Law-maker age limits shouldn’t be based on cognitive or physical decline so much as people who don’t have to live long or at all with the consequences of their votes shouldn’t have that power
Someone much smarter than me that has studied philosophy or law or, you know, history, can probably refute that
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Corporate America would be happy to work you to death. The age of 65 was set by FDR, or more specifically Frances Perkins.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
It's going to be really annoying to do these stats when Kissinger is 168 and throwing off all the averages single-handedly
Kissinger Georg is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
+6
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
Very few people get to be President so being a Senator, especially a senior one, is the highest level of political power they are ever going to achieve. And they don't want to let it go. It's different then just being someone who works to make money. For them, especially with the power of incumbency, as long as they working, they get to change the world around them. Retirement means something different when working means political power. It makes sense they'd just want to keep going.
Nancy Pelosi didn't amass $100M while she was in office to "change the world" around her. I'm not saying she was a bad rep overall or any more corrupt than most of her colleagues, but lets be real about the kind of money some of our public servants have managed to make for themselves during their half-century tenure.
You are creating a false dichotomy. It's not either or. Pelosi absolutely held on to her position in order to wield power. Not just to make money but even more so to be the one in the room who gets to make the decisions. When that's your job, the incentives to retire are much different and much lower.
And while I agree older senators should generally pave the way for newer ones, I think a lot of folks are just assuming anyone wanting to remain in the job is just drunk on power and likes lording it over people.
Like, pretend you were suddenly elected senator. You've spent your life thinking the world can be a better place, and now you can actually work to make it happen.
Well, kinda. You're a junior senator, so realistically you can't do shit. But after a couple terms, now you have some power. You get on a committee. NOW you can do some things.
Kinda. The other guys on the committee have dumb ideas and block all your good ones.
Okay, a few more terms and now you're fucking majority leader! Hell yeah! You finally have the power to try to enact all the policies you know are best for the country. It's slow going, though. You get maybe one policy addressed every few years, and there's so much you want to get done while you still can. And you look at the other guys in the room, and they're not bad people, per se, but they just don't understand what the job entails. They wouldn't get things done like you can. You'll step aside after just one... more... achievement.... After all, there's people out there hurting, and it would be irresponsible to retire before you get them the help they desperately need.
I think anybody going "Well obviously I would bop on out of there as soon at I hit 65 because it's the right thing to do" is lying to themselves about how easy that decision is, even if you're solely interested in the betterment of the country.
It would suck less if Democrats in Congress weren't so shitty at fostering young talent worth passing the torch to. Democratic senior leadership is not only old as shit, but also has been in leadership for fucking ever now. Pelosi was first elected in 1987 and led the caucus since 2002. Biden entered the Senate in 1973 and was a highly ranked member or chair of many committees for like 20-years. Reid (RIP), Durbin, Feinstein, etc. have all been in leadership for several decades.
Maybe the cutoff needs to be 75 or 80 to give the Sherrods Brown and Lizzies Warren more time to do stuff but the situation we have with Feinstein is absurd and shouldn't exist. This hanging on for dear life to get one more achievement is why we have Amy Coney Barret in SCOTUS for the next 30+ fucking years.
Feinstein's situation is the one faced by a lot of older adults; when their decline begins nobody wants to talk about it, because they're still sharp most of the time and everyone would prefer to ignore the few mental slips they notice. Then when their decline accelerates (which is what usually happens) there's no plan and no one with the authority/permission/goodwill to form or execute one.
In a senator's case it's probably worse because practically anyone who works closely with her would be threatening their livelihood by saying anything
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Honestly, I think it would be relatively fair to say that noone gets to serve past 80 if they have already been elected for 12 years. If someone who is 80 can get elected for the first time, then fine, that is the will of the people. But, if you've already served more than a decade, then just leave.
The issue of course is that people would want to extend it to general term limits which I strongly oppose for elected officials.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Five years is an increase, but life expectancy is often expressed as if people used to die at 60 and now they live to be 90, where now you retire and still have decades ahead of you where you used to retire and then die two years later.
