The purpose of life insurance is supposed to be to replace your lifelong earning potential for someone who was depending on it (if you're raising a kid, eg), and most people's lifetime earning potential has been trending down from what they were expecting https://twitter.com/Lexialex/status/1317927771297828864 …
-
-
Yeah. My husband and I are lucky that our work offers an amount of life insurance and we can choose to buy more as well and that's not contingent on health or age. But that is INCREDIBLY rare and due to being with a strong union.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Like, bluntly, if you never end up having kids or other dependents then life insurance is objectively a waste of money (It mathematically HAS TO BE, the actuaries' whole job is to make sure an insurance policy has negative expected value, that's how the company makes money)
-
So asking people to purchase life insurance on the individual market is asking them to consider life questions that may well be totally irrelevant to them several years in advance ("how much money will your kids need if you die")
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.