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?
Michael
John K. Taber: There isn't any, your reasoning is right on. I would have to scrounge around in millions of bits to find out who said so, but it is said that the ratio of *dependents* to workers is near constant, and that the ratio of retirees to workers is a red herring.
Possibly it was Baker of EPI or Aaron of Brooks Institute who said so, and I think they say so based on Social Security Administration actuarial studies. I may not have the details right, but the evidence is not deniable even if I don't have it at hand.
Now where is Max Sawicky?