It's a nominal increase.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Flat for women and yes that’s a big increase for the top 60% male earners, I’m guessing due to expensive/gated medicine and treatment advances for afflictions more correlated with old timey male past times like excess consumption of booze and meat and bare fisted boxing
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
What I take from this is we should be encouraging people less to save for retirement and more to engage in fun-but-dangerous hobbies in their golden years
Five years is an increase, but life expectancy is often expressed as if people used to die at 60 and now they live to be 90, where now you retire and still have decades ahead of you where you used to retire and then die two years later.
It's a nominal increase.
That's if you get to retire.
Which can be assumed at the wealth level and generational cohort(s) for most of Congress, yes. Everyone else? Not so much.
Five years is an increase, but life expectancy is often expressed as if people used to die at 60 and now they live to be 90, where now you retire and still have decades ahead of you where you used to retire and then die two years later.
It's a nominal increase.
Something a bit weird is going on with that chart. While I can believe it in general terms, it asks me to accept that all women in income quintiles below the very top group have seen a decline in life expectancy from 50? Which, just doesn't pass the sniff test.
And, showing the 50 year chart is a bit weird when it minimizes the relevant difference and the 65 year chart must also be available.
I certainly don't think that raising the retirement age is the right answer to anything (if we must do something, then lets decrease payments today for people starting to draw their pensions until the inflow/outflow is balanced, I bet more money will miraculously be found overnight!)
edit - Ahh it's 'born in'? So, 50 in 1980 vs 50 in 2010?
Seems a bit premature to calculate those numbers for the 50 in 2010 group! Since the vast majority of them aren't dead yet. Seems the right comparison would be
65 in 1930
vs
65 in 1965
vs
65 in 2000
I agree with you in principle, the people who are being asked to sacrifice are poor people 10 years from now so that rich people today who never voted in increase social security payments when they worked don't see any consequences, and poor people don't get lots of extra retirement years. Just, this age data seems a bit off target
Assuming we want a good standard of living, we’re in a race to create free/clean energy to power automation and robots such that the cost to live is basically free
More likely before we reach that though are climate catastrophes because that clean energy source isn’t created/implemented in time, or devolution of the liberal welfare state due to inability for our policy leaders to recognize and deal with the implications of the various wealth inequality bombs (intra-country as well as globals north and south) and population-aging vs immigration and those things basically always leading to authoritarianism and war, this time with nukes
My dad got a super rare and extra deadly cancer. The doctors gave him a year at most to live. It was apparently bad enough that I, his extremely estranged son, reached out to reconnect before he passed (though I made certain he knew I wasn’t doing it to get into his will, not that I thought it would happen regardless).
I didn’t hear back from him and still haven’t since I reached out. My brother is still in touch with him and communicated what happened next to me.
He found some foreign doctor that was doing research on his very particular rare cancer. He paid $Texas to get experimental treatments, and voila, he’s still alive 5 years later. Because he’s rich.
Longevity isn’t something that happens for everyone. Sometimes life expectancy makes improvements because there’s fluoride in the water supply and people aren’t dying as often from a random preventable tooth infection. But the biggest increases for old people come because when you’re rich you’re playing by a different ruleset than everybody else. Being rich is basically the ultimate cheat code for life. And this generation of old people has basically hoarded all the wealth.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
"The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines."
+5 is an increase. Though one concentrated at the top of the wage ladder. It is not a multiple decade increase like overall life expectancy. Like what happened for life expectancy at birth. Because a lot of people stopped dying from childhood illnesses. (Though we are doing yeoman's work to bring those back.) People who were 65 in the 1930's weren't at deaths door just because overall life expectancy was ~60 and now it's past ~80. Although our life expectancy has fallen the last couple thanks to COVID. It's not like it can only go up.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
Life expectancy went from 46 years (average) in 1900 to 66 in 1950 to 76 today. The infant mortality rate in 1900 was 15.71% versus 0.548% today, so that certainly is a significant contributor. But it's not responsible for a 30 year increase.
