In 1940, the very first Social Security check was issued to a woman named Ida May Fuller. However, the majority of early recipients were white, male, and employed in industrial or office jobs—professions that fell under the original Social Security Act of 1935. Entire groups of workers were excluded: domestic workers, agricultural laborers, and others—jobs predominantly held by people of color, particularly Black and Latino Americans, as well as women.
At that time, nobody referred to Social Security as an "entitlement" in a negative sense. It was regarded as a just reward for hard work, a safety net earned through years of labor. It was viewed as something that one was owed because they contributed to the system.
Fast forward to today: Social Security is more inclusive than ever. It provides coverage for retirees, people with disabilities, survivors, and dependents from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. Women now represent the majority of beneficiaries. Black, Hispanic, and immigrant workers who were once excluded are now part of the system. And yes, it still operates largely the same way, you pay in through payroll taxes and receive benefits later.
Yet, in today’s political and cultural discourse, we frequently hear Social Security referred to as an “entitlement,” not just in the technical sense, but with a tone that implies laziness, dependency, or even undeservingness.
Isn’t it ironic?
The very people who benefited the most from the original structure of Social Security are now among those most likely to label it as an entitlement in a pejorative sense.
This raises a deeper question:
When did Social Security become viewed as an "entitlement"—in a negative context—only after the demographics of its recipients began to change?
At that time, nobody referred to Social Security as an "entitlement" in a negative sense. It was regarded as a just reward for hard work, a safety net earned through years of labor. It was viewed as something that one was owed because they contributed to the system.
Fast forward to today: Social Security is more inclusive than ever. It provides coverage for retirees, people with disabilities, survivors, and dependents from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. Women now represent the majority of beneficiaries. Black, Hispanic, and immigrant workers who were once excluded are now part of the system. And yes, it still operates largely the same way, you pay in through payroll taxes and receive benefits later.
Yet, in today’s political and cultural discourse, we frequently hear Social Security referred to as an “entitlement,” not just in the technical sense, but with a tone that implies laziness, dependency, or even undeservingness.
Isn’t it ironic?
The very people who benefited the most from the original structure of Social Security are now among those most likely to label it as an entitlement in a pejorative sense.
This raises a deeper question:
When did Social Security become viewed as an "entitlement"—in a negative context—only after the demographics of its recipients began to change?
