statistical fallacy of ageing population

[pms]

>It is a truism in current thought that, as populations age, fewer and
>fewer workers need to take care of more and more retirees.  But it seems
>obvious that the same workers are taking care of fewer and fewer children.
>And if kids are dependent from 0 to 22, and retirees from 65-87, it seems
>likely that the ratio of workers to dependents is remaining constant.
>
>Some one else must have thought of this before me.  So where's the hole in
>my reasoning?
>

I'm not sure this effects wha t you're talking about, but I believe we
currently have a higher ratio of children living in poverty than seniors.
Children don't vote, so you can ignore them and save the money. Even though
so many people think SS security is about to disappear, I have a feeling
we're about to see the strongest senior lobby in history, as the boomers
age. Hordes of oldsters rushing the voting booths.