Sunday, January 22, 2017
University of Illinois Law Professor Richard Kaplan responded to my post last week, that questioned the appropriate age to compel IRA distributions, by providing a more in-depth look at the topic, via his own article, Reforming Taxation of Retirement Income.
His recommendations include simplifying how Social Security retirement benefits are taxed, bifurcating defined contribution plan withdrawals into capital gains and ordinary income components, repealing certain exceptions to the early distribution penalty, reducing the delayed distribution penalty and adjusting the age at which it is triggered, and changing the residential gain exclusion to avoid unanticipated problems with reverse mortgages.
The 2012 Virginia Tax Review article demonstrates that increased life expectancy supports an increase to age 74 (from 71.5) as the trigger for mandatory distributions.
Thanks, Dick! As always, you have important analysis to share.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Under long-standing IRS rules, IRAs and similar retirement accounts created with tax deferred income are generally subject to "required minimum distributions" when the account holder reaches age 70 and a half. As the IRS.gov website reminds us:
- You can withdraw more than the minimum required amount.
- Your withdrawals will be included in your taxable income except for any part that was taxed before (your basis) or that can be received tax-free (such as qualified distributions from designated Roth accounts).
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, as baby boomers are now reaching that magic age of 70 1/2+, there will be huge mandatory transfers of savings, creating taxable income, even if they don't actually need the retirement funds yet.
Boomers hold roughly $10 trillion in tax-deferred savings accounts, according to an estimate by Edward Shane, a managing director at Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Over the next two decades, the number of people age 70 or older is expected to nearly double to 60 million—roughly the population of Italy.
The account holders may not actually "need" the money in their early 70s, an age now often seen as "young" for retirement, and they may still be in high tax brackets, thus cancelling the original reasons for the savings and deferral. The rules were made when average lifespans were shorter.
On average, men and women who turned 65 in 2015 can expect to live a further 19 and 21.5 years respectively, according to the U.S. Social Security Administration’s most recent life-expectancy estimates; those post-65 expectancies are up from 15.4 and 19 years for those who turned 65 in 1985.
....[D]istributions are expected to grow exponentially over the next two decades because of a 1986 change to federal law designed to prevent the loss of tax revenue. Congress said savers who turn 70½ have to start taking withdrawals from tax-deferred savings plans or face a penalty. Specifically, retirees who turn 70½ have until April of the following calendar year to pull roughly 3.65% from their IRA and 401(k) funds, subject to slight differences in the way the funds are treated by the Internal Revenue Service. Then they must withdraw an increasing portion of their assets every year based on IRS formulas. The rules don’t apply to defined-benefit pensions, where retirees get automatic distributions.
There is a 50% penalty for failure to make required minimum withdrawals. And not all retirees are aware of the consequences of failing to make with withdrawals, especially when accounts were created originally by a spouse who is no longer alive or is unable to manage the account personally. From the Wall Street Journal article:
Bronwyn Shone, a financial adviser in Pleasanton, Calif., said many of her clients aren’t aware of their legal obligation to take distributions. “I think some people thought they could let the money grow tax-deferred forever,” she said.
Certainly the federal government wants -- and an argument can certainly be made that it "needs" -- more tax revenues, but if the goal of the permitted deferral is to encourage saving for the the "real" needs of retirement, which can include disability, health care, long-term care, and other "late in aging" needs, is it still realistic to set the mandatory threshold for withdrawals at age 70.5? For example, Donald Trump is just today commencing his "new job" at age 70 and a half, and yet he could be subject to the RMDs for any IRAs. Maybe this is a financial issue that might interest the new Trump Administration?
For more, read Pulling Retirement Cash, but Not by Choice, by WSJ reporters V. Monga and S. Krouse (paywall protected article from 1/16/17).
