Employment-based retirement plan participation: geographic differences and trends, 2010.

LATEST DATA: This Issue Brief examines the level of participation by workers in public- and private-sector employment-based pension or retirement plans, based on the U.S. Census Bureau's March 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS), the most recent data currently available (for year-end 2010). SPONSORSHIP RATE: Among all working-age (21-64) wage and salary employees, 54.2 percent worked for an employer or union that sponsored a retirement plan in 2010. Among full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21-64 (those with the strongest connection to the work force), 61.6 percent worked for an employer or union that sponsors a plan. PARTICIPATION LEVEL: Among full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21-64, 54.5 percent participated in a retirement plan. TREND: This is virtually unchanged from 54.4 percent in 2009. Participation trends increased significantly in the late 1990s, and decreased in 2001 and 2002. In 2003 and 2004, the participation trend flattened out. The retirement plan participation level subsequently declined in 2005 and 2006, before a significant increase in 2007. Slight declines occurred in 2008 and 2009, followed by a flattening out of the trend in 2010. AGE: Participation increased with age (61.4 percent for wage and salary workers ages 55-64, compared with 29.2 percent for those ages 21-24). GENDER: Among wage and salary workers ages 21-64, men had a higher participation level than women, but among full-time, full-year workers, women had a higher percentage participating than men (55.5 percent for women, compared with 53.8 percent for men). Female workers' lower probability of participation among wage and salary workers results from their overall lower earnings and lower rates of full-time work in comparison with males. RACE: Hispanic wage and salary workers were significantly less likely than both white and black workers to participate in a retirement plan. The gap between the percentages of black and white plan participants that exists overall narrows when compared across earnings levels. GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES: Wage and salary workers in the South and West had the lowest participation levels (Florida had the lowest percentage, at 43.7 percent) while the upper Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast had the highest levels (West Virginia had the highest participation level, at 64.2 percent). OTHER FACTORS: White, more highly educated, higher-income, and married workers are more likely to participate than their counterparts.

Savings needed to fund health insurance and health care expenses in retirement: findings from a simulation model.

MODELING RETIREE HEALTH COSTS: This Issue Brief examines the uncertainty of health care expenses in retirement by using a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the amount of savings needed to cover health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care expenses. This type of simulation is able to account for the uncertainty related to individual mortality and rates of return, and computes the present value of the savings needed to cover health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses in retirement. These observations were used to determine asset targets for having adequate savings to cover retiree health costs 50, 75, and 90 percent of the time. NOT ENOUGH SAVINGS: Many individuals will need more money than the amounts reported in this Issue Brief because this analysis does not factor in the savings needed to cover long-term care expenses, nor does it take into account the fact that many individuals retire prior to becoming eligible for Medicare. However, some workers will need to save less than what is reported if they keep working in retirement and receive health benefits as active workers. WHO HAS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS BEYOND MEDICARE?: About 12 percent of private-sector employers report offering any Medicare supplemental health insurance. This increases to about 40 percent among large employers. Overall, nearly 22 percent of retirees age 65 and older had retiree health benefits in 2005 to supplement Medicare coverage. As recently as 2006, 53 percent of retirees age 65 and older were covered by Medicare Part D, 24 percent had outpatient prescription drug coverage through an employment-based plan. Only 10 percent had no prescription drug coverage. INDIVIDUALLY PURCHASED MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS, 2008: Among those who purchase Medigap and Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage at age 65 in 2008, men would need between $79,000 and $159,000 with median prescription drug expenses (50th percentile and 90th percentiles, respectively), and between $156,000 and $331,000 with prescription spending that is at the 90th percentile. Women would need between $108,000 and $184,000 with median prescription drug expenses (50th and 90th percentiles, respectively), and between $217,000 and $390,000 with prescription spending that is at the 90th percentile. The savings needed for couples would range from $194,000 at the 50th percentile to $635,000 at the 90th percentile. EMPLOYMENT-BASED BENEFITS, 2008: Among those who have employment-based retiree health benefits to supplement Medicare, but who must pay their own premiums, men would need between $102,000 and $196,000 in current savings (50th and 90th percentiles, respectively) to cover health care costs in retirement. Women would need between $137,000 and $224,000, respectively, due to their greater longevity. The savings needed for couples would range from $154,000 to $376,000. INDIVIDUALLY PURCHASED MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS, 2018: Among those who purchase Medigap and Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage at age 65 in 2018 (currently age 55), men would need between $132,000 and $266,000 with median prescription drug expenses (50th and 90th percentiles, respectively), and between $261,000 and $555,000 with prescription spending that is at the 90th percentile. Women would need between $181,000 and S308,000 with median prescription drug expenses (50th and 90th percentiles), and between S364,000 and $654,000 with prescription spending that is at the 90th percentile. The savings needed for couples would range from $325,000 at the 50th percentile to S1,064,000 at the 90th percentile. RETIREE HEALTH MAY BE DRIVING LONGER TIME IN THE WORK FORCE: The declining availability of retiree health benefits may partly explain the rising labor force participation rate among individuals ages 55-64. Between 1996 and 2006, the labor force participation rate increased from 67 percent to 69.6 percent for men and from 49.6 percent to 58.2 percent for women.

