3 ms·

I don't have the time, inclination, nor skill to do a proper analysis. I've already contributed some empirical substance; feel free to do the same. But I will m

by wahern 7y ago

I don't have the time, inclination, nor skill to do a proper analysis. I've already contributed some empirical substance; feel free to do the same. But I will make two comments: 1) life expectancy excluding infant mortality has indeed gone up considerably since 1789, by about 10-15 years, give or take, according to the particular source. 2) I would expect more old-age outliers today than 1887 driving up the average, so I wouldn't be surprised if the mean is lower or about the same as 1887. But I'll leave it to somebody else to crunch those numbers. Here they are, FWIW: 1789 1887 ------------ 1745 1824 1727 1820 1733 1841 1745 1839 1748 1820 1753 1824 1737 1835 1750 1830 1738 1826 1745 1827 1739 1840 1741 1817 1745 1834 1745 1834 1739 1824 1733 1821 1755 1829 1733 1823 1754 1828 1737 1827 1734 1828 1752 1829 1739 1837 1744 1833 1742 1822 1740 1838 1744 1832 1758 1834 1732 1836 1830 1839 1821 1816 1826 1826 1830 1838 1843 1826 1831 1834 1830 1830 1837 1827 1829 1828 1835 1834 1834 1833 1834 1818 1826 1830 1823 1810 1835 1835 1833 1833 1841 1829 1836 1818 1826 1818 1818 1829 1828 1810 1842 1843 1847 1848 1816 1843

K0SM0S 7y ago
I now realize my comment may be read as midly abrasive and perhaps condescending. Please receive my apologies, it was not my intent. I won't debate your arguments because frankly I don't know, and your guess is as good as mine (you do make sense, I personally follow you intuitively; I just happen to see some interpretations of demographics that bit me in the past, in particular this topic of life expectancy). For instance on the topic of Senators, if you just look at the pyramid of ages for the US, there's this big huge boomer zone — look no further to explain their overpresence in every domain where their current age, i.e. old, is an asset. (However, that there are two or ten times more seniors today than in 1800, when less than 1% of 1% of the population is a Senator-grade politician, is insignificant numerically.) Let's ask ourselves the question, are all experts in all professions generally older today than before? Are Senators evolving like other comparable 'sectors' of activity? (academia, consulting maybe, etc) And I think that yes, as there are a lot of boomers, and they're here to stay to the end of their maximum lifespan because they're so many and Senator is a rare job.

by wahern 7y ago

K0SM0S 7y ago

I now realize my comment may be read as midly abrasive and perhaps condescending. Please receive my apologies, it was not my intent. I won't debate your arguments because frankly I don't know, and your guess is as good as mine (you do make sense, I personally follow you intuitively; I just happen to see some interpretations of demographics that bit me in the past, in particular this topic of life expectancy). For instance on the topic of Senators, if you just look at the pyramid of ages for the US, there's this big huge boomer zone — look no further to explain their overpresence in every domain where their current age, i.e. old, is an asset. (However, that there are two or ten times more seniors today than in 1800, when less than 1% of 1% of the population is a Senator-grade politician, is insignificant numerically.) Let's ask ourselves the question, are all experts in all professions generally older today than before? Are Senators evolving like other comparable 'sectors' of activity? (academia, consulting maybe, etc) And I think that yes, as there are a lot of boomers, and they're here to stay to the end of their maximum lifespan because they're so many and Senator is a rare job.