Beating the AverAGE

[imoldernu]

We've all been to those websites where you put in your age and health information and the calculator tells you how much longer you have to live...
But... if you're interested in how you stand among national statistics for people who were born in the same year as you, here's a chart that gives ballpark figures. In my case it looks like 52% of my age peers have already died.

Just another perspective, based on averages.

 

[Blue Collar Guy]

i looked at the table said 89 % of men my fathers age was still alive, He was in the 11 % that didn't make it. When he went for his operation at age 57 the doctor said he had a 98 % chance of making it. Guess what? yup he was in the 2 % that didnt make it. Im collecting my soc sec the second i turn 62. I want some of that 226 thousand back me and my employer put in. I hope it was a terrible move and i live to 100 and my only regret is i should have waited. But at 312 pounds and 14 medications i dont think so. Im exaggerating about the 14 i think its only 9

 

[Fermion]

I hear ya. I would rather run out of money at 90 than die rich at 65

 

[euro]

i looked at the table said 89 % of men my fathers age was still alive, He was in the 11 % that didn't make it. When he went for his operation at age 57 the doctor said he had a 98 % chance of making it. Guess what? yup he was in the 2 % that didn't make it. Im collecting my soc sec the second i turn 62. I want some of that 226 thousand back me and my employer put in. I hope it was a terrible move and i live to 100 and my only regret is i should have waited. But at 312 pounds and 14 medications i dont think so. Im exaggerating about the 14 i think its only 9

You have a way of boiling things down to the basics, BCG!

I do agree with your SS strategy though

 

[Danmar]

I hear ya. I would rather run out of money at 90 than die rich at 65

Sure but that's a false dichotomy. I would rather live to 90 and still be well funded.

Also, to Blue Collar. You are probably right to take your SS ASAP. But let's hope that was the wrong decision.

 

[kcowan]

I took my company DB pension at 49 and my government pension at 62. I know that this is a bad move statistically, but I am not taking any chances! Every year that both the company and the government must pay, I say "Yes"!

I figure the options to delay pensions and increase payout is just a big organization cash grab, taking advantage of a gullible public. By the time the higher payout will become meaningful, my need for it will become moot if not non-existent.

And, of course, the markets have really played into our hands, rewarding risk and punishing safety, making the pensions less relevant. But having the cash flow from the pensions made the risk more tolerable.

 

[Fermion]

Sure but that's a false dichotomy. I would rather live to 90 and still be well funded.

I would rather be well funded at age 30 and retire then.

 

[joeea]

I hear ya. I would rather run out of money at 90 than die rich at 65

I'd rather live well to 100 and not be a burden on my children than live a YOLO life.

And if I'm financially careful and just a tiny bit lucky, I'll be able to do that.

 

[braumeister]

I hope it was a terrible move and i live to 100 and my only regret is i should have waited. But at 312 pounds and 14 medications i dont think so. Im exaggerating about the 14 i think its only 9

You're probably a lot tougher than you claim to be. Most New Yorkers are. One of my best friends growing up had a father who was a NYC beat cop and he made it to 92.

But do what lets you sleep at night.

 

[mistermike40]

Sure but that's a false dichotomy. I would rather live to 90 and still be well funded.

Not really. Well, actually you're right, they aren't mutually exclusive... but Fermion's point is valid, and implies most people have to make lifestyle/retirement decisions many years before 65 yrs old that will affect how "well-funded" they are at 90.

Everything boils down to probabilities. No matter how much or how little you save by 60 yrs old, regardless of your WR... there is a chance you'll be comfortable at 90, and there's a chance you'll be broke at 90... there's a chance you'll have your health at 90, or be very ill at 90, or not make it to 90 (or even close to 90). Deciding when to snap the string and retire after considering all these factors is a very personal decision (and usually not an easy one, since except for a very few mega-rich there are no gimmes and OMY has to be considered).

I'm still wrestling with this as we speak.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

The latest from the Harvard Grant Study -

The study showed that the role of genetics and long-lived ancestors proved less important to longevity than the level of satisfaction with relationships in midlife, now recognized as a good predictor of healthy aging. The research also debunked the idea that people’s personalities “set like plaster” by age 30 and cannot be changed.

Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.

Over nearly 80 years, Harvard study has been showing how to live a healthy and happy life | Harvard Gazette

 

[Independent]

But... if you're interested in how you stand among national statistics for people who were born in the same year as you, here's a chart that gives ballpark figures. In my case it looks like 52% of my age peers have already died.

I'm picking nits here, but ....

I think that table is for a hypothetical group of people, assuming they experience 2006 mortality rates for their entire lives. But, mortality rates have been improving for some time. The people born the same year that you were have experienced higher mortality rates and the percent surviving is smaller than you'd see in that table.

The effect isn't all that big. But, you can get survivor tables by year of birth here:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_7.html
Enter the year that's closest to your birth year.

 

[joeea]

No matter how much or how little you save by 60 yrs old, regardless of your WR... there is a chance you'll be comfortable at 90, and there's a chance you'll be broke at 90...

Well sure, there's a chance that monkeys will fly out of your butt, too.

