Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: "RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:11:09 -0500
"Spender" <Spender@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fg58i71alpg81v33piv7mavui0b1ikn0n1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:05:36 -0500, "RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Spender" <Spender@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49n7i7pnid68n6ke6fj42nvsefgas1lt87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:33:25 -0600, Les Cargill <lcargill99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sure something will be done. They'll do a temporary hack to let
the Fed issue bonds to buttress it. That's what makes *sense*.
They'll also probably do a bit of means-testing and raise the
limit.
Or raise the retirement age. A retirement age of 80 would probably do it.
A retirement age of 80 is sheer nonsense. Just because a person is alive
doesn't mean that person is capable of working full time.
In 1950 the average life expectancy for males was 56.2 years. The
retirement age was 65.
In 1960 the average life expectancy for males was 60.1 years. The
retirement age was 65.
in 1970 the average life expectancy for males was 63.7 years. The
retirement age was 65.
By 1980 the average life expectancy for males had surpassed the retirement
age.
Are you suggesting that Social Security was an utter failure before 1980?
Nope. I'm suggesting that the "work 'em 'til they drop" model is a bit archaic.
Besides, a lot of the increase in life expectancy was due to decreases in accidental or otherwise "premature" deaths.
Now the average life expectancy for males is nearly 77 years. And the
retirement age is still 65. Definitely a problem.
And yes, people are capable of working much longer than they previously
were. The major deterioration in humans comes during the last few years
of life.
I'm not saying anyone wants to work that long. But the system clearly was
not designed for extended retirement. It was designed for catastrophic
cases of old age - for people who had already lived past average life
expectancy. In 1950 a man who reached age 65 had already lived 8.8 years
past the average life expectancy.
In 1950, a man who had reached 58 years of age but who was otherwise in decent health was capable of holding down a full-time job, on average.
In 2010, on average, an eighty-year old is not. Of course a lot depends on the nature of the job. I could probably work until I'm 75; my job isn't demanding physically. But I wouldn't expect the same of a guy who's been doing construction work all his life. Some jobs simply exact a physical toll.
As I said in another post, I'm not glued to the age 65 retirement. I'd probably go for 70 now, with gradual increases in the future. But we've gotta be smart about this. "Life expectancy" as commonly understood is the wrong measure; it includes, for example, infant mortality, the reduction in which accounts for much of the increase you mention. It has little bearing on the expected life span of a man who has already made it to age 60. You need to look at *conditional* life expectancies, that is, how long is a person expected to live given that he/she has reached a certain age.
.
- References:
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: gemjack
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: RichL
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: RichL
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- From: RichL
- Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- Prev by Date: Re: Demi Moore - could die and would never be missed
- Next by Date: Re: Now Comes The Sudden Contrition...
- Previous by thread: Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- Next by thread: Re: Mitt Romney: A very big gamble for the GOP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|