Life expectancy?

[imoldernu]

At birth, our life expectancy was 65, so we retired @53, and planned for 84...

Now, after 24+ years of unemployment, and getting nearer to that goal, the revision is to age 90, and so far, so good. Another 24 years would make us 101.

The best part, is not thinking about or worrying about the money part. The mind will be gone before the money, and it won't matter.

 

[enjoyinglife102]

I use 100 and I am optimistic that living a healthy and active lifestyle will get me there. It is motivating to read how so many of the common aging maladies can be minimized through choices we can all make. There are no guarantees, but like with investing, I'll go with what has the best probabilities of generating results.

 

[travelover]

..........
Now, I might expect to see a 100 year birthday card section at a health food store or a store that deals in physical fitness products, But, Big Lots?
..........

Doesn't Big Lots rely on buying ill conceived merchandise that can't be sold in a regular store?

 

[travelover]

Now that's taking charge...make those variables dance to your tune!

Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, cut it with an axe. How accurate do you think these are estimators are?

 

[Major Tom]

When I first ER'ed a couple of years ago, I was using 40 years as the time-span when using Firecalc, which would have taken me through to 87. Thing is - who of us sets our WR at the beginning of our retirement, and sticks to it religiously until we go to meet our maker?

I figure I have room for adjustment either way as I age, depending on whether I'm doing well, or not so well.

 

[martyp]

Last year I took a class on aging from a physician. The basic message from the class was that the human lifespan was about 100yrs. The goal of contemporary medicine wasn't to extend lifespan but to keep you as healthy as possible up to that point.

For planning purposes I use 85 yrs. 90 if I'm in a good mood.

 

[cranberryjoe]

I use 95 for planning, but my family history is all over the map. My parents lived to 83 and 84 but succumbed to smoking-related illnesses while I do not smoke. Mom's parents lived to 38 and 67 while Dad's parents lived to 57 and 97. Mom's grandparents tended to die young (30's to 60's) while my long-living grandmother's parents lived to 88 and 91, so if I got her genes I could keep on going and going and going...

 

[ERD50]

JMO, but I think too many people are putting too much importance on ancestors and various LE calculators. Those are fine when applied to groups, but how important are they to an individual?

I like the vanguard interactive report on LE at various ages as a reference, a kind of reality check. And planning for a 40 year plus time span gets you close to a 'forever' portfolio, so it all merges to a diminishing point anyhow.

-ERD50

 

[arky]

My paternal grandfather and my father made it to 95 and 96, respectively. So, that is what I have planned for.

 

[Live And Learn]

JMO, but I think too many people are putting too much importance on ancestors and various LE calculators. Those are fine when applied to groups, but how important are they to an individual?

I like the vanguard interactive report on LE at various ages as a reference, a kind of reality check. And planning for a 40 year plus time span gets you close to a 'forever' portfolio, so it all merges to a diminishing point anyhow.

-ERD50

Good points !

 

[kramer]

I looked at the statistical tables for males. And then I added some years for the fact that I try to be healthy, don't smoke, am well educated, and as time passes life expectancy should continue to increase.

On the other hand I live in a developing country and drive a motorbike.

I am 47 year old male so I use 87 for planning purposes.

I consider 87 to be something like the 75th percentile, that is, I will live beyond that age only 25% of the time.

 

[Major Tom]

And planning for a 40 year plus time span gets you close to a 'forever' portfolio, so it all merges to a diminishing point anyhow.

-ERD50

My thoughts too, though you expressed it with greater clarity than I did.

 

[Khan]

Originally planned on 80, now considering 70.

 

[jime444]

We use 90, or 35+ years of retirement. Neither DW or I have any relatives that lived past 85, though. Most gone in their early seventies, several generations back. Lifestyle calculators say on average 84, 78 respectively, for her and I. That, plus we'll have 110%+ of basic expenses covered by SS, pensions and COLA'd annuities. So that's why we're taking SS early, probably.

 

[truenorth418]

95. 100% firecalc result.

Mom died at 63 but Dad still going strong at 82.

 

[Andre1969]

I use 100 for my planning. I'm 43 now, and have two grandparents who are still alive. One is 89 and the other is 98. The two that passed away died at 73. But, Granddad grew up on a tobacco farm, smoked all his life, dealt with a lot of dangerous chemicals, asbestos, etc during WW2, and a lot of farm chemicals through most of his working career. My grandmother who passed away had some disease, forget what it was, but she essentially shriveled away and simply expired. Scary thing is, nobody wants to talk about it, but I think we should, in case it's something hereditary!

With FireCalc, I discovered awhile back that sometimes if you use a shorter life expectancy, like 90-95, my chance of success is actually less than 100. IIRC, that's simply because for a shorter duration, FireCalc has more past scenarios to gather data from. Going down to a life expectancy of 85 or so, it goes back up.

