To debunk a horrible, bullsh** study that concludes that:
“The later you retire, the sooner you die.”
Sounds…intriguing?!
Retire earlier = live longer?!
Retire later = die sooner?!
It pains me that a bunch of idiots in my industry (creating educational content about personal finance) don’t have the common sense to Real think about these results, or are too cynical to worry about posting nonsense**. See below:
I know I’m not the only one thinking: ‘Jesus, where is the common sense?’
Forgive me for my attitude.
But this study is making the rounds among thousands and thousands of retirees and soon-to-be retirees, and it’s clear that a lot of people are falling for it.
This “study” is completely incorrect. So please – if you ever see this study shared online, simply share this article in response to help these so-called losers.
Let’s start debunking.
Retire early, live longer. Retire later, die earlier.
It’s quite simple. This “study” suggests that the average retiree in his early 50s will live into his mid-80s, while the average retiree in his mid-60s will live less than five years longer.
Roughly speaking, for every year you retire early, you continue to live at least a year longer.
Retired at the age of 60? You’re turning 77.
Retired at the age of 55? You’re turning 83.
What a sobering statistic, if true.
But…
The common sense filter
Let’s use common sense first.
Of the many smoking guns here, I’ll just skip to the largest:
The average person who retires at 65 dies at 67?!
Does that somehow pass the sniff test?
Let’s move on to ages 66, 67, 68, 69, etc. (which conveniently are not included in this study).
Does the average person who retires at 68 just die immediately?
Do they jump into a time machine to die at 67? Whoa, it’s 2024 again..aaaannnd I’m dead.
Didn’t the people who designed this study consider these obvious questions?
The lived experience filter
We have all lived a long time and met many people.
An outcome as stark as this would certainly resonate with our lived experience in the world, at least to some extent.
The causal filter
Let’s ask what if.
What if this research is actually correct? We should then ask ourselves, “What would be the causal factor leading to this outcome?”
Why does retiring earlier every year actually lead to a longer life?
The most common answer seems to be: “Work is so stressful. You leave work, no more stress, you live much longer.”
But if that were true, people would definitely die GETTING WORK!!! Why don’t more people die at their desks from all the stress?
If the job is so stressful, then leaving work at any ageshould be fundamental decrease not increase one’s mortality.
The “Why haven’t I heard of this?” Filter
We all know that smoking increases mortality. We know that.
That includes heroin and being 200 pounds overweight.
If you smoke, use heroin and are 200 pounds overweight, you better quit your job right away.
We’ve all heard of the Real factors that have the greatest impact on our mortality. The CDC, for example, states this The life expectancy of smokers is at least ten years shorter than that of non-smokers.
A life expectancy of ten years is a big problem. That’s why you’ve heard how bad smoking is.
So – why aren’t more legitimate people shouting this “retirement risk factor” from the rooftops?
The distribution filter
The American Academy of Actuaries (aka the foremost experts on longevity) includes 4 factors when help retirees estimate their potential lifespan. Those four factors are:
- Current age
- Gender
- Smoking status
- General health
The age at which you retire does not affect their estimates or the likelihood that you will live.
But even then we have to take the distribution into account! Meaning: Should we think of longevity as one specific “average age at death?” Or as a spectrum of ages and probabilities?
It’s a spectrum. No specific age.
The “Shitty Decimal” filter
Personal hobbyhorse, but it also has advantages:
Why are there tenths of years in the “Retirement age” column? Why aren’t they just whole numbers?
The independent variable in a study like this must be simple to express so that the results are easy to understand. We don’t need or want to understand a tenth of a year there.
The study looked at retirees aged 55.1, 56.4 and 58.3.
It should be 55, 56, 57… etc.
The fact that it is not that way? It’s just poorly done. And that arouses suspicion.
Where does this ‘result’ come from?
Let’s spin. Where did this bad study even come from?
I had to dig a little internet rabbit hole. This is what I have:
In 2002, a Chinese/Taiwanese PhD student named Sing Lin (which I couldn’t verify actually exists) “published” this “paper” true is inspired by Japanese physicist Leo Esaki (which does exist, and has won a Nobel Prize for physics).
Dr. Esaki inspired this research by observing that for many people, their most creative years occur in their 20s and 30s, and that most people drop off suddenly in old age.
In a nice ironic twist, Dr. Esaki still in 2021, at the age of 96. Clearly, later retirement damaged his longevity.
The author, Sing Lin, then moves on to another PhD, Ephrem Cheng (which I couldn’t verify actually exists), who is cited in the paper for providing the statistical data after analyzing Boeing Corporation’s pension data. Presumably other large companies (Lockheed, Ford, IBM) had similar data sets.
These data sets all indicated that later retirees died earlier.
Compelling?
Well, it was convincing until Boeing replied in 2004: “You know that strange ‘study’ going around that supposedly uses our pension data? Well, our real pension actuary experts have looked at it and it’s all nonsense.”
Here it is the memo from Boeing.
The study is simply false.
And what does research actually say?
As for Real research, I’m officially here on my skis. I don’t know statistics, actuarial science or longevity research.
But me can Read English!
Here is the summary of a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study has the catchy name: “Association of retirement age with mortality: a population-based longitudinal study of older adults in the US“
Here is part I Doing understand:
“Results: …a 1 year higher age at retirement was associated with an 11% lower risk of all-cause mortality…”
In other words: higher retirement age, LOWER risk of death.
“Conclusions: Early retirement may be a risk factor for mortality and an extended working life may provide survival benefits for American adults.”
Good. That is the opposite of our apocryphal study.
Retire, don’t die
Let’s bury the hatchet in this bogus study.
Retiring later is not a death sentence, and retiring early is not the holy grail.
This guy below is still updating age 700+!!!
Thanks for reading! Here are three quick notes for you:
First – If you enjoyed this article, please join the thousands of subscribers who read Jesse’s free weekly email, where he sends you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week. 100% free, you can unsubscribe at any time.
Second – Jesse’s Podcast “Personal finance for long-term investors” has grown ~10x in recent years and now helps ~10,000 people per month. Tune in and check it out.
Last – Jesse works full time for a fiduciary asset management firm in Upstate NY. Jesse and his colleagues help families solve the expensive problems he writes and podcasts about. Schedule a free consultation with Jesse to see if you are a good fit for his practice.
We’ll talk to you soon!
#retire #sooner #die #interest