I'm just so sick of this argument. It figures prominently in the "
Republican Social Security Playbook".
There's a version of it on the SSA FAQ Page:
...Worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.
Bush brought it up yet again in today's National Radio Address:
Social Security was created decades ago for a very different era. In 1950, about 16 workers paid into the system for every one person drawing benefits. Today, we have only about three workers for each beneficiary, and over the next few decades...
Apparently they think this is the clincher argument.
The way I figure it, moving from 16 to 3 seems like a steeper drop than from 3 to 2 -- just going by the spread. If we survived one, certainly we can survive the other.