Income Security
Older Adults and the 2007-2009 Recession Gao ID: GAO-12-76 October 17, 2011The recession of 2007 to 2009 has been the most severe in this country since the 1930s. After adjusting for inflation, gross domestic product declined by 5.1 percent and the national unemployment rate peaked at 9.5 percent. While the recession officially ended in June 2009, our economy has experienced a weak recovery, with unemployment still above 9 percent. While the recession has affected all age groups, older adults--particularly those close to or in retirement--may face a greater burden because they may not have the same opportunities to recover from its effects. For example, older adults--generally those 55 and older--may have insufficient time to rebuild their depleted retirement savings due to sharp declines in financial markets and home equity, and they may experience increased medical costs. Also, as our previous work has shown, older workers are less likely to be unemployed than workers in younger age groups, but when older workers lose a job they are less likely to find other employment. These challenges have intensified older adults' concerns about having sufficient savings now and adequate income throughout retirement. Given your interest in the status of older adults and the effect of the recent recession, we examined the following: (1) What changes have occurred in the employment status of older adults, generally those 55 and older, with the recession? (2) How have the incomes and wealth of older adults in or near retirement changed with the recession? (3) What changes have occurred in the costs of medical care, the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, and mortality rates for older adults in recent years?
(1) Since 2007, unemployment rates doubled and remained higher than before the recession for workers aged 55 and older. While these rates were not as high as for other age groups, of more concern is that once older workers lose their jobs they are less likely to find other employment. In fact, the median duration of unemployment for older workers rose sharply from 2007 to 2010, more than tripling for workers 65 and older and increasing to 31 weeks from 11 weeks for workers aged 55 to 64. In addition, the proportion of older part-time workers who indicated they would prefer full-time work nearly doubled during this time. Unemployment rates increased for all groups during the recession and remained lowest for whites. (2) Household income fell by 6 percent for adults aged 55 to 64, but increased by 5 percent for adults 65 and older. Median household net worth fell during the recession for older adults. Poverty rates increased for adults aged 55 to 64, but declined for those 65 and older, while low incomes were more prevalent in older age groups than in younger ones. In addition, poverty rates were higher than the rates based on official levels when medical costs were factored in. The percentage of adults who began drawing Social Security benefits at age 62 rose during the recession, as did awards of Social Security Disability Benefits and applications for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Food insecurity also rose among older adults during the recession. (3) Medical costs continued to rise faster than other costs, and older adults continued to spend more on medical care than those in younger age groups. The purchasing power of Social Security benefits was maintained with cost-of-living adjustments and, for those receiving benefits in 2009, was increased with a one-time $250 Recovery Act payment in 2009. Mortality rates for older adults continued a long-term decline during 2007 through 2009.
GAO-12-76, Income Security: Older Adults and the 2007-2009 Recession
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-76
entitled 'Income Security: Older Adults and the 2007-2009 Recession'
which was released on October 18, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
A Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
October 2011:
Income Security:
Older Adults and the 2007-2009 Recession:
GAO-12-76:
Contents:
Letter:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Abbreviations:
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:
CPI-E: Experimental Consumer Price Index for the Elderly:
CPI-U: Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
CPI-W: Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers:
CPS: Current Population Survey:
DB: defined benefit:
DC: defined contribution:
SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 17, 2011:
The Honorable Bernard Sanders:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The recession of 2007 to 2009 has been the most severe in this country
since the 1930s. After adjusting for inflation, gross domestic product
declined by 5.1 percent and the national unemployment rate peaked at
9.5 percent. While the recession officially ended in June 2009, our
economy has experienced a weak recovery, with unemployment still above
9 percent. While the recession has affected all age groups, older
adults--particularly those close to or in retirement--may face a
greater burden because they may not have the same opportunities to
recover from its effects. For example, older adults--generally those
55 and older-may have insufficient time to rebuild their depleted
retirement savings due to sharp declines in financial markets and home
equity, and they may experience increased medical costs. Also, as our
previous work has shown, older workers are less likely to be
unemployed than workers in younger age groups, but when older workers
lose a job they are less likely to find other employment.[Footnote 1]
These challenges have intensified older adults' concerns about having
sufficient savings now and adequate income throughout retirement.
Given your interest in the status of older adults and the effect of
the recent recession,[Footnote 2] we examined the following: (1) What
changes have occurred in the employment status of older adults,
generally those 55 and older, with the recession? (2) How have the
incomes and wealth of older adults in or near retirement changed with
the recession? (3) What changes have occurred in the costs of medical
care, the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, and mortality
rates for older adults in recent years?
To address our objectives, we analyzed Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) and Census Bureau data concerning the employment status of older
adults[Footnote 3], Census Bureau and Federal Reserve Board data
concerning the income and assets of older adults, BLS data concerning
the costs of medical care, Social Security Administration and BLS data
concerning the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, United
States Department of Agriculture data concerning food security, and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data concerning mortality
rates for older adults.[Footnote 4] We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the rep[Footnote 5]ort. We
also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. We conducted this
performance audit from July to September 2011 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives.
On September 21, 2011, we briefed you and your staff on the
preliminary results of this study, and this report formally conveys
the information provided during this briefing (see appendix II for the
briefing slides) which is summarized below:
* Since 2007, unemployment rates doubled and remained higher than
before the recession for workers aged 55 and older. While these rates
were not as high as for other age groups, of more concern is that once
older workers lose their jobs they are less likely to find other
employment. In fact, the median duration of unemployment for older
workers rose sharply from 2007 to 2010, more than tripling for workers
65 and older and increasing to 31 weeks from 11 weeks for workers aged
55 to 64. In addition, the proportion of older part-time workers who
indicated they would prefer full-time work nearly doubled during this
time. Unemployment rates increased for all groups during the recession
and remained lowest for whites.
* Household income fell by 6 percent for adults aged 55 to 64, but
increased by 5 percent for adults 65 and older. Median household net
worth fell during the recession for older adults. Poverty rates
increased for adults aged 55 to 64, but declined for those 65 and
older, while low incomes were more prevalent in older age groups than
in younger ones. In addition, poverty rates were higher than the rates
based on official levels when medical costs were factored in. The
percentage of adults who began drawing Social Security benefits at age
62 rose during the recession, as did awards of Social Security
Disability Benefits and applications for Supplemental Security Income
benefits. Food insecurity also rose among older adults during the
recession.
