The USA's top 10% are becoming increasingly long lived

[marko]

As Elton John once sang: "...Times have changed and now the poor get fat...".

I suspect a relative absence of smoking, poor diet, violence and hard drugs are a large contributor in the rich's lifespan.

I know I'm a bit paranoid but red lights always go off when I see 'envy' articles...the subtle implication is always that the rich deserve to be brought down a peg.

It's been a long, long time since Ringo Starr sang: "...wave at the man in the Rolls Royce, because he knows how to live..."

[Tadpole]

What do the rich snack on? I really don't know but if you are replacing potato chips or the like for the poor, they need access to a more desirable and affordable way to spend their time. What do the rich do for play and exercise. Give the poor the same free time and facilities but it has to be more desirable and affordable than TV.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole What do the rich snack on? I really don't know but if you are replacing potato chips or the like for the poor, they need access to a more desirable and affordable way to spend their time. What do the rich do for play and exercise. Give the poor the same free time and facilities but it has to be more desirable and affordable than TV.

rich people don't snack, they dine

they also play a lot of golf/tennis and work out a lot

[2017ish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole ... Give the poor the same free time and facilities but it has to be more desirable and affordable than TV.

More time is easy; it likely is already the case, as I've seen nothing to indicate a reversal from this: In 1983, the most poorly paid 20 percent of workers were more likely to put in long work hours than the top paid 20 percent. By 2002, the best-paid 20 percent were twice as likely to work long hours as the bottom 20 percent. Why High Earners Work Longer Hours

As for making it more desirable than TV (internet, whatever), I think that is the crux of the problem. For most of us (me definitely included), exercise is delayed gratification personified--we may not enjoy it, but do because we want to be active 20 years from now. (affordability of exercise seemingly wouldn't be an issue; walking, basic set of weights from craigslist, etc....) The long shadow of the marshmallow test reaches out again....

[Clone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GravitySucks I'll start to believe in my own mortality if Kieth Richards dies. ( though Lemmy's passing did shake my faith a bit. )

I believe that Keith is well preserved.

As in fully smoked and pickled!

[Hamlet]

I don't see that anyone has mentioned one likely cause of this is selection bias -- If you have serious health issues, you are going to have difficulty earning a lot of money.

I think it is pretty tough to stay in the 10% of earners if you are getting chemo or dialysis, for example.

[frayne]

Sorry about the wrong spelling and maybe just a little too much hyperbole but my point is, if there is little or no quality of life in those extra years, is it worth living. I agree with the general observation about education and higher income folks living longer due to a more enlightened and affluent lifestyle. All that said I've know many older poor and uneducated folks that have lived very long and healthy lives and have known many educated and affluent folks that have taken the early dirt nap. So I guess the point is moot !!!!

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter rich people don't snack, they dine they also play a lot of golf/tennis and work out a lot

I thought being in the top few % was considered rich. I guess not since I don't really "dine" (unless Burger King, and Taco Bell "dining rooms" count ) hate golf, don't care for tennis, haven't worked out in years (but I still have a set of Olympic style weights just in case the urge strikes me, if that counts)

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frayne Sorry about the wrong spelling and maybe just a little too much hyperbole but my point is, if there is little or no quality of life in those extra years, is it worth living. I agree with the general observation about education and higher income folks living longer due to a more enlightened and affluent lifestyle. All that said I've know many older poor and uneducated folks that have lived very long and healthy lives and have known many educated and affluent folks that have taken the early dirt nap. So I guess the point is moot !!!!

Well, at least now, we know what brand of whiskey you carry in your flagon.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearhead Jim The number of continuously bad choices made by the low education/low income group was stunning, and their health status was only part of the issue.

As a former Section 8 landlord, I can absolutely attest to this. It is habits that cause low income, not low income causing the habits.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy I thought being in the top few % was considered rich. I guess not since I don't really "dine" (unless Burger King, and Taco Bell "dining rooms" count ) hate golf, don't care for tennis, haven't worked out in years (but I still have a set of Olympic style weights just in case the urge strikes me, if that counts)

you are wealthy, maybe not "rich"?

[frayne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy Not sure I buy the article but I agree with "most of your comments". My changes/edits in red. if there is no quality of life in those differential years. I'd rather die at seventy with a pack of camels Marlboros in my shirt sleeve, a fifth of Jim Beam Crown Royal and a few cute little 60 30 years old on my arm than having someone changing my diapers in some rest home when I'm eighty years old any age.

The thirty years olds would be the death of you long before the Crown or Marlboros ! That said not a bad way to go out.

[cyber888]

I'd rather have a Cameltoe than a Camel
60 cuties ? 30 cuties ? --> try 20 for the fountain of youth.
I aint wearin diaphers --> will be in a nudist colony on the beach, easy to wash it off on the beach

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy Not sure I buy the article but I agree with "most of your comments". My changes/edits in red. if there is no quality of life in those differential years. I'd rather die at seventy with a pack of camels Marlboros in my shirt sleeve, a fifth of Jim Beam Crown Royal and a few cute little 60 30 years old on my arm than having someone changing my diapers in some rest home when I'm eighty years old any age.

[2017ish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyber888 I'd rather have a Cameltoe than a Camel 60 cuties ? 30 cuties ? --> try 20 for the fountain of youth. I aint wearin diaphers --> will be in a nudist colony on the beach, easy to wash it off on the beach

Oh man, thanks for sticking that image in my head for the rest of the day!

