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.
Thanks to sugar in the Standard American Diet (SAD).
These so called evil socialist countries meanwhile laugh at us while their death ages grow and do not worry about losing their retirement over a medical issue
http://saveie6.com/
The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think about all the pressure to cut healthcare costs, and about food corporations pushing high-carb, high-sugar foods, and the entertainment industry with all its incentives to become a couch potato. Corporations get to increase profits in the short term, and reduce costs in the long term when people die prematurely. No, there's probably not a conspiracy per se, but it may not be entirely a coincidence either.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
But for companies straining under the burden of their pension obligations...
I have no idea what the pension obligations are for the massive multinational I work for, but I do know profit was up nearly 7% to US$14 billion in the last year, so I don't think straining is quite the right word.
What pensions? What companies still give pensions? I'm not aware of any US companies that give pensions.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
You see, I have this plan. It's exquisitely clever and diabolical. I hesitate to mention it because then everybody will want to do it, so don't tell anyone.
Sshh, here it is: I PLAN TO LIVE FOREVER ! And the best part is: SO FAR IT'S WORKING !
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
And no one's 401K or IRA ever ran dry before they died...
And if your's did dry up, you'd have only yourself or the thieving financial engineers on Wall Street, who spend their careers figuring out legal ways to steal everyone's money, to blame.
People have figured out that actively managed funds are a rip off, so now they pour money into index funds. The more money that goes into them, the more tempting a target they become. Some clever person at Goldman Sachs is going to figure out how to manipulate those funds to their benefit. It's coming. You'll see.
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 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.
Because you are privileged to be intelligent, well educated, with adequate resources. If everyone was in that boat, it would be awesome. But not a lot of people are. We don't teach financial literacy in school. People get injured on the job, or get sick or injured without adequate health insurance. Boom, their entire ability to do what you're describing is gone. What then?
Part of the point of social security and disability is to ensure that these people don't end up dying in the street. Don't just skip from one ER to another running up huge costs. It's crazy, but paying for someone to have an apartment tends to cost less than them being homeless. Why? Because our emergency services are really expensive, because they are high-stress, require unique skills, and need to be available 24/7. Stick a homeless person in a house and have a councilor come over at 1pm every day, and they no longer tie up a couple of cops every few days. They don't end up needing an ambulance to come to a sketchy alley with police backup.
I get that social security seems like a really expensive thing, but homeless old people are way, way more expensive to deal with. Maybe you're in favor of just letting them die, but most of us realize that that's not a really good solution for many reasons. If we can't do that, then the next least expensive thing should be done. That's social security. (Well, social security and universal healthcare, but we're not quite there yet.)
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor