> Michael Pollak:
>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?
>
Paula: 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.
John K. Taber: Paula, I hope this isn't the generational war, affluent geezer argument put forth by the Cato Institute and the Concord Coalition.
Without Social Security, about 52% of the elderly would be living below poverty levels. Even with Social Security about 12% (I think it is) still live in poverty.
In other words, Social Security has been largely successful in the social goal of keeping the old out of poverty.
Now, the fact remains that about 20% of our children live in poverty. That is a crime. But you don't want to argue that the success of a social program causes that crime.