Posted June 18, 201114 yr The government says that they are increasing the retirement age because people are living longer. What do you think - are they living longer? I myself don't think so I know quite a lot of people who have died before reaching the age of 75 let alone living to their mid-80s and beyond. I think it's just propaganda to brainwash us into believing it is true.
June 18, 201114 yr Erm, I'd say the fact that average life expectancy's been rising pretty much continuously since the Industrial Revolution (and hasn't really notably reversed since 65 was imposed as the retirement age) is cast iron proof that people are living longer. Funnily enough such things are based on national averages rather than just the people you know...
June 18, 201114 yr Having spent most of my working life in the life assurance and pensions industry I can state unequivocally that life expectancy is increasing.
June 18, 201114 yr People are living longer, so it's perfectly logical to ask people to work for longer. An average 65 year old of today will be in the same state as someone of 60 a few decades ago.
June 18, 201114 yr Course they are, advances to health technology and drugs are staggering compared with even a decade or two ago. The age will increase and increase again. Give it 20-30 years I would say living to 100 will be the norm.
June 18, 201114 yr Course they are, advances to health technology and drugs are staggering compared with even a decade or two ago. The age will increase and increase again. Give it 20-30 years I would say living to 100 will be the norm. Given life expectancy in 1980 in the UK was 71 for males and 77 for females, and is 78 for males and 82 for females now, I really doubt living to 100 will be the norm for a good century - especially with the rise in obesity, which will really start to weigh down the figures in the next thirty years.
June 18, 201114 yr Given life expectancy in 1980 in the UK was 71 for males and 77 for females, and is 78 for males and 82 for females now, I really doubt living to 100 will be the norm for a good century. A lot has changed since the 80's though. Drugs can work miracles these days and health technology has become so much more advanced than 30 years ago. People are also a lot more aware than in 1980 too in terms of checking for cancer symptoms. Certainly the typical woman living to 100 will happen in my lifetime I think. I think there will be a drop in the average age in about 50 years though as the current generation of youth live by drink and it will catch up with them in the end.
June 18, 201114 yr A lot has changed since the 80's though. Drugs can work miracles these days and health technology has become so much more advanced than 30 years ago. People are also a lot more aware than in 1980 too in terms of checking for cancer symptoms. Certainly the typical woman living to 100 will happen in my lifetime I think. I think there will be a drop in the average age in about 50 years though as the current generation of youth live by drink and it will catch up with them in the end. Strange then that all these advances in health technology and drugs have only led to a 7/5 year increase in life expectancy. Yeah, it deals with DISEASES but the primary killer for most who make it to their 70s and 80s does tend to just be old age. Think about what would need to happen for life expectancy to reach 100 - given the amount of women who die below 82 as it is currently, you'd need a LOT of people to start living past 100, and significantly so. And that's just not going to happen, at least for another century and certainly not with massive increases in obesity rates. And the drop will happen far earlier than in 50 years - you think the youth of today living by drink will only feel the consequences when they're in their 70s? Which would equate to a very, very slight drop. You aren't basing this estimate on anything other than complete hopeful guesswork.
June 18, 201114 yr Strange then that all these advances in health technology and drugs have only led to a 7/5 year increase in life expectancy. Yeah, it deals with DISEASES but the primary killer for most who make it to their 70s and 80s does tend to just be old age. Think about what would need to happen for life expectancy to reach 100 - given the amount of women who die below 82 as it is currently, you'd need a LOT of people to start living past 100, and significantly so. And that's just not going to happen, at least for another century and certainly not with massive increases in obesity rates. And the drop will happen far earlier than in 50 years - you think the youth of today living by drink will only feel the consequences when they're in their 70s? Which would equate to a very, very slight drop. You aren't basing this estimate on anything other than complete hopeful guesswork. I certainly don't think that the average will ever be 100 but I think there will be a sizeable increase in the number of people getting a telegram from the monarch. My late grandmother's sister is 97 now and has had asthma, diabetes and an irregular heartbeat for years, takes a cocktail of drugs. They keep it under control. I think certainly she would have died in her 70's if she was born 20 years previous than she was.
June 18, 201114 yr Some people say that around half the children born in 2000 will make it to 100. Others say that this generation of children will be the first to die at an earlier age than their parents. The truth is nobody really knows. One of the reasons for the current problems with pensions is that 20-30 years ago actuaries assumed that the increase in life expectancy was about to end. Because they got that hopelessly wrong, companies ended up paying pensions which have been proved to be too generous. People retiring now are paying for that as they get lower pensions as companies try to recoup the losses made earlier. Governments should have started increasing the retirement age at least 30 years ago but were afraid of the political consequences. That's why it is now having to be raised fairly quickly. When the retirement age was set at 65 for men, most men didn't live long enough to retire. Most of those who did were dead within 5 years. Now, most men do reach retirement age and live for at least a further 10-15 years.
June 26, 201114 yr Men would die within 5 years of retiring? So what's new? In Glasgow Calton the male life expectancy in 2006 was 54 and in Glasgow Shettleston 63, just 5 years ago. Article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan...health.politics I don't think that would have improved much given these average figures for Glasgow from 2010 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health-n...86908-22646030/ Another postcode lottery. Edited June 26, 201114 yr by Baytree
June 26, 201114 yr Men would die within 5 years of retiring? So what's new? In Glasgow Calton the male life expectancy in 2006 was 54 and in Glasgow Shettleston 63, just 5 years ago. Article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan...health.politics I don't think that would have improved much given these average figures for Glasgow from 2010 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health-n...86908-22646030/ Another postcode lottery. So? The point of an average life expectancy is that it's the mean of everyone in the country, doesn't mean EVERYONE can expect to live to 79.
June 26, 201114 yr I suppose life expectancy is much shorter in deprived areas because of their lifestyles. And living just outside Glasgow, I can sadly say this is the case for the East End specifically. It's really sad to see. I'm lucky to be living in an area with little deperaviaton. Edited June 26, 201114 yr by starryeyed
July 23, 201114 yr I personally think the whole 'obesity' thing is blown out of proportion. I think about the people I work with, friends, family etc and their sizes don't reflect what the government are saying. Less people smoke (is it around 25%?), medication is so advanced that people are able to add some years to the life by relying in mediation (which I don't agree with, people should take control of their lifestyle to prevent poor health in later life). So, yes, we are and will be living longer! Edited July 23, 201114 yr by ScottyEm
July 30, 201114 yr Men would die within 5 years of retiring? So what's new? In Glasgow Calton the male life expectancy in 2006 was 54 and in Glasgow Shettleston 63, just 5 years ago. Article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan...health.politics I don't think that would have improved much given these average figures for Glasgow from 2010 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health-n...86908-22646030/ Another postcode lottery.Glasgow also happens to be a fucking dive with the highest level of violent crimes and drug abuse in Scotland, hence the diabolical life expectancy.
Create an account or sign in to comment