Search

The US Social Security program was created in part as an explicit response to the Great Depression. We evaluate the performance of Social Security as a protective safety net against a rare episode of sudden and significant loss of private wealth such as the Great Depression. We construct a model in which a rare event causes a shock to wealth at an unknown time. How well does Social Security function as a safety net against such risk? The answer depends critically on whether households optimize in the face of this risk. If the household has full information on the distribution of rare event risk and solves a dynamic stochastic problem to hedge this risk, then Social Security is unnecessary along this dimension. Alternatively, if the household does not account for rare event risk in its financial planning, then Social Security can provide very large welfare gains as a safety net. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper quantifies the welfare gains from Social Security when individuals face uninsurable longevity risk. While past researchers have studied this basic question, we do so from a unique perspective. In contrast to traditional macroeconomic models that abstract from specific linkages between parents and children, in our model, children are born to specific parents whose longevity is uncertain. And because parental asset holdings evolve over the life of the parent, children face uninsurable bequest income risk in addition to their own longevity risk. We find that Social Security improves ex ante expected utility by 3.4% of lifetime consumption (for the second generation). Because our baseline analysis assumes full information and optimal hedging of longevity risk, we treat these welfare gains as a conservative estimate, and we show that the gains are significantly larger when individuals fail to hedge their longevity risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edward C. Prescott has argued that mandatory saving is socially desirable because it solves the problem of people intentionally free riding and becoming a welfare burden. Inspired by Prescott's argument, we develop a model in which rational individuals choose between saving and free riding. We find that free riding is a robust outcome for a significant share of the population and that everyone, including the free riders, benefits from the elimination of free riding through mandatory saving. Our results strengthen Prescott's position that free riding is a serious problem and that mandatory saving is socially desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]