楼主标题错误: 根本不是哈佛大学教授，只是一个Ohio State University 博士生的研究，这个博士生还是华人。这个研究也不是新的，是2016年的。 说是他们研究了2956个50岁以上的人，发现大多数人都是65岁退休（因为Social Security吧），但如果66岁退休，这个人群的死亡率比65岁退休的要低11%。 https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-retire-after-65 You’re Likely to Live Longer If You Retire After 65 by Nicole Torres From the Magazine (October 2016) The research:Chenkai Wu, a PhD student in public health at Oregon State University, teamed up with OSU professors Robert Stawski and Michelle Odden and Colorado State’s Gwenith Fisher to examine data from the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey of Americans age 50 and over. When they looked at the sample of 2,956 people who had begun participating in the study in 1992 and retired by 2010, the researchers found that the majority had retired around age 65. But a statistical analysis showed that when people retired at age 66 instead, their mortality rates dropped by 11%. The challenge: Does work benefit us in unexpected ways? Is delayed retirement the secret to a longer life? Mr. Wu, defend your research.Wu: That’s the conclusion we are leaning toward. What’s interesting is that we didn’t find any sociodemographic, lifestyle, or health factors that affected the relationship between delayed retirement and a lower risk of dying. When we looked at just the unhealthy retirees in the sample—who accounted for 1,022 of the 2,956 participants—we still found that retiring one year later was associated with a 9% lower mortality risk. HBR: What were some of the other factors that you controlled for? The typical variables—gender, ethnicity, age, education, marital status, and wealth. We also grouped people into three categories of occupations: white-collar jobs, service jobs, and blue-collar jobs. And we took into account more-detailed health- or lifestyle-related variables, like consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, exercise, body mass index, self-reported health ratings, and disabilities. Then we evaluated a number of chronic conditions, like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. We still found that retirement age was related to mortality, beyond all those variables. How did you define retirement? We considered it to be the first year people responded to the survey saying they were “completely retired.” For healthy people, the average age was right about 65, and the range was about age 53 to 78. For unhealthy people, the average age was only six months earlier, around age 64 and a half, and the range was about age 59 to 79. Correlation isn’t causation. So you’re not necessarily saying working longer means you’ll live longer? Right. You’d have a long way to go to prove causation—and I’m not even sure that you could. To prove causation, the gold standard would be to do a randomized control trial, and it’s probably unethical and unrealistic to randomly assign people different retirement ages. But should everyone delay retirement in hopes of living longer? A lot of people have framed this as “Retire early, die early; or retire late, die late.” But that’s not actually the main message we want to convey. What we really want people to think about is “What does work represent?” There are a lot of social benefits related to working: You’re more active, you’re more engaged, you’re talking with your peers, and so on. Losing those when you retire can be harsh. Has anyone else looked at this phenomenon? The literature on the relationship between retirement age and longevity is still developing. The findings are mixed. Most research shows that delayed retirement helps reduce mortality. A couple of studies show no relationship, and still others show that delayed retirement is detrimental or that early retirement is beneficial. We extended the previous research by accounting for the healthy-worker bias and by looking at a more representative sample. Other studies had narrow samples, like German firefighters or U.S. petrochemical workers. Has the trend shifted toward retiring later? Only very recently. Until the past couple of years, we actually saw a trend toward early retirement in the U.S. The United States is a perfect place to study this because Americans have the flexibility of retiring at any age they want—if they’ve saved enough money. In contrast, many European countries have a mandatory retirement age. I initially got interested in this research because of the recent debate over China’s mandatory retirement laws. The Chinese government is trying to raise the retirement age. I looked for data on the relationship between retirement age and health, but I couldn’t find any. Why would a later retirement affect longevity? Our theory is that a later retirement may actually delay when your physical and cognitive functioning starts to decline, because work keeps your mind and body active. If you stay active and socially engaged, it helps maintain your cognitive and physical abilities. It’s definitely a future direction for this line of research. I’m interested in how people’s physical and cognitive functions change over time. Older adults are a very heterogeneous group, so it would be interesting to see whether certain