Isn't median age a fairly irrelevant indicator here - you could have massive changes in demographics without affecting median age.I'm not in the least happy about it, but I'm not sure what you mean by "not so hot". By 2050, the US's median age is going to go up by something like a year - to around 37, IIRC. That's pretty good. It's not _ideal_, but it's pretty good.
If the US has a big group of people at or near retirement age, plus retired people who aren't dying within 10 yrs of retirement as they used to, and this is offset by a larger child population (particularly as the immigrants have a higher birth rate than the anglo-saxons that make a majority of the work force), aren't you looking at only small increases in median age but massive increases in people outside the work force. ie a much smaller proportion of the population being productive?
Is that a function of population, or people finishing school? Is high school compulsory in the US? Either way, it's certainly going to improve the situation.Even more importantly, our problem is a matter of scratching along until things get better. My HS graduating class (1997, you old fogies - am I _still_ the youngest person on the list, for goodness sake? :-) for example, was the largest graduating class in US history,
Shouldn't the children of the baby boomers already be in the workforce? What echo are you looking at in 2030?If the US can hold things together from about 2030-2040, it will be fine - the "Baby Boom Echo" will be pouring into the workforce.
Cheers Russell C.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
