The Elderly Are Probably Better Off Than We Think

Tyler Cowen points me today to a new Census Bureau report that suggests the elderly are better off than we think. Why? Because when they respond to surveys, they don’t accurately report pension income:

The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) is the source of the nation’s official household income and poverty statistics. In 2012, the CPS ASEC showed that median household income was $33,800 for householders aged 65 and over and the poverty rate was 9.1 percent for persons aged 65 and over. When we instead use an extensive array of administrative income records linked to the same CPS ASEC sample, we find that median household income was $44,400 (30 percent higher) and the poverty rate was just 6.9 percent….The discrepancy is mainly attributable to underreporting of retirement income from defined benefit pensions and retirement account withdrawals.

Here’s the key pair of charts for people 65 years and older:

It’s surprising how hard it is to get data on pension income in particular and the income of the elderly in general. For past years, the data often just doesn’t exist, and for more recent years the data is full of problems. However, this study doesn’t surprise me. After spending a lot of time diving into what data exists, I’ve come to the conclusion that, in general, the elderly are (a) better off than we think and (b) have seen their income rise considerably more than any other age group over the past couple of decades. More details here.

The poorest elderly—primarily folks who spent their working lives at low-income jobs and now rely solely on Social Security—are truly in need, and their Social Security payments ought to be increased by a third or so. We also ought to do something about long-term nursing care, which can quickly bankrupt even the well-off elderly.

Those two things are what progressives should focus on, not on the mythical “retirement crisis.”

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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.