[CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
mptfan
Posts: 4715
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

[CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by mptfan » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm

Here is an article published by CNBC entitled "Self-made millionaire: Don't buy into the idea that '70 is the new retirement age."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/david-b ... t-age.html

The author of the article quotes David Bach as follows...

"There's this new advice out there that 70 is the new retirement age. That is ridiculous," he tells CNBC Make It. "First of all, the life expectancy for men is 76. You want to retire at 70 and have six years left to retire? Ladies, for you, it's 81. You want 11 years in retirement?"

To support his claim that the life expectancy for males is 76, he cites this NCHS data brief...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

Unfortunately, the data he cites does not support his claim. It's true that life expectancy for males at birth is 76, but the data also shows (on the same page) that life expectancy for males at the age of 65 is 18 years, so a male at the age of 65 is expected to live until age 83 and a woman is expected to live until age 85. Therefore, his argument that a man who retires at at the age of 70 should only expect to live for 6 years is wrong and not supported by the data. A man at the age of 70 can expect to live at least another 13 years according to the data cited in the article.

Do you think Mr. Bach knows this and is being intentionally deceptive, or did he just misinterpret the data?
Last edited by mptfan on Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.

tibbitts
Posts: 8051
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by tibbitts » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:25 pm

mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm
Here is an article published by CNBC entitled "Self-made millionaire: Don't buy into the idea that '70 is the new retirement age."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/david-b ... t-age.html

The author of the article quotes David Bach as follows... "There's this new advice out there that 70 is the new retirement age. That is ridiculous," he tells CNBC Make It. "First of all, the life expectancy for men is 76. You want to retire at 70 and have six years left to retire? Ladies, for you, it's 81. You want 11 years in retirement?"

To support his claim that the life expectancy for males is 76, he cites this NCHS data brief...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

Unfortunately, the data he cites does not support his claim. It's true that life expectancy for males AT BIRTH is 76, but the data also shows (on the same page) that life expectancy for males at the age of 65 is 18 years, so a male at the age of 65 is expected to live until age 83. Therefore, his implied argument that a man who retires at at the age of 70 should only expect to live for 6 years is wrong and not supported by the data. A man at the age of 70 can expect to live at least another 13 years according to the data he cited.

Do you think Mr. Bach knows this and is being intentionally deceptive, or did he just misinterpret the data?
I don't think either is the case. Anyone would assume the default starting age for average lifetime would be zero. I understand why this may not reflect the experience of an already 65-year-old, but the fact remains that on average a man would spend six years in retirement. Not the average man who makes it to retirement, just the average man. So you are saying he should have specified "You want to either die before 70 or retire at 70 and have six years left to retire..." Neither seems that appealing to me.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:31 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:25 pm
mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm
Here is an article published by CNBC entitled "Self-made millionaire: Don't buy into the idea that '70 is the new retirement age."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/david-b ... t-age.html

The author of the article quotes David Bach as follows... "There's this new advice out there that 70 is the new retirement age. That is ridiculous," he tells CNBC Make It. "First of all, the life expectancy for men is 76. You want to retire at 70 and have six years left to retire? Ladies, for you, it's 81. You want 11 years in retirement?"

To support his claim that the life expectancy for males is 76, he cites this NCHS data brief...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

Unfortunately, the data he cites does not support his claim. It's true that life expectancy for males AT BIRTH is 76, but the data also shows (on the same page) that life expectancy for males at the age of 65 is 18 years, so a male at the age of 65 is expected to live until age 83. Therefore, his implied argument that a man who retires at at the age of 70 should only expect to live for 6 years is wrong and not supported by the data. A man at the age of 70 can expect to live at least another 13 years according to the data he cited.

Do you think Mr. Bach knows this and is being intentionally deceptive, or did he just misinterpret the data?
I don't think either is the case. Anyone would assume the default starting age for average lifetime would be zero. I understand why this may not reflect the experience of an already 65-year-old, but the fact remains that on average a man would spend six years in retirement. Not the average man who makes it to retirement, just the average man. So you are saying he should have specified "You want to either die before 70 or retire at 70 and have six years left to retire..." Neither seems that appealing to me.
The OP had it right: Bach is either ignoring or doesn’t understand the difference between a conditional probability and an unconditional probability.

Which is fine: many people don’t. Those people also don’t typically publish articles in which their error is the central tenet of their argument.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

mptfan
Posts: 4715
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by mptfan » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:35 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:25 pm
Anyone would assume the default starting age for average lifetime would be zero. I understand why this may not reflect the experience of an already 65-year-old, but the fact remains that on average a man would spend six years in retirement. Not the average man who makes it to retirement, just the average man. So you are saying he should have specified "You want to either die before 70 or retire at 70 and have six years left to retire..." Neither seems that appealing to me.
This is a subject about which there is much misunderstanding...the average life expectancy at birth does not apply to someone who makes it to age 65, because that person has avoided a whole host of things that were fatal...infant diseases, accidents, cancer, you name it, that is why the life expectancy tables have different starting ages. So, while the average life expectancy for a man at birth may be 76, the average life expectancy for a man at age 65 is 83. So, for retirement planning purposes, if someone retires at 70, on average, they could expect to live for at least another 13 years, not 6.

User avatar
Stinky
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:38 am
Location: Sweet Home Alabama

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by Stinky » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:42 pm

mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm

Do you think Mr. Bach knows this and is being intentionally deceptive, or did he just misinterpret the data?
No way to know if he's being deceptive or just didn't understand what he was saying.

