Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
2 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Expected life table values rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I was looking at the 2012 census abstract (table 107) and saw this.

Quote:
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Divorces 79
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012
Table 107. Expectation of Life and Expected Deaths by Race, Sex, and Age:
2008
[Life expectancies were calculated using a revised methodology and may differ from those previously published. The methodology
uses vital statistics death rates for ages under 66 and modeled probabilities of death for ages 66 to 100 based on blended vital
statistics and Medicare probabilities of dying]

Percentage surviving to age 65:
. 1959–61 –1971 –81 –91 –01 -2008
Male . 64.2 64.3 70.6 74.0 78.1 80.0
Female 78.5 79.7 83.5 85.1 86.4 87.6


What this says is that for people born in 1961 (my birth year, 64.2% of men are expected to reach age 65.

I'm not sure why the survival rate jumps so steeply for those born in 1981 and later. Maybe it's cancer drugs. Maybe it's less smoking.

As of 2007, only 13% of people over 65 were older than 84.

This keeps coming up in social security discussions. They talk like everyone is going to live to 100 when only 1.8% make it past 90 and well under 1% make it past 95.

And I think a lot of people have a pretty good idea when they are going to die based on their health and family death ages. After my mom died, it was clear that she had known for at least two years that she was near the end (she had a death board with information I needed to know in her back bed room-- I recommend people prepare one for their children- it helped me a lot. Of course talking to her about her death would have been better but I ((like many)) never did).

It's too messy with infant mortality but basically 1/3 of people born 1961 and earlier didn't make it to collect their social security. When I look at the star trek memory board, I see a lot of cancer in the 40's and 50's and a lot of heart disease in the 60's.

Anyway-- 1961 is almost the END of the baby boom. So I'm just not sure advice to wait to take your social security (which increases the payments by about 8% per year) is reasonable unless you have a pretty good idea you are going to live past age 82. (which about 85% of people over 65 do not).

It seems like taking social security early-- or late, results in the same break even date-- if you take it early- you start to "lose" at about age 82. If you take it later- you start to "win" about age 82.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Exceptio probat regulam
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
IMO the risk element in pension systems is very unfair.

There must come a point when so few people survive that they could afford to increase the payout without affecting the other participants much.
Done right, this would take the uncertainty out of calculations regarding when to consume capital (for example to "buy" a few years delay in order to get a higher payment).

As it is, most systems force participants to be extra careful just when they have more flexibility in how to use their time - on the chance that they have to live with too little income if they're "unlucky" enough to live to 100.

The only certain thing with the various pension options where I live is that if you die early, the scheme keeps your "capital".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.