* Medical costs continued to rise faster than other costs, and older
adults continued to spend more on medical care than those in younger
age groups. The purchasing power of Social Security benefits was
maintained during the recession with cost-of-living adjustments and
increased with a one-time $250 Recovery Act payment in 2009. Mortality
rates for older adults continued a long-term decline during 2007
through 2009.
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor,
Commerce, and Health and Human Services, as well as to the Social
Security Administration. In written comments—.
We will send copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees; the secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human
Services; the Social Security Commissioner; and other interested
parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Charles A. Jeszeck:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Income Security: Older Adults and the 2007-2009 Recession:
A Briefing to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
September 21, 2011:
Research Objectives:
1) What changes have occurred in the employment status of older
adults, generally those 55 and older, with the recent recession?
2) How have the incomes and wealth of older adults in or near
retirement changed with the recent recession?
3) What changes have occurred in the costs of medical care, the
purchasing power of Social Security benefits, and mortality rates
for older adults in recent years?
[End of section]
Scope and Methodology:
To address our objectives, we analyzed:
* Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data on the employment
status of older adults, income of older adults, and the costs of
medical care,
* Federal Reserve Board data on the family assets of older adults,
* Social Security Administration (SSA) and Bureau of Labor Statistics
data concerning the purchasing power of Social Security benefits,
* United States Department of Agriculture data concerning food
security, and,
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on mortality rates
for older adults.
Generally, we identified older adults as those 55 and older, but in
some cases data sources provided data using different age groups.
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes used in this report.[Footnote 1] We conducted our review
between July and September 2011 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Summary of Findings:
Since 2007, unemployment rates rose and remained higher than before
the recession for workers aged 55 and older.
* While these rates were not as high as for workers in younger age
groups, the median duration of unemployment is higher for older
workers, indicating that older workers have a harder time finding
other employment after losing a job.
* The proportion of older workers employed part-time who would prefer
full-time work rose sharply.
* Unemployment rates increased for all groups during the recession and
remained lowest for whites.
Since 2007, many older adults have seen decreases in their income and
net worth.
* Median household income fell by 6 percent for adults 55-64, but
increased by 5 percent for adults 65 and older.
* Household net worth fell for all older adults during the recession,
while poverty rates increased for those aged 55-64.
Medical costs continued to rise faster than other costs.
The purchasing power of Social Security benefits was maintained with
cost-of-living adjustments and increased with a one-time $250 Recovery
Act payment in 2009.
During the recession, mortality rates for older adults continued a
long-term decline.
[End of section]
Background:
* The recent recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
[Footnote 2]
* The average proportion of income received from SSA by recipient
households with a member age 65 or older was 65 percent in 2008.
* Most households with Social Security benefits receive most of their
income from SSA.
* In aggregate, Social Security benefits provide 36 percent of the
income for all households with someone 65 or older.
* Pensions and assets are also key sources of retirement income,
together providing 31 percent of aggregate income for households with
a member aged 65 and older.
* However, many older adults lack any pension; 44 percent of full-time
III. workers in their 50s have neither a defined benefit (DB), nor
defined contribution (DC) pension from their current employer.
* Although many current retirees have DB pensions, including 12
million retirees with private sector DB pensions, DB prevalence has
declined; the number of active DB plan participants in the private
sector fell from about 26 million to about 19 million from 1990 to
2008.
* DC plans are more common among today's workers. Among workers
retiring 2000-2006 with a DC plan, only about 6 percent chose an
annuity to ensure income throughout retirement.
* For households approaching or entering retirement (age 55 to 64),
the median level of financial assets in 2007 (before the recession
began) was about $72,000. Using a 4 percent withdrawal rate in
retirement, this would replace about 5 percent of these families'
$55,000 median annual household income.
* For households with a member 65 and older, average annual income
varied widely, from $7,466 for those in the lowest of five income
groups, to $109,543 for the highest of five income groups. Those in
the lowest and middle groups received most of their income from Social
Security retirement benefits. Those in the highest group on average
received most of their income from earnings, asset income, and
pensions (see figure 1).
Figure 1: For Households with Someone 65 and Older, Average Income
Varied in 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Average income source for households in the lowest, middle, and
highest of five income groups, 2008:
2008 Income quintile: Lowest (1st);
Social Security: $6,212;
Pensions and annuities: $246;
Asset income: $157;
Earnings: $134;
Other: $717;
Total: $7,466.
2008 Income quintile: Middle (3rd);
Social Security: $16,145;
Pensions and annuities: $4,111;
Asset income: $1,630;
Earnings: $2,457;
Other: $702
Total: $25,069.
2008 Income quintile: Highest (5th);
Social Security: $19,608;
Pensions and annuities: $20,485;
Asset income: $19,499;
Earnings: $47,870;
Other: $2,081
Total: $109,543.
Source: GAO and SSA analysis of 2008 income data from the March 2009
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and
Economic Supplement.
Note: Households are defined here as either a married couple living
together where one member is 65 or older, or a single person age 65 or
older. Income from other people (such as adult children living at
home) is not included in household income. ’Other“ includes noncash
benefits, veteran‘s benefits, unemployment compensation, workers‘
compensation, and personal contributions.
* Social Security retirement benefits provided most income for those
in the lowest and middle income groups, comprising 83 percent and 64
percent of total income, respectively.
* Earnings provided most income for those in the highest income group,
comprising nearly half of total income.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Employment Status of Older Adults:
* Unemployment for older workers (those 55 and older) increased
considerably during the recession and remained above prerecession
levels (see figure 2).
* During the recession, older workers who had lost their jobs in the
past 3 years had more difficulty returning to work (see figure 3) and
the median duration of unemployment rose (see figure 4). After losing
a job, older workers have a hard time finding employment.
Figure 2: Unemployment Rates for Older Workers Doubled in the
Recession and Have Remained High:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of civilian workforce:
Year: 2005;
Age group:
25-54: 4.1%;
55-64: 3.3%;
65 and older: 3.5%.
Year: 2006;
Age group:
25-54: 3.8%;
55-64: 3%;
65 and older: 2.9%.
Year: 2007;
Age group:
25-54: 3.7%;
55-64: 3.1%;
65 and older: 3.3%.
Year: 2008;
Age group:
25-54: 4.8%;
55-64: 3.7%;
65 and older: 4.2%.
Year: 2009;
Age group:
25-54: 8.3%;
55-64: 6.6%;
65 and older: 6.4%.
Year: 2010;
Age group:
25-54: 8.6%;
55-64: 7.1%;
65 and older: 6.7%.
Year: August 2011;
Age group:
25-54: 8%;
55-64: 6.8%;
65 and older: 6.9%.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Note: Unemployment rates are calculated as the number of unemployed
workers as a percent of the number in the workforce in each age group.
The workforce consists of individuals who are employed and those
unemployed who are seeking work. These rates do not reflect seasonal
adjustments. Estimates based on annual averages have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/- 12 percent of the estimate
itself. Estimates based on a single month have 95 percent confidence
intervals that are within +/- 15 percent of the estimate itself. All
statements made in the text were found to be statistically significant.
* As of August 2011, each age group had a higher unemployment rate
than in 2007.
* Older workers‘ unemployment rates have at least doubled since 2007.
* For workers near retirement, extended joblessness leaves less time
to accumulate additional retirement savings.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: After the Recession, Workers Who Lost Their Jobs Had More
Difficulty Getting Reemployed:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Labor force status of workers who lost their jobs in the past 3 years,
by age group January 2008 and January 2010:
Age 55-85:
Year: 2008;
Employed Full Time: 40%;
Employed Part Time: 11%;
Unemployed: 21%;
Retired: 19%;
Others not in the labor force: 10%.
Year: 2010;
Employed Full Time: 26%;
Employed Part Time: 11%;
Unemployed: 37%;
Retired: 14%;
Others not in the labor force: 12%.
Source: GAO analysis of Displaced Worker Supplement to the Census
Bureau, Current Population Survey.
Note: These figures show the labor force status in January 2010 for
workers who lost their jobs between January 2007 and December 2009 and
in January 2008 for workers who lost their jobs between January 2005
and December 2007. Displaced workers are defined as those who lost or
left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was
insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was
eliminated. The sum of percentages shown may not equal 100 due to
rounding. Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are
within +/- 34 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in
the text were found to be statistically significant.
* In January 2010, an estimated 37 percent of workers aged 55-85 who
had lost their jobs in the past 3 years were unemployed, compared to
21 percent in 2008.
* In January 2010, an estimated 37 percent of workers aged 55-85 who
had lost their jobs in the past 3 years were employed, compared to 51
percent in January 2008.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: The Median Duration of Unemployment Rose, Particularly for
Older Workers:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Duration of unemployment by age group, 2007 and 2010:
Median weeks of unemployment:
Ages: 25 to 34 years;
2007: 9 weeks;
2010: 21 weeks.
Ages: 35 to 44 years;
2007: 9 weeks;
2010: 24 weeks.
Ages: 45 to 54 years;
2007: 11 weeks;
2010: 29 weeks.
Ages: 55 to 64 years;
2007: 11 weeks;
2010: 31 weeks.
Ages: 65 years and over;
2007: 8 weeks;
2010: 29 weeks.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Note: See Congressional Research Service, ’The Trend in Long-Term
Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for More than
99 Weeks,“ (Washington, D.C.: 2010). Estimates have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/- 23 percent of the estimate
itself. All statements made in the text were found to be statistically
significant.
* For workers 65 and older the median duration of unemployment more
than tripled, increasing from 8 weeks to 29 weeks.
* For workers 55-64 the median duration nearly tripled, from 11 weeks
to 31 weeks.
* According to the Congressional Research Service, 17.8 percent of
jobless workers 55 and older had been out of work for at least 99
weeks in June 2011, compared to 8.1 percent of workers under age 35.
[End of figure]
* Compared to younger workers, more older workers are in low-wage jobs
(see figure 5).
* An increasing proportion of older adults who work part-time would
rather work full-time (see figure 6).
* Unemployment rates increased for all groups during the recession and
remained lowest for whites (see figure 7).
* The proportion of older workers in the labor force has increased
since 1990, and continued to do so through the recession (see figure
8).
Figure 5: Workers over Age 65 Are More Likely to Be in Low-Wage Jobs:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of workers in low-wage jobs by age group, 2007 and 2010:
Ages: 25-54;
2007: 20%;
2010: 21%.
Ages: 55-64;
2007: 18%;
2010: 18%.
Ages: 65 and older;
2007: 36%;
2010: 24%.
Source: GAO analysis of Current Population Survey data.
Note: Low-wage jobs are identified as those held by workers with
hourly wages below the 20th percentile of wages. There was no
significant change between 2007 and 2010 in the percentage of workers
in low-wage jobs in any age group. Estimates have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/- 5 percent of the estimate
itself. All statements made in the text were found to be statistically
significant.
* About one-third of workers 65 and older are in low-wage jobs”-those
that paid less than $10.20 per hour in 2007 or $11.00 per hour in 2010.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: An Increasing Proportion of Older Part-Time Workers Are Part-
Time Involuntarily:
Percentage of part-time workers in part-time jobs involuntarily:
Year: 2005;
Ages: 25-54: 17%;
Ages: 55 and older: 8%.
Year: 2006;
Ages: 25-54: 15%;
Ages: 55 and older: 8%.
Year: 2007;
Ages: 25-54: 16%;
Ages: 55 and older: 9%.
Year: 2008;
Ages: 25-54: 21%;
Ages: 55 and older: 11%.
Year: 2009;
Ages: 25-54: 28%;
Ages: 55 and older: 16%.
Year: 2010;
Ages: 25-54: 30%;
Ages: 55 and older: 17%.
Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+/- 7 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* The proportion of part-time workers aged 55 and older who indicated
they would prefer to work full-time but didn‘t for economic reasons,
such as slack work, business conditions, or because they could only
find part-time work, nearly doubled from 9 percent to 17 percent from
2007 to 2010.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Unemployment Rates Increased for All Groups during the
Recession and Remained Lowest for Whites:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Unemployment rate for older adults by race and ethnicity, 2007-2011:
65 and older:
Hispanic (any race):
August 2011: 9.6%;
2010: 9.5%;
2007: 4.9%.
Black:
August 2011: 8.7%;
2010: 9.2%;
2007: 4.5%.
White:
August 2011: 6.6%;
2010: 6.4%;
2007: 3.2%.
55-64:
Hispanic (any race):
August 2011: 7.9%;
2010: 10.3%;
2007: 4.5%.
