If Americans like the idea of getting their Social Security payments, then they might want to have more (not less) immigration into the U.S.

Immigration into the United States has been, and will continue to be, a net positive for the solvency of America's Social Security pension payments system.  Keeping incoming immigration numbers level when compared with past numbers is good; more would be better; fewer will be bad; if reduced to none -- disastrous.

If no significant actions -- benefit reductions and/or tax increases -- are taken, Social Security will be able to pay only 77% of promised benefits starting in 2034.  That assumes immigration will remain at about one million annually.

Since Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system and not a savings account -- at any given time, payments to current retirees are supported by the earnings of current workers -- the ratio of workers to retirees is key to making those payments.  The higher the ratio, the better the chances of payments as usual.

Immigrants have a higher birthrate than the native-born, so that the number of workers contributed into the system by a given number of immigrants is higher than it is from the same number of native-born.  That's a plus for the numerator in the ratio.

The native-born are older, and a larger population, so as they age they add to the ratio's denominator in greater numbers.  As a result, the ratio of workers to retirees has been declining.  Without immigration, it would have declined more, and the date of the reduction in benefits would occur even sooner than 2034.

To literally drive this point home (into the home of the American voter, perhaps), The Economist observes

 AS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP attempts to reduce immigration into America, new research suggests how rapidly that strategy is likely to disadvantage many of his most loyal supporters. In 2016, there were more deaths than births among America’s non-Latino white population. The future quality of life of this aging, shrinking population increasingly depends on two factors: sustained high fertility amongst minority groups already in the country—and continued immigration.

 Migrants are a particularly important factor in sustaining the size of America’s workforce: in 2014, 80% of foreign-born inhabitants were aged 18 to 64 compared to 60% of those native born.

The emphasis is mine.

Assuming continued trends in longevity and native-born birthrates, there are only two levers that can be pulled to maintain current benefit payments beyond 2034:  increase the social security tax; increase the workforce.  Or, of course, some combination of the two.

In the early years of the Social Security Administration, each retiree was supported by a dozen or more workers.  Now, the ratio is closer to 3:1 and declining, as illustrated by this graphic from Mercatus Center at George Washington University:

We live longer than we used to, which means that we collect those Social Security retirement payments longer, too.  And that means that we need a continual infusion of new workers to support those payments.

Immigrants add to the annual number of new workers in two ways.  Some are immediate additions; others come later as babies born to immigrant mothers mature into working adults.  During the period 1970 to 2014 births to U.S. born women have declined, while those to resident immigrant women have increased, according to a report by Pew Research.  Total U.S. births increased during that period; the increase was due to births to immigrant mothers.  The trend of decreasing birth rate among U.S.-born women shows no sign of changing.  A decrease in immigration will mean a decrease in the total U.S. birth rate.

Such a decrease would be troubling for the continued solvency of Social Security, as a decrease in the birth rate -- assuming, of course, that the retiree population continues to grow -- would mean fewer workers paying taxes to support the Social Security payments for each of those retirees.  (In the interests of full disclosure:  I expect to be one of "those retirees."  So, yes, I have a vested interest in this.  I'm guessing that you do, too.)

A decrease in annual immigration into the country would make the problem even worse as fewer immigrant workers will arrive to immediately add themselves to the workforce.

The Social Security Administration has prepared an extensive report on the effects to be expected of the future results of current demographic trends.  It includes the assumption that immigration into the Unites States will continue at about 1 million annually.  The report was prepared prior to the start of the Trump presidency.

Most Americans currently support legal immigration at current or greater levels, according to a Pew Research Center report.  My guess is that a wider understanding of the economic benefits of immigration -- such as its positive effects on Social Security solvency, as discussed here -- would result in even more support for these positions.  The findings of the report reveal several indicators of popular support for continued and even greater immigration:

• 45% of Americans correctly say that most immigrants living in the U.S. do so legally; 35% say most immigrants are living illegally.
• Three-quarters of immigrants are, in fact, legal immigrants.
• Most Americans are comfortable with immigrants, even those who are unauthorized:  65% say that unauthorized immigrants are no more likely than U.S. citizens to commit serious crimes; 71% say that such immigrants mostly fill jobs that citizens do not want; 73% of those who come into contact with immigrants who are not fluent in English say that the experience is not troubling enough to be a concern.

