4 ms·

All the people dying before 65 absolutely do have a bearing on pension payment length: If an employer promises someone a pension at 35 and they don't live long

All the people dying before 65 absolutely do have a bearing on pension payment length: If an employer promises someone a pension at 35 and they don't live long enough to collect then the employer doesn't have to fund that commitment. Using life expectancy at 65 would only be valid if the pensions were being promised only to those who had already lived to 65 and at the time they were 65.

jo909 9y ago
This is totally an important factor for the pension provider, your are right about that. They will factor in how many people will never reach the payout age, the distribution of payout age, maybe if the spouse is covered too how long they might live, how may people switch their jobs and forfeit the pension etc. I'd argue this has an impact on the "savings rate" per employee, but not on the average payout length.
- skookum 9y ago
  > I'd argue this has an impact on the "savings rate" per employee, but not on the average payout length. Your argument is only correct if we define the average payout length to only factor in those employees who receive at least one check. However the original quote that you claimed was wrong is referring how much the pension has to pay out on average, which is not limited to those who live long enough to collect a payout. Their average payout length of 3 years factors in a whole bunch of $0 payouts, whereas your average ignores all of the zeros.
  - jo909 9y ago
    I follow your argument, but I think that's certainly not what the author of the article was intending. And that's a very hard number to come by, because as I've argued you would have to factor in all other reasons why a pension might have to be paid out longer or not at all. Certainly "3 years of average payout" must be completely and utterly wrong because this number includes infants etc which were never employed. Infant and child mortality has an enormous impact on average life expectancy.
rgbrenner 9y ago
Both are good points. It would probably be more accurate to use life expectancy at 25... so it starts around the time people start their careers, and it excludes all children deaths (who never contributed). If we did that, it's an increase from 71.5 to 80 (more than doubling retirement years, from 6.5 years to 15). Source is here, starting on page 53, there's a nice table of life expectancy by age and date: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_08.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_08.pdf
yardie 9y ago
I don’t know about what the pensions from the 50s and 60s but modern pensions have dependency clauses. Based on that the majority of those pensions would pay out. If the pensioner dies their spouse will collect from retirement or 65. If they have no spouse but children the children can collect until 18.
- scarface74 9y ago
  The pensions I've seen give you the option of paying a lower amount for just you or a higher amount to cover you and your spouse if you die first.

jo909 9y ago

This is totally an important factor for the pension provider, your are right about that. They will factor in how many people will never reach the payout age, the distribution of payout age, maybe if the spouse is covered too how long they might live, how may people switch their jobs and forfeit the pension etc. I'd argue this has an impact on the "savings rate" per employee, but not on the average payout length.

skookum 9y ago
> I'd argue this has an impact on the "savings rate" per employee, but not on the average payout length. Your argument is only correct if we define the average payout length to only factor in those employees who receive at least one check. However the original quote that you claimed was wrong is referring how much the pension has to pay out on average, which is not limited to those who live long enough to collect a payout. Their average payout length of 3 years factors in a whole bunch of $0 payouts, whereas your average ignores all of the zeros.
- jo909 9y ago
  I follow your argument, but I think that's certainly not what the author of the article was intending. And that's a very hard number to come by, because as I've argued you would have to factor in all other reasons why a pension might have to be paid out longer or not at all. Certainly "3 years of average payout" must be completely and utterly wrong because this number includes infants etc which were never employed. Infant and child mortality has an enormous impact on average life expectancy.

rgbrenner 9y ago

Both are good points. It would probably be more accurate to use life expectancy at 25... so it starts around the time people start their careers, and it excludes all children deaths (who never contributed). If we did that, it's an increase from 71.5 to 80 (more than doubling retirement years, from 6.5 years to 15). Source is here, starting on page 53, there's a nice table of life expectancy by age and date: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_08.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_08.pdf

yardie 9y ago

I don’t know about what the pensions from the 50s and 60s but modern pensions have dependency clauses. Based on that the majority of those pensions would pay out. If the pensioner dies their spouse will collect from retirement or 65. If they have no spouse but children the children can collect until 18.

scarface74 9y ago
The pensions I've seen give you the option of paying a lower amount for just you or a higher amount to cover you and your spouse if you die first.