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.
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.
How much of this is just the ages of billionaires skewing the chart though?
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.
One of the downsides to being the party that is older, is that there are so many old democrats in the senate. And while the Senate judiciary committee is important, the senate can choose to change the rules for any nominee, and have them go straight to an up or down senate vote. There isn’t any pressing nominations right at the moment. But Feinstein should probably retire. And Newsome hopefully elects a young Democrat to replace her.
Considering where all this stupid argument began, I suppose someone should point out Feinstein is not a Boomer
Only people gonna see that wealth are banks providing reverse mortgages so boomers can pay for increasingly expensive healthcare.
Yeah, the money behind corporate Health Care has been lining up to siphon up all that generational wealth for awhile now. If it isn't folks money directly they'll get it from Medicare.
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.
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.
I disagreed, and continue to disagree with this assertion. That's where this tangent started from. I have never claimed that we shouldn't look at average life expectancy at 65 in planning retirement age.
I mathematically showed that a 15.7% mortality rate in 1900 isn't enough to explain even half of the average change in life expectancy. It only accounts for 8.5/30 = 28.3%, not even a third of the increase in life expectancy. I showed my work here, so you can critique 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.
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.
This is the problem. I never once said that life expectancy at 65 increased by 20 years since 1930. I said average life expectancy for males increase by 30 years for the period from 1900 to today, of which only 28% of which is due to the near elimination of infant mortality. Which is certainly not a "...vast bulk of expanded life expectancy...".
The point is that the number crunchers have already solved for the extra years tacked on average to the end of retirees lives incremental to the original retirement age because it wasn’t so large as to be that problematic for them to do so, despite what is often portrayed in the media about life expectancy
+7
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
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.
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.
I disagreed, and continue to disagree with this assertion. That's where this tangent started from. I have never claimed that we shouldn't look at average life expectancy at 65 in planning retirement age.
I mathematically showed that a 15.7% mortality rate in 1900 isn't enough to explain even half of the average change in life expectancy. It only accounts for 8.5/30 = 28.3%, not even a third of the increase in life expectancy. I showed my work here, so you can critique 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.
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.
This is the problem. I never once said that life expectancy at 65 increased by 20 years since 1930. I said average life expectancy for males increase by 30 years for the period from 1900 to today, of which only 28% of which is due to the near elimination of infant mortality. Which is certainly not a "...vast bulk of expanded life expectancy...".
Please, cite me where I have argued otherwise.
Part of the issue is that your analysis implicitly assumes that the life expectancy increase among non-infants is spread across the rest of the age spectrum evenly, when it's still heavily front loaded on young children.
That 15% covers everyone who died before their first birthday, but ignores the huge number who died before their 5th birthday, or their tenth.
Making it to adulthood was dicey a hundred years ago, but once you hit a certain threshold, you were comparatively safe. So yes, only 25% is attributable to infant mortality, but another 50% or so is attributable to other young age brackets, such that the impact upon grownups is fairly small.
ElJeffe on
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.
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality.
I've been saying that infant mortality wasn't the overall driver of the increase in life expectancy, which is strictly the opposite position of Moniker here.
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
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
Which just really really underscores the need to have term and/or age limits on this shit because nobody can start losing their grip when their in office in their 80s if they were forced to give up their deathgrip ten years beforehand or they used up all their time in office twenty years ago.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality.
I've been saying that infant mortality wasn't the overall driver of the increase in life expectancy, which is strictly the opposite position of Moniker here.
Okay, yeah, if the argument was just that it's specifically infant mortality that's the majority of the effect, I don't think the data supports that. It's a big factor, and overall child mortality is the biggun here, but infant mortality is just a chunk.
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.
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
Which just really really underscores the need to have term and/or age limits on this shit because nobody can start losing their grip when their in office in their 80s if they were forced to give up their deathgrip ten years beforehand or they used up all their time in office twenty years ago.
obviously there's a correlation but I don't really think it's an age problem; Fetterman experienced a similar issue but 1) he seems to be on the way to recovery and 2) didn't occupy a pivotal committee spot the way feinstein does
I dunno what the solution is tbh; I'm opposed to term limits generally but we need a better way to address officials experiencing cognitive issues than 'hope they resign in a timely manner I guess'
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality.
I've been saying that infant mortality wasn't the overall driver of the increase in life expectancy, which is strictly the opposite position of Moniker here.
