True, life expectancy was shocking back then. However it doesn’t account for all of the rise. In the early 1900s, a man who made it to age 60 could expect to live, on average, for around 14 years. Today, a man who lives to 70 can expect to live for about 15 years. (For women the figures are 15 years then and 17 years now).
Should we expect it to be “better” now than then? Why? It’s not something we’ve been happy about trying to fund. We have known for 40+ years that the funding mechanism we had for state pensions was insufficient. We have not voted to improve it. And if you ask people if they are happy to have their taxes increased to fund it, they generally say no. They might be happy to have other people’s taxes increased to fund it, but not their own.
I’m not sure I would want to. Long retirements don’t look like that much fun unless you have a lot more money than the state pension provides. I’d rather people had the freedom to invest in a supplementary pensions if they want to retire earlier, but be able to prioritise other things if they prefer.