"John K. Taber" wrote:
> ..... 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?
Some years ago MR published a response to the very first attempts todisable SS, and if I remember correctly, they made this point central to their critique of claims SS would run out of money "unless saved" (by destroying it).
Carrol