Fair enough, childhood mortality. The overall increases in life expectancy from 60 to 80 didn't and doesn't mean that a 60 year old then was a dead man walking compared to a 60 year old today, and taking years away from retirement isn't balancing that out.
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
Which just really really underscores the need to have term and/or age limits on this shit because nobody can start losing their grip when their in office in their 80s if they were forced to give up their deathgrip ten years beforehand or they used up all their time in office twenty years ago.
obviously there's a correlation but I don't really think it's an age problem; Fetterman experienced a similar issue but 1) he seems to be on the way to recovery and 2) didn't occupy a pivotal committee spot the way feinstein does
I dunno what the solution is tbh; I'm opposed to term limits generally but we need a better way to address officials experiencing cognitive issues than 'hope they resign in a timely manner I guess'
IIRC Fetterman has already returned to the Senate.
The Republicans are nothing more than warmongers and self-contradictory free marketers, while their Democratic opponents are no different: chicken hawks and phoney "green" energy proponents.
Don't believe me? Biden essentially continued Trump's America's first policy, has now come up with an Inflation Reduction Act that puts restrictions on free trade, and now wants to continue oil exploration in Alaska.
The Republicans are nothing more than warmongers and self-contradictory free marketers, while their Democratic opponents are no different: chicken hawks and phoney "green" energy proponents.
Don't believe me? Biden essentially continued Trump's America's first policy, has now come up with an Inflation Reduction Act that puts restrictions on free trade, and now wants to continue oil exploration in Alaska.
MAGA lite. LOL.
I don't believe you because you are utterly, completely and dangerously wrong.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality.
I've been saying that infant mortality wasn't the overall driver of the increase in life expectancy, which is strictly the opposite position of Moniker here.
Fair enough, childhood mortality. The overall increases in life expectancy from 60 to 80 didn't and doesn't mean that a 60 year old then was a dead man walking compared to a 60 year old today, and taking years away from retirement isn't balancing that out.
If I'm thinking through the math correctly, the only thing that raising the retirement really does is transfer resources from younger, currently working people to the already-retired.
If you don't see a difference between industrial policy and non-tariff barriers to trade that cut carbon emissions 40% from 2005 levels, and the scattershot tariffs that occurred from 2017-2021 I genuinely don't know what to say.
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The vast bulk of expanded life expectancy over the last century is due to declining infant mortality.
I've been saying that infant mortality wasn't the overall driver of the increase in life expectancy, which is strictly the opposite position of Moniker here.
Fair enough, childhood mortality. The overall increases in life expectancy from 60 to 80 didn't and doesn't mean that a 60 year old then was a dead man walking compared to a 60 year old today, and taking years away from retirement isn't balancing that out.
If I'm thinking through the math correctly, the only thing that raising the retirement really does is transfer resources from younger, currently working people to the already-retired.
Well that's the point, right? Like Macron's whole deal is raising retirement age to cover pensions instead of increasing taxes on the wealthy, is it not?
Yeah, who life expectancy actual works over how the media portrays it. Is exactly why all the retirement age increases are bullshit. Yes, there have been some modest gains here and there, but the lion's share is that we have less infants dying and I want to say child mortality outside of infant mortality has also been significant.
It's not like we've hit a point where most people are hitting 75+. We have a shit ton of people that are still dying before 70. Then there is the whole thing where even if someone is hitting 75+, that doesn't mean they are still capable of working. There are just some lines of work that massively wear out the body by the time someone hits their 50s, where even if individual got the skills for say do office work, they might not be able to do even that in their 50s because of how rough their previous line of work was. This is just talking about people that weren't born with a disability or ended up developing one later in life. There are a number of individuals with disabilities where the retirement increases area absolutely fucking them over because they already can't work full time and not only are many employers hostile to the idea of accommodating them, society has also setup things up to be pretty damn hostile to individuals with disabilities. The drive or die bullshit absolutely fucks a ton of people with disabilities out of work, who do want to actually work, not to mention the whole isolating them thing.
I'm disgusted that Feinstein won't just retire now and I'm saying this as an individual with a disability. Democrats, despite their many faults, are orders of magnitude better than republicans when it comes to the disabilities front. Granted massively helps when their party isn't actively embracing eugenics. Each day that Feinstein keeps things delayed, is a an additional day where the GOP might get to ram through some eugenicists federalist fucker in the feature, that will actively ensure things are worse for those with a disability. So it's also why I get pissed when people claim that it's ablest to suggest that she should step down because her inability to do the job is increasing the odds that those of us with disabilities will continue to get fucked over and that it could actually get worse. I'll also point out, it would only be ablest if she could do the job with the right accommodations, but those were being denied, she can't even do because there is no way to accommodate for her mental decline, which last I checked, we don't really have an treatments or therapies to help bring people back from.
