I’m serious. I need somebody good at math for the following problem, which I started to discuss here:
10,000 people reaching age 65 are retiring every day.
“According to data compiled by the Social Security Administration:
A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 84.3.
A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 86.6.
And those are just averages. About one out of every four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90, and one out of 10 will live past age 95.”
There it is in BOLD. Can you give me the answer as to how many that is?
As I have written in the comments to the original post, I didn’t take in what a staggering statement that one in bold (emphasis added by me) is. One in four doesn’t sound like much, and neither does one in 10. But the scale of it has left the part of my mind that handles math weak. How much are you saving towards retirement? Will you be the one out of four or the one out of ten? Do you realize that’s another third of your life?!
Hunt, the sad thing about gov statistics/demographics is one, it’s always several years old. Two, no error budget is stated so the accuracy of the statement can’t be assessed. Three, we don’t know the population of the demographic studied that determined the numbers. Basically, their statement is meaningless without the data and the data analysis methodology used. But, in their behalf, few would understand it if they did provide the data and it makes for too much print. What’s needed is a meaningful projection that is time phased by year with a link to the data and analysis. Bureau of labor statistics website under the open data project may have the clues you seek.
LikeLike
WN: All of what you say is true. In the original article I wrote, I linked to someone who was pointing out the fallacy of the 10,000. But, for my purposes, I’d like to just go off those basics provided by the SSA. I am not doing this for a white paper, just as a quick grasp of the big picture. That said, I love you, WN, for pointing me towards where I could dig in. Thank you, my friend!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d actually do the analysis myself if I had time. Maybe I will as soon as I have time 🙂
LikeLike
Bless you, WN! You’re a Math Pal!
LikeLike
There aren’t sufficient inputs to DO any math, Huntie:
“A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 84.3.
A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 86.6.
And those are just averages. About one out of every four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90, and one out of 10 will live past age 95.”
You can’t write an equation without certain variables, I think: and that report is singularly lacking in ’em …
LikeLike
M.R. – maybe that is why it kept slipping through my fingers. Willy Nilly said much the same to me above. The original number of retirees was 10,000 per day and my thought was out of that, we could then determine how many would live past 90 and 95.
LikeLike
But that’s only ‘retirees’. Not everyone fits into that category, I believe … The report is really fairly loose in its data …
LikeLike
You are not the first to point out that the data appears loose, M.R. Not sure how it works in Australia, but here we have certain ages when you can claim your social security monies set aside over your working life. The earlier, say age 62, the smallest amount, the latest, which is age 70 when it is mandatory you draw monthly payments, the median was 65, and now, it’s 66 (I think). It is determined by your birth date, thus they’re going off of some calculus – perhaps birth rates for the original year, how many are retiring. This is the group known as the baby boom generation – post WWII. In the original piece I wrote there is a cite for someone who argues the validity of those numbers, much as you are.
LikeLike
Same her: only difference being that we call it superannuation.
LikeLike
ooohhh, fancy word, M.R.! Grin!
LikeLike
However you describe ’em, they have no meaning for me. I don’t have any. 🙂
LikeLike
This sounds like a new conversation to be had, M.R. 🙂
LikeLike
Naah. End of, Huntie.
LikeLike
Roger that. 🙂
LikeLike
Hunt, I would love to tell you I am your man, but then I would be lying to you. I suck at math, and as soon as you add X’s my suck factor increases significantly. But considering my situation. we are golden. Between my defined retirement plan, and our other finanical planning our fund manager is quite clear that Steph has more than eoungh to carry well into her 90’s. With funds to continue. The kids will be find. Take care., Bill
LikeLike
So glad to hear your family is well taken care of, Bill. Never doubted it. It was thanks to one of your posts, I began my GO TO BOOK.
LikeLike
Math. Ugh. You pose interesting questions, Huntie, but I can’t find my way out of a paper bag (not that I’ve ever been in one). Math and I have never been on friendly terms, nor maps. 😀
LikeLike
Told you, Tess! Kindred souls, you and me!
