Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, discusses aging in his USA Today column. He is in favor of extending lifespans. One of the arguments he gives is:

If we could extend healthspan by 20 years — so that 85 is the new 65 and 90 is the new 70 — people

couldretire that much later, and those pension obligations would pose a much less pressing problem. [emphasis added]

Agreed. If folks worked longer and kept roughly the same retirement span then personal, corporate, and governmental finances would brighten considerably. Unfortunately, that is not what has happened historically. Here is a chart we used to help students understand the changes in retirement over generations:

Retirement Age versus Life Expectancy

Year | Average Male Retirement Age | Average Male Life Expectancy | Years in Retirement |

1950 | 66.9 | 65.5 | 0 |

1960 | 65.2 | 66.8 | 1.6 |

1970 | 64.0 | 67.0 | 3.0 |

1980 | 63.0 | 70.1 | 7.1 |

1990 | 62.6 | 71.8 | 9.2 |

2000 | 62.3 | 74.1 | 11.8 |

2005 | 61.7 | 75.2 | 13.5 |

We are not positive where this comes from as it was just class information but we think at least part of it comes from Mark Perry at Carpe Diem so a general h/t to him. Over 55 years the life expectance went up by almost 10 years but the retirement age went DOWN by over five. It seems unlikely that increasing the life expectancy by 20 will increase the retirement age much if at all. Increasing our lifespan seems more likely to darken finances, especially public finances.

We would support increasing our useful lifespan too. You can’t play too much handball. But increasing our lifespan is more likely to exacerbate the entitlement problem than solve it. What do you think is the probability of Congress increasing the age for receiving Social Security to 85?