text:
Improvements in the Cash-Benefit Provisions
In general the Council believes that the present program is functioning
well and that its basic structure is satisfactory. The most important
improvements in the cash-benefit provisions, and particularly in
the benefit amounts, that the Council is recommending are designed
to take into account recent wage and price changes. The effectiveness
of the social security benefits has been diminishing because the
benefits for the last 6 years have not even kept pace with rising
prices and because the maximum amount of annual earnings that is
taxable and creditable toward benefits has not been raised as the
general level of wages has gone up.
The Council has also found that although the program is very broad
in its coverage--about nine-tenths of the people who at any one
time are in gainful employment in the United States are covered–there
are some areas where its coverage should be further extended, and
that while benefit payments are now provided in most cases in which
support is lost when the worker retires in old age, becomes disabled,
or dies, there are a few remaining gaps that should be filled.
The improvements recommended by the Council require additional
financing; the cost of those improvements and the recommendations
for providing the needed additional financing are discussed at the
conclusion of this section.
Before the recommendations of the Council are set forth in detail,
it may be helpful to summarize briefly the major provisions of the
present program.
Monthly benefits are payable under the program to retired insured
workers at age 65, and reduced-rate benefits may be paid to them
as early as age 62. Benefits may also be paid to the following dependents:
A wife or dependent husband age 65 or over (or age 62 with a reduction
in the benefits); children under age 18 or disabled before age 18;
and a wife of any age caring for a child entitled to benefits. Monthly
benefits are payable to insured workers who have very severe and
long-continued disabilities and to the dependents of such workers.
Upon the death of an insured worker, monthly benefits are payable
to a surviving widow or dependent widower age 62 or over; children
under age 18 or disabled before age 18; a mother who has such a
child in her care; and dependent parents age 62 or over. A lump-sum
death payment is also made.
Benefit amounts under the program are related to the average earnings
of the insured worker in covered employment; currently, however,
only the first $4,800 of the worker's earnings in a year is included
in calculating the average. The minimum benefit payable to a worker
who goes on the benefit rolls at age 65 or later is $40 a month
and the maximum is $127 a month. A man and wife going on the rolls
at 65 or later receive half again as much. Maximum benefits to a
family based on a worker's earnings range up to $254 a month.
Almost everyone who works is covered by social security. The only
major groups excluded from coverage are self-employed physicians,
Federal employees under the civil service retirement system, self-employed
persons with annual net earnings of less than $400, and farm and
household workers with irregular employment. Employees of State
and local governments and of nonprofit organizations may obtain
coverage on a voluntary group basis and almost 80 percent have done
so. Railroad employees, through a coordination of the railroad retirement
and social security programs, are in effect covered by social security.
The program, then, furnishes basic retirement, disability, and survivor
protection to practically all of the American people. The Council
believes enactment of the recommendations discussed in the pages
that follow will enable the program to do so more effectively.
Social Security Benefit Amounts
The social security program today is the major reliance of most
of our people for income security in old age. As indicated in Part
II, about one-half of the older social security beneficiaries have
less than $12.50 a month in continuing retirement income other than
their social security benefits, and for all but about one-fifth
of the beneficiaries, benefits are the major source of continuing
retirement income.{24} With social security benefits
the source of almost all of the regular retirement income received
by so many of the older people in the country and the main reliance
of so many more, it is essential that the benefit structure be examined
from time to time to make sure that benefits are reasonably adequate.
Benefits for a retired worker (men and women) alone average only
$74 a month; for an aged couple, $130. Two-thirds of the couples
on the benefit rolls are getting less than $158 a month. Even for
people now coming on the benefit rolls at or after age 65, the old-age
benefits for men alone average $103 a month; for couples, $159.
The Council believes that these amounts are too low.
In considering how best, within the limitations imposed by the necessities
of financing, to improve benefits for both present beneficiaries
and for those who become beneficiaries in the future the Council
examined the several factors that determine benefit size, the contribution
and benefit base, the provisions for translating the record of credited
annual earnings into the "average monthly earnings" on
which the benefit is based, the special provisions for reduced benefits
for those who retire early, and the structure of the formula for
deriving the monthly benefit from the average monthly earnings.
As a result of its examination, the Council is recommending changes
in three of the four factors and an intensive study of possible
changes in the fourth.
The recommendation of the Council for increasing the contribution
and benefit base is outlined in Part I of this report because of
its implications for the financing of the program. Raising the base
in line with rising earnings has equally important implications
for the benefit structure of the program. Social security is important
to average and above-average earners as well as to low-paid people.
Over the years, the erosion of the base has meant that the protection
for the higher earner has significantly deteriorated. For example,
a man who was earning $3,000 in 1940 had all of his earnings counted
and, looking forward to retirement in 1965, could expect to get
a benefit that would equal 21 percent of these earnings; in 1965
a man who was earning $3,000 in 1940, if his earnings rose in proportion
to the rise in earnings generally, will be earning about $13,000,
and under the $4,800 base now in effect would get a benefit that
would equal only 11 percent of his earnings today. Today about two-thirds
of the regularly employed men have earnings above the maximum which
can be counted for benefit purposes. The Council believes that improvement
of the benefits payable at earnings levels above $4,800 for people
retiring in the future through increasing the base is necessary
in order to preserve the wage-related character of the program and
to make it more effective for the average and above-average earner.
The other recommendations of the Council for improving the benefit
structure are discussed in detail in the following pages.
1. The Period for Computing Benefits for Men
The period for computing benefits (and insured status) for men
should be based, as is now the case for women, on the period up
to the year of attainment of age 62, instead of age 65 as under
present law, with the result that 3 additional years of low earnings
would be dropped from the computation of retirement benefits for
The Council recommends that the period used for computing benefits
for men in retirement cases should be shortened by 3 years, making
it the same as for women. While retirement benefits are payable
to men and women at age 62, and while the reduction rates applicable
where benefits are taken before age 65 are the same for men as for
women, the average monthly earnings for men are computed over a
period equivalent to the number of years (less 5 years) up to attainment
of age 65, whereas for women they are determined over a period equivalent
to the years (less 5 years) up to age 62. If a man does not work
after age 62 his average monthly earnings and the resulting benefits
generally will be reduced, but a woman's failure to work past age
62 generally has little or no adverse effect on her benefits.{25}
The Council is concerned about the low benefits payable to men
who have been coming on the benefit rolls before age 65, especially
those whose retirement has been involuntary. Almost one-half of
the men awarded old-age benefits in the fiscal year 1964 get reduced
benefits because they came on the rolls before age 65, and their
benefits are, on the average, much lower than the benefit amounts
payable to men who come on the rolls at age 65 or after--for fiscal
year 1964 awards, $75 for men who came on before 65 as compared
to $103 for men who came on at or after 65.
The reduced benefits which are now paid to men and their wives who
start to get old-age benefits before age 65 are below what they
can be expected to live on. As a result it may be anticipated that
many will sooner or later have to apply for assistance; and the
role of public assistance in providing income for people who can
no longer work--a role which has diminished over the years as the
social security program has grown--can be expected to expand. The
proposal to end the computation period for men at 62 instead of
65 will alleviate this situation.
The Council is not certain, however, that this change will improve
benefits enough for people who are forced into early retirement.
It may be necessary later to consider providing for a smaller-than-actuarial
reduction in benefits for people who come on the rolls before age
65. Provision for a smaller reduction, though, would be relatively
expensive and could have adverse effects on private pension plans.
It might also have effects on retirement policies and on the general
patterns of work and retirement in the later years of life.
Because of the importance of such a change, the Council does not
want to make any recommendation on the basis of the present limited
experience with the age-62 actuarial-reduction provision for men.
The provision permitting men to get benefits at 62 was en-acted
in 1961, and available data, much of which relates only to the year
1962, may not be representative of the ongoing situation. The Council
recommends that the Social Security Administration continue to collect
information about the people who come on the benefit rolls before
age 65. The information should include data relative to both their
past work experience and their current financial situation, and
should provide answers to such questions as the following: how many
have been regular full-time workers over the greater part of their
lives, and how many have been only intermittently or casually employed;
how many have been the primary earners in their
families, and how many have been secondary earners; how many are
unskilled workers, how many have skills that have become obsolete
because of technological or economic change, and how many have skills
that are still useful and in demand; and how many are retiring voluntarily,
how many are being forced to retire, and how many have already been
out of employment for some time.
Shortening by 3 years the period for computing benefits for men
will, of course, benefit men who retire at or after age 65 as well
as those who retire before age 65; it will also result in the payment
of higher benefits in some cases to the dependents of retired men
and to the survivors of men who die after reaching age 62. The proposal
will also make payable more quickly, as far as men are concerned,
the higher benefits that will become possible with the increased
contribution and benefit base that is being recommended by the Council.
The reason why this happens is that with a computation period shorter
by 3 years than it would be under present law, fewer years prior
to the effective date of the new base would have to be included
in the computation and the average monthly earnings would consequently
be higher.{26}
2. A General Increase in Benefits
A general increase in benefit amounts, accomplished by a change
in the way the benefit formula is constructed, should be provided
to take into account increases in wages and prices since the last
general benefit increase in 1958, and the maximum on monthly family
benefits should be related to earnings throughout the benefit range.
