The Number That Was Never Meant For You
The age that shaped retirement planning was never designed for the life many people now face
In 1889, Otto von Bismarck introduced the world’s first state pension.
The retirement age he chose was 70 — later reduced to 65. It sounds, on the surface, like an act of social generosity. A safety net for the elderly, woven by the Iron Chancellor of a newly unified Germany.
It was nothing of the sort.
At the time, average life expectancy at birth in Germany was around 40 — though that figure was heavily pulled down by infant and childhood mortality. A worker who had already survived to middle age stood a more reasonable chance of reaching 70. But the point holds: Bismarck chose a retirement threshold that the great majority of the working population would never reach. The pension was affordable precisely because it would rarely be paid.
He was not being cruel in any conscious sense. He was being a fiscal realist.
But here is the legacy he left behind: an entire architecture of retirement planning — accumulated over more than a century, embedded in legislation, regulation, professional practice, and personal expectation — built on a number chosen because it was statistically unreachable.
That number is still with us.
And for most people reading this, it is almost certainly the wrong number.
—
A client of mine — I will call him Michael — came to see me in his early fifties with a clear objective. He wanted to be finished with full-time work by 55. Not semi-retired. Not consulting part-time. Done.
It was a reasonable ambition. He had built well, saved deliberately, and was tired in the way that driven people become tired: not from idleness, but from decades of sustained intensity. He had earned the right to ask the question.
We started, as I always do, by putting the timeline on the table.
Not the timeline of his financial assets — that conversation comes later. The timeline of his life.
Michael’s life expectancy, calculated on current actuarial tables and adjusted for his health profile, came back at 88. He absorbed that number in the way most people do: with a polite nod that suggested he had heard it but not quite felt it.
So I reframed it.
That number — 88 — is not a destination. It is a midpoint in a distribution. It means that half the people in his cohort will not reach it. And crucially, it also means that half will exceed it. The further along that distribution you travel, the more the odds shift in your favour. If Michael reaches 80 in good health, the question is no longer whether he will reach 88. The question is how far past it he will go.
Add to this the accelerating reality of medical and biotechnological progress — the compression of decline into a narrower window, the extension of functional independence, the early detection of conditions that once claimed lives without warning — and the distribution shifts again. The world Michael will be ageing into at 75 will bear little resemblance to the one his parents navigated at the same age.
When that picture became real to him — not statistical, but visceral — something shifted.
He had come in planning for a retirement that might run 30 years. He left understanding he might be planning for one that runs 45.
—
The reaction to that realisation is rarely what you might expect.
It is not dread — or at least, it is not only dread. In my experience, when the numbers become honest, something else happens alongside the discomfort: a kind of renewed seriousness. A recognition that the stakes are higher than assumed, and that higher stakes demand better thinking.
Michael did not leave wanting to rethink his retirement date. He still wanted 55. That ambition was not the problem.
What changed was how he understood the magnitude of what he was designing.
A retirement that begins at 55 and ends possibly somewhere well north of 90 is not a long holiday. It is not a wind-down. It is a second life, roughly equal in duration to his entire working career. It needs to be funded with that understanding. It needs to be structured for a person who, in his mid-80s, may still be sharp, active, curious, and expensive to sustain at the level he has every right to expect.
The old planning model — reverse-engineer a lump sum from an assumed life expectancy, apply a safe withdrawal rate, call it a plan — was built for a retirement of perhaps 15 to 20 years. It was, in its way, calibrated to Bismarck’s world: a finite, predictable, tapering chapter.
That world is gone.
—
There is a particular irony for people who target early retirement.
The ambition is usually born of vitality — of feeling capable and wanting freedom, not of wanting to slow down. But the planning frameworks they inherit quietly assume the opposite. They assume that the further the years extend, the less they will matter: that spending tapers, that activity diminishes, that the final decade is one of contraction (misery, even?), rather than continuation.
For Michael’s generation, that assumption is increasingly wrong in both directions.
The early decades of retirement are likely to be more expensive, more active, and more purposeful than any model built on his parents’ experience would suggest. And the later decades — rather than fading gently into irrelevance — are increasingly likely to demand real resources: for health, independence, care, and the kind of late-life vitality that medical advances are making more common but financial plans are not yet designed to support.
This is not a reason to delay retirement, or to spend less, or to live in anxious austerity. It is a reason to build a WealthSpan that is genuinely equal to the life it is meant to support.
Not just long enough. Strong enough.
—
Bismarck chose 70 because it was a number most people would never reach.
The extraordinary thing about living when we do is that for many of us — perhaps most of us — that calculation has inverted entirely. The numbers we now need to plan for are not the outer limits of a lucky few. They are becoming the median.
A plan built on Bismarck’s legacy is not a plan for your life.
It is a plan for a life that is already receding into history.
The question worth sitting with is not when to retire. It is what kind of life you are actually designing for — and whether the financial thinking behind it has caught up with the world you are genuinely ageing into.