Social Security excluded blacks

[snopes]

Comment: Is it true that when Social Security was first passed in the
Thirties, the Democrats made a deal with Southern Democrats to exclude
African-Americas in order to get the bill to pass? And that later on
African-Americans were included .

[barbrainey]

No. Frankly, I've never heard of this one. I suppose the Social Security Act had to include everyone. That is, everyone could receive it once he or she reached 65 years of age.


Barb Rainey

[Bill]

Maybe not expressly excluded, but according to the Wikipedia piece (with authorities) there were exceptions to the act (agricultural labor, domestic service, etc.) and blacks and women tended to fall within the exceptions. Some have said that this was intentional and due to the influence of Southern Democrats, but others have said that there were legitimate reasons for the exclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...United_States)

Thanks.

Bill

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Given the very substantial life expectancy differences, as a practical matter, black people have been less likely to receive SS retirement paymnts or to be on it as long as white and Asian Americans are (on average).

OTOH, the progressive benefit scale also favors lower income (including on average blacks) and the disability system pays proportionately more to blacks.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

OTOH, the progressive benefit scale also favors lower income (including on average blacks) and the disability system pays proportionately more to blacks.

Do you have any cites to back that up, particularly the last claim?

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Do you have any cites to back that up, particularly the last claim?

Why, yes, I do. I had been looking for a cite on the proportional difference on receipt of old-age benefits, and that was where I saw the articles trying to justify the racial disparities. For instance:
http://ssaonline.us/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

You can google "social security race differences" for plenty more.

[AnglRdr]

Very interesting, thanks.

I was initially dubious because race is not even listed on disability applications, so I was unable to see how they knew who got what.

[Wild Redhead]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Why, yes, I do. I had been looking for a cite on the proportional difference on receipt of old-age benefits, and that was where I saw the articles trying to justify the racial disparities. For instance:
http://ssaonline.us/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

You can google "social security race differences" for plenty more.

Gee, it's almost as if you expected someone to ask for a cite.

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

OTOH, the progressive benefit scale also favors lower income (including on average blacks) and the disability system pays proportionately more to blacks.

Which tells me that the system works as intended. Again, minorities are more likely to have jobs requiring manual labor, which means a higher chance of injury which means a higher likelihood of disability and thus more claims.

[geminilee]

I think that sort of disparity or discrimination is functional (for lack of the correct word). It is based on actual differences and so is ok, like commercial airlines not hiring blind people. Whether positive or negative it is based on concrete differences, and using an arbitrary cutoff (rather than adjusting for every possible factor) seems to me to be less likely to be intentional, or even subconcious racism.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by geminilee

and using an arbitrary cutoff (rather than adjusting for every possible factor) seems to me to be less likely to be intentional, or even subconcious racism.

I really do like that we do not use race as an identifier on our claims, for just the very reason you describe above.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Given the very substantial life expectancy differences, as a practical matter, black people have been less likely to receive SS retirement paymnts or to be on it as long as white and Asian Americans are (on average).

OTOH, the progressive benefit scale also favors lower income (including on average blacks) and the disability system pays proportionately more to blacks.

While we're on this interesting subject, I recall in 2005 President Bush noted racial disparities in his effort to sell his plan to allow people place some of their contributions into private accounts. He appeared with a young African-American man who lost his father at age 57. All the family got was "a $255 check to help with burial expenses" and the young man said, "'I don't think people realize how painful it is to receive a check like that and have a child in college."

Private accounts may or may not have been a good idea, but still, it must be very difficult for a family to be put in a position like that, and if private accounts had been an option, at least the family might have gotten something.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...n_aids_blacks/

Thanks.

Bill

Edit: I misunderstood. The "young man" was already an executive and was reminiscing about when he was younger (this was not clear but is stated in another article). Still, the point is the same.

[Natalie]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

That is, everyone could receive it once he or she reached 65 years of age.

Leaving aside the racial issue, this isn't how Social Security retirement benefits work. One has to pay into the system via payroll taxes to get any payments, and you have to meet specific standards to get the full benefit. It's not a matter of just receiving checks once you're 65.