Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wercal

(1,370 posts)
8. You're still not understanding
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 12:08 PM
Dec 2013

Yes 77 vs 80 years....men who reach age 65 are expected to live a grand total of 2.6 years longer now than they did in 1940. Yet our 'average lifespan' has gone up by much more.

The reason has everything to do with infant and childhood survival rates, and very little to do with nursing home care (very little being defined as 2.6 years).

Now if you go to the retirement calculator:

http://www.ssa.gov/retirement/1937.html

You will find that the full retirement age for an initial enrollee was 65. For somebody born 50 years later, its 67. So somehow, after all the changes that have been made, SS has already accounted for this 2.6 years (almost). This is the best argument to not raise the age.

People may live a lot longer today....but people who reach age 65 really don't live particularly longer. The argument you are making is the exact reverse.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It just occurred to me wh...»Reply #8