This fall’s presidential campaign promises to be a noisy affair, but we hope there will be room for discussion of a quiet crisis that poses as big a threat to America’s future as terrorism or the racial divide: inadequate savings for retirement. This is an economic security issue every bit as pressing as wage stagnation or the loss of jobs through globalization, about which voters heard so much during the primary campaigns.

There are many ways to delineate the extent of the problem. Here are a few gleaned in recent weeks from the pages of the Valley News. About 55 percent of households with workers between the ages of 55 and 64 have saved less than $25,000 for retirement, according to a recent federal survey. Almost 30 percent of households with people 55 or older have nothing saved in a 401(k) plan, an Individual Retirement Account or a pension. The median balance in household 401(k) or IRA accounts is $111,000 for those 55 to 64, which, according to a Bloomberg View commentator, works out to $7,300 a year for a 20-year retirement under plausible assumptions. Forty-six percent of those ages 36 to 51 reported in a recent survey that they simply don’t have the money to save more for retirement because of competing priorities, such as paying off their college debt or saving for their own children’s future. It is projected that only 28 percent of American households will be in a position to maintain their living standards during retirement.

How did we get to the point where so many Americans either can’t afford to retire or face a decline in their living standards when they do? There’s not any one answer to that question, but perhaps the major factor is the decline of traditional defined-benefit pensions in the private sector and their replacement by defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s, which shifted much of the savings and investment burden from companies to individual workers. This has kicked over the three-legged stool that traditionally supported retirement security: Pensions, individual savings and Social Security (which averages only $16,000 a year in benefits for retirees).

As a result, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that in eight years, nearly 22 percent of those 65 and older will still be working, compared with just 12 percent 30 years earlier. As we have noted before, this does not bode well for the job prospects of younger workers struggling to get a foothold on the career ladder. Moreover, those who do retire without adequate savings are likely to require increased financial support from state and local governments or charitable nonprofits.

Perhaps that’s why the idea of expanding Social Security, advocated by Bernie Sanders during his presidential campaign, has moved from the fringe of the national debate to a more central position, with 20 bills filed in Congress. President Obama, who once endorsed trimming benefits in the failed attempt to reach a grand fiscal bargain with Republicans, is a convert, according to The New York Times. In a speech in June, the president said, “We can’t afford to weaken Social Security. We should be strengthening Social Security. And not only do we need to strengthen its long-term health, it’s time we finally made Social Security more generous, and increased benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they’ve earned.”

The question, of course, is how this expansion would be paid for while shoring up the program’s financial health. A number of ideas have been floated, among them: a gradual rise in the payroll tax; raising the retirement age further; lifting the $118,500 cap on income that is subject to the tax; and permitting Social Security to invest a portion of the trust fund in stocks. 

Not all these ideas are attractive to us, but the point is that Social Security expansion is a subject for a serious presidential debate, if there is going to be one, either as a stand-alone topic or as part of a broader exchange on what can be done to bolster the nation’s economic prospects. Social Security is justly beloved by Americans. Since it was enacted as part of the New Deal during the Depression, it has played a major role in sharply reducing poverty among the elderly. Expanding it to shoulder more of the retirement load at a time when other resources are failing makes eminent sense.