Thursday, January 19, 2017
The New York Times has a recent article that resonates with me. I am spending my sabbatical time in Arizona in order to be of more help to my sister with our parents who are both in their 90s. Neither my sister or I have children and we sometimes question what will happen with us if we reach our parents' age with similar needs. Here's an excerpt from the piece that gets right to the point:
While the demand for caregivers is growing because of longer life expectancies and more complex medical care, the supply is shrinking, a result of declining marriage rates, smaller family sizes and greater geographic separation. In 2015, there were seven potential family caregivers for every person over 80. By 2030, this ratio is expected to be four-to-one, and by 2050, there will be fewer than three potential caregivers for every older American.
For more, read the thoughtful essay Who Will Care for the Caregivers? by Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a resident physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
A recent article in the Washington Post by Michelle Singletary suggested a New Year's resolution, knowing your retirement account. Resolve to take a closer look at your retirement account offers insights from author (Empire of the Fund: The Way We Save Now), William A. Birdthistle, who participated recently in her online discussion. The article contains 3 questions and Mr. Birdthistle's answers, one of which discusses in what types of investments to invest retirement funds. Ms. Singletary closes her article with this advice to readers: "Let 2017 be the year that you take a closer look at your retirement savings. Don’t just blindly throw money in your account. No one can predict the unpredictable when it comes to your nest egg. But at least you can become better informed about what there is to know for sure."
Thanks to Professor Naomi Cahn for sending us this article.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Social Security's blog, Social Security Matters, posted the full retirement age info for 2017. 2017 Brings New Changes to Full Retirement Age explains that for those between 1955-1956, full retirement age is 66 and 2 months. The post also explains what the increase in full retirement age means to benefits: "[a]s the full retirement age continues to increase, there are greater reductions in benefits if you claim them before you reach full retirement age. For example, if you apply for benefits in 2017 at age 62, your monthly benefit amount will be reduced nearly 26 percent." The blog also offers tips to those who are contemplating retirement along with helpful links.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
AARP is offering a online chat on November 21 from 3-4 p.m. on Home Sharing: A Powerful Option to Help Older Americans Stay in their Homes. The website offers a summary of this upcoming chat:
The vast majority of older adults have told AARP that they want to “age in place” by remaining in their current home and neighborhood. But much of the U.S. housing stock isn’t very aging-friendly (stairs are an example), and millions of older Americans face economic hardships that challenge their ability to afford the costs of safe and suitable housing.
The rise of home sharing — in which people rent space in their residence to a traveler or short-term tenant — is allowing people of all ages (but especially older adults) to literally earn an income from where they live.
Join AARP’s Nancy LeaMond, former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, Airbnb executive Sarah Bianchi and Gene Sperling, an economist and consultant to Airbnb, for an online discussion and Q&A about the benefits of home sharing for older adults and the new Airbnd report “Home Sharing: A Powerful Option to Help Older Americans Stay in their Homes.”
The accompanying report will be available here starting November 21.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
The Wall Street Journal ran an article last month about a study that focused on people's decision-making regarding whether to retire. Before Retiring, Take This Simple Test reports on study by "Philipp Schreiber and Martin Weber at the University of Mannheim in Germany, [where] a simple two-question quiz [was developed] that can help predict whether you’ll regret the timing of your own retirement." Two questions-that's pretty easy, right. Here we go, it won't take you long to answer them:
Question 1: You just learned that you are due a tax refund. If you’d like, you can get the $1,000 refund right away. Alternatively, you can get a $1,100 refund in 10 months. Which do you prefer?
Question 2: You just learned that you are due a tax refund. If you’d like, you can get a $1,000 refund in 18 months. Alternatively, you can get a $1,100 refund in 28 months? Which do you prefer?
How did you answer them? According to the article, "[t]he point of the exercise is to measure the consistency of a person’s time preferences. Someone with consistent time preferences should answer both questions the same way—choosing the early option both times, or the delayed option both times. Such consistency is a requirement for making financial plans that you stick with." There are folks who don't answer consistently, and that's a red flag, the article explains. Those folks "exhibit a tendency known as present bias, or hyperbolic discounting. They strongly prefer rewards that arrive right away." As for timing of retirement, the article notes that study shows that those who provided inconsistent answers ultimately regret the timing (too early) of their retirement.