Black:
August 2011: 10.8%;
2010: 9.7%;
2007: 4.3%.
White:
August 2011: 6.2%;
2010: 6.8%;
2007: 2.9%.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Note: Race designations white or black indicate that the respondent
said he or she was white or black, rather than having a mixed racial
identity. Black refers to black or African American. White and black
workers include Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Hispanic refers to
Hispanic or Latino and may be of any race. In 2010, there were no
significant differences in the unemployment rates for whites and
Asians in any of the age groups. Estimates based on annual averages
have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within +/- 41 percent of
the estimate itself. Estimates based on a single month have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/- 53 percent of the estimate
itself. All statements made in the text were found to be statistically
significant.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Labor Force Participation by Older Adults Continued to
Increase during the Recession:
Labor force participation by age group, 1990-2010:
Year: 1990;
Percentage of 55-64 year olds participating in the labor force: 56%;
Percentage of 65+ population participating in the labor force: 12%.
Year: 1995;
Percentage of 55-64 year olds participating in the labor force: 57%;
Percentage of 65+ population participating in the labor force: 12%.
Year: 2000;
Percentage of 55-64 year olds participating in the labor force: 59%;
Percentage of 65+ population participating in the labor force: 13%.
Year: 2005;
Percentage of 55-64 year olds participating in the labor force: 63%;
Percentage of 65+ population participating in the labor force: 15%.
Year: 2010;
Percentage of 55-64 year olds participating in the labor force: 65%;
Percentage of 65+ population participating in the labor force: 17%.
Source: GAO analysis of the Census Bureau Current Population Survey
data.
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+/- 14 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* The proportion of adults 55-64 working or seeking work increased
from 56 percent to 65 percent between 1990 and 2010.
* The proportion of adults 65 and older working or seeking work
increased from 12 percent to 17 percent over the same period.
[End of figure]
[End of Finding 1]
Finding 2: Income and Wealth of Older Adults:
* Median household income fell by 9 percent for adults 55-64, but
increased by 5 percent for adults 65 and older (see figure 9).
* Median net worth (assets less debt) appears to have fallen during
the recession for all age groups (see figure 10).
Figure 9: Income for Adults Age 55-64 Has Declined Since 2007 and
Increased for Adults 65 and Older:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Median household money income by age of householder, 2007 through 2010:
2010 dollars:
Age: 45-54;
2007: $69,000;
2008: $65,000;
2009: $65,000;
2010: $62,000.
Age: 55-64;
2007: $60,000;
2008: $58,000;
2009: $58,000;
2010: $57,000.
Age: 65 and older;
2007: $30,000;
2008: $30,000;
2009: $32,000;
2010: $31,000.
Source: GAO analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+/- 2 percent of the estimate itself All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* After adjusting for inflation, the median incomes of households 45-
54 and 55-64 dropped by 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively, during
the recession.
* After adjusting for inflation, median household income for
households headed by adults 65 and older increased by 5 percent.
* The income of those over 65 may be protected to some extent by
Social Security.
[End of figure]
Figure 10: According to the Federal Reserve Board, Older Adults' Net
Worth Declined from 2007 to 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Median household net worth by age group, 2007 and 2009:
2009 dollars:
Age: 45-54;
2007: $203,000;
2009: $150,000.
Age: 55-64;
2007: $258,000;
2009: $222,000.
Age: 65-74;
2007: $233,000;
2009: $206,000.
Age: 75 and older;
2007: $229,000;
2009: $191,000.
Source: Jesse Bricker, et al., Federal Reserve Board, ’Surveying the
Aftermath of the Storm: Changes in Family Finances from 2007 to 2009,“
Finance and Economics Discussion Series (Washington, D.C.: March 2011).
Note: These are based on results from the 2007 and 2009 Survey of
Consumer Finance. Net worth is the total of assets less debt. The 2009
survey was conducted between July 2009 and January 2010. GAO was
unable to test whether the changes in median net worth were
statistically significant, because the Federal Reserve Board report
does not provide information about the variance of the reported
estimates, and microdata to calculate these estimates were not
available.
* According to analysis by the Federal Reserve Board, net worth (all
assets less debt) declined in all age groups.
* Older adults have less time to recover from losses of wealth.
[End of figure]
The Recession Leaves Older Adults with Difficult Choices Regarding
Retirement Savings:
* Older adults may have to reconsider when to retire or how much
income they can expect in retirement given that:
- on average, stocks have not fully recovered from their low point in
the recession;
- housing prices have generally not recovered; and;
- since the recession began, cash and short-term savings interest
rates have typically been low, so savings provide little if any
interest income after adjusting for inflation.[Footnote 3]
* Poverty rates increased for adults aged 55-64 during the recession,
while rates declined for adults 65 and older (see figure 11).
* When medical costs are factored in, poverty rates for older adults
are higher than rates based on official poverty levels (see figure
12). [Footnote 4]
* Among older adults, poverty rates continued to be higher for women,
particularly those in the oldest age category (see figure 13), and
lower for whites (see figure 14).
* Low incomes were more prevalent in older age groups (see figure 15).
Figure 11: Poverty Rates Increased for Adults Aged 55-64, but Declined
for Those 65 and Over:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of adults with income below 100 percent of the federal
poverty level by age group, 2005-2010[A]:
Age group: 45-54;
2005: 8.2%;
2006: 7.8%;
2007: 8.5%;
2008: 9.1%;
2009: 10%;
2010: 10.6%.
Age group: 55-64;
2005: 8.7%;
2006: 8.8%;
2007: 8.6%;
2008: 9.2%;
2009: 9.4%;
2010: 10.1%.
Age group: 65 and older;
2005: 10.1%;
2006: 9.4%;
2007: 9.7%;
2008: 9.7%;
2009: 8.9%;
2010: 9%.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social
and Economic Supplements.
[A] The Census Bureau poverty level in 2009 for those 65 or older was
annual income of $10,289 for a single person, and $12,968 for a two-
person household. For those under 65 the levels were 8 percent higher
for a single person and 11 percent higher for two-person households.
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+/- 7 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* Poverty rates increased from 8.7 to 10.1 percent for adults aged 55-
64, but declined from 10.1 percent to 9.0 percent for those 65 and
older.
* Social Security benefits may play a role in keeping older adults out
of poverty, especially those age 65 and above.
[End of figure]
Figure 12: When Medical Costs Are Factored in, Poverty Rates for Older
Adults Are Higher Than Rates Based on Official Poverty Levels:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Poverty rates for population aged 65 and older, 2007-2009:
Year: 2007
Poverty rates based on official poverty levels: 9.7%;
Poverty rates based on alternative poverty levels: 17.9%.
Year: 2008
Poverty rates based on official poverty levels: 9.7%;
Poverty rates based on alternative poverty levels: 19%.
Year: 2009
Poverty rates based on official poverty levels: 8.9%;
Poverty rates based on alternative poverty levels: 17.1%.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social
and Economic Supplements.
Note: This is an example of one of the alternative poverty measures
that adjust for medical costs developed by the National Academy of
Sciences. Estimates for the unadjusted poverty rates have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/- 7 percent of the estimate
itself. GAO did not calculate confidence intervals around the medical
cost-adjusted poverty rates. All statements made in the text were
found to be statistically significant.
* Because out-of-pocket medical costs can affect people‘s ability to
afford basic necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, and
utilities, alternative approaches to measuring poverty have been
developed that adjust the poverty level to account for these costs.
[End of figure]
Figure 13: Women Are More Likely to Live in Poverty than Men,
Particularly at Older Ages:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of older adults in poverty by gender and age group, 2010:
Ages: 55-64;
Men: 9.4%;
Women: 10.7%.
Ages: 65-74;
Men: 6.5%;
Women: 9.5%.
Ages: 75 and older;
Men: 7.0%;
Women: 12.1%.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social
and Economic Supplements, and GAO, Retirement Security: Women Face
Challenges in Ensuring Financial Challenges in Retirement, GAO-08-105
(Washington, D.C.: October 11, 2007).
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+/- 12 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* About 12 percent of women age 75 and older had incomes below the
poverty level in 2010, compared to 7 percent of men.
* Women generally have less retirement income than men because women
may spend less time in the labor force and have lower earnings, on
average.
[End of figure]
Figure 14: Among Older Adults, Poverty Rates Were Lowest for Whites:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Poverty Rates in Percentages for Older Adults by Race and Ethnicity,
2007 and 2010:
Ages: 65 and older:
Asian:
2010: 15%;
2007: 11%;
Hispanic:
2010: 18%;
2007: 17%;
Black:
2010: 18%;
2007: 23%;
White:
2010: 8%;
2007: 8%.
Ages: 55-64;
Asian:
2010: 9%;
2007: 10%;
Hispanic:
2010: 17%;
2007: 16%;
Black:
2010: 21%;
2007: 18%;
White:
2010: 9%;
2007: 7%.
Source: GAO analysis of Current Population Survey, Annual Social and
Economic Supplements data.
* During the recession, the poverty rate for whites age 65 and older
remained lower than the poverty rates for all other groups in this age
range.
* The poverty rate for whites age 55-64 remained lower than the
poverty rates for Hispanics and blacks in this age range.[A]
[A] The difference between whites and Asians ages 55 to 64 was
significant in 2007 but not in 2010.
Note: Race designations white or black indicate that the respondent
said he or she was white or black, rather than having a mixed racial
identity. Black refers to black or African American. White and black
adults include Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Hispanic refers to
Hispanic or Latino and may be of any race. Estimates have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/- 12 percent of the estimate
itself. All statements made in the text were found to be statistically
significant.
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Low Incomes Were More Prevalent in Older Age Groups:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of adults with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty
level by age group, 2007-2010:
Age: 55-59;
2007: 20%;
2008: 21%;
2009: 22%;
2010: 22%.
Age: 60-64;
2007: 23%;
2008: 24%;
2009: 24%;
2010: 25%.
Age: 65-69;
2007: 27%;
2008: 27%;
2009: 27%;
2010: 26%.
Age: 70-74;
2007: 34%;
2008: 34%;
2009: 32%;
2010: 32%.
Age: 75 and older;
2007: 43%;
2008: 43%;
2009: 39%;
2010: 42%.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social
and Economic Supplements.
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+1- 3 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* A substantial proportion of older adults have low incomes (below 200
percent of the federal poverty level). This is particularly so for
those in the oldest age group.
* Social Security benefits keep many adults 65 and older out of
poverty, but a sizable group has income below 200 percent of the
poverty level.
[End of figure]
The recession brought financial hardships to many older adults:
* An estimated 25 percent of adults aged 50 and older indicated that
they exhausted their savings and 12 percent said they lost health
insurance (see table 1).
* To make ends meet, many older adults reported delaying medical care
or cutting back or stopping saving (see table 2).
* Greater proportions of older adults took Social Security retired
worker benefits at age 62 (see figure 16).
* Awards of disability benefits to older adults rose (see figure 17)
and more older adults applied for Supplementary Security Income
benefits (see figure 18).
Table 1: Many Older Adults Experienced Financial Hardships during the
Recession:
Percentage of AARP survey respondents aged 50 and older indicating
they or their family had experienced certain kinds of hardship in the
2007-2010 period:
Exhausted or used up all of my savings: 24.7%;
Lost my health insurance: 12.4%;
Filed for bankruptcy: 3.6%;
Forced to sell my house: 1.4%;
Lost my house to foreclosure: 1.4%;
Source: AARP Public Policy Institute, October 2010 survey of adults
aged 50 and over who had been in the labor force at some point during
the previous 3 years.
Note: This question was asked of those age 50 or older (n=5027): Which
if any of the following financial hardships have you/your family
experienced in the past 3 years? This is based on a random sample of
U.S. residents aged 50 and older from a panel representative of the
U.S. population.
[End of table]
Table 2: Many of Those Having Difficulty Making Ends Meet Had to Make
Hard Choices to Get By:
Among those aged 50 and older who reported having difficulty making
ends meet in any period during the 2007-2010 period:
Delayed getting medical or dental care or delayed or ceased taking
medicine: 49.5%;
Stopped or cut back on saving for retirement: 36.4%;
Stopped or cut back on other (nonretirement) savings: 29.4%;
Dropped health insurance coverage: 12.0%;
Took loan from 401(k) or other retirement account: 9.1%;
Source: AARP Policy Institute Survey, October 2010 survey.
Note: This is based on a random sample of U.S. residents 50 and older
from a panel representative of the U.S. population.
* Many of these choices could have long-term consequences for
retirement income security.
