Wed Mar 31 03:36:05 EST 2004
----------------- EHB POSTING -----------------
Larry Willmore writes:
| ----------------- EHB POSTING -----------------
| Russell Murphy provides an interesting and useful table, but it leaves me
| curious regarding the gender distribution of the mortality distribution.
| Would the top 10% in terms of longevity be composed entirely of females?
I'm not entirely sure what leads to the dissatisfaction. Longevity
gains have been impressive almost no matter how you choose to look at
them.
| Also, alas, it tells us nothing regarding expected years of life from age
| 60, where gains have been less impressive.
It's possible that gains after age 60 "have been less impressive", but
even if this were so (and see below for an alternative view), so many
more people reach age 60 now that it's hard to see what the complaint
would be.
There *have* been gains after age 60, and apparently impressive ones.
The following are expected years of life conditional on reaching age
60 and age 80, for males and for females (Social Security
Administration Actuarial Study 116; August 2002).
Birth Age 60 Age 80
cohort M F M F
------ -- -- -- --
1900 16 22 7 9
1920 18 23 7 9
1940 20 24 8 10
1960 22 25 9 11
1980 23 27 10 12
2000 24 28 10 12
------ -- -- -- --
Increase 50% 27% 43% 33%
There are plenty of caveats (e.g. rounded to the nearest year,
estimation of future mortality experience, for population of US Social
Security coverage area). But the basic conclusion seems pretty clear.
And given that mortality at younger ages is already quite low, future
improvement in life expectancy (if any) will come at older ages.
Although motherhood was dangerous early in the century, men still had
relatively poorer prospects then; we have less to complain about
today.
Russ Murphy
--
Russell D. Murphy
Department of Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
(540) 231-4537
------------ FOOTER TO EHB POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info EHB" to lists at eh.net.