We are accommodating for her decline by assigning her lots of young, sharp assistants. But this does not work when she’s incapable of traveling to the office.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
You'd think that the Democrats would have learned something about the perils of mortality after Kennedy mucked up the ACA by retiring feet first and getting replaced by a Republican.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Current Dems are still reeling about Earl Warren’s early retirement gambit backfiring and giving us Berger….when they were all in their 50s ::high fives::
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
I can practically read the NYT opinion piece "why the democrats are the real problem in congress."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
All it takes is every Democrat and 5 GOP Leadership to pass a clean bill. If this was a government shutdown, forget it, but this is asking whether or not dollars should be able to purchase goods and services. And folks with billions of dollars generally like them being worth something.
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
All it takes is every Democrat and 5 GOP Leadership to pass a clean bill. If this was a government shutdown, forget it, but this is asking whether or not dollars should be able to purchase goods and services. And folks with billions of dollars generally like them being worth something.
Doesn't even take 5 leadership, 5 members and a discharge petition plus Dems can get it through technically.
Edit: Those 5 members might as well go independent at that point though, they will lose all their positions in the Republican caucus.
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
All it takes is every Democrat and 5 GOP Leadership to pass a clean bill. If this was a government shutdown, forget it, but this is asking whether or not dollars should be able to purchase goods and services. And folks with billions of dollars generally like them being worth something.
I would agree, and felt that the self interest of the greedy has always been a solid backstop to "Blow it up! Blow it all up to hurt the poors!" in the past, but, I worry that our new generation of greedy people is stupider than the previous ones.
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
All it takes is every Democrat and 5 GOP Leadership to pass a clean bill. If this was a government shutdown, forget it, but this is asking whether or not dollars should be able to purchase goods and services. And folks with billions of dollars generally like them being worth something.
Doesn't even take 5 leadership, 5 members and a discharge petition plus Dems can get it through technically.
Edit: Those 5 members might as well go independent at that point though, they will lose all their positions in the Republican caucus.
That also depends on starting the discharge petition soon enough. You need to pass the thing before the extraordinary now-ordinary measures run out.
Posts
Uh, citation needed on it even being better than even odds? Because "Number of US workers aged 75 and up expected to increase 96.5% over next decade", and that's in the next decade, it's not even factoring in millenials and zoomers who have radically reduced abilities to save and invest compared to previous generations.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
How much of this is just the ages of billionaires skewing the chart though?
The point was to “reach retirement age” not actually retire
Considering where all this stupid argument began, I suppose someone should point out Feinstein is not a Boomer
Yeah, the money behind corporate Health Care has been lining up to siphon up all that generational wealth for awhile now. If it isn't folks money directly they'll get it from Medicare.
Let's back this up to the original:
I disagreed, and continue to disagree with this assertion. That's where this tangent started from. I have never claimed that we shouldn't look at average life expectancy at 65 in planning retirement age.
I mathematically showed that a 15.7% mortality rate in 1900 isn't enough to explain even half of the average change in life expectancy. It only accounts for 8.5/30 = 28.3%, not even a third of the increase in life expectancy. I showed my work here, so you can critique it.
Your response to this was:
This is the problem. I never once said that life expectancy at 65 increased by 20 years since 1930. I said average life expectancy for males increase by 30 years for the period from 1900 to today, of which only 28% of which is due to the near elimination of infant mortality. Which is certainly not a "...vast bulk of expanded life expectancy...".
Please, cite me where I have argued otherwise.
Part of the issue is that your analysis implicitly assumes that the life expectancy increase among non-infants is spread across the rest of the age spectrum evenly, when it's still heavily front loaded on young children.
That 15% covers everyone who died before their first birthday, but ignores the huge number who died before their 5th birthday, or their tenth.
Making it to adulthood was dicey a hundred years ago, but once you hit a certain threshold, you were comparatively safe. So yes, only 25% is attributable to infant mortality, but another 50% or so is attributable to other young age brackets, such that the impact upon grownups is fairly small.
I've been saying that infant mortality wasn't the overall driver of the increase in life expectancy, which is strictly the opposite position of Moniker here.