LikeLike
😀 😀 😀
You make a valid point!
~(=_=)~~
LikeLike
Huntie – Remember that old saying of, “First I’ll buy books, then I’ll buy flowers. If there’s money left over, I’ll buy food.” I guess the reason it’s an old saying is because of my age factor now.
What I’ve come to recognize is that retirement years are determined by the standard of living you are willing to accept. The bottom line is that no one can actually afford health care, at any price. It doesn’t matter how much money we have or don’t have. Health care will be available, for a price, to those who have the cash to pay for it. It’s a slippery slope and no one will be ready.
LikeLike
So true, Sheri. There just has to be a better way than what we are doing. I have high hopes for the Brainiac Fund. Doesn’t guarantee a darn thing, but it keeps me hopeful and I need that hope.
LikeLike
When hope is gone we’ll be chopped liver.
LikeLike
P.S., that old saying is how I live my life, Sheri! How did you know?! Grin.
LikeLike
Give me good books, fresh flowers and fresh brewed coffee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sheri, with all your expertise, are there any thoughts about “instead of” Medicare insurance, like Humana, for example, as opposed to straight Medicare? I found this past week that Medicare pays more/longer than the instead of policies and so have switched Mama back to Medicare. Thanks!
LikeLike
Kansen – I can’t believe I finally found your question. I’m so sorry it has taken me so long to get back with you.
The one positive I can offer you about Medicare is that it can never be taken away from an eligible US citizen. You are automatically enrolled in part A the minute you turn 65 rather you want it or not. Part A is what covers 80% of your hospital bill. That means every patient still needs a supplement to pick up the other 20%. As we age, or as our loved one’s age (there’s really no difference, the theory is the same) our health care is going to become more expensive.
Depending on what state you live in depends on how good Humana is going to work for you. My best friend in Florida, her aunt and uncle are enrolled in a Humana program and they swear by it. I am more than happy to call and ask specific questions. I know my friend did not switch to Humana and I’m guessing there’s a good reason why as she’s pretty medical savvy (she’s hung around with me for almost 40 years)!
Tom and I personally had real problems when one year I decided to go with BC/BS HMO but our needs were completely different than what you might expect from a 65+ patient. Does the Humana plan cover prescriptions? Did your mother have trouble getting quality care through Humana? You know that I hate Medicare for any number of reasons but I also do my best to look at it analytically when necessary. Please e-mail me if you have questions I can help you with or if you simply want to toss around issues. Sheri
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you sheri. I have replied to your email. I appreciate you taking this time from what I know is a busy schedule. Apparently Humana has several tiers/costs of care. The rep persuaded mama to go into a free program which was basically useless. Mama tells me she was asked no questions about medical conditions/proglems/history. The program would have been fine for someone who had very little care needed but for my mother, she needed more and did not get.
LikeLike
Sheri, thank you so much! I am so pleased when I see further connections made and info exchanged. Best ~ Huntie
LikeLike
Huntie, the engineer in me says to keep it simple. The numbers/stats have fallacies, variables, etc. I say to simply take the total number given and divide by four. Thus you have the “one in four”…. It isn’t perfect but is is a guesstimation. Having collected demographics and such for traffic studies/load bearing and such, one gets all kinds of numbers to try to expand upon or extrapolate. Sometimes you just have to do a straight cut to the bone rather than a fancy filet. 🙂
LikeLike
That was my initial thought as well, Kanzen – but I got distracted by the shiny variables… Simple is best. Grin.
LikeLike
I have a tee shirt given to me: Pessimists view the glass as half empty. Optimists view the glass as half full. Engineers day: use the right sized glass!
Numbers make my head hurt Huntie which is why I always try to take the simplest course possible! and I am l.a.z.y.
LikeLike
I love the Engineers (day?)!
LikeLike
My math is way too weak to be able to figure this out.
LikeLike