Social Security Advisers Consider Male and Female Pensioners, 1938

This discussion demonstrates the view, held by most authors of the Social Security Act, that widows needed less money than widowers.

[excerpted from Federal Advisory Council Minutes, April 29, 1938, Records of the Social Security Administration, National Archives.]

Mr. Myers One very good solution would be to require that the woman must be married to an annuitant for at least five years before she receives any benefits. If a man who is 65 retires and he has been married for three years, he receives 110% for the next two years and following that they will be married five years and they will receive 150% thereafter. Under the plan as it is here they are supposed to be married five years and would receive 100%. Under the plan she would have to be married five years before he retired. He would receive nothing for two years and after that he would receive 150%. Under this plan he would receive 100% for the two-year period and then 150% . . . .

Mr. Mowbray. It seems to me that the restriction on the marital period and the period of waiting is only desirable to keep out the designing woman. That wouldn’t affect things at all. I made the remark that I thought a two-year period was long enough in a life insurance policy, but I was not at all sure that a five-year period was long enough as a defense against a designing woman.

Mr. Brown How far should those in need be kept in need to protect the system against designing women and old fools? Do you think it ought to be longer than five years? . . . .

Miss Dewson I am confused about one point. The single man or single person gets less than the married person. Supposing that the man who is married, say at 66, loses his wife and becomes a single man, would that change his annuity?

Mr. Brown He would drop back. He drops back to 100%. He no longer gets wife allowance, whereas if the wife survives him it would drop back to the 75%.

Miss Dewson That is what makes it more for the married man?

Mr. Brown Yes, on the principle that it is more costly for the single man to live than for the single woman if she is able to avail herself of the home of the child. A woman is able to fit herself into the economy of the home of the child much better than the single man; that is, the grandmother helps in the raising of the children and helps in home affairs, whereas the aged grandfather is the man who sits out on the front porch and can’t help much in the home . . . .

Mr. Linton I wonder why we didn’t make the widows’ benefit the regular individual annuity without cutting it down 25%? Why should you pay the widow less than the individual himself gets if unmarried?

Mr. Williamson She can look after herself better than he can.

Mr. Linton Is that a sociological fact?

Mr. Brown Can a single woman adjust herself to a lower budget on account of the fact that she is used to doing her own housework whereas the single man has to go out to a restaurant?