It's really disappointing that misinformation like this seeps into the public domain. Adult shouldn't be basing their financial planning on living to only 76 or so, because most adults will live well longer than that.
It's a GREAT day to be alive - Travis Tritt

mptfan
Posts: 4715
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by mptfan » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:44 pm

Stinky wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:42 pm
It's really disappointing that misinformation like this seeps into the public domain.
I agree. It's unfortunate that people who claim to be financial experts disseminate false information as if it is fact.

User avatar
TimeRunner
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by TimeRunner » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:47 pm

I can't wait to see all the "Help me spend my retirement money before I turn 77" threads. :wink:

Seriously, they should pull that article.
"What'd ya expect in an opera, a happy ending?" -Bugs Bunny. "You gotta fight for your right to party!" -Beastie Boys

HornedToad
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:36 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by HornedToad » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:49 pm

I think life expectancy from 0 makes more sense here.

The article is not for people already at 65 or 70 years old, but for people looking at and planning retirement and they might be 20,30, 50, or 70. If you are 30, you shouldn't be looking at 83 (as if you were 65) as your life expectancy because you are only 30 and should look at what makes sense for your situation.

jclear
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:47 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by jclear » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:52 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:25 pm
mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm
Here is an article published by CNBC entitled "Self-made millionaire: Don't buy into the idea that '70 is the new retirement age."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/david-b ... t-age.html

The author of the article quotes David Bach as follows... "There's this new advice out there that 70 is the new retirement age. That is ridiculous," he tells CNBC Make It. "First of all, the life expectancy for men is 76. You want to retire at 70 and have six years left to retire? Ladies, for you, it's 81. You want 11 years in retirement?"

To support his claim that the life expectancy for males is 76, he cites this NCHS data brief...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

Unfortunately, the data he cites does not support his claim. It's true that life expectancy for males AT BIRTH is 76, but the data also shows (on the same page) that life expectancy for males at the age of 65 is 18 years, so a male at the age of 65 is expected to live until age 83. Therefore, his implied argument that a man who retires at at the age of 70 should only expect to live for 6 years is wrong and not supported by the data. A man at the age of 70 can expect to live at least another 13 years according to the data he cited.

Do you think Mr. Bach knows this and is being intentionally deceptive, or did he just misinterpret the data?
I don't think either is the case. Anyone would assume the default starting age for average lifetime would be zero. I understand why this may not reflect the experience of an already 65-year-old, but the fact remains that on average a man would spend six years in retirement. Not the average man who makes it to retirement, just the average man. So you are saying he should have specified "You want to either die before 70 or retire at 70 and have six years left to retire..." Neither seems that appealing to me.
Actually, the average man would spend more than 6 years in retirement, by your calculations if the plan is to retire at 70. Because your calculations say that a man dying at age 50 has negative 20 years of retirement, when it's actually 0.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:01 pm

HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:49 pm
I think life expectancy from 0 makes more sense here.
Sorry, but no.

If the problem being solved is "when should I retire", the life expectancy you want is the one calculated based on your age at expected retirement. In other words: "if I make it to retirement, how much retirement should I plan for?" The number you need is your life expectancy CONDITIONED ON living to retirement age.

Bach appears to be solving a slightly problem, which I think is best posed as the joint probability of two items: 1) the probability on living until the retirement age; and 2) the life expectancy conditioned on living to retirement age. That first probability might dictate the target retirement age (i.e. if I had a high probability of dying before age 60, I might plan to retire at age 55 instead of planning to retire at age 70.

Either way, though, Bach needs to go bach to school for a lesson in statistics.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

HornedToad
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:36 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by HornedToad » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:01 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:49 pm
I think life expectancy from 0 makes more sense here.
Sorry, but no.

If the problem being solved is "when should I retire", the life expectancy you want is the one calculated based on your age at expected retirement. In other words: "if I make it to retirement, how much retirement should I plan for?" The number you need is your life expectancy CONDITIONED ON living to retirement age.

Bach appears to be solving a slightly problem, which I think is best posed as the joint probability of two items: 1) the probability on living until the retirement age; and 2) the life expectancy conditioned on living to retirement age. That first probability might dictate the target retirement age (i.e. if I had a high probability of dying before age 60, I might plan to retire at age 55 instead of planning to retire at age 70.

Either way, though, Bach needs to go bach to school for a lesson in statistics.
I disagree with your premise.

What you have to calculate for answer the when should I retire question is what is my life expectancy now, AND when I choose to retire how much retirement should I plan for (life expectancy at that point). You are focusing on only the retirement planning, but if I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is 65 or 70 or whatever the specific life expectancy is for my medical conditions, weight, genetics etc, I should take that into account with my retirement planning on not automatically plan for retirement at an age I might never reach.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:12 pm

HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:01 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:49 pm
I think life expectancy from 0 makes more sense here.
Sorry, but no.

If the problem being solved is "when should I retire", the life expectancy you want is the one calculated based on your age at expected retirement. In other words: "if I make it to retirement, how much retirement should I plan for?" The number you need is your life expectancy CONDITIONED ON living to retirement age.

Bach appears to be solving a slightly problem, which I think is best posed as the joint probability of two items: 1) the probability on living until the retirement age; and 2) the life expectancy conditioned on living to retirement age. That first probability might dictate the target retirement age (i.e. if I had a high probability of dying before age 60, I might plan to retire at age 55 instead of planning to retire at age 70.

Either way, though, Bach needs to go bach to school for a lesson in statistics.
I disagree with your premise.

What you have to calculate for answer the when should I retire question is what is my life expectancy now, AND when I choose to retire how much retirement should I plan for (life expectancy at that point). You are focusing on only the retirement planning, but if I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is 65 or 70 or whatever the specific life expectancy is for my medical conditions, weight, genetics etc, I should take that into account with my retirement planning on not automatically plan for retirement at an age I might never reach.
You should write for CNBC.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 6127
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by JoMoney » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:43 pm

I think asking strangers on the internet to decide what someone else intent was is ridiculous.
His "argument" as far as I can tell, is that one should be saving a lot, and not expecting to be able to work to age 70.
I didn't get the impression that an emphasis on a actuarial precise life estimation based on current age was the point of the message.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

HornedToad
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:36 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by HornedToad » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:56 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:12 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:01 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:49 pm
I think life expectancy from 0 makes more sense here.
Sorry, but no.

If the problem being solved is "when should I retire", the life expectancy you want is the one calculated based on your age at expected retirement. In other words: "if I make it to retirement, how much retirement should I plan for?" The number you need is your life expectancy CONDITIONED ON living to retirement age.

Bach appears to be solving a slightly problem, which I think is best posed as the joint probability of two items: 1) the probability on living until the retirement age; and 2) the life expectancy conditioned on living to retirement age. That first probability might dictate the target retirement age (i.e. if I had a high probability of dying before age 60, I might plan to retire at age 55 instead of planning to retire at age 70.

Either way, though, Bach needs to go bach to school for a lesson in statistics.
I disagree with your premise.

What you have to calculate for answer the when should I retire question is what is my life expectancy now, AND when I choose to retire how much retirement should I plan for (life expectancy at that point). You are focusing on only the retirement planning, but if I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is 65 or 70 or whatever the specific life expectancy is for my medical conditions, weight, genetics etc, I should take that into account with my retirement planning on not automatically plan for retirement at an age I might never reach.
You should write for CNBC.
Seriously that's your response to a discussion? I guess you've never had family/friends with health problems that do not have normal life expectancy and their decision for retirement age should include their current life expectancy in order to maximize the quality of their life while maintaining necessary savings rate, not some imaginary life expectancy at retirement age they might never get to.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:02 pm

HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:56 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:12 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:01 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:49 pm
I think life expectancy from 0 makes more sense here.
Sorry, but no.

If the problem being solved is "when should I retire", the life expectancy you want is the one calculated based on your age at expected retirement. In other words: "if I make it to retirement, how much retirement should I plan for?" The number you need is your life expectancy CONDITIONED ON living to retirement age.

Bach appears to be solving a slightly problem, which I think is best posed as the joint probability of two items: 1) the probability on living until the retirement age; and 2) the life expectancy conditioned on living to retirement age. That first probability might dictate the target retirement age (i.e. if I had a high probability of dying before age 60, I might plan to retire at age 55 instead of planning to retire at age 70.

Either way, though, Bach needs to go bach to school for a lesson in statistics.
I disagree with your premise.

What you have to calculate for answer the when should I retire question is what is my life expectancy now, AND when I choose to retire how much retirement should I plan for (life expectancy at that point). You are focusing on only the retirement planning, but if I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is 65 or 70 or whatever the specific life expectancy is for my medical conditions, weight, genetics etc, I should take that into account with my retirement planning on not automatically plan for retirement at an age I might never reach.
You should write for CNBC.
Seriously that's your response to a discussion? I guess you've never had family/friends with health problems that do not have normal life expectancy and their decision for retirement age should include their current life expectancy in order to maximize the quality of their life while maintaining necessary savings rate, not some imaginary life expectancy at retirement age they might never get to.
My college roommate died last week as a result of cancer, at the age of 50.

I didn’t mention it earlier because I didn’t think it had any bearing in Mr. Bach’s incompetence with statistics.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

mptfan
Posts: 4715
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by mptfan » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:21 pm

JoMoney wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:43 pm
I didn't get the impression that an emphasis on a actuarial precise life estimation based on current age was the point of the message.
I didn't get that impression either, but his conclusion was based on faulty data.

randomguy
Posts: 6501
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by randomguy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:34 pm

It is amazing how many people don't understand the basic issue when it is directly pointed out. If you retire at 70, you don't have 6 years of retirement on average. You have around 13. This is a very simple concept. The other concept that is overlooked that for planning purposes, average probably isn't the number you want. Being broke 50% of the time probably isn't what you want. You probably want 80-90%+ success at a minimum. For the 70 year old that is going to be close to 20 years of retirement.

And it is a bit unfortunate that he wrote that first paragraph because it is distracts from the main points of the article that few people make it to 70 working full time even among the ones that want to. It is easy to do what Orman says and work til your 70 to maximize retirement dollars and minimize retirement time. That is clearly the most financially prudent way of going. It is also something that only a tiny fraction of the population can do because of layoffs and health issues even if they wanted to.

Now going forward maybe demographic shifts will encourage companies to keep more older workers (cause they need them) and more flexible working conditions (i.e. a lot of people would keep working if it was only 3 days/week or 1 month on 2 weeks off or any of a zillion other variations). But I sure wouldn't count on things happening when you need them to.

HornedToad
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:36 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by HornedToad » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:34 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:02 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:56 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:12 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:01 pm


Sorry, but no.

If the problem being solved is "when should I retire", the life expectancy you want is the one calculated based on your age at expected retirement. In other words: "if I make it to retirement, how much retirement should I plan for?" The number you need is your life expectancy CONDITIONED ON living to retirement age.

Bach appears to be solving a slightly problem, which I think is best posed as the joint probability of two items: 1) the probability on living until the retirement age; and 2) the life expectancy conditioned on living to retirement age. That first probability might dictate the target retirement age (i.e. if I had a high probability of dying before age 60, I might plan to retire at age 55 instead of planning to retire at age 70.

Either way, though, Bach needs to go bach to school for a lesson in statistics.
I disagree with your premise.

What you have to calculate for answer the when should I retire question is what is my life expectancy now, AND when I choose to retire how much retirement should I plan for (life expectancy at that point). You are focusing on only the retirement planning, but if I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is 65 or 70 or whatever the specific life expectancy is for my medical conditions, weight, genetics etc, I should take that into account with my retirement planning on not automatically plan for retirement at an age I might never reach.
You should write for CNBC.
Seriously that's your response to a discussion? I guess you've never had family/friends with health problems that do not have normal life expectancy and their decision for retirement age should include their current life expectancy in order to maximize the quality of their life while maintaining necessary savings rate, not some imaginary life expectancy at retirement age they might never get to.
My college roommate died last week as a result of cancer, at the age of 50.

I didn’t mention it earlier because I didn’t think it had any bearing in Mr. Bach’s incompetence with statistics.
You missed the entire point that he isn't writing and calculating life expectancy for people who are already 65+ but people who are planning their retirement age for both when they should retire based on life expectancy and how much they would need at that age to retire.

But whatever, there's clearly no point discussing with you since you've already dismissed all alternative viewpoints as CNBC drones.

J295
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:40 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by J295 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:37 pm

I thought if somebody published something on tv or the Internet it had to be true. 😃

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:38 pm

HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:34 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:02 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:56 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:12 pm
HornedToad wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm


I disagree with your premise.

What you have to calculate for answer the when should I retire question is what is my life expectancy now, AND when I choose to retire how much retirement should I plan for (life expectancy at that point). You are focusing on only the retirement planning, but if I'm 30 now and my life expectancy is 65 or 70 or whatever the specific life expectancy is for my medical conditions, weight, genetics etc, I should take that into account with my retirement planning on not automatically plan for retirement at an age I might never reach.
You should write for CNBC.
Seriously that's your response to a discussion? I guess you've never had family/friends with health problems that do not have normal life expectancy and their decision for retirement age should include their current life expectancy in order to maximize the quality of their life while maintaining necessary savings rate, not some imaginary life expectancy at retirement age they might never get to.
My college roommate died last week as a result of cancer, at the age of 50.

I didn’t mention it earlier because I didn’t think it had any bearing in Mr. Bach’s incompetence with statistics.
You missed the entire point that he isn't writing and calculating life expectancy for people who are already 65+ but people who are planning their retirement age for both when they should retire based on life expectancy and how much they would need at that age to retire.

But whatever, there's clearly no point discussing with you since you've already dismissed all alternative viewpoints as CNBC drones.
I know who he’s writing for. I also know that he’s botched his argument by making a rookie mistake in his probability calculations.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

livesoft
Posts: 62776
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by livesoft » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:57 pm

I think we need a new subforum: Fact Checking
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5856
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by bottlecap » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:12 pm

He's ignoring facts that are obvious.

But who cares? It’s your decision when to retire. Don’t listen to anyone else.

Nothing is guaranteed in life. Especially retirement.

JT

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6127
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:14 pm

mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm
Here is an article published by CNBC entitled "Self-made millionaire: Don't buy into the idea that '70 is the new retirement age."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/david-b ... t-age.html

The author of the article quotes David Bach as follows...

"There's this new advice out there that 70 is the new retirement age. That is ridiculous," he tells CNBC Make It. "First of all, the life expectancy for men is 76. You want to retire at 70 and have six years left to retire? Ladies, for you, it's 81. You want 11 years in retirement?"

To support his claim that the life expectancy for males is 76, he cites this NCHS data brief...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

Unfortunately, the data he cites does not support his claim. It's true that life expectancy for males at birth is 76, but the data also shows (on the same page) that life expectancy for males at the age of 65 is 18 years, so a male at the age of 65 is expected to live until age 83 and a woman is expected to live until age 85. Therefore, his argument that a man who retires at at the age of 70 should only expect to live for 6 years is wrong and not supported by the data. A man at the age of 70 can expect to live at least another 13 years according to the data cited in the article.

Do you think Mr. Bach knows this and is being intentionally deceptive, or did he just misinterpret the data?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
-Hanlon's razor
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

tibbitts
Posts: 8051
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by tibbitts » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:49 pm

mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:35 pm
tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:25 pm
Anyone would assume the default starting age for average lifetime would be zero. I understand why this may not reflect the experience of an already 65-year-old, but the fact remains that on average a man would spend six years in retirement. Not the average man who makes it to retirement, just the average man. So you are saying he should have specified "You want to either die before 70 or retire at 70 and have six years left to retire..." Neither seems that appealing to me.
This is a subject about which there is much misunderstanding...the average life expectancy at birth does not apply to someone who makes it to age 65, because that person has avoided a whole host of things that were fatal...infant diseases, accidents, cancer, you name it, that is why the life expectancy tables have different starting ages. So, while the average life expectancy for a man at birth may be 76, the average life expectancy for a man at age 65 is 83. So, for retirement planning purposes, if someone retires at 70, on average, they could expect to live for at least another 13 years, not 6.
Maybe I don't understand. If the average person born today will retire at 70 and has a life expectancy of 76, how many years will that person spend in retirement? Not the average person who lives past some specific age, but the average person born today? We're assuming there are no statistics available for life expectancy starting at any other age.