The article suggests some positive applications of the study results. For those of us who participate in savings via payroll deductions, such programs could be improved "if they were personalized according to the results of the two-question quiz. Consider a person who exhibits a strong bias for receiving rewards in the present. Given the likelihood that she’ll be tempted by an early retirement, she might want to be defaulted to a higher savings rate during her working years. This will help her avoid future regret over the timing of her retirement decision, since she will have sufficient savings." The article goes further, suggesting changes to enrollment in Social Security to minimize buyer's remorse for early retirement (evidently a lot of folks start drawing Social Security at age 62, which we all know results in a permanent reduction in benefits).
The study referenced in the WSJ article is reported in The Influence of Time Preferences on Retirement Timing. The abstract explains
This study analyzes the empirical relation between the decision when to retire and individuals time preferences. Theoretical models predict that hyperbolic discounting leads to dynamic inconsistent retirement timing. Conducting an online survey with more than 3,000 participants, we confirm this prediction. The analysis shows, that time inconsistent participants decrease their planned retirement age with increasing age. The temptation of early retirement seems to become stronger the closer retirement comes. We show that the negative effect of age is between 1.5 and 3 times stronger for participants who can be classified as hyperbolic discounters. In addition, we find that time inconsistent participants actually retire earlier. On average, the most time inconsistent participants retire about 2.2 years earlier. The time inconsistent behavior has severe consequences: Time inconsistent participants are ex post more likely to regret their retirement timing decision. Also, the unplanned early retirement leads to a constant decrease of retirement benefits of about 13%.
The full paper can be downloaded from the SSRN link here.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Maddy Dychtwald, co-founder of Age Wave, on using virtual reality (VR) to help folks save. How Virtual Reality Can Boost Retirement Savings reports on a project and explains how it unfolded
Professor Hal Hershfield of UCLA’s Anderson School of Management partnered with Daniel Goldstein of Microsoft Research, Jeremy Bailenson, director of Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, and several other Stanford researchers to see if connecting people with their future selves could affect their willingness to save for that future self. They took photos of college-age research subjects and digitally altered half of them to create virtual avatars at age 65—complete with jowls, bags under the eyes, and gray hair.
Why don't people do a better job of saving for retirement? According to the article, experts think it's psychological to some extent. "When you’re in your 20s and 30s, you can’t even imagine your life at 65 or 95. If you can’t imagine it, chances are you’re not planning for it."
Back tot he project. Digitally aging the participants wasn't the end of the project. Next the participants were provided with "goggles and sensors and were dropped into virtual reality, where they faced a mirror reflecting either their current self or their future self. As part of the experiment, they were each given $1,000 to spend. They could either buy a gift for someone special, invest in retirement, plan a fun event, or put money into a checking account."
This is getting intriguing. Want to bet what happened? According to the article, "[t]hose research ... greeted by their aged avatar put more than twice as much money toward retirement as those who saw their contemporaneous selves." The researchers, to double check the results, also showed "some research participants ... the aged avatars of other test subjects to see if that impacted their choices. It didn’t. Only those who saw themselves at retirement age were likely to invest in their future."
The WSJ article explains that VR tools are under development "to offer experiential solutions to our nation’s lack of retirement planning... [and] provide a visceral experience that might even immerse [the user] in several different future scenarios, so [the user] can experience, for instance, what it’s like to live with limited funds at 65, 75 or 80."
The article about the study, Increasing Saving Behavior Through Age-Progressed Renderings of the Future Self, is available here.
This is the abstract from the research study article:
Many people fail to save what they need to for retirement (Munnell, Webb, and Golub-Sass 2009). Research on excessive discounting of the future suggests that removing the lure of immediate rewards by pre-committing to decisions, or elaborating the value of future rewards can both make decisions more future-oriented. In this article, we explore a third and complementary route, one that deals not with present and future rewards, but with present and future selves. In line with thinkers who have suggested that people may fail, through a lack of belief or imagination, to identify with their future selves (Parfit 1971; Schelling 1984), we propose that allowing people to interact with age-progressed renderings of themselves will cause them to allocate more resources toward the future. In four studies, participants interacted with realistic computer renderings of their future selves using immersive virtual reality hardware and interactive decision aids. In all cases, those who interacted with virtual future selves exhibited an increased tendency to accept later monetary rewards over immediate ones.
