The idea of living past 100 once felt distant. Today, more and more people are hitting the century mark. For Canadians planning their financial future, that raises a serious question. Will their retirement savings last long enough?
Toronto-based certified financial planner Ed Rempel says this topic needs more attention. In a recent blog post, he discusses how longer, healthier lives could change retirement planning and why many current strategies don’t work as they should.
Rempel suggests the goal is not just to live longer, but to live well for longer, emphasizing the concept of “healthspan” over “lifespan.”
“The important issue is not just how long we live,” he writes. “It is how long we are healthy.”
Public perception has not yet caught up. Many people still associate age 100 with illness and decline. That mindset helps explain why only a small percentage of people say they want to live that long. When good health is part of the picture, attitudes change dramatically.
Longer lives are not a future concept. They are already here. Over the past century, life expectancy has steadily increased, driven by better nutrition, medical advancements, and improved living conditions.
Increased life expectancy is expected to accelerate in the coming decades, with living well past age 100 probably becoming common. The longevity movement has ignited because of AI which has led to a massive tsunami of billions of dollars in research. The movement has existed for decades, but now is advancing exponentially faster. We are likely to start living a decade or 2 longer in 10-20 years with all the medical advances.
Rempel says this trend has largely improved people’s quality of life. Older adults are staying active and engaged for longer. Many people in their 70s and 80s today are healthier than their counterparts of the same age in previous generations.
He also sees greater benefits. A longer, healthier population can contribute to more years in the workforce, supporting family structures across generations, and helping address declining birth rates in developed countries.
Rempel also adds a personal perspective, noting that mindset matters.
“Optimism is realism,” he says. “And optimists live longer.”
Rempel uses a simple example. A 30-year-old earning $100,000 plans to retire at 60 and live until 80. Now, extend that retirement to age 100. That adds 20 extra years without employment income.
The cost of that change is high. Investors would need to save much more during their working years if they have more conservative portfolios. For many, the required savings may not be realistic. Equity investors would probably need to save only modestly more.
Rempel is direct about the challenge: “How much more would you have to save?” he asks.
For many people, working longer may become the more realistic path. Extending a career by several years can help offset the added cost of a longer retirement, though the number of extra working years depends heavily on how investments are structured.
Longer life expectancies also put strain on retirement systems.
Programs like CPP and Old Age Security were not created for decades-long retirements. Rempel suggests that contribution rates may rise, benefits may change, and retirement ages may increase over time.
He is particularly cautious about the long-term sustainability of Old Age Security. With fewer workers supporting each retiree and longer payout periods, the system faces growing pressure.
Employer pensions are also changing. Many companies have already moved away from defined benefit plans toward defined contribution plans, shifting more responsibility to individuals.
The traditional model of retiring at 60 or 65 and living comfortably for a couple of decades may no longer hold. A longer life changes the math.
Rempel believes investment strategy will be a primary factor. Portfolios with long-term growth potential may offer more flexibility, while more conservative methods could limit options later in life.
At the same time, the idea of retirement itself may evolve. More people may choose, or need, to stay active in the workforce longer, whether full-time or in a reduced capacity.
Beyond the numbers, Rempel encourages people to think about purpose. Living longer brings opportunities, but also requires a reason to make the most of those extra years.
“What’s your why?” he asks.
A longer life could mean more time with family, more years of meaningful work, or simply more time to enjoy life. For Rempel, the outlook is positive. The possibility of staying healthy and active for decades beyond traditional expectations is something he welcomes.
Still, one message runs through his analysis: planning for that future cannot wait.
Follow – https://businessbymoney.com for More Updates
