Posted on 03/10/2006 9:05:50 AM PST by presidio9
Senior citizens are leaving the labor force sooner than they did 50 years ago, even though they are living longer, healthier lives, according to a landmark analysis of census data released Thursday.
This is one of several surprising findings in the report on aging, which comes as the first baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The oldest baby boomers turn 60 this year, and the new report suggests that many of them already have left the labor force.
The report attributes the declining work rate among older Americans to the growth in private pensions and Social Security and Medicare benefits. As benefits for older Americans grew in the last half of the 20th century, fewer saw the need to work beyond age 65, said Mitra Toossi, an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That may change as more companies turn away from guaranteed pensions and Social Security and Medicare face substantial deficits in coming decades.
While almost half of men 65 and older worked or looked for work in 1950, fewer than 20 percent were in the labor force by 2003.
Women are working in much larger numbers earlier in life, but among those 65 and older, their participation in the labor force has remained steady at around 10 percent since 1950.
Older Americans are wealthier and better educated than ever, but the expected doubling of the elderly population by 2030 will create profound social and economic challenges, according to the report commissioned by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The report offers no new research but assembles information from a variety of census surveys and federal statistical sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Medicare claims.
There were 662,148 people over 65 (11.2 percent of the population) in Washington state in 2000. According to American Demographics, the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue metro area had 335,414 (10.5 percent of the population) people age 65 or over in 2005. This number is projected to rise to 390,775 (11.7 percent of the population) by 2010. That translates to a 16.5 percent projected increase in five years.
Overall, there are about 35 million Americans age 65 and over, a number that is projected to more than double by 2030, the report said. About 59 percent of seniors are women.
The oldest portion of the population — those 85 and older — will also double during that period, reaching 9.6 million. Likewise, the number who have celebrated their 100th birthday increased from 37,000 in 1990 to more than 50,000 a decade later. It will grow further in years to come.
These changes coincide with a steady rise in life expectancy, which reached an all-time high of 77 years in 2000, compared with 70.8 years in 1970 and just 47.3 years in 1900.
Officials attribute much of this to far lower mortality rates for heart disease. But they warn that as the population ages, more people will suffer the mental debilitation of Alzheimer's disease, which today costs society $100 billion a year.
"This report tells us that we have made a lot of progress in improving the health and well-being of older Americans, but there is much left to do," NIA Director Richard Hodes said in a statement.
Among men 65 and older, the percentage still in the labor force bottomed out in the 1980s and increased slightly since then. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects the percentage to rise only slightly in the future, never again reaching the levels of 50 years ago.
"Not too long ago, people, particularly men, worked until they were physically unable to work," said Robert Friedland, director of the Center on an Aging Society at Georgetown University. "Now, people have a period of time to which they are looking forward."
But they can look forward to retirement only if they are financially prepared, said Friedland, who noted that $1 million in a retirement account isn't that much to live on if you'll be around another 20 or 30 years.
Improved benefits played a bigger role in retirement plans than the fact that workers were living longer, Toossi said.
But the biggest benefit programs face problems. Private pension systems have been defaulting at an alarming rate. Many companies are abandoning pension plans that guarantee benefits based on years of service and age at retirement.
Medicare, which just added a prescription-drug benefit, faces insolvency in 2020, according to the trust fund that runs it. Social Security, if left alone, is projected to go broke in 2041.
People over 65 live with fewer disabilities than in years past, but that often means taking multiple medications and depending on pacemakers and other devices.
And despite the unprecedented wealth of today's 65-and-older population, in 2003 the poverty rate among seniors was 10 percent. But that's lower than the 12.5 percent rate for the general population, and it's a big change from 1959, when more than a third of seniors lived below the poverty level, according to the report.
One troubling finding: 40 percent of older black and Hispanic women who live alone also live in poverty.
Dr. Richard M. Suzman, associate director of behavioral research at the aging institute, also warned that rising obesity among the young could reverse health gains.
"There's a dark cloud out there," he said. "Some have estimated that the increase in obesity could neutralize the positive trends in the future. It's likely to have more of an impact on disability than on life expectancy."
In a separate study, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that half of all people 65 and older have three or more chronic illnesses, and 20 percent have five or more. These include diabetes, hypertension, clogged arteries and arthritis — each of which can require medications.
"Many of these aren't things that are going to kill you dead, at least not for a while," said Dr. Albert Wu, a senior author and a professor of health policy and management. "But you may need a pacemaker, you may need a defibrillator and some stents in your vessels. These are ... better than the alternative — but all these things come at a price."
