Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Around 2011 a report from the CBO came across my desk. It was a study regarding how long US military retirees lived after retirement.

Two key findings were in the report:

Career Military lived (this is from memory but should be very close to accurate) 7-15 years longer than their civilian cohort.

The difference in longevity tracked so strongly with rank they had to run the numbers several times and make sure there weren’t errors. As in, E5 retirees were the shortest lived, while O6+ were the longest.

They identified several possible reasons for the longer lifespans including availability of care and adherence to care. They also identified several possible reasons for the difference between ranks including obesity, smoking, and alcohol use (all had the same trends).

That report likely led to us reducing the military pension, which has had a fairly impressive negative impact on retention.

All of that to say that defined benefits plans are EXPENSIVE and they cut those benefits 20% due to people living ~40 years retired vs the budgeted ~25.



I thought the military could retire with a full pension after 20 years. Wouldn't that imply that they have an expected retirement of around 40 years?


People living closer to 80 than 65, assuming enlisting at ~20 and retiring at 40.


But 65 is an unrealistically low life expectancy for someone retiring from the military.


Little late here, but it wasn’t really when the system was put in place.

Smoking, alcoholism, poorer medical care, etc. likely meant a much shorter lifespan.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: