Social Security Report Tables & Figures: a Project Sample – Table V.B2
Table V.B2: Additional Economic Assumptions
Well I am back and working on a new project in anticipation of the release of the 2015 Report this late Spring. The project involves extracting the Tables and Figures from the Social Security Trustees Report, in this case the 2014, and having them individually web accessible as spreadsheeets or images or both. This first attempt is to present the Table that has projections for Unemployment going forward both over the short run and in ultimate terms. Since this is mostly a test of concept I will just let people see if they can actually access the data. I would point out however that under the Intermediate Cost Alternative (i.e. standard and supposedly median projection) Unemployment for 2014 was projected at 6.9% and then staying above 6% until 2017 after which it would settle quickly to 5.6% in 2020 and ultimate 5.5% by 2025. When we turn to the more optimistic Low Cost Alternative (which in toto would have Social Security self-fund under current formulae) we see that even there 2014 UI was set to be 6.7% in 2014 and 6.1% in 2015 before settling fairly quickly to ultimate 4.5%.
Now what does it mean that actual UE in 2014 came in under both Intermediate and Low Cost and projects to do the same in 2015? Well hard to say, in order to make some judgement you would have to look at all the economic and demographic variables in Tables V.A1-A4 and V.B1-B2 over the ten year window while keeping an eye on ultimate numbers and then examine the various Sensitivity tables for each of those variables. And what would help with that is someone compiling all those Tables and Figures into individual files as opposed to just linking to a ginormous HTML or PDF of the whole Report. Of which this is a sample. Comments on either the project or the unemployment numbers welcome in Comments.
Note too that this same Table shows nominal and real interest rate projections.
I can see the numbers, but even though the URL has the word “spreadsheets” in it, it appears to be a table and not a spreadsheet. A spreadsheet would be much better, because that would allow someone to add formulas and do calculations with the numbers. (I’ve never used Google docs, so maybe I just don’t understand how they work.)
As far as unemployment, I would think the more important thing would not be the unemployment rate, but the number of people who are working. The unemployment rate can drop because people stop looking for work, or because they find jobs, and these would not be the same in terms of Social Security’s finances.
Mike B., It is/can be a spreadsheet. Select All, copy then paste in Excel worked for me.
Thanks, Anna Lee. This worked for me also.
You should also be able to open it in Google Sheets but maybe only if you have a Google Account.
I want to make this as seamless as possible and welcome any suggestions.
That said it should almost always be possible to import any table into Excel or Word. Which is kind of what I am trying to do here in taking tables from SocSec HTML and PDF Reports and importing them to Excel to begin with. I am more than happy to e-mail copies of my Workbook which has each Table as a Worksheet to anyone who can make better use of it. Just e-mail socsec dot defender at gmail.com
Plus the next two columns in the table/wannabee spreadsheet do show other labor force numbers. And other Tables do show other types of disributions between employed/employable/beneficiaries. It is just a matter of bringing the numbers forward in ways that you all can easily play with them.
Nice effort Webb. It drives me nuts that the SSA data is not presented in a way that would allow for an easy cut and past to a spreadsheet. You are doing their work!
I think you have to clean this up a bit. Cosmetics really. the columns have to be widened where necessary. Some of the labels have been chopped off in your sheet. It would look better if all of the data is centered.
A question for Webb – What is better for SSA?
1) Unemployment at 5.6% and Workforce participation at 61%.
2) Unemployment at 7% and Workforce participation at 65%.
Yeah I am working on the aesthetics as well. Baby steps. But I also want to present the data as cleanly as possible without too much formatting because others may be wanting to export it into some database or other analytic tool and not want the junk.
As to the question I wouldnt’ know really. As I often say I am a ‘number pointer’ and not a ‘number cruncher’. Off hand I would say the most important number overall is worker/beneficiary ratio which would seem close to Workforce participation than UE which is more a measure of people looking for work than the complement of people actually working.
My own question, of long standing, is whether we can approach solvency simply by working on such things as employment/labor participation and real wage, that is to say consciously working to hit a set of numbers equivalent to Low Cost, i.e. fully funded Social Security with no changes in FICA rates needed. Instead there has been a tendency, including by you Krasting, to take each years Report by CBO or SSA as being set in stone as opposed to being contingent on reality.
For example here we have two models, one projecting Crisis (Intermediate Cost) and one projecting Solvency (Low Cost). And we have a key variable that in the short run is coming in ahead of both. This has implications obviously but maybe not obvious implications. What is needed is some direct engagement with the numbers.
