Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-12-2018, 04:33 PM
 
16,395 posts, read 30,300,419 times
Reputation: 25502

Advertisements

For decades, 65 has been the goalpost most everyone in the labor force worked toward for retirement. But why 65? The answer isn't clear-cut — but it is an interesting story with cameos from colorful politicians ranging from the Iron Chancellor to the Kingfish.

https://www.journalofaccountancy.com...ement-age.html




Note that Otto von Bismarck recommended age 65 as the retirement age at a time when the average person made it to age 48.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2018, 05:30 PM
 
18,735 posts, read 33,410,912 times
Reputation: 37323
I always thought it was the Kaiser story with the civil servants back before 1918.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2018, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Surf City, NC
413 posts, read 701,940 times
Reputation: 1134
I had heard that the Kaiser selected 65 because it was the median age of death for workers. Half of the people would never collect and that would help fund the other half. I don't know if that's true or what the actual figures were for 19th century Germany. Life expectancy of adults is a lot different from that at birth.
We always hear that retirement ages should be changed because of the great changes in life extent, but the life expectancy at 60 or 65 really hasn't changed that dramatically in recent years. I think we may be living healthier longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2018, 06:24 PM
 
17,348 posts, read 11,297,907 times
Reputation: 41020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna25 View Post
I had heard that the Kaiser selected 65 because it was the median age of death for workers. Half of the people would never collect and that would help fund the other half. I don't know if that's true or what the actual figures were for 19th century Germany. Life expectancy of adults is a lot different from that at birth.
We always hear that retirement ages should be changed because of the great changes in life extent, but the life expectancy at 60 or 65 really hasn't changed that dramatically in recent years. I think we may be living healthier longer.
Average life expectancy has actually gone done slightly in the U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:51 AM
 
106,750 posts, read 108,937,910 times
Reputation: 80218
yes and no . living to older ages has stalled however more of us are living longer . there is a difference between max age and how many at 65 go on to older ages .

a 65 year old couple has a 73% chance one of them will see 85

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,180,106 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna25 View Post
Life expectancy of adults is a lot different from that at birth.
Yes, it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna25 View Post
We always hear that retirement ages should be changed because of the great changes in life extent, but the life expectancy at 60 or 65 really hasn't changed that dramatically in recent years. I think we may be living healthier longer.
Life-Expectancy at Age 65 was 12 years for men in 1940. It's increased only 6 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
Average life expectancy has actually gone done slightly in the U.S.
Life-Expectancy at Age 65 hasn't.

Life-Expectancy in the US is heavily skewed by cultural and racial factors. Tiny homogeneous European nation-States don't have Chicagos or Baltimores, where hundreds die every year in gang violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2018, 12:45 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
5,592 posts, read 8,411,460 times
Reputation: 11216
I think 65 is a perfectly reasonable age for voluntary retirement and I think pushing it up to 70 and beyond is ridiculous. I am 68 and there is NO WAY I'd be capable of working full-time with all these aches, pains, arthritis, degenerative disk, etc. etc. etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2018, 01:16 AM
 
121 posts, read 106,803 times
Reputation: 114
Seventy is the sum of our years, or eighty, if we are strong; Most of them are toil and sorrow; they pass quickly, and we are gone. -- Ps 90:10
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2018, 01:42 AM
 
11,177 posts, read 16,028,400 times
Reputation: 29935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Life-Expectancy at Age 65 was 12 years for men in 1940. It's increased only 6 years.
Only? That means that life expectancy at 65 has increased 50% since 1940. I'd say that's pretty significant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2018, 03:18 AM
 
106,750 posts, read 108,937,910 times
Reputation: 80218
life expectancy means different things when applied to different cohorts . for a 60 year old 83 is only the 50% point .


as kitces points out :


As you can see in the survival curve above, only roughly 1-in-10 people born in 2014 is expected to die prior to age 60 (i.e., 90% are still alive), but beyond that point, the rate of death begins to increase substantially. However, over 60% of children born in 2014 are still expected to be alive when the cohort reaches their “life expectancy” (i.e., average age at death) of 79. The median (age 83) is equivalent to the 50th percentile, and the mode (89) is roughly around the 30th percentile. By age 100, only 2% of people born in 2014 are expected to still be alive. While simple statistics like life expectancy certainly serve a purpose, survival curves give us a much better look at the “story” behind the data



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top