50% of all people born in 1950 are now....

.....alive and I am one of them.....

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

.....alive and I am one of them.....

...for a few more years. Then WHOOSH

If your'e talking worldwide the answer is dead.

Watch the Olympics wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

.....alive and I am one of them.....

...for a few more years. Then WHOOSH

I plan to live a long time so I can drain what would be your Social Security and Medicare benefits.

If 50% are dead, then 50% are also alive, no?

I thought there would be a statistician on here by now that would have a decent answer.

...constipated 😂

Manbearpig15 wrote:

I thought there would be a statistician on here by now that would have a decent answer.

Right here:

Manbearpig15 wrote:

50% of all people born in 1950 are now........dead or alive?

Yes.

I would say it is more like 100%, though.

So more people are still alive than dead according to the charts.

So where are all these old people at?

Manbearpig15 wrote:

.....dead or alive?

What is "above or below the median?"

Manbearpig15 wrote:

I thought there would be a statistician on here by now that would have a decent answer.

Because your question doesn't make any sense. "Dead" and "alive" are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, so if 50% fall into one category, then 50% also necessarily fall into the other category. So the answer is either that 50% of people born in 1950 are now dead AND 50% are alive, or that neither 50% of people born in 1950 are dead nor are 50% of people born in 1950 alive.

Basically, your question is like asking whether a quarterback threw incompletions or completions for 50% of his passing attempts and then expecting people to respond with one or the other.

Under which would comatose fall under as a subcategory? An would this be meaningful? What about cryogenically frozen?

true baseball fans

and yelling at a family member to help them with their cell phone.....

Gasser wrote:

...constipated 😂

google boy wrote:

Manbearpig15 wrote:

I thought there would be a statistician on here by now that would have a decent answer.

Right here

Note quite. That table does include the odds of dying this year for someone aged 67 as well as how much longer you have to live, but nothing to help answer the ops question.

Google some more boy.

I think you're forgetting a relevant category for those living through 1950s above ground nuclear testing. That's right, the undead.

Both or neither wrote:

If 50% are dead, then 50% are also alive, no?

69 0.021616 75,084 14.92 0.014330 84,069 17.18

Another 17 years of life. Yay. I'm moving to California. Yay.

As a amateur futurist, I'm optimistic on living to 100 or well beyond in good health. Life expectancy at age 65 is already a LOT higher than actuarial tables show because these tables suffer from two shortcomings: They are average of all demographics and they are a lagging indicator.

If you are Caucasian, male, non-smoker, not overweight, have a white collar job, college degree or higher, and average or above wage earner, and no major conditions at age 65, your life expectancy at age 65 is 94. Females can expect to live 2-4 years longer.

Further, this is a lagging indicator, meaning it is based on looking at how life expectancy has changed in the past. Future medical advances will continue to increase life expectancy at age 65. In fact, senior life expectancy is increasing about 1.5 years/decade for the past 30 years.