
Calculated Risk: U.S. Population Distribution by Age, 1950 through 2050  - noheartanthony
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/08/us-population-distribution-by-age-1950.html
======
Retric
This would look far less odd, if the over 80 group was also split into 5 year
groups. It's also looking 40 years into the future.

~~~
tel
Agreed. It's pretty clear the 80+ group is picking up an integration of a
longer tail. You can also clearly note the exponential death rate eating away
the effect of the baby boomer impulse.

------
charlesju
This is why social security scares me.

------
3pt14159
What is actually very misleading about this graph is that it doesn't separate
out the effects of immigration.

The graph is constantly making the baby boom look less and less of a factor,
but that is mostly because immigration is bringing in people at all age
brackets, not because so many baby boomers are dying off.

What is scary is that for the first 5 to 10 years immigrants, especially
illegal ones, are a net drain on social services. Depending on the country
they come from they do, eventually become net contributors ((taxes from them -
government overhead) - outflow to them) > 0, but not to long after that they
become retirees draining SS, medicare, etc... The value that immigrants
provide is usually through their children - possessing good social and
technical skills after years of North American education.

How many of you have been driven in a taxi by a Pakistani (in Toronto, anyway)
Licensed doctor or electrician?

~~~
gnosis
_"As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or
so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system
with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year."_

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html)

Many more anti-immigrant myths debunked here:

[http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/03/immigration-
irrationali...](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/03/immigration-
irrationality.html)

------
raquo
I hope the retirement age (both legal and socially acceptable) won't remain
the same for the next 30 years.

~~~
mmt
It can't, of course, so it's already gone up.

~~~
jrwoodruff
I'm 28. I'm dubious I'll ever be able to retire, especially if there's another
slump/recession/depression in about 40 years.

~~~
pyre
My question is what are people going to do when they reach 65+ and can't
retire? Walmart greeter?

I can't imagine that a lot of professions will allow someone to continue
working past that age. I'm a software developer, and I figure -- right or
wrong -- that by that age I might not be able to keep up. (Or maybe the
industry would 'shove me out' for younger blood?)

Am I just completely wrong here?

~~~
donaldc
Unless you're already nearing 65, in 20 to 40 years software will be in
_everything_. I'm sure you'll be able to find something to do with your
skills.

~~~
pyre
I guess that's something to keep in mind. When I picture myself at 65, I
usually am picturing myself in terms of the state of the world today (only
with me being 65), and not in terms of what the rest of the world will be like
in 38 years.

------
zhyder
"this graph does shows that health care expenses are almost three times higher
for those over 65 than those under 65. So - in the first graph - as the baby
boomers move into the last 4 columns, the health care expenses will rise
sharply."

Health care expenses will always be higher when you're close to death. When
life expectancy is 75 years, that's from ~ age 60-75 (15 yrs, 20% of
lifetime). But when life expectancy is 120, the expensive-age window should
also slide out to 105-120 (15 yrs, 12.5% of lifetime) or to 96-120 (24 yrs,
20% of lifetime).

Actually we can't tell how different phases of people's lifetime (especially
productive time) will scale as people live longer, but there's no reason to
believe the article's statement either.

------
pyre
I don't get why the 70-80 age group range seems to take a dive around 2035+,
while the 80+ age range keeps growing and all of the other age ranges have
pretty much leveled off.

~~~
arockwell
If you broke the 80+ age range to 80-85, 85-90, 90-95, and 95+ each group
would be progressively smaller than the 75-80 age group (I suspect anyways, I
don't know the actual data).

~~~
pyre
I'm more curious why the 70-75 and 75-80 ranges take a significant hit
starting around 2035 while all the previous age groups don't diminish that
much. It's like around that time there are are less people making it out of
the previous age ranges and into the 70-80 age ranges... It would make sense
if there was a lump of people in the lower age ranges that made it's way into
the 70-80, but at that point there doesn't seem to be. Unless I'm missing
something.

------
edw519
2 words: baby boom

~~~
jrwoodruff
Where is the "baby-boomlet" reflected in this data?
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-
boomlet_...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-
boomlet_N.htm)

