Most of the growth in life expectancy over the past 50+ years came from lower infant/maternal mortality rates and lower death rates at younger ages (mostly due to antibiotics, vaccines, and fewer work accidents/more regulations). The net increase in life expectancy for those who reach 65 was about 2-3 years, IIRC.[/quote]
From a paper linked in another thread: “In 1935, 65-year-olds could expect to live 12 additional years on a gender-blended basis, while a 65-year-old in 2004 could expect an additional 19 years of life.”
So, the net increase in life expectancy since the beginning of Social Security for those who reach 65 is about 7 years (using 2004 data). So, about half of the overall increase in life expectancy over the last 75 years has been from lower infant mortality, and the other half from actual increases in longevity.[/quote]
Using this table, at age 65, people of all races and both sexes are now (2007) living about 4.7 years longer than they did in 1950. (I’ve seen the net 2-3 years increase in multiple places, but will go with the CDC’s numbers for this post.)
At age 75, people of all races and both sexes are living about 1.3 years longer in 2007 than they were in 1980, which I assume is when they first started collecting this data(?).
Yes, people are living longer for a variety of reasons. My point here is that the notion that we are all going to live to be 100+ as a result of life expectancy trends is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of the improved life expectancy. The majority of that increase is due to fewer deaths in childhood/infancy and young/middle adulthood, with much of that due to antibiotics, vaccines, fewer accidents, etc. It’s loaded on the front end, not the back end of life.
