Early Retirement = Death!

[joeea]

most early retirements are health related

Is 62 "early"?

Do you have any data to back up that statement, or is it a guess?

 

[ER Eddie]

The article is not as bad as it seems. What happens is that there's a 2% jump in male mortality at 62.

OH MY GOD!! Two percent increase in mortality rates!! Aaaaaahh!!

(I'm not being sarcastic towards you, NW; thanks for taking the time to read the article.)

And statistics also show that 10% of males retire when they reach 62.

Ok, so that's one possible explanation of the 2% increase -- although there would be others, such as random sample variation in whatever data set they're looking at. But we know retirement (especially involuntary retirement) can be stressful for people, so it's possible.

One way to investigate would be to determine if you saw a similar spike at 65 or 66 (or whatever the main retirement age is for most men). If not, then the theory goes down the drain. I would've thought the study authors would have pointed that out, if it were present in the data, so my assumption is that it wasn't.

 

[Big_Hitter]

Is 62 "early"?

Do you have any data to back up that statement, or is it a guess?

62 is considered early

it was a question on an actuarial exam so it has to be true

(yes there is data, lots of it)

 

[Amethyst]

. more often, it's texting.

Once again pot is getting a bad rap. When you see somebody driving badly, speeding and weaving, that's booze.

 

[NW-Bound]

You weren't drunk enough if you knew you were accident prone!

A couple of times in my life, I was drunk "enough". I passed out.

PS. The first time, I was too young to be of driving age.

 

[NW-Bound]

OH MY GOD!! Two percent increase in mortality rates!! Aaaaaahh!!

(I'm not being sarcastic towards you, NW; thanks for taking the time to read the article.)

Ok, so that's one possible explanation of the 2% increase -- although there would be others, such as random sample variation in whatever data set they're looking at. But we know retirement (especially involuntary retirement) can be stressful for people, so it's possible.

One way to investigate would be to determine if you saw a similar spike at 65 or 66 (or whatever the main retirement age is for most men). If not, then the theory goes down the drain. I would've thought the study authors would have pointed that out, if it were present in the data, so my assumption is that it wasn't.

If there is not a 2% mortality bump at 65/66, then one needs to look further. The reason may be that people who do not need/want to take at 62 can take at any age after that. The distribution may be more evenly spread out from 63 to 70, hence no discernible mortality bump.

 

[Milton]

OK, I was able to read the article as it is reposted on another Web site. See: Is Social Security to blame for so many men dying at 62? | Fox News.

The article is not as bad as it seems. What happens is that there's a 2% jump in male mortality at 62. And statistics also show that 10% of males retire when they reach 62.

“If you don’t go to work, you have more hours of the day to be driving around,” the professor said.

“Medical literature suggests when older men are more sedentary, they’re more likely to be at risk for infection. When they lose their jobs, they increase their smoking rate, linked to the types of deaths we see such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] or respiratory illness.”

The author said she was not advising people to not retire, but rather to maintain their health. Who can argue with that?

Thanks for posting that link (accessible without a paid subscription). For those interested, here is the published study itself.

She seems to have no idea how retirees actually spend their time. How many of us drive aimlessly around? I certainly don't.

What a waste of money ($45,000 grant!) her 'research' was.

 

[GravitySucks]

Once again pot is getting a bad rap. When you see somebody driving badly, speeding and weaving, that's booze. When you see somebody driving slow in the right lane, that's pot. Hmmm...down here in FL we mostly have people driving slow in the left lane. I guess that's old age.

Or waiting for the stop signs to turn green.

 

[joeea]

62 is considered early

it was a question on an actuarial exam so it has to be true

(yes there is data, lots of it)

Well that clears it up...

 

[Big_Hitter]

Well that clears it up...

Look at the latest mortality study by the society of actuaries. Annuitants have higher rates of mortality than non annuitants of the same age. Millions of life years of data were analyzed in developing these rates. Not sure what else you need to see.

 

[ER Eddie]

If there is not a 2% mortality bump at 65/66, then one needs to look further. The reason may be that people who do not need/want to take at 62 can take at any age after that. The distribution may be more evenly spread out from 63 to 70, hence no discernible mortality bump.

I'm not getting why you'd see a spike at 62 but not 65/66. If retirement is the reason for the spike in mortality, then you ought to see a spike at 65/66. I think the lack of a spike at 65 would be pretty clear evidence that retirement does not cause increased mortality.

In fact, you should probably see a bigger spike at 65 than at 62, since more people retire at 65 than at 62 (or at least that was true in the past).

Probably much ado about nothing, though. A 2% increase is pretty small and probably within the error of measurement. Even if there is a 2% bump, it's probably related to having to retire (e.g. for health reasons or being laid off) rather than choosing to retire.