Wow, just wow. Now, can we get these for our students?
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Our local newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times, recently ran a story about elders who work at low-paying jobs. Although they may wish to retire, they find themselves unable to afford retirement. For some low-income workers, retirement is only a dream explains that for low-wage workers can't afford to retire. "Studies have found that about one-third of low-wage workers ... say they'll never be able to afford retirement. The problem is particularly acute among minority women... mA 2016 study by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a quarter of workers 50 or older say they won't retire. Among low-wage workers, earning less than $50,000 a year, it was 33 percent."
Consider the following statistics:
A 2016 report by the nonpartisan research nonprofit National Institute on Retirement Security shows that many black, Hispanic and Asian women have to work past retirement age to be able to afford basic expenses. Women were 80 percent more likely than men to be impoverished.
The research showed that for men ages 70 to 74, about 19 percent of their income comes from wages. For women, it's about 15 percent.
Some low-wage workers will be able to collect Social Security, which will be of some help, but as the story notes, some without legal status won't be able to draw Social Security. One of the individuals featured in the story is 70 years old and works 6 days a week as the caregiver a 100 year-old person.
So what happens if the low-wage worker falls ill and is unable to continue to work? Might family step in to help? Are there options?
Monday, October 31, 2016
Recently, San Diego residents learned the sad news that a much appreciated former coach of the Chargers football team, Marty Schottenheimer, age 73, has Alzheimer's Disease. The article I read called it "early onset Alzheimer's." Apparently the original diagnosis was made in 2011, when retired Coach Schottennheimer was approximately age 68. Our wishes to "Coach Marty" and his family.
It is, perhaps, also appropriate to point out that "early onset dementia" is different than than "early diagnosis of dementia." Medical experts typically refer to early onset dementia (sometimes EOAD for Alzheimer's type dementia) only for individuals age 65 or younger, often in a person's 50s, or even earlier.
As an example from the sports world, legendary University of Tennessee women's basketball coach, Pat Summitt, publicly revealed her diagnosis of "dementia, Alzheimer's type," in 2011, at age 59. She continued as the head coach for another academic year, before electing to retire (with, in her words, a "small r").
In the last chapter of her third book, Sum It Up, Pat wrote movingly about her final year of coaching and the impact of her diagnosis, also admitting that she had probably been functioning "well" with Alzheimer's for about three years before she, with the help of her son, sought a diagnosis. She explains how the fact of her diagnosis also led them to explore treatments and management techniques they might otherwise have ignored.
As larger numbers of adults are living longer, I think we are hearing more frequently directly from persons in high positions about diagnoses of Alzheimer's or other neurocognitive impairments. This is important, because when healthy-living sports heroes are affected, we are more likely to pay attention and seek answers for everyone. Whenever I see such news, even as I'm sad, I admire the courage of the speakers and am grateful for their candor. Seeing famous people continue to function, make realistic plans, and enjoy life is important for the "not-so-famous" too. Their public candor highlights the critical need for discovery of preventions and cures for everyone.
I suspect that when a member of the press -- or the nonmedical public -- refers to "early onset Alzheimer's," it is a reflection of hope, hope that any diagnosis at 70, 75, or even 80 must be unusual, rare, and therefore not a threat to "me" before some magically "older" age that is still far off, in the future.
SSA announced recently that there would be a COLA for 2017, but it is a teensy COLA, actually, a .03% increase. Big gap between Social Security cost-of-living adjustment and retiree inflation offers a critical look at the 2017 COLA compared to inflation and how the government calculates the COLA using the consumer price index. An article in USA Today about the 2017 COLA noted that this COLA won't allow beneficiaries to get ahead, even slightly. Instead, they will likely lose ground, because of the Medicare Part B premium costs
The nation’s 65 million Social Security beneficiaries will receive a paltry 0.3% cost-of-living adjustment to their monthly checks in 2017, the government announced Tuesday. In dollars and cents, it means the average retired beneficiary’s check will rise about $5 to $1,360 per month in 2017.
