Skip to main content

Life and death - but mostly life - I

In 2003 (most recent data) 19,408 people lived too long.

In what seems to me to be the most under-reported story I can think of, the death rate is declining noticeably. In 2003, 2,448,288 people in the U.S. died. In 2002 2,443,387 died. So, 4,901 more folks left this life. "What about it", you might ask. Well there were 2,865,000 more Americans, and 19,409 should have died, using the 2002 death rate. Our average age is moving up at nothing short of an astonishing rate. (Although one could argue that it can't move up more than one year per year.....).

Why is this happening? Lots of reasons. Statin drugs are extending the lives of heart attack victims, or preventing heart attacks all together. The percentage of people driving drunk and killing themselves (sad) or killing others (tragic) is down. Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones better brakes and tires. Higher survival rates for premature babies (big statistical impact of living to a normal age length vs. dying less than a year old). No significant influenza epidemics (this of course could happen at any time and reverse this trend). A dramatic reduction in smoking. No major war casualties (e.g. WWI and WWII). Widespread availability of heat and air conditioning. Hip replacement surgery. Social Security enabling healthier diets for retirees. Vitamins. Air conditioning. Open heart surgery.

Twenty five years ago, I was at a futurist conference where the keynote speaker said that there were widespread developments that would cause more people to live into their seventies and eighties, but not much happening to lengthen life. That is now changing: the study of life extension is beginning to attract real scientists.

One postulated recently that if you are under 40 today, and you make it to 85 (so alive in the years after 2061) you'll live to be 125 or more. If you are reading this and you are under 40, the odds of hitting 85 are pretty good if you don't smoke and avoid being struck by a drunk driver.

The societal effects of this are, of course, nothing short of monumental. We and our elected officials have shown no capacity for putting Social Security on any kind of sound financial footing. An amazing number of our citizens are currently in their fifties with no savings - how can they survive for thirty or forty years of retirement? And what happens to Social Security when life expectancies jump twenty and thirty years? Start saving now bro; there ain't going to be anything left after the baby boomers start hitting 110....

How are jobs and job opportunities going to work with healthy 90 year-olds holding down positions? What is the effect on roads and transit - after all, if I'm 106 and healthy that still doesn't mean that I've got good reaction time and eyesight.

What are the demands on the health care profession? Are we creating enough docs and nurses and hospital beds?

After a surge in profitability (at least the way I figure it at the moment) life insurers begin to have difficulty selling products - after all, if you are likely to live to 115, why buy a policy younger than, say, 50?

The effect on government budgets at every level, are devastating. Most governmental jobs have comfortable pensions that start at 25-35 years of service. Those are already straining many budgets. What if all those retired teachers and fireman live another fifteen years beyond the actuarial forecast? Big funding problem there Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer.

I'll have more to say on this topic.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...

No Steve No

To:Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer: Please, please don't spend my money on Yahoo. Spend $4 billion per year for the next 10 years building something new and better. This has to now be an ego deal, not an economic deal. If you withdraw the bid, YHOO is a $15 stock. You are too smart for this. Many times the best deals are the ones you don't make. This is one of those times. Don't spend my money on this. Sincerely, gene

So Who Wins?

Every recession plants the seeds for economic advantage in the future recovery. In the very tough 1973-1974 recession, prices fell so low that it enabled the creation of the leveraged buyout industry. With many manufacturing companies in particular trading at 3-4 times cash flow, new market entrants like KKR, Forstmann Little and Dyson Kisner Moran came in and created gigantic wealth for themselves and early investors. In the 1991-1992 downturn, engendered in part by the massive office space overbuilding funded by Savings and Loans (Resolution Trust Co, anyone?) made it possible for telcom and internet start-ups in Austin, San Jose, Northern VA, Boston's Route 128, Dallas, etc. to rent offices at a fraction of the cost had those communities not been overbuilt. And the 2001-02 downturn gave us cheap fiber and bandwidth, and bargain-priced software to feed productivity gains in corporations everywhere. So, where is the upside? At this moment, all that I can project with some confid...