I've found most analysis/commentary on taking social security later (67) instead of earlier (62) simply focus on the size of the monthly checks. For example, say at 67 you'd get $3,000 per month vs at 62 you'd get $2,000. The focus then is solely on the absolute value difference of $1,000 per month with the advice to wait because you'd get more money.

However, this fails to consider that for 5 years you'd be getting $2,000 per month, or $120,000.

If you would have waiting until 67 then that $120,000 is the opportunity cost you lost out on.

To overcome that value would take you $120,000/($3,000) =40 months, or 3.3 years. So the breakeven point is roughly 71 years old. That's a generous way to look at it from the "retire at 67" perspective.

More realistically, or generous to the "retire at 62" perspective is is that the $120,000 would be divided by $1,000, not $3,000, yielding $120,000/$1,000 = 120 months, or 10 years. This makes the breakeven point 77 years old.

This supports your "consider taking it earlier if you life expectancy is under 80 position.

Everyone is different, with unique numbers and motivation.

My goal is to not work as soon as possible and live it up while I can live it up!