LONGEVITY (Part II)
As I mentioned, I was introduced to this topic because of an article I mentioned in the post called “Hoarding?” This explains why THAT article was so far off base.
So, genetics plays a much larger role in longevity than scientists once imagined. Nevertheless, in the USA people ARE living a few years longer than our ancestors. Comparing how long those who were born in 1900 lived with those born more recently we find that the AVERAGE male lives up to 10 years longer. But that is only half the story. It turns out that being born even one year later delivers benefits. Changes in diet, health care, education, transportation, and exercise have changed our story. Little things like not marching off to a World War has helped, along with reducing smog in California cities. In spite of the good news some writers have grossly misinterpreted the data and have made regrettable assumptions. Plus, we still have a genetic “use by” date which is not so different than it was in 1900.
Regarding the current retiring generation we are being told two half-truths…
First, we keep being bombarded with stories first claiming the the generation following the Baby Boomers has to “wait” so much longer to inherit from their parents. While it is technically* true (*see the 4th paragraph) it isn’t as significant as those writers would have you believe. Looking at a life table for those born male who reached age 65, I found that in 1960 (near the end of Baby Boomer births) the average remaining years was 18.64 but by the year 2000 those who had reached age 65 could expect to live about 20.42 more years (about 1.75 more). Those who reached age 65 in 2025 might expect a remaining life of 21.6 years (about 1 year 70 days longer than someone who had been 65 twenty-five years earlier). How much “longer” will the generation after us have to live BEFORE they receive an inheritance from a Baby Boomer parent? A year and a few days. Not a long wait at all.
My point is that “the wait” is insignificant, even though it means a whole bunch to the 65 year old who is living on rice and beans in order to preserve more inheritance for his/her lazy kids. It is almost as if the next generation can’t wait for the Baby Boomer parent to die. I’m wondering why the younger set didn’t plan for retirement. Waiting to inherit! Pshaw!
Crazier? Yup it does go there! The generation to follow will live longer than the present one. They lose NOTHING by waiting. And, Yes! Every generation since 1900 has lived longer, but the one following the “Baby Boomers” is the first to publicly complain that their parents are living too long. They will, too. Again, they lose nothing by waiting.
The increase in longevity is rapidly falling off. Between 1900 and 1960 a 65 year old male gained a 36% growth in longevity (almost 5 extra years) because of advancements in nutrition. In the next 60 years (through year 2020) the increase had slowed to a mere 17% (about 3 extra years) in spite of expansion of vaccines, smoking cessation, and huge improvement in cancer treatments. Good, but troubling, considering that probability of death by cancer dropped by over 60% during that same period. By the end of the next 60 years (by year 2080) it is expected that longevity for 65 year olds will have grown again, by less than 10%. We are talking DAYS of added life. The problem is that we overeat and underwork. If the increase continues to slow in the decades to follow that, it will soon be flat and humankind will have reached maximum lifespan.
The second half-truth writers claim is that financial independence “came easier to earlier generations.” Technically true, but again the problem is that “easier” doesn’t really match reality. Here’s the reality: While the last generation (my parents) got their own homes earlier and at a lower cost, they also bought homes that were older and smaller. The home they bought did not have central air, internet, electronic gadgets, or cable TV. Appliances were built to last longer. There was a home phone which was only expensive if they made lots of long distance calls. They had fewer cars. Their homes were generally below 1400 square feet (my parents had one that was just over 1100) with ONE bathroom. The home my folks bought was 60 years old at purchase. Did I mention that it had a fuel oil furnace (stinky)? They didn’t have an attached garage (or any garage) or a cement driveway. Instead, there was a decayed chicken coop.
As I look around, the current crop of home buyers has homes with central air and natural gas heat, they have multiple cell phones, internet service, and the 12 year old 1600+ square foot home has two or more bathrooms and a deck (my parents never had a deck). So, we aren’t talking apples to apples really. My folks could never have afforded a house like those purchased by the current generation. They bought true fixer-uppers that needed new baths and kitchens and fixed them up as they were able. The first home I remember living in had a coal furnace. The coal had to be shoveled in at least twice a day. Name one home that has THAT now!
The point, if today’s crop of first-time home buyers didn’t have so many luxuries and kitchen/bath updates built into their homes and lives maybe they could afford it earlier, too. It may be the fault of their own expectations. My dad replaced his own roof and re-did his own floors. The sink in his house was original. He didn’t buy a flipped home. His home had a lot of sweat equity. The current generation wants a home that is already perfect. Two different “values” in housing. What works vs what is finished.
Copyright 2026 Donald Whelpley
[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere.
ALSO, Don is always open to offer his thoughts on various topics. If you have a specific request, you can let him know in a comment; he reads – and replies to – them all. ~ Sherry]
See more GUEST POSTS from Don
Comments