Susan Gardner makes a compelling argument with some truth to it:

The fact is, men are living less than three years longer, women about five. Yes, there are more people living longer because they didn’t die at age 3 of whooping cough or polio, but the life expectancy for an individual has not been extended very much at all once age 65 is reached. Disturbingly, pushing the retirement age out five years as is currently proposed actually means an individual male retiree today is at risk of being cheated of two years more retirement than our supposedly drastically shorter-lived forebears received more than half a century ago.

Joyner carefully explains why this overstates things:

For those born at the turn of the 20th Century, less than fifty percent could expect to see one dime from Social Security.   But the vast majority could expect to pay into the system, supporting existing retirees, for twenty to thirty years. For those born in 1949, though, more than 70 percent expect to live to 65. For those born in 2006, it’ll be more than 90 percent.

Yes, those who retire will only get benefits longer.   But vastly larger numbers will actually draw benefits.   From a purely actuarial standpoint, that makes a huge difference.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.