Which just really really underscores the need to have term and/or age limits on this shit because nobody can start losing their grip when their in office in their 80s if they were forced to give up their deathgrip ten years beforehand or they used up all their time in office twenty years ago.
Okay, yeah, if the argument was just that it's specifically infant mortality that's the majority of the effect, I don't think the data supports that. It's a big factor, and overall child mortality is the biggun here, but infant mortality is just a chunk.
obviously there's a correlation but I don't really think it's an age problem; Fetterman experienced a similar issue but 1) he seems to be on the way to recovery and 2) didn't occupy a pivotal committee spot the way feinstein does
I dunno what the solution is tbh; I'm opposed to term limits generally but we need a better way to address officials experiencing cognitive issues than 'hope they resign in a timely manner I guess'
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Fair enough, childhood mortality. The overall increases in life expectancy from 60 to 80 didn't and doesn't mean that a 60 year old then was a dead man walking compared to a 60 year old today, and taking years away from retirement isn't balancing that out.
IIRC Fetterman has already returned to the Senate.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Don't believe me? Biden essentially continued Trump's America's first policy, has now come up with an Inflation Reduction Act that puts restrictions on free trade, and now wants to continue oil exploration in Alaska.
MAGA lite. LOL.
I don't believe you because you are utterly, completely and dangerously wrong.
The clown will be banned by lunch.
If I'm thinking through the math correctly, the only thing that raising the retirement really does is transfer resources from younger, currently working people to the already-retired.
Well that's the point, right? Like Macron's whole deal is raising retirement age to cover pensions instead of increasing taxes on the wealthy, is it not?
It's not like we've hit a point where most people are hitting 75+. We have a shit ton of people that are still dying before 70. Then there is the whole thing where even if someone is hitting 75+, that doesn't mean they are still capable of working. There are just some lines of work that massively wear out the body by the time someone hits their 50s, where even if individual got the skills for say do office work, they might not be able to do even that in their 50s because of how rough their previous line of work was. This is just talking about people that weren't born with a disability or ended up developing one later in life. There are a number of individuals with disabilities where the retirement increases area absolutely fucking them over because they already can't work full time and not only are many employers hostile to the idea of accommodating them, society has also setup things up to be pretty damn hostile to individuals with disabilities. The drive or die bullshit absolutely fucks a ton of people with disabilities out of work, who do want to actually work, not to mention the whole isolating them thing.
I'm disgusted that Feinstein won't just retire now and I'm saying this as an individual with a disability. Democrats, despite their many faults, are orders of magnitude better than republicans when it comes to the disabilities front. Granted massively helps when their party isn't actively embracing eugenics. Each day that Feinstein keeps things delayed, is a an additional day where the GOP might get to ram through some eugenicists federalist fucker in the feature, that will actively ensure things are worse for those with a disability. So it's also why I get pissed when people claim that it's ablest to suggest that she should step down because her inability to do the job is increasing the odds that those of us with disabilities will continue to get fucked over and that it could actually get worse. I'll also point out, it would only be ablest if she could do the job with the right accommodations, but those were being denied, she can't even do because there is no way to accommodate for her mental decline, which last I checked, we don't really have an treatments or therapies to help bring people back from.
House is debating the Debt Ceiling.
Its going how you would expect.
I'm looking forward to this going as well as McCarthy's first Speakership bid and destroying any leverage he can pretend to have.
I'd feel better about this if a bunch of GOP's weren't already campaigning on "Biden crashed the economy and destroyed the dollar!" They might be planning to shoot the hostage just to cause chaos and hoping people blame Dems for it.
I can practically read the NYT opinion piece "why the democrats are the real problem in congress."
pleasepaypreacher.net
All it takes is every Democrat and 5 GOP Leadership to pass a clean bill. If this was a government shutdown, forget it, but this is asking whether or not dollars should be able to purchase goods and services. And folks with billions of dollars generally like them being worth something.
Doesn't even take 5 leadership, 5 members and a discharge petition plus Dems can get it through technically.
Edit: Those 5 members might as well go independent at that point though, they will lose all their positions in the Republican caucus.
I would agree, and felt that the self interest of the greedy has always been a solid backstop to "Blow it up! Blow it all up to hurt the poors!" in the past, but, I worry that our new generation of greedy people is stupider than the previous ones.
That also depends on starting the discharge petition soon enough. You need to pass the thing before the extraordinary now-ordinary measures run out.
pleasepaypreacher.net