Social security reform is on the horizon. It might not happen as Bush would like, with personal savings accounts, but reform is coming just the same.

What does it mean to me? The best thing I’m reading right now is a break down by Mothers and More of the impact on social security on mothers and family structure.

Some highlights:

By tying benefit levels to paid work, in effect Social Security jeopardizes women’s personal autonomy and penalizes anyone who sacrifices earnings in order to care for others. Mothers have less in private retirement savings and get lower Social Security retirement benefits because they forgo earnings in order to have time to care for others. Even when mothers work full time, the wage gap between mothers and everyone else has widened. They are less likely to take jobs which require substantial overtime and more likely to take lower paying jobs with regular hours and flexibility. The majority of part-time workers are women, and part-time workers earn 40% less per hour for doing the same work as full-timers. Of married women with children under 6, only about 35% worked full time, full-year in 1998. Women and mothers also take more time out of the workforce. Of workers retiring in 1998, women worked a median 29 years while men worked 38. Since Social Security benefits are calculated using the 35 highest earning years, mothers who work the median 29 years will have 6 zero years averaged into the calculation of benefits.

My initial belief about social security is that it should be means tested and those who qualify should be given a flat amount regardless of their lifetime earnings.

With all my time in graduate school and at home with the kids, I fully expect a cat food diet in my golden years.