April 8, 2012

Disability Rates by Age

Image By wheatfieldbrown
I see more and more talk about people working past the 'normal' retirement age of 65.   Honestly for most people I think this is unfortunately mostly a reflection of peoples failure or difficulty saving for their retirement rather than an inherent desire to work forever.   If you want to work past 65 then thats great, but unfortunately many people are unable to continue working at that age due to disability.

The US Census has data on disability rates broken down by a few categories like sex, age and race.

I pulled data out of the XLS sheet for "Table D-1 Prevalence of Disability by Sex and Age - All Races" and made the graph below:



After I made my graph I poked around and noticed the Census already had a similar Figure.   Ok so I reinvented that wheel, live and learn.

I also have the same data copied out of the Census XLS in table form :



disabled severe need assist
 ALL  18.7% 12% 3.8%
 under 15  8.8% 4% 0.4%
 15 and older  21.3% 14% 4.7%
 15 to 24  10.4% 5% 1.3%
 25 to 44  11.4% 7% 1.9%
 44 to 54  19.4% 13% 3.4%
 55 to 64  30.1% 21% 5.7%
 65 and older  51.8% 37% 15.6%
 65 to 69  37.4% 26% 7.6%
 70 to 74  43.8% 28% 9.4%
 75 to 79  55.9% 38% 16.1%
 80 and older  71.0% 56% 29.3%

The definitions for the different categories are documented in the Census document.Definition of Disability, Functional Limitations, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs)
They have a table that breaks it down by category.   For example if you have difficulty getting out of bed without help then thats a disability whereas if you are unable to get out of bed without help thats a severe disability.  Full explanation is in the document.

I think the key point of the above data is that disability rates increase with age.   Most people live most of their lives without a disability but as we age disabilities become more and more common.   51.8% of people over 65 years old have a disability and 37% of them have a severe disability.    If you want to work forever then fine, but don't think that should excuse you for saving for your retirement years. The likelihood of a disability grows with age and may derail your plans to work.

--

April 6, 2012

Best of blog posts for week of April 6th

Every Friday afternoon I share some of the more interesting or notable posts that I have seen in the personal finance blogs and other sources for the past week.

MyMoneyBlog helps us Compare Your Budget With Other US Consumers and the World
They present data comparing spending as percents for America, Canada, Britain and Japan
MMB also shares This Is What I See When I Look at Shopping Mall Directory Maps


This Inc.com article carried on Yahoo says 55-Hour Week? You're Wasting Time
Makes sense to me.  A lot of people work long hours and that can't be efficient.

Zillow reports on several Homes for the price of a car

A Yahoo article discusses Next Great Depression? MIT researchers predict ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030  Interesting but I think their predictions are probably about as reliable as Nostradamus or pulling numbers out of a hat.
--

April 5, 2012

Vehicles Scrapped per Year in America

Every year millions of new cars are put on the road and millions of old cars end up in the scrap heap.  Its the cycle of life... for a car.    The BTS National Transportation Statistics has a ton of data.  Table 4-58 in the report gives the number of vehicles scrapped in the US.  The entire report is available in a single 500+ page PDF.

Here's the data in graph form :



Notice that between the year 2000 and the year 2005 the total # of vehicles scrapped actually went down quite significantly.   I'm not sure why that is.   I would assume there is a relationship between the economic cycles and the number of cars scrapped.   Seems to me that people would scrap more cars when the economy is booming as that is when they're more likely to go get a new car.  Maybe thats the trend we're seeing in the charts for the 2000 to 2009 periods.

--

April 4, 2012

How Common Are House Fires?

A relative of mine currently has no home insurance.   If his home burns down then he's just out of luck.   He's taking a risk by not paying insurance.   Since he doesn't have a mortgage loan he can get away with not having insurance, plus he is in a very good financial situation so he could withstand a major loss.   While this is risky for him, going without insurance is saving him over $1000 a year.   For most people insurance is required for your mortgage so its not an option.   Even if your mortgage is paid off its usually not a good idea to go without insurance since the risk of a major loss would be a major financial hardship.

