Raw Data: Retirement Income Replacement Rates in the US vs. Other Rich Countries


While Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are finishing up their lovefest in New Hampshire, how about another chart comparing retirement in America to retirement in other rich countries? Don’t lie: you know you want it.

Here’s one that makes the US look a little worse than yesterday’s charts. It shows income replacement rates in all OECD countries: that is, the amount of income that retirees get compared to how much they earned when they were working. This is a very tricky number to compute because there are lots of different ways you can do it, and the OECD pension report spends several pages just outlining the various assumptions you can use. That said, here are their estimates for low-income workers when you include only public pensions like Social Security:

And here’s the same chart including all pension income, both public and private:

Once again, the United States relies more on private spending than most other countries. When you count only Social Security, the US looks pretty stingy, ranking seventh from the bottom for low-income workers. But when you include all sources of pension income, we look better than a majority of OECD counties—including famously generous ones like Belgium, France, and Germany.

Now, as I said, these numbers are tricky to compute, and in this case I’m fairly skeptical of them. The replacement rate for Social Security in the top chart looks way too low to me. Conversely, the replacement rate for all sources of pension income in the US looks too high. Neither number matches up to figures for low-income workers from places like the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration. But that may simply be because the OECD made different assumptions in their calculations.

In any case, this gives you a decent idea of how we stack up using simple income replacement rates as your metric.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate