The idea of a fully engaged work-force leading to self-sufficiency would require a sustainable definition of what constitutes a fair share-holder return on investment. Each quarter the financial markets reward reductions in overhead (workers) as part of increased shareholder return.

Take for instance the recent Heinz and Kraft merger. Great news for shareholder return. Not so great news for the +600 people who are now seeking new jobs. Business will benefit from the workforce reduction as there is a pool of skilled employees who may work for less than what they previously earned. These businesses can potentially hire these workers for less and restructure to increase the revenue/employee ratio. Outsourcing is another example.

The noise masks the signals:

• The Social Security Trust Fund, in 2012, had approximately 2.6 Trillion USD in reserves. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

• The US Government borrowed most of it to fund various programs and deficits.

• The payroll contributions do not meet the distribution requirements. One factor, continually debated, is due to lower workforce deductions as reflected in average income.

• Politically not funding Social Security, as a platform, is self-immolation, so the "you will get yours, vote for me, the others will take care of themselves" is now the soapbox with an implied trust of financial institutions to ensure solvency.

The pause with a direct financial market solution is the conflict of expected cost-of-living contributor return vs share-holder return. The necessary regulations to ensure a contributor return would be met with push-back by firms. These firms would require, at a minimum, from the 'tax-payer'/government, a 'bail-out' clause with no penalty nor culpability. The George Castanza "Was that wrong?" defense.