Recessions and Older Workers

With the economy sliding ever deeper into recession, questions arise about how older workers are faring and how their fate relative to younger workers compares to the past. The answer to these questions turns out to be a little complicated. Two forces are at work. On the one hand, labor force participation among older workers has been rising since the early 1990s, a reversal of the long-standing trend toward ever-earlier retirement. Participation rates among older workers have even continued to rise during both of the recessions in this decade – a dramatic change from previous experience. On the other hand, the edge that older workers used to have relative to younger workers when it comes to layoffs seems to have disappeared, so the rise in the unemployment rate for older workers in recessions now looks similar to that for younger workers. Of the two forces, the trend growth in labor force participation appears to dominate, which has helped keep the employment rate of older workers from falling during the current recession. This pattern contrasts sharply with the far more typical decline in employment rates for workers under age 55. This brief is organized as follows. The first section discusses the upward trend in the labor force participation of older men. The second section explores why older men may have lost some of their edge with regard to job security. The third section looks at how these two developments – the secular upward trend in labor force participation and the heightened vulnerability to layoffs relative to younger workers – have affected the employment rates of older men in this recession compared to earlier ones. The fourth section concludes.

How Much Risk is Acceptable?

The financial crisis has sparked proposals to reform the retirement income system. One component of such a system could be a new tier of retirement accounts. These accounts would augment declining Social Security replacement rates for low-wage workers and provide a buffer of security for middle- and upper-wage workers who, increasingly, will rely totally on 401(k) plans to supplement their Social Security. Designing such a new tier requires answering a number of questions: Mandatory or voluntary? Employee and/or employer contributions? Subsidies for low earners? Payments as lump sums or annuities? Tax favored or not? But the most fundamental question is whether the goal of the new tier is to provide a defined contribution account, where the retirement income will depend on market performance, or an account that can provide a certain percent of final earnings ñ that is, a target replacement rate...

Strange But True: Claim and Suspend Social Security

With the current financial crisis wreaking havoc on retirement savings, many older people have had to reassess their retirement plans – they may decide to work longer or, if already retired, to re-enter the workforce. For those currently in the labor force, working longer increases monthly Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits are actuarially adjusted so that, on average, lifetime benefits remain the same whether a person retires at any age between 62 and 70. So the later a person retires, the higher the monthly benefit. For those thinking of re-entering the workforce, Social Security provides for higher benefits later in exchange for withholding benefits while they are employed. For those under the Full Retirement Age (currently 66), this adjustment is accomplished automatically through the annual retirement earnings test. For those over the Full Retirement Age, the adjustment can be made through the voluntary option of “claim and suspend.” The “claim and suspend” strategy also enhances the claiming options of one-earner couples. For example, a husband who reaches the Full Retirement Age may elect to claim and immediately suspend benefits, allowing his wife to receive a spousal benefit based on his earnings record. The husband is then free to continue working and receive delayed retirement credits, which increases not only his monthly benefit but also his wife’s survivor benefit. By using “claim and suspend” in this way, the couple can enhance the value of their lifetime benefits...

Strange But True: Claim Social Security Now, Claim More Later

Under Social Security, married individuals are entitled to a retired worker benefit based on their own earnings and/or to a spousal benefit equal to one half of their spouse’s benefit claimed at the Full Retirement Age (currently 66). If a married individual claims before the Full Retirement Age, the Social Security Administration assumes that the individual is claiming both types of benefits, compares the worker and spousal benefits, and awards the highest. Upon reaching the Full Retirement Age, individuals can choose which benefit to receive. As a result, married individuals can claim a spousal benefit at 66 and switch to their own retired worker benefit at a later date. This approach allows a worker to begin claiming one type of benefit while still building up delayed retirement credits, which will result in a higher worker benefit later. In the past, providing these benefit options for spouses was not particularly valuable, since those who postponed benefits beyond the Full Retirement Age were giving up expected lifetime benefits. With the recent advent of an actuarially fair delayed retirement credit, lifetime benefits are roughly the same whether claimed at the Full Retirement Age or at age 70. As a result, today the availability of benefit options has real value for couples and therefore inevitably increases the cost of the Social Security program...

