The Dependents Ration

[Brad De Long]

>"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?
>

...That there really weren't all that many people aged 65-87 in the 1950s.

...That the baby-boom produced a lot of now-40 year olds--a hump in the age
distribution.

...That the elderly need more services (especially medical services).

...That as a result the effective dependent-to-worker ratio is rising.

Brad DeLong