- Original Message -
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:16626] Re: Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
> At 10:08 AM 09/03/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >thanks
> >to the &q
And the misallocation here is not too much being spent on health care,
but health care being paid for in an inefficient way (via private
insurers). Total adminstration costs both in hospitals and the net
insurance premium are at least 30% vs. between 5% and 15% in nations
that have single payer ca
When analysts speak of a fiscal catastrophe some
50 years hence, what they are actually referring
to, strictly in terms of scale, is a public sector
analagous to the Euro social-democracies -- spending
in the neighborhood of 40 percent.
The bulk of this, again in terms of debatable
scenarios, is
At 10:08 AM 09/03/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>thanks
>to the "anti-grade inflation" movmement of the seventies and eighties,
>students have to take more and harder classes to graduate.
damn straight!
and I think that business majors _should_ be forced to work hard.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & ht
I can't say overall, but there's pretty good figures
for workers in the "bracero" program of 1942-1964.
There were some 4 million Mexican workers brought in,
and ten percent of their pay was withheld from
1942-1950, which was supposed to go to worker "savings
accounts." They never got the money--
Hi Rob.
Our current "peak" does not begin to match that of the sixties (at least
here in the U.S -- which incidentally is still miles ahead of you
Aussies in the scum sweepstakes). Among the reasons -- people have to
work a hell of a lot harder for survival than was required in sixties.
This in
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Also, many immigrants pay into social security without being able to
>collect. Has anybody ever tried to quantify that effect?
The SS Trustees reports use immigrants as one of the demographic
variables, with higher levels of immigration meaning more solvency
for the s
Also, many immigrants pay into social security without being able to
collect. Has anybody ever tried to quantify that effect?
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 12:20:13PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> >Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the
> >ratio of s
Gar Lipow wrote:
>Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the
>ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the
>ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" ratio
>is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present..
Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the
ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the
ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" ratio
is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present...
Michael Perelman wr
You are correct.
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 08:15:05PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> I wrote:
> > > and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is
> > destiny.
>
> Michael Perelman:
> >The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in
> >a very
> >young p
I wrote:
> > and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is
> destiny.
Michael Perelman:
>The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in
>a very
>young population.
the dependency ratio doesn't automatically rise with the age of the
population. I
The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in a very
young population.
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is destiny.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA
13 matches
Mail list logo