The Council recommends a general benefit increase which will average
about 15 percent but which will be accomplished, not by increasing
each benefit by 15 percent, but rather by a change in the way the
benefit formula is constructed. About half of the 15 percent will
go to restoring the purchasing power of the benefits, taking account
of increases in prices since 1958, the time of the last general
benefit increase. The remainder will be used to adjust in part to
the increase in earnings that has taken place and so improve the
real value of the benefits.
The Council believes that while the increase to make up for the
increase in the cost of living, amounting to about 7 percent, should
be applicable at all benefit levels, the improvement in the real
value of the benefits should not be uniformly applicable at all
Instead of the large increase in the percentage factor applicable
to the lower part of the average monthly earnings that would arise
from such a uniform application, the Council proposes to increase
the amount of average monthly earnings to which the heavier weighting
applies.{27} The purpose of having a weighted
formula is to give recognition to the fact that the lower-paid worker
and his family have less margin for reduction of their income and
are less likely to have other resources than higher-paid workers;
and the level of earnings that marks what can be considered a lower-paid
worker goes up as earnings go up generally. In recognition of this
fact, the amount of average monthly earnings to which the higher
percentage applies was increased from the original level of $50,
set in 1939, to $100 in 1950 and to $110 in 1954. In view of the
increase in wages that has occurred since 1954, when the amount
was last changed, the Council believes that in effect the definition
of what constitutes a low-paid worker should be changed again by
an increase in the level of earnings to which the higher percentage
is applied, and the Council recommends an increase from $110 to
The reason for not applying more than a 7-percent cost-of-living
increase at the lower levels of average monthly earnings is that
the increase at average monthly earnings below, say, $100 would
go mostly to people who have not worked regularly under the program,
and whose benefits are already almost as large for a couple as the
earnings on which the benefits are based.
Although no substantial increase should be made in the percentage
factor applying to the lower part of the average monthly earnings,
since this would tend to increase benefits for people who work under
the program only part time, such as people who spend most of their
lives as Federal workers, as housewives, or in non-covered State
and local government employment, the Council does favor improving
the situation for the low-paid worker who is regularly covered.
The Council believes that if the social security program is to do
an adequate job as the basic system providing retirement income,
one goal must be that such a low-paid worker will get benefits high
enough so that he will not have to turn to public assistance to
meet regular living expenses. Low-paid workers are not likely to
have significant savings, or private pensions; and in the absence
of adequate social security benefits, most of them will have to
turn to assistance to supplement their benefit income. In the opinion
of the Council supplementation of benefits by assistance on a large
scale to meet regular recurring expenses is undesirable. The goal
should be to have social security benefits meet regular, ordinary
living expenses and to have assistance serve as a backstop to meet
special and unusual needs. The Council believes therefore that the
level of benefits should be such that a regular full-time worker
at low earnings levels will ordinarily not have to apply for assistance.
Under present law, if a worker has average monthly earnings of $200
a month (the equivalent of full-time earnings at the Federal minimum
wage) he and his wife will get a retirement benefit of $126 starting
at age 65. Forty-one of the fifty States have old-age assistance
standards for a couple that are higher than $126 a month (not counting
any allowance made for medical care), and the median standard for
a couple is $147 a month. With the benefit increase that the Council
is recommending, a worker earning $200 a month and his wife would
get total monthly social security benefits of $151.50, an amount
that would be more than or within a few dollars of the assistance
standards of 30 of the 50 States. Workers who earn more than minimum
wages would of course get higher benefits.
The following tables illustrate benefit amounts that would be payable
under the Council's recommendations for changing the method of computing
the benefits. The effect of the Council's recommendation for increasing
the contribution and benefit base is also shown in the tables.
(View image of Tables 1 &2)
The Council recommends also that the method of determining family
maximum benefits be changed. At present, over a wide range of average
monthly earnings at the higher levels, the maximum family benefit
is a flat dollar amount unrelated to the average monthly earnings
on which the individual benefits are based.{29}
Under the Council's recommendation the family maximum would no longer
have a flat dollar limit but would be determined by a weighted formula
under which the family maximum at the higher earnings levels, as
well as at the lower levels, would be related to previous average
monthly earnings.{30} Such an approach would get
away from a fixed dollar limit yet would continue to avoid the payment
of excessively large family benefits at the higher earnings levels.
This new approach was embodied in the omnibus social security bill
that passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives in
1964, but did not become law because the Conference Committee was
unable to agree on other provisions in the bill.
The following table illustrates family maximum benefit amounts
that would be payable under the Council's recommendations:
(View image of Table 3)
3. The Maximum Lump-Sum Death Payment
The maximum lump-sum death payment should not be set in terms
of an absolute dollar limit but rather should be the same as the
highest family maximum monthly benefit.
Under present law the lump-sum death payment is equal to 3 times
the primary insurance amount of the deceased worker but it may not
exceed $255. The $255 limit on the maximum lump-sum death payment
was established by the Congress in 1952 and it has not been changed
since that time. This limit, which applies at all levels of primary
insurance amounts above $85 (average monthly earnings levels above
$207), is becoming increasingly outdated because it is unrelated
to earnings levels or benefit amounts and has not been increased
as earnings levels have risen or as monthly benefit levels have
been increased.
Since 1952 the Consumer Price Index has risen by more than 16 percent.
More significantly, over the same period the average cost of an
adult's funeral has gone up at least 30 percent; and medical costs,
much of which in the case of the last illness is likely to have
to be met from the estate, or by the survivors, have increased almost
50 percent.
The Council believes that the lump sum should not be subject to
a dollar limit that is allowed to remain stationary when other provisions
of the law are changed, but rather that the dollar limit should
be adjusted with other provisions of the law as earnings levels
rise. The Council recommends specifically that the provision governing
the amount of the maximum lump-sum be changed from the present one
prescribing an absolute dollar limit of $255 to a provision that
the maximum lump-sum shall be equal to the highest family maximum
monthly benefit. Lump-sum death payments up to the new maximum would
continue to be equal to 3 times the primary insurance amount. And
the maximum lump-sum would increase whenever the maximum family
benefit is increased so that it would not remain stationary in the
future as it has over the past 12 years.
Dependents' and Survivors' Benefits
Since the decision in 1939 to provide family protection--that is,
to protect those who normally depend on the worker for support as
well as the worker himself--Congress has provided benefits in most
situations where it is necessary and appropriate to replace the
support lost by a dependent or survivor as a result of the retirement,
disability, or death of the worker. The Council has concluded, however,
that there are a few additional dependency situations for which
protection should be provided.
4. Children Over Age 18 Attending School
Benefits should be payable to a child until he reaches age 22,
provided the child is attending school between ages 18 and 22.
Benefits under the social security program should be paid to a
child as long as it is reasonable to assume that he is dependent
on his family. Under the present law, child's insurance benefits
(except for a disabled child) are payable only until age 18, presumably
on the theory (not an unreasonable one at the time that benefits
were first provided for children by the 1939 amendments) that by
age 18 a child can be expected to support himself.{31} With the growing importance of education in modern
life it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not a reasonable
expectation. Today at least some education beyond high school is
rapidly becoming part of our general level of living, and will increasingly
be necessary because of rapid technological advancement and the
growth in the number of professional, technical, and other jobs
requiring higher levels of education. As a consequence the period
of dependency of children has been lengthening.
There is precedent in other Federal programs, for paying benefits
to children after they reach the age of 18 while they are in school.
The civil service retirement program generally pays benefits up
to the end of the academic year in which the student reaches age
21. Under three veterans' programs--the dependency and indemnity
compensation program, the non-service-connected death pension program,
and the war orphans education assistance program--a child may get
benefits after he reaches age 18 while he is attending school. Under
an amendment enacted in 1964 to the program of aid to families with
dependent children the Federal matching share in assistance payments
may be continued up to age 21 where a child is attending a high
school or a vocational school.
The Council does not recommend that mother's benefits be made payable
to a mother where the only child getting benefits is age 18 or over
and is getting benefits on the basis of being a student. Benefits
are paid to a wife or widow under age 62 who has a child in her
care if she does not have earnings from work above specified limits,
in recognition of her need to stay at home to care for the child.
Where the only child is age 18 or over there is not the same reason
to pay mother's benefits, since there is no need for the mother
to stay home to care for the child.
An amendment similar to that recommended by the Council, to continue
social security benefits after a child reaches age 18 when the child
is still in school, was passed by both houses of Congress in 1964
but failed to become law because the Conference Committee was unable
to agree on other provisions in the omnibus bill.
5. Disabled Widows
The disabled widow of an insured worker, if she became disabled
before her husband's death or before her youngest child became 18,
or within a limited period after either of these events, should
be entitled to widow's benefits regardless of her age.
The Council believes that the disabled widow, like the widow who
is aged 62 or over or the widow who has a child of the deceased
worker in her care, needs benefits when her husband dies. The Council
therefore recommends that benefits be paid to the widow so disabled
that she cannot work--provided, however, that she was disabled at
the time of her husband's death or before her youngest child reached
age 18, or within a limited period after either of these events.
