from the world's big
Can we afford to live longer?
We're living longer than ever, but few of us will save enough to afford this historical boon.
- A person reaching 65 today can expect to live into their mid-80s, many into their 90s.
- A 30-year retirement requires a nest egg of more than $1 million, yet 77 percent of American households fall short of such savings and investments.
- Experts recommend several strategies for affording a longer life, such as pushing the retirement age back to at least 70.
If you are reading this, you are one of humanity's lucky few. You and your cohorts will live longer than any previous generation. Ever.
Estimates of pre-modern peoples put the average life expectancy at roughly 30. That's for all peoples the world over. That average began to rise steadily by the Age of the Enlightenment, and since 1900, the global average has soared to more than 70 years.
Today, the country with the lowest life expectancy, the Central African Republic, has nearly doubled pre-modern standards. Meanwhile, developed countries such as Japan, Spain, and Canada have pushed their averages into the 80s.
On its own, this is an incredible achievement for humanity, and science and technology may continue this uplifting trend to help us live even longer. In an interview with Big Think, Dave Asprey, founder of Bulletproof, said he believes he'll live to at least a 180 years old. (Just look both ways when crossing the street, Mr. Asprey.)
But Mr. Asprey is an independently wealthy entrepreneur, who claims to have spent north of a $1 million biohacking his health. Can the rest of us afford to be so enduring?
Retirement: an idea whose time has come
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act into law.
Retirement is a modern idea. To our ancestors, the thought that you could spend your twilight years enjoying hobbies, travel, and Country Kitchen buffets was untenable. Unless you belonged to society's upper echelon, you worked, you grew sick, and then you died with precious few moments of leisure between.
There were a few exceptions, such as pensions for soldiers, but it wasn't until the late 19th century that change began on a large scale.
In 1889, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced modern pensions. American Express offered the U.S.'s first employer-provided retirement plan, and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad created the first joint-contribution plan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935, and a provision in the 1978 Revenue Act gave birth to the 401(k).
The problem is that our mentality surrounding retirement planning hasn't kept pace with our hard-won longevity. It remains based on calculations and assumptions we formed when people died younger. Retirements newly protracted costs mean many of us may not be able to pay. At least not comfortably.
The higher costs of longer living
According to the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), an American man reaching 65 today can expect to live until he is 84, women until 86.5. But the SSA points out that these are averages. One out of every three 65-year-olds will live past 90, while one in seven will surpass 95.
So, Americans who retire on their 67th birthdays, maintain their health, and remember to look both ways when crossing the street have decent odds to live about a third of their lives in retirement. Again, our ancestors couldn't even imagine such recompense.
Dan Yu, the managing principal at Hillcrest Wealth Advisors, told AARP that many factors go into determining an acceptable nest egg, such as health, where you live, and your desired retirement lifestyle. However, conventional wisdom is to save 10 to 12 times your current income.
Here's one scenario: a household would need roughly $1.5 million to support a 30-year retirement at $50,000 a year. That's assuming interest rates stay relatively steady and inflation doesn't balloon.
But mercurial interest rates and bloating inflation aren't a retiree's only concerns. High administrative and management fees devour 401(k) earnings. Most of the benefits flow to the top fifth of earners, leaving households in the bottom half to salvage for the 4 percent of scraps that fall their way.
And some lack even scraps. According to a 2018 report by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), more than 100 million working-age Americans don't own any retirement account assets and the median retirement account balance for all working Americans is zero. If we include Americans who do have saving assets, a staggering 77 percent fall short of "conservative" saving targets. (Though, some commentators believe the NIRS's saving targets are more excessive than moderate.)
Preparing for your (hopefully) long life
None of this is to say we can't afford retirement or that we need to return to an era where working life immediately precedes the grave. But we will have to begin rethinking how we approach and enjoy retirement.
Be prepared to retire later. People working today should plan to shift their retirement past their 60s and into their 70s. The longer you work, the more money you can earn without dipping into your retirement assets. A report from the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Society of Actuaries analyzed different income plans. It found that a couple who waited until 70 to retire would earn nearly twice the annual income than if they completely retired at 62.
"Most older workers will fall short of commonly recommended retirement income targets, unless they can work in some manner into their late 60s or 70s," the researchers write. "Otherwise, they might need to learn how to live on reduced spendable income compared to their working years."
Begin saving now. If inflation is the eternal enemy of retirees, then compound interest is their patron saint. If someone invests $5,000 dollars a year between the ages of 25 and 35 and then stops, their $50,000 investment will equal roughly $600,000 by age 65 (assuming a 7 percent annual return). If someone else invests the same amount annually between 35 and 65, their $150,000 investment will amount to $550,000.
The earlier one starts investing, the greater their accumulated total will be. (The above example is from JP Morgan Asset Management; you can find a handy graph illustrating the difference here.)
Plan for more life than you think. Dan Yu advises saving 100 percent of preretirement income for at least the first 10 years. While some may recommend 70–80 percent, Yu points out that spending doesn't slow down in early retirement as people tend to enjoy niceties such as travel.
