Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Life
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #411  
Old 02-10-2020, 03:19 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 91,390
Blog Entries: 6
Default

this is not only mortality, but here goes:

https://twitter.com/trevornoren/stat...85086990249989

Quote:
"Starting work in a recession affects people for their whole lives...Downturns linked to deaths and divorces long after the economy has recovered" https://economist.com/graphic-detail...ir-whole-lives


https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ir-whole-lives
Quote:
Starting work in a recession affects people for their whole lives
Downturns are linked to deaths and divorces long after the economy has recovered


Spoiler:
TIMING IS EVERYTHING. This is especially true in the labour market. Workers who start looking for a job during a recession earn significantly less than their timelier counterparts. This wage penalty can last for years—a phenomenon economists call wage “scarring”. Until now, it has been assumed that such scars are mainly economic, affecting workers’ employment, income and wealth. But new research by Hannes Schwandt of Northwestern University and Till von Wachter of the University of California, Los Angeles suggests that economic downturns can have other long-lasting effects.

Using data on the roughly 4m Americans who entered the workforce shortly before, during and after the 1982 recession—when unemployment reached almost 11%—the authors measured how the downturn affected those people’s health and mortality many years later. On joining the labour force, they faced a national unemployment rate 3.9 percentage points higher than that before the onset of recession. That was associated, the authors found, with a cut in their life expectancy of six to nine months. The additional deaths were from causes linked to unhealthy behaviour, including heart disease, lung cancer, liver disease and drug poisoning.


wotking paper:
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/our...inkId=81059191

press release:
https://news.northwestern.edu/storie...arch-suggests/

excerpt:
Quote:
Schwandt and von Wachter analyzed outcomes for people who entered the job market during the historic economic downturn of 1981 and 1982. Prior to 2007, the recession of the early 1980s was the worst economic downturn in the U.S. since the Great Depression. But the Great Recession triggered by the bursting of the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis has since eclipsed the 1980s recession in terms of length and GDP.

In middle age, unlucky labor market entrants earn less and work more while receiving less welfare support. They are also less likely to be married, more likely to be divorced, and less likely to be cohabitating with own children, the study found.

A related 2014 study by Schwandt and Janet Currie of Princeton University showed that recession exposure in early adulthood reduces lifetime fertility for women. There is also evidence that male college graduates from the 1982 recession experience worsening self-reported health in middle age.

The new study makes use of several large cross-sectional data sources, and a novel approach to estimate midlife effects of entering the labor market in a recession on mortality by cause and various measures of socioeconomic status.

To analyze effects in middle age, the researchers focused on cohorts entering the labor market in different U.S. states before, during, and after the 1982 recession. They used Vital Statistics data from 1979 to 2016 and population estimates from the Census and the American Communities Survey (ACS) to construct mortality rates, which are regressed on the state-level unemployment rate that a cohort faced at the time of graduation. Information on socioeconomic outcomes, including earnings, labor supply, marital status, divorce, and cohabitation was derived from the Decennial Census (Census), the ACS, and the Current Population Survey (CPS).

This looks like the final paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3518251
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 02-20-2020, 02:53 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 91,390
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...uce-fatalities

Quote:
More Older Americans Are on the Job — And Dying There Too
The best way to reduce occupational deaths among workers 65 and older might be retirement.


Spoiler:
U.S. workplaces have gotten a lot safer over the course of the past century. In 1913, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that there were 23,000 “industrial deaths,” or 61 for every 100,000 workers. In 2018, the number of what are now called “occupational fatalities” was 5,250, according to a BLS survey much more exhaustive than its 1913 precursor, or 3.5 for every 100,000 full-time equivalent workers.

But those 5,250 deaths were an increase over 2017’s 5,147, and workplace fatalities have been up for six of the last nine years (the chart starts in 1992 because that’s when the BLS started its more-complete Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries).

Recessions tend to reduce the number of workplace injuries and deaths, because there are fewer workers to get hurt and because high-risk industries such as construction and trucking are often hit hardest by job losses. Some increase in fatalities was thus to be expected as the economy recovered in recent years, and the current number and rate of fatalities remain below the levels that prevailed before the last recession. (The BLS changed how it calculated the rates in 2006, which is why this chart only goes back that far.)

