<<
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The classic pattern
of the demographic transition is for the death rate to drop
first, thus increasing the numbers of the elderly, and then
for the birth rate to drop later. That has held true in
pretty much every nation in the world. I am not aware of
any exceptions to that generalization (although there are
some where the birth rate has yet to decline, and others
where the death rate has gone back up again either due to
wars or AIDS epidemics). >>
Here's my take w.r.t. funding soc sec:
There have been several "dynamics" at work so that the original actuarial assumptions behind SS have had to be modified:
1) Increased life expectancy + increased real cost of living has to increase the "pure cost" of the annuity. Thus, those longer-lived workers who did not bear the full actuarial cost of the program (and are still alive today) need some sort of subsidy.
2) Slower economic growth (1973-1996?) has also hurt the funding, but I'm not sure this is really a problem.
3) The "baby bust" (1965-1982) has created a potential problem - not all workers born 1946-1964 had as many kids as the pre-boomers. Thus, the potential imbalance in workers/retirees
4) We could EASILY afford the soc sec system if we taxed every god damn $ of UNEARNED income at something like 2-3%
Jason