About the publisher: I drove my 10 year old granddaughter to and from school

P

take several years. Recently, shortly after my 92nd birthday, on the drive home, she asked me what I would rather have: a short, happy life or a long, sad life. (“Who do you call old? An expanding ‘Middle Ages’ turns everything upside down,” Opinion, March 22)

I was stunned, so we went to McDonald’s to ponder the question. And there we came to a monumental conclusion: French fries and a milkshake can make them happy.

As for that other question, we’ve decided that however long we live, it’s best to appreciate the happy times and accept the sad ones.

So bless your heart, LZ Granderson. Don’t spend too much time thinking about death at age 50; You have better things to think about, like writing articles that I need to read for the next 10 years or so.

John Bates, Glendale

..

About the publisher: Granderson maintains the misleading statistic that life expectancy has skyrocketed since the year he was born. However, actuarial charts tell a different story.

Yes, at birth in the 1930s, a man would not expect to live much longer when he is 65 years old. In reality, however, if he managed to survive that long, he could expect another 12 years. Today he can look forward to another 16.

In other words, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old man has only increased by four years since 1940, despite all the wonders of modern medicine. Because fewer babies and children are dying these days.

Indeed, life expectancy at birth has increased dramatically. Born in the 1920s, my parents, like many people at the time, lost several beloved siblings. The death of a baby or child was not uncommon then, today we consider it a tragedy.

When we talk about old age, we should be aware that life expectancy at birth means very little to someone about to retire.

Barbara Kaplan, Los Angeles.

About the publisher: The more I read Granderson’s column, the more red I saw. Is he serious when he suggests that because more people are living longer, their reward is to work longer before they retire?

I am 61 years old, with arthritis and other ailments from decades of hard work (always with a smile on my face) in a career cut short by the closure and demolition of the place where I worked.

The retirement carpet has already pulled out from under my feet. Me and millions my age and younger will have to wait until 67, not 65, to receive our full monthly Social Security benefits. I’m thinking about crossing the minimum (less than $1,000) next year before Republicans can fulfill their dream of forcing it even more on poor Americans and the middle class.

I wish Granderson a long, healthy life, but for me, reaching the 50-year mark was the beginning of life’s downward spiral.

John Kluge, North Hollywood