generation or even the 'Baby Boom' generation) or as a response to the nuances of our generation's subculture (such as 'Generation-X').

In light of this new information about the climate during my entire lifetime, I propose that our generation claim the mantle of the 'Warmest Generation'. This label stands a testament to the circumstances into which we were born and the challenges that we must overcome. We were born at the end of or just after the so-called 'Cold War', and we have never known a climate as cool as our parents did. Accept it or not, our challenge is to prevent further global warming and possibly even reverse some of the warming that has already occurred while simultaneously setting a new global standard for non-violent political relations.

I challenge everyone from my generation to take up this mantle and this challenge!

Warmly,

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

Hello Readers,

This is the second part of the discussion based on the post Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age. All of the previous posts in this series are listed at the bottom of this post.

I was asked: "But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

Simply put, no. I do not want to wait that long to retire. I do not think that anybody does. Unfortunately, if nothing changes about the current social security payout process, there will not be any such retirement benefits for my generation at any age! The system will have been bankrupted before I reach my 60s let alone my 70s.

However, I don't know that I would necessarily need to wait so long to retire if my proposal were implemented.  Other than self-funding my retirement until social security kicked in, a combination of 'early retirement' and 'semi-retirement' could be a great option.

Official 'early retirement' is already allowed under the current social security program (allowing participants to collect a lower amount of benefits over a longer period of time). I don't see why this would need to change. I would think that entering early retirement and working part-time at age 73 would be preferable to being required to work full time until my life expectancy of 81 (or longer, as it was pointed out in the comments to the proposal that life expectancy and lifespan can certainly differ).

The question was posed: "What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines?" Under my proposal, social security would remain intact. Despite having the name 'social' security, the program was designed such that individuals should not ever collect more in retirement than they contributed while working.

Aligning social security benefits more closely with individual citizen's needs (as opposed to desires for long retirements), the program should also be able to better weather inter-generational fluctuations in the ratio of workers to retirees by decreasing the length of time for which people are entitled to collect social security benefits. Eventually, this may even allow the program to be retuned to take in less and allow more people to save more money individually for retirement.

Every individual would find out what their retirement age is during the decade they turn 50 (between ages 41 and 50). Under current life expectancy conditions, everyone would have 20-30 years or more to plan out their retirement. If life expectancy declines to the point where most people are dying in their 60s or earlier, there would be less time to make plans and save money. Yet, there would also be less time for which plans and funds are required. 

Of course, if the life expectancy in the US falls below 50, my proposal would indeed run into some difficulty. However, I would posit that in such a case 'retirement' would be the least of our worries. This may sound callous, but it is extremely practical.

Finally, I must point out that this progression of posts has attempted to touch upon a topic that could take a couple of books to resolve: reforming social security in order to keep it permanently intact.

To make any progress in this matter, readers must concede that the purpose of social security is to promote the security of our citizens at the end of their lives. It cannot be to fully support multi-decade retirements. To expect a 15-25 year retirement after only working for 40-50 years is simply not sustainable at a country-wide, multi-generational level.

Furthermore, the current program structure exacerbates the problem by requiring significant political momentum to accrue on a regular basis to make the tough decision to alter the retirement age periodically. Thus, with some modifications as brought out in this discussion, my proposal still stands:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

While this will not 'save' social security as it is now, it will certainly go a long way toward making it financially sustainable.

Posts in this series:
The Times They Are 'A Changin'
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

I hope this series helps to start a lively discussion. Please look for the next series of posts related to climate change and national debt, which will discuss: reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)

Hello Readers,

So far I have proposed the implementation of an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits and reviewed some of the comments that the proposal prompted.

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Yet before I continue, I must clarify that the proposal would not force the elderly to remain in the work place. It simply delays the age at which government-funded social security retirement benefits could be collected. Anyone who has enough personal savings to retire would still be perfectly capable of retiring. Such self-funded retirees would just have to wait for social security payments to kick in at the same age as everyone else. To my knowledge, the current system also works this way just with a much earlier retirement age.