The evolution of Japanese employer-sponsored retirement plans.

This article examines the development of Japanese voluntary employer-sponsored retirement plans with an emphasis on recent trends. Until 2001, companies in Japan offered retirement benefits as lump-sum severance payments and/or benefits from one of two types of defined benefit (DB) pension plans. One type of DB plan was based on the occupational pension model used in the United States before the adoption of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), but lacked the funding, vesting, and other protective features contained in ERISA. The other type of DB plan allowed companies to opt out of the earnings-related portion of social security, commonly referred to as "contracting out." Landmark laws passed in 2001 introduced a new generation of occupational retirement plans to employers and employees. One law increased funding requirements and enhanced employee protections for employer-sponsored DB plans, while a second law introduced defined contribution (DC) plans for several reasons, chiefly to increase retirement savings and help boost Japanese financial markets. These laws complemented earlier changes in the tax code and financial accounting standards already affecting employer-sponsored retirement plans. As a result, new retirement plan designs will replace most prereform era company retirement plans by 2012. In 2001, the experience of 401(k) plans in the United States, where 42 million participants had accumulated more than $1.8 trillion in assets over 20 years, attracted considerable attention among Japanese lawmakers finalizing provisions of the DC pension law. Even with government support and encouragement from the financial services industry, Japanese companies have not adopted these new DC plans in large numbers. As a result, occupational retirement plans in Japan have remained predominantly DB-a surprising development in light of the shift in a number of countries from DB to DC plans observed in recent decades. However, recent proposals to make DC plans more attractive to employers in Japan are likely to be implemented in the near future. This article summarizes the Japanese retirement system, with an emphasis on private-sector employees, and the complementary role played by voluntary employer-sponsored retirement plans; describes the financial pressures that faced retirement plan sponsors in the late twentieth century and the factors motivating the reform of Japanese voluntary retirement plans; examines the 2001 legislative changes that have transformed company retirement plans; and concludes with a review of trends and recent developments in employer-sponsored retirement plans since the implementation of the 2001 pension laws.

[Can total loss of ability to paid work mean a simultaneous maintenance of ability to paid work at wages exceeding 100%?]. / Czy calkowita utrata zdolnosci ci do pracy zarobkowej moze oznaczac równoczesnie zachowanie zdolnosci do zarobkowania w ponad 100%?

