Slashdot Mirror
Americans Are Dying Younger, Saving Corporations Billions (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Steady improvements in American life expectancy have stalled, and more Americans are dying at younger ages. But for companies straining under the burden of their pension obligations, the distressing trend could have a grim upside: If people don't end up living as long as they were projected to just a few years ago, their employers ultimately won't have to pay them as much in pension and other lifelong retirement benefits. In 2015, the American death rate -- the age-adjusted share of Americans dying -- rose slightly for the first time since 1999. And over the last two years, at least 12 large companies, from Verizon to General Motors, have said recent slips in mortality improvement have led them to reduce their estimates for how much they could owe retirees by upward of a combined $9.7 billion, according to a Bloomberg analysis of company filings. "Revised assumptions indicating a shortened longevity," for instance, led Lockheed Martin to adjust its estimated retirement obligations downward by a total of about $1.6 billion for 2015 and 2016, it said in its most recent annual report.
Mortality trends are only a small piece of the calculation companies make when estimating what they'll owe retirees, and indeed, other factors actually led Lockheed's pension obligations to rise last year. Variables such as asset returns, salary levels, and health care costs can cause big swings in what companies expect to pay retirees. The fact that people are dying slightly younger won't cure corporate America's pension woes -- but the fact that companies are taking it into account shows just how serious the shift in America's mortality trends is.
Mortality trends are only a small piece of the calculation companies make when estimating what they'll owe retirees, and indeed, other factors actually led Lockheed's pension obligations to rise last year. Variables such as asset returns, salary levels, and health care costs can cause big swings in what companies expect to pay retirees. The fact that people are dying slightly younger won't cure corporate America's pension woes -- but the fact that companies are taking it into account shows just how serious the shift in America's mortality trends is.
I wonder if this has something to do with the infant mortality breakthroughs that started roughly 20 years ago. There was an article, I think in the WSJ, a few weeks ago about how mortality of 20 year olds has spiked because of the advances in neonatal care that would have normally killed them as small children.
What happens is you get an infant with a replacement heart valve, or kidney transplant, who grows up fine, but once they switch to a regular doctor, that doctor is inexperienced dealing with patients that young with those sorts of conditions. For example, usually someone with a replacement heart valve is in their 50's or 60's and is relatively inactive, or engages in light exercise. Now you have a 20 year old with a replacement heart valve and they are going out scuba diving or running marathons. Is that safe or risky behavior? Should they try to take it easy, or is that worse than remaining active? There's no data to make a good judgement.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Heck, a recent poll showed only 25% of America trusted our president but 33% approved of him. Those numbers don't add up...
I'm actually surprised that it's that close. I'm assuming you think that it's impossible to approve of someone you don't trust. I live in the bible belt and I know a ton of religious people who held their nose and voted for Trump. They don't trust him and think he's disgusting but they trusted Hillary even less and for the most part even though they still don't trust him, they mostly approve of what he's doing. From what I've seen, I would say 75% of the people I know who voted for Trump approve of what he's doing while less than 25% of them actually trust him.
Huh? Tons of companies give pensions. They are called 401ks usually but any sort of tax-deferred annuity account handled by your employer is a "pension". Maybe you are talking about part-time personnel that may not qualify for retirement benefits, but most professional jobs I've seen offer a 401k or suitable alternative.
I have trouble understanding why anyone would think that a liability with no fixed end, guaranteeing a payout, like a pension or Social Security, would be a good idea. IRA's and 401k's make way, way, way, more financial sense that a pension does. There are countless stories of pension funds running dry, economic conditions changing during the 30+ years of someone drawing on a pension, Social Security getting raided by incompetent politicians, and other reasons that any kind of fixed benefit plan doesn't seem appealing to me. Or anything I should place any faith in.
I would much prefer to decide how much to invest each year, and how to invest it, myself. Then I only have myself to blame if (when?) something goes wrong.
Did U Know?
Life expectancy is higher for liberals than conservatives? And life expectancy is going down for Red State voters and up for Blue State voters. So it'll all work out for the best.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/li...
You are welcome on my lawn.
The whole concepts of pensions and retirements is artificial, modern and soon to be not relevant.
Both pensions and retirement came about in the last century during a period when the lifespan was much shorter.
Most of what you said was right, but pensions are far from a new idea.
Pensions have long been standard practice for soldiers, especially those serving during wartime.
The Roman Empire had pensions for retired soldiers. The practice began during the first century BC.
The practice has been found throughout history. Worker guilds, retired clergy, service to royalty, and so on offered pensions.
In the American south, some of the slave-holding had state laws requiring pensions for freed slaves. The purpose was to prevent owners from freeing slaves too old to work profitably and thus becoming a burden on public services. This did not happen after the Civil War ended.
I don't think so. Let's do the math:
According to the CDC, obesity related healthcare costs America $147 billion per year.
There are 300 million Americans, and roughly half are fatties, so let's figure $1000 per fat person in extra healthcare expense.
If they are fat for 50 years of their life, that would cost an extra $50k per fatty.
Obesity reduces male life expectancy by 8 years, and female life expectancy by 6 years, on average.
Each year an average retiree costs $9990 in medicare and $16092 in social security, so roughly $26k total.
So by dying sooner, a male fatty would save taxpayers 8*26k = $208k.
A female fatty would save us 6*26k = $156k.
Even accounting for the additional healthcare cost over their life, by dying early they are a BIG win over skinny people.
Maybe we should offer tax breaks and other inducements to encourage people to gain weight.
All the figures used in this post were obtained by quick Google searches. Specific citations will be provided on request.