A lot of the comments focus on the extra burden placed on each aging individual, so a majority of the discussion will have a similar focus. Retaining more seniors in the work place admittedly has the potential to pose difficulties for individuals, families, companies, and/or society. Thus, altering the legislation would need to be accompanied by a shift in corporate culture as well as society in general.

After innumerable conversations with my grandfather, who is currently in his 80s and regularly recounts his doctor's advice to stay active, I find a great deal of difficulty with assertions that encouraging a later retirement age will decrease life expectancy. To the contrary, I would suggest that allowing and/or encouraging seniors to remain active in the workplace just a little bit longer may be to their benefit.

However, as one comment pointed out, "[J]ust because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise." Unfortunately, this is largely the case. As people age past middle age, their stamina and mental acuity often decline, which could lead to frustration for seniors, coworkers, and customers.

Still, this difference between youth and age does not necessarily mean that seniors are incapable of working. Instead, it may just mean that contemporary career ladders need to be reassessed. Today, most careers (at least in theory) start off with 'entry-level' or apprenticeship work move onto some version of team leader or 'mid-level' management and then progress to an executive or 'senior-level' management position before heading into retirement.

Of course, modern career paths are often fraught with diversions, road-blocks, and side-tracks. Yet, the pattern typically remains the same: the older and more experienced a person becomes the more responsibility is placed upon them up until retirement. Perhaps this career arc needs to include a bit of socially lauded decompression.

This could take a variety of forms ranging from simply allowing for decreased working hours for more elderly employees to allowing aging workers to start to assume mentoring or less strenuous positions with lessened direct responsibility. This sort progression already takes place to some extent when seniors 'come out of retirement' to take on part-time jobs.

This discussion is continued in Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2).

Intro to USDA subsidies

Hello Readers,

In preparation for the next topic in my The Times They Are A-Changin' series, I encourage you to take a look at this Climate Progress blog post about USDA food subsidies. Here are some visuals from the Climate Progress posting:

Don't worry, the rest of the conversation about Social Security reform will continue on Wednesday and Friday this week.

Happy Tuesday,

Sean Diamond

Responses: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age

Hello Readers,

Two weeks ago I posted a proposal about reforming social security. The gist of the proposal is to implement an automatically adjustable retirement age. In my proposal, retirement benefit payouts would be structured with the intention of benefits being collected for an average of 3 years. I encourage you to review the proposal before reading this post.

The point of the proposal was to offer an idea that might reduce the costs of social security retirement benefits. Ultimately, the reform may help make the social security retirement program more financially sustainable. This is especially pertinent as social security as a program is expected to start paying out more money annually than it takes in within the next decade and to be bankrupt within the next 30 years!

Here are some excerpts from responses that I received to the proposal from friends on facebook, in person, and on this blog.

"What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines? Also, what does such a plan you're proposing do for employment? Part of the idea of retirement is to free up space within the labor force to allow younger people to move up. How would your plan account for generations that are successively larger and smaller in terms of labor markets?"

"[I]f people had to work longer into old age, then perhaps that might lead to a decrease in life expectancy (i.e. continued stress, labour etc...) then over time could your algorithm cause the retirement age to settle back down again to what it was a few decades beforehand?"

"But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

"An important distinction to draw here is the difference between life expectancy and life span. A life expectancy of 58 and 62 in 1935 was impacted FAR more by infant mortality than it is today...i.e. if you lived to 5 years old, you could tack about 10-15 years more on to that number."

 "One thing that this model does not appear to consider is that the ability of people to work/support themselves in old age might not be so closely correlated to the average life expectancy as time goes by... To put it another way, just because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise."

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Please see: Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part1) and (Part 2).

Cities Solution to Climate Change

Hello Readers,

This weekend, I came across an interesting New York Times article about the joint efforts of Bill Clinton and Mayor Bloomberg in combating climate change from a city level. Mayor Bloomberg's private organization has donated 3 years of funding to a Clinton Foundation initiative: C40. C40 is a group of 40 of the world's largest cities working together to combat the effects of climate change.