The major risk my relative faces is a house fire.  How common are home fires really?

[edit: I should point out that home owners insurance covers a variety of things other than fires.  Having homeowners insurance is almost always a smart move.  So don't follow my dads example ]

Image by dvs
I do not personally know a single person that has had their home burned down entirely.   I do know a couple people who have had minor home fires.  One person was smoking and had a small fire in his room and another relative had a kitchen fire.  In both cases the damage wasn't very significant.   But of course my own anecdotal evidences from my personal experience doesn't tell us much. 

The FEMA U.S. Fire Administration keeps stats on fires

In 2010 there were 362,100 residential fires in the USA.     In total the fires caused $6.65 billion in damages.

According to the Census there are 131 million housing units in the US and 114 million households.

As far as frequency you could figure that 0.317% of households experienced a fire in 2010.   Or we could say that 0.276% of housing units had a fire in the year.

With 362,100 fires and $6.65 billion in damages that means the average property damage from a fire was $18,365.

Clearly damages of $18,365 would not indicate the average fire causes the home to be destroyed or "burned to the ground".    Most of the fires are more more minor in nature and likely include many kitchen fires which result in smoke damage and minor structural damage.    Of course $18k is a large bill and most people can't afford that, but its much better than having to replace an entire home.

I could guesstimate the portion of homes that are actually burned to the ground.  First I'll take a wild guess that replacing a home costs $150,000 on average.  With $6.65 billion in damages and assuming that $150,000 replacement cost then the maximum number of homes that could be burned down totally would be about 44,333.   This is just a guess of course.   But I think it is reasonable to assume that only 10-20% of the homes that have a fire are totally ruined to the point of needing complete rebuilding.     If one in 10 fires results in a destroyed home then 0.03% of individual homes are destroyed by fire in a year.  That would mean that the chances of having a home burned down would be approximately 1 in 3000 ballpark.

Another way to look at the cost of fires is the average cost from fires per year per household.   Since theres $6.65 billion in damages if you average the cost over all the 114 million households the average cost per household is just $58.33.   If you're deciding if insurance is worth while then this is the figure I'd use compared to an average cost home.  If the average home costs about $170,000 then we're talking roughly 34¢ per $1000.   In other words a $200,000 home would have likely fire damage of 34 x 200 = $68.   I would estimate the fire insurance costs at roughly 34¢ per $1000 home value.    Keep in mind this is really just a ballpark estimate.  Insurance costs vary greatly from state to state based on local costs and varying likelihood of damages.

Of course the risks will vary based on several factors like age of the house, whether or not you smoke, how much you cook in the kitchen, etc.   The amount of property damage caused by a fire will be proportional to the value of the house as well.   It costs a lot more to replace a fancy kitchen in a  large house then to fix a few cabinets in a squalid apartment.  

What causes home fires?

FEMA's US Fire Administration site also has data on the causes of fires.   Here are the causes of residential fires ranked by %.


Cooking 46%
Heating  13%
Electrical Malfunction 7%
Other Unintentional, Careless 7%
Open Flame  5%
Intentional 4%
Equipment Malfunction 4%
Other Heat 4%
Appliances  2%
Smoking 2%
Exposure 2%
Natural 2%
Other Equipment 1%
Investigation with Arson Module 1%
Playing with Heat Source 1%

Looking through that list, there are not a lot of causes that you can easily avoid.  Not smoking and not intentionally burning down your own home only accounts for about 6% of the fires.


Cooking is by far the #1 cause of fires in the home.   That makes sense.   Who doesn't know of someone who's had a kitchen fire and probably had something on their stove catch flame once or twice?   Ok maybe I'm not a very good cook, but I think fires in the kitchen are not very uncommon and they can certainly turn into major fires.

Notice that smoking is the cause for just 2% of fires.   I would have guessed that number would be higher but only around 20-25% of adults smoke in the US.
--

Blog Widget by LinkWithin