ADKHighPeaks  
Forum Rules Statement of Purpose Membership Disclaimer Site History
Adkhighpeaks Foundation Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Wiki visit ADKForum.com

Go Back   ADKHighPeaks > Friends, Family and Personal Items > Misc. Tidbits & Fun Stuff
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-06-2012, 10:55 PM   #1
paul ron
Consultant
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 306
Of the total # people born in 1952 what % are still alive today?

For some reason I can't find this number.

Of the total number of people born in 1952, in the USA, what percent of them are still alive today 2012?

I don' t want life expenctancy tables, no age based predictions, no computer models, no precent of today's population...

all I want is just the percent of the total number of people born in 1952 still alive in 2012.

Think this is easy?

.
paul ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2012, 11:44 PM   #2
DSettahr
ɹǝpuɐɯɯoɔ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,981
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er I cross post at ADKForum
According to census.gov, the 2010 census recorded 3,794,928 people alive in the US who were 58 years old.

According to cdc.gov, there were 4,167,362 people born in the US in 1962.

This would equate to roughly 91% still being alive as of the 2010 census. Obviously there are some pretty significant sources of error with my methodology, but I doubt you'll be able to do much better with information available on the internet.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 07:53 AM   #3
paul ron
Consultant
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 306
The problem with that census figure it includes immigrants. The best answer I found was an old 1997 table that had 3.7million born in 1952, only 18% males, n 20% females (45yrs old) were still alive at that time.

Otherwsie there is no other data out there aside from population growth figures based on percent of present day population.

.
paul ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 08:22 AM   #4
DSettahr
ɹǝpuɐɯɯoɔ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,981
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er I cross post at ADKForum
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul ron View Post
The problem with that census figure it includes immigrants. The best answer I found was an old 1997 table that had 3.7million born in 1952, only 18% males, n 20% females (45yrs old) were still alive at that time.
I agree that my methodology is far from perfect... but common sense would dictate that the survival rate of Americans to the age of 45 in the 1990's would be far greater than just one in five...

And even when you take immigration into account, think about it... If the survival rate really is only 20%, then based on the CDC data, in 1997 there were roughly 833,472 people left in America who were born in 1952. When you compare that number with the 2010 census data, that means that at the very minimum, (assuming that not a single American born in 1952 died between 1997 and 2010) 78% of the population in the US today that was born in 1952 are immigrants. 4 out of every 5 person who is 60 years old.

Are you sure the numbers weren't the other way around? 82% of the males, and 80% of the females still alive?

Last edited by DSettahr; 02-07-2012 at 08:33 AM.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 11:37 AM   #5
paul ron
Consultant
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 306
Well lets not forget drugs, Vietnam, Aids n other desease, acidents n natural causes. 38% of the 4million born in 52 (table was in from 1997 making 45yr the target age) is still a sizale amt but consider the diminishing % as years go on... naturally not including immigrants adding to the count.

Simple enough if social security active accounts were looked at compared to the number born for any particular year?.. but not so simple to find that data.

I'm almost certain insurace actuaries have this data but getting it is the problem.


.
paul ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 12:30 PM   #6
DSettahr
ɹǝpuɐɯɯoɔ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,981
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er I cross post at ADKForum
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul ron View Post
Well lets not forget drugs, Vietnam, Aids n other desease, acidents n natural causes. 38% of the 4million born in 52 (table was in from 1997 making 45yr the target age) is still a sizale amt but consider the diminishing % as years go on... naturally not including immigrants adding to the count.
20% of one number and 18% of another number isn't 38% of the total when you combine the two, though.

Lets take a sample of 100 people born in 1952, 50 males, and 50 females. Based on your numbers (20% of the females survive, 18% of the males survive), using some math we can figure out how many survive until 1997:

0.2 x 50 = 10

0.18 x 50 = 9

So we have 19 people left, 10 females and 9 males. Again, using some math:

19/100 = 0.19 = 19%

So the combined survival rate of both men and women from our initial 100 person sample is 19%, not 38%.