To illustrate and evaluate the efficiency of presently enforced limits of earning for pensioners and the percentage of working pensioners whose earnings are within the limits, the authors compared data from 2001 and 2005 that described declared income from paid work of pensioners with different grades of inability established by the Pita Branch of the Social Insurance Institute (ZUS). It was demonstrated that only 14.75% of all pensioners in the ZUS Pita Branch declared income from paid work, with 96.55% declaring income below 70% of the average national monthly earnings, 2.12%--between 70-130% of the average monthly earnings, and only 1.32% of individuals declaring income over 130% of the average salary. As it follows from the above analysis, the legal limits of allowable income were applicable to 3.34% of all working pensioners only, imposing limits on their earnings. If the number of professionally active pensioners nationwide subject to income restrictions due to earnings in excess of 70% of the average national monthly salary was compared to the total number of pensioners in the ZUS Pita Branch, the percentage of the latter was only 0.51% in 2005.

Before the welfare state: Bastian's Civil List pension.

Bastian, an eminent, if controversial, naturalist, pioneer neurologist, and for 30 years, professor at University College, London, ended with a certain income of only L75 in his last year. Sir James Crichton-Browne initiated the grant of a Civil List pension. Prime Minister H Asquith, after consulting the London Royal Society, advised King George V to disburse a pension of L150.

Did the Great Recession influence retirement plans?

The recent recession constitutes one of the macro forces that may have influenced workers' retirement plans. We evaluate a multilevel model that addresses the influence of macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors on retirement plans, changes in these plans, and expected retirement age. Using data from Waves 8 and 9 of the Health and Retirement Study (N=2,618), we find that individuals with defined benefit plans are more prone to change toward plans to stop work before the stock market declined, whereas the opposite trend holds for those without pensions. Debts, ability to reduce work hours, and firm unionization also influenced retirement plans. Findings suggest retirement planning education may be particularly important for workers without defined pensions, especially in times of economic volatility.

Late life job displacement.

Data from the 1992 wave of the Health and Retirement Study are used to examine the incidence of job displacement among workers ages 51 through 60. The average displaced worker experiences a loss in earnings of 39%. Households which contain a displaced worker have incomes 24% lower than the household of an average worker. Little of these lost earnings are replaced through pension income. The rate of health insurance coverage is 16% lower among displaced workers. As with other labor market outcomes, non-Whites on average are the most economically vulnerable following displacement.

Variation of employee benefit costs by age.

Health care, pension, and disability plans account for the bulk of employers' benefit costs, as defined in this article. Because those costs tend to rise as employees get older, the age structure of the workforce affects not only employers' costs but ultimately their competitiveness in global markets. How much costs vary depends in large part on the structure of the benefits package provided. The method a company chooses to finance benefits generally varies with its size. This article focuses primarily on the benefit practices of large, private employers. In the long run, such employers pay the costs associated with the demographics of their workers, whereas small employers can often pool costs with other companies in the community. In addition, small employers often offer fewer benefits, and the costs and financing of those benefits are subject to the insurance markets and state regulations. The discussion of benefit packages is illustrated by case studies based on benefits that are typical for three types of organizations--a large traditional company such as steel, automobile, and manufacturing; a large financial services company such as a bank or health care organization; and a medium-sized retail organization. The case studies demonstrate the extent to which the costs of typical packages vary and reveal that employers differ radically in the incentives they offer employees to retire at a specific time. An employer can shift the variation in cost by age by changing the structure of the benefit program. The major forces that drive age differences in benefit costs are the time value of money (the period of time available to earn investment income and the operation of compound interest) and rates of health care use, disability, and death. Those forces apply universally, in the United States and elsewhere, and they have not changed in recent years. However, the marketplace and the prevalence of various types of benefit programs have changed, and those changes have generally resulted in less cost variation by age and more frequent employer selection of benefit packages that exhibit less variation by age.

Pension integration and Social Security reform.

Many employer-provided pensions plans explicitly account for Social Security in their benefit formulas-a practice known as integration. Because integrated pensions are directly linked to Social Security, both the incidence and design of explicitly integrated plans are likely to be affected by changes in the current Social Security program. While integration has been mentioned as an important issue in discussions of Social Security reform, researchers have largely ignored the concept of pension integration. This article provides basic information about pension integration and addresses, in general terms, the relationship between Social Security reform and pension integration.