But all chances are not equal. And if you save a lot and are careful with your withdrawal rate, you can have a strong impact on your chances that you'll be comfortable.

I know which chance I'll shoot for.

 

[imoldernu]

I'm picking nits here, but ....

I think that table is for a hypothetical group of people, assuming they experience 2006 mortality rates for their entire lives. But, mortality rates have been improving for some time. The people born the same year that you were have experienced higher mortality rates and the percent surviving is smaller than you'd see in that table.

The effect isn't all that big. But, you can get survivor tables by year of birth here:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_7.html
Enter the year that's closest to your birth year.

So, when I was born in 1936, my life expectancy was about 61 years... someone born 40 years later had a life expectancy of almost 70 years. A male born in the US today has a statistical life expectancy of 77.

Here's an interesting chart that shows how long you were expected to live, when you were born. So far I'm ahead of the predictions by about 20 years. Meaningless, except that's what was expected based on medical knowledge at the time.

https://www.infoplease.com/life-expectancy-birth-race-and-sex-1930-2010

 

[mistermike40]

But all chances are not equal. And if you save a lot and are careful with your withdrawal rate, you can have a strong impact on your chances that you'll be comfortable.

I know which chance I'll shoot for.

I agree, all chances are not equal.

The original idea was this: let's assume a person is already LBTM and saving as much as possible. Whether they retire at 55 or 60 changes the probability that they will be comfortable at 90. Two questions:

- how much does the probability increase? We can look at historical data (e.g. FIRECalc) but given the state of the country/world, who knows if global economies will fall within historical boundries?

- with the relative unknown of question 1, how can they decide if working the extra five years will be worth cutting their retirement short (by the best five years they have remaining)?

A third issue is health. If they have a health issue at 65 and are in poor health for the rest of their (shortened) life, I'm sure they will have wished they retired early to enjoy as much healthy retirement as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you're saying... I am personally planning for a 35-year retirement (I'm 57 now) and I want to be comfortable in my 90's. I also want to try and find the "sweet spot" and not work longer than necessary (as to enjoy as much healthy retirement as possible). It's more than just plugging numbers into FIRECalc... that's a great start but there are many subjective factors only you can assess before making the final decision.

 

[Independent]

So, when I was born in 1936, my life expectancy was about 61 years... someone born 40 years later had a life expectancy of almost 70 years. A male born in the US today has a statistical life expectancy of 77.

Here's an interesting chart that shows how long you were expected to live, when you were born. So far I'm ahead of the predictions by about 20 years. Meaningless, except that's what was expected based on medical knowledge at the time.

https://www.infoplease.com/life-expectancy-birth-race-and-sex-1930-2010

Or, using the statistic in your first post:
About 37% of the males actually born in the US in 1930 made it to 80, and
about 42% of the males actually born in the US in 1940 are expected (by the SSA actuaries) to make it to 80.

You've outlived most of your birth cohort.

But, of course, many of those deaths came early in life. 10% of the 1930 cohort had died before age 18, and 10% of the 1940 cohort died by age 33.

 

[joeea]

Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you're saying... I am personally planning for a 35-year retirement (I'm 57 now) and I want to be comfortable in my 90's. I also want to try and find the "sweet spot" and not work longer than necessary (as to enjoy as much healthy retirement as possible). It's more than just plugging numbers into FIRECalc... that's a great start but there are many subjective factors only you can assess before making the final decision.

Agreed. There is only so much within your control.

My thoughts are to establish a plan, work to realize your plan, but remain flexible to deal with whatever life throws your way as best you can.

I tend not to look back and have regrets. If I planned well and it still doesn't work out as hoped, I won't have regrets. If I encounter an unexpected health issue that shortens my life, I won't regret that I didn't retire earlier.

I too am currently planning for a 35-year retirement. My parents are in their 80's and still going strong. I had several relatives who lived well into their 90's. Both my wife and I are in good health and have never had any life-shortening habits.

Our goal is to live well for the rest of our lives, but never be a financial burden on our family.

 

[mistermike40]

Agreed. There is only so much within your control.

My thoughts are to establish a plan, work to realize your plan, but remain flexible to deal with whatever life throws your way as best you can.

I tend not to look back and have regrets. If I planned well and it still doesn't work out as hoped, I won't have regrets. If I encounter an unexpected health issue that shortens my life, I won't regret that I didn't retire earlier.

I too am currently planning for a 35-year retirement. My parents are in their 80's and still going strong. I had several relatives who lived well into their 90's. Both my wife and I are in good health and have never had any life-shortening habits.

Our goal is to live well for the rest of our lives, but never be a financial burden on our family.

You and I have very similar goals

 

[Koolau]

IIRC there are tables which indicate how much longer you might live (actuarily) based on your CURRENT age. IOW if you have lived to 80, you are much more likely to make 90 (or even 100) than the people in your cohort born in 1930. Or "the longer you live, the longer you will live" if that makes any sense. Of course, none of us gets out of here alive so party like it's 1999! YMMV

 

[kcowan]

When my Dad was 90, it said he had 3.5 years to go. He actually made it to 4.5!