The Fatality Rate Has Flatlined
Occupational fatalities per 100,000 full-time-equivalent workers


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

There was, however, something unusual going on in 2006 — a housing bubble that pushed the fatality-prone construction sector to its highest share of nonfarm employment since 1956 — that makes the drop afterward less impressive and the subsequent failure of the fatality rate to keep falling the bigger story. It is also possible to identify a major force that has been keeping the rate from falling. This force is not necessarily evil, but as a 56-year-old I do find it kind of creepy: More people older than 55 are working, and people over 55 are more likely to die on the job than younger workers.

First, the statistics on 55-plussers in the workplace:

The Workplace Is Skewing Older
Percentage of U.S. employed persons ages 55 and older


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

This rise of the older worker is partly just demographics — the giant baby boom generation, as defined by the Census Bureau, ranges in age from 55 to 74. But it’s also because older Americans, especially much-older Americans, are far more likely to be part of the labor force now than they were in the 1970s through 1990s. Among those 65 and older, the labor force participation rate has risen from a low of 10.4% in 1985 to 20.3% now. Among those 75 and older it has gone from 4% to 9.7% percent.

Older Americans are likelier to be working now for a variety of reasons. Some seem entirely positive — despite the recent stall in life expectancy, Americans are living significantly longer than they did a few decades ago, and once-common mandatory-retirement rules have largely disappeared since Congress banned most of them in 1986. A more complicated issue is the changing nature of retirement income: Some Americans work into their 70s because they have no retirement savings, while others have savings but work longer because the defined-contribution plans that now predominate reward delayed retirement in ways that most traditional pensions do not.

In any case, as the share of older workers has grown, the share of workplace deaths that they account for has grown, too.

Workplace Deaths Are Skewing Older Too
Percentage of U.S. occupational fatalities


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

It’s not that the workplace has been getting more dangerous over time for older workers. Every age group has seen declines in workplace fatality rates since 2006, and the decline for those 65 and older has been the biggest. But 65-plussers’ share of the workforce has grown by three percentage points just since 2006, and their occupational fatality rate remains much, much higher than anybody else’s: 10.3 in 2018 versus 3.5 for the workforce overall and 4.6 for those ages 55 through 64.

Workplace Deaths by Age Group
Occupational fatalities per 100,000 full-time-equivalent workers


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Being older obviously does make one more prone to keel over, but the occupational fatality statistics don’t include on-the-job deaths due to natural causes. So what explains the higher death rates of older workers? In an analysis published last month that was the inspiration for this column, BLS economists Sean M. Smith and Stephen M. Pegula sliced and diced the numbers in several ways in an attempt to answer that question. (To get statistically meaningful results, they generally focused on the entire 55-plus age group, not the smaller but much-higher-risk group of workers 65 and older, and combined data for a number of years.)

One thing that they found was that those 55 and older were more likely than younger workers to die of lingering injuries days, weeks, months or even years after a workplace incident. Older people are more fragile than younger ones, so they have more trouble recovering from workplace injuries than their younger peers, and are more likely to suffer certain injuries (hip fractures, for example).

When it comes kinds of accidents, the biggest cause of workplace fatalities for both older and younger workers is roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles, aka traffic accidents, which Smith and Pegula found were responsible for about a quarter of deaths from 2011 through 2017 among those under 55 and among those 55 and older — so no disparity there. Fatalities among those 55 and older were significantly less likely to be caused by electrocution, homicide and suicide than among younger workers, while deaths from being struck by an object or equipment, falling to a lower level and being hit by a vehicle as a pedestrian made up a moderately larger share of workplace deaths for older workers than younger ones. The cause of death for which the age difference was the biggest was nonroadway noncollision incidents, which accounted for 6% of workplace deaths for those 55 and older and 3% for those 54 and younger.

What could these nonroadway noncollision incidents possibly involve? Think tractors. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting had the second-highest fatality rate in 2018 of any industry whose fatality rate was estimated by the BLS, after truck transportation (23 deaths per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers versus 28). Smith and Pegula found that, from 2003 through 2017, farmers, ranchers and other agricultural managers suffered 14% of the occupational fatalities among those 55 and older, versus a bit more than 2% among those 54 and younger.

