POSITIVE Effects on life expectancy from Early Retirement

A few of us have reported demonstrated blood pressure drops.

I went to my doctor today and he gave me a high five for being below 120. This is the first time in my life I ever recorded a systolic below 120 at the doc's office.

ER matters.
 
Well, I believe it. There is reduced stress and much more time to devote to taking care of yourself nutritionally, with activity, the sun/outdoors, etc.

I'm in "celebratory" phase right now, so my health practices have declined a bit, heh.
 
Last edited:
Oh no! That article referenced the "study" by a Dr. Sing Lin, which showed fictitious data of Boeing retirees living no more than 18 months after retiring at the age of 65.

Once I glanced through the article and spotted that hoax, I did not read further.

This is the 3rd thread that has started here recently on this forum, that either directly or indirectly brings up the hoax that has been circulated on the Internet for more than 10 years.

The Boeing statistical hoax and associated "study" by Dr. Lin would appear on financial Web sites, then linked in here on this forum. This cycle repeats every few years, when the aforementioned "study" is periodically rediscovered.
 
I like the one that say's that guy's that marry gal's more than 18-20 years younger, live longer!:popcorn:
 
NW-Bound said:
Oh no! That article referenced the "study" by a Dr. Sing Lin, which showed fictitious data of Boeing retirees living no more than 18 months after retiring at the age of 65.

Once I glanced through the article and spotted that hoax, I did not read further.

This is the 3rd thread that has started here recently on this forum, that either directly or indirectly brings up the hoax that has been circulated on the Internet for more than 10 years.

The Boeing statistical hoax and associated "study" by Dr. Lin would appear on financial Web sites, then linked in here on this forum. This cycle repeats every few years, when the aforementioned "study" is periodically rediscovered.
Click to expand...
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. That is disturbing that the one apparently reasonably done Dutch study is tarred by being mentioned in the same article with that Saudi hoax.

I am obviously biased and like finding evidence that supports my bias. I am shocked at how quickly those who are biased against ER cite "their" stipudies and completely ignore the confounding variable about bad health forcing early retirement.

Ultimately I like the way this Forbes article points out that early retirement can mean so many different things. It suggests that any large data set is going to be sort of muddy.
 
urn2bfree said:
I am obviously biased and like finding evidence that supports my bias. I am shocked at how quickly those who are biased against ER cite "their" stipudies and completely ignore the confounding variable about bad health forcing early retirement.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that some people are biased, and tend to like studies that support whatever outcome they prefer, and tend to dislike studies that don't?

I'm shocked! Shocked and chagrined, mortified and stupefied!

I'm also shocked at how quickly those who are biased for ER cite "their" studies and completely ignore the confounding variable about the wealth required for early retirement also being used for better healthcare and improved longevity.

Maybe we can all agree that folks aren't actually retiring early in order to achieve longevity. And maybe we can speculate that this may be a case of correlation and not causality.
 
NW-Bound said:
Oh no! That article referenced the "study" by a Dr. Sing Lin, which showed fictitious data of Boeing retirees living no more than 18 months after retiring at the age of 65.
Click to expand...
This goes beyond Boeing.

Way, way, way long ago (80s) I worked for another Elite Megacorp called IBM. It was on the cusp of some serious internal upheavals so various incentives (packages) were constantly rolling out. We were a diverse group age-wise, yet we all sat together at lunch.

The 50+ crowd would talk about their impending probable retirement and constantly bring up this 18 months study. It seemed every one of them had an anecdotal story of a buddy who retired and was dead in 6 months. The whole process was fraught with fear.

Flash forward 30 years. One of my 50+ co-workers who did retire around 55 back in 91 or so is still going just fine. He was the one who always brought up the "study." We met with him at lunch a few times shortly after he ER'd and he was a different, much happier person. I think he surprised himself!

So, yeah, this "study" is getting old. Both literally, and figuratively.
 
Anecdotal: we’ve been early retired almost 20 years, and IMO we both look younger than our respective age cohorts. But that also could be because we didn’t have any children. ;)

Also, financial security is a huge unstressor whether you are retired or not.
 
Last edited:
JoeWras said:
This goes beyond Boeing.

Way, way, way long ago (80s) I worked for another Elite Megacorp called IBM. It was on the cusp of some serious internal upheavals so various incentives (packages) were constantly rolling out. We were a diverse group age-wise, yet we all sat together at lunch.

The 50+ crowd would talk about their impending probable retirement and constantly bring up this 18 months study. It seemed every one of them had an anecdotal story of a buddy who retired and was dead in 6 months. The whole process was fraught with fear.

Flash forward 30 years. One of my 50+ co-workers who did retire around 55 back in 91 or so is still going just fine. He was the one who always brought up the "study." We met with him at lunch a few times shortly after he ER'd and he was a different, much happier person. I think he surprised himself!

So, yeah, this "study" is getting old. Both literally, and figuratively.
Click to expand...

I recall first seeing this "study" perhaps 10 years ago when the info was circulated at a megacorp where I was doing part-time contract work. At about the same time, the same was shared on this forum.

Just now, I briefly tried to track it down to see when it originated, but found only one reference saying it has been on the Web for at least 20 years, which is about the time the Internet went mainstream.

The "report" by Dr. Sing Lin, which one can still find on the Web, is dated 2002. It referenced some data provided by a Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng which showed that Boeing retirees who hanged on till 65 definitely would not live another 18 months!

