Reader comments
Life expectancy at 91.6 for Utah boomers

If boomers are living so long, I hope they are packing away as much savings as possible. That's a long time to live if you are broke. There is no way Social Security can possibly carry someone for 3 decades of retirement. It is almost broke with current projections of a decade of monthly payments.

For years the LDS Church has told people to not smoke and drink, and most don't. They have also told them to live modestly and avoid debt, and unfortunately most don't.

A lot whine that they can't pay tithing and afford to live. Baloney. An older car and a smaller house and kids that have to get a job to pay for their own pleasures. It's a good life. It's called provident living.

The result is kids with realistic financial skills and "golden years" time to make a real difference volunteering in service to others. Its a good life, and when it's over, it is time well spent.

If the whiners notice, there are lots of people living this lifestyle all around them right now. They just don't make as much noise as the whiners.

I think I want to move back to Utah!!!! Georgia is way down the list.

How can this be? With all the pollution and un-healthy foods we overweight people are eating, combined with those that refuse to wear seat belts. I thought we would all be dead by 40.

The CDC has the same Utah figure at a perfectly...ummm...healthy 78.7, which is just a tad short of the more sensationalistic 92 years. As much as I'd like to believe that a "social networking" site for geezers would be the final, fully impartial authority on the topic, I think I'll stick with actual scientists with real-world numbers when planning for my own retirement. At least, that'll be the plan until I'm 78.7, whereafter I may be open to other suggestions.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Don't buy into the negative hype of the media. 95% of what's reported is something doom and gloom negative. The truth of the matter is we are the healthiest and advanced society in the history of this earth, and we should thank God every day for the blessings he's given us.

Wow...The last study of which I was aware we were 83yrs. life expectancy...That't a 9yr. increase. We must be doing something right.

The CDC has it at 78.7 because that is how people are living now. If you arre 78.7 years old you are older than a baby-boomer. Baby Boomers are expected to live until their early nineties in Utah. I am glad that you pick and choose what you believe without reading context.

The government forces the retired to withdraw money from their retirement accounts just so these withdrawals can be taxed. Allowing people who have reached the age of retirement to live tax free would relieve a lot of the burden of having to transfer wealth from the young to the old just so the old can continue paying the confiscatory tax rates of an out of control government. I bought the more expensive house so I could get out the gang war zone that is West Valley, I live providently and try to save and would be able to if I could get the government to stop giving other people my money.

Actually, the CDC number may be total life expectancy, a different number than the one cited in the article. Total life expectancy is an average that includes all those who die young, including newborns and infants. Including those drags the average down. The number cited in the article is how long someone can expect to live if they have already reached a certain age. Take away those who die young, and the average can easily go up to the 92 year number. Even the scientists would likely agree with that little bit of statistics.

CDC projection for persons born in 1950 currently residing in Utah = 78.7. Those are BOOMERS. The context is spot-on. National average for all U.S. citizens of any age stands at 78. Do your research before presuming that I haven't done mine. Now, that said, I also have seen Ken Baguley's numbers (expectancy @ 83-ish), which reflect the expectancy for Utah Mormons, which is a group that would have a LONGER expectancy than boomers of non-specific affiliation. As I said, the numbers from this site are WAAY high.

"...Baby Boomers are expected to live until their early nineties in Utah..." They are? Really? Expected by whom? If you can find ONE other source for this claim beyond the site cited in this article, I'll eat my keyboard. As I said, I've done my research, while you're clinging to a fantasy printed as fact without due diligence on the part of the publisher.

I seriously doubt this statistic. Take a look at the obituaries every day. Most people aren't making 91. I doubt that will change dramatically in over the next 35-40 years.

I KNOW how to read the dagum numbers I've quoted! Here's another: The Utah Department of Health provides "Years of Life Remaining at
Beginning of Age Interval for Utah Residents" - Male age 50 = 30 years (that's a BOOMER'S REMAINING LIFE EXPECTANCY!), and female age 50 = 33 years (again, a BOOMER!). Check it out at health dot utah dot gov. The expectancy for Utah Boomers is NOT an eventual age of 92, but approx. 82!

...it's not "likely" that scientists would agree with these inflated numbers, because the fact is, they don't.

Statistics, schmatistics! I am 61.6 years old and I'm taking that extra thirty years!!! And then some!

I'm turning 60 this year so I look at these statistics for several reasons:
1. Do my financial planning as if they're right.
2. Try to live properly so that those years are as enjoyable as possible.
3. Do work and hobbies so that I remain active for decades to come.
4. Plan to give back for years to come.

If the stats are wrong... what harm have I done? So I don't get the negative people who love to degrade the possible longevity in the name of "realism."

The silent generation is much more healthy driving up the stats. I know a 60 year old who just died from a heart attack. Life expectancy is going to drop.

So I've been the nose-in-the-air critic here, and I think I need to explain my motivation. I really don't care if this site wants to tell us we'll live to 120, nor am I all that concerned if the DMN's readers choose to believe it. My real problem is with the total lack of journalistic due diligence. To grab an unresearched and, let's be honest, completely unrealistic statistic and then immediately promote it with gushing enthusiasm to a dutifully receptive populace is irresponsible. It really does undermine the DMN's credibility, which I don't typically make a habit of challenging. I just couldn't let this one go. It doesn't even pass the common-sense test.

Where did we get the notion that the state, the government, must provide care for the elderly? I thought we take care of ourselves, and our families help take care of us--but who appointed the state to be responsible for caring for the elderly? I certainly don't want them taking care of me.