The widows who would be protected are those who, when their husbands
die, suffer a loss of support and who, because they are disabled
themselves, have no opportunity to work and thus to substitute their
own earnings for that loss of support. On the other hand, the Council
does not believe it would be in keeping with the purpose of the
program to pay widow's benefits on account of disability to a woman
whose disability occurred after she could have reasonably been expected
to have worked long enough to earn disability insurance benefits
in her own right. For example, it would not seem of high priority
to pay widow's benefits to a widow who was, say, 30 years old and
childless when her husband died and who did not become disabled
until many years later. Such a widow would most likely have gone
to work and earned disability protection in her own right, and,
if she had not worked after she was widowed, it would seem unreasonable
to pay her a benefit on the grounds that a physical or mental impairment
that developed later in life was preventing her from working.
A theoretical case can also be made, perhaps, for providing benefits
for other disabled dependents (almost all of them would be disabled
wives who are under age 62) of retired or disabled workers. However,
it cannot be assumed that younger wives of older retired men and
wives of disabled men look to employment for support to anywhere
near the extent that widows do. Thus extending the group of disabled
dependents to include wives would result in the payment of benefits
in many cases where the couple had not experienced any loss of earned
income as a result of the disability of the wife. Considering this
fact, the Council believes that additional information is needed
to determine whether it would be desirable to pay benefits to disabled
wives as well as widows.
6. Definition of Child
A child should be paid benefits based on his father's earnings
without regard to whether he has the status of a child under State
inheritance laws if the father was supporting the child or had a
legal obligation to do so.
Under present law, whether a child meets the definition of a child
for the purpose of getting child's insurance benefits based on his
father's earnings depends on the laws applied in determining the
devolution of intestate personal property in the State in which
the worker is domiciled. The States differ considerably in the requirements
that must be met in order for a child born out of wedlock to have
inheritance rights. In some States a child whose parents never married
can inherit property just as if they had married; in others such
a child can inherit property as the child of the man only if he
was acknowledged or decreed to be the man's child in accordance
with requirements specified in the State law; and in several States
a child whose parents never married cannot inherit his father's
intestate property under any circumstances. As a result, in some
cases social security benefits must be denied even where a child
is living with his mother and father in a normal family relationship
and where neither the child nor his friends and neighbors have any
reason to think that the parents were never married.
The social security program is national in scope, covering the worker
without regard to the State in which he resides, and the program
is intended to pay benefits as a partial replacement of lost support
to those relatives of the worker who normally look to him for support.
The Council believes that in such a program whether a child gets
benefits on the earnings record of a person who has been determined
to be his father and who has an obligation to support him should
not depend on whether he can inherit that person's intestate personal
property under the laws of the State in which the person happens
to live.
There is precedent in the veterans' laws for paying benefits to
children who do not meet the definition of "child" under
State law. Under the veterans' program the child of a veteran may
get benefits regardless of State law if the veteran had acknowledged
the child in writing, or had been ordered by a court to contribute
to the child's support, or before his death had been judicially
decreed to be the child's father, or is shown by other satisfactory
evidence to be the child's father. The Council believes that a similar
provision should be included in the social security program.
Disability Benefits
Disability insurance is the newest part of the social security
program, having been established by amendments enacted in 1954 and
1956. Since then, this part of the program has been improved by
providing benefits for the dependents of disabled workers and by
extending disability protection--as the original provisions did
not--to workers at all ages. As a result it has played a growing
role in meeting the needs of the disabled. The Council believes
that this development should continue as experience with the program
grows, and recommends that two improvements be made at this time.
The Council recognizes that there is ground for considering still
other changes in the program, since there are many totally disabled
people who face the prospect of having their resources depleted
during periods when they are not eligible to receive benefits under
either private plans or the social security system. The Council
is aware that such consideration will be enhanced by several studies
now in progress or being planned by the Social Security Administration
which will produce additional information on, for example, the characteristics
of applicants who are denied social security disability benefits,
the income and other financial resources of severely disabled people,
and the extent to which social security disability beneficiaries
are dependent upon public assistance. The Council believes that
these studies may point up the need for further consideration of
proposals to eliminate gaps in the protection now afforded totally
disabled people.
7. Young Disabled Workers
Young workers who become disabled should have their eligibility
for benefits determined on the basis of a test of substantial and
recent employment that is appropriate for such workers.
Under present law, in order to be eligible for disability benefits,
a worker must meet a requirement of 5 years of work in the 10-year
period before be became totally disabled. This requirement assures
that the benefits will be paid only to people who have both substantial
and relatively recent employment. However, the effect of the 5-years-of-work
requirement on a worker disabled while young is to make it difficult,
or even impossible, for him to get disability benefits. For example,
the worker who becomes totally disabled at age 25 and who started
to work at age 21 has a total of only 4 years of covered work and
therefore cannot meet the requirement. The restriction of disability
insurance protection to workers who have had substantial and recent
employment can be achieved for younger workers by an alternative
provision under which a worker disabled before age 31 would be eligible
for benefits if he had been in covered work for at least one-half
of the period between age 21 (the age from which fully insured status
is figured under present law) and the point in time at which he
became disabled, or, in the case of those becoming disabled before
age 24, for at least one-half of the 3 years preceding disablement.{32}
This provision would be somewhat similar to a provision now in the
law under which the survivors of a worker who died while young can
qualify for benefits even though he had only a short period of covered
8. Rehabilitation of Disability Beneficiaries
The social security program should pay the costs of rehabilitation
for disability beneficiaries likely to be returned to gainful work
through such help, with the rehabilitation services being provided
through State vocational rehabilitation agencies.
Disability insurance beneficiaries show less potential for rehabilitation
than people who, though disabled, do not meet the strict definition
of disability in the social security law. Because the beneficiaries
have less potential, rehabilitation services for them may be given
a relatively low priority by the State vocational rehabilitation
agencies, and because of limitations on funds and therefore on the
extent of services that can be offered by the agencies, some beneficiaries
who could profit from rehabilitation services do not get them.
The Council believes that those disability beneficiaries who can
reasonably be expected to be returned to gainful employment through
rehabilitation services should get such services. Increasing the
number of disabled workers who are rehabilitated would benefit not
only the people involved but also society in general. For the rehabilitated
person the gain would not only be increased income but also the
satisfaction flowing from his restoration to a useful economic role
in society.
The Council recommends, therefore, that money be made available
from the social security trust funds to finance the rehabilitation
of selected disability beneficiaries. The expenditure of social
security funds is clearly justified so long as the savings from
the amount of benefits that would otherwise have to be paid exceed,
or at least equal, the money paid from the trust funds for rehabilitation
costs. It is wasteful and shortsighted for the social security system
to be paying benefits to disabled persons if a lesser expenditure
of funds would assure their return to work.
Eligibility for Benefits
9. Insured Status
The Council recommends retention of a requirement of covered
work as a test of eligibility for benefits, and has no major changes
to recommend in the present provisions.{33}
The present requirement of a "fully insured" status-covered
work for a period of time equal to about one-fourth of the time
after 1950 (or age 21, if later) and up to death or retirement age
is, in the opinion of the Council, a reasonable one.{34}
Some prescribed requirement of attachment to covered work is essential
under a program which pays a substantial minimum benefit. The present
requirement makes the program effective for older workers in the
early years and, at the same time, gives equitable treatment to
those now young, since the short-run requirement for fully insured
status (1 quarter of coverage for each 4 quarters after 1950) is
comparable to the long-run requirement (10 years out of a working
life of 40 years or so). The alternative requirement for survivor
benefits, the "currently insured"{35}
status requirement in present law, serves well as a test of dependence
upon covered earnings for support. The Council believes that both
requirements for old-age and survivors insurance should be retained
as they are, except that the end point for determining fully insured
status for men should be changed from 65 to 62, as recommended in
the section of this report on benefit amounts.
In connection with its consideration of the work requirements of
the program, the Council has given attention to proposals for paying
minimum benefits, financed either from social security funds or
from general revenues, to older people who have not met these requirements.
Whatever theoretical merit these proposals might have had at an
earlier stage in the development of the program, there do not seem
to be persuasive reasons for adopting any of them now. Only about
15 percent of the aged today are unprotected by social security
and this figure is becoming smaller all the time. Over 90 percent
of the people now reaching age 65 are eligible for benefits and,
over the long run, virtually everyone who was dependent on earnings
will qualify for benefits. About 50 percent of the 2.7 million aged
persons not under social security or railroad retirement are getting
old-age assistance, and the payment of minimum benefits to them
would in effect be substituting either general revenue funds or
social security funds, depending on the particular proposal, for
a portion of the Federal-State payments which they are getting now,
without removing very many from the assistance rolls. Another 20
to 25 percent of those not eligible for social security benefits
are beneficiaries of other governmental retirement systems or of
veterans' programs and additional numbers are in governmental institutions.
Since the remaining problem is now so small, the Council believes
it is undesirable to risk the public misunderstanding that might
result from such a "blanketing-in."