State and local retirement plans: innovation and renovation.

This Special Report/Issue Brief examines the universe of state and local retirement plans. It describes how these plans have developed and continue to evolve in a number of areas, including plan features, regulatory framework, governance, and asset management. While these retirement programs differ in many respects from private-sector plans, the disparity in some areas has narrowed. This report also includes a discussion of trends and the underlying forces for change. Public-sector retirement programs provide an important source of pension coverage in the United States, and are a significant part of the total retirement market: Combined public-sector retirement assets (state, local, and federal governments) comprised 29 percent of the $11.2 trillion U.S. retirement market in 1998. State and local plans are dominant in the public-sector retirement market, holding $2.7 trillion in assets, compared with $696 billion held by federal plans (both military and civilian). More than 16 million individuals are employed by state and local jurisdictions in the United States. State and local retirement plans share certain common features because of the environment in which they operate. Legal statutes, governance, and tradition all play a role in defining what is sometimes referred to as a "public-sector culture." Despite common features, there is considerable diversity among public-sector retirement plans. To attract and retain a skilled work force, public-sector employers have increased their use of defined contribution (DC) plans to supplement defined benefit (DB) plans (or, to a lesser extent, replace or serve as an alternative to them) and improve cost-of-living adjustments. At the same time, a combined federal-state regulatory framework has encouraged certain plan design features, unavailable in the private sector, which include multiple tiers for successive generations of employees in a single plan and different strategies to increase portability. State and local retirement plans reflect an increasing role by the federal government in pension system design and operation, which has led to greater complexity in such areas as Social Security participation and deferred compensation arrangements. Complexity can be expected to increase with the recent passage of P.L. 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. The latest full-year data included in this report are for 1999 and in some cases 2000. After this report went to press, the Federal Reserve issued significantly revised quarterly data for state, local, and federal retirement plan assets, which were not incorporated in this Issue Brief.

The changing face of private retirement plans.

A rapidly growing public policy concern facing the United States is whether future generations of retired Americans, particularly those in the "baby boom" generation, will have adequate retirement incomes. One reason is that Social Security's projected long-term financial shortfall could result in a reduction in the current-law benefit promises made to future generations of retirees. Another reason is that many baby boomers will be retiring with employment-based defined contribution (DC) plans, as opposed to the "traditional" defined benefit (DB) plans that historically have been the predominant source of employer-provided retirement income. These factors are likely to reduce the amount of life annuity benefits that future retirees will receive relative to current retirees, raising questions as to whether other sources of retirement income--such as individual account plans (DC plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs)--will make up the difference. This Issue Brief highlights the changes in private pension plan participation for DB and DC plans and provides some possible explanations for these changes. Results are presented from the Employee Benefit Research Institute's (EBRI) Retirement Income Projection Model that quantify how much the importance of individual account plans is expected to increase because of these changes. This Issue Brief also discusses the risk of outliving one's assets, since a greater fraction of pension wealth is projected to come from "nonguaranteed" sources. Results of the model are compared by gender for cohorts born between 1936 and 1964 in order to estimate the percentage of retirees' retirement wealth that will be derived from DB plans versus DC plans and IRAs over the next three decades. Under the model's baseline assumptions, both males and females are found to have an appreciable drop in the percentage of private retirement income that is attributable to defined benefit plans (other than cash balance plans). In addition, results show a clear increase in the income retirees will receive that will have to be managed by the retiree. This makes the risk of longevity more central to retirees' expenditure decisions. The implications of these model results for retirees are significant. First, individuals--rather than the pension plan sponsor--increasingly will have to manage their retirement assets and bear the risk of investment losses. Second, since most retirees' non-Social Security retirement income will be distributed as a lump sum or in periodic payements (from a defined contribution plan or IRA) rather than as a regular paycheck for life (from a defined benefit plan), retirees will need either to purchase an annuity from an insurance company or carefully manage their individual rate of spending in order to avoid outliving their assets.