69.8 -- the New 65

Forty may be the new 30, but the braniacs in charge of the U.S. Social Security and Medicare programs haven't figured out what to do about it. As life expectancies lengthen, so do taxpayer liabilities for pensions and health care with the consequence that, sooner or later, both will default on their obligations to the public.

Warren Sanderson and Sergei Scherbov may have part of the answer. Instead of basing pensions and other benefits upon peoples' chronological age (how long they've been alive), we should consider peoples' "prospective" age (how long they're expected to live.)

The conventional definition says "old age" starts at age 65. But Sanderson, an economics professor at Stony Brook University, and Scherbov, a researcher at the Vienna Institute of Demography, question the relevance of that definition as life spans lengthen. Consider: In 1952 the average 30-year-old French woman had an average life expectancy of 44.7 more years. By 2005, the average 40-year-old French woman had an average life expectancy of.... 44.7 more years. Chronologically, the 40-year-old woman was a decade older. But was she truly "older"? (As you ponder that question, consider that the photo above captures French actress Catherine Deneuve at age 40 in the movie, "The Hunger.")

In their paper, "Rethinking Age and Aging," in Population Bulletin, the demographic duo define "old age" as the age at which, based on the average life expectancy of a given society, a person has 15 years left to live. In the United States, that age is 69.8 -- nearly five years chronologically older than the standard retirement age today. By the year 2045, "old age" is forecast to commence at 72.8.

Think what would happen if "old age" benefits (Social Security, Medicare, pensions) were geared to life expectancy rather than chronological age. Americans would have to work longer before collecting the gold watch and planning for that cruise around the world. But they'd still have a social safety net to cover them when they became frail and infirm. On the flip side, society could far better afford the social safety net. Instead of an "age dependency ratio" of 37.1 "old" people supported by 100 in the working-age population by the year 2045, the ratio would be only 21 per 100.

Sanderson and Scherbov don't go quite that far. On the one hand, they argue that basing pensions on a fixed chronological age provides a windfall for old guys who paid into the system for a fixed number of years then collect benefits over ever-lengthening periods of retirement. On the other, basing pensions on a fixed prospective age would be unfair to older generations. "As life expectancies increase," they write, "they would have to pay into the system for more and more years, only to receive benefits over a fixed average period."

One solution, they suggest, would be to build payments and benefits around the average of chronological and prospective ages.

As Baby Boomers, we'd like to start raking in benefits by 65 just as much as the next guy. On the other hand, we'd like there to be a social safety net when we need it. Social Security might conceivably survive in its current form, but Medicare is a goner. It seems like Sanderson and Scherbov have provided a rational and objective criteria for recalibrating social expections and salvaging our "old age" protections.

(Photo credit: Fluffiest Blog in the West.)

"I Want to Die Running"

Joy Johnson, of San Jose, Calif., starts her morning training regimen with a brisk block-and-a-half walk, and then shifts gears into a steady trot. Training this summer for the New York City Marathon, she totaled 50 to 60 miles per week of road work, supplemented with hill training and bleacher work. In a Minnesota running camp, her coaches also ran her through stomach crunches, push-ups and hovers.

Johnson is 81 years old.

She will participate in the 80-90-year-old division against four other women, facing stiff competition from Bertha McGruder, who finished the Marathon last year in six hours and 15 minutes -- good for a third place finish in the 75-79-year-old women's category.

"I've told my friends if I die here on the track do not call 911 because I do not want to revive," she says. "I say, wait half an hour, maybe 45 minutes, then call the mortician. That's the way I want to go."

Johnson is profiled today by the Wall Street Journal, which notes that the octagenarian is representative of a larger phenomenon: More older Americans are exercising regularly than ever. Seniors today are undertaking strenuous activity that previous generations never would have contemplated at their age. Since 2003, writes Matthew Futterman, "the number of finishers 80 and above by all road races has risen 23% compared with 16% for all age groups."

While the WSJ does not put a "generational" spin on the story, the implications are clear. Women like Johnson and McGruder provide role models that the next generation, the Baby Boomers, will follow in mass numbers. Boomers, already obsessed with maintaining their physical vitality, will transform today's rivulet of octagenerian athletes into a foaming river.

Bold Boomer Project prediction: While economists fret over the bifurcation of wealth -- the increasing number of rich and poor, and a shrinking middle class -- the United States also will see a bifurcation of health. Increasingly, the elderly will sort themselves into two groups: those who worked diligently to maintain their health over the years, and those who didn't; those who run, play tennis, and practice yoga and pilates, and those who let get obese, contract diabetes and let their arteries harden; those who live full lives then drop dead, and those whose lives stretch into a long, unfulfilling twilight of increasing debilitation and incapacity.

(Photo credit: Jonathan Sprague for The Wall Street Journal.)

