On turning 70 and looking for wisdom

A decade ago I published my Top 10 on turning 60. Most of the items on my list are truer now than ever. Septuagenarians are much less likely than sexagenarians to die young, for example.

Still, I'm finding it hard to come up with a new Top 10 list. I don't much care for the biblical description of this decade: "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away"(Psalm 90:10).

Some of my friends have already flown.

It's not that I want to relive my 60s. I'm glad to be done with the Great Recession, heart surgery (I hope), retiring, figuring out Social Security and Medicare, moving 750 miles from my home and friends of 33 years, saying goodbye to two sweet dogs, remodeling my new old house, and learning how not to get lost in a state none of whose roads are straight. Good things came out of that tumultuous decade, however: I like my new neighborhood, friends, and small dog, and I'm happy that many of my longtime friends have come to visit.

It would be nice to think that my 70s will be a more peaceful decade than my 60s, but I hear that's highly unlikely. Another recession, most economists say, is just around the corner. Good health may or may not last the decade. Social Security and Medicare are under attack. The house needs a new roof. We'll probably want to move again before 2028. Still, new friendships are likely to increase and deepen, and my new dog, who just turned two, will probably last awhile.

The psalmist advises numbering our days, "that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom" (Psalm 90:12). The Social Security Life Expectancy Calculator numbers my remaining days at 17.4 years, though retirement planners advise making savings last to age 100 or 105, just in case. So what wisdom should I apply to the next 15, 25, 35 years? I'd love to hear your ideas, especially if you've lived even longer than I have.

About leaving comments: Some friends have told me they can't get this site to accept their comments. Others have  no problem. I don't know what the difference is, but Blogger sites sometimes do strange things. Please be patient, because no comment is posted until I've read and approved it. That can take anywhere from a minute to a day. I weed out bots, spammers, and trolls, not good people like you. Blogger will tell you if your comment is awaiting moderation. If your comment simply disappears into the ether with no comment, Blogger is misbehaving again.

Midlife: the best of all possible ages?

The other day a friend of mine, who is 45, was offended when someone referred to her as middle aged.

This seems odd, since female life expectancy in America is now approximately 81. Or since a woman who has reached the age of 45 can expect to live another 40 years. Or since the ages at which an American is most likely to be employed are between 20 and 61. By all numeric indicators, my friend is clearly middle aged.

People used to think middle age began at 40 and ended at 60 or 65. Even they were somewhat optimistic, but not downright silly like folks who now say that 60 or even 70 is the new middle age.

No, 60 or 70 is not middle-aged, unless you think the middle lane on a three-lane road is the one farthest to the left, in which case I'd rather not drive with you.

But why doesn't my friend want to be middle aged?

After all, middle age is when you might be

• young enough to be beautiful and old enough to have character
• young enough to stay up late and old enough not to want to
• young enough to be stylish and old enough to know what suits you
• young enough to have a bright future and old enough to have solid experience
• young enough to have energy and old enough to know what to do with it
• young enough to feel good and old enough to take care of your health
• young enough to have strong opinions and old enough to know when to express them
• young enough to start over and old enough to put down roots
• young enough to protest and old enough to govern
• young enough to have living parents and old enough to appreciate them
• young enough to be smart and old enough to be wise

Oddly, I don't know anyone past 40 who wishes to relive their youth, nor do I know anyone of any age who longs to be old (despite recent research indicating that the older we get, the happier we are). 

Apparently most of us prefer middle age--as long as we can call it something else.

What do you mean, "middle-aged"?

[Stages of a Man's Life from the Cradle to the Grave, c. 1848]

Yesterday on Facebook I referred to my daughters, who are in their early forties, as middle-aged. One of their friends, who is 43, wrote, "Middle-aged???"

"For sure," I wrote back. "I know it hurts." But then I Googled middle age and discovered that its borders seem to be shifting. Once defined as ages 40 to 60, it is now often defined as ages 45 to 64 (though Merriam-Webster wants to have it both ways).

When I turned 40, everyone was talking about the midlife crisis, that scary feeling when people in the work force fear their careers may have peaked and when caregivers at home notice their nests are practically empty (except for all that stuff in the basement). Midlife hit at age 40 back then--a bit optimistic, perhaps, considering that U.S. life expectancy in 1988 was 74.9 years. Columnist Bob Greene may have been closer to the truth when he wrote that "middle age starts at 36."

American life expectancy has increased in the last 25 years: it's now 78.62 years. I suppose that makes the shift in middle-age limits understandable, especially since so many people nowadays seem to think adulthood doesn't begin until age 30. But still, isn't Bridget Jones a bit old to be having a midlife crisis at age 51? And what's with those Brits who, in a 2012 survey, thought middle age begins at age 55 or later? Brits do live longer than Americans, but only by a couple of years.

