Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On the forseen thing, I stopped arguing with you because I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about, and because I thought the inconsistency between what the President said and what the NYT article related was pretty clear.
|
This is one of the rare occassions that Hank engages in substantive debate; you should not let it drop.
I think what Hank is saying is that the burden on social security is not dependent solely on the percentage of the population over 65. It is a burden that also depends on the anticipated lifespan of each individual. He is right; the anticipated lifespan will determine whether the trend and curve of that percentage going forward, and whether you're talking about a stable roughly 14% or an increasing roughly 14%.
There is also a variable in terms of how much benefits people receive - not all recipients get the same benefits - and how much is coming into the system (e.g., how much the remaining 86% make, up to the cap).
At the same time, certainly there was an expectation in the 30s that lifespans would increase. Lifespans had been increasing up until then, and medicine had seen a very radical transformation over the prior generation. The existence of a baby boom probably wouldn't have been seen (as well as the preceding baby drought from all the men hanging out in Europe during the war). The overall drop in family size and birthrates may have been anticipated, too - I don't know if they got it right.
