3 ms·

> kids just entering the workforce could easily live 100+ years Actually, the average lifespan at 65, i.e. how long can you expect to live given that you've re

> kids just entering the workforce could easily live 100+ years Actually, the average lifespan at 65, i.e. how long can you expect to live given that you've reached 65, has seen a much less dramatic change than life expectancy at birth (often called just "life expectancy"). In 1845 it was 75 years, today it's 82 (data for the UK [1]). Since people who die before 65 don't get any retirement, this is the key figure. Looking at the graph in that source, life expectancy at 65 has been increasing roughly linearly since ~1900, with a trend around 0.7 years per decade. This means that kids entering the workforce today who survive to 65 can expect to live about four years longer than people entering retirement today. Given that retirement age is now steadily increasing, it's not likely that people will have significantly longer retirements even in 2050. Four years of increase in retirement age from now until 2050 is highly likely IMO. Edit: forgot source link: [1] https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/ https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/

mcguire 10y ago
Life expectancy is reported at a 50th percentile, right? Is there any site that shows a 90th percentile?
slg 10y ago
Aren't life expectancy numbers at birth inherently flawed because they assume the status quo for 70+ years? I don't think there are any medical breakthroughs around the corner that will dramatically increase the lifespan of someone who is currently 65, but are you willing to bet that won't happen for someone who is born today?
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Yes, these numbers are back-calculated as you say (anything else would be witchcraft). And as you say, there could suddenly be a breakthrough technology in twenty years that massively increases life expectancy. But IMO this is very unlikely, because people die of such wildly varying causes (including lifestyle-induced diseases, accidents and even suicide) that it's hard to imagine what this sudden change could be. More likely we will keep seeing incremental change, disease by disease, steadily increasing average lifetimes. Biology and biochemistry is so bloody hard compared to any human tech, it's amazing we have come as far as we have today. People talk about curing cancer like going to the moon, just throw money at it, but that analogy is only accurate if you assume starting your space program sometime around 1870.

mcguire 10y ago

Life expectancy is reported at a 50th percentile, right? Is there any site that shows a 90th percentile?

slg 10y ago

Aren't life expectancy numbers at birth inherently flawed because they assume the status quo for 70+ years? I don't think there are any medical breakthroughs around the corner that will dramatically increase the lifespan of someone who is currently 65, but are you willing to bet that won't happen for someone who is born today?

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Yes, these numbers are back-calculated as you say (anything else would be witchcraft). And as you say, there could suddenly be a breakthrough technology in twenty years that massively increases life expectancy. But IMO this is very unlikely, because people die of such wildly varying causes (including lifestyle-induced diseases, accidents and even suicide) that it's hard to imagine what this sudden change could be. More likely we will keep seeing incremental change, disease by disease, steadily increasing average lifetimes. Biology and biochemistry is so bloody hard compared to any human tech, it's amazing we have come as far as we have today. People talk about curing cancer like going to the moon, just throw money at it, but that analogy is only accurate if you assume starting your space program sometime around 1870.