Neuron
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by Neuron » Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:45 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:49 pm
[quote=mptfan post_id=4147762 time=<a href="tel:1538606151">1538606151</a> user_id=892]
[quote=tibbitts post_id=4147745 time=<a href="tel:1538605546">1538605546</a> user_id=489]Anyone would assume the default starting age for average lifetime would be zero. I understand why this may not reflect the experience of an already 65-year-old, but the fact remains that on average a man would spend six years in retirement. Not the average man who makes it to retirement, just the average man. So you are saying he should have specified "You want to either die before 70 or retire at 70 and have six years left to retire..." Neither seems that appealing to me.
This is a subject about which there is much misunderstanding...the average life expectancy at birth does not apply to someone who makes it to age 65, because that person has avoided a whole host of things that were fatal...infant diseases, accidents, cancer, you name it, that is why the life expectancy tables have different starting ages. So, while the average life expectancy for a man at birth may be 76, the average life expectancy for a man at age 65 is 83. So, for retirement planning purposes, if someone retires at 70, on average, they could expect to live for at least another 13 years, not 6.
[/quote]
Maybe I don't understand. If the average person born today will retire at 70 and has a life expectancy of 76, how many years will that person spend in retirement? Not the average person who lives past some specific age, but the average person born today? We're assuming there are no statistics available for life expectancy starting at any other age.
[/quote]
Taking the average life expectancy for men from age 0, 76 in this case, includes a lot of males that die in infancy or from accidents. Those people would not be planning to retire at all, let alone make it to age 70, so you can’t use the average age for everyone to determine how long a retiree will spend in retirement. Instead you need to look at the average for people who survived and look at how long they will live past 70, which is longer than 6 years.

tibbitts
Posts: 8051
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by tibbitts » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:18 pm

Neuron wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:45 pm
Taking the average life expectancy for men from age 0, 76 in this case, includes a lot of males that die in infancy or from accidents. Those people would not be planning to retire at all, let alone make it to age 70, so you can’t use the average age for everyone to determine how long a retiree will spend in retirement. Instead you need to look at the average for people who survived and look at how long they will live past 70, which is longer than 6 years.
I understand that, and in my own calculations for myself and my own planning I use life expectancy from my age now. But we have to assume the author is referencing from-birth statistics, yes probably to help make his point. So my question remains, in the absence of the availability of statistics for life expectancy for any age other than zero, is the author's math incorrect? If not then I think we have to conclude he's just... emphasizing his point, which people do with statistics all the time. People don't always cite the most appropriate statistics when others are available that better make their point. Perhaps there is a spectrum from most to least appropriate - so if he was citing the statistical lifespan of a German Sheperd and not a human we could say that would completely unreasonable. But statistics from birth... not the most egregious offense ever.
Last edited by tibbitts on Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:21 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:18 pm
So my question remains, in the absence of the availability of statistics for life expectancy for any age other than zero, is the author's math incorrect?
1) The author could have just as easily calculated life expectancy for a man who is 45 tor 63 years old as he did for a man who is 0 years old.

2) Yes, the author's math is incorrect.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

tibbitts
Posts: 8051
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by tibbitts » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:31 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:21 pm
tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:18 pm
So my question remains, in the absence of the availability of statistics for life expectancy for any age other than zero, is the author's math incorrect?
1) The author could have just as easily calculated life expectancy for a man who is 45 tor 63 years old as he did for a man who is 0 years old.

2) Yes, the author's math is incorrect.
He could have, but I don't think he's obligated to. I just don't understand how - assuming his data is correct - his math is wrong. It's fine and understandable to disagree with his choice of a zero age base, but like I said this is not the least appropriate use of statistics I've ever seen.

If he had said retirement at 70, lifespan at 76, therefore a 2-year retirement, even with my limited math skills I'd be questioning that.

randomguy
Posts: 6501
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by randomguy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:11 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:49 pm

Maybe I don't understand. If the average person born today will retire at 70 and has a life expectancy of 76, how many years will that person spend in retirement? Not the average person who lives past some specific age, but the average person born today? We're assuming there are no statistics available for life expectancy starting at any other age.
You can't do what you saying and get meaningful results. Only 1% of the population are criminals but that doesn't mean you can go to a prison and assume only 1% of the people are criminals. You can take a subset out of a sample and expect them to match the average of a sample.


And it should be pointed out how the average is also probably not the right number to use when having these type of discussions as it overwieghts early deaths . People die at 0 years old. Nobody dies at 150 (yet:)). At birth, the average life expectancy is 76. The mean is 80. And the mode is 86.

As far as planning goes, it is hard to figure out if you are going to be one of the people who dies before 70 as a huge chunk of them are unpredictable things (i.e what are your odds of dying in a car crash or getting cancer).

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 48632
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:05 am

FYI - I retitled the thread for clarity.

