But it may not stay that way.

As young people tune into Social Security, they are awakening to just how much the scales have tipped against them. Raising the retirement age slams young people in three ways because it: 1) makes them wait longer for benefits; 2) makes them pay into the system longer; and 3) keeps older workers in the labor force longer, crowding out jobs for young people. Rebellion is festering over this issue, and young people have some ammunition on their side.

As the 2016 Social Security Trustees’ report makes clear, the Social Security system is running greater operating deficits annually (without regard to “interest” income) while heading toward a zero trust fund balance in about 18 years.

The money today’s retirees claim to have earned isn’t really there, and the idea that younger people will collect their full promised benefits is far-fetched. Voting-age people under the age of 60 outnumber those 60+ by about 3 to 1.

Finally, it’s fundamentally fair that all retirees, present and future, share some pain for fixing a troubled system. The most viable way to require retired people to share the pain is to reduce their benefits, or tax them more.

It’s hard to imagine any politician advocating this now. But Hillary Clinton has symbolically bowed to the voting power of younger people by refusing to endorse an increase in Social Security’s full retirement age. Bernie Sanders captured young people’s imaginations by defining a path that could lead them to more economic power, with a greater long-term stake in Social Security.

Are financial advisors really helping retired clients by telling them not to worry about receiving 100% of promised Social Security benefits? Time will tell. But it’s not a bad idea to hedge a little by recognizing the potential for a youth-driven revolution. Will the kids one day vote to reduce their parents’ Social Security benefits? Stranger things are happening in American politics.