Chile's Private Social Security System a Big Success

Unlike the United States and most European nations, Chile does not face a long-term Social Security crisis. This is because lawmakers shifted to a system of personal accounts almost 30 years ago. As a result, Chile's economy is much stronger, the financial system is healthy, workers are better off, and taxpayers are protected. It also turns out that a system of personal accounts has a positive impact on the labor supply of older workers. Instead of getting lured into retirement by a punitive tax-and-transfer government system, they remain active to reap the rewards of a system that rewards them (rather than tax collectors) for continued work. A former World Bank expert has the details in a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis.

American workers live longer each decade but they continue to retire early. They often begin receiving Social Security benefits, quit working and stop contributing to national output well before age 65. Reversing these trends must be an important objective when designing long-term reforms to balance revenues and expenditures on elderly entitlements. Chile faced similar problems prior to 1981. It had a traditional pay-as-you-go defined benefit system, like Social Security in the United States. Workers had strong incentives to start their retirement benefits as soon as possible, because postponing pensions and adding contributions did not increase benefits commensurately. Labor force participation dropped dramatically when workers became eligible for pensions. This changed with reforms in 1981 that replaced the defined benefit system with a defined contribution system. All new workers were required to join the defined contribution system while existing workers had a choice. Most workers are now in the new system and are required to contribute 10 percent of their wages to an individual account. Contributions are invested in a pension fund chosen by the worker and accumulate a market rate of return. Payouts take the form of inflation-protected annuities or gradual withdrawals during retirement. The new system increased incentives for older workers to postpone retirement and continue working. The response was dramatic....Following the 1981 policy changes and reforms, and after controlling for other sources of change in retirement behavior, the percentage of individuals receiving early benefits fell significantly: The proportion who received benefits before age 65 decreased by about 8 percentage points. The proportion of individuals who started receiving retirement benefits by their early 60s fell by about a quarter. The proportion who started receiving benefits by their 50s was cut in half. Postponing the commencement of benefits could be due to market returns on additional contributions, which made workers more willing to continue working in order to save more money for retirement. Or it could be due to tighter preconditions on early retirement, which required more individuals to continue working until age 65. Tighter preconditions seem to dominate, as the percentage of individuals who receive benefits after 65 has not changed. More older workers kept working following the reform, after controlling for other factors: Labor force participation rates for individuals in their 50s rose 12 percentage points. Labor force rates rose 13 percentage points for those aged 65-70. Individuals aged 60-64 increased their labor force participation the most - by 19 percentage points. The biggest change in labor force participation was for individuals who had started receiving benefits from their retirement accounts: Participation rates rose by 15 percentage points for pension recipients in their late 60s. Rates rose by 28 percentage points for those in their 50s and early 60s. Among all pension recipients under age 70, the proportion who continued working more than doubled.

"I Wish Republicans Had a Secret Plan for Personal Accounts"

Here's my debate on Larry Kudlow's show about Social Security personal retirement accounts.

The Private Sector Always Does a Better Job than Government

Using road management as an example, John Stossel explains that government does a bad job than the private sector, even at things that theoretically are a government responsibility. Part of this is because of the profit motive, to be sure, but a big reason is probably because government bureaucracies inevitably are filled with overpaid bureaucrats who understand that job security is best assured by maintaining problems rather than solving them. Stossel makes an excellent point by noting that "contracting out" is not the same thing as genuine free enterprise. But at least it means whatever government is doing (either good things or bad things) will be done for less cost and with more competence.

