|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
In recent years, during which conservatives have intensified their efforts to destroy one of the few U.S. government programs that actually works as intended, the report's publication has become an occasion for hand-wringing and crocodile tears over the (supposedly) parlous state of the system's finances.
This year's report, which came out Thursday, is no exception. Within minutes of its release, some analysts were claiming that it projected a "shortfall" for Social Security this year of $41 billion.
Before we get to the bogus math behind that statement which doesn't actually appear in the report let's look at the encouraging findings by the agency's trustees, who include the secretaries of Labor, the Treasury, and Health and Human Services.
The trustees indicated that the program has made it through the worst economic downturn in its life span essentially unscathed. In fact, by at least one measure it's fiscally stronger than a year ago: Its projected actuarial deficit over the next 75 years (a measurement required by law) is smaller now than a year ago.
The old age and disability trust funds, which hold the system's surplus, grew in 2009 by $122 billion, to $2.5 trillion. The program paid out $675 billion to 53 million beneficiaries men, women and children with administrative costs of 0.9% of expenditures. For all you privatization advocates out there, you'd be lucky to find a retirement and insurance plan of this complexity with an administrative fee less than five or 10 times that ratio.
This year and next, the program's costs will exceed its take from the payroll tax and income tax on benefits. That's an artifact of the recession, and it's expected to reverse from 2012 through 2014. The difference is covered by the program's other income source interest on the Treasury bonds in the Social Security trust fund.
That brings us back to this supposed $41-billion "shortfall," which exists only if you decide not to count interest due of about $118 billion.
And that, in turn, leads us to the convoluted subject of the trust fund, which for some two decades has been the prime target of the crowd trying to bamboozle Americans into thinking Social Security is insolvent, bankrupt, broke pick any term you wish, because they're all wrong. The trust fund is the mechanism by which baby boomers have pre-funded their own (OK, our own) retirements. When tax receipts fall short, its bonds are redeemed by the government to cover the gap.
Despite what Social Security's enemies love to claim, the trust fund is not a myth, it's not mere paper. It's real money, and it represents the savings of every worker paying into the system today. So I'm going to train a microscope on it.
What trips up many people about the trust fund is the notion that redeeming the bonds in the fund to produce cash for Social Security is the equivalent of "the government" paying money to "the government." Superficially, this resembles transferring a dollar from your brown pants to your gray pants you're no more or less flush than you were before changing pants.
But that assumes every one of us contributes equally to "the government," and by equal methods you, me and the chairman of Goldman Sachs.
The truth is that there are two separate tax programs at work here the payroll tax and the income tax and they affect Americans in different ways. The first pays for Social Security and the second for the rest of the federal budget.
Most Americans pay more payroll tax than income tax. Not until you pull in $200,000 or more, which puts you among roughly the top 5% of income-earners, are you likely to pay more in income tax than payroll tax. One reason is that the income taxed for Social Security is capped this year, at $106,800. (My payroll and income tax figures come from the Brookings Institution, and the income distribution statistics come from the U.S. Census Bureau.)
Since 1983, the money from all payroll taxpayers has been building up the Social Security surplus, swelling the trust fund. What's happened to the money? It's been borrowed by the federal government and spent on federal programs housing, stimulus, war and a big income tax cut for the richest Americans, enacted under President George W. Bush in 2001.
In other words, money from the taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale has been spent to help out those at the higher end. That transfer that loan, to characterize it accurately is represented by the Treasury bonds held by the trust fund.
The interest on those bonds, and the eventual redemption of the principal, should have to be paid for by income taxpayers, who reaped the direct benefits from borrowing the money.
So all the whining you hear about how redeeming the trust fund will require a tax hike we can't afford is simply the sound of wealthy taxpayers trying to skip out on a bill about to come due. The next time someone tells you the trust fund is full of worthless IOUs, try to guess what tax bracket he's in.
It should come as no surprise that one of the leading advocates for cutting Social Security benefits or raising payroll taxes is the Wall Street billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who has pumped millions into an alarmist campaign about the federal deficit.
But ask Peterson, who made his money as a hedge fund manager, about closing the enormous tax loophole enjoyed by hedge fund managers it costs the Treasury a couple of billion dollars a year and he warns that it would force hedge funds to move overseas, which would be bad for the U.S. economy. This is the sort of argument my mother used to describe as: "I like me, who do you like?"
