Corrections and clarifications: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years the average U.S. 65-year-old man is now expected to live."

It's hard enough planning for retirement, and now we have to add another two years of life to our calculations.

You read right: The average U.S. 65-year-old man is now expected to live to 86.6 years, up from 84.6 in 2000, according to new mortality estimates released by the Society of Actuaries, a professional organization for actuaries based in Schaumburg, Ill. And the average 65-year-old U.S. woman is expected to live 88.8 years, up from 86.4 in 2000.

So, instead of saving for enough to last 19.6 years of retirement, you now have to build a nest large enough to last at least 21.6 years.. That might not seem like a lot, but it could mean having to save upwards of $100,000 more on top of what you're already socking away.

Given the revised life-expectancy estimates, we asked several experts the following questions.

What advice might you have for those saving for or living in retirement given the SOA's new mortality estimates?

David John, a senior strategic policy advisor with AARP Public Policy Institute: "The new mortality estimates showing that people are likely to live even longer than once expected emphasize the need for people to save for retirement from the day they go to work until the day they retire. And, everyone must have access to a payroll-deduction retirement savings plan. In theory, people could save on their own, but research says that only about 1-in-20 will actually do so on a consistent basis."

Kenn Tacchino, a professor of taxation and financial planning at Widener University: "Longevity risk (the risk of outliving your assets) is a substantial problem regardless of what the mortality tables say because we never know how long we have to make our resources last and we want to maximize spending despite this uncertainty. The best hedge against longevity risk is to delay claiming Social Security to age 70. 'Buying' a larger Social Security annuity is the best 90th birthday present you will ever get. Not only will your income be higher because you waited to draw benefits, but cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) will be applied to the higher number much the same as compound interest applies to investments."

Evan Inglis, a principal with the Terry Group: "The key issue is not so much that we are living longer, but that no one person knows how long he/she will live. Life expectancy for pension participants increased by more than two years in just one decade — and that's the life expectancy for the population, which is relatively predictable. We actuaries fell that far behind on life expectancy in just over a decade, but it's obviously much harder for any one individual to predict their own remaining lifetime — there is significant risk related to the uncertainty of how long they will live."

For those for whom it applies, would it make sense for them to purchase single premium immediate annuities, deferred income annuities and the like as a way to manage longevity risk? And does gender play a role when thinking about these products?

John: "Everyone needs a significant amount of guaranteed lifetime income, whether the source is Social Security alone or Social Security plus some type of annuity-like income. The exact proportion and source of that income will depend on the individual's circumstances. In addition, retirees need additional savings to meet unexpected needs such as car repairs or health expenses. As women live longer on average than men, guaranteed lifetime income that they cannot outlive is even more important than it is for men."

Tacchino: "Gender does play a role when purchasing an annuity for more than the obvious reason. Qualified plan annuities must use unisex rates. The question arises regarding whether the potential for institutional pricing inside the plan will be better for a male client who would benefit from a sex-specific benefits outside the plan."

Inglis: "Purchasing insurance products has the significant advantage of pooling the longevity risk of all of the annuity customers — everyone doesn't have to save and invest in case they live to 100 when longevity risk is pooled. There is roughly a 25% financial savings that comes from pooling — people can just save just enough to cover their life expectancy. In addition, these products enable one to spend more and more confidently knowing that they aren't using up their money. Most of us get emotionally attached to our savings balances (naturally enough since we spend our whole working lives accumulating them). It's hard to get rid of them, even to buy a stream of lifetime income. If a retiree feels better keeping their pot of money, who is to say that that isn't the best solution for that person? On the other hand, evidence seems to suggest that people soon forget their emotional attachment to their savings once the annuity payments are coming in regularly."

For those for whom it applies, would it make sense for workers to take either a lump sum or annuity when they retire? Also, if a worker's employer is "de-risking" their defined benefit plan, which makes more sense: taking an annuity or a lump sum?

John: "While everyone's circumstances are different, workers should think very carefully before accepting a lump-sum payment instead of a guaranteed income stream. While the lump sum initially looks larger, in the long run, one is giving up lifetime security for a one-time payment that may not last as long as expected."

Inglis: "This is a complicated question and the 'right' answer for any one person is about more than just the financial aspect. We do need to respect how decisions make people feel also."

Tacchino: "Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and others are looking into this de-risking issue and are asking regulators to establish guidelines to ensure that people are protected."

Any other thoughts about the subject?

John: "Longer lifespans emphasize the value of ongoing state efforts to establish state-sponsored retirement savings plans for small-business employees. If individuals don't have the opportunity to save to supplement their Social Security benefits, they are much more likely to need additional support from local, state and national governments."

Tacchino: "1. In a perfect world, the employer would make an advanced life deferred annuity (ALDA) an employee benefit. Legislative action would be needed to add ALDAs part of the cafeteria menu...and this needs to happen. 2. In a perfect world, spousal consent would be needed before a spouse could claim Social Security benefits prior to full retirement age (just like the automatic joint-and-survivor rules for annuities from defined benefit plans). What scares me about the 88.8 number is that we already have a problem with impoverished widows, before the jump in mortality is considered."

Robert Powell is editor of Retirement Weekly, contributes regularly to USA WEEKEND, USA TODAY, The Wall Street Journal and MarketWatch and teaches at Boston University.