Alan Simpson got pummeled for his apparent ignorance of longevity numbers as they apply to Social Security. Charles Blahous defends Simpson and points out that he was likely citing a different longevity measure. Blahous's view of the retirement age more generally:
Life expectancy growth even at age 65 (the measure emphasized in the HuffPo piece) has far surpassed the rise in Social Security’s eligibility age, supporting the commission view rather than its critics’. Through today, Social Security’s Normal Retirement Age (66) has risen by only one year since 1940. According to the SSA figures cited, life expectancy at age 65 has simultaneously grown by over five years, both for men and for women. By the time the [Normal Retirement Age] reaches 67 under current law, life expectancy at 65 will have grown by over six years. By the distant time Simpson-Bowles would increase the NRA to 69 (four years total increase since 1940), life expectancy at age 65 will have grown by over nine years.
Aaron Carroll remains against raising the retirment age because raising it would be regressive, as the above chart illustrates:
What you’re looking at is the life expectancy of a male who reached age 65 in 1977-2007. The blue line is the top 50% of earners; the green line is the bottom 50%. While the top half of earners have seen an increase of their life expectancy at 65 rise about 5 years over these three decades, the bottom half saw their life expectancy at 65 rise barely a year.
Think about that when advocating for an increase in the age of eligibility because “everyone” has seen their life expectancy increase.
The Dish 