<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sightline Institute(Aging) Population Bomb? II - Sightline Institute</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.sightline.org/2005/01/18/aging_populatio/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.sightline.org/2005/01/18/aging_populatio/</link>
	<description>News and Views for a Sustainable Northwest</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:54:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>daily</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3</generator>
	
		<item>
		<title>(Aging) Population Bomb? II</title>
		<link><![CDATA[https://www.sightline.org/2005/01/18/aging_populatio/]]></link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:56:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Roger Lowenstein&#8217;s article in this week&#8217;s New York Times Magazine effectively debunks the pervasive notion that the US Social Security system is headed for insolvency. (If I&#8217;m not mistaken, it&#8217;s the Medicare system that&#8217;s got problems ahead, not Social Security.) The article makes a couple of points worth comment: 1. The argument that we need more babies in order to prop up Social Security is hooey. As Lowenstein writes, &quot;though...]]></description>
					</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
