I might throw someone else looking at the longetity assumptions of the
SS trustees out here.
Excerpt
For men, there's an inflection point in 1973. Since then, male life
expectancy has increased steadily by one year per decade.
For women, there's an inflection point in 1979. Since then, female
life expectancy has hardly budged. In fact, in the past two decades
female life expectancy at age 65 has increased by a grand total of
four months.
These numbers are so steady and unambiguous that it's unclear why
anyone thinks they're suddenly going to start skyrocketing beyond the
current projections used by the Social Security actuaries. On Sunday,
the New York Times Magazine provided an explanation â of sorts:
A 65-year-old man today can expect to live to nearly 82. According
to the most likely projection, in 2080 he should expect to live to 86.
[Social Security's chief actuary Stephen] Goss says that the agency is
assuming that medical technology will deliver more ''miracles.'' Most
demographers agree with him, and some even think the agency is not
being optimistic enough. The only trouble is, as Goss notes, that over
the past 20 years ''they have been wrong at every turn. There has been
less improvement than we were expecting.'' Indeed, the improvement in
mortality has slowed significantly. And no one is sure why it has
slowed. Nonetheless, the agency expects a sharp rebound over ensuing
decades. Its fiscal gloominess thus depends on a speculative uptick in
medical miracles.
In other words, historical data suggests that Social Security's
longevity projections are fine. In fact, more than fine: they already
project higher life expectancies than the data supports, and the only
reason to think they should be higher still is if you assume even more
spectacular medical breakthroughs than they do..
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005470.php
Gary Denton
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
