![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
The sky has been mostly various blues of late, with interludes of gray, gray-blue, and white clouds floating against the blues.
I got to the gym last night: 15 minutes of cardio, Xpressline (with the added 5 pounds on the overhead press, 12 reps on everything, including that, except the leg extensions), and 15 reps of adjustable row at 100 pounds. One of these months I will remember that even very mild menstrual cramps are a very bad combination with crunches before lying down and trying it. Finished with stretches, of course.
The sky has been mostly various blues of late, with interludes of gray, gray-blue, and white clouds floating against the blues.
I got to the gym last night: 15 minutes of cardio, Xpressline (with the added 5 pounds on the overhead press, 12 reps on everything, including that, except the leg extensions), and 15 reps of adjustable row at 100 pounds. One of these months I will remember that even very mild menstrual cramps are a very bad combination with crunches before lying down and trying it. Finished with stretches, of course.
Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.
They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.
Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.
It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black.
Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.
They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.
Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.
It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black.
Also, apparently we were each conflating events with regard to school, snow, and my being put into a different class: she had walked me to kindergarten in the snow, after letting me go by myself in nice weather because I wanted to, I was reasonably sensible, and there was a crossing guard. And that got thrown in with being put in a different class because of a teachers' strike.
Mom, FYI: you can leave comments here by clicking where it says "Toss me a curve", and read other people's comments where it says "[n] conic sections". (Those are my versions of the LJ-default "Leave a comment | n comments" links.) Edited to add: how odd: it seems to have lost that customization, and be showing the bog-standard versions.
Also, apparently we were each conflating events with regard to school, snow, and my being put into a different class: she had walked me to kindergarten in the snow, after letting me go by myself in nice weather because I wanted to, I was reasonably sensible, and there was a crossing guard. And that got thrown in with being put in a different class because of a teachers' strike.
Mom, FYI: you can leave comments here by clicking where it says "Toss me a curve", and read other people's comments where it says "[n] conic sections". (Those are my versions of the LJ-default "Leave a comment | n comments" links.) Edited to add: how odd: it seems to have lost that customization, and be showing the bog-standard versions.