Strange But True: Free Loan From Social Security

When to claim Social Security is one of the most important decisions Americans make when approaching retirement. Currently, retirees can choose between claiming at the Full Retirement Age and receiving full benefits, claiming as early as age 62 but receiving reduced benefits, or delaying retirement to as late as age 70 and collecting higher monthly benefits. The reductions and the delayed retirement credits are approximately actuarially fair for the person with average life expectancy. Early retirement benefits are lowered by an amount that offsets the longer period for which they will be received. The delayed retirement option offers higher benefits but for a shorter remaining lifetime. Thus, on average, workers will receive the same lifetime benefits regardless of when they claim between the ages of 62 and 70. Recently, several unconventional claiming strategies have come to light that have the potential to pay higher lifetime benefits to some individuals and increase system costs. This brief focuses on one of these strategies, which we call the “Free Loan from Social Security” strategy. The first section outlines the procedure and incentives of employing this strategy. The second section, using data from the Health and Retirement Study, presents estimates of the cost to Social Security under three different scenarios and describes who would gain. The final section concludes that the estimated annual $6 billion to$11 billion cost of allowing free loans from Social Security is likely to increase substantially over time.

Why Are Older Workers At Greater Risk of Displacement?

The conventional wisdom says that older workers are less likely to be displaced than younger workers. While true in the past, the conventional wisdom is no longer true today; the advantage that older workers had has disappeared. This loss of relative job security is troubling. Once displaced, older workers are less likely to be reemployed, have less time to adjust their retirement plans, and are more likely to retire prematurely. Given the contraction of the nation’s retirement income system and rising longevity, these adverse effects make displacement increasingly injurious to older workers. This brief analyzes changes in the displacement of older and prime-age workers since the mid-1990s and the effect of three factors – tenure, educational attainment, and employment in manufacturing – identified as having a significant effect on displacement risk. The results show that all three factors contributed to the rising dislocation risk older workers face and their rising risk vis-à-vis prime-age workers. The brief proceeds as follows. The first section presents the three factors identified in the literature as affecting displacement. The second section reviews the data and methodology used to analyze the effects of these factors on the changing displacement risk of older and prime-age workers. The third section reports the findings, and the fourth section concludes.

Do Households Have a Good Sense of Their Retirement Preparedness?

The National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) measures the percentage of working-age households who are ‘at risk’ of being financially unprepared for retirement today and in coming decades. The calculations show that even if households work to age 65 and annuitize all their financial assets, including the receipts from reverse mortgages on their homes, 44 percent will be ‘at risk’ of being unable to maintain their standard of living in retirement. An extension of the analysis to account explicitly for health care costs in retirement raises the share of ‘at risk’ households from 44 percent to 61 percent. This brief examines whether households have a good sense of their own retirement preparedness — do their retirement expectations match the reality that they face? Do people ‘at risk’ know that they are ‘at risk?’ The first section summarizes the NRRI and compares households’ self-assessed preparedness to the objective measure provided by the NRRI. The second section describes the characteristics of households associated with being too optimistic or too pessimistic. The last section of this brief introduces health care costs into the analysis.

Long-term Care Costs and The National Retirement Risk Index

Even if households work to age 65 and annuitize all their financial assets, including the receipts from reverse mortgages on their homes, the National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) has shown that 44 percent will be ‘at risk.’ ‘At risk’ means they will be unable to maintain their standard of living in retirement. When health care costs were included explicitly, the percentage of households ‘at risk’ increased to 61 percent. Our previous analysis of health care costs, however, did not consider possible expenses for long-term care towards the end of life. This brief explores how the need for long-term care could affect the NRRI. This brief is structured as follows. The first section recaps the original NRRI and the NRRI with health care costs explicitly included. The second section describes the nature of long-term care, the likelihood of a household member needing such care, and the financing alternatives available. The third section explores how the challenge posed by long-term care is different for households of different types and wealth levels. The fourth section models the impact of long-term care on the NRRI. The final section concludes.

What Does It Cost To Guarantee Returns?

The financial crisis has dramatically demonstrated how a collapse in equity prices can decimate retirement accounts. The crisis highlights the fragility of existing 401(k) plans as the only supplement to Social Security and has sparked proposals to reform the retirement income system. One component of such a system could be a new tier of retirement accounts. Given the declines in the share of earnings Social Security will replace, these accounts would bolster replacement rates for low-wage workers and increase the security of middle- and upper-wage workers who increasingly rely on their 401(k) plans to supplement Social Security. However, these new accounts could face the same risk of collapse in value seen over the past year in 401(k)s. So policymakers may find some form of guaranteed return or risk sharing desirable to prevent huge variations in outcomes. This brief explores the feasible range and the cost of the first option – guarantees...