The mayors of all 40 of these cites will be meeting in São Paulo, Brazil this week to discuss topics such as energy efficient buildings, renewable energy in urban settings, next generation buses, and other pertinent topics. The American cities involved in C40 are New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles.

As the NYT article points out, more than half of the world's population now lives in cities. These city dwellers are now using 70% of the world's energy and are responsible for 70% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Or as Mayor Bloomberg puts it: "If you address the problems of the cities, there will be no need for China and India to sign onto some international accord. And thank God, because that’s not going to get done. It’s time to say it."

While the efforts of the C40 - a top-down approach to combating climate change at a local level - are amazing and long overdue, it seems that they could be much more successful if they are complimented by citizen actions in the Transition Town model. This compliment will be especially important in smaller towns and cities, which do not necessarily have the capital or population density to organize their own public transportation and other initiatives.

Thank a soldier today!
Sean Diamond

Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age

Hello Readers,

As I indicated in my recent blog post: The Times They Are A-Changin', I am going to be exploring potential ways to improve the financial and environmental sustainability of the United States by addressing climate change and the national debt. As the first portion of this series, I am going to explore the idea of creating an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits.

According to the government's social security website, Americans only have to work 10 years in their life to receive social security. Also, for people born before 1960 the full retirement age is 66 (plus some odd months depending on the exact birth year), and for people born in 1960 or later the full retirement age is 67. The original retirement age for social security benefits was 65 as documented in the text of the Social Security Act of 1935. This means that since it's inception the social security retirement age has only increased two years.

To put this meager adjustment in retirement age into perspective, please consider that US life expectancy in the 1930s was 58 for men and 62 for women and the retirement age was 65. This means that when social security was designed the expectation was that the majority of Americans would not live long enough to collect their benefits. Compare this to today. The retirement age is 67 and the average life expectancy in the US is at least 78 according to the World Bank. This means that while the retirement age has increased 2 years over the past 80 years, life expectancy has increased by about 18 years.

A social security retirement benefits program that lacks automatic adjustments in the retirement age based on life expectancy is inherently unsustainable. Even without the additional stresses on the program presented by fluctuations in population throughout time (e.g. the baby boom generation reaching retirement age), social security will always be hard pressed to remain funded as individuals attempt to spend larger percentages of their lives in retirement.

I propose that implementing an automatic adjustment of the retirement age based on life expectancy may allow the social security retirement benefits program to remain viable indefinitely. I suggest a '3 year plan' for social security. This '3 year plan' would entail automatically adjusting the retirement age to be 3 years less than a retiree's life expectancy. This plan would not be as austere as the original draft of the Social Security Act, but it would be a significant improvement over today's model!

The chart below represents the retirement age and the time an average adult could expect to receive retirement benefits as a percentage of the time they spent working during their lifetime with the blue and orange columns representing the '3 year plan' and the current state of social security benefits respectively. As you can see the '3 year plan' would hold steady the retirement percentage around 5%.

For Americans born in the early 1900's, the percentage was less than 6%. By the time Americans born in the 1960's retire the percentage will be nearly 25%. Hypothetically, if social security were to survive into the 2070's (by the time the children born last decade reach the current retirement age) the percentage will have climbed to nearly 36%!

While it would be unwieldy to attempt to adjust the retirement age every year, I suggest that it would be possible to adjust the retirement age decade by decade during census years. Of course, it would be unpractical and unfair to adjust the retirement age immediately prior to a person's expected retirement. Instead, I recommend having the 'determination decade' (the decade in which a generation's retirement age is determined) be the decade during which they turn 50, which would allow individuals twenty years or more to plan for retirement.

The chart above estimates roughly what the retirement age would be (or would have been) for everyone born since 1900. To take myself for example, I was born in the 1980's. This means that my retirement age would be determined in the year 2030. Based on current projections, it is likely that the US life expectancy will be 81 at this time. As a result my retirement age would be 78 under the '3 year plan'.

