What are you using for your longevity number?

[tominboise]

I use 100. I hope to live that long, don't know if I will or not. In the meantime, I try to remember to live every day like it is my last.

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F.I.R.E User 125.

Cool, you will break the record.

[winyaz]

I've always used 100 because I am an optimist and don't want to run out of savings, but perhaps I wasn't optimistic enough.

The richest American men can expect to live to 87, as always women a little longer. The Equality of Opportunity Project
While I am not in the top 1% I would argue that being retired at 60 puts me closer to the top than the bottom. And in any case, a healthy lifestyle can add 15 years vs an unhealthy one. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pr...estyle-habits/
Either way I figure that I have a life expectancy around 87. But for me that is another 27 years, and life expectancy has been trending up at .3 years per year.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/th...h%20disability.
So another 27 years for me would add roughly 8 years to my life expectancy which puts my future life expectancy at about 95.

And this is before even considering the many avenues of research that have shown that life span can be extended in mammals (mice) with the expectancy that some of these avenues will be of benefit to humans. The Interventions Testing Program run by the National Institute on Aging is considered by many to be the gold standard for such research: https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dab...ng-program-itp

And for what it is worth, the Blue Zones have shown that increased life expectancy can come with less disability, not more.

[corn18]

How many people don't need any savings once SS kicks in? That's our case. The longer I live, the richer my kids get.

[FI_RElater]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jldavid47 You should never plan to the life expectancy in a table. That number is approximately where 50% will die younger and 50% will die older (50th percentile). It's better to plan for the 90th percentile at least. Personally I've been using age 97. It is likely I will die younger, but I'm not planning on it.

That's why I used the two std deviation above the LE given... as it uses population statistics, meaning it includes healthy and non and all manner of socioeconomic conditions but also very large numbers... the median and mean should be well established.
The reason for the excess beyond the mean is (1) it has already been established that those of higher income/economic status have longer lives, likely due to access to care otherwise unavailable, and (2) the numbers reaching that 2x std dev are only 5 percent. So, while there's a potential for those with higher economic status to be more representative of those surviving longer, I'm not convinced that it's a strong enough factor to overwhelm environmental and hereditary factors to such an extent that there would be any expectation of further LE beyond that length.

[Letj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort If you look at happiness studies, most of the factors that really make people happy aren't consumer goods but are things that don't cost a lot, like social connections, getting out in nature, having leisure time, music, mindfulness, meditation and gratitude. In fact excess materialism is actually linked to depression: "We found that the more highly people endorsed materialistic values, the more they experienced unpleasant emotions, depression and anxiety, the more they reported physical health problems, such as stomachaches and headaches, and the less they experienced pleasant emotions and felt satisfied with their lives."- https://www.vox.com/2014/12/24/74477...ism-psychology

I would completely agree with this. As a sample of one, it’s true for me. More material things mean the more I have to manage, worry about creating a trust, keeping people’s hands off my money, succession planning, etc. My greatest joys are from the simple things you mentioned. In fact, the more I accumulated, the more I realized the life I planned for and the things I planned for are no longer appealing to me and I am only 54! I love my trusty old car, don’t want a bigger house, don’t spend on luxury travel (don’t need the bells and whistles plus I look for value), don’t want a boat so what material things left to spend money on? Nothing. Once you are comfortable, the extra means nothing. It will not really benefit me in this lifetime.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj I would completely agree with this. As a sample of one, it’s true for me. More material things mean the more I have to manage, worry about creating a trust, keeping people’s hands off my money, succession planning, etc. My greatest joys are from the simple things you mentioned. In fact, the more I accumulated, the more I realized the life I planned for and the things I planned for are no longer appealing to me and I am only 54! I love my trusty old car, don’t want a bigger house, don’t spend on luxury travel (don’t need the bells and whistles plus I look for value), don’t want a boat so what material things left to spend money on? Nothing. Once you are comfortable, the extra means nothing. It will not really benefit me in this lifetime.

Recent research tends to support the view that simple pleasures are important - "A bar of chocolate, a long soak in the bath, a snooze in the middle of the afternoon, a leisurely stroll in the park. These are the things that make us the most happy, according to new research. Researchers found that it's the simple things in life that impact most positively on our sense of well being.....“It appears that spending time relaxing is the secret to a happy life. Cost-free pleasures are the ones that make the difference — even when you can afford anything that you want.”" Happiness Comes Cheap - Even for Millionaires https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1130224158.htm

[big-papa]

Planning to 95 for both of us based on some longevity in both of our families. Dad made it to 92, a sister of his to 94 and a brother to 94. The remainder of his siblings made it to upper 80's. My g-grandmother made it to 94. Wife's grandparents to 93 and 94. Always at least one person in each generation before that going back well over 100 years made it to 90+.

Because we're using an amortization-based withdrawal method, an estimate in the number of remaining years is needed for the calculation. Beyond that, we'll remain flexible.

[gayl]

Using ssa longevity calculator (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/population/longevity.html) I come up with 5 less years than either parent and 10 less than grandma. So I just use 100


Mom smoked & Dad had 12 MIs, 3 CVAs, and CHF. Grandma just worked. 1 uncle lived to 102. 2 lived to 95. 1 died in MVA