The even more bitter pill: Many current Medicare beneficiaries won’t be able to spend any of that extra money. Instead, they’ll likely have to send their COLA straight back to Uncle Sam to cover higher Medicare Part B premiums.
Almost a third of Medicare's 56 million beneficiaries could see their premiums jump 22% next year, according to the Medicare Trustees Report, putting the cost at an estimated $149 per month. Those unlucky 30% of beneficiaries include people enrolling in Part B for the first time in 2017, people who are on Medicare but who aren't currently taking Social Security benefits and current enrollees who pay an income-related higher premium.
Friday, October 21, 2016
LeadingAge, the trade association that represents nonprofit providers of senior services, begins its annual meeting at the end of October. This year's theme is "Be the Difference," a call for changing the conversation about aging. I won't be able to attend this year and I'm sorry that is true, as I am always impressed with the line-up of topics and the window the conference provides for academics into industry perspectives on common concerns. For example, this year's line up of workshops and topics includes:
- General sessions featuring Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Charles Duhigg on the "The Science of Productivity," 2013 MacArthur Fellow and psychologist Angela Duckworth on the the importance of grit and perservance for successful leadership, and famed neurosurgeon and speaker Sanjay Gupta on "Medicine and the Media."
- Hundreds of sessions, organized by "interest groups":
October 21, 2016 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Discrimination, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, International, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, Retirement, Science, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Veterans | Permalink | Comments (2)
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
We've blogged on several occasions about aging in place. So a recent article in the New York Times caught my eye. The Future of Retirement Communities: Walkable and Urban starts out noting our dependence on cars to get where we want to go, but perhaps that is about to change. "Few people in America walk to work. Most of us drive to the supermarket. But more older people these days are looking for a community where they can enjoy a full life without a car." Focusing on one couple's search for the perfect community, the couple explained, "'[w]e realized ‘aging in place’ means a lot more than just a comfortable house ... [s]o we began thinking more about ‘aging in community.’ That means an urban neighborhood where you can walk or take transit to just about everything you need.'”
This concept, walkable living, isn't a new one, but is one that has somewhat fallen to the wayside with our dependence on cars and cities designed for vehicles rather than people. "Developments for independent retirees typically come in two flavors: isolated, gated subdivisions or large homes on golf courses, often in the same bland package of multiple cul-de-sacs. Both require driving everywhere, which is a problem for those who either don’t want to drive or can’t."
With new urbanism, an emphasis on walkable communities is gaining traction. Of course, walkability leads to more activity, which we know has benefits to those walking. There are challenges to building communities for aging. The article mentions the hurdles. "Age-friendly communities within cities may require extensive infrastructure improvements, including wider sidewalks, bike lanes, more public transportation options and longer pedestrian signal walk times. Local officials may not want to rezone or invest in the improvements or even permit them." Then factor in costs, because some currently walkable cities are also costly for residents. There are tradeoffs, however, so don't rule those out.
Have you students read this article, and have them judge your community for "aging in community."
Friday, October 14, 2016
The New York Times ran an article on October 7, 2016 exploring the "gray gender gap." The Gray Gender Gap: Older Women Are Likelier to Go It Alone is based on a recent report Older Americans 2016: Key Indicators of Well-Being (available here as a pdf). The author focuses on marital status, and notes by age, men are more likely than women to be married. "About three-quarters of men ages 65 to 74 are married, compared with 58 percent of women in that age group. More surprisingly, the proportion of men who are married at 75 to 84 doesn’t decline; among women, it drops to 42 percent...Even among men over 85, nearly 60 percent are married. By that point, only 17 percent of women are." The article looks at the reasons for this disparity and discusses the economic impact of "going it alone." According to a study referenced in the article, "[a]bout 8 percent of married older adults are poor or “near poor.” Among unmarried men, the percentage rises to about 20 percent. For unmarried women, it’s 27 percent." Economics are not the only benefit that may come from marriage. There may be health benefits, too. The article notes as well that there are caregiving facing those who are going it alone. Some people actually flourish being alone, but it is interesting to think about this gray gender gap!