Webb – SS is above Intermediate by about $8b in 2014. More of a rounding error – and 2014 was pretty close to ‘perfect’ for SS.
No one can predict the next recession. It’s a fool’s game to try. Neither SSA or CBO make assumptions about the next hiccup.
But I guarantee you there will be another recession. We are already past the average of 6 years between recessions. When it happens it will have the same affect as 2009/2010.
In life, it is safe to assume that neither your worst expectations nor your highest hopes will be realized. Same is true for the SSA. Don’t bet on the Low Cost
Hmm “no one can predict the next recession”. But you CAN “guarantee” one, suggest that it is overdue, and predict its magnitude. BK you are kind of de-hedging your hedge here.
As to cosmetics, I took a different tack and changed the link to point to a better formatted version. If it shows up for anyone but me or at least anyone not logged into their g-mail. Will adjust as needed.
As to “above Intermediate by about $8b”. On what are you basing that? Has the actual year end number come out? Or just the November? Topic for my next post: Monthly Trust Fund Reports.
I see now that Decembers numbers were released on Jan 7 and the Old Age Survivor’s fund is right at $8b ahead of projected by SSA. But then BK spent much of the last year telling us that SSA was way too optimistic and we should really be paying attention to CBO. But now that SSA actually undeshot its target, even by the “rounding error” of $8 billion, its all like the punchline of the old joke about the Wright Bros: “well if you do it THAT way”. I have a copy of the OAS Dec Trust Fund Report in the SSD Shared Documents folder (linked from a post above) or people can see it direct:
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/dfi/tfmb/dfifo1214.pdf
The principal difference between CBO and SSA is long term assumptions for mortality.
I have no clue what the ‘right’ age assumptions are. I do know that CBO has been active in restating its assumptions the past 24 months. SSA has not. I think SSA will adopt the SSA numbers over the next few years. When that happens the I&P number from SSA will move to the current 4% at CBO.
I stick to my prior comments on this. The big issues facing SS are not a 1% variance in a 12 month period.
Krasting,
meanwhile we can fix Social Security entirely and immediately by simply agreeing to raise the tax one tenth of one percent in any year the Trustees project short term actuarial insolvency.
Then if the numbers go bad, the tax goes up faster. If it goes up more than people think it is worth, they can cut benefits. IF they know what they are doing and are not panicked by lies.
And if the good fairy smiles on us and “low cost is out there” then the tax won’t go up. Could even come down. Unless people think a higher benefit is worth an extra dollar a week or so in “tax” (really a form of insured savings).
Webb
I think that by “you can’t predict a recession” Krasting meant you can’t predict “when.” As he said, you can be sure there WILL be a recession sooner or later. The Trustees include this in their projections.
Which is why it may not be wise to read too much into “the numbers are better than the projections” this year or for any short series of years.
Coberly – A little help please?
Can you show me in the 2014 SSA report where the Trustees include a recession in their short and/or long-term outlooks. A page and table # would be very helpful.
Thanks!
Krasting recession is basically built into High Cost, in some years as an explicit downturn, in others as a sluggish to retrograde recovery. Examine the numbers in Tables V.B1 and V.B2 where HC has UE for 2014 staying at 7.4% and then worsening to 7.9% in 2016 and only recovering (if that is the word) to 6.5% ultimate. (V.B2). Or Real GDP where the 2014 number is pegged flat with 2013 at 1.7% and never exceeds 2.5% ever. Essentially a projection of perm-recession. You might also consult their explanations for mostly flatline numbers in the out-years, it is not because they don’t expect ups and downs but instead have taken those potential future events as happening in a series more helpful or more hurtful to solvency.
And Christ you can be nice and helpful when you like but many times you go out of your way to try to goad Dale and me with these kinds of passive-aggressive “can you show me (bet you can’t)” type questions.
Krasting
somewhere in their discussion of their method and assumptions they make the point about expected recessions. as you yourself said, they can’t predict when, so there is no page and table.
and re Webb’s point about “goading.” Last time out you insisted upon your own numbers “back of the envelope” rather than the Trustees projection of high DI costs for a couple of years and then lower costs for the rest of the century. Using your own numbers you assured me that “200 dollars wasn’t chump change.”
well, only a chump would expect to buy insurance against disability for less than 200 dollars. (or the 440 per year that the actual cost will be… including the 80 dollar per year raise required by the now higher cost and incidence of disability.)