3 ms·

>Your chances of dying before "making it big" and retiring are somewhere in the 1-in-10 range. I'd like to see how you came to this conclusion. Painting with

by tyrust 8y ago

>Your chances of dying before "making it big" and retiring are somewhere in the 1-in-10 range. I'd like to see how you came to this conclusion. Painting with broad strokes, one can retire after working in tech for 15-25 years. Start at 25 and they are done by 50. Current death rates for dying between 25 and 50 are less than 0.7% [0]; that's not even correcting for the fact that the wealthy likely have a reduced mortality rate [1]. [0] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm#age_specific_death_rate_total_population https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm#age_s... [1] - https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/cutler/files/jsc160006_01.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/cutler/files/jsc160006_01....

Jack000 8y ago
I don't think that's the right way to look at the graph. It says that out of 100k 15-24 yr olds 74 died, and also out of 100k 85-1xx yr olds 13k died. This is purely a measure of death rates and doesn't take the age distribution into account. to get the probability of dying before 50 you have to look at the total number of deaths/pear, distributed by age: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11867/fig/fig3-eng.htm https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11867... the area under the curve for 0->50 looks about 1/10 of the overall, so I'd say the op is about right.
- tyrust 8y ago
  >It says that out of 100k 15-24 yr olds 74 died, and also out of 100k 85-1xx yr olds 13k died. Yes, which is why I took the sum of those numbers for ages 25 to 50. >the area under the curve for 0->50 looks about 1/10 of the overall, so I'd say the op is about right You're describing the conditional probability that, given you have died, you are under the age of 50.
  - Jack000 8y ago
    what you're doing is (129+192+405)/100000 = 0.7% this means that out of 100k 25-50 yr olds 726 died during 2016. This is the probability that you will die during this year, given that you are a 25-50 year old, which is different from the probability that you will die before the age of 50. (the prior number ignores the cumulative probability that you have died as a <50 yr old during all years prior to 2016) Given that all of us will die, the only question is the age at which we die. The conditional probability that, given you have died, you are under the age of 50 is exactly what we should be looking at.
    - tyrust 8y ago
      >the prior number ignores the cumulative probability that you have died as a <50 yr old during all years prior to 2016 Ah you're right about that. Looks like I'm probably way off. This random thing google turned up [0] says that a 25 y/o male has like a ~70% chance to make it to 50! >Given that all of us will die Something doesn't feel right about this, but I can't figure out what. I'll let it simmer and assume you're correct in the meantime. [0] - http://flowingdata.com/2015/09/23/years-you-have-left-to-live-probably/ http://flowingdata.com/2015/09/23/years-you-have-left-to-liv...
      - Jack000 8y ago
        yeah, the probability of death depends on a ton of priors so assuming the distribution is uniform is not quite right either. just intuitively though, a probability of .7% for dying before 50 seems way too low
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by tyrust 8y ago

Jack000 8y ago

I don't think that's the right way to look at the graph. It says that out of 100k 15-24 yr olds 74 died, and also out of 100k 85-1xx yr olds 13k died. This is purely a measure of death rates and doesn't take the age distribution into account. to get the probability of dying before 50 you have to look at the total number of deaths/pear, distributed by age: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11867/fig/fig3-eng.htm https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11867... the area under the curve for 0->50 looks about 1/10 of the overall, so I'd say the op is about right.

tyrust 8y ago
>It says that out of 100k 15-24 yr olds 74 died, and also out of 100k 85-1xx yr olds 13k died. Yes, which is why I took the sum of those numbers for ages 25 to 50. >the area under the curve for 0->50 looks about 1/10 of the overall, so I'd say the op is about right You're describing the conditional probability that, given you have died, you are under the age of 50.
- Jack000 8y ago
  what you're doing is (129+192+405)/100000 = 0.7% this means that out of 100k 25-50 yr olds 726 died during 2016. This is the probability that you will die during this year, given that you are a 25-50 year old, which is different from the probability that you will die before the age of 50. (the prior number ignores the cumulative probability that you have died as a <50 yr old during all years prior to 2016) Given that all of us will die, the only question is the age at which we die. The conditional probability that, given you have died, you are under the age of 50 is exactly what we should be looking at.
  - tyrust 8y ago
    >the prior number ignores the cumulative probability that you have died as a <50 yr old during all years prior to 2016 Ah you're right about that. Looks like I'm probably way off. This random thing google turned up [0] says that a 25 y/o male has like a ~70% chance to make it to 50! >Given that all of us will die Something doesn't feel right about this, but I can't figure out what. I'll let it simmer and assume you're correct in the meantime. [0] - http://flowingdata.com/2015/09/23/years-you-have-left-to-live-probably/ http://flowingdata.com/2015/09/23/years-you-have-left-to-liv...
    - Jack000 8y ago
      yeah, the probability of death depends on a ton of priors so assuming the distribution is uniform is not quite right either. just intuitively though, a probability of .7% for dying before 50 seems way too low

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]