Aging in America: Actuaries conclude 7.5% risk of major party presidential candidate dying

Progressives secured some major wins last Tuesday. 

Jamaal Bowman unseated House Foreign Affairs Chair, Eliot Engel. Mondaire Jones received a boost that catapulted him toward a landslide victory in New York City and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her first primary with over 70% of the vote. 

Ten years ago any one of these candidates would have been deemed long-shots in the eyes of DNC constituents; in 2020, the base favors young, radical talent.  

Yet, come November, the best shot they have at evicting Count Fosco is a near octogenarian who can’t suppress rumors about his declining health.

According to a recently published actuarial life table,  a major party 2020 presidential candidate has a 7.5% risk of dying before their term is completed. 

Although some Americans have expressed concerns about the incumbent and the presumptive democratic nominee’s ability to lead effectively on account of their ages, retirement has become a remote possibility in nearly every industry. 

The recommended rule of thumb for retirement savings is roughly eight times your starting salary saved by age 60. As of 2019, the average, still-working American senior only has about $133,100 stored away. 

A comparable majority of would-be retirees continue to work for the sense of fulfillment their organization affords them. Others do so to remain mentally sharp. 

Advancements in longevity science, mass underemployment, and rising consumer debt mean elderly workers are occupying the labor force a lot longer than they used to. Whatever the impetus, the result has poisoned young workers with resentment. 

Generation Z and Millennials share a purported urgency when it comes to securing a career. If employment cycles keep harvesting older workers and younger workers in equal measure, the latter is fearful of upward morality suffering in the long run.  

The Associated Press Center for Public Affairs Research determined that workers between the ages of 50 and 60 are more likely to characterize America’s aging workforce as a “negative development.” 

Another 40% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 49 and 44% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 said that they too consider the trend to be a bad thing for American workers while only  14% of those aged 60 or older would concede the same.

The trend was already increasing gradually. Our coronavirus-inspired remote work movement will only facilitate a highly competitive job market. 

When offices lighting major cities across the country go dark, so do the transportation services that supported frequent commutes and the restaurants that hosted happy hours and power lunches. Little ripples of commercial disruption will incite waves of rivalry between every demographic. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 20% of Americans over the age of 65 were employed or actively looking for work in 2018, while less than 12% of the same demographic was documented to do so back in 2000.

Contention aside, how old is too old to remain employed with respect to cognitive function?

“I don’t think in things like IT and medicine you’re as effective a worker (at 65 years old) as you are at 50,” says Katie Otting, a 29-year-old living in Southern California in The Insurance Journal. “If some 65-year-old is in a position that he’s not ready to quit because he wants a better pension and there’s someone else ready to take that job, they’re not going to replace him.”

America’s Longevity Revolution isn’t perfect. It’s one thing to keep senior citizens looking younger and living longer. But supplying the same with the proportional processing power of their younger counterpart is another thing entirely. 

For the workforce to progress, it needs to be navigated by reasoned ingenuity; an understanding of industry trends, commercial demands and ideas worth exploring. Americans can’t seem to agree on the age that hinders the factors above.

The Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies concluded that 75 is the median age reported by boomers as “too old to work.”

Seventy-five is the median age reported by Gen-Xers and 70 is the median age reported by millennials.

 Of those in favor of gerontological heterogeneity in American offices, their reasons for thinking so were as follows:

  • Bring more knowledge, wisdom and life experience
  • Are more responsible, reliable and dependable
  • Are a valuable resource for training and mentoring

Those who believe old people continuing to work is a negative development, the most common reasons for thinking so were as follows:

  • Have higher health care costs
  • Command higher wages and salaries
  • Are less open to learning and new ideas  

All of the finds indexed in this article have taken on a new context when a pathogen that disproportionately affects the elderly enters calculation.

Protecting vulnerable communities from COVID-19 as we enter shutdown easing has to be accomplished via policy prescriptions that reflect a precarious age of sickness and unrest. 

“Workers’ most frequently cited retirement fear is “outliving my savings/investments” (52%), followed closely by “Social Security will be reduced or cease to exist in the future” (48 percent) and “declining health that requires long-term care” (44%). Approximately one-third of workers fear lack of adequate and affordable healthcare (38 percent) and cognitive decline, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease (35%). ” the authors wrote in the report.  “Many workers have little in terms of emergency savings specifically to cover the cost of major financial setbacks such as unemployment, medical bills, home repairs, auto repairs, and others. Workers have saved $5,000 (median) to cover such emergencies. Thirty-six percent of workers report having saved less than $5,000. Only 19% say that they have saved more than $25,000.”