Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (17485)	2/18/2004 10:14:15 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

In 1940, life expectancy at birth was only 63.6 years, compared to 75.1 in 1990. But the main reason it was so low was continued high rates of infant and young child mortality. A large majority of people who made it to age 5 also made it to age 65. Life expectancy at age 65 was already a robust 77.7 years in 1940. The beneficiaries of the new program could expect to draw payments for an average of 12 years. Indeed, while life expectancy at birth increased about 12 years over the half century following 1940, life expectancy at 65 increased by only four years, to age 81.8. This is due to the fact that well into the 20th century, life spans increased more by medicine preventing relatively few deaths early in life than from adding extra years to many people’s retirement. Much of the reduction in child mortality took effect by 1960. Since then, additions to U.S. life expectancy at 65 have contributed about half of the total increase in life expectancy at birth. While this also is true in many other industrialized countries, the phenomenon of life expectancies increasing due to better health for older adults rather than for children is virtually unprecedented in human history. edlotterman.com I have to wonder whether differing abortion rates could also be a contributing factor.