Please stay focused on the investing aspects.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4916
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by stemikger » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:38 am

I'm bumping this for the article. I will read it later. Having said that, if it wasn't for David Bach, I would not be where I am today. His book The Automatic Millionaire is the one that got me started on this journey and after that I met Jack Bogle and the rest is history. David later did write books I didn't agree with but I still give The Automatic Millionaire to people who are just starting out.
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!

User avatar
burt
Posts: 677
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:47 am

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by burt » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:53 am

I find the whole idea of working till age 70 unrealistic for the majority of the population.
Just because you are alive at 70, does not mean you will be "able" or be "allowed" to work at age 70.

burt

User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4916
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by stemikger » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:20 am

burt wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:53 am
I find the whole idea of working till age 70 unrealistic for the majority of the population.
Just because you are alive at 70, does not mean you will be "able" or be "allowed" to work at age 70.

burt
I agree. Most people get let go, outsourced, laid off, call it what you want before 70. My company just outsourced us. I took the job with the outsourcing company with a pay cut, but I'm 54 and looking to retire at 62 to 64. I am definitely not working until I'm 70. Life is too short. My dad died at 52, there are no guarantees.
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!

Sportswhiz00
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by Sportswhiz00 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:22 am

I believe people are conflating two different concepts here. The first is how much money you will need if you retire at age 70. For that, what is relevant is your life expectancy once you reach age 70, which per numbers cited above is apparently around 13 or so more years.

The second is how many years you want to be retired, if you are looking at retirement as the light at the end of the tunnel. For that, what is relevant is not your life expectancy at 70, but your life expectancy at whatever age you are currently. If you were just born. Your life expectancy is 76, and so if you are saying from the day of birth how many years of retirement can I expect to enjoy in my life it is 6 not 13, because you will die before you even get to 70 much of the time. As you get older, your life expectancy at your current age converges with your life expecanty at 70 because as noted by someone’s post above you have survived death at age 1, age 2, etc.

Put another way, if you are age 45 and plan on retiring at age 70, you shouldn’t be counting on 13 years of retirement on average because you’ll be dead before getting to retirement x% of the time. But for purposes of planning for how much money you will need in retirement, 13 years in the right number to use (of course we are talking an average here so you obviously have to budget for the tail risk of living longer).

tibbitts
Posts: 8051
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by tibbitts » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:55 am

randomguy wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:11 pm
tibbitts wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:49 pm

Maybe I don't understand. If the average person born today will retire at 70 and has a life expectancy of 76, how many years will that person spend in retirement? Not the average person who lives past some specific age, but the average person born today? We're assuming there are no statistics available for life expectancy starting at any other age.
You can't do what you saying and get meaningful results. Only 1% of the population are criminals but that doesn't mean you can go to a prison and assume only 1% of the people are criminals. You can take a subset out of a sample and expect them to match the average of a sample.


And it should be pointed out how the average is also probably not the right number to use when having these type of discussions as it overwieghts early deaths . People die at 0 years old. Nobody dies at 150 (yet:)). At birth, the average life expectancy is 76. The mean is 80. And the mode is 86.

As far as planning goes, it is hard to figure out if you are going to be one of the people who dies before 70 as a huge chunk of them are unpredictable things (i.e what are your odds of dying in a car crash or getting cancer).
My only point is that results can be mathematically accurate, but not the most relevant to the problem at hand. So if he was trying to be impartial and practical, the author could probably have used more appropriate statistics. But he wasn't; he chose statistics to reinforce his point.

I do have sympathy for his position in that people (sometimes on this forum) take it for granted that the option to work longer will always exist, just as they they proclaim solutions like "save more" without realizing that many people would have to do that while experiencing shrinking real incomes for most of their careers.

User avatar
tennisplyr
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:53 pm
Location: Sarasota, FL

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by tennisplyr » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:59 am

mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:44 pm
Stinky wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:42 pm
It's really disappointing that misinformation like this seeps into the public domain.
I agree. It's unfortunate that people who claim to be financial experts disseminate false information as if it is fact.

Fear is a bad thing!
Those who move forward with a happy spirit will find that things always work out.

PVW
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:01 am

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by PVW » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:03 am

mptfan wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:15 pm
The author of the article quotes David Bach as follows...

"There's this new advice out there that 70 is the new retirement age. That is ridiculous," he tells CNBC Make It. "First of all, the life expectancy for men is 76. You want to retire at 70 and have six years left to retire? Ladies, for you, it's 81. You want 11 years in retirement?"

To support his claim that the life expectancy for males is 76, he cites this NCHS data brief...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

Unfortunately, the data he cites does not support his claim.
Tough crowd these Bogleheads.

This is not a peer-reviewed journal article about estimating life expectancy for retirement planning purposes. He is using common knowledge facts to support his point that retiring at 70 doesn't give you a long enough retirement. It's a subjective point, the supporting evidence doesn't need to be rigorous.

Life expectancy at birth are numbers that the reader has likely heard from other sources. To quote anything else would require explanation that would be out of place in this article. The average reader probably would not grasp the concept of life expectancy at age. As this is not adequately addressed, the reference is provided to show where he got this numbers. The interested reader is free to investigate and evaluate his point based on their own life expectancy.