Everyone Wants to Live Forever, but No One Wants to Be Old

Elizabeth Farrelly is a columnist with the Brisbane Times in Australia, a nation as obsessed about its Baby Boomers as the United States, and she can write extraordinarily well. In her latest piece, "Still feelin' groovy? Your nursing home awaits", she tackles the Boomer approach to their parents' death and dying -- and it's not a pretty picture. Just a sample:

As baby boomers truck their parents from retirement village to nursing home to hospital to hushed, cabbage-stinking hospice, a terrible knowledge dawns. Not only did that whole cosmic revolution fail to shift either death or taxes from their relentless orbits, it also failed to reshape the options on how you die.

The man at the retirement home has gold cufflinks, bottle-blond hair that does not hide the baby-pink scalp and patent leather shoes that clack over the marble expanse from his office. The smile is broad, the hand limp. In a voice almost indistinguishable from the Muzak, which melds in turn with the fountain's chlorinated tinkling, he breezes: "And your relative is?" Dying, actually. "Let me show you round. You'll love it here." ...

Famously self-indulgent, baby boomers managed to convert a platform of non-materialism and selflessness into the most materialistic, self-absorbed lifestyle ever. They invented eco-awareness, then built themselves the biggest eco-footprint the planet has ever witnessed. They scandalised authority with music so subversive it's now played to four-year-olds at day care.

Through sheer weight of numbers they - or if you insist, we - instituted universal youth culture, where everyone wants to live forever but no one wants to be old.

The woman can write. Read the column.

(Image credit: Brisbane Times.)

The Big Six Oh

Turning 40 was never a traumatic event for male Baby Boomers. It's just another year. I only feel 30. Even 50, the half century mark, was no big deal. I'm still going strong. But 60? That’s a milestone. According to Manhattan psychiatrist Dr. Robert Schwalbe, that’s when the existential angst sets in.

Schalbe, author of “Sexy, Sixty and Successful: A Guide for the Aging Male Baby Boomer,” writes about the insight he’s gained from his clientele, mostly male Boomers. “Suddenly, mortality becomes an issue. A 40- and 50-year-old doesn’t have to think about that.”

As described by Peter King for Newsday, the book “helps the generation that four decades ago was singing The Who’s ‘I hope I die before I get old’ come to terms with getting, if not old, at least older.”

Hitting 60 and commencing the seventh decade of life is difficult because men confront the undeniable fact that their bodies are changing -- usually sagging. Hot young women aren't even giving them a first look, much less a second look. Suddenly, those Viagara and Cialis ads sound pretty darned interesting.

“Specific health issues start coming up,” Schwalbe says. “You start hearing about your peers who have health issues.”

Schwalbe, who is 64 himself, advises 60+ Boomers to adjust their expectations and accept their limitations. It’s great to stay active. But don’t try to exercise like you did when you were younger. There’s no way to keep up with someone 20 years younger.

As a 55-year-old, I’ve come to peace with the idea that advancing in years isn’t so bad – as long as I keep my health. I’ve got more experience under my belt, more memories, more stories and anecdotes to draw from -- more wisdom. What's more, I have more disposable income than I did when I was young and more freedom to do fun stuff. Here’s the best benefit of all -- a benefit I never expected. When I was 25, all my friends and contemporaries were clueless, powerless dweebs like me. Three decades later, I find that my friends and contemporaries – the people I know on a first-name basis – are successful professionals, business executives, politicians and civic leaders. Instead of railing against “the man,” my friends are “the man.”

For my money, old and experienced is waayyyy better than young and idealistic.

As for turning 60, I’m not worried. Schwalbe draws his case studies from Manhattan, one of the most angst-ridden cities in the universe. By definition, the people he knows most intimately are suffering from depression, anxiety or neurosis. I doubt they’re typical of the male Baby Boomers of New York, much less the United States. I wouldn’t exactly say I’m looking forward to turning 60, but I’m cool with it.

Exercise in a Pill

Now comes news that researchers at the Salk Institute in San Diego have discovered a synthetic chemical that improves the physical stamina of laboratory mice on a treadmill by 44 percent over their non-doped buddies. The discovery immediately sparked speculation that scientists might one day create an “exercise pill” for humans that could put the most sluggish couch potato on a physiological par with the most avid of exercisers – with no additional effort.

The revelation is particularly pertinent to Boomers who have reached an age in which their physical fitness is experiencing a steady, seemingly inexorable slide. Although many Boomers have incorporated exercise into their lifestyles more passionately than previous generations have, that commitment requires a tremendous effort. Who wouldn’t like to spend less time on the treadmill and more time playing Sudoku or snoozing in the hammock?

The quest for youthful vigor is hardly unique to Boomers, of course. Human beings have been searching for an antidote to the aging process at least since Juan Ponce de Leon undertook his unsuccessful search for the fountain of youth (we wonder if he was friends with Luigi Cornaro). Assuming we can believe Wikipedia, ol’ Juan was seeking a remedy for sexual impotence. If the Spaniards had had Viagra back then, he might never have been motivated to discover Florida.