There must be better studies out there than this. Someone has to have looked at retired people vs. non-retired people, partialing out health and other mortality-related issues, and seeing if there is a relationship between retirement and mortality.

 

[NW-Bound]

I'm not getting why you'd see a spike at 62 but not 65/66. If retirement is the reason for the spike in mortality, then you ought to see a spike at 65/66. I think the lack of a spike at 65 would be pretty clear evidence that retirement does not cause increased mortality.
...

We do not know if there's a spike of people retiring at 65/66 or not. That has to be looked at, then compared with the presence or lack of mortality increase at that age.

I assumed that there was not a mortality bump at 65/66, else the author would have noticed it. And so, I did a bad assumption that perhaps there was not, because there was not a corresponding bump in retirement at the same age break.

Thanks for posting that link (accessible without a paid subscription). For those interested, here is the published study itself.

She seems to have no idea how retirees actually spend their time. How many of us drive aimlessly around? I certainly don't.

What a waste of money ($45,000 grant!) her 'research' was.

Well, one can only look so far with $45K. Need more money to look further.

I looked quickly though the paper. Some interesting points stand out:

1) More than of 40% SS recipients claim early at 62. However, only 1/10 of workers stop working at 62. This means the majority of 62-year-old SS recipients continues to work.

2) For the people who delay SS benefits past 62, their age at eventual SS claim is more spread out between 62 and 70. There's a slight bunch up at 65 and 66, but it is much less significant than the concentration at 62.

3) The mortality rate increase of 2% at 62 is significant. It is not the same as mortality risk. I am not knowledgeable about this, but my understanding is as follows. Suppose 4 out of 100 people die at 61. Then, 6 out of 100 people die at 62. That 2% increase in mortality rate between 61 and 62 is actually a 50% in mortality risk.

4) The article said that "the estimated increase is largest for unmarried males and males with low education levels... The causes of death with the clearest increases at age 62 are traffic accidents and two lung-related conditions: COPD and lung cancer...there is also suggestive evidence that males engage in more unhealthy behaviors once they retire".

5) The article cited other studies that show "...mortality risks increase by over 50% in the year following a layoff", and "studies examining involuntary job loss in Europe find mortality increases of 30–80% in the first year after job loss".

 

[ER Eddie]

1) More than of 40% SS recipients claim early at 62. However, only 1/10 of workers stop working at 62. This means the majority of 62-year-old SS recipients continues to work.

So 90% of people they're looking at are not retired, yet the researchers making inferences about retirement. That's pretty speculative.

To me, the findings suggest a link between mortality and financial stress, not mortality and retirement. If 90% of the people drawing SS at 62 are continuing to work, they are probably doing it because they need the money now rather than later. To me, that suggests that financial stress, rather than retirement, may be the culprit.

2) For the people who delay SS benefits past 62, their age at eventual SS claim is more spread out between 62 and 70. There's a slight bunch up at 65 and 66, but it is much less significant than the concentration at 62.

Interesting. I would've thought there would be a bigger "bunch-up" at 65/66. Still, it's important to remember we're talking about age at claim, not age at retirement.

4) The article said that "the estimated increase is largest for unmarried males and males with low education levels...

Which suggests again that financial stress is a factor (low education levels). Social stress as well (isolation). And health factors, since all poor health practices are associated with lower education. So it's not retirement per se (although isolation would be a risk for retired men, so there would be that link).

5) The article cited other studies that show "...mortality risks increase by over 50% in the year following a layoff", and "studies examining involuntary job loss in Europe find mortality increases of 30–80% in the first year after job loss".

Sure. It's very stressful to lose your job or be involuntarily retired.

I think any decent study needs to make a distinction between people who retired because they wanted to vs. people who retired because they had to.

 

[CaptTom]

4) ...The causes of death with the clearest increases at age 62 are traffic accidents and two lung-related conditions: COPD and lung cancer...there is also suggestive evidence that males engage in more unhealthy behaviors once they retire"[/I].

I thought more unhealthy behaviors were the REASON to retire!

But seriously, if you're developing COPD and lung cancer, or at risk of doing so, that's a pretty rational reason to start collecting as soon as you can. It looks like that's the cause, not an effect.

Traffic accidents are an interesting correlation. Makes sense to me. I used to commute to work with a road full of other workers. We all knew where we were going and maintained a more or less constant speed. Now, I drive less but share the road with a bunch of retired folks who have no clue where they're going, drive at varying speeds and in the wrong lanes, and generally are less proficient and predictable drivers.

 

[scrabbler1]

IMHO those who start collecting SS at 62 but continue to work may be doing so because of health insurance. Yes, there is the ACA, but it may not be as affordable compared to being in a subsidized employer plan. Those starting at 65 can also get on Medicare. Those who get out at 63.5 (like my dad did in the 1990s), maintained uninterrupted HI coverage by going on COBRA for 18 months to bridge him to Medicare.

