Adkhighpeaks Foundation Adkhighpeaks Wiki visit ADKForum.com

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Of the total # people born in 1952 what % are still alive today?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?

    .

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      .

      Comment


      • #4
        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, 07:33 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.


          .

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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?

              Comment


              • #8
                My wife was born in 1952, you can count her. Last I checked she was still alive.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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?

                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      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:

                      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:

                      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:

                      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:

                      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.
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <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 (DP)


                              Eat, sleep, hike, repeat.

                              It doesn't have to be viewtiful to be beautiful. (NL)

                              "Pushing the limits of easy."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X