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'v

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.