USA Today reports that at age 62, America's first baby boomer opted into Social Security today. The question for America is whether the 80 million people born between 1946 and 1964 will bankrupt Social Security by the time all of them are receiving their payments.

The caseload for so-called entitlements -- Social Security and Medicare -- is going to explode in the next 23 years. By 2030, Social Security's caseload will be 84 million people, up from 50 million today. Medicare will go from 44 million beneficiaries to 79 million. That will leave about two workers paying payroll taxes for every retiree. The tab is estimated at $50 trillion in future obligations over the next 75 years. Social Security will rise from 4% to 6% of the GDP, and Medicare will go from 3% to 11%.

The options are not good. Fixing Social Security solely with higher taxes or cuts in spending would mean a 16% increase in the payroll tax or a 13% cut in benefits. Medicare's needs would be far greater: a 122% payroll tax hike or a 51% reduction in spending, just for hospital care. Unfortunately, the longer we wait to fix the problem, the more it will cost.

However, if history is any guide, we'll wait until a crisis before we find the will to act. And that crisis will fall on the shoulders of the baby boomers' children and grandchildren -- not much of a legacy.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

A recent study has found that employer efforts to cheer up employees -- getting them treatment, phone counseling, etc. -- makes sense for more than just altruistic reasons.

The research, conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that, on average, depressed employees who receive aggressive attention from their bosses worked about two weeks more during the year-long study. Workers are also more likely to keep their jobs when they receive aggressive help, which can reduce the costs of recruiting and training new employees.

According to the Associated Press, "The researchers haven't finished a formal cost-benefits analysis but early results suggest savings from more hours worked averaged to about $1,800 per employee. That far exceeds the program's initial $100 to $400 per worker cost. The benefits also likely exceed other costs, including drugs and therapy too, the researchers said."

Hopefully this will change the way that so many employers perceive depression and its treatment. The productivity costs of depression can be just as real as a broken leg, and employers should provide aggressive treatment options, both for their own benefit and the benefit of the worker.

A number of high-profile CEOs must not have provided enough information on their compensation packages. The SEC is sending them letters asking for a little more detail. The agency has already sent out about 300 letters.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the heads of very large companies, including GE (NYSE: GE) and Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) are being asked to provide more information about how they are paid [subscription required].

Among the things that interest the SEC is how pay consultants make calculations for corporate boards. The Journal quotes the SEC's director of corporation finance, John White, saying, "We're seeing a lot of really vague disclosure" about individual performance goals and targets.

The issue can't really be that hard to resolve, especially at very big companies. They know full well how their CEO's pay is set, who is involved, who is consulted from outside the company, and what the final comp numbers are. It is not rocket science.

It is, however, another area of friction between the SEC and big companies.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

In a move that is down-right American, Sears stores (NYSE: SHLD) are going the extra mile for our men and women in the armed forces. It was reported to me that not only is Sears gladly meeting the legal requirements to hold open and available the jobs temporarily vacated by individuals who are called into active military service but they are proud to go above and beyond the call of duty. Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salary and maintaining all benefits including medical insurance and bonus programs for a period of up to two years for their reservist employees who are called into service. I myself will happily drive ten miles beyond a Wal-Mart store (NYSE: WMT) and joyfully risk paying slightly higher prices to deal with a company that treats my soldiers like that.

I sat next to a guy named "Trent" at my first real job. He took sick days about once a week, and we all laughed about it; but secretly resented him for taking advantage of the rest of us working stiffs, who actually worked every day. And dared not to take sick days for fear our bosses would think badly of us; that we were lazy, or hypochondriacs, or unhealthy.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) is cracking down on the Trents in its workforce, according to the Wall Street Journal this morning [subscription required]. The company has enacted a new attendance policy. Now, if you have the sniffles, or chronic back pain, or a hangover, or mono, you have to call an 800-number; obtain a code; and give that code to your manager. The system will track sick time and whether or not your absence is authorized; those employees who get too many unauthorized absences will be terminated.

Even more ominous, employees with too many sick days will be encouraged to apply for an unpaid leave of absence. Critics naturally are attacking Wal-Mart from every direction, wondering if the company is trying to shuck the unhealthy workers from its roles. Whether or not this is true, it's certainly an icky process for Wal-Mart to enact, and seems a bad move for a company already under fire for overworking its employees.

I have insurance today (thanks to my wonderful employer, oh how I adore you), but for three years my family went without. I was laid off, and we did the math: it was far cheaper to pay out-of-pocket for our two boys' well-baby visits to the pediatrician and the occasional prescription than to pay the $400 monthly it would have cost for insurance for our young, healthy, non-smoking family.

And we're not the only ones. Every year, millions more families are going without health insurance. The reason? Health insurance rates are growing at a startling pace double that of inflation. It's not just the unemployed, or workers whose employers don't provide benefits, who are feeling the burn; as employers' rates rise, the contribution paid by the employee inches up, as well -- and the average annual raise won't cover it.

Every year, then, take-home pay goes down for me, for millions like me; for the rank and file at the 61% (in fact) of employers who offer health benefits.

Even so, the DJIA is nearing all-time highs, the market seems to be buoyed by an unknown giddiness. What's going on? Is the fat-and-happiness of the health insurance industry spilling over into consumer confidence? Is it just that we're really happy this is an election year? That doesn't satisfy me, and our Canadian friends can only look on in mystified horror as they watch our paychecks get frittered away into the insurance company's pockets.

As I see it, we have a couple of options: (a) buy insurance stocks and hope that some of the profit will end up in my retirement account instead of in the companies' executive pockets; (b) elect officials who'll effect some real change and democratize healthcare; or (c) move to Canada. Which will it be for you?