KRUGMAN: I should have been ready to see this zombie attack me during the debate, but I wasn’t.

[kpete]

March 5, 2013, 9:46 am11 Comments
The Life Expectancy Zombie

So, one of the moments in my debate with JoScar — which wasn’t as bad as I felt, but should have gone much better — was my “wow” when JS raised the old line that life expectancy was 62 when Social Security started, so the program was no big deal.

Well, that’s still a “wow” thing: it’s incredible that people are still making that argument; when someone says something like that, he’s just proved himself ignorant, disingenuous, or both.

Let me just turn this over to the Social Security administration’s post on the issue:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

I should have been ready to see this zombie attack me during the debate, but I wasn’t. Silly me. Well, as a friend used to say, none of us are human.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/the-life-expectancy-zombie/

[Greybnk48]

1. I've heard this claim my entire life

and I'm not young. But this is the first time I've ever heard it debunked!! Thank you Professor Krugman. I have learned more from him over the past few years than I can list.

[get the red out]

2. Makes perfect sense

I knew that 3 out of 4 of my Grandparents made it into their 80's (one Grandfather died at 78); and also that childhood illnesses ran rampant when my parents were kids in the late 1930s, let alone when my Grandparents were growing up. In my Grandparents generation, if you survived childhood you might last a while.

[kpete]

3. Here's Joe Scarborough's reply:

"If you reached age 62 before 1933 but were 65 after the maternal equinox, only applicable marriagable age denominators apply. When you reached 67, having passed pertinent patentable perimeter or parameters, except on weekends, or weekdays but only Tuesdays or Thursdays between 8 a.m. and sundown."

snark snark snark

[rhett o rick]

4. I think his reply would be more like, "What????". nm

[uponit7771]

5. The right comes up with the dumbest positions against something and argues them despite the facts

[benld74]

6. Well now we know Krugman doesn't watch The Walking Dead

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. K&R Lies, damned lies, and statistics. n/t