Live a healthy life. Health care starts long before you reach the hospital, and that's especially true for your golden years. Staying healthy reduces your risk of expensive illnesses, such as coronary heart disease, and injuries, such as fractured bones from falls. And the longer you can live independently, the less money you'll need to pay out for assisted-living care.
True, healthy people who live into their 90s will, in the long run, pay more in medical expenses than sick people who die in their 70s. But as the adage goes, you get what you pay for.
Consider an HSA. Speaking of health, a health saving account (HSA) allows you to set aside pre-tax money to pay for qualify medical expenses later. These funds can be used to pay for deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and other expenses. Funds roll over year after year, and you may earn interest.
"Most financial advisers stand to make nothing on an HAS," Jeff Vollmer, managing partner at Hyde Park Wealth Management, told Time, "so it's generally not something that goes into their financial-plan recommendations."
Keep up-to-date on technology. Your retirement savings will take a major hit if you can no longer live independently. But big tech's move into health care may provide ways to assist retirees in living more independent and more comfortably for longer. Telemedicine, for example, could help retirees by offering remote-patient monitoring tools and allowing them to communicate with medical practitioners more easily.
It may go without saying, but let's say it anyway: These are just a few things to consider when planning your retirement, not a roadmap to affording the retirement of your dreams. To determine what approach works best for you, do your research and seek the advice of a financial advisor whom you trust.
We all won't live to be 90, let alone 180. But if we plan properly, we can at least enjoy this gift — this longevity boon — of the modern age.
- How the Mediterranean diet can help you live longer and think better ... ›
- Yale Study: People Who Read Live Longer Than Those Who Don't ... ›
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
The multifaceted cerebellum is large — it's just tightly folded.
- A powerful MRI combined with modeling software results in a totally new view of the human cerebellum.
- The so-called 'little brain' is nearly 80% the size of the cerebral cortex when it's unfolded.
- This part of the brain is associated with a lot of things, and a new virtual map is suitably chaotic and complex.
Just under our brain's cortex and close to our brain stem sits the cerebellum, also known as the "little brain." It's an organ many animals have, and we're still learning what it does in humans. It's long been thought to be involved in sensory input and motor control, but recent studies suggests it also plays a role in a lot of other things, including emotion, thought, and pain. After all, about half of the brain's neurons reside there. But it's so small. Except it's not, according to a new study from San Diego State University (SDSU) published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
A neural crêpe
A new imaging study led by psychology professor and cognitive neuroscientist Martin Sereno of the SDSU MRI Imaging Center reveals that the cerebellum is actually an intricately folded organ that has a surface area equal in size to 78 percent of the cerebral cortex. Sereno, a pioneer in MRI brain imaging, collaborated with other experts from the U.K., Canada, and the Netherlands.
So what does it look like? Unfolded, the cerebellum is reminiscent of a crêpe, according to Sereno, about four inches wide and three feet long.
The team didn't physically unfold a cerebellum in their research. Instead, they worked with brain scans from a 9.4 Tesla MRI machine, and virtually unfolded and mapped the organ. Custom software was developed for the project, based on the open-source FreeSurfer app developed by Sereno and others. Their model allowed the scientists to unpack the virtual cerebellum down to each individual fold, or "folia."
Study's cross-sections of a folded cerebellum
Image source: Sereno, et al.
A complicated map
Sereno tells SDSU NewsCenter that "Until now we only had crude models of what it looked like. We now have a complete map or surface representation of the cerebellum, much like cities, counties, and states."
That map is a bit surprising, too, in that regions associated with different functions are scattered across the organ in peculiar ways, unlike the cortex where it's all pretty orderly. "You get a little chunk of the lip, next to a chunk of the shoulder or face, like jumbled puzzle pieces," says Sereno. This may have to do with the fact that when the cerebellum is folded, its elements line up differently than they do when the organ is unfolded.
It seems the folded structure of the cerebellum is a configuration that facilitates access to information coming from places all over the body. Sereno says, "Now that we have the first high resolution base map of the human cerebellum, there are many possibilities for researchers to start filling in what is certain to be a complex quilt of inputs, from many different parts of the cerebral cortex in more detail than ever before."
This makes sense if the cerebellum is involved in highly complex, advanced cognitive functions, such as handling language or performing abstract reasoning as scientists suspect. "When you think of the cognition required to write a scientific paper or explain a concept," says Sereno, "you have to pull in information from many different sources. And that's just how the cerebellum is set up."
Bigger and bigger
The study also suggests that the large size of their virtual human cerebellum is likely to be related to the sheer number of tasks with which the organ is involved in the complex human brain. The macaque cerebellum that the team analyzed, for example, amounts to just 30 percent the size of the animal's cortex.
"The fact that [the cerebellum] has such a large surface area speaks to the evolution of distinctively human behaviors and cognition," says Sereno. "It has expanded so much that the folding patterns are very complex."
As the study says, "Rather than coordinating sensory signals to execute expert physical movements, parts of the cerebellum may have been extended in humans to help coordinate fictive 'conceptual movements,' such as rapidly mentally rearranging a movement plan — or, in the fullness of time, perhaps even a mathematical equation."
Sereno concludes, "The 'little brain' is quite the jack of all trades. Mapping the cerebellum will be an interesting new frontier for the next decade."
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>