Free enterprise does everything better. Why? Because if private companies don't do things efficiently, they lose money and die. Unlike government, they cannot compel payment through the power to tax. Even when a private company operates a public facility under contract to government, it must perform. If it doesn't, it will be "fired" -- its contract won't be renewed. Government is never fired. Contracting out to private enterprise isn't the same thing as letting fully competitive free markets operate, but it still works better than government. Roads are one example. Politicians call road management a "public good" that "government must control." Nonsense. In 1995, a private road company added two lanes in the middle of California Highway 91, right where the median strip used to be. It then used "congestion pricing" to let some drivers pay to speed past rush-hour traffic. Using the principles of supply and demand, road operators charge higher tolls at times of day when demand is high. That encourages those who are most in a hurry to pay for what they need. ...for years there was a gap in the ring road surrounding Paris that created huge traffic problems. Then private developers made an unsolicited proposal to build a $2 billion toll tunnel in exchange for a 70-year lease to run it. They built a double-decker tunnel that fits six lanes of traffic in the space usually required for just two. The tunnel's profit-seeking owners have an incentive to keep traffic moving. They collect tolls based on congestion pricing, and tolls are collected electronically, so cars don't have to stop. The tunnel operators clear accidents quickly. Most are detected within 10 seconds -- thanks to 350 cameras inside the tunnel. The private road has cut a 45-minute trip to 10 minutes.

Budget Deficits Force Local Governments to Do the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason

There are legitimate reasons for local governments to own land, but surely it doesn't make sense for them to hold on to surplus acreage. Better to get that land back in private hands, where it will be used for some productive purpose. This is why the downturn does have a silver lining. A handful of local governments are so anxious for more property tax revenue that they are going out of their way to make extra government-owned land available to private owners at rock-bottom prices. Ideally, they should have privatized their holdings years ago, but better late than never. Here's a blurb from the New York Times about this development.

Give away land to make money? It hardly sounds like a prudent scheme. But in a bit of déjà vu, that is exactly what this small Nebraska city aims to do. Beatrice was a starting point for the Homestead Act of 1862, the federal law that handed land to pioneering farmers. Back then, the goal was to settle the West. The goal of Beatrice’s “Homestead Act of 2010,” is, in part, to replenish city coffers. The calculus is simple, if counterintuitive: hand out city land now to ensure property tax revenues in the future. ...Around the nation, cities and towns facing grim budget circumstances are grasping at unlikely — some would say desperate — means to bolster their shrunken tax bases. Like Beatrice, places like Dayton, Ohio, and Grafton, Ill., are giving away land for nominal fees or for nothing in the hope that it will boost the tax rolls and cut the lawn-mowing bills. ...Officials acknowledge that the benefits sound modest, in the thousands of dollars annually, but say the revenue is needed. “What is the value of a lot to us if it’s empty?” said Tom Thompson, the mayor of Grafton, where an offer of 32 city-owned lots, promoted with a television advertising campaign, has quickly led to eight takers so far. “This is strictly financial — a way to go upstream from the trend.” In Dayton, officials are offering thousands of vacant, foreclosed or abandoned properties under certain conditions for nominal fees — $500, in many cases, to cover the cost of recording fees or $1,200 if the city must initiate tax foreclosure proceedings. The prospect of city savings on mowing fees alone is enormous: each year, Dayton spends $2 million to cut grass on the properties.

Get Government Out of the Education Business

There's a controversy in Texas because the State Board of Education has mandated the inclusion of certain materials in textbooks. This has elicited howls of protests from the left, which generally has controlled how some issues are portrayed. Since I don't want leftist propaganda being pushed on kids, I'm mildly sympathetic to the Texas educrats, but the best way to solve the controversy is school choice. As Jeff Jacoby explains for the Boston Globe, education in America should be more like religion. This means getting rid of one-size-fits-all monopoly schools operated by the government:

“Throughout American history,’’ writes Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute, “public schooling has produced political disputes, animosity, and sometimes even bloodshed between diverse people.’’ Political fighting is neither rare nor anomalous: In the course of just one school year, 2005-06, McCluskey tallied almost 150 reported cases of public-school conflicts. There were bitter battles that year over Darwinism-vs.-intelligent-design in Pennsylvania and Kansas, heated fights over books about Cuba in Florida, and an emotional dispute in California over the portrayal of Hindus in history texts. In Lexington, Mass., a teacher’s decision to read a story celebrating gay marriage to her second-grade class without first notifying parents triggered a fight that ultimately wound up in federal court. Again and again, Americans find themselves at war with each other over public schooling. Yet furious conflict over religion in this country is almost unheard-of. Why? Why don’t American Catholics and Protestants angrily attack each other’s views of clerical celibacy or papal infallibility? Why is there no bitter struggle between Orthodox and Reform Jews to control the content of the Sabbath liturgy? Why don’t American atheists clash with American believers over whether children should be taught to pray before going to sleep? ...The answer is no mystery. America is a land of religious freedom, in which people decide for themselves what to believe and how to worship. No religion is funded by government. Elected officials have no say in the doctrine of any faith or the content of any religious service. Religion flourishes in America because church and state are separate. And it flourishes so peacefully because no one is forced to support anyone else’s faith, or to attend a church he isn’t happy with, or to bring up children according to the religious views of whichever faction has the most votes. Religion is peaceful because it is government-free. Liberate the schools, and they too would be at peace. Taxpayer-funded, one-curriculum-fits-all schooling makes conflict inevitable. There would be far less animosity if parents were as free to choose how and where their children learn as they are to choose how and where they worship. Separation of church and state has made America an exemplar of religious pluralism and tolerance. Imagine what separation of school and state could do for education.

