Generational Equity

The question of generational equity refers to the debate about whether one age group or generation is unfairly "taxed" in order to support the needs and interests of another generation. Sociologists have argued that the generational equity debate does not need to be a divisive issue.

It also must be noted at the onset that little evidence exists of intergenerational conflict and that the selective preoccupations with generational equity tend to ignore existing relations between different generations. 

Nonetheless, a debate has emerged. And the shape of the debate may change soon. An attractive new feature to the shape of the debate is that breakthroughs in biological research are likely to have imponderable effects that go in opposite directions. Some theorists believe that current biological research could make arguments about generational equity markedly different than they have been. For instance, if life expectancy from age 75 were to rise noticeably (again) for large numbers of people, the change is likely to have unfavorable consequences for the fiscal solvency of Social Security. By comparison, if we found a way to prevent, but not cure, Alzheimer's Disease, then costs for long-term care could go down substantially (but only for future cohorts). Where should biomedical research orient itself? 

Three common suppositions upholding the belief that entitlement programs for the elderly drain economic resources needed by other segments of the population are [1] the notion that the elderly are no longer economically disadvantaged, [2] the suggestion that working-class men and women and their children suffer as a result of programs for the elderly, and [3] the idea that only the elderly have a stake in Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.

The existing argument is over what constitutes a "fair share" of societal resources for the elderly and it is as old as history itself. Prof. John Williamson (Sociology, Boston College) recently commented: "Most any society, especially those near the margins, has had to deal with the issue of elderly dependents and what support, if any, they should receive from other generations. It was a topic of great interest in ancient Greece and Rome, just as it was in the colonial era, when the point of contention centered around who would have control of the family farm."

In my view, Thomas Cole identifies the larger problem of the "question of justice between young and old:" It is our culture's inability to provide convincing answers to existential questions like the quality of life in old age, the unity and integrity of the life cycle, and the meaning of aging. He contends that "We will be unable to answer questions of distribution of resources without first defining the meaning and purposes of the last half of life." He decries the absence of a coherent, established, and meaningful place for the elderly in our society. An understanding of the obligations and responsibilities as well as the rights and opportunities of old age is necessary. 

Certain underlying assumptions, or the "social contract" between generations, have guided the expectations and obligations that historically and presently exist between generations, and these assumptions also seem to be the underpinning for the current generational equity debate. Ironically, as the nation reconsider its old age entitlement programs, the "social contract" between generations faces significant structural changes that have upheld the contract:

• Never before have so many people in the United States lived so long. 

• The shrinking size of families means that the proportion of elderly people is growing faster than the number of younger potential caretakers. Young people now can expect to spend more years caring for an elderly parent than raising their own children.

• Changes in family structure, including childless couples, single-parent families, and delayed childbearing, alter the traditional patterns of intergenerational care. 

• The growth of the welfare state (more than the changing demographics?) in the last century means that different generations are forced to compete for the different entitlement programs that provide social and economic assistance. Children are poor because their parents are poor, and their parents are poor because of market forces that have nothing to do with elders.

• With the doubling of the elderly population over the next 30 years, we have no choice but to address both Social Security and Medicare. Today we have a relatively small number of retirees compared to a relative large number of working age citizens. This is about to change, permanently. The baby boom generation is poised to begin getting Social Security benefits in less than a decade. At the same time, longevity is increasing, perhaps faster than official projections note. The twin pressures of increasing longevity and baby boomers' retirement will result in an increase in the portion of elderly from about 12 percent of the nation's population today to 20-24 percent by 2040. Today's preschoolers, who will be working age taxpayers when that time comes, may find it a struggle to finance Social Security, Medicare, and large portions of Medicaid—the chief income security and health insurance supports for elderly Americans—if other changes are not undertaken.

The DEBATE question:  Should age or need be a basis for entitlement?