Alicia H. Munnell, senior advisor at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, argues that Social Security benefits are far from the runaway entitlement that many fiscal hawks describe.
Munnell, who also writes a column for MarketWatch, set out to assess whether current Social Security benefits are reasonable, concluding that a reality check supports rather than undermines the program’s current structure.
Her analysis focuses on benefits scheduled under current law and does not address the projected benefit cut expected once trust funds are exhausted in the early 2030s.
The most fundamental measure of benefit adequacy is the replacement rate, which shows how much of a worker’s preretirement income is covered by Social Security payments after claiming at age 65.
Using data from “Pensions at a Glance,” published by the OECD, Munnell compared U.S. replacement rates for workers at average wages, half the average wage, and twice the average wage.
Across all three income levels, U.S. replacement rates came in somewhat below the OECD average, directly contradicting the narrative of an excessively generous American retirement system.
The United States also spends slightly less than the OECD average on public retirement programs when measured as a share of overall government expenditure.
In 2024, the average OECD normal retirement age stood at 64.7 for men and 63.9 for women, with the U.S. sitting at 66.7 before joining the age-67 group in 2025.
Munnell concluded that looking at benefit levels and replacement rates across OECD countries “provides no evidence for a ‘runaway’ retirement system” in the United States.
Still, she acknowledged that the data showing restrained benefits does not mean Social Security is perfectly designed or that reform is off the table entirely.
A significant concern involves the distribution of benefits across income groups, as life expectancy in the United States is strongly tied to earnings levels.
High earners tend to claim large benefits without early-retirement penalties and live considerably longer, meaning a disproportionate share of total program spending flows to wealthier recipients.
Munnell argues that achieving a better distribution of benefits should be central to any legislative package aimed at addressing Social Security’s long-term financial shortfall.
The broader fiscal conversation in Washington has frequently lumped Social Security together with healthcare costs and rising debt interest payments as evidence of out-of-control federal spending.
Munnell’s analysis pushes back firmly on that framing, suggesting that any serious reform effort should be guided by data rather than assumptions about benefit excess.