10. Retirement Test
The provision in the law that prevents the payment of benefits
to a person with substantial earnings from current work--the retirement
test--is essential in a program designed to replace lost work income
and should be retained.
The purpose of social security benefits is to furnish a partial
replacement of earnings which are lost to a family because of death,
disability, or retirement in old age. In line with this purpose
the law provides that, generally speaking, the benefits for which
a worker, his dependents, and his survivors are otherwise eligible
are to be withheld if they earn substantial amounts.
If benefits were paid without a test of retirement, the cost of
the program would be substantially increased and the combined additional
contributions which would have to be paid by employers and employees
to support the provision would amount to nearly 1 percent of covered
earnings. In 1964 about $2 billion in additional benefits would
have been paid, and most of this money would have gone to those
who are working full-time and generally earning as much as they
ever did. The great majority of the older people who are eligible
for benefits--those who are unable to work, those who can do some
work but cannot earn more than $1,200 a year, and those who are
aged 72 and over and therefore no longer subject to the test--would
not be helped by elimination of the test. Indeed they might be hurt;
the increased cost might well stand in the way of improvements which
would he of help to them. Thus if the concept of partially replacing
work income lost through retirement were dropped and a straight
annuity concept adopted, the costs would be incurred mostly to pay
benefits to those fortunate older people with regular jobs at the
expense of all the rest.
The test of retirement is essential to implement the purpose of
the program--insurance against the loss of earned income. It is
not to be confused with a test of individual need or income. The
Council believes it is of the greatest importance that benefits
continue to be paid without regard to the nonwork income or assets
of the beneficiary. Only by paying benefits without regard to nonwork
income can the program continue to sustain the motivation of the
individual to save on his own and to buy private insurance. Only
in this way can the partnership of social security with private
pension plans be continued. Moreover, it is the absence of any test
of need or income that, together with the concept of earned right,
gives the program its distinctive character as a program of self-support
and self-reliance.
The Council has not only considered the desirability of retaining
the test of retirement, but has evaluated various alternative ways
of liberalizing the test. The Council recognizes that the present
test does discourage some people who are retired from their regular
jobs from earning as much as they could, or would like to, in part-time
or irregular employment. Because only $1 in benefits is withheld
for each $2 of earnings between $1,200 and $1,700, additional earnings
always mean more total income from benefits and earnings up to that
point, but above $1,700, a person loses $1 in tax-exempt benefits
for each $1 of taxable earnings. Because his earnings are reduced
by the amount of income tax he must pay, while the benefits be foregos
would not have been taxable, he may be worse off financially as
he earns more. Even those who, because of extra exemptions or extraordinary
medical expenses, for example, do not have any income tax liability,
may be worse off financially because they must pay the social security
tax on their earnings and because of expenses connected with working.
If the limit on the span of earnings to which the $1-for-$2 adjustment
applies were raised, people would not be faced with a financial
deterrent to earning somewhat more than $1,700 a year, and there
would be relatively little increase in the cost of the program.
On the other hand, if the limit were extended very far and at the
same time the benefit formula were liberalized and the benefit and
contribution base raised as the Council recommends, people would
be able to earn quite high amounts and still get some benefits.
For example, if the present $1,700 figure were extended as far as
$3,000 (and if the benefit increases recommended by the Council
were adopted) a person getting benefits for himself and his wife
based on average earnings of $6,000 a year would be able to earn
$5,000 and still get some benefits. And such a substantial liberalization
of the test would increase substantially the number of people who
could keep on working at their regular jobs and get benefits.
On balance, while the Council does not recommend any change in the
retirement test, it believes that if nevertheless a change were
to be made it would be best to go a limited way in the direction
of extending the $1-for-$2 band.
Extending the Coverage of the Program
Practically all working people are now covered by social security.
At any given time the employment of nearly 9 out of 10 people in
the paid labor force is covered. Of the employment which is not
covered, about one-half is that of governmental employees--Federal,
State and local--almost all of whom are covered under governmental
staff retirement systems. Almost two-fifths of the employment not
covered is that of people who work irregularly--part-time household
and farm work performed by people (in many cases housewives, school
children, or retired persons) who do not meet the relatively low
earnings tests required for coverage in these employment areas,
or self-employment by people who earn less than $400 in a particular
year. The other major exclusion is self-employment in the practice
of medicine. Approximately 170,000 doctors have their self-employment
earnings in the practice of medicine excluded from coverage. In
addition, a very substantial part of the work income of one group
of covered workers, those who customarily receive tips in the course
of their employment, is not subject to tax nor creditable toward
benefits, and as a consequence, the social security protection of
these workers is inadequate.
The chances in the coverage provisions of the program which the
Council recommends would extend coverage to the self-employment
earnings of physicians, provide social security protection for Federal
employees when they are not eligible for civil service retirement
benefits, facilitate the coverage of additional State and local
government employees, and provide social security credit for tips.
To the extent feasible, everyone who works should be covered by
the social security program. Every occupational group contains substantial
numbers of people who at one time or another will need the protection
of the program and it is impossible to foresee, over the course
of a lifetime, who will and who will not have this need. Moreover,
all Americans have an obligation to participate, since an effective
social security program helps to reduce public assistance costs,
and reduced public assistance costs mean lower general taxes. There
is an element of unfairness in a situation where practically all
contribute to social security while a few profit from the tax savings
but are excused from contributing to the program.
It is essential that the coverage of the program remain on a compulsory
basis. If coverage were voluntary, the program could not effectively
carry out its purpose of providing basic protection for all. The
improvident would not be inclined to elect coverage.
Many workers who have great need for protection and limited opportunity
to acquire it through private means--low-income workers, workers
with large families and workers in poor health--would choose not
to pay social security contributions because of pressing day-to-day
needs. Moreover, permitting individual voluntary coverage would
increase program costs and give those allowed such coverage an unfair
advantage over workers who are covered on a compulsory basis.
Social security was designed to operate under a benefit structure
which would protect all Americans and their families regardless
of the worker's age, the size of his family, or any other factor
which might make the value of the protection high in relation to
the worker's own contributions. Because social security is financed
in part by employer contributions, it can provide in virtually all
cases protection worth more than the employee contributions and
still take care of the higher-cost risks, such as older workers
and workers with large families (where the protection provided may
be much more valuable than the contributions). This type of benefit
structure, which is highly desirable from the standpoint of enabling
the program to accomplish its goals, is practical only under compulsory
coverage. Only through compulsory coverage can there be assurance
that those covered will include not only the high-cost risks but
also the lower-cost risks. And only in a system that provides for
compulsory coverage of employees is it reasonable to require employer
contributions to help finance the benefits. If employees could choose
to be covered or not to be covered by social security, employers
would have good grounds for resisting any requirement that they
pay contributions on the earnings of those employees who elected
not to participate. It would not be practical, on the other hand,
to require an employer to contribute with respect to only those
of his employees who elected coverage. Aside from the constitutional
question of whether a tax can be imposed on one party as a result
of a voluntary choice of another, such a provision would create
an undesirable economic incentive to employ workers who chose not
to be covered.
The only provision now in the program for individual election of
coverage is that applying to ministers, and the general objections
to voluntary coverage have been borne out in the experience with
this provision. Coverage has been elected by a large proportion
of those ministers who are approaching retirement age--ministers
who can confidently expect a large return for their social security
contributions. On the other hand, the proportion of younger ministers
who have elected coverage is not nearly as large. Thus the net effect
on the trust funds is unfavorable in comparison with the cost of
the general compulsory coverage of the program.{36}
The Council strongly recommends against adoption of any changes
that would make social security coverage voluntary for additional
The Council is not recommending any changes in the minimum earnings
required for coverage of work in household and farm employment and
self-employment. There are difficult administrative problems in
such changes and, although in general the results would be desirable,
there are also some drawbacks. A large proportion of the people
who would be brought into coverage by a lowering the minimum earnings
requirements would be short-term or casual workers, such as housewives
and school children working as local seasonal labor in agriculture,
who ordinarily are not in the labor force and are already protected
as dependents of covered workers.
The Council recognizes that as earnings levels rise there is an
automatic increase of the coverage of people engaged in the kinds
of work which are subject to the minimum-earnings requirements,
and considers the additional coverage which will gradually arise
in the future from this process desirable.
11. Doctors of Medicine
Self-employed doctors of medicine should be covered on the same
basis as other self-employed people now covered, and in terns should
be covered on the same basis as other employees working for the
same employer.
Self-employed physicians, numbering about 170,000, are the only
professional group whose self-employment income is not covered under
social security. The Council sees no reason why this discriminatory
treatment should be continued. There are no technical or administrative
barriers to the coverage of doctors. Nor is there any question that
many doctors have a need for coverage as great as that of other
professional self-employed people. A provision for covering self-employed
doctors was approved by the House of Representatives in 1964.
