According to my statistical abstract 96-97 in 1980 there was a rate of 16.0 births and 8.6 deaths per 1,000 population. Those born in 1980 would now be starting to enter the work force. Those who died in 1980 now would still be dead.
Sincerely, Tom L.
Max Sawicky wrote:
> > >It is a truism in current thought that, as populations age, fewer and
> > >fewer workers need to take care of more and more retirees. 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?
>
> The dramatic decrease in the worker/retiree ratio
> glosses over productivity growth. Various government
> projections confirm that there is no real economic
> problem in financing Social Security benefits
> currently in law, nor that "fixing" the program
> in terms of the Trust Fund will have any appreciable,
> salutary economic effect.
>
> If one considers workers to population the decrease
> in the ratio is far less (less than five percent,
> again ignoring productivity growth). On the other
> hand, it must be acknowledged that kids are far
> cheaper than the elderly, including to the public
> sector.
>
> There is an accounting problem which gives rise to
> a political problem. We've hashed over this before
> so I won't recapitulate.
>
> There is a generational issue underlying all this,
> but it is not the one blabbed about in the media.
> Tomorrow's workers will, on average, do much better
> than today's in terms of real wages. They could
> pay a smidgeon more in payroll taxes, have more
> after-tax wages than people do today, and fully
> fund the program. The bigger issue which is
> ventilated in Gene Steuerle's new book is that
> with an assumption of some revenue ceiling for
> the Federal government, more spending on Social
> Security and Medicare crowds out other programs,
> including those that could address child poverty.
>
> Now the revenue ceiling is political, not economic,
> and a key priority is to bust it, but assuming there
> to be a ceiling cannot be faulted. Federal revenues
> as a share of GDP have never been higher (since WWII)
> and further increases are certainly daunting. (Same is
> true of state-local receipts).
>
> MBS