And Dr. Sing Lin went on to say that 65-year-old retirees at Lockheed, Bell Labs, Ford Motor, eerily shared the same fate. On the Web, I saw another source that "confirmed" the same phenomenon at Sandia Labs.

If I searched further, perhaps would see confirmation of the same experience in large foreign companies. Or is this only observed at American companies that exploited their employees and worked them to death? :)

Lastly, I used to see some writing from Boeing refuting this hoax. I cannot find it anymore, but recall that they said longevity of Boeing retirees showed no correlation to their age at retirement. A notable statistics they pointed out was that Boeing retirees had a longer lifespan than the general public.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read the article, but when I retired I was on BP medicine and had a pretty high A1C. Almost 5 years later, I am off the BP meds and all my lab numbers are now within normal limits. Sure, it's not nearly as "scientific" as the Boeing study but I will take it. ;)
 
I think there is a difference between the 2 “sides”. I wouldn’t argue that there is strong evidence either way. It is the Anti-ER crowd who most often bring up the effects on longevity. I would never encourage ER for primarily life expectancy effects and am not aware that any of the ER Advocates make this a big part of their “pitch.”
It is the naysayers who have the burden of proof. I know if I had continued to work -even if I did live longer, I would have spent much of the time wishing I were dead.
 
Retirees generally feel a lot better after they stop work, whether they do it early or not. That is indisputable.

Heck, even before the working age, I always felt good when the school year ended, and I was looking forward to a summer of putzing.

We don't need no stinkin' study to know how people feel when they are under no obligation, and can do what they want including nothing, and still have money to buy food and electricity for their AC, and spend all the time planning their European trip.

The problem with health is that illnesses like cancer can creep up on you and cut short your happy days, and that happens to retirees just as often as to workers. And maybe your BP goes down, but your blood cholesterol and blood glucose go up with all the merry feasting and inactivity?

A quick search on the Web, and I found a statistics that showed early retirees did a bit worse than workers. Won't bother to link it here, but it was suggested that many took early retirement because of a health problem. Of course, these people would not do as well as a worker in good health.
 
Last edited:
The last sentence in the article:


"The most important thing? Keep moving and stay engaged."


Very important point. Loneliness can also cause health problems and sitting idle, doing nothing creates stress as well. It seems everyone on this forum follows the last sentence. I'm sure there are those who retire without a plan and get lonely and bored.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if ER will extend my life span.

But if the last years of my life are of higher quality, that is enough.
 
Last edited:
NW-Bound said:
A quick search on the Web, and I found a statistics that showed early retirees did a bit worse than workers. Won't bother to link it here, but it was suggested that many took early retirement because of a health problem. Of course, these people would not do as well as a worker in good health.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we've discussed that before. The studies generally do not differentiate among:

  • Planned for, voluntary, secured ER
  • Forced ER with generous package
  • Forced ER with no package
  • Self-forced ER due to health issues
They all have different stress indexes.
 
ER Eddie said:
Well, I believe it. There is reduced stress and much more time to devote to taking care of yourself nutritionally, with activity, the sun/outdoors, etc.
Click to expand...

Rianne said:
The last sentence in the article:


"The most important thing? Keep moving and stay engaged."


Very important point. Loneliness can also cause health problems and sitting idle, doing nothing creates stress as well. It seems everyone on this forum follows the last sentence. I'm sure there are those who retire without a plan and get lonely and bored.
Click to expand...
I suspect life expectancy related to retirement depends on how active one is. If you take better care of yourself than while working and remain active, you can probably extend your quality of life. If you’re sedentary and sit in front of the boob tube all day, you may shorten your quality life.

But there’s some irony to berating work as it relates to one’s health when work is what enables (early) retirement. If you didn’t take care of yourself while working, you may not once retired either. Does retirement really change one’s fundamental habits?
 
audreyh1 said:
Anecdotal: we’ve been early retired almost 20 years, and IMO we both look younger than our respective age cohorts. But that also could be because we didn’t have any children. ;)

Also, financial security is a huge unstressor whether you are retired or not.
Click to expand...
I agree. We do not have children and are financially secure. Stress, IMO, ages people and has a negative effect on overall health.
 
Regardless of what any study has said, positive or negative, the last seven months have been awesome. My BP is back in line. I’ve dropped about 20 pounds and feel better than I have in years. DW and I have taken three trips already this year and have two more, and possibly a third, in the next several months. And we’ve already booked a European trip for next year. For me it’s all good...[emoji41]
 
Any such study would have to be pretty rigorous to convince me of a causal relationship between shorter lifespans and ER.

For one thing, I suspect unhealthy people are more likely to become retired, voluntarily or involuntarily. There's a huge difference between retiring because you're FI, and retiring because your health is failing. The latter category would probably skew the results unless controlled for.

And even if someone proved ER caused early demise, there's the whole quality-of-life issue to contend with.

For now, I'm going with anecdotal evidence. I know enough people whose health improved dramatically after retirement (early or otherwise) that I'd require a lot of evidence to believe the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
A Year Into Early Retirement; Still More Questions than Solutions
2 3
Replies
53
Views
7K
BlueberryPie
BlueberryPie
T
TickTock's Take on Bonds vs. Bond Funds
Replies
6
Views
771
Chuckanut
Chuckanut
sengsational
Meditation Resolution
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
ERD50
E
S
I Finally Retired !
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
Jimonlimon
J
R
Re-retiring?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
mebden
mebden

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom