How old are you ? really

[texbaylea]

I must be living wrong. I am 75 and it says that my real age is 64 ( don't I wish ). It also says I live to 101. That's a laugh.

Vernon

 

[BTDT]

Biological age 51 Real age 48.8 life expectancy 76

I am 51. My dad and my brother both died when they were 51 Doesn't matter, just be ready when the time comes.....see here v
v
v

 

[Egon]

My biological age was 53 but every morning when I wake up the old skin bag full of creaky bones figures its at least 90 years old. Just dunno about that test??

 

[cp1969]

According to that thing, I'm already dead.

Why didn't anyone bother to tell me?

 

[Grrrr]

According to that thing, I'm already dead.

Why didn't anyone bother to tell me?

LOL

It tells me I have 31,500 days left to live. Thats enough for me

 

[Bird]

According to that thing, I'm already dead.

Why didn't anyone bother to tell me?

Charles, I took one of those quizzes when I was 49 that showed I'd been dead 3 years. And then I read a short news article that said police officers who retire at age 50 die at the average age of 53, so I decided I better retire early, and did.

 

[cp1969]

Charles, I took one of those quizzes when I was 49 that showed I'd been dead 3 years. And then I read a short news article that said police officers who retire at age 50 die at the average age of 53, so I decided I better retire early, and did.

<<thread hijack on>>
Good for you, Bird. I think abrupt change is what kills people, especially if they have no plans for what they're going to do once they throw in the towel. I ran into the top dog at the place where I work one day at a hamburger stand and we had a pleasant talk. I made the suggestion that if they want to keep the highly experienced people, they should let them taper down, so to speak. Let them start working four day weeks, then three, etc., instead of zero which is the only alternative to the full-time grind. They would probably get just as much work out of them while only having to pay 80%, 60%, etc. of their salary and I think a lot of people would stick around a lot longer. I probably would.

But as it is, I'm doing a lot of retirement number crunching right now. It is a certainty that I will not work past 62 but that is a ways off. As it is, with the reduced retirement I could draw right now, it takes ten years of drawing the slightly higher age-62 retirement to equal the same total amount that would have been drawn by retiring now.

However, there is a little in me that is like so many people I know--they(we) want to retire, live the lifestyle we have right now, and not have our net worth go down. For me, that is unrealistic. I will never have the lifestyle in retirement that I have right now because I'm living too fat now. But that notion means you are trading years of your life in order to leave a bigger inheritance squabble among descendants when you finally punch out.
<<thread hijack off. Sorry.>>

 

[Bird]

I think abrupt change is what kills people

I think that's right IF the change is not wanted. I've known people who retired, were bored to death, had no outside interests or anything particular that they wanted to do. And they don't seem to last long. On the other hand, some of us had plans for what we were going to do, and never worried about sitting around bored; just didn't see how we ever had time to go to work in the past. The plans are almost constantly changing, but not because there's a lack of something to do.

 

[SnowRidge]

Did anyone note the rock star section? If real age = 27, then you are already dead!

Some people will get this, most probably will think I am babbling.

 

[Soundguy]

My best friends dad taught school for 30ys, and retired a couple years ago.. he live less than 1 yr after retirement... I think the change got him...

soundguy

<<thread hijack on>>
Good for you, Bird. I think abrupt change is what kills people, especially if they have no plans for what they're going to do once they throw in the towel. I ran into the top dog at the place where I work one day at a hamburger stand and we had a pleasant talk. I made the suggestion that if they want to keep the highly experienced people, they should let them taper down, so to speak. Let them start working four day weeks, then three, etc., instead of zero which is the only alternative to the full-time grind. They would probably get just as much work out of them while only having to pay 80%, 60%, etc. of their salary and I think a lot of people would stick around a lot longer. I probably would.

But as it is, I'm doing a lot of retirement number crunching right now. It is a certainty that I will not work past 62 but that is a ways off. As it is, with the reduced retirement I could draw right now, it takes ten years of drawing the slightly higher age-62 retirement to equal the same total amount that would have been drawn by retiring now.

However, there is a little in me that is like so many people I know--they(we) want to retire, live the lifestyle we have right now, and not have our net worth go down. For me, that is unrealistic. I will never have the lifestyle in retirement that I have right now because I'm living too fat now. But that notion means you are trading years of your life in order to leave a bigger inheritance squabble among descendants when you finally punch out.
<<thread hijack off. Sorry.>>