 

[omni550]

My grandmother who passed away had some disease, forget what it was, but she essentially shriveled away and simply expired. Scary thing is, nobody wants to talk about it, but I think we should, in case it's something hereditary!

Andre1969,

If no one will talk about it, you may want to consider spending $99 for the saliva test at 23andme.com which will provide:

• Reports on 240+ health conditions and traits
• Testing for 40+ inherited conditions
• Discover your ancestry composition
• Updates on your DNA as science advances

Nords started a thread on his testing results earlier this year http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/23andme-personal-genetic-testing-64479.html


omni

 

[clifp]

John Greaney,early retirement research pioneer, published an interesting article here which combines safe withdrawal rates and the mortality table. The good? news is that chances that you'll both run out of money and live 40 years after retirement are vanishingly small. A 4.26% withdrawal rate for a 57 year old living to 97 has a success rate of 95%, drop the withdrawal to 3.9% and the number increases to 98.3%

Now the study is 10 years old, life expectancy has climbed (the @65 expectancy increases roughly .8 years per decade) and safe withdrawal rates have probably decreased, but probably nothing has changed my more than couple of percent.

Beyond 40 years is basically a permanent portfolio which is what I've used.

 

[foxfirev5]

Planning for a max 30 year retirement from age 58 or 59. I figure I can't dial it in any closer so why try. If I get to 90 and realize I screwed up will I really care? Anyway I know my conservative nature will take over before I get too far off course.

 

[HFWR]

Planning for a max 30 year retirement from age 58 or 59. I figure I can't dial it in any closer so why try. If I get to 90 and realize I screwed up will I really care? Anyway I know my conservative nature will take over before I get too far off course.

+1

 

[Mulligan]

Doesn't Big Lots rely on buying ill conceived merchandise that can't be sold in a regular store?

Travelover...... That is a classic comment in my book, anyways.

 

[shotgunner]

I am a male and I look at the life span of my male family members who have departed this world. Fraternal Grandfather 52 (Heart), Maternal Grandfather 85 (Old Age), Father 79 (Dementia), Maternal uncle 76 (Parkinsons), Fraternal uncle 71 (Cancer).

To me planning for a life span of 100 is ultra conservative and insures a legacy. I have seen first hand the low quality of life brought on by Dementia, Parkinsons and Cancer. Something out there has my name it or vice versa. I don't want to cheat myself in being able to live and enjoy what my money can do in the years I have my health in such an extreme manner so as to insure a steady annual income with annual increases to 100 yrs. The probability of reaching that age is remote, especially for a man. I use 85 with the understanding that I will never run out of income, I will fall back to SS combined with a non inflation adjusted annuity if I live past that age.

 

[rodi]

I take those here that have good health but use less than 100 are intent on making sure they die penniless. Guess that's fine if you need every bit of income a lesser LE provides. But me, I'd dial back a bit. This is self-serving as we can afford 100, probably 150, with our lifestyle, but even if not I think I'd take security.

I'm confused by this "100" - is that age 100, or 100% success rate?

100 is an arbitrary number for age. Sure, it's round... but it's not any better to pick than 99 or 101, from a practical point of view.

To answer the OP's question:
I plan for 40 years - which puts me at 91, and DH and 101. Since his dad turns 90 next week (and he's got an uncle who's 93) - it seems reasonable to plan for him to live longer. Only one grandparent of mine made it to 90, the rest died in their 60's and 70's. My mom died in her 60's. My dad died in his 70's. My brother died at 48... Cancer is a big factor in my family.

If we live longer, we can always sell our house. We don't include the value in our retirement planning, just the expenses (taxes, insurance, maintenance.) So selling that would drop about $800k in todays dollars into the asset pool again. (Southern Cal is obscenely expensive... not a good thing, IMO.) It's a good plan B in case we live too long and/or need to go into a nursing home or assisted living.

Someone mentioned 23andMe... We recently did it. Results showed no cancer risk for me... so I guess my family cancer cluster is coincidental, rather than genetic. Good news.

 

[gerntz]

I'm confused by this "100" - is that age 100, or 100% success rate?

100 is an arbitrary number for age. Sure, it's round... but it's not any better to pick than 99 or 101, from a practical point of view.

Age.

Yes, 100 is arbitrary but not at all unrealistic. Couldn't find USA data, but if you're 55 in England today, you have a 12% chance of reaching 100. UK's life expectancy is only 2 yrs longer than USA at birth & if you avoid death before age 1, gun fights, & traffic accidents, & have health insurance, I'd expect USA expectancy for 55 yr olds till death are similar if not longer.

Then that being said, planning to run out of money at 85 or 90 or even 95 seems pretty risky vs. the likely change in lifestyle required to use age 100 - or 105. JMO.

 

[boatfishandnature]

I use 100 for planning purposes. A couple of those internet sites that use your medical history and personal habits did give both my wife and I a life expectancy in the low-mid 90s, so I threw in a few years' cushion for good measure.

By age 99, if nothing else happens, I plan to take up paragliding...