If we disregard the infant mortality in 1900, we come up with an average lifespan of (46 / (1 - 0.1571)) = 54.57 years. So there's still an additional 20+ years of life added since the discussions around retirement started. Infant mortality only accounts for 8.5 years out of a 30 year increase.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
Life expectancy went from 46 years (average) in 1900 to 66 in 1950 to 76 today. The infant mortality rate in 1900 was 15.71% versus 0.548% today, so that certainly is a significant contributor. But it's not responsible for a 30 year increase.
If we disregard the infant mortality in 1900, we come up with an average lifespan of (46 / (1 - 0.1571)) = 54.57 years. So there's still an additional 20+ years of life added since the discussions around retirement started. Infant mortality only accounts for 8.5 years out of a 30 year increase.
I'm not sure why you're trying to reinvent the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables if you're just looking at averages. Which, you're wrong. Life expectancy at 65 has not increased 20 years since 1930. That isn't even projected to happen at any time this century:
This is from 2005, because I'm at work and don't have time to track down what they renamed the actuarial tabe study to without having to make my own charts in excel.
The problem is that, as the article I linked goes into, those averages collapse a lot of variability along class lines which it doesn't delve into. Poor working pensioners do not generally live as long past 65 as six figure Senators or think tank writers trying to convince Congress that folks actually love working longer and longer.
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
EDIT: Also, you claimed you took childhood mortality out of the equation, then posted a graph that matches your numbers...which still has child mortality in it.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
"The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines."
+5 is an increase. Though one concentrated at the top of the wage ladder. It is not a multiple decade increase like overall life expectancy. Like what happened for life expectancy at birth. Because a lot of people stopped dying from childhood illnesses. (Though we are doing yeoman's work to bring those back.) People who were 65 in the 1930's weren't at deaths door just because overall life expectancy was ~60 and now it's past ~80. Although our life expectancy has fallen the last couple thanks to COVID. It's not like it can only go up.
You seem to be claiming (or at least the title of the article you linked seems to be) that the argument that we may need to raise the retirement age because people are living longer is entirely fabricated and the evidence is based entirely on misattributing drops in infant mortality. Having to pay an additional 5 or more years of pensions for 3/5ths of men and 1/5th of women is absolutely significant enough to make a previously sustainable pension system not so. If you expected to need to fund your retirement for five more years you would need to either save more each year or save for longer.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings.
If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it.
"I support self-determination as long as I like the choices you have determined for yourself," sure is a take.
DC residents should have thought of this before voting for Biden I guess
You know that D.C *can* vote for president, right?
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
Well, no, if we're measuring from 1900 it's also because of penicillin and basically every childhood vaccine, as well as better infrastructure making deaths from stuff like Yellow Fever and other mosquito-borne illnesses less common.
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
Well, no, if we're measuring from 1900 it's also because of penicillin and basically every childhood vaccine, as well as better infrastructure making deaths from stuff like Yellow Fever and other mosquito-borne illnesses less common.
A lot of important stuff (specifically re: public health) happened in the 20th.
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Yeah like the average life expectancy has definitely been hugely driven up by decreases in infant mortality but tuberculosis also killed the fuck out of everyone
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
Well, no, if we're measuring from 1900 it's also because of penicillin and basically every childhood vaccine, as well as better infrastructure making deaths from stuff like Yellow Fever and other mosquito-borne illnesses less common.
With all the caveats for different sources, etc. Should still be close. So the increase, taking the SSA male number for pessimism's sake?
Newborns: 24.88 years
20 year olds: 11.37 years
60 year olds? 5.1
So the majority of the benefit from life expectancy at age 0 comes before age 20. Before age 10 actually; the difference there is 12.68 years. It's infants and children. When talking retirement planning the only thing that matters is the last number, that 5 years. Which I'll point out we already handled 23 years ago. Most of the agitating to increase retirement age is from people who hate the idea of the plebs retiring, and retired people who want to make sure other people work to handle their own remaining retirement years.
Unlike Congress, which still has Matt Gaetz as a member
+13
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
edited April 2023
Honestly the big issue is that there are so many baby boomers, and the answer is going to be one or more of three things. Benefits cut, tax increase, then baby boomers. I just kind of assumed they were going to go with a benefits cut by the time is collect, either I would get less money per year or I would get to collect it later or both. I also thought they might get shifty with inflation burried in a bill, and change how it is calculated. Like a 2% per year increase or something.
