Ceteris paribus a disparate impact analysis would find that Social Security benefits would benefit white and Hispanic (and presumably Asian) women at the expense of white and black men. But all is not equal, and one must take into account questions about who are the breadwinners and widow survivors, etc.

Yes, black men are hit hardest by the unfairness built into the system and progressives want desperately to improve the condition of black men, but they also want to bolster and expand SS, not undermine it. The logical implication of their solution to the problem would be to pay black men and their survivors more to be ‘fair’, but not reduce anyone else’s benefits.

The Data: Life Expectancy at age 65 in 2010:

Non-Hispanic White Male: 17.7
Non-Hispanic White Female: 20.3
Black Male: 15.8
Black Female: 19.1
Hispanic Male: 18.8
Hispanic Female: 22

I am 68 and still working full time. I took Medicare at 65, and spousal SS benefits at 66 (and am banking those SS funds), and I will apply for my individual SS benefit when I turn 70 (or quit or get laid off, whichever comes first!)

I would have preferred remaining covered by my employer’s health plan, where I could have continued to contribute tax-deferred dollars into my Health Savings Account, but I can’t contribute to an HSA if I am enrolled in Medicare.

I’m sure this structure made sense to someone at the time, but it perplexes me.

I think the untouchability of Social Security is best exemplified not by politicians’ reluctance to tweak the benefits formula ages more frequently, but by the reluctance (on both sides of the aisle!) to examine it for disparate impact.

It’s main benefit is that it doesn’t make any substantial changes to how it works, it’s just clipping its wings in a few important places, and creating better incentives.

Private accounts seem like a good idea if you’re starting from scratch, but I don’t see how our political system can handle it.