In her lively review of Patricia Cohen's In Our Prime: The Invention of Middle Age, Laura Shapiro suggests why the definition of middle age is so fluid:

Despite the fact that researchers have been studying middle age intensively for decades, the term itself seems to have no fixed definition. Nearly any span between 40 and dementia appears to qualify, depending in part on whether we’re talking about ourselves (“But I feel just the same as I did when I was 20”) or all those people who show up at our college reunions (“Everyone looks so old”).

This is probably why some people prefer a descriptive rather than a chronological view of middle age: see, for instance, Shelley Emling's article "40 Signs You Are Middle Aged." The list is amusing, but the really telling comment comes in her introduction, where she quotes Paul Keenan, head of communications for a healthcare provider. "People no longer see ‘middle age’ as a numerical milestone," he said. "I’m 54 myself, with the mind-set of a thirty-something--perhaps sometimes even that of a teenager!” If anything is a sure and certain indication of middle-age--or even old age--it's a remark like that.

Maybe it's because, at 65, I've just left the ranks of the middle-aged, but I don't see why people want to delay its onset. By the time you're middle-aged, you've probably finished your education and those painful first jobs. Chances are you're in a responsible position, earning more money than you were a decade or two ago. You're probably married. You very likely own a house. If you have children, they are becoming more independent. Your parents are probably still in reasonably good health.

At 40, you are well past the torments of adolescence and young adulthood, and you still have a long way to go before the serious trials of old age begin. You are at the midpoint of your allotted years and at the beginning of an excellent couple of decades. Why pretend to be young long past the time when anybody who is truly young would claim you?

Believe it or not, those truly young adults respect you. They think you may have learned something in the 15 or 20 years since you left college. At the same time, you're not in an entirely alien world like, say, their parents.

In 1935 Will Rogers starred in a movie called Life Begins at Forty. I suspect it still does.

Actually, the U.S. is NOT spending more than any other country on health

Old News: US spends more on healthcare, gets worse results

We Americans are first in the world when it comes to per capita healthcare spending, and yet we don't live as long (we're in 51st place), more of our mothers die in childbirth (we're in 47th place), more of our babies die in their first year of life (we're in 50th place) ... well, you've seen the statistics, and they aren't pretty.

Interesting Spin on Old News: Medical and social spending should be seen as a whole

"The truth is that we may not be spending more," wrote Elizabeth H. Bradley and Lauren Taylor in a 2011 New York Times article—"it all depends on what you count." If you count "the combined investment in health care and social services," such as "rent subsidies, employment-training programs, unemployment benefits, old-age pensions, family support and other services that can extend and improve life," we're in 10th place among developed nations. To compare:

For every dollar we spend on health care, we spend an additional 90 cents on social services. In our peer countries, for every dollar spent on health care, an additional $2 is spent on social services. So not only are we spending less, we’re allocating our resources disproportionately on health care.

Bradley, a professor of public health at Yale, and Taylor, formerly a program manager at the Yale Global Health Leadership Institute, believe that healthcare (primarily intervention after a health problem has occurred) is less effective than social services (primarily services that may prevent health problems) in keeping a nation healthy.

Unfortunately, we Americans do it backwards, and our ratio of healthcare spending to social spending is getting worse. In their forthcoming book, The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More Is Getting Us Less (November 2013), Bradley and Taylor write that for every dollar Americans spend on health care, we spend only an additional 60 cents on social services. Here's a picture of OECD spending compared with US spending:

Really Disheartening Current Situation: Many US legislators are trying to cut back social spending

Republicans in Congress are trying mightily to reduce or eliminate food stamps, for example. Yesterday the Health Impact Project (in collaboration with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trust) released a white paper called "Health Impact Assessment of Proposed Changes to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program" (translation: the program formerly known as food stamps). Two scary sentences from the 218-page document:

Using a model employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to administer SNAP, Mathematica Policy Research conducted an analysis of how many people could lose eligibility or receive lower benefits under the proposed policy changes in H.R. 1947 and S. 954. Under the changes proposed in H.R. 1947, as many as 5.1 million people could lose eligibility for the program.

 Lest you think this has nothing to do with health care, the document points out that

it is well established in the literature that food insecurity (defined as difficulty in obtaining enough to eat) increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and depression or anxiety in adults; and asthma, cognitive impairment, or behavioral problems in children. Children in food-insecure families are more likely to be hospitalized in early childhood than those from food-secure households. Medical costs related to food insecurity in the United States amount to as much as $67 billion per year in 2005 dollars.

At the same time, Republicans in Congress are still trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Hey, let's go back to 1900 before any of those lefty innovations got started!

No income tax! No government-backed social welfare programs! No Department of Health and Human Services! No Department of Education! No Medicaid or Medicare! No Social Security! No Maternal and Child Health Program!

Paradise, right?

Except that if you were lucky enough to make it to age 20, your lifespan was 62 if you were a white male, nearly 64 if you were a white female, and a lot lower if you weren't white at all. Worse, you had a 23% chance of dying before your 20th birthday. And out of 100,000 women who gave birth in 1900, 600-900 died (compare with 21 in the U.S. today).

Well, that's one way to keep Social Security from going broke...