You're watching...
FBN’s Tom Sullivan and Stuart Varney discuss the repercussions of living longer without the support of Social Security and Medicare.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
And thanks for donated here's what -- -- of the top of the -- the study it's legit it shows that.
-- -- hunters and gatherers had the same chance of dying when they were thirty.
That at 72 year old living in Japan or Sweden has today.
You can -- better nutrition modern medicine and clean water in that grade except.
Problem is Medicare and Social Security -- going broke people haven't saved enough for retirement.
If we're living longer what are the repercussions.
Joining me now the host of Barney and company here on the Fox Business Network Stuart Varney and story for saw -- site I dismiss -- this kind of a goofy headlines is I get thirty may be the new twenty.
But 72 vs thirty is is a stretch.
It is extraordinary but the gains in the launch and the long.
The law that longevity and relative of the what the gains in longevity.
-- being stunning.
In the past hundred years and I think they have profound financial and cultural implications yes let let it.
-- -- I just chuck some numbers out for a second.
It in the the last four generations.
Longevity has improved mall that in the previous eight.
Thousand generations.
Which is an astonishing statistic go all the way back to the -- Mendel creation whatever you wanted to get 8000 generations of it.
Ever so slightly improving longevity and in the last for generations -- which longevity has exploded with clearly living a whole lot long -- -- I've got one of of them before it.
Go back to 1935.
So security just in the -- right life expectancy of people born in 1935 was 61 point seven years.
Life expectancy for someone born in the year 2010.
Was that to -- -- generations laid -- 78.
Point seven years -- hoods we have gained seventeen years of life expectancy since Social Security first came around you know that means you've got to make some fundamental changes to the into the funding of Social Security.
And the retirement.
As a child kid I was about school grade school high school -- remember hearing some buddies some one of my parents friends and did you hear so and so passed away he was.
65.
Or 64 or he was going to retire next -- he just retired two months ago so Social Security.
That's anecdotal like nobody but according your numbers are are showing this Social Security really did not have to pay how much does a lot of people died before they got -- -- they got they got very level.
Yeah I'll I'll give you another number to back -- up.
If in 1935 -- reached the age of 65.
-- -- you -- they're already rest is not at book this is life expectancy if you'd reach 65 life expectancy fourteen months.
If today you -- reach 65 you've got that life expectancy fourteen years.
That's a profound.
Difference.
If you arrive at 65 and even Social Security -- has to -- -- for ten months yeah but now it's gonna -- of fourteen year.
Well not not only do we have a problem with Medicare Social Security in nobody wants to change it but the numbers are -- terribly.
It at the same time we have this lack of savings in the country so.
I have this horrible vision of all these old people 10202530.
Years -- until the boomers are -- dawn when.
That -- are we're gonna have a pile of poverty.
Yet you run out of money.
Mail bits -- personal for a second I am 64 years of age.
Now I'm getting close to there at the age well you know might think of retiring that if my life expectancy and I've looked at the actuarial tables.
-- -- probably 2324.
He fitness -- if everything goes well sure that's a long time.
I've got to make whatever money I put aside I'm gonna make it last twenty years and I'm gonna make it -- -- And I don't care who you are or how much money you make or don't make that's the old ultimate question I think we all have in the back of our mind you why have enough money.
That will I will out the my my money -- outlive me.
And my wife.
Yes and along comes the cultural question.
If you asked that question of yourself in the mid sixties and you say no I don't have enough for myself and my wife quite correct -- Then you gonna say well -- -- -- world more units I can't retire at sixty Fossett dead at sixty ability look at.
I can't I think it was Gallup which is that came out with the numbers this week that shows.
The rapid increase in the percent -- people that are 72 that are still in the workplace it has dramatically increased.
I don't know if they're working because they have to.
Or they love what they're doing.
Or a combination -- there is there healthy and are looking around going why should -- -- I'll give you an answer someone who is 72.
Now.
And is still -- looking.
They lived through the nasty panic of 070.
-- they lost their shots in the market they lost their shirts and their homes.
They have to keep walking so -- they want to I think is a question they have to because of what happened for five years ago that's my opinion.
Right another little survey they came out this week was that.
National policy that a group came out said.
Men who are above average in -- earners.
Live six years longer than men that are below average income earners so there there's a policy group.
Trying to figure out how to write that ship.
Yes no the answer.
What they want is far lower income people to be given Social Security in full and asked the current age.
All -- income people to get less in other was negatively means test -- Social Security.
And get it later that is that policy prescription.
I'm not sure Iraqi go along with that I don't like that idea one little bit whether I'm offering to -- -- -- does make a difference I wanna -- If you've got Social Security I want to be equal unavoidable to poll but forget this social engineering up offering come lowering -- -- -- -- my position.
Well there already are different payouts depending upon how much money you've made.
Over your working -- -- in over the Cavuto yes you -- if you paid in more you get more out guests theory that but should we have a different retirement age.
Bearing in mind you previously -- lasting real about that they don't want anything to don't talk to -- about.
Changing -- retirement age you saw the Simpson Bowles report if they wanted to bomb put up a couple of years twenty years down the road and people squeal like.
Just -- Can I give you one more impact of this longevity increase.
What about state.
Retirees -- look for the state you'll California for example Illinois for example -- -- from fuel lifetime you've retired at the age of 55.
Now -- gonna get a pension from the state for a lot longer than you did.
A few years ago if you retire at 55 your life expectancies probably thirty years you're gonna be collecting a pension the longer -- you actually walked.
That's what's really messing up.
They pension system in the state finances of Illinois New York California and elsewhere longevity has a huge impact.
My biggest concern about this is that they don't have the money they won't have the money they can't keep their promises the risen a politician alive rules say that.
-- my biggest fear is that when you and I are not now that they changed rules.
But they changed rules for work 85 and there's nothing we can do about you can't go out and work.
You keep you can't do with thing about and they're gonna pull the rug right out from underneath me.
-- it makes you worried doesn't and I think is a legitimate worry about it that is correct can I digress for thirty seconds or Japan.
The most extreme demographics of any society in recorded human history and more -- people -- Vegas.
There -- more adult diapers sold in Japan today -- baby -- that's that's because of longevity.
And the baby cost of the -- and of this guy aren't so there's a.