Through the lens of today's outdated retirement age, a retirement age of 78 seems outlandish; however, at this point I can only expect that social security benefits will cease to exist by the time I turn 60. Without correction it is expected that social security will be bankrupt during the 2030's after it starts paying out more than it is taking in annually starting in 2017. With the '3 year plan' for social security, there is little reason to suspect that social security would go bankrupt as long as the US government exists.

Obviously, it would be politically impossible to take away benefits of current and soon-to-be retirees. Thus, I would advocate starting with people born in the 1960's. Even though the '3 year plan' would push back the retirement age of my parent's generation by about 8 years (to age 75), the alternative is for social security to run out of money prior to the end of their life expectancy! Furthermore, any half-measures (perhaps a '6 year plan') for Americans born in the 1950's would help to alleviate the strain on the national debt that will begin to pile on starting in the latter half of this decade.

While this is a politically complex issue, I would suggest that fixing the social security funding problem is as simple as adjusting the retirement age. I know that there must be many ways in which I am incorrect about this issue. Please tell me how!

Thanks,

Sean Diamond

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Hello Readers,

As you may have noticed, my posting has become somewhat sparse over the past few months. I have been delving deeply into my work (and I intend to continue doing so...). I am working at a fast growing "solar integration" company - MainLine Solar - that does everything possible to get solar photovoltaic installations up and running (from connecting clients and financiers to meeting with local permitting officials to overseeing the installation). I joined up with this company for two reasons. The first was to help my brother (one of the founders of the company) maintain the company during his year-long military leave of absence with the Pennsylvania National Guard to receive training as a helicopter pilot. The second is that for a long time I have relished the thought of promoting the expansion of renewable energy in America and throughout the world as a means of moving away from the use of fossil fuels, and now I am being afforded the opportunity to take an active part (perhaps the most active part possible) in ensuring that occurs.

However, as I have had ample opportunity to focus on solar, I have not taken as much time as I would have liked to look at the bigger picture. To remedy this I have decided to take a deeper look at solving two issues that I believe are of primary importance to the sustainability of America as a country, as a society, and as a world leader. These two issues touch upon the financial, social, and environmental viability of the United States. These two issues are problems that I would like to help solve by 2030 - by the time I am 45 and my as of yet unconceived children are out of high school. These two issues are issues that have been growing since my grandparents' generation was my age, and I would like these two issues to be solidly in the realm of 'American History' when my grandchildren are my age. These two issues are actually two things I would like to see eliminated - or rather that need to be eliminated in the next twenty years if America is to hold any sort of grasp on the power it has held since World War II. These two issues are climate change and the national debt.

In order to tackle these two issues, I understand that I will need to stand fully upon the third rail of contemporary politics. However, so long as I am able to hold my balance, I shall hopefully remain unharmed. I have chosen these two issues - climate change and the national debt - not purely out of passion, though some of that is to blame, but out of necessity. If the United States fails to address either of these issues adequately over the next two decades, I firmly believe that my grandchildren will not be able to understand - even remotely - the type of country in which I became an adult.

Rather than blindly lash out at any particular political party's role in either of these issues, I am going to put forward some simple ideas on how to fix the problems presented. Then, I am going to do my best to evaluate the potential impacts such 'fixes' will have. I certainly hope that any of my readers that are interested in this endeavor will help me out by pointing me in the direction of related data, articles, and experts.

So far my list of potential fixes includes:

• Ameliorating the growing need for social security entitlements by adjusting the retirement age
• Reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods
• Reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuel powered cars
• Promoting renewable sources of electricity
• Removing loop holes in the federal tax codes
• Upgrading the electric grid infrastructure with energy storage and smart metering
• Mandating a balanced federal budget

I believe that these are just a handful of possible solutions that can help America solve climate change and the national debt issues. I also hope that by addressing these two issues through these proposed solutions, the United States will reap many other benefits including a greatly improved quality of life!