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
EDIT: Also, you claimed you took childhood mortality out of the equation, then posted a graph that matches your numbers...which still has child mortality in it.
Yes, which supported by pre-mortality removal numbers.
If the average age of death sans-infant mortality is 54, then the majority of the population isn't reaching retirement age at all. If the average age of death is 76, then the majority of the population is making it to and beyond retirement age. Not only are people living longer, on average, once they hit retirement age. A ton more people are living long enough to hit retirement age.
The retirement needs are very different if only 5% (made up number) of your population lives to retirement age than if 95% (made up number) do.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
Life expectancy went from 46 years (average) in 1900 to 66 in 1950 to 76 today. The infant mortality rate in 1900 was 15.71% versus 0.548% today, so that certainly is a significant contributor. But it's not responsible for a 30 year increase.
If we disregard the infant mortality in 1900, we come up with an average lifespan of (46 / (1 - 0.1571)) = 54.57 years. So there's still an additional 20+ years of life added since the discussions around retirement started. Infant mortality only accounts for 8.5 years out of a 30 year increase.
I'm not sure why you're trying to reinvent the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables if you're just looking at averages. Which, you're wrong. Life expectancy at 65 has not increased 20 years since 1930. That isn't even projected to happen at any time this century:
This is from 2005, because I'm at work and don't have time to track down what they renamed the actuarial tabe study to without having to make my own charts in excel.
The problem is that, as the article I linked goes into, those averages collapse a lot of variability along class lines which it doesn't delve into. Poor working pensioners do not generally live as long past 65 as six figure Senators or think tank writers trying to convince Congress that folks actually love working longer and longer.
I still think that graph highlights part of the problem. Between 1940 and 2000 there was a 40-60% increase in the amount of time people survived after age 65. From 12 ish years to 17 ish years. To support this, we should raise the cap on social security contributions, and (because the problem is 100% the fault of retired people who are retiring today) we should cap the amount of money a person retiring today can receive.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
There’s plenty of money for boomers to retire, because they took it all
It’s millennials and younger who have to worry about retirement if “inherit the money from dead boomers just in time” doesn’t come to pass
Unfortunately it looks like GenX is largely going to be inheriting boomer wealth. Some it will go to Millenials of course but most boomer children are GenX. It’s the grand children that are Millennials. At least at the Macro level.
There’s plenty of money for boomers to retire, because they took it all
It’s millennials and younger who have to worry about retirement if “inherit the money from dead boomers just in time” doesn’t come to pass
Most of the models I've seen predict that the balance sheet fixes itself once the boomer group works through. The issue is that boomers never paid there way, and are wrecking each system once they are done with it.
So, they used the finest schools, then refused to pay for them, and wrecked them.
Then they enjoyed free college, refused to pay for it for others and wrecked it.
Now they are about to try and drain social security, leaving Gen X and beyond to pay for it.
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
Well, no, if we're measuring from 1900 it's also because of penicillin and basically every childhood vaccine, as well as better infrastructure making deaths from stuff like Yellow Fever and other mosquito-borne illnesses less common.
With all the caveats for different sources, etc. Should still be close. So the increase, taking the SSA male number for pessimism's sake?
Newborns: 24.88 years
20 year olds: 11.37 years
60 year olds? 5.1
So the majority of the benefit from life expectancy at age 0 comes before age 20. Before age 10 actually; the difference there is 12.68 years. It's infants and children. When talking retirement planning the only thing that matters is the last number, that 5 years. Which I'll point out we already handled 23 years ago. Most of the agitating to increase retirement age is from people who hate the idea of the plebs retiring, and retired people who want to make sure other people work to handle their own remaining retirement years.
Yes, a person born today can expect to retire from birth. A person born in 1900 wouldn't even have a break even chance of making retirement until 30. I agree, infant mortality was a huge problem. It wasn't the only problem, and only accounts for maybe a third of the increase in life expectancy.
Note - I am 100% against increasing the retirement age. Productivity increases over the same time period have more than offset any extensions in life.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
"The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines."
