This is getting ridiculous: Over at the
Howler, we read about a CBS News report on Social Security: (emp add)
THE WHOLLY INCOHERENT AWARD: Liberals and centrists will have to fight if they want the public to hear real reporting. How incoherent can our Big Top Scribes be? Here’s how John Roberts began a report on the CBS Evening News:ROBERTS (12/15/04): Franklin Roosevelt's Social Security safety net is quickly developing huge financial holes. In 1935, the system was flush, 16 workers paid in for every one that drew retirement benefits. That ratio is now just a little more than 3 to 1. By the time all the baby boomers have retired, just 2 to 1. In 2042, Social Security will become insolvent, and today's young workers risk losing their benefits.
Wrong, Mr. Roberts.
Here are the
real numbers:
- President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security legislation in 1935.
- In 1945, a decade after Social Security was implemented we had 40 workers for every retiree. link
- In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree
. link - In 1960, there were 5.1 workers per retiree. link
- In 1970, there were 3.5 workers for every retiree. link
- In 1980, there were 3.2 workers for every retiree. link
- In 1995, there were 3.3 workers per retiree. link
- The ratio in 1998 is slightly more than three workers per retiree. link
- By the year 2030, there will be fewer than two workers contributing to Social Security for each retiree. link
This isn't projecting into the future, with all the uncertainties that go with it. We are talking about established historical FACT. And the CBS reporter didn't get it right.
Mr. Roberts is a disgrace.
posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2004 10:15:00 AM
Astounding. In all fairness, like most sectors of employment, work is probably being consolidated. So while ten years ago there were 3-4 producers and workers for every on-air personality, now there is one or zero (these numbers are guesses, I don't work in TV news).
Shows you where they put the value. Not on fact-gathering or checking.
If the present three to one ratio is so very dire, how come the system is presently generating large surpluses?
Nancy Irving