[End of table]
Figure 16: Percent of Adults Who Began Drawing Social Security
Benefits at Age 62 Rose during the Recession:
[Refer to PDF for image: combined vertical bar and line graph]
Estimated percentage of 62-year-olds who began drawing Social Security
retired worker benefits at age 62:
Year: 2005;
Percent of 62 year olds taking Social Security Retired Worker
Benefits: 36%;
Adults aged 62: 2.7 million.
Year: 2006;
Percent of 62 year olds taking Social Security Retired Worker
Benefits: 34%;
Adults aged 62: 2.7 million.
Year: 2007;
Percent of 62 year olds taking Social Security Retired Worker
Benefits: 30%;
Adults aged 62: 2.7 million.
Year: 2008;
Percent of 62 year olds taking Social Security Retired Worker
Benefits: 31%;
Adults aged 62: 3.2 million.
Year: 2009;
Percent of 62 year olds taking Social Security Retired Worker
Benefits: 35%;
Adults aged 62: 3.5 million.
Year: 2010;
Percent of 62 year olds taking Social Security Retired Worker
Benefits: 34%;
Adults aged 62: 3.4 million.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA administrative data on awards of retired
worker benefits and Census Bureau estimates of resident population by
age.
Note: For adults reaching age 62 in these years, benefits will be
reduced for early retirement, unless they start benefits at 66 or
later.
Workers who began drawing benefits upon reaching age 62 during this
period will permanently receive 25 percent less in monthly benefits
than they would if they waited until retirement age to begin receiving
benefits.
[End of figure]
Figure 17: Awards of SSA Disability Benefits to Adults 50 and Older
Rose after the Recession:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of the population 50 and older, but less than full
retirement age, with initial dispositions and awards of Social
Security disability insurance, 2000-2010:
Year: 2000;
Initial dispositions: 1.2%;
Awards: 0.81%.
Year: 2001;
Initial dispositions: 1.28%;
Awards: 0.84%.
Year: 2002;
Initial dispositions: 1.37%;
Awards: 0.9%.
Year: 2003;
Initial dispositions: 1.4%;
Awards: 0.91%.
Year: 2004;
Initial dispositions: 1.42%;
Awards: 0.91%.
Year: 2005;
Initial dispositions: 1.37%;
Awards: 0.94%.
Year: 2006;
Initial dispositions: 1.34%;
Awards: 0.89%.
Year: 2007;
Initial dispositions: 1.3%;
Awards: 0.82%.
Year: 2008;
Initial dispositions: 1.29%;
Awards: 0.87%.
Year: 2009;
Initial dispositions: 1.37%;
Awards: 0.95%.
Year: 2010;
Initial dispositions: 1.49%;
Awards: 1%.
Source: Social Security Administration.
Note: The average annual processing time from filing claims for
disability benefits to initial dispositions (approvals or denials)
ranged from 105 days to 122 days.
The numbers of initial dispositions on disability claims and final
awards as a percentage of the estimated population:
* increased gradually early in the decade,
* declined modestly,
* then rose after the recession began.
[End of figure]
Figure 18: Applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Benefits Reached a High Point in 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Year: 2000;
Applications: 0.45%;
Awards: 0.34%.
Year: 2001;
Applications: 0.46%;
Awards: 0.32%.
Year: 2002;
Applications: 0.50%;
Awards: 0.33%.
Year: 2003;
Applications: 0.50%;
Awards: 0.30%.
Year: 2004;
Applications: 0.52%;
Awards: 0.30%.
Year: 2005;
Applications: 0.64%;
Awards: 0.31%.
Year: 2006;
Applications: 0.71%;
Awards: 0.30%.
Year: 2007;
Applications: 0.78%;
Awards: 0.28%.
Year: 2008;
Applications: 0.83%;
Awards: 0.28%.
Year: 2009;
Applications: 0.79%;
Awards: 0.27%.
Year: 2010;
Applications: 0.71%;
Awards: 0.26%.
Source: GAO analysis of Social Security Administration administrative
data and Census Bureau estimates.
* Applications for SSI by adults 65 and older increased before the
recession.
* Applications increased from 2007 to 2008, then fell modestly from
2008 to 2010.
* Awards declined over the decade.
[End of figure]
Food Insecurity Rose among Older Adults:
While food insecurity in the general population did not start rising
until 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) noted that food
insecurity began rising among older adults in 2007.[Footnote 5]
* The proportion of all households with a member 65 or older
classified by USDA as being food insecure rose from 6.0 percent in
2006 to 7.9 percent in 2010.
* Among elderly households with incomes below 130 percent of
poverty, the proportion classified as food insecure rose from
17.6 percent in 2006 to 24.0 percent in 2010.
Demand for Food Assistance Rose among Older Adults:
The average number of households with a member age 60 or older
participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly the Food Stamp program) rose 25 percent from 2.0 million in
fiscal year 2006 to 2.5 million in fiscal year 2009, while the U.S.
population age 60 and older increased 9 percent over this period.
Households with a member 60 and older participating in SNAP declined
as a percentage of all participating households from 17.9 percent in
fiscal year 2006 to 16.6 percent in fiscal year 2009.
In 2011, GAO reported that the demand for Elderly Nutrition Program
services-”including home-delivered meals and congregate meals funded
by the Older Americans Act-”had increased since the start of the
recession and was expected to continue to rise.
[See GAO, Nutrition Assistance: Additional Services Could Improve
Efficiencies to Older Adults, GAO-11-782T (Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2011)]
[End of Finding 2]
Finding 3: Medical Care, Purchasing Power, and Mortality Rates:
* The cost of medical care continued to increase more rapidly than
other prices (see figure 19).
* Older adults spent more on medical care than younger adults (see
figure 20).
Figure 19: Medical Care Prices Continued to Increase More Than for
Other Items:
Consumer price indices: 2000 = 100:
Year: 2000;
CPI-U less medical care: 100;
Medical care: 100.
Year: 2001;
CPI-U less medical care: 103;
Medical care: 105.
Year: 2002;
CPI-U less medical care: 104;
Medical care: 110.
Year: 2003;
CPI-U less medical care: 106;
Medical care: 114.
Year: 2004;
CPI-U less medical care: 109;
Medical care: 119.
Year: 2005;
CPI-U less medical care: 113;
Medical care: 124.