trajectories are beneficial or detrimental. Another theory is that people’s decisions about when to retire are shaped by many factors, including cultural and institutional norms. People will feel happier and more in control if they retire at an age consistent with what the culture of the country expects. In countries like the U.S., where work is highly valued and considered a necessary part of life, I think delayed retirement may be culturally desirable. Here, retiring “on time” might not be at 65; it may actually be a bit later. Work can be stressful, though. Some people can’t wait to retire. Well, the 11% lower death rate is the population average. It may not apply to any one individual. There are certain groups of people who are sick of work and just want to retire as early as possible. For them, doing so might be beneficial. But I think more work needs to be done to identify those groups. Retirement is often called a bittersweet event because it’s a mix of bad things and good things. We believe that retirement is stressful, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s like getting married—a happy event but one that can cause a lot of stress. Does this possible benefit of delayed retirement help solve the problem of an aging workforce? Everyone tends to focus on whether delaying retirement is good for the economy or not. I think the lesson we want to convey is that we should also think about the health impact. Full-time work, which now means 40 hours a week or more, can be very stressful. But if people can have a slower transition into retirement, maybe working part-time or doing other activities, they’ll stay active and socially engaged in a way that is beneficial to their health. This sounds like good news for us Millennials, who often hear that we’ll never get to retire. Cohorts are different. The people in the study were born between 1931 and 1941, so they’re certainly different from Millennials. The takeaways are really not about the work or retirement age per se—they’re about what those things mean. If you can find something that brings you the same benefits work does, that’s what’s important. A version of this article appeared in the October 2016 issue (pp.28–29) of Harvard Business Review.
这是不是把因果关系搞反了,或者根本没有因果关系.身体不健康能为资本家工作50年吗?能熬到65以后才退,各方面条件都要符合才能做到啊.
65岁，退休金，医保都有着落了，心态好了，导致的？
韭菜不够了……
You're likely to live longer than 65 if you retire after 65.
工作到90岁的更长寿。。
这个确实是，我姥姥就是打麻将到85，最后92走的
老了打麻将还是好的，动动脑子，动动手， 有益健康。
但打麻将和老了不得不在沃尔玛工作推车，早起晚归，可不是一回事啊！
https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-retire-after-65 You’re Likely to Live Longer If You Retire After 65 by Nicole Torres From the Magazine (October 2016)
The research: Chenkai Wu, a PhD student in public health at Oregon State University, teamed up with OSU professors Robert Stawski and Michelle Odden and Colorado State’s Gwenith Fisher to examine data from the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey of Americans age 50 and over. When they looked at the sample of 2,956 people who had begun participating in the study in 1992 and retired by 2010, the researchers found that the majority had retired around age 65. But a statistical analysis showed that when people retired at age 66 instead, their mortality rates dropped by 11%. The challenge: Does work benefit us in unexpected ways? Is delayed retirement the secret to a longer life? Mr. Wu, defend your research. Wu: That’s the conclusion we are leaning toward. What’s interesting is that we didn’t find any sociodemographic, lifestyle, or health factors that affected the relationship between delayed retirement and a lower risk of dying. When we looked at just the unhealthy retirees in the sample—who accounted for 1,022 of the 2,956 participants—we still found that retiring one year later was associated with a 9% lower mortality risk. HBR: What were some of the other factors that you controlled for? The typical variables—gender, ethnicity, age, education, marital status, and wealth. We also grouped people into three categories of occupations: white-collar jobs, service jobs, and blue-collar jobs. And we took into account more-detailed health- or lifestyle-related variables, like consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, exercise, body mass index, self-reported health ratings, and disabilities. Then we evaluated a number of chronic conditions, like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. We still found that retirement age was related to mortality, beyond all those variables. How did you define retirement? We considered it to be the first year people responded to the survey saying they were “completely retired.” For healthy people, the average age was right about 65, and the range was about age 53 to 78. For unhealthy people, the average age was only six months earlier, around age 64 and a half, and the range was about age 59 to 79. Correlation isn’t causation. So you’re not necessarily saying working longer means you’ll live longer? Right. You’d have a long way to go to prove causation—and I’m not even sure that you could. To prove causation, the gold standard would be to do a randomized control trial, and it’s probably