Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Scientists claim that 72 is the new 30, so the Social Security Administration will be changing the retirement age to 112, and everyone will get their turn at being a Walmart greeter   (cnbc.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, retirement age, homos, huntergatherers, primates, Max Planck Institute, chimps  
•       •       •

2177 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Feb 2013 at 9:36 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-26 09:43:41 AM  
At it's inception, life expectancy was approximately three years less than retirement age.

They must have employed terrible actuarial scientists since then.
 
2013-02-26 09:44:50 AM  
Of course, the article fails to mention that much of the increase in life expectancy since 1900 has come from reduced infant mortality, not from adults living longer.
 
2013-02-26 09:45:03 AM  
prinsesamusang.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-26 09:46:34 AM  
Ok, dial back the stupid.
 
2013-02-26 09:47:56 AM  
"......so the Social Security Administration will be changing the retirement age to 112...."

Damn it, don't go giving them ideas!
 
2013-02-26 09:51:37 AM  
Stop hosing us with bullshiat and just steal the damn money already.
 
2013-02-26 09:59:13 AM  
Good...because I'm nearly 60 and am willing to wait until age 72 to revert to being 30 again.
 
2013-02-26 10:20:53 AM  

DonQuixote314159: Of course, the article fails to mention that much of the increase in life expectancy since 1900 has come from reduced infant mortality, not from adults living longer.


But the article specifically refers to the change in mortality rates for 30 year olds vs 72 year olds. I looked it up for another SS thread a while back, and the life expectancy at 65 has gone up about 5.5 years since 1950, from ~14 years to >19 years. Still pretty dramatic, and enough to break the math behind most retirement programs. Hence why all employers that can are fleeing defined benefit pensions.
 
2013-02-26 10:23:05 AM  
... But with droopier naughty bits.
 
2013-02-26 10:59:13 AM  

neon_god: DonQuixote314159: Of course, the article fails to mention that much of the increase in life expectancy since 1900 has come from reduced infant mortality, not from adults living longer.

But the article specifically refers to the change in mortality rates for 30 year olds vs 72 year olds. I looked it up for another SS thread a while back, and the life expectancy at 65 has gone up about 5.5 years since 1950, from ~14 years to >19 years. Still pretty dramatic, and enough to break the math behind most retirement programs. Hence why all employers that can are fleeing defined benefit pensions.



Thank you for posting this. I just got through another thread with post-after-post of "people in pre-historic eras lived just as long as they do today, if they make it past infancy." Argh.

Off topic: the WHO publishes life expectancy at birth and at age 60. There is a lot of variability in both numbers.

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/ ?vid=710
 
2013-02-26 11:09:44 AM  

DonQuixote314159: Of course, the article fails to mention that much of the increase in life expectancy since 1900 has come from reduced infant mortality, not from adults living longer.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Here's some great data over time at all ages.  Basically, life expectancy at age 20 has increased by about 15 years for men and 20 years for women since 1900, at age 40 it's increased about 11 years for men and 14 years for women, at age 60 it's increased about 5 years for men and 7 years for women.

Yes, the boosts due to eradicating childhood killers such as measels, small pox, etc. has done much to extend life, lifespan has been extended at all levels for all sorts of reasons.
 
2013-02-26 11:26:32 AM  

draypresct: neon_god: DonQuixote314159: Of course, the article fails to mention that much of the increase in life expectancy since 1900 has come from reduced infant mortality, not from adults living longer.

But the article specifically refers to the change in mortality rates for 30 year olds vs 72 year olds. I looked it up for another SS thread a while back, and the life expectancy at 65 has gone up about 5.5 years since 1950, from ~14 years to >19 years. Still pretty dramatic, and enough to break the math behind most retirement programs. Hence why all employers that can are fleeing defined benefit pensions.


Thank you for posting this. I just got through another thread with post-after-post of "people in pre-historic eras lived just as long as they do today, if they make it past infancy." Argh.

Off topic: the WHO publishes life expectancy at birth and at age 60. There is a lot of variability in both numbers.

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/ ?vid=710


Good find. My numbers were from the CDC, so only applicable to the US.
 
2013-02-26 12:48:03 PM  

DonQuixote314159: Of course, the article fails to mention that much of the increase in life expectancy since 1900 has come from reduced infant mortality, not from adults living longer.


THIS  Plus improvements in accident reduction and middle age problems like cancer and heart disease and of course reducing smoking.

Life span hasn't changed much.  And just because that 72 year old is more likely to survive a year than a 30 year old caveman, that fact that the 30 year old is most likely at peak physical and mental condition and the 72 year old is likely to have some sort of ailment or natural degradation that makes at least some if not many kinds of work impossible makes using life expectancy for retirement in this age a stupid proposition.

We need a working expectancy to base retirement from that only cares about how long the general population can be expected to work.  Both my grandparents were unable to work anything by 70 due to Parkinsons for one and Alzheimers for the other and one made it beyond 75, the other 80.
 
2013-02-26 12:51:18 PM  
Perhaps. But I'd still rather have sex with a 30 year old woman.
 
2013-02-26 01:20:44 PM  
Hogwash. Women go through menopause in their early 50s and guys' tackle starts heading southwards in their late 40s.

Nothing thirty-ish about it.
 
2013-02-26 01:31:37 PM  
Even better, Walmart is phasing out/has phased out the Greeter job. None of the stores in our area have them.
 
2013-02-26 02:06:46 PM  
The founder of our small business still comes in to work every single day, 7 days a week. And he's 80.

True Fact: he has accomplished very, very little in the past 10 years (aside from annoying everyone else).
 
2013-02-26 02:13:45 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Perhaps. But I'd still rather have sex with a 30 year old woman.


I'll celebrate when the difference on average between a 72 year old woman and a 30 year old woman, visually, is the number of candles on the cake they're getting on their birthday.

Of course, that would be bad for the 20-something dingbats out there, competition would be fierce.  Oh well.
 
2013-02-26 03:31:48 PM  
What scientist?  Paul Ryan?
 
2013-02-26 03:38:19 PM  

The DBS: Even better, Walmart is phasing out/has phased out the Greeter job. None of the stores in our area have them.


Now what am I going to do for a job when I turn 75?
 
2013-02-26 04:31:43 PM  

traylor: [prinsesamusang.files.wordpress.com image 750x500]


This.
 
2013-02-26 05:33:39 PM  
72 is the new 30, if the old 30 was a copper mine slave from the Bronze Age.
 
2013-02-26 06:22:49 PM  
When 72 year old women start bearing children, I'll believe that 72 is the new 30.
 
2013-02-26 06:43:18 PM  
Shouldn't scientists be working on a way to have you look and feel as good as a 30 year old UNTIL you're 72 (or whatever)?  Who wants to live to 90 when most things stopped working ~40 years ago? When simply walking or even lucid consciousness is a struggle?

I'm 45 yo now, but if someone gave me a potion that guaranteed healthy life, looks and immunity to aging until, say, 65 or 70 when, guaranteed, I'd drop dead that morning, I'd reeeaaally have to think about it.

/excuse me I think I hear Rod Serling walking into the room
 
2013-02-27 10:02:16 AM  

Metaluna Mutant: Shouldn't scientists be working on a way to have you look and feel as good as a 30 year old UNTIL you're 72 (or whatever)?  Who wants to live to 90 when most things stopped working ~40 years ago? When simply walking or even lucid consciousness is a struggle?



That's the next goal, methinks.  It takes longer to figure out how to fix aging as opposed to just keeping you from dropping dead.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report