Work longer, die earlier

[OrionFE]

This is some funny sh*t!

 

[JPAustin]

These are called "correlational studies". Too many people seem to think that because there is a correlation between working past 55 and longevity that there is direct cause-effect relationship. This is purely one of many lifestyle choices that correlate to longer or shorter lifespans. Unless a study concludes that the goal of, or conclusion of, the study is a direct cause-effect link, than more then likely it is a correlational study. All studies have a null-hypothesis, and the goal is to "prove" (mathematically) that results indicate a mathematical significance between the results and the null-hypothesis, for or against.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

That report was compiled by "actuaries." I hope someone aside from myself knows what that means.

It is actuarial in nature. The insurance companies make a living on guessing when someone will die.

I wouldn't dismiss this study so quickly.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

It actually behooves a company to have their senior employee work late into their life. This way, they can pay out LESS in PENSION $$$.

 

[Way2Broke]

Die young, leave a good looking corpse.

 

[mzaharis]

Here's a blog that links to a few studies on the topic.

http://acpilot.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-retiring-later-mean-dying-sooner.html

 

[CA1900]

hhmmmmmm, okay. While I will agree there is no "cause and effect" between the two since we are all going to die anyway, you seem to neglect the word "imply" in that phrase.

Neglect? Not at all. "Correlation does not imply causation" is a specific term with a specific meaning when you're discussing statistics.

What it means, in plain English, is that while there appears to be a correlation between the numbers, that does not in itself imply that the one thing (working later, in this case) caused the other thing (earlier death).

What if those that worked later did so because of financial troubles? What if those financial troubles meant they didn't get proper health care or nutrition? What if those who work later in life tend to be men, with shorter average lifespans than women?

And so on. There very often is a third variable (or more) that steers the results.

Look the phrase up and read a few of the links for more on this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=correlation+does+not+imply+causation

Death and an older age are connected.

Indeed they are.

You just posted a link to a fictional graph and try to make an argument that proves the studies and statistics gathered to show the relationship between early retirement and longevity as being fictional.

No. That's not at all what I said. It neither proves nor disproves it.

I said the relationship between early retirement and longevity is not proof that early retirement shortens longevity. It neither proves nor disproves it; it simply shows a relationship. If you want to prove that something causes another thing, you need more data than a simple two-dimensional correlation.

 

[shooter]

Neglect? Not at all. "Correlation does not imply causation" is a specific term with a specific meaning when you're discussing statistics.

What it means, in plain English, is that while there appears to be a correlation between the numbers, that does not in itself imply that the one thing (working later, in this case) caused the other thing (earlier death).

What if those that worked later did so because of financial troubles? What if those financial troubles meant they didn't get proper health care or nutrition? What if those who work later in life tend to be men, with shorter average lifespans than women?

And so on. There very often is a third variable (or more) that steers the results.

Look the phrase up and read a few of the links for more on this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=correlation+does+not+imply+causation



Indeed they are.


No. That's not at all what I said. It neither proves nor disproves it.

I said the relationship between early retirement and longevity is not proof that early retirement shortens longevity. It neither proves nor disproves it; it simply shows a relationship. If you want to prove that something causes another thing, you need more data than a simple two-dimensional correlation.

whew, rather long winded if you were to just read the first line in my previous post where I told you that I agree there is no cause and effect. So your first oh, 100 words are just repeating my stance that I agreed with you on. You need to get off this phrase of yours and see that there is indeed a relationship between the two numbers. While there is no cause and effect, there is actual people that became part of a statistic to show that average does indeed die younger if you work longer. You need to find some study that shows another group had an opposite demograph to disprove what has been shown. So yes, in that sense it has been proven.

 

[ABXbooger]

And factor in all that back side of the clock flying for us freight dog types and it really does effect you.

 

[Laughing_Jakal]

Ya know....

You can disagree about causality, you can choose not to believe the data, you can find it flawed and personally subscribe to an alternate view that fits your agenda.....

But the facts remain that there is no debating the "Grim Reaper".....he comes at you in his time when you aren't expecting it...."like a thief in the night"....

And whether or not you agreed with the actuarial tables will have no effect on the sometimes arbitrary and almost predestined demise that is in your future.

Talk about denial.....we're all going to kick the bucket