Please let me know what you think about this endeavor, and keep an eye out for related posts over the next several months.

Thanks,
Sean Diamond

What the Frack?

Dear Pennsylvania,

I love you. Please stop poisoning yourself to heat your house! I have to urge anyone living in Pennsylvania to take the time to read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html) about natural gas wells in PA. It is terrifying.

In case you absolutely refuse to read the whole article, I have pasted some excerpts below. I promise that these excerpts are not wildly out of context. Instead they give you an idea of the gist of the article.

In case you have been living under a rock in Pennsylvania that is not made of shale, here is a general description of the fracking process:

The [natural] gas has always been there, of course, trapped deep underground in countless tiny bubbles, like frozen spills of seltzer water between thin layers of shale rock. But drilling companies have only in recent years developed techniques to unlock the enormous reserves, thought to be enough to supply the country with gas for heating buildings, generating electricity and powering vehicles for up to a hundred years.

...

But the relatively new drilling method — known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — carries significant environmental risks. It involves injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.

 This leads to the problem:

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

...

The radioactivity in the wastewater is not necessarily dangerous to people who are near it. It can be blocked by thin barriers, including skin, so exposure is generally harmless.

Rather, E.P.A. and industry researchers say, the bigger danger of radioactive wastewater is its potential to contaminate drinking water or enter the food chain through fish or farming. Once radium enters a person’s body, by eating, drinking or breathing, it can cause cancer and other health problems, many federal studies show.

...

Under federal law, testing for radioactivity in drinking water is required only at drinking-water plants. But federal and state regulators have given nearly all drinking-water intake facilities in Pennsylvania permission to test only once every six or nine years.

 Last, but not least... in fact very importantly:

In December, the Republican governor-elect, Tom Corbett, who during his campaign took more gas industry contributions than all his competitors combined, said he would reopen state land to new drilling, reversing a decision made by his predecessor, Edward G. Rendell. The change clears the way for as many as 10,000 wells on public land, up from about 25 active wells today.

 ...

“I will direct the Department of Environmental Protection to serve as a partner with Pennsylvania businesses, communities and local governments,” Mr. Corbett says on his Web site. “It should return to its core mission protecting the environment based on sound science.”

Please excuse my rant, but...

While I have nothing personally against Mr. Corbett, serving as a "partner with Pennsylvania businesses" needs to have its limits! Otherwise, all of the other Pennsylvania businesses, communities and local governments are going to end up losing out! If you are relying on sound science you are going to need data. If you are refusing to collect or look at data, don't call it science! It is simply ignoring the problem.

I have spent a lot of time studying climate change and sustainability, which are massive, global, all-encompassing environmental issues. It is often tough to figure out a solution (and in some cases a cause). In these fields I have shown patience with people that do not quite understand or refuse to believe it.

However, in the case of fracking, I refuse to show such restraint. The whole thing is too straightforward. You are literally pumping chemicals into the groundwater! Then you are taking what comes back out (even more toxic and radioactive chemicals) and sending it through a filtration system (that is un-/under-tested for such chemicals) before dumping these chemicals into our rivers! The cause is obvious, the solution should be, too!

Pennsylvania, please help yourselves by drawing attention to this issue that is affecting every major river basin in our land-locked state!

Thank you,
Sean Diamond

Please note that all excerpts are from the recent New York Times article:

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

By IAN URBINA

Published: February 26, 2011

 

What's the worst that could happen?

Hello Readers,

I found this video a few years back, but I lost track of it for a while. Recently, someone posted it in an online discussion about climate change, and I figured I would post it before I lost it again. It is an extremely simplified version of the argument for action on climate change. However, if you understand the underlying need in the US for energy independence on top of the need to address climate change, I believe that this argument for action will hold much more weight.



In case you have trouble viewing the embedded video above, you can find the video at the original link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ.

Enjoy,

Sean Diamond

In Tech We Trust

Hello Readers,

If you are coming to the website to find information about my dissertation survey, please see the post that will point you to all the pages you need. Otherwise, please read on about this post's discussion topic "In Tech We Trust" (no need to click anywhere, just scroll).

This week's post was prompted by a recent New York Times article by Elisabeth Rosenthal. The article highlighted America's technological optimism, the belief that given time and effort a technological fix can solve just about any problem we might get ourselves into. Ms. Rosenthal focuses on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and she indicates that this event is a potential turning point away from America's blind optimism in technology.

She also points to Carbon Capture and Storage technologies (often referred to as CCS), which are being heralded by the coal industry as its future source environmental sustainability, as well as past technological fixes such as the "green revolution" in agriculture and vaccines for childhood diseases. However, she ends on the recent situation where an Icelandic volcano brought air travel over Europe to a literal standstill for several weeks. Overall, the message that Americans (and much of the rest of the world) continue to be absurdly confident in the ability of technological innovation to overcome the forces of nature that make our lives difficult (e.g. volcanoes, viruses, drought) is pretty clear.

However, I would like to ask about technology's ability to overcome our own habits and social expectations. The BP oil spill is an easy example to pick on, so I will use that. At this point, it is very easy to point to BP executives and managers and tell them they should have been more vigilant, more prudent, and more safety-conscious. And to make it clear: yes, they should have been!

Recently, the media has been pointing to BP's poor accident record and safety violations. However, I would be curious to see if any of the other oil companies have been doing any better or if BP is really a rogue oil company that was taking chances where no one else would. For some reason I am skeptical of the latter case.

In fact, I am particularly skeptical, because I have a hard time believing that BP is particularly exceptional in its expectation (or PR statements) that there was no way that anything would go so wrong that it could not be fixed. On the contrary, I think BP is the rule rather than the exception.

Take a moment to think about it. (I'll probably get some sampling bias on a blog like this, but...) Please take some time to answer these questions for yourself.

Do you believe/expect that man-made climate change is occurring (or will occur in your lifetime)?
Have you drastically changed your personal habits to prevent it from getting worse?
Have you taken action to ensure your community/state/country is doing all it can to prevent climate change from getting worse?
Do you expect that by the time things get really bad energy technology and other industries will have caught up with us and solved the problem?

If you are being honest with yourself (and you are American and you've read this far through my blog), your answers were probably "Yes", "Well, sort of", "I voted for that liberal candidate, does that count?", and "Yes". I realize that I'm generalizing, so I am likely not 100% accurate, but the point I'm trying to make is that we need to question our faith in the certainty of technological fixes. It seems as though technology has been keeping pace for so long, we as a society have stopped questioning it.

Although, it has not happened in recent historical memory, it is possible that unchecked social forces (read as expectations) can outpace technology and lead to societal downfall. Of course, in the age of globalization it is important to remember that there are several other unpleasant steps between where we are now and complete failure, so it is important not to see this as an all or nothing game.

On the other hand, I am not in favor of technological pessimism either. I do not think that the advancement of technology will necessarily result in a doomsday scenario. Instead, I would like to advocate a middle ground. In this middle ground, rather than relying on technology as a future fix for the problems we are creating today, we shape our society in a responsible manner that only relies upon what we already know we have.

We need to use an ex ante approach to technological solutions (i.e. mitigation using current and developing technologies) as much as possible rather than an ex post approach (i.e. expecting technology will allow us to adapt later). While simultaneously moderating our social habits and expectations until technology catches up with us in a manner that minimizes environmental damage. Otherwise, we will continue to build an environmental debt in addition to the current economic deficit we are running.

At this point, I would like to note that I am not suggesting which means of 'enforcement' is the most appropriate. I am an ardent believer in taking responsibility for your own actions. However, I recognize that in actuality that is not sufficient to ensure social progress, so I will leave this last point as an open-ended question: what will be necessary to move society from a blind to a cautious optimism in technology?

Thank you for your time!

Sean Diamond