 

[Dash man]

By reading this thread I think I’ve discovered the cause of my depression.

 

[Markola]

There have also been abundant articles lately about “Social Isolation = Death!” Then, just today, I attended a men’s group and the facilitator asked us, “How do you all avoid isolation?” One fellow shouted “I RETIRED! I’ve never been so busy.”

 

[Floridatennisplayer]

Sadly, there are millions of people out there who’s only interaction with people is their job. Sadly, many people identify their worth, their reason to live is their job. Take that away...and they are just a shell. 6 months after retirement and they are dead.

Screw that, I am 100% the opposite.

 

[Milton]

4) The article said that "there is also suggestive evidence that males engage in more unhealthy behaviors once they retire".

I wonder what she means by "unhealthy behaviours". Drugs? Alcohol? Hang gliding? Unprotected casual sex? Knife fights?

For most early retirees, I would have thought that absence of work-related stress, and the opportunity for increased sleep and exercise, would more than make up for any of the above. That's only my speculation, but according to her it should count for something ("suggestive evidence").

P.S. I agree that age 62 certainly wouldn't constitute ER in my book.

 

[NW-Bound]

So 90% of people they're looking at are not retired, yet the researchers making inferences about retirement. That's pretty speculative.

To me, the findings suggest a link between mortality and financial stress, not mortality and retirement. If 90% of the people drawing SS at 62 are continuing to work, they are probably doing it because they need the money now rather than later. To me, that suggests that financial stress, rather than retirement, may be the culprit...

If 40% of the workers claim SS at 62, and if only 10% of them stop working, meaning 4% of the workers stop working at 62, and that is enough to bump up the mortality risk by 20%, that makes it even more significant.

If one cares to look through the paper for that mortality bump at 62, it is significant. It is there and indisputable. The problem is finding the cause. I do not think financial stress is causing it, because low wage earners would get some relief by claiming SS while continuing to work. Early SS should relieve financial stress, not increase it.

I think any decent study needs to make a distinction between people who retired because they wanted to vs. people who retired because they had to.

They need more personal data about the retirees. It looks like what they have access to are just the mortality statistics and the SS claimant data. SS agency knows how many workers claim early, and of those, who continue to work after 62.

 

[NW-Bound]

I thought more unhealthy behaviors were the REASON to retire!

But seriously, if you're developing COPD and lung cancer, or at risk of doing so, that's a pretty rational reason to start collecting as soon as you can. It looks like that's the cause, not an effect...

For people who develop COPD or lung cancer, what makes their mortality jumps up at the age of 62? And why not 60, or 63, or 68? Why any bump at any age?

Suppose we eliminate early SS and make everybody claim at Full Retirement Age, and yet that mortality bump at 62 remains, we will have to look for some physiological change that affects people nationally at that magic age of 62.

Maybe we will look at other nations to see if they see the same phenomenon at 62. We will have to look at Asian and African countries to see if all races are afflicted by the "age-of-62" curse. Maybe this is world-wide, and across the entire human race.

I am just joking of course, trying to make a point.

 

[Cessna152]

Mumbles something about correlation and causation. Two of several amusing graphs from Spurious Correlations:

 

[brucethebroker]

Personally, the "Great Recession" (at my ages 57-61) caused much, much more stress in my life (real estate sales) than my semi-retiring and taking SS at age 62. My stress level is down about 99% since I started "living the dream".

I guess it is possible that having a stress free life and perpetual smile could be fatal.....

 

[NW-Bound]

What each of us does is not necessarily the same thing as what the public does.

If you happen to win the lottery, do you think you will be broke after a few years? Yet, that's what happened to 70% of lottery winners.

After my father died, my mother called her auto insurer to take his name off the policy. Her premium jumped! The agent said that statistics showed that widows drove more than a married couple, and had more accidents.

And indeed, she drove herself more than when my father was still alive.

 

[ER Eddie]

If 40% of the workers claim SS at 62, and if only 10% of them stop working, meaning 4% of the workers stop working at 62, and that is enough to bump up the mortality risk by 20%, that makes it even more significant.

But that's just speculation. It's why I said it was "pretty speculative." There's no actual evidence that the 10% (or 4%, the way you're calculating it) who retired were responsible for the mortality bump. That's just speculation.

Nothing wrong with speculation, of course. But it's different than evidence. And like I said above, it seems odd to attribute the mortality bump to "retirement," when 90% (or 96%) of the people in the increased mortality group did not retire. How did they pull that rabbit out of the hat? They are just speculating.

Btw, I'm not saying there isn't a link between retirement and mortality. There probably is, for people who involuntarily retire. I'm just saying this study isn't providing any actual evidence of that.