August 9, 2016
Social Security Replaces Less for Couples
Source: U.S. Social Security Administration poster, 1954.
When Social Security was created in the 1930s, wives were mainly full-time homemakers, with their pension benefits based on their breadwinner husbands’ earnings.
But wives went to work in droves after Social Security’s passage. Today, women make up nearly half of the U.S. labor force. Yet the program’s design remains the same, with the result being a steady decline in married couples’ replacement rates – the percentage of the combined earnings of two working spouses that Social Security replaces when both retire.
A study by the Center for Retirement Research found that the replacement rate for couples has declined from 50 percent for married couples born in the early 1930s to around 45 percent for the oldest baby boomer couples, and it will fall to just 39 percent for Generation X couples when they eventually retire.
A declining replacement rate is an important consideration for working couples as they plan for retirement.
The simple explanation for the declining replacement rate is that household earnings are much higher when both spouses are working, but their Social Security pension benefits do not increase proportionally. The reason is that even if a wife doesn’t work, she still receives a spousal benefit equal to half of her husband’s benefit. The more a working wife earns, the lower the couple’s replacement rate. …Learn More
August 4, 2016
Social Security Credits for Moms?
Dramatic changes in the U.S. family structure over several decades – more divorce, single motherhood, and unmarried couples – could have a big impact on the financial security of baby boomer women as they march into retirement – and on future retirees.
A review of studies on Social Security spousal and survivor benefits by the Center for Retirement Research, which sponsors this blog, examines the difficulty of providing retirement security for the growing ranks of women and mothers who do not fit the traditional family mold.
Social Security’s benefits were designed for the typical family when the pension program was enacted in the 1930s, a family portrayed at the time by Henry Barbour and his wife, Fanny, in the popular radio soap opera, “One Man’s Family.” A spouse, usually the wife, is guaranteed half of her husband’s full retirement age benefit under the program when she reaches her full retirement age – whether she works or not. When her husband dies, her survivor benefit equals his pension benefit.
But women who marry and become divorced within 10 years are not eligible for these benefits. Nor, of course, are single working women, who receive benefits based solely on their own work histories. Increasing numbers of women reaching retirement age today either were in short-term marriages or never married and won’t receive a spousal or survivor benefit. The problem is that most of these women are mothers. …Learn More
July 28, 2016
Finally Retired? Now What?
It was Gerry Smythe’s final confirmation he had never quite felt at home working in the Oklahoma airplane manufacturing plant. When well-meaning coworkers bought a cake to celebrate his and another person’s retirement, they got Smythe’s name wrong on the sign inviting everyone to the break room.
At age 63, he until recently was one of the nation’s 10 million older Americans working in physically demanding jobs in difficult conditions. He felt worn down by the factory noise, carbon dust, and standing all night on collapsed arches to assemble cabin floor beams for Boeing 777s. His requests for a transfer away from the hard floor never went anywhere, he said.
“It wasn’t really the job – I kinda liked the job,” said Smythe, who retired on May 27. “I didn’t want to stick in that environment in which I was dealing with air pollution and chemicals and decided I’d had enough.”
Now retired, Smythe savors his freedom. He’s playing more golf, has maintained his obsession with the Sunday crossword puzzle, and might volunteer at an animal shelter. But he also admits to something others have learned upon retiring: it’s a lot to get used to.
“You’re transitioning to a new phase of your life, and you’re not sure where to go. It is sorta scary,” he said in a telephone interview on a sizzling summer day at his home in Tulsa.
Everything is up in the air. He likes Tulsa but might move back to Tennessee – he once worked at the Memphis airport – or to Houston, where his mother’s family hails from. Or maybe he’ll find another job. The aviation industry is booming, so a few recruiters have called him. …Learn More
July 26, 2016
Impact of Raising Austria’s Pension Age
Like the United States, many European countries are concerned about shoring up their pension systems for their aging populations. In 2000, Austria took action by introducing a series of small increases in the earliest age at which workers can begin receiving their federal pensions.
This reform is gradually phasing out early eligibility entirely. Raising the earliest claiming ages, from 60 to 65 for men and from 55 to 60 for women, will cause them to converge, next year, with the pension program’s standard – or “normal” – retirement ages.
Prior to the reform, workers who had signed up for benefits before their normal retirement age received only mild reductions in their monthly benefits. The reform, in addition to gradually raising the early retirement age, exacted a larger penalty on the early claimers, increasing the incentive to continue working.