Apparently physicians have been excluded up to now because spokesmen
for the profession have indicated opposition to coverage. The Council
believes that the wishes of a particular group are not a sufficient
basis for the continued exclusion of the group. Social security
is not only a mechanism in which a person participates because of
the benefits he as an individual expects to receive. It is an institution
through which all Americans together promote economic security by
financing, from the contributions of all, a continuing income to
families whose earnings are cut off by the old age, death, or disablement
of the worker. Physicians, like all other Americans, benefit in
general tax savings and in other ways from the prevention of dependency
through social security. Like other Americans, they should share
in its support. In fact, failure to cover the self-employment income
of physicians has the effect that many of them have an unfair advantage
under the program, since it is possible for them to acquire insured
status through working for a time in covered employment, and then,
because those who do so have low average monthly earnings under
the program, they get the advantage of the weighted benefit formula
that is intended for low-income people. Thus many of those who do
qualify get a very large return in relation to the contributions
they pay, in comparison with self-employed people who spend all
of their working lifetimes in covered work.
The present exclusion from social security coverage of interns employed
by hospitals is closely related to the exclusion of self-employed
physicians. The Council believes that when self-employed physicians
are covered, coverage should be extended to interns on the same
basis as that on which coverage is now made available to other employees
of hospitals.
12. Tips
Social security contributions should be paid on tips an employee
receives from a customer of his employer, and tips should be counted
toward benefits.
More than a million employees now covered under the social security
program have an important part of their income from work excluded
from coverage because it is received in the form of tips.{37} The
Social Security Administration has estimated that the amount of
tips received by employees who regularly receive tips is more than
$1 billion a year. Tip income is estimated to represent, on the
average, more than one-third of the work income of regularly tipped
employees; in many cases, of course, tips represent a much larger
part, or even all, of the employee's income. For example, a waiter
in a large city may get only $35 a week in wages and may average
another $55 a week in tips.
Under present law, with only his wages counted toward benefits,
the waiter who gets $35 a week in wages and $55 a week in tips would
receive a monthly retirement benefit, beginning at age 65, of $74.
If his tips were also covered, his benefit amount would be $125.
Because their tips are not counted toward benefits, tipped employees
are not adequately protected under the social security program.
Moreover, since tipped workers pay income tax on earnings they get
in the form of tips, it seems particularly unfair to them that these
earnings are not counted for social security purposes. This situation
should be corrected.
Since tips received by an employee from a customer of his employer
are given for services performed in an employment relationship,
they should, to the extent possible, be credited to the employee's
social security account in the same way that his wages are credited.
This would mean that both the employee and the employer would pay
their share of the social security taxes on tips, and the employer
would report the tips along with the wages he pays the employee.
Tips an employee receives directly from someone other than his
employer are covered for social security purposes only if the employer
requires an accounting of the tips. Very few tips are covered on
this basis. Tips received by self-employed persons are covered in
the same way as other types of self-employment income.
The Council recognizes that there are difficulties in requiring
the employer to report and pay taxes on his employees' tips, since
the amount of tips that would have to be reported may not be readily
determinable by the employer. The Council believes, however, that
most of the difficulties for employers can be overcome if they are
not held responsible for reporting and paying taxes on tips that
the employee was required to report but did not. A plan for covering
tips on this basis was approved by the House of Representatives
in 1964.
The Council is aware that some employers have argued that they should
not be required to pay social security taxes on their employees'
tips because they cannot count tips in determining whether they
meet the requirements of minimum wage laws. The Council has been
informed, however, that of the States in which tipping occupations
are covered by operative minimum wage laws, only 14 make no allowance
for tips. It does not seem reasonable to argue that the fact that
tips are not counted toward the minimum wage in 14 States should
preclude Federal action to count tips under the basic social security
system. As a practical matter, Federal legislation requiring employees
to report their tips to their employers' for social security credit
would help to remove a major obstacle to counting tips toward the
minimum wage.
13. Federal Employees
Social security credit should be provided for the Federal employment
of workers whose Federal service was covered under the civil service
retirement system but who are not protected under that system at
the time they retire, become disabled, or die.
Unlike almost all private pension plans and a high proportion of
State and local retirement systems, the Federal civil service retirement
system is not supplementary to the social security program. Thus
when a person leaves Federal employment, his years of previous Federal
service do not count toward social security benefits. Moreover,
protection under the civil service retirement system does not start
until after 5 years of Federal employment. As a result, although
the civil service retirement system provides good protection for
people who stay in Federal employment, Federal workers who leave,
or those who die or become disabled before having worked for the
Government for 5 years, may have inadequate protection or none at
all under either civil service retirement or social security.
A practicable and relatively inexpensive way of filling the most
serious gaps that result from this situation is to provide for social
security credit for the Federal employment of those workers who
are not protected under the civil service system at the time they
retire, become disabled, or die. As part of the financing arrangement,
the civil service retirement system would withhold, from the returns
of contributions that are made from the civil service retirement
system to separating employees, amounts equal to the social security
employee contributions which would have been payable if their Federal
work had been covered under social security. These withholdings
would be transferred to the social security fund and additional
financial adjustments made between the two systems to take account
of the transfers of credit.
The plan includes the following principal elements, all of which
the Council considers essential to its effective operation:
1. Credit would be transferred to social security for the Federal
service of individuals who die, become disabled, or separate from
work covered under the civil service retirement system after less
than 5 years of Federal service. (At present, the only provision
made where a person with less than 5 years of service dies or terminates
his employment is for a refund of employee contributions.)
2. Credit would be transferred to social security for the Federal
service of people who separate after 5 or more years of Federal
work and obtain refunds of their contributions to the civil service
retirement system. (The civil service retirement system does not
provide any protection for people who separate from the civil service
and take refunds.)
3. Former civil service employees who have not taken refunds of
their civil service contributions and who die or who become disabled
before age 62 could have credit for their Federal service transferred
to social security. (Former employees do not have disability or
survivorship protection under the civil service retirement system
after separation.)
This transfer-of-credit approach would forego certain advantages
which would be achieved by a straight extension of social security
coverage. For example, an extension of social security coverage
would provide superior protection for workers who become disabled
or die relatively early in their careers. However, the transfer-of-credit
approach the Council is suggesting would be considerably less costly
for the Federal Government than a straight extension of social security
coverage. Equally important, whereas an extension of social security
coverage would require substantial modification of the civil service
retirement system to take account of social security benefits and
contributions, no modifications would be required to carry out the
Council's recommendation except for the financing of the transfer
of credits.
14. State and Local Government Employees
The coverage of additional State and local government employees
should be facilitated by making available to all States the option
of covering only those present members of State and local government
retirement system groups who wish to be covered, with coverage of
all new members of the group being compulsory. Also, policemen and
firemen in all States should be provided the same opportunity for
coverage as other State and local government employees.
The provisions of present law which make social security coverage
available to employees of States and their political subdivisions
under voluntary agreements between the States and the Federal Government
have proved generally effective in an area of employment where,
by reason of constitutional barriers against Federal taxation of
the States, compulsory coverage has not seemed feasible. About 7
out of 10 full-time State and local government employees are now
covered under social security, and about three-fourths of those
covered have supplemental protection under a staff retirement system.
Although the present approach to coverage of State and local government
employment has been effective, the Council believes that improvements
can and should be made within the existing framework. Over the years
a number of special provisions, each applying only to a State or
States named specifically in the law, have been enacted. Special
provisions not only complicate administration but result in inequalities
of treatment as between different groups in similar employment situations--inequalities
which are inappropriate in a national social insurance system. In
the main, these inequalities arise under provisions which permit
a number of States named in the Federal law much greater latitude
in bringing retirement-system members under social security than
is permitted other States.
In all but 18 States, which are named in the law, coverage is available
only by means of a referendum among members of any retirement-system
group for which social security coverage is contemplated; if a majority
of the members vote for social security coverage, all members of
the group are covered. The 18 States named in the law are permitted
to use either the referendum procedure or an alternative known as
the "divided-retirement-system" provision. Under this
alternative, the 18 States may extend social security coverage to
only those current members of a retirement. system group who desire
such coverage, with coverage being required for all employees who
later become members of the retirement-system group. The requirement
that all future members of the group must be covered under social
security protects the social security trust funds against continuing
adverse selection.
Making the divided-retirement-system procedure generally available
would make it possible for a State to provide in an orderly way
for the protection of future members of retirement-system groups
on a coordinated basis.
Under another provision all but 19 States (named in the law) are
prohibited from providing social security coverage for retirement-system
groups made up of policemen and firemen. The Council sees little
justification for the prohibition. There are strong reasons why
policemen and firemen should be covered under staff retirement systems
in addition to social security because the benefits of staff retirement
systems can be tailored to meet their special needs. However, their
arduous and dangerous duties make the survivor and disability protection
of social security particularly valuable to policemen and firemen.
Their own systems are often seriously deficient in providing survivor
protection, and their over-all disability and retirement protection,
like that of other State and local government employees, could be
improved considerably if they were covered under both the basic
social security program and a supplementary staff-retirement system.
Some organizations of policemen and firemen that have opposed social
security coverage for their members have expressed fear that their
State or local government systems would be curtailed, or perhaps
abandoned, if social security coverage were obtained. The Council
is impressed, though, by the fact that the extension of social security
protection to millions of State and local government workers who
are under staff-retirement plans has given rise to no instances,
to the knowledge of the Council, where there has been a reduction
in over-all protection.
