SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (217196)2/3/2005 10:59:05 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572197
 
"Suppose most these 80 (and 70, 65) year olds will go on to live to 120."

Then there might be a problem. What we have now is about the same percentage of the population is living beyond 70 or so as has always. But those that live beyond 65 or so are in much better health than they have been in the past.



To: Joe NYC who wrote (217196)2/4/2005 1:16:35 AM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572197
 
>Suppose most these 80 (and 70, 65) year olds will go on to live to 120.

For one thing, that's not the case.

But if they do, then they probably will be healthy enough (on average) to work until they're 110. Then you raise the retirement age. I'd raise it now, already, as I've said, probably to 70. We may not need it, but it's reasonable, and would help us accumulate a bit more "rainy day" money, just in case.

-Z


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News