Austria’s pension changes have provided researchers with a unique natural experiment to see how workers reacted to a delay in their eligibility. A study by economists at the University of Texas at Austin and the Vienna University of Economics and Business, which they will present tomorrow at the NBER Summer Institute, have concluded that the reforms have had a “pronounced” effect. …Learn More
July 12, 2016
What’s New in Public Pension Funding
A small group of researchers at the Center for Retirement Research, which sponsors this blog, produces a large volume of analysis of the nation’s state and local government pension funds.
Their work isn’t typical of the personal finance information that appears in this blog. But it turns a bright light on the financial condition of the pension funds that millions of state and local government workers and retirees rely on. The bottom line, according to these studies, is that while some funds are in poor condition, many more are managing.
The following are short descriptions of the Center’s recent reports, with links to the full reports:
- The big picture is updated in the new brief, “The Funding of State and Local Pensions: 2015-2020.” Eight years after the financial crisis, new data have confirmed that pension plan funding stabilized in 2015. And despite poor stock market performance last year, plan funding improved slightly in 2015 under traditional accounting methods. On the other hand, funding is slightly lower under new accounting rules that require the plans’ financial statements to value their investment portfolios at market values.
The appendix in this brief provides funded levels for 160 individual plans in the Center’s public pension database.
- “Are Counties Major Players in Public Pension Plans?” The answer in this report is no, with the exceptions of California, Maryland and Virginia, where counties account for about 15 percent of pension assets.
- While retiree health plans are quickly disappearing at private employers, they remain prevalent in the public sector. These plans are not fully funded, and their unfunded liabilities are relatively large – equivalent to 28 percent of all liabilities for unfunded public pension plans – according to a March report, “How Big a Burden Are State and Local OPEB Benefits?”
- New accounting rules, known as GASB 68, require city pension funds that are joint participants in plans administered by their state, to transfer their net unfunded liabilities from the state’s to the local government’s books. …
June 30, 2016
401(k) Investment Options: Less is More
There’s plenty of evidence of the unfortunate consequences for employees overwhelmed by too many investment options in their 401(k) plans. Studies find that confused employees might not join the plan at all, select investment funds that are not well diversified, or throw up their hands and put an equal amount in each fund offered by their employer. And as employers add more options, the new funds often carry higher fees and produce lower returns.
A new study took the opposite tack, examining how employees reacted when one large U.S. employer reduced the number of investment options. The results were lower fees and less turnover, saving employees an average of $9,400 over a 20-year period. Further, their new portfolios were less risky.
The employer, a non-profit organization, cut the number of investment options roughly in half, from the 90 different funds initially in the plan. The employer also simplified the plan by sorting employees’ choices into four groups:
- 13 Target Date Funds (TDFs) with low fees and investments determined by an employee’s age;
- 4 index funds invested in a money market, diversified U.S. stocks, diversified U.S. bonds, and diversified international stocks;
- 32 mutual funds organized by risk level, from small-cap growth funds and REITs to balanced funds and Treasury bond funds;
- A brokerage account with wide latitude to invest.
The researchers – Donald Keim and Olivia Mitchell at The Wharton School – analyzed the responses among those affected by the change, which was anyone who held at least one mutual fund eliminated during the plan streamlining. Those affected who did not choose replacement funds were defaulted into a TDF appropriate for their age. …Learn More
June 28, 2016
Not All Baby Boomers Can Work to 70
There’s one problem with expecting all baby boomers to delay retirement beyond their 60s: it might not be fair.
That’s because people with lower incomes and less education die younger than the well-to-do with more education. Think about what would happen if everyone retired at, say, 70. Those with less education and a lower socioeconomic status (SES) would enjoy fewer years in retirement than people with higher SES.
This gap in retirement duration has also widened in recent decades. That’s because the lowest SES group has seen much smaller improvements in their life expectancy, according to economists at the Center for Retirement Research, which supports this blog.
Their study tracked adults surveyed by the U.S. Census Bureau over time and assigned each one to an SES group by sorting them into four education quartiles. Education levels correlate with income and are widely used to measure SES.
The researchers, by using separate data that match the adults to their death certificates, found that while mortality improved for all SES groups, the gap between the top and bottom SES has increased over the past three decades.
Converting mortality data into average life expectancies, they found that 65-year-old men in the highest SES back in 1979 lived nearly to age 79 – 1½ years longer than men in the lowest SES. But today, older men in the top SES are living to 85 – about 3½ years longer than the lowest SES group.
Given these uneven longevity gains, the researchers asked this question: how much longer could men work today if the goal were to maintain the same retirement-to-work ratios they enjoyed in the late 1970s? …Learn More