Now obviously, there isn't an equal amount of men and women in the population, so the final percentage is going to be skewed somewhat, but it does have to be somewhere between 18% and 20%, which 38% is not.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 12:35 PM   #7
DSettahr
ɹǝpuɐɯɯoɔ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,981
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er I cross post at ADKForum
Here's another way to think about it: The life expectancy in the US in 1950 was 62 years. That means on average, a person born around 1950 would live to be 62 years old... and half of the population born then would live longer than 62 years.

How can only one fifth (20%) or even 2 fifths (40%) of the US population born in 1952 survive until age 45 if one half of them were expected to live until age 62?
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 02:49 PM   #8
catdacker
Commander
 
catdacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bayport, L.I., N.Y.
Posts: 595
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er
My wife was born in 1952, you can count her. Last I checked she was still alive.
catdacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 03:45 PM   #9
billandjudy
Commander
 
billandjudy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,162
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er
Quote:
Originally Posted by catdacker View Post
My wife was born in 1952, you can count her. Last I checked she was still alive.
Me too....
billandjudy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to billandjudy For This Useful Post:
Inge (11-26-2012)
Old 02-07-2012, 06:52 PM   #10
paul ron
Consultant
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 306
Yes my math stinks but the example from that table was real. And yes again to think how few people will make it to 62 if that is the stat for 45... but logic n reasoning don't apply here, only the facts will.

It just blew me away to see such a small precentage of people from my birth year and has got me looking into this more closely to find the real numbers... but I can't seem to get that information anywhere.

It also is daunting how the stats make my boomer generation seem so big yet the table is telling me otherwise.. who is duping the numbers here to make it sound like my generation will bankrupt a nation if we all collect SSI?

BTW I was told life expectancy is more like last man standing, not half an age group probably more of a mean based on the group trend before it.

Catdak that makes one female n one male accounted for so far.. not an encouraging number is it?

.
paul ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 07:57 PM   #11
DSettahr
ɹǝpuɐɯɯoɔ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,981
I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er I cross post at ADKForum
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul ron View Post
Yes my math stinks but the example from that table was real. And yes again to think how few people will make it to 62 if that is the stat for 45... but logic n reasoning don't apply here, only the facts will.
Yes, the facts are important... but it's equally as important that we use logic and reasoning to determine the veracity of the facts.

This is a problem I see quite often when working with students, especially with unit conversions in math. For example, say a student tries to convert 100 meters to feet, and gets 30.48 feet. I'll ask "Does that make sense?" They'll reply with "Yes, that's what the math says." I'll counter with "Really? 100 meters is 30.48 feet even though a meter is longer than a foot?" They simply don't want to put the time and effort into thinking about whether their answer makes sense or not, and whether or not they may have made a mistake somewhere along the way in reaching that answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul ron View Post
BTW I was told life expectancy is more like last man standing, not half an age group probably more of a mean based on the group trend before it.
From wikipedia:

Quote:
Life expectancy is the expected (in the statistical sense) number of years of life remaining at a given age.[1] It is denoted by ex, which means the average number of subsequent years of life for someone now aged x, according to a particular mortality experience.

....

It is important to note that life expectancy is an average.
And before we start in on Wikipedia not being a valid source because anyone can edit it, here's three other websites that validate this definition:

From the CIA's world factbook:

Quote:
This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future.
From the Social Security website:

Quote:
For this table, the period life expectancy at a given age represents the average number of years of life remaining if a group of persons at that age were to experience the mortality rates for 2007 over the course of their remaining life.
And from the World Health Organization website:

Quote:
Life expectancy is the average number of years a person can expect to live, if in the future they experience the current age-specific mortality rates in the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul ron View Post
It just blew me away to see such a small precentage of people from my birth year and has got me looking into this more closely to find the real numbers... but I can't seem to get that information anywhere.

