retirement age and life expectancy

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Come on Really, share

I did for a few mins . But it is a personal situation about someone I know and LJ looks like the person to advise.

lemonjelly

StevieJ wrote: »

Come on Really, share

In fairness to really2, I caught it as I assume he deleted it. However it could be quite personal, which was why I offered the pm.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

In fairness to really2, I caught it as I assume he deleted it. However it could be quite personal, which was why I offered the pm.

And what a great job you did to. Now if you want any tips on winding GD up I will happily repay the favour.

treliac

ninky wrote: »

if you retire at 65 your will live to 67.

Seems pretty illogical. Isn't longevity (following current retirement age) the reason they want to put the age up. If retiring at 65 meant a short-lived rest, they would leave retirement age alone.

treliac

lemonjelly wrote: »

I seem to recall (going back a few years) that there was a great disparity in life expectancy between the sexes.

Women were used to being at the home (like I say, I am going back, & at the time I'm recalling the majority of women were "homemakers" or whatever they called them:o) were used to being at home, & were outliving their husbands for many years.

Then with most women having to work nowadays, differences in life expectancy should adjust to something on a par with each other... unless, of course, there's more to the difference than just that.

ETA:- Just calculated mine - 98 years !! I'd better plan to work til I'm at least 80 to be able to afford to live that long.


....

Davesnave

treliac wrote: »

Then with most women having to work, differences in life expectancy should adjust to something on a par with each other... unless, of course, there's more to the difference than just that.

Ah, you are assuming that going to work is bad for health, but Help the Aged disagree. They imply that men die earlier because of daft lifestyle choices, in a thoroughly sexist piece that continues thus:

Differences in biology
But there are also biological answers. There is growing evidence that women are biologically tougher than men. For example, we now know that female hormones protect women from heart disease, at least until the menopause. The reasons for women's biological resilience have to do with the way we have all evolved to play our reproductive roles.
Our genes stand a better chance of survival if the nurturing parent - the mother - survives to care for her offspring until they are able to fend for themselves. In biological terms, men are expendable at a younger age because their genetic investment does not depend on their personal survival.

So, there you have it: men die early because they drink excessively, smoke a lot, sit on their bums and eat too much, while women get lots of lovely exercise cleaning, running round after kids, struggling home with the shopping and ironing the cat. Apart from that, they are biologically superior beings, genetically programmed to survive well beyond their 'best before' date.

That questionnaire thing said that I will be like my Dad and live to 95, but I made up quite a few answers.........:o Mind you, if Dad had answered it truthfully, it would have given him about 71 as a maximum!

Spirit_2

I get to live to 76:j
The point about needing to have sustainable health to match a later retirement age is absolutely spot on. This model of working life really will be about lifelong eating 5-a-day and exercising regularly

My hopes are that I will reduce my working commitments from this year (I will turn 50) eventually retiring altogether at around 55. Would like to carry on working fulltime but I am having to face it that I am not well enough and may not be up to it.

Consequence of Work-a-holic+no work life balance in 20's,30's,40's =carppy arteries+dodgy heart + other failing bits. All the public health messages I was exposed to when it could have influenced me was :

1)not to get Aids through promiscuity & I/V drugs
2)not to smoke
3)cross the road rafely (tufty - a road safety squirrel told me this - never forgotten it mind)

Sadly I was more influenced by Margaret Thatcher.

Sapphire

That lifestyle calculator must be a con - it has just told me I'm going to live until 97. Can't believe that given my lifestyle, etc.

GDB2222

It does seem a bit optimistic -

I don't know where the earlier figures for 2 years life expectancy at age 65 came from exactly, but it doesn't reflect UK experience at all.

lostinrates

I think what you do, how rewarding it is, must be a consideration.

IMO no working, can be very understimulating ..it doesn't have to be, but it can be. Having something that keeps you testing your brain, disciplined about schedule slides into non work aspects of life. Not to mention that having healthy income makes things like more expensive sport more accessible, good quality food and standards of living too. Its possible to live healthily on a very restricted income, its possible to live healthily in a way more enjoyable to many with increase in income.