years people could expect to live after reaching 65: 14 years in 1950, 18.5 years now

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Hoo boy, if Social Security is the big thing in the next few months — which is starting to look possible — it’s going to be like old times again, shooting down all the usual fallacies one more time.

So: one thing you’re going to hear is something along the lines of, “In 1950 life expectancy was only 68 years, so hardly anyone was collecting Social Security; now it’s 78 years — the problem is obvious”.

Does anyone know what’s wrong with this? You over there in the corner? That’s right: a life expectancy of 68 years doesn’t mean that a lot of people toddle along then suddenly keel over over after threescore and eight birthdays. Mostly it meant much higher child mortality than we have now, which has no relevance one way or the other to Social Security.

Much more to the point is the number of years people could expect to live after reaching 65: 14 years in 1950, 18.5 years now. Not so impressive a change, is it? And the retirement age is already 66 for my cohort, and scheduled to rise to 67 on current law.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/fun-with-mortality-tables/

[SoCalDem]

1. "Retirement age" is meaningless if you are pushed out of your job at age 50

The whole "retirement age" idea is from an era when people had a career-long job with A company, ... a company that also provided them with a modest pension (or if one was union, a better pension).

SS was put in place for the ones who did NOT have that in their work-life and it was 1 leg of the 3-legged stool.

1. pension
2. savings
3. social security / medicare..

[damntexdem]

4. And even if not, people still age at different rates.

Some of us figure on working well into our 70s. But some need to retire in their 50s.

[Overseas]

14. K&R. I agree.

It is much harder finding work when you're over 50 too.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Average life expectancy past 65 for my family is -15.0

I wish I was kidding.

[CountAllVotes]

3. same story here

wish I was kidding too.

They need to keep the age the same and lower it IMO. People will be dying sooner rather than later in the future IMO thanks to the toxic world we live in and the contaminated food we eat.

:kick:

[damntexdem]

5. But not for family members who make it to 65.

Statistics won't make them die retroactively.

[Xipe Totec]

8. I'll let you know when one of us gets there. nt

[customerserviceguy]

6. Life expectancy after fifty is not the problem facing Social Security

It's the changing of the baby boomers from being contributors to recipients that's the problem.

[Hannah Bell]

7. that's not the problem, or even *a* problem. the "problem" is the ruling class wants to keep their

little slush fund.

[TheKentuckian]

9. That is correct

[customerserviceguy]

16. You keep ignoring the math on this

But it's still true.

[kenny blankenship]

10. And if you could break that actuarial data out into income quintiles,

I bet it would be look a lot less static. Richer people who arguably don't need Social Security will probably receive payments for more years than poorer people who absolutely depend on it and who paid a higher percentage of their lifetime earnings into it.

[old mark]

11. Well, here go the averages...my dad retired at 55, and he is still having a good time

down by the beach in South Texas at 93...His mother lived till 88.
I'm 63 as of last Monday, but I retired at 59, and my cardiologist is talking in terms of additional decades..I expect to live to at least 80 barring accidents...

mark

[Riftaxe]

12. 4.5 years is one hell of an impressive gain

in such a short time span. Where do you think that extension has come from?

Do you believe that the government has been suppressing human physiological evolution in that time period....or are they hiding some magical medical technology of longevity in some mysterious warehouse next to the car that runs on water, and the autopsied alien bodies?

The alternative would be your criticism of the "not impressive" increase of lifespan, might not be anchored in reality.

[Fool Count]

13. As impressive as it is, I bet comparing the percentage of

people living past 65 in 1950 and now will be even more impressive. Anyone has the numbers?

[Hannah Bell]

15. "short"? 60 years?

yeah, i know what made the difference: people not having to work until they dropped & live their lives in grinding poverty.