Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 12:34:37 -0800 From: Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Re: The Dependents Ration
Brad DeLong 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?
>
Hey! Wait a min, folks, we're getting attributions mixed up. You are quoting Michael Pollack, not me. I only replied. Honest.
> ...That there really weren't all that many people aged 65-87 in the 1950s.
Brad, are you confusing life expectancy in the 50s with the proportion of 65-87 in the population? Life expectancy if I remember correctly was about 62. BUT, that's at birth. Each year you make it, your life expectancy improves. I have seen the proportion of aged to the population, I don't remember the figure, but it was significant in 1950 and earlier years.
Lot's of people misunderstand life expectancy. It is different every year you're alive.
One of the nastier anti-SS canards is that retirement age was deliberately set at 65 because everybody would be dead at that age so there would be nothing to pay out, since the life expectancy was 62 in the 30s. Oh, that evil scheming guvmint, you see. It plays well on the internet.
The canard counts on people not knowing that that figure is life expectancy at birth.
One doesn't reach the age of life expectancy and just drop dead.
If only people would stop to think--of course there were lots of old folks in the 1930s, just not as many as today.
[snip]
-- Homines id quod volunt credunt.