Know Your Class War: The Rich Live Longer Than the Poor

Think about it--every time you hear someone suggest that the age for receiving Social Security should be raised because "People are living longer the days", you know well and good it's a lie.

How big a lie?

Well, it goes like this:

Mr. Bosworth’s findings build off earlier research from Hilary Waldron at the Social Security Administration who has also documented the widening gap at the interplay of incomes and longevity. Researchers studying life expectancy use actuarial calculations for their estimates, as precise outcomes cannot be known until an entire generation has passed away. He analyzed the data, along with Kathleen Burke at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to evaluate a common proposal to keep Social Security in balance as the population ages: to simply raise the retirement age. 

“If it turns out people at the bottom are not having an increase in life expectancy. They are getting a real reduction” in Social Security benefits as a result, said Mr. Bosworth. “They’re going to get it for less years.” 

Take the example above. A wealthy man, born in 1920 who retired at age 65, could expect to draw Social Security for 19 years. His son, born in 1940 and retired at age 67, could expect to draw benefits for 24 years. Yes, he retired later, but he’s living longer. 

This would not be true for men and women at the bottom. They would draw Social Security for less years, if the retirement age rises, and their longevity does not.

People who are worked harder, subject to more stressors, and have less access to medical care might not do as well as those who work cushier jobs, have at least less money-stress, and can afford whatever care they need. Huh. And this is all the more reason to be deeply skeptical of people who resent attempts to do something about that. Because in the long run, it very well is a matter of life and death.