User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by CyclingDuo » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:26 am

randomguy wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:11 pm
As far as planning goes, it is hard to figure out if you are going to be one of the people who dies before 70 as a huge chunk of them are unpredictable things (i.e what are your odds of dying in a car crash or getting cancer).
Like the economy and stocks, death is truly beyond our control.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-t ... yptr=yahoo

For those of us who have not yet reached the age of 65, or 70 - planning our investments for a variety of scenarios with regard to our longevity remains prudent. I think Bach nailed that fairly well in the linked article the OP posted:

Rather than planning on working longer to set yourself up for your golden years, start saving more money now, he says: "The way you get the best return on retirement — I call this ROR — is you save, save, save, save, save … And you retire in your early 60s, able to afford it, and then you really go have the best years of your life."

Settling down in your 60s means "having the energy to finally do what you want to do when you want to do it," says Bach. "Will you have energy at 75? Yes, you will. But guess what? It won't be the same as you do when you're 65. Sixty to 75 are the 'go go years' in retirement; 75 to 85, it's the 'slower go' years; 85 to 100, it's often the 'won't go' years."


I do like Bach's easy formula of saving at least one hourly wage per day during all of your working years. And in the article, there was a link to Bach's formula: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/wealth- ... naire.html

Think about it this way, he suggests: "You're going to work 90,000 hours over your lifetime. Most Americans get to the age of 60 and they have nothing to show for it. What you're going to have is at least a million dollars in your retirement account if you pay yourself first, one hour a day of your income."

At least that part is actionable from the point of saving/investing, even though the end amount may be more or less than $1M depending on one's hourly wage over the career of working 90,000 hours. It's an easy formula that is devoid of too much muddle for younger workers starting out wondering how much they should save. If one said "save one hourly wage per day" and uses the premise of a 40 hour work week, then that equates to 12.5% of the 40 hours going to savings/investment. However, I always thought Bach meant one hour per day (not just working day), so that would be 7 hours per week which would be 17.5% of a 40 hour work week and is not a bad recommendation. Either way, throw in the employer match and goals should be well within reach with his simple formula.
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

PVW
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:01 am

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by PVW » Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:34 am

vineviz wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:31 pm
The OP had it right: Bach is either ignoring or doesn’t understand the difference between a conditional probability and an unconditional probability.

Which is fine: many people don’t. Those people also don’t typically publish articles in which their error is the central tenet of their argument.
Perhaps you don't either. Bach did provide a conditional probability - by sex, which is the one most people understand. The proper conditions to support his point are those relevant to the reader's situation, which cannot be adequately addressed in the article. Since Bach is being interviewed and likely stating extemporaneous facts, quoting the life expectancy at birth is the most appropriate number.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Is this ignorance or intentionally misleading?

Post by vineviz » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:21 am

PVW wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:34 am
Perhaps you don't either. Bach did provide a conditional probability - by sex, which is the one most people understand.
That's not a conditional probability: every reader of that article knows their birth gender with 100% certainty, so there's no conditional probability associated with it.

Enough people who understand the issue have pointed out Bach's errors, so I see no point in belaboring it.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

bhsince87
Posts: 1857
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:08 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by bhsince87 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:05 pm

Whether he chose the "right"* number or not doesn't impact his main point much.

That being that it's best to start saving early, and probably more than you think you might need to save, because very few people will actually be working when they are age 70, mostly due to forces outside their control. So start planning like you'll retire at 60 or 65.

* I don't think the "right" number can even be known, unless you are very close to retirement already, at which point it's too late to impact your decision anyway.

For example, a 25 year old just setting up a plan should probably use the current life expectancy for a 25 year old. The life expectancy of a newborn today doesn't make much sense, but the current life expectancy for a 70 year old doesn't either. Life expectancy for a 70 year old will probably change significantly over the next 45 years.
Retirement: When you reach a point where you have enough. Or when you've had enough.

User avatar
dccboone
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:02 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by dccboone » Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:18 pm

I don't believe it changes the conclusion either way. As one who has just crossed into that time of life, whether one's life expectancy is age 76 or 83, I believe many people will see their time remaining as very limited. We can quibble about the correct life expectancy the author should have used, but if you are talking about a retirement of only 6 years, 13 years or split the difference and call it 9.5, it would seem pretty short from where I sit.

wrongfunds
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:53 pm

Here is a simple question

How does *anybody* can compute average life expectancy of the a newborn baby *today*? There is *zero* data for that computation.

Of course, you could make *ass*umptions and use the extrapolation of previous historical data but as we all are very fond of saying "past performance has no bearing on the actual future performance" ...

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6127
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:18 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:53 pm
Here is a simple question

How does *anybody* can compute average life expectancy of the a newborn baby *today*? There is *zero* data for that computation.

Of course, you could make *ass*umptions and use the extrapolation of previous historical data but as we all are very fond of saying "past performance has no bearing on the actual future performance" ...
We actually have a lot of data on average life expectancy. We know factors that improve it (i.e. clean water and food, flushing toilet, access to basic healthcare) and detract from it (i.e. excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption). There's no compelling reason why we cannot apply this knowledge to newborns today. Based on our knowledge, for instance, it's very unlikely that newborns will survive to age 150.

And the whole "past performance" bit doesn't mean what mean what many think it does (i.e. the past has no bearing on the future).
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

randomguy
Posts: 6501
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by randomguy » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:25 pm

Sportswhiz00 wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:22 am

Put another way, if you are age 45 and plan on retiring at age 70, you shouldn’t be counting on 13 years of retirement on average because you’ll be dead before getting to retirement x% of the time. But for purposes of planning for how much money you will need in retirement, 13 years in the right number to use (of course we are talking an average here so you obviously have to budget for the tail risk of living longer).
No you should be planning on about 15-20 years of retirement (65-70 retirement age) with a bit of tail risk. That is the result you will have as a 45 year old over half the time. The fact that some people die as 46 year olds and bring down the average isnt something that helps you out.

