While I made similar points in my earlier post as you just did, I left out the argument that present-day elderlys need more services. Because the issue dealt with quantitative ratio, rather than qualitative demand. Further, I left out that argument because it (increase elderly services) may be neutralized by increased productivity of current workers.
Enzo said you may have thoughts on the HK currency peg. If so, would like very much to hear them.
Henry
Brad De Long wrote:
> >"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