Deseret News | Life expectancy at 91.6 for Utah boomers

Reader comments
Life expectancy at 91.6 for Utah boomers

Better save | 12:18 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

Bob | 6:44 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

Debbie in GA | 6:57 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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

Comments continue below

Dave | 7:27 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

Too high | 7:49 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

to Dave | 8:00 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

Ken Baguley | 8:05 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

too high?what? | 8:06 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

michaelh | 8:35 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

to Too high: | 8:44 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

Nope. Checked the context. | 9:08 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

By the way... | 9:11 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

"...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 doubt it. | 9:14 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

RESEARCH, PEOPLE! | 9:20 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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!

In other words... | 9:25 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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

Geezer-Not Yet! | 9:45 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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

RockOn | 10:16 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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."

Boomers arn't the as healthy | 10:30 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

The Real Problem | 10:46 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 10:47 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

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.

shane | 10:58 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

All the celebration aside get ready to go to work. If life expectancy is 90 years and one starts work at 20 and retires at 65 that means that you will be out of work for 1/2 your life. Few can save enough to carry them through. Europe is already looking at raising retirement age. I looks like we will have to as well. The benefit of having more young people in the work force to support the elderly is a double edged sword. The elderly will face more competition for jobs. Let's hope we have the entrepreneurs out their to create them.

Anonymous | 11:18 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

You may live to be 91 in Utah but, living in Utah, will make it seem much longer.

Re: Bob | 12:04 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Don`t disagree with a mormon run newspaper!

Emma | 12:14 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

I'm not even LDS and I would move to Utah in a NY minute if I could. I hate it here in Georgia. It's great if you have family, but heaven forbid you don't you are just not welcome. But then it might be that we also barely drink and social events here revolve around not only drinking but getting drunk. I am not talking about the uneducated but Master's Degree minimum crowd.

what! | 1:21 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Woah Woah what are you talking about Georgia is the best ATL, Georgia is where its at.

Karen | 1:38 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

People are going back to organic foods and Natural Health. People now a days are a afraid of drugs. So they will indeed live longer by not taking them.

DCnTN | 1:56 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

One of the early signs that the former Soviet Union was in decline was a drop off in life expectancy. I think too many demographers have looked at increasing American lifespans and taken the too optimistic view that this trend can be extrapolated out ad infinitum.

With the astonishing rise in childhood obesity and diabetes, it's extremely unlikely that life expectancies will continue on an uninterrupted rise. Maybe new medical miracles will overcome our increasingly poor lifestyle choices, but I'm a little skeptical about that possibility. On the other side of the coin, the world is well overdue for a widespread epidemic.

Bottom line, nobody really know what todays boomer life expectancy really is.

Failed to consider... | 2:44 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

This article failed to consider the way Washington is going to "fix" the entitlement crises (medicare, etc.). They will fail to address the oligopolistic health care market and the costs will continue to increase until insurance becomes unaffordable for average people. This will cause the life expectancy to drop back to about 63, where it was in the 1920s and 1930s. The life extending drugs and procedures will only be available to the rich, who will continue to live long happy lives. As for the rest of us, well, as the row master in "Ben Hur" said, "you live to row this boat #51, row well and live". When we can't row (work) anymore, we will be dumped by our employers years short of medicare eligibility and we will die from preventable diseases.

robertJ petersen | 4:23 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Just so you know. Eat your 5 servings of fruits and vegetables every day and live 14 years longer. That's what they found in the UK. Of course you can't smoke and you must walk a couple miles a day too. Demographics are shifting in the world today. Birth rate in Japan is 1.3 per couple. 2.1 needed to maintain the population. Japan has closed 2,000 schools and is closing 300 a year. Europe has the same problem. Even in the US without the immigrants our birth rate would be 1.6. So let's not complain so much about large LDS families [ which by the way are also getting smaller].

We tried to warn you! | 6:47 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

GWB tried to warn us that S.S. would not be there for you when you retire without some overhauling, remember? What happened? GWB was right, again, just like he is about taxes,liberal judges legistating from the benches, the war on terrorism, same sex "marriages" oil exploration and just about everything else! What have the demos told us? Eat drink and be merry and that GWB is stupid! We don't need energy, there are no terrorists and we will raise your taxes! Why would anyone vote for a democrat?

What a hoot! | 10:26 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

You guys are ridiculous! The CDC has one set of numbers, Ken Bagley has another, the State of Utah has another, and the article cites yet another. Here's a news flash for all of you who claim to have done your research... they can all be right, depending on the assumptions they use. None of the high-and-mighty, self-righteous responses on here has done a bit to disprove the numbers cited in the article, because not a single one has shown me the way the numbers were calculated and how that methodology was false. Simply stating "no way! Can't be THAT high!" might work if you are arguing with a two year old, but I've a little more education than that.

awesomeron | 12:23 a.m. Aug. 2, 2008

Life Expectancy is an individual thing based on many factors and some times just plain dumb luck. Like having the Heart Attack when you are in the Doctors office for an Ear Ache. More and so very, very much more important then length of life, is the Quality Of Life. Life with out quality is not worth living. I am a strong believer in the Right To Die With Dignity. The D ward differs from person to person, family to family, state of mind is a factor and change in either direction some times comes with age. I have always said that I did not want to be Grandpa holding the stuff at Disneyland while the others went on rides and the middle aged drones made up excuses as to why they did not. Age appropriate behavior is an individual thing. I am not sure what is worse being a sound mind inside a total care body. Or to be a viable body (to include sexual at some level) that contains a failing mind. I have a Blue Tag Special in my Medical Records. My kids have instructions as to when to pull the plug. All must be prepared.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.