Other studies have shown that the presence of immigrants, especially unauthorized immigrants, has the effect of lowering crime rates.

This seems not surprising -- why would a group that does not want to call attention to itself condone criminal behavior, therefore inviting increased scrutiny by law enforcement and adverse publicity in the media?

The Social Security issue discussed here is just one part of the overall national economic impact of immigration.  Broadly speaking, only two factors can contribute to an increase in GDP:  An increase in the number of workers, and an increase in worker productivity.

The demographics of the American population make it clear that an increase in the number of workers will happen only with continued, or even increased, immigration.  (It seems unlikely that a government directive that native-born women should increase their fertility -- should such a thing leap out of the realm of the hypothetical and attempt to land itself in the real world -- would have the desired, or any desirable, effect.)

Notwithstanding majority opinion, significant numbers of Americans are unhappy with, or uncomfortable with, immigration.  If it were up to me, I would want to understand why they feel that way, and address their concerns within the context of how they benefit from immigration.  I'd be willing to bet that some, maybe most, of them would end up deciding that the loss of Social Security benefits would be a greater discomfort.

Social Security benefits have already been decreased by delaying the full benefits age.  Demographic results that are baked in to the population argue for further benefits reductions immediately so as to possibly minimize the 23% reduction in all pension payments that will take place in 2034 without an increase in the Social Security system's funding.  That increase in funding can come only from increased taxation rates, or an unexpected increase in the number of workers, or a combination of the two.

2034 is sixteen years in front of us.  Suddenly, that doesn't seem like a long time.

Proposition 70 -- More California electoral entertainment

Oh, for the good old days of high school civics class, where we learned how democracy is the best form of government.  "Best" because people are entitled to govern themselves through free and fair elections in which decisions are made by a straight-forward majority vote -- one-half of the total vote, plus at least one additional vote, determines the outcome of the election.  The majority rules, not the minority.

Oddly and -- to me, at least -- inexplicably, the majority sometimes lets itself get duped into giving up majority rule in favor of rule by the few.  Proposition 70 on California's June ballot tries to make that happen once again.

If this proposition passes -- ironically, it can be passed with a simple majority vote -- then beginning in 2024 the state's revenue generated by its cap-and-trade program can be spent only with a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature.  Cap-and-trade is California's program for discouraging business and industry from producing the carbon pollution that fouls the environment, damages peoples' health and contributes to global warming.  The program's revenues are to be spent in ways that mitigate the harm caused by this pollution.

Passage of Proposition 70 would amount to institutionalizing minority rule.  That's a recipe for gridlock and opaqueness in governance.  As it creates conditions that can empower and enrich the minority, it never ends well for the majority.

California has tried this type of minority rule before, with consistently poor results.  It used to take a 2/3 vote in the legislature to pass the annual state budget.  Unsurprisingly, the legislature was chronically late in producing a budget.  The passage of Proposition 25 in the 2010 election returned the process to a simple majority vote; since then, the state's budgets have been timely.

Compounding Proposition 70's ethical failure in promoting minority rule, and in the way it hopes that voters' memories are faulty, is the fact that it imposes itself on the state's governance not now, but six years in the future. 

Let's be real about this -- do we know what is going to be happening six years from now so accurately that we can be comfortable that the state's needs can be met in a timely fashion with this kind of legislative restriction?  We are living in a time where planning a lunch meeting for next week can seem like a strategic undertaking, so, no, I am not comfortable with that kind of restriction.

Democracy through simple majority vote instead of minority rule is of great value to me.  (I had good civics teachers in high school.)  Timeliness in the allocation of state government resources to help fix the problems of environmental pollution and global warming caused by carbon release is critical support for creating a healthy living environment in California.

These are the reasons to vote "No" on California's Proposition 70. 

The drawbacks of minority rule are by themselves enough reason to oppose this proposition, or any similar attempt to cripple the democratic process, whether it happens in California or somewhere else.

If you live in another state, or another country, and you see something like this happening in your election, then take heed of my advice:  Go ahead and be entertained by California's electoral shenanigans, but when it comes time to vote please remember my state's sorry experience with minority rule, and how that type of rule corrupts the fundamentals of democracy by minimizing the will of the majority.