Kevin Carson wrote:

I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to cartelize the economy.

By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the large corporations effectively function as a state-enforced cartel (with the added virtue of non-defectability), and at least partially remove old age pensions as an issue of competion in personnel costs.

This is just silly. If the situation was competitive initially, employers just switch to cash compensation.

Indeed, this is just a variation on the popular fallacy that employers really do "pay half" of SS just because the law says so, when in reality it depends on labor supply and demand elasticities (and since the former is near-infinite, employers pay essentially 0% whether the law says they pay 0% or 100%).

                        Prof. Bryan Caplan
       Department of Economics      George Mason University      [EMAIL PROTECTED]

              "The game of just supposing
               Is the sweetest game I know...

               And if the things we dream about
               Don't happen to be so,
               That's just an unimportant technicality."

Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein, *Showboat*

Reply via email to