unethical and unrealistic to randomly assign people different retirement ages. But should everyone delay retirement in hopes of living longer? A lot of people have framed this as “Retire early, die early; or retire late, die late.” But that’s not actually the main message we want to convey. What we really want people to think about is “What does work represent?” There are a lot of social benefits related to working: You’re more active, you’re more engaged, you’re talking with your peers, and so on. Losing those when you retire can be harsh. Has anyone else looked at this phenomenon? The literature on the relationship between retirement age and longevity is still developing. The findings are mixed. Most research shows that delayed retirement helps reduce mortality. A couple of studies show no relationship, and still others show that delayed retirement is detrimental or that early retirement is beneficial. We extended the previous research by accounting for the healthy-worker bias and by looking at a more representative sample. Other studies had narrow samples, like German firefighters or U.S. petrochemical workers. Has the trend shifted toward retiring later? Only very recently. Until the past couple of years, we actually saw a trend toward early retirement in the U.S. The United States is a perfect place to study this because Americans have the flexibility of retiring at any age they want—if they’ve saved enough money. In contrast, many European countries have a mandatory retirement age. I initially got interested in this research because of the recent debate over China’s mandatory retirement laws. The Chinese government is trying to raise the retirement age. I looked for data on the relationship between retirement age and health, but I couldn’t find any. Why would a later retirement affect longevity? Our theory is that a later retirement may actually delay when your physical and cognitive functioning starts to decline, because work keeps your mind and body active. If you stay active and socially engaged, it helps maintain your cognitive and physical abilities. It’s definitely a future direction for this line of research. I’m interested in how people’s physical and cognitive functions change over time. Older adults are a very heterogeneous group, so it would be interesting to see whether certain trajectories are beneficial or detrimental. Another theory is that people’s decisions about when to retire are shaped by many factors, including cultural and institutional norms. People will feel happier and more in control if they retire at an age consistent with what the culture of the country expects. In countries like the U.S., where work is highly valued and considered a necessary part of life, I think delayed retirement may be culturally desirable. Here, retiring “on time” might not be at 65; it may actually be a bit later. Work can be stressful, though. Some people can’t wait to retire. Well, the 11% lower death rate is the population average. It may not apply to any one individual. There are certain groups of people who are sick of work and just want to retire as early as possible. For them, doing so might be beneficial. But I think more work needs to be done to identify those groups. Retirement is often called a bittersweet event because it’s a mix of bad things and good things. We believe that retirement is stressful, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s like getting married—a happy event but one that can cause a lot of stress. Does this possible benefit of delayed retirement help solve the problem of an aging workforce? Everyone tends to focus on whether delaying retirement is good for the economy or not. I think the lesson we want to convey is that we should also think about the health impact. Full-time work, which now means 40 hours a week or more, can be very stressful. But if people can have a slower transition into retirement, maybe working part-time or doing other activities, they’ll stay active and socially engaged in a way that is beneficial to their health. This sounds like good news for us Millennials, who often hear that we’ll never get to retire. Cohorts are different. The people in the study were born between 1931 and 1941, so they’re certainly different from Millennials. The takeaways are really not about the work or retirement age per se—they’re about what those things mean. If you can find something that brings you the same benefits work does, that’s what’s important. A version of this article appeared in the October 2016 issue (pp.28–29) of Harvard Business Review.
讲的是个oregan state学生发的文章
当然信了。 什么样的loser想要65岁以前就退休？这种人本身就有问题。
你才是loser, 你们全家都是loser!
有道理，以前国内流行病退，差不多的
你这个目标太容易到了，朝20年努力！
如果55退休的活到了80岁，你65退休的活到了85岁，那么你还是吃亏了，你细算算。 除非你认为上班也是一个愉悦的生活体验
这个跟我某一年看到lockheed martin的统计差不多。从50岁开始，越早退休的活的越长。65岁退休平均66.5岁死亡，只拿了18个月的退休金
这还用说吗。能工作到65的人身体精力肯定好过早早就干不下去的
这里晚退休可能意味着家里困难需要这份工资，所以辛苦健康差。能早早退休的人家里不差钱。 总之说明不了什么因果关系
国内是50或者55退休。我觉得早了一点。但是65又有点晚。最好是55-60之间退休。身体还行，退休后还能过几年有质量的生活。
油汰资本家真是太坏了雇佣这些御用文人用谎言和欺骗来对人民洗脑，妄图极度压榨剥削广大劳工到死，真是不榨干不搞死你不罢休！！敲骨吸髓，无此为甚！！！
所以现在的数据分析就是dirty work
感觉这个是人类文明进步的结果。
不开心就不长寿，这个应该是对的吗，没有人能每天不开心还能活得长
看看哈佛培养出来的精蝇 棉花议员Tom Cotton 还有什么研究是哈佛“做”不出来的