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj I think this phenomenon is mostly confined to US. If you look at most other countries rich or poor you don't generally find this to be true because often people don't eat differently based on socio-economic factors, with some exceptions of course. Often they eat based on how they've eaten for generations and there is less availability of junk food and more access to fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, poor in other countries don't have access to prescription narcotics and hardcore drugs and sometimes when they do, it's a cultural taboo to take them. For example, the poor in Costa Rica live much much longer than the poor in the US even though the poor in the US have better access to health care.

Do you have any links to verify this? Even disregarding the unrelated comparison to poor Costa Ricans vs. poor U.S.ers, I find it very hard to believe that the rich in any particular country don't live significantly longer than the poor in their same country. Access to better food, health care, and more education should pretty much automatically translate into longer life expectancy, no matter what country it is. Unless the rich are regularly killed off in coups or something.

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator The result probably has nothing to do with income, and more to do with education. Higher educated people generally make more, but they also know more about health and nutrition. It does have a relevancy for how long to plan for. I plan for 99 years.

When I created my retirement plan upon retiring in 2002, I did a standard mortality test and got age 91. Then I applied the bell curve around that median and got a spread from 83 to 99 for 90% confidence. So I also use 99. (I thought 50% was not a very good assumption!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo2 If it's all based on education, intelligence, and lucidity...I've probably been dead for thirty years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brett I think the article was spot on. Very accurate IMHO. We see it when we travel. Just take a look at the link between obesity and longevity and compare the rates in Mississippi, Louisiana, or Alabama to those in Mass or NH. Same with smoking. Obesity in NA schools has become a major health challenge. Add to that the growth in processed foods and fast foods. It is one reason why the US has such a high per capita spend on health care yet outcomes that are similar to Costa Rica.

Also the poor in Costa Rica eat better than the poor in the US. No pizza for them but tortillas and vegetables, with lentils replacing pepperoni.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danmar Agree with most of the (serious) responses. I wonder if the effect increases for the top 1%? Doubtful I think. Intelligence may be the root causal factor? They should do a study on that. Anyway let's just hope our politicians don't take up the cause of how unfair this is and "fix" the problem by taxing the "rich" more. Although any attempt to redistribute wealth to the bottom 10% might just make matters worse. Ie they might just smoke more, get more obese, and abuse Oxi-contin more.

I agree that it is not related to income. You can take the boy out of the Ozarks, but you never get the Ozarks out of the boy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearhead Jim My income while working probably put me in the top 10% and we live in an "appropriate" neighborhood, but I also had another job where I worked in a lower blue collar community. The number of continuously bad choices made by the low education/low income group was stunning, and their health status was only part of the issue.

Eating, drinking and leisure time activities are all indicators of the differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator As a former Section 8 landlord, I can absolutely attest to this. It is habits that cause low income, not low income causing the habits.

Another example is when members of such a group win the lottery. Most often they mention a new truck as their first action!

Quote:

Originally Posted by frayne The thirty years olds would be the death of you long before the Crown or Marlboros ! That said not a bad way to go out.

I have heard about the heart attack on the 19th hole but I guess I did not understand it after all.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley Do you have any links to verify this? Even disregarding the unrelated comparison to poor Costa Ricans vs. poor U.S.ers, I find it very hard to believe that the rich in any particular country don't live significantly longer than the poor in their same country. Access to better food, health care, and more education should pretty much automatically translate into longer life expectancy, no matter what country it is. Unless the rich are regularly killed off in coups or something.

You are correct. A famous study done in the UK of better off vs less well off men found that health care had nothing to do with the differential in lifespans, since one of the controls was that they all used the NHS. No matter how rich or poor the society, there are always top dogs and lesser dogs. Apparently it is just good for poeple to be dominant rather than for them to feel one down. Of course these studies might all be wrong, but then lets put a disclaimer on the forum-"Nobody knows anything about what is being said here."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UKf65NOzM

Ha

[kcowan]

Here is an old 2010 report on aging issues that might help:

Public Health in Canada

Some highlights from the report:

• in 2005, 62% of seniors (65% of men and 59% of women) were considered to have at least very good functional health; seniors aged 65 to 74 years were more likely to have levels of very good or perfect functional health (71%) than those aged 75 years and older (50%)
• between 65-71 we have a 29 percent chance of having poor to good health which could impact retirement; 75 years of age appears to be the break even, with 50% of respondents reporting poor to good functional health
• women with longer lifespans assume greater health risks as they age
• from the perspective of a retired couple, a chronic health issue to one party could scuttle the retirement dreams of the other party. Given the averages the probabilities that a couple could have one member having poor to good health would likely exceed 45% for the 65 to 74 age group and 75% for the over 75 age group.
• health insurance costs for snowbirds or travelers might limit overall enjoyment in retirement after 80

Don't base your retirement projections solely on life expectancy, but also the time of potential active retirement.

On costs, in Canada there is minimal health costs related to aging in general as supplementary health coverage and dental coverage can be obtained at a reasonable price. On the other hand, maybe we should weight our activities and funds towards the front end of retirement, where the ability to have an active retirement is more probable. We might also think about an earlier retirement date once we are able to cover retirement costs.

At least there is some good news for astute forum members:

Quote:

Low-income can impact negatively on health. Seniors living in low-income may be unable to access nutritious foods, have difficulties paying their mortgage, rent or utilities, be unable to complete necessary repairs on their homes, and may have limited access to transportation and non-insured health services.

Although Canadian, I suspect the conclusions are relevant.