3 ms·

Well, the life expectancy at birth was 67 because of lots of early deaths. Life expectancy at 65 has only increased by 2 or 3 years: https://www.seniorliving.or

Well, the life expectancy at birth was 67 because of lots of early deaths. Life expectancy at 65 has only increased by 2 or 3 years: https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-expectancy-united-states/ https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-... Once you're old, you've kinda "made it" as far as life expectancy numbers go. I think someone who is 70 in 1935 would be considered just as "old aged" as someone 70 today. In fact someone who made it to 70 in the early 1900's may be considered healthier due to obesity/diabetes epidemic numbers alone...

DoreenMichele 8y ago
The article you linked to doesn't seem to fit with your claims and I don't believe your claim is accurate. Everything I have seen indicates we are seeing a lot more people live into their 80s and beyond. I'm not going to try to prove that. My understanding is that is common knowledge.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  (This isn't entirely a reply to you, my apologies) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNLE00INUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNLE00INUSA graphs out life expectancy for the US since 1960. I couldn't find a source where it went back to 1935 as well. According to the World Bank, we're averaging about 78 right now. So, with the same assumptions made in 1935, we should be working until we're about 76; a full 11 more years of contributions before withdrawal. Some will live longer, some won't make it. Life sucks. (Aside: who will actively employ septuagenarians?) Combine that same thought with the idea of the maximum taxable limit ($128,400) and the "demise of SS" would probably be a lot less of a real threat. Then again, in its inception, it only taxed from the first $3,000[1] wage earned (~$55,000 in today's money). [1] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html

DoreenMichele 8y ago

The article you linked to doesn't seem to fit with your claims and I don't believe your claim is accurate. Everything I have seen indicates we are seeing a lot more people live into their 80s and beyond. I'm not going to try to prove that. My understanding is that is common knowledge.

EADGBE 8y ago
(This isn't entirely a reply to you, my apologies) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNLE00INUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNLE00INUSA graphs out life expectancy for the US since 1960. I couldn't find a source where it went back to 1935 as well. According to the World Bank, we're averaging about 78 right now. So, with the same assumptions made in 1935, we should be working until we're about 76; a full 11 more years of contributions before withdrawal. Some will live longer, some won't make it. Life sucks. (Aside: who will actively employ septuagenarians?) Combine that same thought with the idea of the maximum taxable limit ($128,400) and the "demise of SS" would probably be a lot less of a real threat. Then again, in its inception, it only taxed from the first $3,000[1] wage earned (~$55,000 in today's money). [1] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html