+5 is an increase. Though one concentrated at the top of the wage ladder. It is not a multiple decade increase like overall life expectancy. Like what happened for life expectancy at birth. Because a lot of people stopped dying from childhood illnesses. (Though we are doing yeoman's work to bring those back.) People who were 65 in the 1930's weren't at deaths door just because overall life expectancy was ~60 and now it's past ~80. Although our life expectancy has fallen the last couple thanks to COVID. It's not like it can only go up.
You seem to be claiming (or at least the title of the article you linked seems to be) that the argument that we may need to raise the retirement age because people are living longer is entirely fabricated and the evidence is based entirely on misattributing drops in infant mortality. Having to pay an additional 5 or more years of pensions for 3/5ths of men and 1/5th of women is absolutely significant enough to make a previously sustainable pension system not so. If you expected to need to fund your retirement for five more years you would need to either save more each year or save for longer.
So you didn't read the article, anything else Hiltzik has written on the subject, or any of the SSA trustee reports.
The Social Security Administration anticipated improving life expectancy throughout it's existence, including in the 1930's, has budgeted for it, and has proposed reforms addressing it and other issues. If we taxed all wage income, rather than capping FICA at $160k, Social Security would be fully solvent in perpetuity, because it is a fundamentally sound program. The increases in life expectancy for those aged 65 and over that has increased over the span of decades is not the reason for projected shortfalls, and raising the retirement age will not place a burden on all aged persons equally. Especially since life expectancy is very much tied to wealth, and wealth is also very much tied to race.
That's the average life expectancy for someone that has already reached 65. From the same article, previous graph:
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Life expectancy at 65 is what matters for designing a pension scheme. Dead toddlers neither contributed to Social Security nor do they cost it any funds. Because they died in infancy.
Posts
Someone much smarter than me that has studied philosophy or law or, you know, history, can probably refute that
Corporate America would be happy to work you to death. The age of 65 was set by FDR, or more specifically Frances Perkins.
Historically speaking, Otto Von Bismark passed a mandatory retirement age of 70 in Germany, with a guaranteed pension after retirement, in 1881. A lot of resistance happened to this, as many older people wanted to continue working. Retirement as a concept started out not being opposed by capital, but by labor. Capital wanted a retirement age because they recognized that worker efficiency dropped off as they got older.
Some US government employees were given pensions as early as the mid 1800's, and it expanded to include all USG employees by the end of the century.
The US passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which set benefits to kick in at age 65. This was later expanded to have up to 80% of benefits available as early as 62. Around 2000, the 100% pension age was set to expand to 67 over a 22 year period.
Retirement isn't mandatory in the US, it's always optional.
Something to consider are the changes in life expectancy since the 1800's, and the increases in general healthiness later in life. Workers can work to a later age now, as they are likely to be in better health and able to do so. Given that we're now seeing the effects of a shrinking population (replacement rate by birth of less than 1), we're seeing a push to expand retirement age because of labor shortages.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-02-02/the-stupid-and-dishonest-idea-of-raising-the-social-security-retirement-age-is-back
Kissinger Georg is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
It would suck less if Democrats in Congress weren't so shitty at fostering young talent worth passing the torch to. Democratic senior leadership is not only old as shit, but also has been in leadership for fucking ever now. Pelosi was first elected in 1987 and led the caucus since 2002. Biden entered the Senate in 1973 and was a highly ranked member or chair of many committees for like 20-years. Reid (RIP), Durbin, Feinstein, etc. have all been in leadership for several decades.
Maybe the cutoff needs to be 75 or 80 to give the Sherrods Brown and Lizzies Warren more time to do stuff but the situation we have with Feinstein is absurd and shouldn't exist. This hanging on for dear life to get one more achievement is why we have Amy Coney Barret in SCOTUS for the next 30+ fucking years.
In a senator's case it's probably worse because practically anyone who works closely with her would be threatening their livelihood by saying anything
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The issue of course is that people would want to extend it to general term limits which I strongly oppose for elected officials.
5+ years for most men is not an increase?
It's a nominal increase.
"Vast bulk of". The increase in life expectancy at birth was 24 years.
That's if you get to retire.