Speaking of Viagra, pills for sexual impotence already rank among the biggest selling pharmaceuticals in the world. Meanwhile, scientists are researching chemical compounds that can halt the effects of aging on memory and mental processing speeds. Although it’s a long journey from a chemical that works on mice in a lab to a drug safe for humans, it may be only a matter of time before “exercise pills” become a reality.

How long before there’s a pill to effortlessly perfect every human frailty? How will that impact the way we value effort and self discipline? And how will the demand of the huge and affluent Boomer generation skew research priorities toward lifestyle drugs, away from life-saving pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and orphan drugs that treat small but needy populations?

We don’t pretend to know. But stay tuned. We’ll follow the emerging debate.

"Aging Boomers" are Going to be the Death of Us All

The good news is that this isn't a post about how Boomers are financially unfit and unprepared for retirement. The seemingly thousands of stories appearing every day are starting to get on our nerves.

The bad news is that this post is about the other major topic covered in the media daily about Boomers: we're getting older and unless we do something about it, we're all going to die some day.

Oh, the irony.

Two news items today reveal the broad scope of coverage. First, a nutty press release from a travel insurance consolidator and seller, SquareMouth.com. It warns that "Aging Boomers May Prompt More In-Flight Health Crises." Then it states upfront that "Most of us will fly our whole lives and never experience a medical emergency. In fact, airlines typically don't even collect data on the numbers of passengers who become ill while taking to the skies because life-threatening situations on planes are so rare."

Okay, so it isn't a problem. So why is it news and why might "aging Boomers" turn it into a problem? According to the release, "Older passengers and those with pre-existing medical conditions are especially vulnerable to the impact of altitude."

Last we checked, most flights have a take-off AND a landing, so the altitude situation is temporary. Good grief. Talk about inventing a condition in the minds of consumers just to sell more product. Shame on them. Especially for trading on aging Boomers as the reason. As if we're senile enough to believe this. Ugh.

The second story is about the Kronos Longevity Research Institute's new "Gray is the New Gold: State of Science Report on Aging." Their goal is to understand how and why we age, and then to slow it down. This is going to be a big business over the next 40+ years as Boomers push longevity as long as possible.

We expect an endless stream of "news" about longevity tips and techniques over the coming years, from brain fitness products to the impact of bright lights on dementia.

We're dying to keep you informed about all of this. Even if it kills us.

Irony of Insight

Earlier this year we went public with a business-changing insight we delivered for Home Instead Senior Care, the largest provider of in-home non-medical care services in the country.

The insight was that Boomers have to get over the parent/child role in their relationship with their older parents in order to have productive, useful conversations about aging issues with their parents. Until that happens, such conversations are difficult at best. Once the parent/child role is resolved (we're all adults here), then the conversations are much, much better.

The irony is that our friends at Iconoculture, a trend-spotting firm, have decided that it's an insight they'd like to share with their clients. Read this entry from their newsletter.

We're flattered, if not acknowledged, to be the source of their latest insight into today's Boomer Consumer. Glad to have helped.

More Reader Comments

A few more readers have weighed in with updated bumper stickers:

"He who dies with $1 left wins" -- from Ken (our guess is that the kids and grandkids are the big losers in this scenario)

"He who dies with the most toys...still loses the toys" -- from Michael

And one more, from a clown in our office:

"He who dies last will be a she."

Anyone else a comedian?

Reader Comments

This came in about the posting yesterday on Michael Kinsley's excellent essay in this week's The New Yorker magazine.

From reader Craig Williams:

"I would update the bumper sticker to stay, 'He who dies last still dies.'"

(He's referring to Kinsley's comment that the old Boomer-focused bumper sticker from the 1980's "He who dies with the most stuff wins" should be revised to "He who dies last wins.")

Anyone else have some suggestions?

The Last Boomer Game

We recommend this article by Michael Kinsley in the Apirl 7th issue of The New Yorker magazine be required reading for anyone trying to understand Boomers today.

Titled "Mine is Longer than Yours," it is an essay about the "last Boomer game," or the quest for longevity. In essence, to update the bumper sticker, he who dies last wins.

Kinsley, you may recall, was once on CNN's Crossfire, opposite Pat Buchanan. He went on to run online magazine Slate in the early years, then became editorial page editor for The Los Angeles Times. He has Parkinson's Disease, but that isn't why he wrote the essay. He wrote it because he's smarter than the rest of us.

Sometimes I feel like a scout from my generation, sent out ahead to experience in my fifties what even the healthiest boomers are going to experience in their sixties, seventies, or eighties. There are far worse medical conditions than Parkinson’s and there are far worse cases of Parkinson’s than mine. But what I have, at the level I have it, is an interesting foretaste of our shared future—a beginner’s guide to old age.

Like we said, read this piece if you want to better understand Boomers.