Monday, September 26, 2016
The Wall Street Journal ran an article about retirement planning for women. The article, Retirement planning for women, offers some specific tips for women in their planning. Are there a lot of challenges? Perhaps the biggest one? Getting started. "If you’re a woman, the bad news is that you face some specific challenges that men don’t. The good news? Women tend to invest and save in a way that bodes well for their retirement success." Here is a look at their tips: start saving, invest savings, consider carefully before drawing Social Security, and complete an estate plan which includes "[a] financial power of attorney ... [a] health-care power of attorney, for health-care decisions, [a] living will for your end-of-life wishes, [and a] will naming a guardian for minor children." The article also offers a quick quiz on tips for women in retirement planning. Check it out.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
As Baby Boomer partners retire, law firms face increasing costs and client issues was published in the ABA Journal. The article focuses on the upcoming retirement of law partners from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations cohorts. "Nearly half of the partners in the nation’s top 200 law firms are Baby Boomers or members of the older Silent Generation. And that means there will be a wave of upcoming retirements that will be the most ever experienced by BigLaw...Sixteen percent of partners will retire in the next five years and 38 percent will retire in the next decade, the American Lawyer (sub. req.) reports...."
The impact of these potential retirements will ripple across law firms, including leadership, client relations, and revenues. The firms will also face other costs-the actual costs of paying for retirements from pensions, revenues, return of capital, etc. The article also notes that some firms are taking specific steps to weather this retirement wave by "trying to reduce retirement costs by raising the retirement age; capping the annual payout from annual earnings; or changing the payout formula, and switching to defined contribution plans in which the lawyers carry the risk of a declining market."
My colleague, Becky Morgan, posted recently about the trend of senior-aged consumers as customers of Uber and other ride-hailing companies. Smart marketing for the alternatives to traditional taxi-cabs includes finding ways for seniors to use and pay for services without smart phones.
Additional research demonstrates that seniors may also play an increasing role in the work force for ride-hailing companies. They are drivers, not just passengers (both literally and metaphorically). The latest research from the JP Morgan Chase Institute introduced me to a new label -- the "gig economy," and ride-hailing services are just one part of that economy:
Our research shows that a rising number of seniors are supplementing their income -- in non-trivial amounts -- by participating in the "gig economy", or Online Platform Economy. . . Among all adults, participation in the Online Platform Economy has been growing very quickly. To measure this growth, we assembled a dataset of over 260,000 anonymized Chase customers who earned income from at least of of 30 distinct platforms between October 2012 and September 2015 -- the largest sample of platform earners to date. During this period, the cumulative participation rate grew from 0.1% of adults to 4.2%. a 47-fold growth.
Although most participants in the platform economy are younger workers, seniors are not standing on the sidelines. In the 12 months ending September 2015, about 0.9 percent of seniors were providers in the
in the platform economy, compared to 3.1 percent of the general population. With over 47 million seniors in America, this translates to over 400,000 seniors participating in the platform economy.
For those seniors who do participate, their earnings are often substantial. In our research, we distinguish between labor and capital platforms. Labor platforms, such as Uber or TaskRabbit, connect customers with freelance or contingent workers who perform discrete projects or assignments. Capital platforms, such as eBay or Airbnb, connect customers with individuals who rent assets or sell goods peer-to-peer.
For more on participation of seniors in the Gig Economy, and for other interesting data points about seniors as both workers and spenders, read Past 65 and Still Working: Big Data Insights on Senior Citizens' Financial Lives, from JP Morgan Chase Institute.
Monday, August 29, 2016
We often report on crimes against older adults on this blog, but last week an 80-year-old former University of Arizona professor pleaded guilty to theft of more than $80,000 from his employer. How did he accomplish that?