Personal Accounts Are Better than Empty Promises from Social Security

My Cato colleague Jose Pinera makes a powerful argument for "privatizing" Social Security, which is something that has happened in about 30 nations.



My Ph.D. dissertation was on Australia's private system, so I've always had a soft spot for this issue. Sadly, Washington is busy creating new entitlements instead of fixing the ones we already have.

Washington Post Calls for Postal Service Privatization!

Do my eyes deceive me? Has you-know-what frozen over? Something strange clearly has happened in the universe, because the Washington Post's editorial page has published a very sensible piece about the Postal Service, noting the system is fundamentally unsound and stating that privatization is the only realistic long-term option:

Approaching the limits of its federal credit line, the USPS must change drastically or go bust. ...Postmaster General John E. Potter...has acknowledged the scope of that challenge, and last week he proposed new product lines, efficiency improvements and workforce attrition to generate $115 billion in revenue or savings between now and 2020. But that's not even half the projected losses. To really transform, the Postal Service needs congressional action. Some 26,000 of the Postal Service's 32,000 post offices lose money. ...There is only so much that can be accomplished without tackling the item that accounts for 80 percent of the Postal Service's expenses: labor costs. To be sure, 50 percent of postal workers come up for retirement in the next decade, and that will help cut costs. But attrition has its limits. Management and labor must aggressively tackle uncompetitive wages, benefits and work rules -- including no-layoff clauses that cover most personnel. ...Given the state of technology, privatization is probably the only long-term solution for the USPS. But it is so saddled with legacy costs that no investor would touch it. If Congress gives management the tools it needs to meet the crisis, and if management uses them effectively -- two big ifs, we admit -- the Postal Service will have a chance to get its house in order and one day attract private capital, as European postal services have done.

Is Viagra a Secret Weapon for Social Security Reform?

A weird headline for a blog post, to be sure, but that's the implication of this report from Brazil. Older men are marrying young ladies, who then become eligible for decades of government pension payments when their husbands die. This is apparently so common that it has become a large fiscal drain and politicians feel pressure for reform. It is highly unlikely that Brazil's politicians will choose the right reform, but hope springs eternal. Perhaps if they pop some little blue pills before the debate, they'll be willing to do something...um...manly, such as personal retirement accounts:

The widespread tendency in Brazil for men to remarry women several decades younger -- called the "Viagra effect" -- is undermining the country's pension system, researchers warned Tuesday. The report, by Brazil's National Social Security Institute (INSS), showed that a trend of men in their 60s marrying women half their age was leaving a big pool of young widows collecting benefits for much longer than anticipated. "The social security system was planned so that the wife receives her husband's pension for only 15 years or so. With growing life expectancy and remarriages with much younger women, benefits today stretch out over 35 years," the author of the study, Paulo Tafner, explained to AFP. He said the younger-wife phenomenon was commonly called the "Viagra effect." ...Of the separated men, 64 percent of those aged over 50 remarry women younger than them. In the 60-64 age range, the proportion is 69 percent. And the marked preference is for women aged 30 years younger. ...Under current laws, when a retired man dies, his wife continues to receive his full pension until her own death. According to the INSS, 94 percent of pensions go to women. "This is a grave and serious challenge for the future of the country, and it's going to require a reform of the pension system," Tafner said.