It also is daunting how the stats make my boomer generation seem so big yet the table is telling me otherwise.. who is duping the numbers here to make it sound like my generation will bankrupt a nation if we all collect SSI?
Listen to those alarm bells that started going off when you said the data "blew you away." I find this information really hard to believe, and it flies in the face of everything else I've found in attempting to help you find better information. I'd be really interested to see this table, if you wouldn't mind sharing it.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DSettahr For This Useful Post:
Commissionpoint (02-07-2012)
Old 02-07-2012, 09:01 PM   #12
paul ron
Consultant
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 306
Oh cheese, I'll have to swim through a million Google searches again to find it. Searching this far was a real task in itself, wording makes all the more difficult in what you get back. Being fed up, I thought I'd open to more educated n talented computer savy folks like you.

I posted this to try n raise the brow of anyone, maybe an actuary in insurance, to see if they had better detailed information. Like you, I was surprised to see such a low number on this table, then especially after seeing all the other stats of population in my age group raised more questions of who is telling the truth.

I'd like to know for certain but logic n reason, not knowing how to navigatge the web, always seems to get my way. Stats, as you know, can be twisted to say whatever you like people to believe but somewhere is the raw data used to do the calculations.. I want the raw data.

.
paul ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 10:52 PM   #13
Nessmuk
Commander
 
Nessmuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 572
Those numbers are pretty hard to believe. My wife and I are both from that generation, a year apart. We've been going to our class reunions fairly regularly over the years when they come up. As a class we always have a moment of silence for those no longer with us. Out of over 150 class members in each of our high school graduating classes, I'm fairly certain that the number of deceased is small, certainly less than 20%, and I'd be surprised if it was much more than 10%.

Life expectancy stats can be tricky if you try to apply it to living individuals. You have to know how the measurement is made, from what starting point. Starting from age 0, you might say that life expectancy is X years. But starting from age 30 that number is larger, simply because the 30 yr old was not among the early deaths on the lower end of the bell curve. To take that example to the extreme, lets say life expectancy was said to be 65. But if I have made it to age 64, and so have many of my current friends, I would not expect half of us to die within the next year. Our life expectance is at that point something quite older than 65.
__________________
"Leave the beaten track behind occasionally and dive into the woods. Every time you do you will be certain to find something you have never seen before."
- Alexander Graham Bell
Nessmuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 11:19 PM   #14
Commissionpoint
Alpine Addict
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Diamond Point, NY
Posts: 1,819
I cross post at ADKForum
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSettahr View Post
Yes, the facts are important... but it's equally as important that we use logic and reasoning to determine the veracity of the facts.

This is a problem I see quite often when working with students, especially with unit conversions in math. For example, say a student tries to convert 100 meters to feet, and gets 30.48 feet. I'll ask "Does that make sense?" They'll reply with "Yes, that's what the math says." I'll counter with "Really? 100 meters is 30.48 feet even though a meter is longer than a foot?" They simply don't want to put the time and effort into thinking about whether their answer makes sense or not, and whether or not they may have made a mistake somewhere along the way in reaching that answer.



From wikipedia:



And before we start in on Wikipedia not being a valid source because anyone can edit it, here's three other websites that validate this definition:

From the CIA's world factbook:



From the Social Security website:



And from the World Health Organization website:





Listen to those alarm bells that started going off when you said the data "blew you away." I find this information really hard to believe, and it flies in the face of everything else I've found in attempting to help you find better information. I'd be really interested to see this table, if you wouldn't mind sharing it.
Yer the friggin best Brendan. Who else would be able to pop off all those stats in a single stroke or actually think to do the research and include references in a forum post???

We may not always see eye to eye on everything, but I sure do appreciate your approach and your contributions to what you choose to participate in.

BTW I am still waiting for a response to the rail to trail impacts from you. PM me if its getting to be too much politics in public for you to palate. I certainly understand that possibility, I just don't censor myself too much. You may have noticed that.