For a variety of reasons, farmers have been finding it harder and harder to retire — or easier and easier not to retire, as modern farm equipment allows them to do more on their own. Farmers and ranchers have the highest median age among occupations for which the BLS calculates that figure, 1 at 56.1 years, and a remarkable 30.8% of them are 65 and older. Most of the fatal nonroadway noncollision incidents mentioned above involved jack-knifed or overturned vehicles, so basically, a not-insignificant number of elderly farmers are dying when their tractors or pickup trucks tip over. But hey, they’re out in the fields, amid the amber waves of grain. There are worse ways to go.

Which brings us to the bigger question of whether anything should be done about this rise in older-worker fatalities. Smith and Pegula conclude their study with the hope that it will help safety and health experts “tailor their efforts to best meet the needs of older workers and to keep them safe during their careers,” which sounds like a good plan but not exactly a game-changer. Technological advances have played a big role in reducing workplace risks in the past, and one can easily see how self-driving technology could make truck driving, farming and other occupations much safer — albeit at the same time destroying lots of jobs. In the meantime, the most powerful policy lever seems to be retirement-system design.

In countries where old-style pensions still prevail, 65-plussers are much less likely to have jobs than in the U.S.

Over 65 and in the Workforce
Employment-population ratio in 2018 for ages 65 through 69


Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Data from the International Labor Organization also indicate that the U.S. has a much higher occupational fatality rate than most other affluent countries, but national standards for reporting and calculating these rates seem to vary so much that I suspect the numbers aren’t really comparable. So no chart of that! But it does seem clear that if we paid people to leave their jobs at 65, there would be fewer occupational fatalities in this country.

This would also, of course, be very expensive, and the funding shortfalls that loom in some of those countries with old-style pensions dwarf what is in store for Social Security (which is basically an old-style pension, too, but is relatively small and doesn’t require that you retire to receive it). What’s more, there’s a growing body of evidence indicating that working past 65 actually prolongs people’s lives. That is, you may be more likely to die on the job, but you’re less likely to die, period. Which seems like an OK trade-off.

The agency doesn't calculate a median age for legislators, but from the information it does provide it is clear that this would be even higher than that of farmers.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 02-20-2020, 04:18 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 91,390
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.census.gov/library/publi...ce=govdelivery

Quote:
Living Longer: Historical and Projected Life Expectancy in the United States, 1960 to 2060
FEBRUARY 2020
REPORT NUMBER P25-1145
LAUREN MEDINA, SHANNON SABO, AND JONATHAN VESPA
Introduction

Download Living Longer: Historical and Projected Life Expectancy in the United States, 1960 to 2060 [PDF - <1.0 MB]
This report uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 National Population Projections to examine potential mortality and life expectancy changes in the coming decades. To provide historical context, we draw extensively on life expectancy data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The report includes projections of life expectancy from 2017 to 2060 and explores projected differences in mortality for men and women and for different race and Hispanic origin groups in the United States. The report also focuses on projected life expectancy differences between the native and foreign-born populations. The mortality projections covered in this report are based on the first nativity-specific life tables and life expectancies to be published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Full paper: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...o/p25-1145.pdf
Quote:
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

• Americans are projected to have longer life expectancies in coming decades. By 2060, life expectancy for the total population is projected to increase by about six years, from 79.7 in 2017 to 85.6 in 2060.2

• Increases in life expectancy are projected to be larger for men than women, although women are still projected to live longer than men do, on average, in 2060.

• All racial and ethnic groups are projected to have longer life expectancies in coming decades, but the greatest gains will be to native-born men who
are non-Hispanic Black alone and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native alone.

• Among the native-born population, Hispanic women had the longest life expectancy, 83.3 years, of any race or Hispanic origin group in the United States in 2017. They are projected to continue to have the longest life expectancy, 87.8 years, in 2060.

• In 2060, foreign-born men and women are projected to continue having longer life expectancies than their native-born peers, regardless of race or Hispanic origin.
Supplemental tables: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...tal-tables.pdf
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.27572 seconds with 9 queries