The trust fund may not last forever, but reports of its demise are certainly premature. The trustees say it will be drawn down to zero in 2037, at which point the program will only have enough money coming in from taxes to pay 78% of the benefits due under current law. So sometime in the next quarter-century but by no means right now does anything have to be fixed, say through a hike in the payroll tax ceiling (or, better, its elimination)?
That 2037 deadline, in truth, is a moving target. It's based on long-term projections, which become more uncertain the further out you look. The estimated date is very sensitive to forecasts of immigration, wage and economic growth, and birth and death rates, all of which are uncertain. Over the last 10 years, it has fluctuated between 2037 and 2042, mostly due to economic factors. It has held steady at 2037 for two years despite the downturn, but that's still better than the projection in 1998, which was for exhaustion in 2032.
In short, if the new trustees report gets examined wisely and responsibly, it should put an end to all the current talk about raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. Social Security doesn't contribute a dime to the federal deficit, and in these days of market stagnation and cutbacks in pensions, it has never been more important to millions of Americans. The Pete Petersons of the world should find themselves a different target.
Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at [email protected], read past columns here, check out his Facebook page and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.
The myth of the Social Security system's financial shortfall, by Michael Hiltzik, Commentary, LA Times: The annual report of the Social Security Trustees ... has become an occasion for hand-wringing and crocodile tears over the (supposedly) parlous state of the system's finances. ... Within minutes of its release, some analysts were claiming that it projected a "shortfall" for Social Security this year of $41 billion.
Before we get to the bogus math behind that statement ... let's look at the encouraging findings... The trustees indicated that the program has made it through the worst economic downturn in its life span essentially unscathed. In fact, by at least one measure it's fiscally stronger than a year ago...
That brings us back to this supposed $41-billion "shortfall," which exists only if you decide not to count interest due of about $118 billion. And that, in turn, leads us to the convoluted subject of the trust fund, which for some two decades has been the prime target of the crowd trying to bamboozle Americans into thinking Social Security is insolvent, bankrupt, broke pick any term you wish, because they're all wrong. ... Despite what Social Security's enemies love to claim, the trust fund is not a myth... It's real money, and it represents the savings of every worker paying into the system today. So I'm going to train a microscope on it. ...
The truth is that there are two separate tax programs at work here the payroll tax and the income tax... The first pays for Social Security and the second for the rest of the federal budget. Most Americans pay more payroll tax than income tax. Not until you pull in $200,000 or more ... are you likely to pay more in income tax than payroll tax. ...
Since 1983, the money from all payroll taxpayers has been building up the Social Security surplus, swelling the trust fund. What's happened to the money? It's been borrowed by the federal government and spent on federal programs housing, stimulus, war and a big income tax cut for the richest Americans, enacted under President George W. Bush in 2001. In other words, money from the taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale has been spent to help out those at the higher end. That transfer that loan, to characterize it accurately is represented by the Treasury bonds held by the trust fund.
The interest on those bonds, and the eventual redemption of the principal, should have to be paid for by income taxpayers, who reaped the direct benefits from borrowing the money. So all the whining you hear about how redeeming the trust fund will require a tax hike we can't afford is simply the sound of wealthy taxpayers trying to skip out on a bill about to come due. The next time someone tells you the trust fund is full of worthless IOUs, try to guess what tax bracket he's in. ...
The trust fund may not last forever, but reports of its demise are certainly premature. The trustees say it will be drawn down to zero in 2037, at which point the program will only have enough money coming in from taxes to pay 78% of the benefits... So sometime in the next quarter-century but by no means right now does anything have to be fixed...?
That 2037 deadline ... is a moving target. It's based on long-term projections, which become more uncertain the further out you look. ... It has held steady at 2037 for two years despite the downturn, but that's still better than the projection in 1998, which was for exhaustion in 2032.
In short, if the new trustees report gets examined wisely and responsibly, it should put an end to all the current talk about raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. Social Security doesn't contribute a dime to the federal deficit, and in these days of market stagnation and cutbacks in pensions, it has never been more important to millions of Americans. The Pete Petersons of the world should find themselves a different target.
Posted by Mark Thoma on Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM in Economics, Social Security | Stumble, Digg, del.icio.us, Reddit, Tweet, Share, Like | Permalink Comments (38)
You can follow
this conversation by subscribing to the
comment
feed for this post.
Fred C. Dobbs said...
'That brings us back to this supposedWhere's that coming from, exactly? China?
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Min said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
So the problem is the insolvency of the bond vigilantes? ;)Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 11:07 AM
dopp said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
I hope it is coming from the moneyed class, whose income taxes were cut for the past 25 years as the working class overpaid the regressive FICA tax - thanks to Reagan and Greenspan.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 11:10 AM
paine said in reply to dopp...
and pat moynihan and bill clintonthe core corporate dems are in this up to their
dull rounded eye teeth
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:19 PM
vor said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
This is the typical Republican view that paying interest on treasuries owned to American workers is optional while paying interest owned to everyone else is not.I have been paying extra payroll taxes for 27 years to insure that SS is solvent into the future. These extra taxes were placed in U.S. treasury bonds to protect them. Social Security has been the model of fiscal responsibility.
There is no justification for refusing to honor these bonds just because we have run up debt in the General Fund through irresponsible tax cuts to the rich and unfunded wars of choice.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 11:45 AM
paine said in reply to vor...
bravissimoSunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:20 PM
Glen said in reply to vor...
Exactly!If SS has "liabilities", then the totally unfunded expenditures of the DOD, endless war against a guy that lives in a cave, and tax cuts for the rich are the absolute height of insanity. Where's the commission to end that madness?
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 04:03 PM
ilsm said in reply to Glen...
The greatest immorality is for a country with half the worlds military expenditures and 100% dominance in all classes of expensive weaponry to short change the poor, sick and elderly.The second greatest immorality is the corrupt running of the war machine that pillages the production of society which causes the greatest immorality.
May they stand the judgement.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 05:48 PM
sglover said in reply to ilsm...
"May they stand the judgement."Every indication is that the "judgement" is going to include the talk show circuit, tours to pimp the ghost-written memoir, a sinecure with some connected think tank or the Kennedy School of Government, and a sweet townhouse in Georgetown or Manhattan or both. I don't see the incentives tugging anyone with any say in the right direction.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 07:24 PM
julio said in reply to vor...
Ah, but they're not trying to refuse payment of interest on the bonds. Kali is very wise, and you have many pockets to pick.Why no, they think we need to decrease benefits because otherwise the fund is not sufficient to last, untouched, until the Sun cools off. That pile of bonds, money contributed by the workers, should stay there forever, you see, ever growing, never to be paid back.
A 100 percent death tax on the workers, you might say.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 07:55 PM
Lee A. Arnold said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Fred C. Dobbs: "Where's that coming from, exactly? China?"It's coming from exactly where it disappeared to: the Bush Tax Cuts. You
can't raise payroll taxes several times, then ONLY cut income taxes, and expect people not to notice the switcheroo. For an easy diagram
(and a very good one too, if I say so myself), see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tts2uTWt6e8
Also see the Bush Tax Cuts, and the shifting of the tax burden to the middle class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1f2MefsMM
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 01:37 PM
paine said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
"the whining you hear about how redeeming the trust fund will require a tax hike we can't afford is simply the sound of wealthy taxpayers trying to skip out on a bill about to come due"absord that rock solid truth
if you can't see the truth in it
rethink the whole problem till u do
its the eureka perception
once arrived at
the rest is a sick farce
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:18 PM
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
The correct answer is, I suspect:Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 04:28 PM
hix said...
Good to have bad healthcare that reduces life expectancy, isnt it. Social security should have a shortfall, its pretty natural.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Anon said...
The Supreme Court said otherwise about the SS trust fund being real. [Anne, this should be common knowledge and not in need of a reference]. The court said SS is a modifiable tax and services scheme subject to change on election cycles, it is not a multi-cycle contract protected from legislative retraction.This guy is not a Supreme Court jurist. Anybody with a tiny college degree should know the ruling on this.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 10:44 AM
DoubleDogAnon said in reply to Anon...
Please cite your source: This is hardly "common knowledge" and a search provides no results for the ruling you describe.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Observer said in reply to DoubleDogAnon...
The case is Nestor vs. Flemming. In summary, the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that there is no contractual right to Social Security payments.http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 01:19 PM
DoubleDogAnon said in reply to Observer...
Thanks Observer, I now understand why I couldn't find the cite: Anon's characterization of it was misleading and largely false; the judgment had nothing to do with the 'reality' of the trust or the legal status of its contents, it only addressed the individual legal status or rights of those with trust accounts (and I can see why Justice Black dissented too).Guess those tiny college degrees aren't all they're cracked up to be.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 05:41 PM
Lee A. Arnold said in reply to Anon...
Actually, it hardly matters. The Social Security Trust Fund is a prepaid promise, and we have only to VOTE OUT any bum who says otherwise:Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 01:41 PM
julio said in reply to Anon...
This is mixing two things, the trust fund vs. the right of individuals to "draw" from it when payments are due.The government is required to pay back the Treasuries in the fund. It also continues to draw interest on those treasuries. And it continues to receive tax payments from the working population. It is perfectly solvent, in that it can continue to pay expected benefits into the foreseeable future.
However, your SS payments themselves are on shakier ground: they depend on the social contract. Congress could decide to cut back payments (or raise the retirement age, or tax retirement payouts more heavily, or...) any time. Ultimately, your payments in old age depend on the willingness of Congress to pay them at that time, at least if the cases you cite get interpreted expansively. In that case, it seems someone got denied payments because he wasn't "loyal" enough. Congress could, with equal "justification", raise the retirement age to 100.
If our seniors get denied what they expected from Social Security it will be because the social contract is broken, not because the fund is broke.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 01:42 PM
paine said in reply to julio...
juliothe other side of the table wants to either increase taxes or reduce benefits etc
to push that date off as far as poosible and reduce the flow back rate as much as possible thee after
the inter class battle will co exist with the trust fund surplus as long as the surplus lasts
and the payroll tax "class'
and income tax "class"
are so dramatically different
with such clearly polarized "centers of gravity"
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:26 PM
paine said in reply to paine...
recipes eh ??how to make a jobbler souffle
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:42 PM
julio said in reply to paine...
Yes, I got the veiled reference to Hannibal Lector.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 05:17 PM
Bruce Webb said in reply to Anon...
anon you are misrepresenting that Supreme Court decision and so repeating a urban myth that is in fact well known. The Court has never ruled that the Trust Fund or the Special Treasuries are fictitious, instead they ruled that the existence of the Trust Fund does not convey either an ownership interest or the right to an given level of benefits. Which is why the Catffood Commission is free to suggest major cuts.Meaning you got this backwards
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 02:13 PM
paine said in reply to Bruce Webb...
exactlySunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:27 PM
paine said in reply to paine...
the gubmint could make these obligations personal property of each now and future benficiarynow of course i'd pref the funds simply got returned to their rightful beneficiaries
tomorrow evening ...however ...
bruce webb's cooler head oughta prevail here over mine
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:39 PM
K Ackermann said in reply to Bruce Webb...
I bet you don't have a tiny college degree. That's why it seems backwards to you.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 04:24 PM
NKlein1553 said in reply to K Ackermann...
You think Bruce Webb of Angry Bear doesn't have a college degree? You're joking right?http://bruceweb.blogspot.com/2008/08/angry-bear-social-security-series.html
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 04:38 PM
K Ackermann said in reply to NKlein1553...
I didn't say that. I said he didn't have a "tiny college degree", as Anon suggested was required for Anon's understanding of SS matters and the courts.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 05:23 PM
bakho said...
BAIT and SwitchBAIT
Raise payroll taxes on the middle class to pay for Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy. Promise that the payroll taxes are going into a
fund to "save" SS.
SWITCH
When the SSTF reaches maturity, claim that it is broke and cut SS benefits to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy!!
The stupid middle class rubes will fall for Bait and Switch every time.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 02:01 PM
julio said in reply to bakho...
Kali has more hands than that to pick your pockets. There's also raising income taxes on the middle class to pay for SS, which will also reduce benefits since they're taxable.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:51 PM
Bruce Webb said...
Hiltzik and Krugman are about the only two people with regular access to the MSM that actually understand Social Security and IMHO Hiltzik is a little better than Prof K on this narrow slice of public policy. On the other end of the spectrum is the WaPo and USA Today whose coverage of SS ranges from atrocious to duplicitous with the NYT (ex Krugman) and CNN.com only marginally better.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 02:26 PM
Skeptical future retiree said...
Well, glad to hear that Social Security is solvent and we don't have to worry. I was starting to panic there, as pretty much the vast majority of economists have been saying that we need to raise the retirement age and/or cut benefits to keep this thing running.Finally, a Ponzi scheme that works. Madoff, you should have taken better notes. If the Feds can make a Ponzi scheme fly, then anyone can. You blew it, Bernie.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:01 PM
paine said in reply to Skeptical future retiree...
Finally, a Ponzi scheme that workslokk my dear skeptic
an organization with its own limitless dollar mine
can't be ponzi scheming
don't you understand that ??
uncle sam can't be uncle ponzi period
could he screw SS beneficiaries ??
yup
he already has
but only thru laws orignating in
and ultimately passed by
our federal congress
which by the grace of God and james madison
gets duly elected from among
the candidates of our two great party hordes
every even year
by the nations
all seeing all knowing
rubber stamp electorate
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 03:36 PM
Real Person from the Real World said...
the GOP and Libertarians are struggling to kill SS. Let's hope articles like this get some press coverage among the FOX news and Tea Party crowd.My IRA, no 401k - no employer paid me enough to have one - has been devastated by the markets. I moved into fixed income products, but those have had problems too. I NEED SS, especially since my employer, an import from the 3rd world who is abusive and exploitive, is paying me (illegally) low pay, and getting away with it.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 04:52 PM
Medical Contrarian said...
This author is very confused and most of the comments fail to understand the money flows which underscore the concerns of the actuaries and those of us who see the financial abyss coming. The money for the SS fund was collected in taxes and it either has goes out immediately to pay for SS benefits or other federal obligation. There are no assets to back the future obligations other than the ability of the Federal government to tax people in the future.To deny we are facing a problem is blindness. While SS receipts allowed our politicians to hide the scope of the deficit until recently, SS collections are now below SS outflows. Yes, one branch of the government may pay interest to another, but this just underscores the change in funds flow. More money is going out from SS than is coming in. This is a major change. The demographics are only going to worsen with an aging population and fewer workers to support each retiree.
The bottom line for those who are depending on SS for their retirement is that the statement from the Feds not withstanding, it is not their money. They are betting on a promise. Unlike assets that anyone might hold in real retirement accounts, SS represents a promise, made by those who are long dead to be fulfilled by those, many of who are not yet born. Is it likely that the promise will be kept forever? I doubt it but I don't know how long it will be kept. The people who will be called upon to keep the promise in the future are not in office yet. Will it be fiscally possible to keep the promise when the time comes for any one of us to retire? There is a point where the answer will be no. Personally, I would prefer to own something than rely on a promise which will need to be honored by someone who did not make the promise.
Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 05:54 PM
ken melvin said in reply to Medical Contrarian...
My my my, such a web of reason.Sunday, August 08, 2010 at 06:21 PM
stunney said...
The proper way to approach this issue is by means of rigorous math and actuarial science. Let us proceed accordingly:
1. 2+2 = well, opinions differ, so we have to examine some of those opinions in a balanced, pro center right way.
2. Social Security is a European Socialist thing, hence an alien monster thing that is ready at any moment to burst asunder the torso of the Republic, spilling entrails everywhere as it rears its ugly head in the most menacing fashion imaginable .
3. We know for a fact that Socialist ideas inevitably lead to disaster -- in other words higher taxes on the high net worth population.
4. Therefore Social Security must be shown to be a disaster in the making.
5. Thank God Almighty for the fair and balanced reporting on this issue by our mainstream media.
6. This is THE civil rights issue of our time.
7. Sharron Angle is one smart and fearless leader.
8. What time is Glenn Beck on?
9. If we'd stuck to the Gold Standard, none of this would have happened.
10. I bet blacks get more out of SS than they ever paid in.
Brought to you by:
Concerned Multimillionaires For Social Security Repudiation
and by
The League of Southern White Morons
and by
The Bipartisan Commission on Octogenarian Personal Independence
and by
Desocializing America
and by
Free Market Math, Inc.
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Haters Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: March, 12, 2019