"And despite the unprecedented wealth of today's 65-and-older population, in 2003 the poverty rate among seniors was 10 percent. But that's lower than the 12.5 percent rate for the general population, and it's a big change from 1959, when more than a third of seniors lived below the poverty level, according to the report."
You really took this as a MSM attack on President Bush?
At 2 1/2, he knew the title cut from A Mighty Wind. A few months back, I taught him a six verse "jody" from Jump School.
Sorry for the bragging...it's just been so much fun watching him grow. He's keeping me young.
But, I thought private pensions were the devils handmaidens and Bush had cut social secutiry and medicare to the point it was making people eat dog food... ??
I'm one. I've been retired for 6 years and am 60 years old now.
I left behind coworkers who were old enough to receive social security but said they couldn't afford to retire because s.s. wasn't enough because they still had mortgage pymts, kids student loans,credit card debt etc.,they will probably work until they die, I have no pity for them.
Hell, I'm not working past 2 pm today!
No it won't. Why work for money when you can vote for money?
My immediate response to your tax scheme is that it is intriguing. There would likely be unforseen consequences that would screw it up (younger people shifting earnings to elders to evade taxes perhaps). The current system, I believe, takes away part of your SS payment if you earn over a certain trigger amount. Your scheme would do the same thing (the continuing workers would forgo SS benefits they would otherwise receive), but adds in an income tax break. As I say, intriguing, but at the cost of further complicating the IRS structure and procedures.
I was GOING to keep working until age 70½, but circumstances came up, where leaving at age 64 became a much more attractive option.
1. I would have had to move, from a remote location where there was a great deal of autonomy, to a structured office environment.
2. One promotion had already been denied, and I had reconciled to the level where I was at.
3. Spouse fell ill, and was unable to work, partly because of illness exacerbated by the locality we were living in (high desert with cold winters).
4. I was offered an obscenely high price for the house I was living in at the time, so being of sound mind, we took the deal and squandered it all happily while moving to a more benign climate (sea level with subtropical seasons).
5. Got to where I can't afford to go back to work now....
Articles like these can be so infuriating. It would be really nice if they could gather statistics on some of the causes. I can think of a lot of reasons both for and against retiring. Many people retire at younger ages because they have worked hard, saved, and invested wisely and now want to enjoy that money. Of those I know in this category, none are depending on SS. More power to them! Some continue to work because they enjoy it. My grandmother ran her own business and worked 5 1/2 days a week until her she was 89. Some retire for health reasons. Some are forced out of the workplace because employers are bringing in younger and/or foreign workers who can be hired more cheaply.
"At 2 1/2, he knew the title cut from A Mighty Wind."
That was a really good movie. That kind of humor cracks me up.
That policy is already in place. I do not have the $$ amounts, but if you are receiving SS benefits and earn over a certain annual income, your SS benefits are taxed at 85%. Earn less and the benefits are taxed at 50% or not taxed.
For people who work 45 of their 65 years, they have paid their dues.....and after 65 they just keep paying.
sp
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
they still had mortgage pymts, kids student loans,credit card debt etc.,they will probably work until they die
It's not the lower income that will keep people working until they're ready to drop dead, it's the debt they've been encouraged to accumulate via our consumerism culture.
With no debt I've been retired for 5 years (not 65 yet) and live on SS and a small savings obtained by moving down out of a big wasteful home to a condo in a warm stable climate. My expenses are near zero. The only sacrifice I had to make is selling out of a high bloated real estate market into a lower cost market in the same state. Debt has kept most of my friends slaves to their jobs. They'll all croak on their jobs still being charged 23% interest on their credit cards, all maxed out to their limits and owing on second mortgages obtained to remodel huge homes and kitchens in which the microwave is the only appliance they use.
Debt will be the downfall of our nation
Yeah, next thing they will be wanting free education and free meals for the ungrateful and bitching young punks who are griping the loudest about the old folks.
Why not. They can legislate for that all they want. If the money does not exist, which it will not in another 15-20 years, it won't matter what benefits are enacted.
Best in Show
Waiting for Guffman
and last, but certainly not least, Spinal Tap.
"Guffman" is truly a sleeper.
I had enough to pull the plug at age fifty. I did but started something entirely new. When I get tired of this I'll find something else to do. When SS kicks in it will be play money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.