2014 Social Security Table V.B1: Principal Economic Assumptions
Table V.B1: Principal Economic Assumptions
More numbers!! Comments on process and content more than welcome. Because at AB we are all about the numbers and I just want to give an assist.
Update: now linked to better formatted version
The numbers look fine but the some of the cells (headings, notes, 5-yr periods) are cut off. So it is hard to tell what some of the columns are without going to a spreadsheet and increasing the column width (similarly with some of the notes – some of them wrap so they can be read, while others just cut off at the end of the row).
As far as the content, I am interested in the increase in wages for the next few years, and I find the estimates hard to believe – 2% real wage growth in 2014 and about 3% for 2015 and 2016. I guess after a downturn they have to project a compensating upturn and then return to a projected long-term value, but I don’t see the upturn anytime soon.
Good point on real wage. Obviously someone needs to revist the whole concept of NAIRU, at least as commonly deployed. I don’t know anyone who would have predicted a combo of sub 6% UE and absense of wage pressure. Which is why we need to keep a focus on the second half of ‘my’ MJABW program: More Jobs, At Better Wages. Because SocSec solvency depends on both ends.
As to format problems you might try downloading the full Workbook at this link: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4HUzhAPMGaLYzNzbTFSQktiMzg&usp=sharing
I will be adding to and improving the underlying Workbook and then replacing the online version periodically.
The tables in the workbook look great.
I am somewhat computer impaired, but if anyone wants to see what the Trustees Report (2014)numbers would look like with the tax rate increased one tenth of one percent whenever the Trustees otherwise would project (by today’s data) short term actuarial insolvency, I think I can send a spreadsheet that doesn’t make any other assumptions.
Nor do I rely on more jobs at better wages. That would be nice. But it isn’t what we have got or have any realistic plan of getting. If we do get it the tax increase will not be needed, but that will take care of itself as those one tenth of one percent increases would only occur when the Trustees project short term actuarial insolvency.
There is a difference between dealing with the real numbers (that is the official numbers that are causing all the screaming and shouting) and wishful thinking.