The animal sciences professor was in charge of the land-grant university's "Meat Store" in Tucson and was charged with diverting thousands of dollars in proceeds from sales of meat into his own bank accounts. John Marchello worked for U of A for more than 50 years, and retired just days before his indictment in 2015. Indeed, I attended U of A many moons ago, and as a former 4-Her who took a few Ag Sciences courses along the way, I probably even took a "meats lab" course from him.
Talk about alternative "long-term care" planning. Sadly, Marchello is scheduled to be sentenced in November and faces a potential sentence between one and three years for the Class 4 felony.
There is also a civil suit pending, alleging more than $200,000 in theft. For more, see Longtime UA Professor Pleads Guilty.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Did you know there is such a thing? The New York Times recently ran an article, More Older People Are Finding Work, but What Kind?, that features a new brief from the Center for Retirement Research. The Times article explains
As men and women 55 and older looking for employment probably suspect, at a certain point the kinds of jobs available to them narrow significantly. New research by Matthew Rutledge, an economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, found that they are increasingly being funneled into what he describes as “old-person” jobs.
And not surprisingly, older workers with the least education have the narrowest set of opportunities, though Mr. Rutledge found this effect was small.
It turns out that “old-person” jobs are a mix of high-skilled service work (like managers, sales supervisors and accountants) and low-skilled service work (like truck drivers, janitors and nursing aides). Absent from the top of the list are jobs calling for a fair amount of physical labor. Jobs in farming, manufacturing and repair represent less than a quarter of all new hires in this age bracket.
The brief from CRR, How Job Options Narrow for Older Workers by Socioeconomic Status offers these findings
Job-changers over age 50 increasingly end up in “old-person” jobs, with a high share of older hires relative to prime-age hires.
These basic findings hold by gender and by education.
However, the overall outlook has improved since the late 1990s for all groups, particularly for older women with more education.
Also, older job-changers hired into “old-person” jobs are paid no less than other jobs.
The full brief, available here as a pdf, examines "suitable" employment, with the introduction explaining
The ability of older job-changers to find "suitable" employment affects both their current income and their ability to work long enough to secure an adequate retirement income. One measure of suitable employment is the range of occupations available to them. This brief, based on a recent study, assesses the extent to which occupational options narrow for workers as they age from their early-fifties to their mid-sixties and whether the pattern varies by gender or socioeconomic status, as measured by education level.
Back to the Times article, which lists most and least common "old person" jobs (hint-lawyers are in the "least common" category). The Times story also discusses several other studies regarding elders in the work force. This would be a great article to include in an unit on economic security or in a discussion regarding ageism.
Friday, August 19, 2016
We have all heard stories about SSA determining that a beneficiary is dead, when the beneficiary isn’t. Proving you are very much alive has to be a fun experience (just joking in case anyone from SSA is reading this blog). Usually the stories about someone being “SSA-dead” is limited to a person. The Washington Post recently ran a story about a group of beneficiaries being declared dead by SSA. Dead or alive? Social Security misclassified some explains “Social Security officials have discovered 90 cases in their records where the living were listed as deceased. That’s 90 “as of today,” Mark Hinkle, an SSA spokesman, said late Thursday. “We are not yet sure how many were in error.” The 90 are from a group of 19,000 cases.” Note that means more of the 19,000 may be “SSA-dead”.
There is some humor in all of this (the 90 of you declared SSA-dead, my sympathies (no pun intended folks--sympathies for the hassle) and really I’m not making light of your situation). “Ironically, the erroneous cases are from pilot projects in Virginia, North Dakota and South Dakota, designed “to enhance the quality of our death records,” Hinkle said. … Clearly, there is more work to be done on that point.”
Clearly this is no laughing matter if you are one of those declared dead-there are significant financial implications, including a loss of benefits. Plus other federal agencies get death info from SSA, so the impact is more widespread than just SSA. SSA is on it, and as for those other folks who may be SSA-dead and not know it, “SSA plans to send letters to the 19,000 people potentially affected with information on how to find out if the agency thinks they are dead and how to correct the record if that’s the case.”
I’m just saying, if you live in VA., ND or SD and get a letter from SSA in your mailbox, you may want to sit down before you open it…