> while the average life expectancy for men is 66.4 years This is however life expectancy at birth. I.e. if you're born today, in average, you'll live to 66.4

> while the average life expectancy for men is 66.4 years This is however life expectancy at birth. I.e. if you're born today, in average, you'll live to 66.4 years. Comparing this figure to pension age is not very useful, since this figure is heavily influenced by infant mortality (and also by registration practices for live births), and infants do not contribute into the pension system and if somebody dies in infancy, it doesn't matter what the pension age is, they wouldn't have a chance to benefit from it. Properly estimating how the reform would influence people requires looking at life expectancies at more advanced ages - e.g. at 42 it's 27 years, and at 60 (current retirement age) it's 16 years. It's still a significant change, which people can be rightfully upset about, but making it sound like average person would just have little more than 1 year to live after 65 is wrong. More correct figure is almost 13 years. Sorry for somewhat offtopic comment, but using life expectancy at birth to make conclusions about people of advanced age is just wrong IMHO.