Buy In Now, Pay Later

I agree that President Bush has not done a fair job in boosting the economy.  People are afraid to spend hard-earned money on anything that does not hold a permanent value, such as housing.  The fact that the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low is the only hope most middle-income, blue collar workers have for their future and that is a home over their heads.  With the employment rates as high as they are and companies and factories closing at a tremendous rate, job security is no longer feasible.  Therefore, people are not feeding our economy by spending as we had in the past.  With Bush’s plans to continue tax breaks to the wealthy and feed more into war efforts, it is frightening to think where the middle class will be, should he be elected for another term.

Posted by Jessica Panos on Feb 11, 2004 at 8:31 PM

In your opinion, will the middle class eventually be eliminated?

Posted by Jessica Panos on Feb 11, 2004 at 8:32 PM

The ratio of employed workers to population is a statistic of very questionable value.  At the time when Social Security was enacted, the actuarially-estimated life span of a person 65 years old was 4 years.  Today, it would be closer to 15 years.

Assuming that the average person who had previously been in the work force retires at age 65, then it would be very relevant to know how this age group’s percentage of the population has increased over the years.

Other factors will also alter the ratio of employed workers to the general population.  During the baby boom, when there was a higher percentage of children in our population, the ratio of employed persons to population would have been lower.  Women’s entry into the labor market would have increased the ratio.

Without disputing your basic point that the Bush Administration has had a poor record on job creation, I question the value of the particular statistic you have cited to make your point.

Sincerely,

John F. Bradley

Posted by John F. Bradley on Feb 12, 2004 at 3:40 PM