Agreed about the rate of return. Last time I ran the numbers, I plugged in actual historical Treasury rates, but this time I got lazy. If he pulled 5.6% or more, average for the full period, he could have put in enough (note, future rates matter, too, since he'll be drawing down for years, so it's like having a private retirement account, where it actually matters what you're earning on the fund while retired). It's fair to assume even a safe and tax sheltered investment could have beaten inflation by a point of two average. Beating it by a point wouldn't have hit the mark, while two points would. So, it would be close for our hypothetical Boomer, but the numbers suggest to me he probably would wind up being subsidzed by later workers. Regarding life expectancy, it's possible it's overly optimisitc, but remember total longevity stats are drawn down by infant mortality, etc. A person who has made it to 64 is statistically likely to reach a much greater age than he was likely to reach when he was first born. Certainly we can all agree that the first generation of SS retirees got a ridiculously sweet deal. And it sure looks bad for Gen X and later. So, somewhere in that span between those two groups, the system most likely passed an equilibrium point, where the age cohort's contributions (plus reasonable rate of return) equaled the total benefits for the same age cohort. The only question is where. I'd guess it was sometime late in the Boomer generation. I assume you'd point to the beginning of that generation. Is that right? Of course, nobody will know for sure for a while, since we don't know where SS benefits are going in the immediate future or hat will happen to life expectancies.