Again the meat of the article is fine. This opening paragraph though is horrible.

wrongfunds
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:41 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:18 pm
wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:53 pm
Here is a simple question

How does *anybody* can compute average life expectancy of the a newborn baby *today*? There is *zero* data for that computation.

Of course, you could make *ass*umptions and use the extrapolation of previous historical data but as we all are very fond of saying "past performance has no bearing on the actual future performance" ...
We actually have a lot of data on average life expectancy. We know factors that improve it (i.e. clean water and food, flushing toilet, access to basic healthcare) and detract from it (i.e. excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption). There's no compelling reason why we cannot apply this knowledge to newborns today. Based on our knowledge, for instance, it's very unlikely that newborns will survive to age 150.

And the whole "past performance" bit doesn't mean what mean what many think it does (i.e. the past has no bearing on the future).
NO, you do NOT have the current data. You are extrapolating the historical data and making (albeit intelligent) assumptions about the future to compute (guess would be better word) the average life of a baby born today. This is tautological. You have NO current data on babies life span who are born today by the definition of the current data.

We can apply the *historical* data so that we can come up with the *probable* average life span of a baby born today. Anything that we make future prediction of is always based upon the previous history because we believe future is based upon and can be extrapolated from the past. And of course, what else is there?

This extrapolation does not have to be linear. We routinely use multiple orders aka change of rate (dx), change of acceleration(d2x), change of jerk(d3x) etc.

PVW
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:01 am

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by PVW » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:05 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:41 pm
NO, you do NOT have the current data. You are extrapolating the historical data and making (albeit intelligent) assumptions about the future to compute (guess would be better word) the average life of a baby born today. This is tautological. You have NO current data on babies life span who are born today by the definition of the current data.

We can apply the *historical* data so that we can come up with the *probable* average life span of a baby born today. Anything that we make future prediction of is always based upon the previous history because we believe future is based upon and can be extrapolated from the past. And of course, what else is there?

This extrapolation does not have to be linear. We routinely use multiple orders aka change of rate (dx), change of acceleration(d2x), change of jerk(d3x) etc.
*probable* average life span = life expectancy. Expectancy is an estimation of things that haven't occurred and it implies some model of future events.

Nobody is saying we know anyone's life span, but given current knowledge (history) and a suitable mathematical model, we can define how long people are expected to live.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6127
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:09 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:41 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:18 pm
wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:53 pm
Here is a simple question

How does *anybody* can compute average life expectancy of the a newborn baby *today*? There is *zero* data for that computation.

Of course, you could make *ass*umptions and use the extrapolation of previous historical data but as we all are very fond of saying "past performance has no bearing on the actual future performance" ...
We actually have a lot of data on average life expectancy. We know factors that improve it (i.e. clean water and food, flushing toilet, access to basic healthcare) and detract from it (i.e. excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption). There's no compelling reason why we cannot apply this knowledge to newborns today. Based on our knowledge, for instance, it's very unlikely that newborns will survive to age 150.

And the whole "past performance" bit doesn't mean what mean what many think it does (i.e. the past has no bearing on the future).
NO, you do NOT have the current data. You are extrapolating the historical data and making (albeit intelligent) assumptions about the future to compute (guess would be better word) the average life of a baby born today. This is tautological. You have NO current data on babies life span who are born today by the definition of the current data.

We can apply the *historical* data so that we can come up with the *probable* average life span of a baby born today. Anything that we make future prediction of is always based upon the previous history because we believe future is based upon and can be extrapolated from the past. And of course, what else is there?

This extrapolation does not have to be linear. We routinely use multiple orders aka change of rate (dx), change of acceleration(d2x), change of jerk(d3x) etc.
I never said that I did. But acting like the absence of this data means we have no clue whether the average life expectancy, apart from some extreme, cataclysmic event, will be five years or 150 years is ludicrous.

Insurance actuaries do this kind of thing all the time. They don't know what's going to happen to any individual, but they generally have a good grasp on what will happen to large groups of people. If they didn't, insurance companies would go broke left and right.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6127
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:10 pm

PVW wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:05 pm
wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:41 pm
NO, you do NOT have the current data. You are extrapolating the historical data and making (albeit intelligent) assumptions about the future to compute (guess would be better word) the average life of a baby born today. This is tautological. You have NO current data on babies life span who are born today by the definition of the current data.

We can apply the *historical* data so that we can come up with the *probable* average life span of a baby born today. Anything that we make future prediction of is always based upon the previous history because we believe future is based upon and can be extrapolated from the past. And of course, what else is there?

This extrapolation does not have to be linear. We routinely use multiple orders aka change of rate (dx), change of acceleration(d2x), change of jerk(d3x) etc.
*probable* average life span = life expectancy. Expectancy is an estimation of things that haven't occurred and it implies some model of future events.

Nobody is saying we know anyone's life span, but given current knowledge (history) and a suitable mathematical model, we can define how long people are expected to live.
:thumbsup

Bingo.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

wrongfunds
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Don't expect to retire at 70]

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:52 pm

In violent agreement now!!

Post Reply