The Council supports the policy declaration of the Congress contained
in the present social security law, which states that there should
be no impairment of the protection of members of a State or local
government retirement system by reason of the extension of social
security coverage to employment covered by the system.
Meeting the Cost of the Changes Recommended
The increase in the contribution and benefit base and the extensions
of coverage recommended by the Council will decrease the cost of
the program relative to taxable payroll. On the other hand, the
benefit liberalizations recommended by the Council will increase
the cost of the program relative to taxable payroll.{38} On balance,
the changes recommended by the Council would require a somewhat
higher ultimate contribution rate than does present law. The following
table summarizes the cost effects of the Council's recommendations
and the actuarial status of the program under those changes, exclusive
of hospital insurance. These matters are discussed in detail in
Appendix B, "Actuarial Cost Estimates for the Council's Recommendations."
(View image of Table 4)
The recommended schedule outlined below would finance the Council's
recommendations discussed in Part III and would carry out the financing
principles discussed in Part I. Under the proposed schedule, the
rates, beginning in 1966, would increase at 5-year intervals until
the full rates scheduled are reached in 1976. The 1971 rate of 4.7
percent would be about sufficient under the low- cost estimates
to cover the cost of the improved cash-benefit program for the next
75 years. Whether the final scheduled rate of 5.3 percent should
actually be put into effect in 1976 as scheduled should depend on
conditions existing at that time and on expected conditions over
the ensuing 15 to 20 years. Contribution rates for hospital insurance
are discussed separately, in Part II.
(View image of Table 5)


text:
Even though he's appearing in this weekend's political potboiler "Ides of March," don't ask Ryan Gosling to comment on American politics. He's Canadian, after all.
"I was not as informed as I would liked to have been," Gosling tells PopcornBiz of his decision to take the lead role under director George Clooney, playing a savvy campaign mastermind whose idealistic views are tested when he's caught up in a behind-the-scenes scandal. "Part of the reason for doing the film is that it would force me to do the research and become informed. I'm Canadian and so American politics aren't really in my wheelhouse. It was just an opportunity for me to become more informed, but at the end of the day it's not really a political film and it doesn't have any kind of message. It's just meant to be a good time at the movies. It happens to be set in a political forum, but I guess it could be set on Wall Street or in Hollywood."
Does that mean Gosling noticed a similarity between his own world and the White House? "I do think that there's a similarity in at least my character's job and my own in that it's very difficult to be honest," he says. "You'd like to be, but it's very hard to tell the truth because everything you say gets taken out of context and chopped up for news in parts. So you have to be very careful."
U.S. & World
He admires Clooney's choice to cast himself in the film as a presidential candidate, especially when the actor-co-writer-director also takes a very hands-on approach to real-life politics. "There's not really anyone like George. In some ways he seems like America's dream for president, in some way: a dreamboat president," chuckles Gosling. "I thought that was a pretty interesting choice for him to take, considering that he's so involved in the political world. People often confuse you for your characters and so there could've been some risk involved there, but he took it."
Clooney's passion to bring the "Ides" story to life inspired Gosling to start shepherding his own projects to the big screen. "Part of the reason that I wanted to work with him was just to see exactly how that works up close," admits Gosling, though he's not sure he's any more enlightened now. "He's a mystery to me. He's so busy all the time. He's doing so much that it's hard to understand how he's doing it, but he's doing it pretty effortlessly. He's directing, producing, writing, starring in. He's got the satellites of Darfur project. He's got all these practical jokes. I don't know how he does it. I have no idea."
As for the practical jokes, it turns out that on "Ides," Gosling was Clooney's preferred victim on set, routinely receiving squirt gun blasts to the crotch of his pants after concluding a difficult scene – and now the joker has the temerity to ask not to have his tricks revealed. "He said, 'Could you cut it out with telling my practical jokes,'" reveals Gosling, "because he thinks that people are going to be looking for them now and he won't be able to use them and they're his favorites. It's like what they are specifically, like the water in the crotch. Now people are going to be watching for water in the crotch, so he can't do it."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
So, DfID paid London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) more than $1 million to answer a pretty important question: Whether or not Fairtrade certification improves growers' lives. As has shown up in the media (see here and here)
and around the development blogosphere (here), the headline finding of the report was unexpected: wage workers on Fairtrade-certified sites made less than those working on regular farms. Admittedly, this is a pretty shocking finding, as it undermines the basic premise of Fairtrade.
Edit 12 June: As Matt Collin notes in a comment below, this reading of the study is flawed, as it was not set up to capture the wage effects of Fairtrade. There were no baselines, and without baselines it is impossible to tell if there were improvements in Fairtrade sites – in short, the differences seen in the report could just be pre-existing differences, not a failure of Fairtrade. See the CGDev blog post on this here. So the press' reading of this report is pretty problematic.
At the same time, this whole discussion completely misses the point. Fairtrade doesn't work as a development tool because, in the end, Fairtrade does absolutely nothing to address the structural inequalities faced by those in the primary sector of the global economy relative to basically everyone else. Paying an African farmer a higher wage/better price means they are now a slightly wealthier farmer. They are still exposed to environmental shocks like drought and flooding, still tied to shocks and trends in global commodities markets over which they have almost no leverage at all, often still producing commodities (like coffee and cocoa) for which demand is very, very elastic, and in the end still living in states without safety nets to help them weather these economic and environmental shocks. Yes, I think African farmers are stunningly resilient, intelligent people (I write about this a lot). But the convergence of the challenges I just listed means that most farmers in the Global South are addressing one or more of them almost all the time, and the cost of managing these challenges is high (both in terms of hedging and coping). Incremental changes in agricultural incomes will be absorbed, by and large, by these costs – this is not a transformative development pathway.
So why is everyone freaking out at the $1 million dollar finding – even if that finding misrepresents the actual findings of the report? Because it brutally rips the Fairtrade band-aid off the global economy, and strips away any feeling of "doing our part" from those who purchase Fairtrade products. But of course, those of us who purchase Fairtrade products were never doing our part. If anything, we were allowing the shiny idea of better incomes and prices to obscure the structural problems that would always limit the impact of Fairtrade in the lives of the poor.


text:
|Auto Order
Cats are the very definition of finicky eaters. They don't just want food. They want romance. They want interest. They want exciting. Our cat treats are specifically designed to spice up your cat's culinary life. Your cats will lap up our gourmet cat treats and cat food enhancers like, well...like catnip.


text:
[[tags: manual]]
== Deviations from the standard
Identifiers are by default case-sensitive (see
[[http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8080/Using%20the%20compiler#Compiler%20command%20line%20format|Compiler command line format]]).
[4.1.3] The maximal number of arguments that may be passed to a
compiled procedure or macro is 120. A macro-definition that has a
single rest-parameter can have any number of arguments.
[4.2.2] {{letrec}} does evaluate the initial values for the bound
variables sequentially and not in parallel, that is:
(letrec ((x 1) (y 2)) (cons x y))
is equivalent to
(let ((x (void)) (y (void)))
(set! x 1)
(set! y 2)
(cons x y) )
where R5RS requires
(let ((x (void)) (y (void)))
(let ((tmp1 1) (tmp2 2))
(set! x tmp1)
(set! y tmp2)
(cons x y) ) )
[6.1] {{equal?}} compares all structured data recursively, while R5RS
specifies that {{eqv?}} is used for data other than pairs, strings and
[6.2.4] The runtime system uses the numerical string-conversion
routines of the underlying C library and so does only understand
standard (C-library) syntax for floating-point constants.
[6.2.5] There is no built-in support for rationals, complex numbers or
extended-precision integers (bignums). The routines {{complex?}},
{{real?}} and {{rational?}} are identical to the standard procedure
{{number?}}. The procedures {{rationalize}}, {{make-rectangular}} and
{{make-polar}} are not implemented. Fixnums are limited to
±230 (or ±262
on 64-bit hardware). Support for extended numbers is available as a
separate package, provided the GNU multiprecision library is
[6.2.6] The procedure {{string->number}} does not obey read/write
invariance on inexact numbers.
[6.4] The maximum number of values that can be passed to continuations
captured using {{call-with-current-continuation}} is 120.
[6.5] Code evaluated in {{scheme-report-environment}} or
{{null-environment}} still sees non-standard syntax.
[6.6.2] The procedure {{char-ready?}} always returns {{#t}} for
terminal ports. The procedure {{read}} does not obey read/write
invariance on inexact numbers.
[6.6.3] The procedures {{write}} and {{display}} do not obey
read/write invariance to inexact numbers.
[6.6.4] The {{transcript-on}} and {{transcript-off}} procedures are
not implemented.
Previous: [[Supported language]]
Next: [[Extensions to the standard]]


text:
We use cookies to improve your experience and enable certain functionality. You may delete or block cookies from this site, but parts may not work. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for cookies to be placed on your device.
Read more
Not registered? Register here.
Forgotten password? Password recovery.