BOT..... I was born considerably later than 1952. Of the 62 folks in my graduating class I know of 4 fatalities. So thats approx 1 in 15. None of those deaths were of natural causes, but I am not sure that matters in the scope of this conversation. If we extrapolate that out to set my age equal to those born in 1952 and equally adjust the death rate to the same it seems that about 85% of us would still be alive if that mortality rate still holds until we are 60.
__________________
I know it sounds corny, man, but I like to bring folks joy, and I like to have a good time. I know folks like to be with somebody who's having a good time. You sure as hell don't want to be with somebody who's having a bad day.
-WJ

Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2012, 06:44 AM   #15
randomscooter
Javamoonshine
 
randomscooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 3,167
<Aside>

This thread reminds me of my uncle. He's now the only living member of my mother's and father's siblings. My uncle and his barber are of the same high school graduating class. Every time my uncle goes for a haircut he checks the class photo on the wall to see if his barber has crossed out anyone else. Last I knew there were only four who hadn't been crossed out, two others plus my uncle and his barber.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."
randomscooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 09:33 PM   #16
Tom Barrister
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1
I realize this is an old thread.

The expected lifespan of somebody born in 1950 was 62 years IN 1950 and was based on 1950 estimates, which would include what was known and available in 1950. There have been substantial advances in medicine, technology, etc. that increased that.

Of people born in 1952, about 75% are still living. This includes the approximately 3.2% who died in the first year of life (infant mortality).

Using your high school reunion isn't a good measure, because those who graduated had already lived to an average of about 18 years of age, and most people who keep track of survival at reunions don't start until about the 25th year reunion, during which time all surviving members would have made it to age of 43.

Of those who made it to year 18, about 80% are still living. Of those who made it to 25 (and avoided being killed in the Vietnam War as well as accidents, etc.), about 82% are still living. Of the original 75%, about 72% of all males and 78% of all females are still living.

The life expectancy of a 60 year old man (i.e. born in 1952) is about 21 additional years; women do a little better at 24 years.
Tom Barrister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 11:01 PM   #17
RockON
Slowlowist
 
RockON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 973
I am a 46er
"I'm still not dead". Anyone remember the photo from National Lampoon? I'm guessing around '75, the Eisenhower's waving out the window. Today is my 56th having been born in 56. With all due respect to the IP, who cares as long as you can read the results? Of course I have a glass of 12 yo irish in my hand so perhaps I am biased.

Btw, happy birthday!
__________________
"Where I'm goin', I don't know
But I'll be headed out in sun, rain, hail or snow"
-The Saw Doctors
RockON is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RockON For This Useful Post:
PA Ridgerunner (09-14-2012)
Old 09-14-2012, 05:37 AM   #18
Hiker41
Aspiring 35er
 
Hiker41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Flushing, N.Y.
Posts: 267
To quote the old Professor :
"The trick is growing up without growing old."
Casey Stengel
__________________
In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks. ~John Muir
My Picasa Hiking Pics
My Flickr Hiking Pics
Catskill 3500 33/39
Hiker41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 01:03 PM   #19
John H Swanson
Consultant
 
John H Swanson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 231
First I have no source for what I am about to say, but I heard it from someone who probably had a good source

About 5 years ago, they posed the question, what will you be doing if you were 65 today. Everyone gave it a thought and he then said that 1/3 of the Americans who would be 65 today already died. meaning 67% alive.

So, if this stat is correct than the percentage of people 60 years old to be greater. Perhaps 80% is reasonable.
John H Swanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 02:33 PM   #20
PA Ridgerunner
Lovin' Life!
 
PA Ridgerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Jay, NY
Posts: 2,818
adkhighpeaks Site Supporter I am a 46er I am a Catskill 35er I cross post at ADKForum
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockON View Post
"I'm still not dead". Anyone remember the photo from National Lampoon? I'm guessing around '75, the Eisenhower's waving out the window. Today is my 56th having been born in 56. With all due respect to the IP, who cares as long as you can read the results? Of course I have a glass of 12 yo irish in my hand so perhaps I am biased.

Btw, happy birthday!
Happy Birthday! I toasted mine on Tuesday with a couple shots of 12 Y.O. Jamesons.
__________________
Nature we have always with us, an inexhaustible storehouse of that which moves the heart, appeals to the mind, and fires the imagination - health to the body, a stimulus to the intellect, and a joy to the soul. - John Burroughs
PA Ridgerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the Adkhighpeaks Foundation provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.