2 ms·
> a 57-year-old man in the US has only a 50% chance of living to see their child reach 23 years of age Perhaps a clearer way to put it: a 57-year-old man in th
by pc86 3y ago
> a 57-year-old man in the US has only a 50% chance of living to see their child reach 23 years of age
Perhaps a clearer way to put it: a 57-year-old man in the US has a 50% chance of living to 80, which doesn't seem quite as shocking of a statement.
- hnick 3y agoIt might also be loaded with the assumption the man has a child - I'd assume outcomes are different for those with and without? I wonder by how much.
- riffic 3y agoyo if people like looked at an actuarial table they'd have a better idea what that means
- jonhohle 3y agoHow many men are having their first child at 57? I’ll be well under 57 when my oldest child is 23.
- pc86 3y agoI'm not sure what that has to do with the parent comment.
- oefnak 3y agoI on the other hand, don't understand why that first comment brought up children at all. Did Kevin have his first kid at 57?
- callalex 3y agoThe third sentence of the linked article tells us that his wife is pregnant.
- wittenbunk 3y agoReading between the lines of the article he battled cancer for 14 months, but his wife is currently pregnant with their first kid. So they chose to have a kid knowing he was a 57 year old with an aggressive form of cancer.
- rvba 3y agoI guess it is more of a millionaire thing. The poster above mentioned that Mitnick had more than 9 million shares of some company sold for ~25 dollars each. That would be ~225 million.
- glimshe 3y agoInterestingly, I'll be 57 when my child is 23.