Property type
See advanced options
The £145 million Rowner Renewal Project at Alver Village is replacing substandard housing and a run down shopping parade with new homes and a new neighbourhood centre and supermarket. The development was awarded 'Highly Commended' by the LABC Awards for Excellence in 2011 ('sites over 51 units' category) and in 2012 was short-listed for the Premier Guarantee Build Quality Awards and Housebuilder of the Year Awards ('best regeneration' category).
The Rowner Renewal Partnership consists of Taylor Wimpey, Hampshire County Council, Gosport Borough Council, the Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) and First Wessex Housing Association. We all work closely together and hold regular meetings to co-ordinate our complementary roles. First Wessex and Gosport BC are the landowners and have completed the compulsory purchase of all 507 old houses. Funding is being provided by the HCA (£7.5 million) and Hampshire CC (£1.5 million). We are investing over £16 million, managing the planning process, demolition and build programmes, infrastructure delivery, and the sale of new private homes.
The development is being built in four phases. The first new homes were built in 2011 and phase 1 was finished in February 2013. Together the members of the consortium are making sure that those residents who want to stay on the estate can do so, whilst those that do not will be re-housed elsewhere locally. About half of the 125 affordable homes built on phase 1 have been occupied by existing Rowner residents.
We have committed to providing a minimum of five construction apprenticeships on site for local residents and by the middle of 2012 three local apprentices were in place. We also aim to provide construction jobs for local people through our subcontractors and give local businesses the opportunity to tender for material supply and works contracts on site. We regularly monitor where site workers commute from and, depending on the level and type of activities on site, Gosport residents can make up as much as 35-40% of the workforce.
Phase 2, which includes retail units and a supermarket, has also been completed. We secured Tesco as the anchor retail tenant. Tesco's presence has greatly improved the social and economic sustainability of the Rowner Renewal Project, by creating the potential for approximately 150 local jobs and helping to make Rowner a destination for residents of Gosport and the surrounding area.
Phase 3 has been completed with the exception of one apartment block, while construction on Phase 4 is under way. All shops and retail units have been completed and have begun trading.
While developing a masterplan we carried out community engagement over a period of 18 months. We engaged with local residents and a number of stakeholder groups, such as shop and business owners, schools and the police. At meetings, workshops, exhibitions and a design weekend we listened carefully and responded to residents' feedback and concerns. Our proposals gained overall support during the early consultation stages, with some residents eager to reserve specific properties in phase 1.
We have constructed the first block of apartments in the UK that complies with the Zero Carbon Hub's Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES). It is being tested against a second mirror image block built to the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. Remote monitoring equipment in each apartment automatically collects and transmits data to the Zero Carbon Hub. This allows them to analyse the performance of the homes while they are occupied. The study to compare the effectiveness of the different standards is mid way through its two year programme.
On an official visit to Rowner in June 2012, MP Andrew Stunell OBE, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government, said, "I am very pleased to see the practical, detailed monitoring being undertaken at Rowner, and look forward to hearing the results – whether good news or bad. Getting a clearer understanding of building performance is fundamental to the aim we all share, of building better and more energy efficient homes."
Site safety talks have been given to local schools. At one school we assisted with a time capsule project and at a local youth club we held a photography competition. We also produce regular newsletters to keep the local community up to date and a dedicated Rowner Renewal website holds a wealth of information on the Project.
In May 2012, in conjunction with First Wessex, we held a community engagement event to present our proposals for 175 new homes on phase 3 and gain feedback (the plans could also be viewed on the website). A full planning application was submitted in August 2012 and it was approved by Gosport Borough Council's planning committee in December 2012. All existing properties within the phase 3 area have been vacated and we started building the new homes in March 2013. Within phase 3 two pocket parks, providing outdoor recreational space for residents, will be delivered alongside the central avenue.
High quality public open space and a Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) will be provided along The Avenue, the main road through the development. Other smaller children's play areas will be distributed throughout the development to make sure that a playground is only a short walk away from every home.
We are building all new homes to Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. By including features that increase insulation and reduce water and electricity consumption we are making the homes more environmentally friendly to run while also reducing bills for homeowners.
LABC Award victory
In November 2016 Alver Village was named 'Best Development of the Year (51+ units)' at the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) Regional Building Excellence Awards. The awards recognise achievements in the construction industry - rewarding excellent buildings, outstanding companies, and partnerships and individuals that go that extra mile. As a regional winner, Alver Village was shortlisted for the LABC Grand Finals.
Roz Wells, Associate Sales and Marketing Director for Taylor Wimpey Southern Counties, said: "It is a fantastic achievement and a real testament to everyone involved in the site. Alver Village has revitalised what was an unloved part of Gosport into a thriving new community with a fabulous selection of high-quality homes and first-rate facilities on offer. I'd like to take this opportunity to say a massive well done to our team for all of their hard work!"
If you would like to find out about the homes that are currently for sale at Rowner Renewal Project, please click here


text:
For 40 years, the world's financial professionals have relied on FactSet, across teams, across asset classes, and at every stage of the investment process. Our goal is to provide a seamless user experience spanning idea generation, research, portfolio construction, trade execution, performance measurement, risk management, reporting, and portfolio analysis across the front, middle, and back office to drive productivity and performance. FactSet's flexible, open data and software solutions can be implemented across the portfolio lifecycle or as standalone components serving different workflows in the organization.
Develop innovative strategies without the burden of data maintenance.
Find new opportunities, model valuations, create pitchbooks, and close more deals.
Be confident in the results you deliver with integrated multi-asset class analytics.
Execute at machine speed with the leading OEMS, unique data, and artificial intelligence.
Company Research
Go beyond finding hidden signals to connecting core and alternative company and market data into real, actionable information. It takes FactSet's decades of integration experience to fully connect financial data across listings, securities, entities, people, and funds so you can generate winning investment ideas, monitor the global markets, research public and private companies, and gain industry-level insight.
Portfolio Analytics
Measure and share portfolio analytics across the front and middle office. Our integrated analytics platform embraces all steps in the lifecycle of the portfolio consistently across asset classes, giving you best-in-class performance and risk analytics, robust reporting, and seamless delivery of these analytics both inside and outside the firm.
Rely on a leader in data integration. With more than three million client portfolios, two dozen of our own unique content sets, and 850 datasets from other leading providers, FactSet is unparalleled in acquiring, integrating, and managing content. More than half of our global organization is dedicated to data integrity and concordance.
Leverage an intelligent, predictive system that can take you from decision to trade first. FactSet's portfolio management and trading solutions, powered by Portware, combine the best in order and execution management with the unique company and portfolio insight only FactSet can provide to transform the way investment firms discover, decide, and execute.
Our clients see us as part of their team because we see our clients' success as our success. Our dedicated teams are ready to assist from your initial FactSet implementation to managing enterprise-wide data to building original custom indexes. At any time, our global support team is on-call to help you find answers, learning your processes and designing solutions that make you more efficient.
The best way to understand what makes FactSet different is to see it for yourself. We've worked with investment professionals for 40 years, so we understand your workflow and know precisely how to help. Talk to us about your challenges, and we'll help you design the most effective solutions for your firm with everything you need — and not what you don't.


text: Back to search results Operations Assembly Worker Location Zeeland, Michigan Job type Contract/Temporary Salary $ 12.25 - $ 13 / Hour Category Industrial & Manufacturing - Assembly / Production Partnerships between Adecco and a local client always give great benefits! While working as an Operations Assembly Worker for Adecco with a local client, you will earn $12.25-13.00/hr and receive a weekly paycheck. These are temp to hire opportunities that will allow you to enhance your career while gaining valuable warehouse experience. As an Operations Assembly Worker with a local client you will operate production machines ensuring that manufacturing lines have enough product to continue running, complete job quality and production reporting, and ensuring that all quality guidelines are met. You will be responsible for other production duties as assigned by your production supervisor. Primary Responsibilities Include: Selecting or modifying components according to measurements and specifications Aligning material and putting together parts to build more complex units Checking output to ensure the highest quality Maintaining equipment in good condition Keeping records of production quantities and time Reporting on issues, malfunction or defective parts These Operations Assembly Worker jobs are entry level positions. Training is provided and no previous experience is necessary. This is an excellent opportunity to earn $12.25-13.00/hr while gaining valuable experience that you can add to your resume. Requirements for Operations Assembly Worker jobs include: Ability in using tools (e.g. clamps) and machines (e.g. presses) Good understanding of quality control principles Good communication skills (verbal and written) Excellent hand-eye coordination and physical condition We have multiple Shifts available and can help you choose the best shift to fit your schedule! Adecco provides one of the most comprehensive benefits packages in the industry to contract workers. Benefits include: Medical, dental, and vision plans Paid Holidays 401(k) Plan Skills Training Referral Bonuses Weekly We have openings on all shifts. For instant consideration for this Operations Assembly Worker job with a local client in Holland and Zeeland, Michigan, click on Apply Now! Adecco is committed to the health and safety of our applicants and employees. We are offering virtual interviews as needed and when possible. And we're partnering closely with our clients to ensure safety protocols are in place. We are dedicated to addressing any concerns brought to our attention. We look forward to partnering with you on your job search! Equal Opportunity Employer/Veterans/DisabledTo read our Candidate Privacy Information Statement, which explains how we will use your information, please The Company will consider qualified applicants with arrest and conviction records More Information Share


text:
Lenticular Sunrise ~ Chouteau Mt.
