There was an article probably in NYT about “four things for a vibrant old age” or something of that nature, and I remember 1) embrace pain, 2) learn something new, 3) spend time with the young. I forget the fourth, naturally.
Fuck embracing pain, but simply accepting pain and other limitations makes them somewhat easier to bear. I am definitely learning a ton of new, as I moved to a completely new climate (snow!), house, culture, and community, five years ago this month, and returned to horseback riding after a forty year hiatus i.e: starting nearly from scratch. I am taking dressage lessons!
I’ve made a lot of new friends here (for me), but like Dinsdale, I find few are young. I don’t have any idea how to make young friends, really. It came home to me when we were getting our estate legally organized and I didn’t have anybody other than my daughter and her wife who I wanted to leave anything to (other than cash to younger relatives), who was likely to be young enough to enjoy it.
My retirement “speech” for my final day at work reflected something similar:
"At some point in our lives, we discover we’ve had our last summer. We don’t recognize it at the time, but a year comes along where summer is spent working, then in school, then career, and after a while summer is just walking across a hotter parking lot at work. My last summer was 1974, with Lee and John, playing, swimming, and skiing at the lake.
Today I’m restarting summertime, after a 45 year interruption."
I didn’t read whatever article this was in. But I like the idea. Not in a hell bent for leather, no pain no gain, bullheaded way. No, rather, it’s such a perfect feedback mechanism to monitor where your limits are, and gradually improve the ones you care about.
It is a pain in the ass. I think few of us have adequate funds for retirement and that’s one of the things that’s going to get really interesting soon as to how we handle that socially. I think a lot of us are going to fall through the cracks, so to speak. I have a decade before I hit your age and I’ve basically been planning on collecting Social Security while living in Cambodia or somewhere similar. I’ve lived there once before, so I have a good idea of what to expect. There are also more and more long term retirement and digital nomad visas becoming available in various countries. I’m thinking of leveraging that. Some are easier to adapt to than others.
I don’t think retirement in America is feasible for me as I just don’t think I’ll have nearly enough to subsist on and the anti-old “ok, boomer” sentiment of younger generations tells me there’s not much chance of better resources and policy for older people as the years go by.
There are people close to me in their late 70s still working in cubicles and hating it but not having much choice. Plus, trying to find jobs when you’re that age is exceptionally difficult. Things are kinda fucked. I’ll just find what joy I can with those I love while I can.
On the other hand, the over-65s are projected to become an increasingly large proportion of the US population, accounting for as many as 1 in 5 Americans by 2040.
TBF, old people already run pretty much all of the real power in the US, and they are not going to lose sight of the importance of elderly voters, customers, etc. The real problem is not “anti-Boomer” attitudes on the part of the young, but rather the fact that American power is overwhelmingly wielded by old and very rich people, for whom the plight of the non-rich elderly is personally irrelevant.
Generational prejudices, like racial prejudices, are nurtured in popular culture by “divide and conquer” tactics for the benefit of the existing order:We can get “better resources and policy for older people as the years go by” by getting better resources and policy for the non-wealthy in general.
Maybe it’s obvious, but I’m not following. Why are death statistics particularly illuminating or important? I’m not surprised that older people are dying.
I think the differences in political and cultural beliefs will make the generational cohort change of the next few decades one of the nation’s most significant. Not to mention the coming economic stress caused by the electorate’s aging. It’s helpful to know the raw numbers involved.
I seem to be in a slight minority on this board about the significance of the younger generations coming into the electorate, at least judging by the typical pushback these views receive. My opponents are wrong, of course.
Thanks for the explanation. My view is “people are people” and the next generation won’t be much different than the last. I hope I’m wrong, as we could use s sea change.
That is a really interesting chart, if only to finally sort out the latest generations’ names and dates.
I like this line from the top of the chart about the boomers:
…how many are alive and dead…
So I guess that’s the number of zombie boomers?
WRT this:
… Based on 75 years average life expectancy…
Is that really the official life expectancy of the boomer generation? Pretty close for comfort, speaking as a 74-year old. (Elsewhere, I’ve seen that number as 79 years. No cite.)
They’re as illuminating and/or important as birth statistics. It’s not the fact that people are dying; it’s the rate at which they are dying. Just like it was the rate of births that made the boomer generation noteworthy. But you are by no means required to find those stats interesting. Some of us just like numbers.
I like the notation “Extinction 2086.” Which is when the youngest boomer turns 122.
Also note that currently the two million annual boomer deaths are only a part of the 3.6 million US deaths every year. The bulk of the balance is made up of those even older.
Every so often a generational sea change occurs in the country where new generations substantially change society’s course. I think one of those periods is about to occur. Every day in which 5500 boomers passes on is a day in which 10,000 Americans celebrate their 18th birthday.
This NPR article says that since the beginning of the pandemic, US life expectancy has declined from close to 79 to 76.4 years, mostly due to Covid deaths and drug overdoses. Remember, though, that life expectancy increases as you age!
Here’s a life expectancy calculator for some fun times. I managed to take 12 years off my life by making myself a 300 lb male smoker and alcoholic with uncontrolled high blood pressure plus a family history of cardio/diabetes. (only one of those is true)
Another fun site! My current life expectancy is 84.8 years. If I lose those 20 lbs I’ve been trying to lose since 1979, it doesn’t add any time at all-- so bring on the cheesecake!
ETA: I just put in the stats of my ex-bf who passed away a year ago-- heavy smoker AND drinker, had quad bypass in 2004. The calculator nailed it (coffin lid, that is ).
I avoid those sites because they probably sell them to life/medical insurance companies who use the information to set your rates.
If your rate is fixed, I’m not sure who is profiting (other than bankrate) from your voluntarily entries to their database.
If there’s a buck in it though, someone will squeeze it out.
I’m 62, don’t smoke or drink, excellent blood pressure. The calc says my life expectancy is 81.7 - which I guess is a tad disappointing. I had thought/hoped my reasonably healthy lifestyle would give me a tad longer than that.
I guess I’d better get going on that bucket list. Maybe after this nap…
Recall that “life expectancy” is your 50/50 point. So right now you’ve got a 50% shot at 81. If you win that coin flip you get the expectancy associated with an 81 yo. Which is almost 8 years. etc.
Of course you could lose that first flip too & not even make 81.
Depending on which calculator you use, there’s a lot of room for the results to be misleading for your (any your) personal case.
Being white, educated, non-smoking, and financially well-off can add a decade or two. At one extreme, the SSA’s tables ignore all that; it’s the whole population, not just people like you. See Actuarial Life Table (ssa.gov) for more. I personally treat the SSA data as “worst case statistics for me”.
Some calculators ask more questions to try to refine their answer to better fit you. But if they don’t ask for all of race, education, wealth, smoking history, history of diabetes, heart disease, or cancer … well … they’re leaving out data worth a decade or more that in your personal case @Dinsdale, you’re on the happy side of.
OTOH the more finely they dice and slice the data the greater the possible problems with the smaller sample sizes, difficulty gathering complete data, uncertain provenance of the data they do use, etc. So while you can be sure your news is better, you can’t be as sure how much better. Hence my liking the SSA tables as the gold standard for the lower bound on my own stats.
But for darn sure you (and I) are playing with a fairly strong hand. Thank Og. OTOH, all it takes is a moment’s inattention crossing the street to upset your statistics catastrophically. Caveat vivor.
).