• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Average Lifespan - Truth or Lie?

Is the average lifespan really 75+?


  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .

DeletedUser3507

Guest
I belive the average age or my generation is way off, I have had a hard life and am still around, and I see alot of older people in there 90's doing just fine....
 

DeletedUser11886

Guest
I belive the average age or my generation is way off, I have had a hard life and am still around, and I see alot of older people in there 90's doing just fine....
It's not possible to put into anything less than a multi-page essay what's wrong with that statement, but it starts with "anecdotal" and encompasses the percentage of people out of the U.S. population that were born between 1927 and 1937. Life expectancy at birth is always "at birth" because it's an estimate, based on how many people are dying every year when you were born. Life expectancy and average age are completely unrelated to each other. There is never a time when your life expectancy has anything to do with the average age of your cohort.
 

DeletedUser12423

Guest
Ok, let me rephrase. I don't think bumping up retirement age to 75+ from 65 is fair. And that is based on average life expectancy. I also find the sources of these census hard to believe, as so many more people are dying at a younger age. Like the statistics themselves are downright lies.
 

DeletedUser11886

Guest
Ok, let me rephrase. I don't think bumping up retirement age to 75+ from 65 is fair. And that is based on average life expectancy. I also find the sources of these census hard to believe, as so many more people are dying at a younger age. Like the statistics themselves are downright lies.
So you think it's fair that the government hand out even more money that they don't have until the whole thing is unsustainable and comes crashing down for the people who are younger? Someone has to pay for Social Security.

And as far as "so many more people are dying at a younger age", I can't even guess where you're getting that. With a reproductive rate below replacement, the population is only increasing via immigration, which is mostly people below the median age. Every immigrant that gets turned down pushes up the average age a little more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Ok, let me rephrase. I don't think bumping up retirement age to 75+ from 65 is fair.
I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada almost no one gets a pension from their job outside of government work. That means that retirement is 99% in your own hands. The pittance you get from old age security and CPP maxes out at around $25K if you have no other income, which hardly covers rent in a major city.

It's more important than ever to make early and regular contributions to your RRSP and TFSA (401K and Roth IRA in the US I think), and invest those funds in a globally diversified balanced portfolio. I'm planning to be retired for decades before I can start collecting OAS and CPP, when I do they'll be a nice little bonus... If the retiring boomers don't soak it all up before I get there.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser5800

Guest
I have a 2 part plan firmly in place!
Plan A: Die way before any of this matters.
Plan B: Dig a hole and lay in it.
:D
 

DeletedUser3507

Guest
I like that :D

Soggy maybe time to move to another country..
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Soggy maybe time to move to another country..
Eventually I will, but I'll be keeping my Canadian citizenship just for the awesome passport and healthcare. Canuckistan is fine for now, as long as you aren't counting on the government to fund your retirement.
Earlier this year I did a tour of some Asian countries for possible retirement locations. With a 70-80% lower cost of living and awesome weather, there are a few that tempt me.
Right now Vietnam tops the list.
We were paying around $3 a person when eating out at nice restaurants, less if eating "local". The hotel we stayed at for $16 a night rivaled many 4 and 5 star resorts I've been to in Mexico, and when we spoke with the owners they told us to book directly through them next time and it would go down to $9 a night.
We rented scooters for $3 a day, and went for a 1h massage every day for $7 each including a very generous tip. Came home with a whole custom tailored suit, 3 dress shirts, shoes, 4 dresses and 2 purses for the wife for around, also hand made.--$80 total (didn't even bother to haggle down the price)

Globalization has changed the game in the last few decades. Companies outsourcing labour to developing nations means that we can get goods for less in North America, but the cost is that the jobs available here are a different mix. The best way to capitalize on this is to make and save money in a first world country but spend it in a third world one ;)

The next global shift will be automation when machines can make everything even cheaper than 3rd world labour can. It might be a while before this fully takes over, but when it does, those countries will be hurting for money even more so than now.

You're not the first to suggest [moving to another country] to him.
True, but they're usually fellow canucks :(:(
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
The standard deviation where 94% of people will die is, in the US just under 15 years. That means you have a 94% chance of dyng within 15 years of the average life expectancy...or to put it another way, if the average life expectancy is 78 then 94% of us will die between 63 and 93. I do hope all of you get past 93 and prove the statistics wrong.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

AJ
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
to put it another way, if the average life expectancy is 78 then 94% of us will die between 63 and 93.
But that life expectancy of 78 is for people born today.
For those born around 1950 when it was 65, the range is more like 50-80.
 

DeletedUser11886

Guest
But that life expectancy of 78 is for people born today.
For those born around 1950 when it was 65, the range is more like 50-80.
No.

You can not apply life expectancy at birth to today unless you were born today. Average life expectancy _today_ for someone born in 1950 will fall above the current average, because the people who died young have been weeded out of the cohort.

Life expectancy of someone born in 1950 was 68 yrs. the life expectancy of someone who was 65 in 2007 was 18.6, so 83.6 (65+18.6)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf

TLDR: Your life expectancy goes up every year, just not as much as it goes down. (under ideal circumstances)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
@Spiritminer
Sorry, was off by one word:

But that life expectancy of 78 is for people born today.
For those born around 1950 when it was 65, the range is was more like 50-80.


When discussing the age that people have been recently dying at it makes sense to see what the life expectancy was for them.
The thread started with the observation that it seemed many were "dying too young", but if someone died today at age 60 it actually does line up with what was estimated the day they were born, even if it doesn't line up with what someone their age should have expected yesterday.
 

shimmerfly

Well-Known Member
I like to throw a bog in the cog once in a while but maybe you also have to include Genetics and Environmental aspects as well into the mix? If you were born in a 3rd world country your life expectancy would be greatly reduced. Just a thought.
 

DeletedUser11886

Guest
@Spiritminer
Sorry, was off by one word:

But that life expectancy of 78 is for people born today.
For those born around 1950 when it was 65, the range is was more like 50-80.
I'm not sure what point you're making. There's no relevance today of a predicted average lifespan from 1950. The conditions are changed. Medicine is different, dietary knowledge is different. To anyone born in 1950 (or 2001) who is currently alive, their LE@birth is irrelevant.

I like to throw a bog in the cog once in a while but maybe you also have to include Genetics and Environmental aspects as well into the mix? If you were born in a 3rd world country your life expectancy would be greatly reduced. Just a thought.
LE@birth is always based on country of birth. We are _explicitly_ discussing the numbers for the U.S. The numbers for the world are different, as are the numbers for pretty much every country.
 

DeletedUser12423

Guest
I think it's far deeper then that. The current system in place is designed where you pay into social security and taxes all your working life, and die before you can collect retirement. I find myself questioning any statistic now, even medical studies (which are often later proven inaccurate) and population census. And it doesn't matter the mathematical formula inwhich they say they use for the information they produce, they can change that equasion at any time.

A great man once said, "I call bullshit."

With a smile and salute, lol
-Ironman Rob
 
Top