Hacker News Reader

65 is only middle-aged if you plan to live to 130...

While 65 is pushing it, middle age does not mean ”half way to death”[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_age

> 65 is only middle-aged if you plan to live to 130...

60 is a more usual endpoint, but...

It's a range. The middle of that range is 55, so following that math it would be 110, not 130.

But as the other reply points out, it's the middle section of being an adult. So if you take that 45-65 range, and treat it as the exact middle of your adult life, then you get 92, which is a bit high but not crazy. If you take that 45-65 range and assume old age will be the same length, you get 85, which is pretty close for wealthy non-US countries.

The real error is probably that some fraction of this is children of those men, as in many family homes men are the ones who login to YouTube on the TV or other devices. That may or may not be beneficial depending upon whom the advertisers think they're bidding on.

"Modern social scientists generally agree that midlife begins around 35 to 40 and ends around 55 to 60." (Wikipedia)

But you are right that his peak earning range was 25-34 (so less than middle age) and his second highest range was 18-24.

So yes I'd agree this isn't middle-age.