Which can be assumed at the wealth level and generational cohort(s) for most of Congress, yes. Everyone else? Not so much.
Something a bit weird is going on with that chart. While I can believe it in general terms, it asks me to accept that all women in income quintiles below the very top group have seen a decline in life expectancy from 50? Which, just doesn't pass the sniff test.
And, showing the 50 year chart is a bit weird when it minimizes the relevant difference and the 65 year chart must also be available.
I certainly don't think that raising the retirement age is the right answer to anything (if we must do something, then lets decrease payments today for people starting to draw their pensions until the inflow/outflow is balanced, I bet more money will miraculously be found overnight!)
edit - Ahh it's 'born in'? So, 50 in 1980 vs 50 in 2010?
Seems a bit premature to calculate those numbers for the 50 in 2010 group! Since the vast majority of them aren't dead yet. Seems the right comparison would be
65 in 1930
vs
65 in 1965
vs
65 in 2000
I agree with you in principle, the people who are being asked to sacrifice are poor people 10 years from now so that rich people today who never voted in increase social security payments when they worked don't see any consequences, and poor people don't get lots of extra retirement years. Just, this age data seems a bit off target
More likely before we reach that though are climate catastrophes because that clean energy source isn’t created/implemented in time, or devolution of the liberal welfare state due to inability for our policy leaders to recognize and deal with the implications of the various wealth inequality bombs (intra-country as well as globals north and south) and population-aging vs immigration and those things basically always leading to authoritarianism and war, this time with nukes
I didn’t hear back from him and still haven’t since I reached out. My brother is still in touch with him and communicated what happened next to me.
He found some foreign doctor that was doing research on his very particular rare cancer. He paid $Texas to get experimental treatments, and voila, he’s still alive 5 years later. Because he’s rich.
Longevity isn’t something that happens for everyone. Sometimes life expectancy makes improvements because there’s fluoride in the water supply and people aren’t dying as often from a random preventable tooth infection. But the biggest increases for old people come because when you’re rich you’re playing by a different ruleset than everybody else. Being rich is basically the ultimate cheat code for life. And this generation of old people has basically hoarded all the wealth.
...
How did you read that from
"The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality. More living 5 year olds has zero impact on quality or quantity of life in your senior years. Life expectancy for seniors has increased some since 1935, but not nearly as drastically an amount and it is extremely dependent on income and, of course, concomitantly racial lines."
+5 is an increase. Though one concentrated at the top of the wage ladder. It is not a multiple decade increase like overall life expectancy. Like what happened for life expectancy at birth. Because a lot of people stopped dying from childhood illnesses. (Though we are doing yeoman's work to bring those back.) People who were 65 in the 1930's weren't at deaths door just because overall life expectancy was ~60 and now it's past ~80. Although our life expectancy has fallen the last couple thanks to COVID. It's not like it can only go up.
You're citing data from 1930 to 1960.
Life expectancy went from 46 years (average) in 1900 to 66 in 1950 to 76 today. The infant mortality rate in 1900 was 15.71% versus 0.548% today, so that certainly is a significant contributor. But it's not responsible for a 30 year increase.
If we disregard the infant mortality in 1900, we come up with an average lifespan of (46 / (1 - 0.1571)) = 54.57 years. So there's still an additional 20+ years of life added since the discussions around retirement started. Infant mortality only accounts for 8.5 years out of a 30 year increase.
Source
I'm not sure why you're trying to reinvent the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables if you're just looking at averages. Which, you're wrong. Life expectancy at 65 has not increased 20 years since 1930. That isn't even projected to happen at any time this century:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html
This is from 2005, because I'm at work and don't have time to track down what they renamed the actuarial tabe study to without having to make my own charts in excel.
The problem is that, as the article I linked goes into, those averages collapse a lot of variability along class lines which it doesn't delve into. Poor working pensioners do not generally live as long past 65 as six figure Senators or think tank writers trying to convince Congress that folks actually love working longer and longer.
That's 46 for men in 1900 versus 76 in 2020, and 48 for women versus 81 in 2020. Exactly as I found earlier.
Which is because of infant mortality,which is monikers entire point. The life expectancy at retirement age is what matters when talking where the retirement age should be.
EDIT: Also, you claimed you took childhood mortality out of the equation, then posted a graph that matches your numbers...which still has child mortality in it.
You seem to be claiming (or at least the title of the article you linked seems to be) that the argument that we may need to raise the retirement age because people are living longer is entirely fabricated and the evidence is based entirely on misattributing drops in infant mortality. Having to pay an additional 5 or more years of pensions for 3/5ths of men and 1/5th of women is absolutely significant enough to make a previously sustainable pension system not so. If you expected to need to fund your retirement for five more years you would need to either save more each year or save for longer.
You know that D.C *can* vote for president, right?
Well, no, if we're measuring from 1900 it's also because of penicillin and basically every childhood vaccine, as well as better infrastructure making deaths from stuff like Yellow Fever and other mosquito-borne illnesses less common.
A lot of important stuff (specifically re: public health) happened in the 20th.
Not really. Check these:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Today, a newborn year old can expect to live to 74.12/79.78. At 20? 54.97/60.41more years. At 60? 20.47/23.67
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf
At 0 49.24. +43.6 at 20, +15.37 at 60.
With all the caveats for different sources, etc. Should still be close. So the increase, taking the SSA male number for pessimism's sake?
Newborns: 24.88 years
20 year olds: 11.37 years
60 year olds? 5.1
So the majority of the benefit from life expectancy at age 0 comes before age 20. Before age 10 actually; the difference there is 12.68 years. It's infants and children. When talking retirement planning the only thing that matters is the last number, that 5 years. Which I'll point out we already handled 23 years ago. Most of the agitating to increase retirement age is from people who hate the idea of the plebs retiring, and retired people who want to make sure other people work to handle their own remaining retirement years.
Unlike Congress, which still has Matt Gaetz as a member
Yes, which supported by pre-mortality removal numbers.
If the average age of death sans-infant mortality is 54, then the majority of the population isn't reaching retirement age at all. If the average age of death is 76, then the majority of the population is making it to and beyond retirement age. Not only are people living longer, on average, once they hit retirement age. A ton more people are living long enough to hit retirement age.
The retirement needs are very different if only 5% (made up number) of your population lives to retirement age than if 95% (made up number) do.
It’s millennials and younger who have to worry about retirement if “inherit the money from dead boomers just in time” doesn’t come to pass
I still think that graph highlights part of the problem. Between 1940 and 2000 there was a 40-60% increase in the amount of time people survived after age 65. From 12 ish years to 17 ish years. To support this, we should raise the cap on social security contributions, and (because the problem is 100% the fault of retired people who are retiring today) we should cap the amount of money a person retiring today can receive.
Most of the models I've seen predict that the balance sheet fixes itself once the boomer group works through. The issue is that boomers never paid there way, and are wrecking each system once they are done with it.
So, they used the finest schools, then refused to pay for them, and wrecked them.
Then they enjoyed free college, refused to pay for it for others and wrecked it.
Now they are about to try and drain social security, leaving Gen X and beyond to pay for it.
Yes, a person born today can expect to retire from birth. A person born in 1900 wouldn't even have a break even chance of making retirement until 30. I agree, infant mortality was a huge problem. It wasn't the only problem, and only accounts for maybe a third of the increase in life expectancy.
Note - I am 100% against increasing the retirement age. Productivity increases over the same time period have more than offset any extensions in life.
So you didn't read the article, anything else Hiltzik has written on the subject, or any of the SSA trustee reports.
The Social Security Administration anticipated improving life expectancy throughout it's existence, including in the 1930's, has budgeted for it, and has proposed reforms addressing it and other issues. If we taxed all wage income, rather than capping FICA at $160k, Social Security would be fully solvent in perpetuity, because it is a fundamentally sound program. The increases in life expectancy for those aged 65 and over that has increased over the span of decades is not the reason for projected shortfalls, and raising the retirement age will not place a burden on all aged persons equally. Especially since life expectancy is very much tied to wealth, and wealth is also very much tied to race.
Life expectancy at 65 is what matters for designing a pension scheme. Dead toddlers neither contributed to Social Security nor do they cost it any funds. Because they died in infancy.