Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (361063)	12/3/2007 4:14:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573915

The baby boomers are a "temporary blip", but a "blip" that will be a problem for decades. And its not an easy problem to manage for those decades. And the baby boomers aren't the only issue. Increased life expectancy without a later retirement age is a longer term issue that would exist with or without the post war baby boom. You want to go out to 2050, fine keep going to 2100 or 2150 and factor in continuing longer life spans but maybe only another couple of years added to the official SS retirement age. Unless we start having more kids (or allow a lot more young immigrants in without allowing a lot more older immigrants) the percentage below 40, and more importantly the percentage below the retirement age, will be not just worse than today, but eventually worse than at the peak of the baby boom retirement period. Also even in the 2040, 50, 60 time frame, the percentage below 40 isn't very meaningful. People in their 40s and 50s tend to earn more than younger people, and even if they didn't they would still be on the working side not the retired and/or dependent side. Kids, who are well under 40 are dependents. The important issue is the amount of retirees compared to workers, or more generally the dependency ratio. The percentage over or under 40 tells us very little about either.