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.

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

To: combjelly who wrote (217370)	2/4/2005 11:05:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572507

All of those links are for life expectancy. That is a figure that includes things like infant mortality. No. From my post - "This link includes lfe expectancy at 65, not just from birth. efmoody.com; and "Table 1: Life Expectancy for Social Security Year Cohort Turned 65 Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 ssa.gov From 1940 to 1990 it goes from 53.9 to 72.3 in men and 60.6 to 83.6 for women." As for "Got a link? I do. en.wikipedia.org; I replied asking if you had one, apparently you edited the post after my reply. I followed your link and it doesn't support your argument. You said "What we have now is about the same percentage of the population is living beyond 70 or so as has always." Nothing at your link supports that contention. It does support the idea that most of the increase in lifespan is due to less people dieing very young, but most is not all and then remaineder still increases the percentage of the population beyond 70. My links more directly address the issue and show that your statement was wrong. They specifically show the percetnage living beyond 65 going up but unless there is an increase in the death rate from 65 to 70 (and in fact it has decreased) the percentage living beyond 70 would also go up. The percentage of people who made it to 21 also living beyond 65 has gone up from a little more than half to over 3/4ths, and the average time past 70 has also increased. Here is a few more links " Statistics on the Aging Population The older population--persons 65 years or older--numbered 35.9 million in 2003 (the latest year for which data is available). They represented 12.3% of the U.S. population, about one in every eight Americans. By 2030, there will be about 71.5 million older persons, more than twice their number in 2000. People 65+ represented 12.4% of the population in the year 2000 but are expected to grow to be 20% of the population by 2030. The information in this section of the AoA web site brings together a wide variety of statistical information about this growing population." aoa.gov Of course a lot of that is due to the baby boom but not all of it. And of course its a projection so it isn't hard data but it does go directly to the issue. "Over the next decades, our nation will experience major demographic changes. They include a large growth in the number of persons age 65 and over as the baby boomers reach retirement age and increased life expectancy after age 65." hhs.gov "The average life expectancy now is well over 70 for both men and women. The fastest growing group in the United States is people over the age of 85. Experts estimate that by the year 2040, we will have over a million people in the United States over the age of 100." metrohealth.org "The average 65-year-old American woman can now expect nearly two more decades of life, while men of the same age will live an average of 16 years longer... ...Increased life span: In 1900, the average 65-year-old could expect another 12 years of life, on average. A century later, in 2000, life expectancy post-65 had increased to 19 years for women and 16 years for men. Similarly, in 1900, 85-year-old Americans could expect an additional four years of life. By 2000, that statistic increased seven years for women and six years for men." health.yahoo.com Life expectancy chart, not just for those born in a particular year but for those who turn 65 in a particular year post-gazette.com This next link is about Canada but the trends are similar in the US "It is not just life expectancy at birth that has increased: a 35 year old male can expect to live to the ripe old age of 77.3, and a female of the same age to 82.5. Some will die younger, some older, but on average this is what a 35 year old can expect. A 50 year old male can expect to live to 78.5 compared to the 73.9 years of his 1921 counterpart, and a 50 year old female today can expect to live to 83.2, compared to 74.6 year life span expected for a 50 year female old in 1921. These are conservative estimates of life expectancy, as they are based on the assumption that today’s 35 years olds will have the same probability of dying when they are 65 as today’s 65 year olds have: today’s 35 year olds will have 25 years of additional medical research to reduce the probability of dying in the future. This means that today’s oldest Baby Boomers (the 50 year olds) will be alive, and living in their homes, 30 to 35 years from now, and the last (and most numerous, today’s 35 to 39 year olds) of the Baby Boomers will be doing the same thing in 45 to 50 years. In fact, the first of the post Baby Boom generation, today’s 30 to 34 year olds, will be retiring (if they retire at 65) while the first of the Baby Boom generation are still alive, and living in their homes. Baby Boomers can expect to live long enough to be a problem not only for their children, but their grand children, and great grand children, too. " urbanfutures.com Tim