Projection: Cylindrical (1)
FOV: 125 x 79
Ev: 6.88
Helicopter Sunrise
Best show in Vegas.
Leavitt Creek Sunset.
Leavitt Peak.
Fall Colors at Twin Lakes California
Twin Lakes Sunset.
Holloway Fire ~ Nevada/Oregon border.
Sikorsky S-61 undergoing maintenance while the Holloway Fire burns in the background.
Super-Moonbow ~ May 5 2012 "Supermoon" Full moon rainbow in Yosemite Falls. Shot from the Chapel.
Last rays on Mt. Florence, Yosemite National Park. Shot from Glacier Point.
Mt. Clark, Yosemite National Park as seen from Glacier Point.
Gray Peak, Yosemite.
Sunset on Mt. Florence ~ Yosemite National Park. Shot @ 400mm from Glacier Point.
Supermoon over Mt. Starr King, Yosemite.
Supermoonrise from Glacier Point Yosemite.
Sunset Gradient on Mt. Diablo ~ From 70 miles east and very slightly south of "the baseline".


text:
Server maintenance Dec 28th
Blackboard may be the last thing that you are thinking of in the early morning between semesters, but just in case here is the full text from Blackboard:
"Subject: Upcoming System Maintenance (Service Impacting)
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Time: 12:00 AM to 08:30 AM US Eastern Time
Services: Clients hosted at Northern Virginia Data Center 2
As part of the Managed Hosting team's initiative to improve our environment and take advantage of new technologies, we will be undergoing a project to swap out our existing core switches in both the VA2 and VA3 datacenters. This swap will enable us to upgrade to our vendor's latest technology switches while expanding our capacity so that we can better support your growth.
The maintenance work is scheduled to happen on Tuesday December 28th from 12:00 – 8:30 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST).
Why is the maintenance window 8½ hours instead of the usual 4 hours?
This project is larger in scale than most of the maintenance work we do during our regular windows. Our standard maintenance generally requires adding or replacing a card or upgrading code whereas this maintenance requires the replacement of both the A & B side switches. While the work itself should not take the full 8½ hours, we have built a buffer into the window to resolve any problems that might arise and/or enact a rollback plan if needed.
Why is the work being done on a Tuesday and not during the Friday morning window?
Based on our maintenance policy, any scheduled non-emergency maintenance that requires more than the four hours allotted during a regular Friday window will be performed during a more appropriate window.
Will my site be offline the entire window?
The Managed Hosting Engineering Teams will take all necessary steps to minimize the impact to clients. However, because the maintenance requires redirecting traffic in addition to physically removing equipment, clients may experience extended periods of latency and/or packet loss at anytime during the entire window. Our recommendation is to notify your end users to prepare for the site to be offline for the full eight and a half hours. They may find the site available sporadically but users should not plan to do any work as it may not be saved if the site becomes unreachable.
Does my institution have to be included in this maintenance?
Yes. As the maintenance is datacenter wide, it will include all clients hosted within the facility.
Will I need to make any changes on my network?
No, there is nothing that needs to be done by your institution and no changes need to be made to your network. There will be no modifications to our current configurations or IP schema during this change.
Blackboard MH Change Management"
Tags: Blackboard, maintenance, server


text:
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Chocolate Cat Caper by JoAnna Carl
I'm not a chocoholic, so the chocolate tidbits were wasted on me, however, I did enjoy the story so it's a series that I might continue later, though I must admit, the romance part between Lee and Joe did draw me in a little. I have a few nits with the story (the mystery proved a trifle confusing) and, once again, the paramedics are playing detective. I think I should write a list of places not to get sick in, so sick that EMS might be called out, because some of them seem to take their time and start making judgment calls whether or not the police should be invited to the party. In real life, I've never known paramedics to stand back and say, "Something's fishy, so we shouldn't try to save this person, but call the police instead and report our suspicions." So far, this only seems to happen in fictional cities, so my list should be small and the places unreachable nor do I travel -- at all. Still, I'll have the list at the ready and if I see any of those names I'll politely tell the travel person, "Thanks, but no thanks." My last nit: What happened to Champion Yonkers? The last the reader sees of Champion Yonkers, he's supposed to be staying with a pet sitter until Joe can find out what to do with him, but nothing more is said about what happens to him and the cat was vital to the story. If you like mystery and murder and chocolate, this is the story for you.
8 comments:
- Amanda said...
PS - I love that you used "chocolate" as a tag.
- August 1, 2009 at 10:30 PM
- Christina said...
I had to put "chocolate" in the tags, there was so much chocolate information (several pages separate from the story) in the book it deserved its special note of honor. Chocoholics will definitely eat this one alive. And I read this book strictly for the mystery. I'm sure some will say I need reevaluation.
- August 1, 2009 at 11:08 PM
- hamilcar barca said...
just how does one become a former Texas trophy wife? eat too much clocolate and get traded in? shoot the chauvinist so-and-so? smarten up and take him for half his wealth?
- August 2, 2009 at 6:37 PM
- Unknown said...
Mr. Barca -
Perhaps you could move to Arkansas. Or get a sex change.
- August 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM
- Amanda said...
Okay, I read Jason's comment and had completely forgotten your question, Terry, and I was wondering why in the world Jason would tell you that...
- August 2, 2009 at 9:41 PM
- hamilcar barca said...
ah, Arkansas! where the men are men, and the sheep are scared.
- August 2, 2009 at 9:52 PM
- Christina said...
Lee divorced her husband (though she didn't take him for any of his money), though the options y'all provided are something to consider, kind of extreme, but options nonetheless.
- August 2, 2009 at 10:05 PM
- hamilcar barca said...
well, my third guess was close. that's an unusual background to use for the main character of the book. fiction seldom holds trophy wives in high regard. that's a nice change of pace.
- August 3, 2009 at 9:24 AM


text:
The Excelsior Group, Inc.
71 South Central Ave.
Valley Stream, NY 11580
Ph: 516-568-0800
Toll Free: 800-566-0801
Fax: 516-568-0809
Spiro Risk Management
Lane S. Rubin
Marc Spiro & Company
Branch Insurance Agency
Robert Lyman Co. Inc.
American Mortgage
Coverage Corp.
The origin of our company dates back over 50 years. Since that time we have grown to a full service Insurance and Life, Health, and Benefits Planning organization doing business nation-wide. We offer all types of insurance coverage including personal, commercial and life and health products. Our associates are able to provide clients with the most comprehensive and individualized service available at the most competitive prices.
Phone: (516) 568-0800
The Excelsior Group Provides Auto Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Business Insurance, Life/Health Insurance, and Employee Benefits to All of New York, Including Valley Stream, and New York City.
The coverage summaries contained on this site are intended for general information purposes only. In the event of a loss, all terms, conditions, exclusions, and other provisions of the actual policy will apply. For specific information, please refer to your policies.


text:
9/11 editorial a disservice
I can't even begin to explain my disappointment in your 9/11 cover story. [September 8: "9/11 reflections: 3,000 dead and freedom too"]
Why would you allow an editorial to be your cover story for such an important event? At a time when we all should be coming together to remember lives that were lost and celebrating the heroes that gave their lives for others, Adam Rhea trivialized and denounced all actions that had been taken since that time. I guess he thinks he could have done a better job than the people who had to make those tough decisions. I don't necessarily agree with all those decisions either, but I do believe that those decisions were made with the best interest of America in mind.
I am sorry that Mr. Rhea has not seen "the mercy, charity, and love" that I have seen since that day. I lived in New York at the time of this tragedy and saw so many people came together to help one another, and to mourn the innocents and the heroes that lost their lives. Many continue to do so to this day. Maybe that should have been the focus of your cover story.
Debbie Gannon


text:
It's on the set of their new movie, so don't get too excited. But still. She looks great. HE looks great. Like, when's the last time we talked about Jason Segel's jawline, right? If this is one of the side benefits of him not drinking anymore, I say that's good motivation too.
But Cam apparently was out with Benicio Del Toro the other night and people were trying to make something of it. Thing is, they've known each other a long time. They share a manager. And it was a party; Leonardo DiCaprio was there too. Not that it's not possible, no. It wouldn't be the first time she has something in common with Scarlett Johansson, even though it's not in an elevator, but if their presence together at a dinner and a party is all we're going on, I feel like we might need more.
In other Cam news -- she might be the truer test of the power, or lack, of Gwyneth Paltrow's crusade against Vanity Fair. If you're Cam, or any of Cam's advisors, do you say No?


text: Come Play on the Social Media Playground by ImagineToys.com on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:32:00 PM Don't Miss A Thing from imagine toys Keep up-to-date on all of the latest and greatest at imagine toys through our social media channels. This entry was posted in We are Imagine Toys, Creative Kids Arts and Crafts, Play with Me - Baby Activities, Let's Play - Kids of All Ages, Toddlers & Preschoolers Playtime, Big Kid Adventures, Cool Science. social mediafacebookgoogle+twitterinstagrampinterestimagination