Year: 2006;
CPI-U less medical care: 116;
Medical care: 128.
Year: 2007;
CPI-U less medical care: 120;
Medical care: 135.
Year: 2008;
CPI-U less medical care: 124;
Medical care: 139.
Year: 2009;
CPI-U less medical care: 123;
Medical care: 143.
Year: 2010;
CPI-U less medical care: 125;
Medical care: 148.
Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
* Prices for medical care increased by 48 percent between 2000 and
2010.
[End of figure]
Figure 20: Adults in Older Age Groups Typically Spent More on Medical
Care:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Average out-of-pocket medical care expenditures per person by age
group, in constant 2009 dollars:
Year: 2000;
Age group: 45-54: $2,741;
Age group: 55-64: $3,125;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,046.
Year: 2001;
Age group: 45-54: $2,745;
Age group: 55-64: $3,276;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,233.
Year: 2002;
Age group: 45-54: $3,042;
Age group: 55-64: $3,587;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,277.
Year: 2003;
Age group: 45-54: $2,891;
Age group: 55-64: $3,567;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,362.
Year: 2004;
Age group: 45-54: $3,061;
Age group: 55-64: $3,705;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,428.
Year: 2005;
Age group: 45-54: $2,936;
Age group: 55-64: $3,747;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,607.
Year: 2006;
Age group: 45-54: $2,935;
Age group: 55-64: $3,785;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,610.
Year: 2007;
Age group: 45-54: $2,889;
Age group: 55-64: $3,597;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,792.
Year: 2008;
Age group: 45-54: $2,920;
Age group: 55-64: $3,813;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,590.
Year: 2009;
Age group: 45-54: $3,173;
Age group: 55-64: $3,895;
Age group: 65 and older: $4,846.
Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Expenditure Survey data.
Note: Estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within
+/- 9 percent of the estimate itself. All statements made in the text
were found to be statistically significant.
* Adults in older age groups spent more on medical care than those in
younger age groups.
* Medical care spending has increased even after adjusting for
inflation in consumer prices.
* Generally, long-term increases in medical care spending continued
during the recession.
[End of figure]
* Social Security Administration cost-of-living adjustments gave
recipients a 5.8 increase in 2009, but there was no increase in 2010
or 2011 because price levels did not rise above the level that
prompted the 2009 increase (see table 3).
* The purchasing power of Social Security benefits was maintained with
cost-of-living adjustments and increased with a one-time $250 Recovery
Act payment in 2009 (see figure 21).
* Mortality rates for older adults continue to gradually decrease (see
figure 22).
Table 3: Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA) Adjust for Inflation, but
with a Short Time Lag:
Year: 2006;
Third quarter price index averages (1982-84 = 100): 199.1;
Percent change in third quarter price index over prior third quarter:
3.3%;
COLA in January (percent): 4.1%.
Year: 2007;
Third quarter price index averages (1982-84 = 100): 203.6;
Percent change in third quarter price index over prior third quarter:
2.3%;
COLA in January (percent): 3.3%.
Year: 2008;
Third quarter price index averages (1982-84 = 100): 215.5;
Percent change in third quarter price index over prior third quarter:
5.8%;
COLA in January (percent): 2.3%.
Year: 2009;
Third quarter price index averages (1982-84 = 100): 211.0;
Percent change in third quarter price index over prior third quarter:
-2.1%;
COLA in January (percent): 5.8%.
Year: 2010;
Third quarter price index averages (1982-84 = 100): 214.1;
Percent change in third quarter price index over prior third quarter:
1.5%;
COLA in January (percent): 0.0%.
Year: 2011;
Third quarter price index averages (1982-84 = 100): Unknown;
Percent change in third quarter price index over prior third quarter:
Unknown;
COLA in January (percent): 0.0%.
Source: Social Security Administration and Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
Note: The cost-of-living adjustments are calculated based on changes
in the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical
workers (CPI-W). There was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because prices did
not exceed the level of prices in the 3rd quarter 2008 in either the
3rd quarter of 2009 or the 3rd quarter of 2010.
* Social Security COLAs increase benefits beginning in January based
on the level of prices in the most recent July through September
period compared with the level of prices in the preceding July through
September period.
* After a 5.8 percent COLA in 2009, no COLA was made in 2010 or 2011
because prices had not risen above the 2008 level.
[End of table]
Figure 21: COLAs Maintain SSA Benefit Purchasing Power:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Nominal dollars per month:
Year: 2003;
Chained CPI-U: $908.7;
CPI-U: $908.7;
CPI-W: $908.7.
Year: 2004;
Chained CPI-U: $926.34;
CPI-U: $928.66;
CPI-W: $927.78.
Year: 2005;
Chained CPI-U: $948.38;
CPI-U: $953.98;
CPI-W: $952.83.
Year: 2006;
Chained CPI-U: $978.87;
CPI-U: $990.55;
CPI-W: $991.9.
Year: 2007;
Chained CPI-U: $1,011.34;
CPI-U: $1,023.59;
CPI-W: $1,024.63.
[Recession period: mid-2007 through 2009]
Year: 2008;
Chained CPI-U: $1,032.76;
CPI-U: $1,047.75;
CPI-W: $1,048.2.
Year: 2009;
Chained CPI-U: $1,102.5;
CPI-U: $1,124.14;
CPI-W: $1,129.83.
Year: 2010;
Chained CPI-U: $1,081.66;
CPI-U: $1,103.31;
CPI-W: $1,108.99.
Year: 2011;
Chained CPI-U: $1,081.66;
CPI-U: $1,103.31;
CPI-W: $1,108.99.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
SSA.
Note: These figures show adjustments in January each year based on the
increase in prices during the most recent July to September period
over the preceding July to September period. COLAs are not provided if
prices in the most recent July to September period were below the
level of prices in the period that last prompted a COLA. Shaded area
indicates the period of the recession. The 2009 figures include 1/12th
of a one-time $250 stimulus payment to SSA recipients in May 2009. The
chained CPI-U figures are based on initial estimates. Final figures
for this index are available more than a year after the prices change.
* COLAs are currently based on the CPI-W, reflecting prices for urban
wage earners and clerical workers. The consumer price index for all
urban consumers (CPI-U) and the chained CPI-U reflect prices for all
urban consumers.
* Because of a one-time $250 Recovery Act stimulus payment in 2009,
beneficiaries experienced an increase in purchasing power.
