“A greater expanded work force cannot cover those costs. Actuarily, it will not work. “
Your figures are right, and in spite of what you think, you and I are NOT in true disagreement.
Its not that SOME level of very expanded active workforce COULD help “save” Social Security (a population that grows to say 500 million with 60% of it in the age group of 20 to 40; making again 3 or more active workers for each retiree).
The problem is that that “COULD” was NOT feasible (not likely to happen) even before the present economic downturn and now, under the present economic, demographic and “jobs” picture, it appears it is not only not feasible (if some other trends were possible to develop) but under current trends that “COULD” moves from not feasible to not even possible.
You and I are not in disagreement. We had a Social Security deficit problem, an exponentially expanding problem, before the present conditions evolved. The present conditions demonstrate that the problem will be even worse.
You don't change demography overnight. Currently we have a fertility rate of about 2.1, which is replacement level. Unless you double or triple your intake of immigrants, most of whom today are poor and uneducated, you are not going to change things.
100 Million More: Projecting the Impact of Immigration On the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060
You don't change demography overnight. Currently we have a fertility rate of about 2.1, which is replacement level. Unless you double or triple your intake of immigrants, most of whom today are poor and uneducated, you are not going to change things.
100 Million More: Projecting the Impact of Immigration On the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060