Ticking away
The moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours
In an offhand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground
In your hometown
Waiting for someone
Or something to show you the way
Tired of lying in the sunshine
Staying home to watch the rain
You are young and life is long
And there is time to kill today
And then one day you find
Ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun
This is a good place to remind everyone that if you wait for social security retirement in America you have a really good chance of dying shortly after that retirement. The great die off starts at 65.
And yes you can live healthier to have better odds of getting higher on that chart. But you cannot add young years. So if your idea of Europe includes skiing in the alps or something then you need to go before you retire. Don’t let the idle rich dictate your life. They aren’t waiting around.
Living healthier means keeping your stress low, saving time for exercise, and limiting your intake of fast food.
But these are luxuries primarily reserved for the already wealthy. Luxuries afforded through cheap service sector labor.
Like so much else in this country, good health is paid for with a labor tax on the poor.
That population pyramid is a bit misleading because the baby boom coincides with the ages with the steepest declines. In part, there were significantly fewer people born in 1939 compared to 1959, so you’d expect way more 65 year olds than 85 year olds in 2024.
Yes, the death rate is higher among older people, but the life expectancy of a 60 year old man is still another 20 years.
You’re not wrong but you’re not right. Life expectancy is an average. Here’s a 1980 chart that shows the same trend.
Also baby boomers are 60-78 years old. You can clearly see the die off happening within their generation.
You don’t think that 1980 chart has a very different shape? The current chart is almost flat from 20-60, while the 1980 chart is actually pyramid shaped, with the steepness is only slightly sharper past 60. And matches the steepness of the range from 25-50. Nobody talks about a 25-year-old die off.
You’re better off charting the actuarial tables to convey the data you’re trying to talk about (death rates), rather than relying on a stat that is influenced by birth rates and death rates in an opaque way.
That’s the baby boom moving up the chart. It’s 1980, they’re 15-35. You can clearly see the normal population before the baby boom and it’s fall off.
Yes, exactly my point. The boomer generation itself made the population pyramid look different at every stage of its life, which is why the 1980 chart looks so different from the 2023 chart. When you introduce a cohort that has its own slope from birth statistics, the shape of the drop off at 60 is confounded by the preexisting shape of the slope before they entered old age.
So the appropriate method of isolating the variable that shows what you call a “die off” would be to just pull up the actuarial tables that show what percentage of 60, 61, 62 year olds, etc., die that year. Not to compare how many of those there are as a percent of overall population.
Except they cover the period we’re worried about. Everyone figures anything after 80 is a gift. The oldest boomers are 78. You have 2 years on that chart that might be questionable. Seeing the die off start at 65 to 75 is all within the “new” paradigm.
You keep calling it a “die off” because you’re being visually tricked by the misleading population pyramid. Use the actuarial tables instead.
Among 65 year old men, the probability of surviving to 75 is 76%. The probability of surviving to 85 is 39%. The probability of surviving to 95 is 5.9%.
For women, the odds are 84%, 52%, and 12% of getting to 75/85/95, respectively.
Yes, these are higher death rates than at younger ages. But nowhere near what the shape of the population pyramid suggests, where the 85 age cohort is about 1/4 as large as the 65, which misleadingly suggests a probability of 25% of living 20 more years, when the real number is closer to 45%.
And you don’t see that as the start of a slope if you were to graph the chance of death at that age? It starts jumping precipitously after 65. And the new age of 67 just gets worse. I’m not sure what you’re actual argument here is. The point of the graph is to not grind away your good years and find yourself trying to pack a lifetime of experiences into the years where you start playing hide and seek with Death. Your data doesn’t show anything meaningfully different to the average person. If half of us are going to get thanos snapped, you’re not going to call that something minor, easily avoided.
Also, importantly, Americans (born in 1980 as a reference) have a 95% chance of living to see age 60.
Even in relatively poor and disadvantaged states (W. Virginia or Mississippi) you’re looking at 92-94% odds.
We’ve solved for a lot of the early mortality threats common to prior generations - childhood diseases most prominently. We’ve also seen a general improvement in public health with respect to smoking and drinking. And workplace safety has improved dramatically as we shifted from Ag Labor to Industrial work to Office jobs.