* There is concern that the CPI-W may be based on consumer items that
may not be representative of those purchased by older adults. No
reliable measure is currently available of inflation targeted
exclusively on older adults‘ consumption.
[End of figure]
Experimental Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) Is Intended to Track
Inflation for Older Adults:
* The CPI-E, which was created by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
in response to a 1987 amendment in the Older Americans Act, is an
experimental price index that aims to track inflation for the
population aged 62 and older.
* BLS cautioned against using the CPI-E for pension and other
adjustments because it is only an approximation of an index for older
Americans.
* According to BLS, a reliable CPI-E would require:
- a larger sample of older Americans in the consumer expenditure
survey,
- new samples of market-based items, stores, and prices to represent
older Americans' purchasing patterns, and,
- further examination of the CPI-E's medical care component, since
older Americans have different illnesses and medical expenses than the
rest of the population.
Figure 22: Mortality Rates for Older Adults Continue to Gradually
Decrease:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
* As mortality rates decrease, life expectancy increases.
Mortality rates by age group, 2006-2009 annual deaths per 100,000
population:
Ages: 55-64;
2006: 891;
2007: 878;
2008: 880;
2009: 871.
Ages: 65-74;
2006: 2,062;
2007: 2,011;
2008: 1,997;
2009: 1,929.
Ages: 75-84;
2006: 5,115; 2; 1.6
2008: 5,020;
2009: 4,775.
Ages: 85 or older;
2006: 13,253;
2007: 12,947;
2008: 13,020;
2009: 13,020.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports: Deaths:
Preliminary Data (for selected years).
Note: Preliminary estimates of deaths in 2009 are based on files that
may not be complete, so they are subject to variability. Research
using data for the 1972 to 2001 period indicate that declines in
mortality rates were greater for men with higher earnings than for
those with lower earnings. See Hilary Waldron, ’Trends in Mortality
Differentials and Life Expectancy for Male Social Security-Covered
Workers, by Socioeconomic Status,“ Social Security Bulletin 67(3) 2007.
[End of figure]
[End of Finding 3]
Concluding observations:
* The recession of 2007 to 2009 has had a profound impact on American
workers and their families. Many older adults, like other age groups,
have lost employment and wealth.
* The major challenges for older adults are that they have less time
before retirement to make up for these losses, and they typically face
greater medical expenses.
* Social Security likely helped keep at least some eligible long-term
unemployed older adults from falling into poverty. Workers who left
the workforce prematurely could face insufficient income at older ages
because they may have reduced monthly Social Security benefits and
less savings than may be needed over a longer period of time.
* More of today's older retirees are able to rely on lifetime
retirement income from defined benefit plans than will in the future.
* The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution pension plans
will make future retirees:
- more dependent on their own choices about how much to save, how to
invest those savings, at what age to retire, and how to draw upon
those savings; and;
- more vulnerable to financial market volatility.
[End of section]
Briefing Slides Footnotes:
[1] The estimates based on sample data are subject to sampling and non-
sampling errors.
[2] The period of the recession is identified by the National Bureau
of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating Committee.
[3] In 2009, however, real interest rates were positive as consumer
prices fell.
[4] "Poverty level" refers to levels determined by the Census Bureau.
[5] USDA identifies families with food insecurity based on responses
to questions in a supplement to the Current Population Survey
concerning the inability, at times, to afford balanced meals, cutting
the size of meals because of too little money for food, or being
hungry because of too little money for food. Households are classified
as having low or very low food security if they experienced the
condition at any time during the previous 12 months.
[End of Briefing Slides]
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Charles A. Jeszeck, at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact names above, the following staff members
made important contributions to this report: Michael J. Collins,
Assistant Director; Rachel E. Frisk; Kathy D. Leslie; Mimi Nguyen;
Thomas A. Moscovitch; Rhiannon Patterson; Benjamin Pfeiffer; Kathleen
K. Scholl; Kenneth C. Stockbridge; Roger J. Thomas; Frank Todisco;
Walter K. Vance; Kathleen L. Van Gelder; and Eve M. Weisberg.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Nutrition Assistance: Additional Services Could Improve Efficiencies
to Older Adults. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-782T].
Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2011.
Retirement Income: Ensuring Income throughout Retirement Requires
Difficult Choices. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-400]. Washington, D.C.: June 7,
2011.
Older Americans Act: More Should Be Done to Measure the Extent of
Unmet Need for Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-237]. Washington, D.C.: February
28, 2011.
Social Security Reform: Raising the Retirement Ages Would Have
Implications for Older Workers and SSA Disability Rolls. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-125]. Washington, D.C.: November
18, 2010.
Retirement Security: Women Face Challenges in Ensuring Financial
Challenges in Retirement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-105]. Washington, D.C.: October 11,
2007.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Engaging and Retaining Older Workers.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-438SP]. Washington,
D.C.: February 28, 2007.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Social Security Reform: Raising the Retirement Ages Would Have
Implications for Older Workers and SSA Disability Roles, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-125] (Washington, D.C.: November
18, 2010).
[2] The National Bureau of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating
Committee identifies the period of this recession to be December 2007
through June 2009.
[3] Data on the labor market outcomes of displaced workers and the
number of older workers who earn a low wage are based on our analyses
of microdata from the Current Population Survey (CPS). For our
analysis of the reemployment experiences of older displaced workers,
we used data from the 2008 and 2010 Displaced Worker Supplements to
the CPS; the analysis was not restricted to workers who had held the
job from which they were displaced for a minimum period of time. For
our analysis of low-wage earning older workers, we used data from the
outgoing rotation groups of the CPS (the basic monthly CPS) for the
years 2007 and 2010. We defined "low wage" as those with an hourly
wage rate in the bottom quintile (bottom 20 percent) of wages across
the workforce for workers that reported positive earnings. We
estimated the hourly wage rate using usual weekly earnings divided by
usual hours worked per week.
[4] We examined mortality rates rather then life expectancy because
current estimates of life expectancy are based on projections using
older data, prior to the recession. Since mortality rates directly
affect life expectancy, and more updated data are available, we report
data on mortality rates.
[5] The estimates based on sample data are subject to sampling and non-
sampling errors. Confidence in the precision of sample estimates is
expressed as a 95 percent confidence interval. Confidence intervals
are provided for all figures based on estimates that we produced.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
