Unrealistic life expectancy?

[rescueme]

My/our simple view is that we would rather die with money, than live without it.

The estimated longivity in our retirement plan reflects that view.

 

[Alan]

The estimated longivity in our retirement plan reflects that view.

Now you're speaking like a Texan

 

[HFWR]

It was just a joke, maybe I should finished it with <rim shot>

Rimshot - YouTube

 

[RetiringAt55]

I used 95 for financial planning purposes, mainly to cover my DW.

But have you run the numbers if you die at 70 and she lives to 100? That is the "cover my DW" number you have to worry about.

 

[MasterBlaster]

here's a fun chart from the IRS mortality data showing age versus the probability of being alive. Men (blue) and women (red).

Note that at 80 around 45% of the men and around 65% of the women are still alive.

Note that at 90 around 15% of the men and around 28% of the women are still alive.

There are still lots of people around after the median age of expiration has passed. Note also that some live for quite awhile after the median age of expiration.

 

[47]

One thing to note in these averages and median data is all these are relative to your current age.

If your life expectancy is 75 when you are 50, it will be higher when you are 60 even without taking into account any advancements in medicine, and any other external changes. The fact that you made it to 60 means all the possibilities of you kicking the bucket betn. 50 and 60 didn't come to pass. So that moves the life expectancy further out.

Add to this all the improvements and innovations in medical science to cure combined with various ways of just not letting people die.. you get the idea.

So it is always a moving target unless you stipulate it's lights out at a date certain!

 

[ERD50]

Cancer rates have been increasing since 1950. And they are expected to keep increasing.

According to French researchers, the incidence of cancer is expected to increase by more than 75% by the year 2030 in developed countries, and over 90% in developing nations.​

See: Cancer Rates Expected To Increase 75% By 2030 - Medical News Today.

Many cancer drugs that were heralded as wonderful when they came out were later proven to extend life of patients by just a couple of months. A lot of progress has been made on treatments since 1950, but further breakthroughs seem to get harder and harder.

Back on the cancer increase, how about stopping it? Obviously, we do not know how, or cannot.

Are these numbers adjusted for the fact that people are not dying of some other causes? This is a zero-sum game for us mere mortals.

IIRC, the correct way to measure this is incidences of new cancers at each age, as a % of population at that age. And then you need to adjust for diagnostic techniques that might find more cancers than in the past.

-ERD50

 

[Sarah in SC]

It was just a joke, maybe I should finished it with <rim shot>

I just figured you could come up with a plausible relative that this might have happened to! I have faith in your storytelling.

 

[Alan]

I just figured you could come up with a plausible relative that this might have happened to! I have faith in your storytelling.

I do have a Great Aunt who killed herself by hanging, maybe she saved the judge from naming the day.

 

[haha]

One thing to note in these averages and median data is all these are relative to your current age.

If your life expectancy is 75 when you are 50, it will be higher when you are 60 even without taking into account any advancements in medicine, and any other external changes. The fact that you made it to 60 means all the possibilities of you kicking the bucket betn. 50 and 60 didn't come to pass. So that moves the life expectancy further out.

Add to this all the improvements and innovations in medical science to cure combined with various ways of just not letting people die.. you get the idea.

So it is always a moving target unless you stipulate it's lights out at a date certain!

Can you check my reasoning? It appears that at age 70, roughly 60 men out of the original 100 are alive. (Just roughly reading off the chart.) At 80, that number is reduced to 45 men. So 45 of 60 men who entered the 8th decade of life, make it into the next decade alive. Looking ahead at 70, a random man has 45/60 chances, or a 75% chance of seeing his 80th birthday.

Could definitely be worse!

Ha

 

[REWahoo]

Could definitely be worse!

And very well might be.

 

[NW-Bound]

here's a fun chart from the IRS mortality data showing age versus the probability of being alive. Men (blue) and women (red).

Note that at 80 around 45% of the men and around 65% of the women are still alive...

Wow! Nice chart.

But why do I have this nagging feeling that I will not be among those 45% after 80? Self-fulfilling prophecy? I don't think so. Perhaps I do not want to set my expectation too high.

 

[NW-Bound]

Are these numbers adjusted for the fact that people are not dying of some other causes? This is a zero-sum game for us mere mortals.

IIRC, the correct way to measure this is incidences of new cancers at each age, as a % of population at that age. And then you need to adjust for diagnostic techniques that might find more cancers than in the past.

-ERD50

I do not know exactly how the statistics are collected and computed. But let's put aside the increase in cancer rate among younger people (I have to look for that again).

I think it is reasonable to expect that as mortality due to contagious diseases and easily curable problems such as appendicitis is reduced by modern medicine, people live longer to suffer from cancer or other deterioration due to old age. Is there a limit to how many cycles our cells can replicate? And while knee and hip replacements are common now, what about other bones in our body?

My late father-in-law was doing so well in his late 80s, then went downhill fast in his early 90s. Doctors cannot pinpoint to anything wrong. It's just general deterioration of all the muscles and joints and Bell's palsy.

 

[Fermion]

I am hoping we can get downloaded into a machine and live forever. With only 40 years left in my life (estimate of 83) there is not much time so these young kids better study hard.

The real question is how much it will cost. Food and healthcare costs replaced by speed, bandwidth, storage. I don't want my digital retirement to be ad supported.

 

[MRG]

NW-Bound

Sorry to hear about FIL, there's stuff that modern medicine doesn't understand yet.

Yep, you can replace knees, hips etc.....
Other stuff, general aging, brain diseases, not so much. Sadly for some 'living to a ripe old age', may not be as most picture.

MRG

 

[Major Tom]

"what age is the oldest person you know?"

My grandmother on my father's side lived to age 102. She was born in 1899, so actually lived in 3 separate centuries (though didn't have a great deal of experience with 2 of them!)

I'm hoping I have inherited a few of her genes.

 

[donheff]

Life expectancy at age 65 seems to be increasing at over a year per decade. For someone like me (age 48 male), I may have to add about 4 years or so to current life expectancies.

Here are the numbers for male (all races) life expectancy at age 65, from:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf

1950 12.8
1960 12.8
1970 13.1
1980 14.1
1990 15.1
2000 16.0
2010 17.7

This is precisely what I described as "not dramatic" increases. We (I am 65) will get an extra 5 or 6 years on average (only 3 more than my parents). Far from the decades the bio-optimists predict. What I am upbeat about is that with good exercise and eating habits many of us may be able to get a decent quality out of those few extra years and then fall off a health cliff and die. But that may just be wishful thinking.

 

[NW-Bound]

What I do not like to hear is

"Yes, the good news is that you will live 10 more years. The bad news is that you will live those years in pain and misery".