This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group
(Alt-Market)—The young do not think about getting old, and this is to the greatest benefit of governments which spend and inflate younger generations out of any future subsidies they might one day come to rely on. For most people in Gen Z, though, there is at least a tacit acknowledgment that they are paying into a system that might not be there for them when they retire. However, their only point of reference is usually the rantings of their socialist college professors or a mob of crazed activists on TikTok.
So, naturally, the only solution they can come up with is MORE power for government, more taxation, more communism and more redistribution of wealth. In other words, give more control and more cash over to the state which already misspent their money.
The idea of pillaging the wealth of others as a shortcut to security for a single generation is not new. This plan is doomed to fail, as it has failed in nearly every socialist system with a population larger than around 10 million people.
Even in “market-capitalist welfare states” that are often cited as “successful” like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the ability to continue retirement funding at a rate which provides a livable wage is only possible if the retiring population is much smaller than the working population.
Across the west at present, the larger Baby Boomer generation is aging completely out of the labor pool and these systems are being depleted rapidly. The demographic squeeze is tightening and in the US, those special Treasury securities are now being redeemed – Social Security is set to decline starting in 2034.
Current SS reserves are at $2.56 trillion. These reserve funds are being depleted every year by a spending deficit. The deficit is not fixed and fluctuates wildly, but the overall trend shows it is clearly growing. In 2025 the shortfall was $160 billion (that’s the amount of extra money the government has to tax or borrow in order to fully cover the costs of Social Security beyond normal revenues). That deficit is projected to rise to $393 billion by 2033.
As these reserves disappear due to deficits, eventually social security payments will be reduced as a consequence.
By the time I am old enough to collect, Social Security payments will be cut by 22% (accounting for steady inflation). By the time Gen Z is old enough to collect, their SS payments will shrink by 35% with inflation included. The fund does not necessarily implode but the benefits will becomes more and more useless over time.
At bottom, the fund will be dead because it will no longer be able to adapt to inflation. Costs will continue to rise and SS will shrink exponentially. Relying on the system for retirement would be impossible. This is also assuming there is not an economic crisis event in the future which completely derails government funding for SS much sooner.
This brings up a lot of questions…
Is Social Security actually a necessary program? In the US there are currently 71 million beneficiaries of SS and out of that group around 14 million depend entirely on SS checks as their only source of income. An even larger portion of the population needs these checks as supplemental income.
In other words, the program could be scrapped, but it would be devastating to a large percentage of the public. I would argue that if the government is going to operate as an economic backstop for any group, then the elderly should be that group. Anyone who has cared for an elderly relative understands that we will all one day hit an age-wall that prevents us from generating incoming on the fly. We’ll either be wealthy and flush with savings and assets, or we will be dependent on the charity of others.
Is Social Security the answer? No, not as it stands now. Many Americans believe that SS is like a savings account where their money is held until they meet the conditions of retirement. This is false. Others might consider it an insurance program, but this is also debatable. Social Security is managed more like a subsidy than a savings account or insurance. The money you paid into the system over your lifetime is long gone.
Public anger is rising among younger generations because they have to pay into subsidies that they have no expectation of benefiting from in the future. Marxist NGOs and activists take advantage of the angst and try to convince people to adopt bigger government and socialist wealth redistribution as the answer to all their problems. This will lead to calamity for the country.
So what is the solution? The vast majority of people would prefer to know that they will be taken care of in their old age. How do we ensure that the elderly are provided for without continually crushing the economy with debt? Let’s go through a list of solutions…
Fundamentally Change The Way We Look At Aging And Family
Before 1935 there was no such thing as Social Security, so how did people aging out of the workforce survive? They largely relied on family to help take care of them. For hundreds of years this was the norm in the western world. At the turn of the century around 70% of elderly people lived with their children or other family members, but this practice declined rapidly from the 1920s onward.
This is why the Social Security program was popularized in the first place; far too many older Americans no longer had a family safety net and so they jumped onboard the SS train in response. This is not to say that kids should be “required” to take care of their parents, but the principle should be encouraged.
And, if you think about it, this might also help to encourage better parenting practices and more respect for the nuclear family. Who would want to be a deadbeat parent when their kids will one day be the people they rely on most in old age? Who would want to abort their children when those children are their future safety net? Who would want to get a divorce and break up their family at the risk of being destitute when they hit their twilight years?
Yes, this sounds rather mercenary, but it’s foolish to discount selfish incentives as a means to keep civilization functioning. Many people don’t need incentives to do the right thing, but many other people DO.
Returning to the old tradition of caring for relatives as a family or tribe would help to prevent mass destitution and suffering of older Americans should Social Security and other programs fail. This doesn’t save SS, but it does make the public less dependent on the program.
At-Home Work For The Elderly
The knee-jerk reaction from many people (especially Baby Boomers) on the idea of delaying retirement is anger and outrage. I agree, to a point. These people worked their whole lives, raised families, struggled through national and global crisis events, and made it through to the other side. At 67 years old, they probably deserve a rest.
That said, life is not necessarily fair and expecting the government to be there for you is not exactly the best plan. In order for a safety net to exist for the most desperate people, those who are cognizant and functional might need to adapt. Also, there are many older Americans who would like to earn an income and keep busy but they have aged out of the normal labor pool.
With more older Americans staying in the workforce longer, Social Security deficits could be balanced and the funds could continue to flow for decades to come. For the first time in human history, senior citizens have access to digital jobs and at-home work. It’s possible for many older people to function in these fields with proper training programs (and maybe tax incentives for companies that hire the elderly).
I would rather have elderly Americans taking on such work and making money at home than corporations importing a bunch of third world migrants through H-1B visa programs.
Investment Of Social Security Into Appreciating Assets (Stocks And Commodities)
This is another idea that creates deep divides among voters, with the primary question being: What happens to Social Security if there’s a market crash and assets plummet in value?
But look at it this way – Over the past decade, if SS savings parked in treasuries were invested in gold and silver instead, the fund would currently have an extra $7 trillion. That would add another 12+ years to the lifespan of those savings. Investment in equities on the Dow Jones would have yielded an extra $8 trillion.
This is only a portion of SS funds and the gains would be undeniable. Is it gambling with the future, and with taxpayer money? Yes, in a way. But risks can be mitigated by diversifying between treasuries and other assets. I would argue that if we don’t take radical measures like this, social security is certain to fail, so what do we have to lose?
End Early Draws On Social Security
This is one of the uglier options available, which is to stop all early drawdowns by people ages 62-66 who take SS. They already get a 30% penalty, and ending early draw would slow the drain of funds for much older people.
Cut Funding For The Top 20% Of Earners
Is this punishing people for being successful? Yes. But denying social security for the top 20% of American earners with extensive savings and assets would save $500 billion per year. This would eliminate the current deficit and any future deficits for many years to come.
If someone can live comfortably without SS after retirement, then maybe they should forgo the monthly checks so that SS can exist for others who are not so well off. Again, this is not fair, and I’m not saying I agree with the measure on principle, but if we’re talking about survival of the program, this is an obvious strategy.
Increase Fertility Rates And Population Growth
Across the board, not just in the west but in the majority of countries around the world, fertility rates are dropping and populations are growing older. Without enough young people filling the workforce the elderly subset will greatly outweigh the available tax base. In other words, too many hands waiting for too little cash.
This incoming crisis has led to some nefarious people justifying some horrific options. For example, multicultural progressives use the fertility decline as an excuse for mass immigration from the third world. Hey, that’s millions of new taxpayers to help support retirement funds, right? Except that these migrants destroy welfare structures and collapse funding even faster.
Other leftist governments (like Canada) are increasingly suggesting government assisted suicide as a way to reduce the elderly population and solve welfare (and healthcare) deficit problems. This is, of course, monstrous and immoral, but fears over debt collapse will lure some people into supporting many otherwise unpalatable evils.
How do we increase population naturally? The only sure way is to increase individual wealth. How do we do that? That’s the question of the ages. Socialism is certainly not the answer – No socialist system has ever actually increased the wealth of the middle class without turning to free market means, and even then they tend to stifle productivity and entrepreneurship. If there’s a cap on success, individual wealth will fail. This is a fact.
Is There A Better Way?
A lot of people are going to question if Social Security is even worth saving. After all, there has to be a better way. I’m not saying it is or is not worth it, that’s a topic for a separate article. The only question here is, CAN Social Security be saved? The answer is yes, given the above measures along with reduced government spending.
The secondary question is – Do we have time? Only if there’s not a debilitating crisis that prevents more conservative action. A new inflationary event or a monetary crash would create much bigger worries than whether or not SS will remain intact for another couple decades.
The best overall option is to not rely on SS in the first place. Investing wisely in ones own future and family while preparing for economic disruptions is the only way to ensure your later years are not an exercise in penny pinching misery.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
