Phased Retirement for Older Workers in Taiwan

Working part-time has become a popular option during transition from a full-time career job to full retirement among older workers all over the world. Five waves of The Survey of Health and Living Status of the Elderly in Taiwan, from 1989 to 2003, are used to study older workers?? part-time work behaviors. The data confirm that more than 20% of full-time older workers with at least 10?years of job tenure do not fully retire from their career jobs. Moreover, there exists a significant proportion of older workers who stay with their career jobs and work part-time. We found that due to pension regulations, public sector employees are less likely to stay with their long-term employers and use phased retirement options.     

Retirement Confidence Survey 2000 including results from the RCS Minority Survey and the Small Employer Retirement Survey

The year 2000 represents the 10th anniversary of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), and the third year for the Minority RCS and Small Employer Retirement Survey (SERS). Key RCS findings over the past 10 years include: The fraction of workers saving for retirement has trended upward, and today 80 percent of households report that they have begun to save. The fraction of workers who have attempted to calculate how much they need to save for retirement has risen noticeably over the past several years. Today, 56 percent of households report that they have attempted the calculation. One-half of workers who have attempted such a calculation report that it has changed their behavior, such as saving more and/or changing where they invest their retirement savings. Workers who have done the calculation appear to be in better shape regarding their retirement finances. Worker confidence in the ability of Social Security to maintain benefit levels bottomed out in 1994 and 1995. Workers today are just as confident as they were in 1992, although the majority remain not confident in Social Security. Regarding overall retirement confidence, Hispanic-Americans tend to be the least confident among the surveyed minority groups that they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout their retirement years. Key SERS findings include: While cost and administrative issues do matter to small employers, they are not the primary reasons for low plan sponsorship rates. Employee-related reasons are most often cited as the most important factor for not offering a retirement plan. Business-related reasons, such as profitability, are also a main decision-driver. It is important to note what small employers without plans do not know about plan sponsorship. Small employers that do sponsor a retirement plan report that offering a plan has a positive impact on both their ability to attract and retain quality employees and the attitude and performance of their employees. The survey results indicate that many small company nonsponsors may not be aware of such potential business benefits from plan sponsorship. In addition, many nonsponsors are unaware of the plan options available to them, in particular the ones created specifically for small employers, such as SIMPLE and SEP retirement plans. Therefore, some small employers may be making a premature decision not to sponsor a plan based on incomplete information.     

The retirement system in transition: the 2007 Retirement Confidence Survey

WORKERS SLOW TO SEE OR ADAPT TO A CHANGING U.S. RETIREMENT SYSTEM: The 17th annual wave of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) suggests that American workers may be slow to recognize how the U.S. retirement system is changing, and those who are aware of these changes may not be adapting to them in ways that are likely to secure them a comfortable retirement. HALF OF WORKERS LESS CONFIDENT ABOUT PENSION BENEFITS: The RCS finds pension-plan changes by employers have left nearly half of workers less confident about the benefits they will receive from a traditional pension plan, but that those experiencing a decline in retirement benefits often fail to react constructively. Moreover, although Americans will rely increasingly on 401(k) retirement savings plans and other personal savings and investments to fund their retirement security, data suggest that many may not follow professional investment advice when it is offered to them. MANY WORKERS COUNTING ON BENEFITS THAT WON'T BE THERE: Many workers are counting on employer-provided benefits in retirement that are increasingly unavailable. Only 41 percent of workers indicate they or their spouse currently have a defined benefit pension plan, yet 62 percent say they are expecting to receive income from such a plan in retirement. Likewise, workers are as likely to expect as retirees are to receive retiree health insurance through an employer, even though the number of employers offering this benefit to future retirees is declining. MANY WORKERS UNLIKELY TO HEED INVESTMENT ADVICE EVEN IF THEY GET IT: More than half of workers indicate they would be likely to take advantage of professional investment advice offered by companies that manage employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, two-thirds of these workers say they would probably implement only some of the recommendations they receive and 1 in 10 think they would implement none of them. AMERICANS OVERESTIMATE LONG-TERM CARE COVERAGE: One-quarter of workers and more than one-third of retirees report they have long-term care insurance (separate from health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) to help pay for care they might need in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or at home. But only 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older are estimated to have had private long-term care insurance in 2002, suggesting that many are counting on coverage they do not actually have. MOST SAVINGS LEVELS ARE MODEST: Almost half of workers saving for retirement report total savings and investments (not including the value of their primary residence or any defined benefit plans) of less than $25,000. The majority of workers who have not put money aside for retirement have little in savings at all: Seven in 10 of these workers say their assets total less than $10,000. CONTINUED IGNORANCE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE: Despite the longstanding increase in the eligibility age for Social Security, only a small minority of workers are aware of the age at which they can receive full retirement benefits from Social Security without a reduction for early retirement.     

Employees'' understanding of employer-sponsored retirement plans, a knowledge gap perspective

The retirement benefit community is currently undergoing a paradigm shift as many organizations cast aside traditional defined benefit plans in favor of defined contribution plans. In other words, instead of employers providing defined benefit plans that are risk free to employees, many organizations have decided to offer defined contribution plans in which employees are responsible for both contributing to the plan and making the investment decisions required therein.As employees are required to make decisions that will ultimately determine their financial security during retirement, it is crucial that employers develop materials that will equip all employees with knowledge about retirement-related issues. Therefore, this study examined the range of knowledge about retirement-related issues that exists among various employee groups within a particular organization. Results showed that education serves as a strong predictor in determining employees' knowledge about retirement-related concepts. Based on the study's findings, implications for future research regarding the development of materials designed to educate employees about employer-sponsored retirement plans are discussed.     

Small employers and health benefits: findings from the 2000 Small Employer Health Benefits Survey

Many small employers (between two and 50 workers) are making decisions about whether to offer health benefits to their workers without being fully aware of the tax advantages that can make this benefit more affordable. Fifty-seven percent of small employers did not know that they can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums. Nearly one-half of small employers are not aware that workers who purchase health insurance on their own generally cannot deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums. Small employers are largely unaware of the laws that have been enacted by nearly all states and the federal government with the intent of making health insurance more accessible and more affordable for many small employers. More than 60 percent did not know that insurers may not deny health insurance coverage to small employers even when the health status of their workers is poor. Most employers offer sound business reasons for offering health benefits to workers. Many have found that it helps with employee recruitment and retention, increases productivity, and reduces absenteeism. Nearly 50 percent of the employers offering dependent (family) coverage report that the workers do not take coverage for their dependents because the dependents have coverage from somewhere else. Twenty-seven percent report their employees decline dependent coverage because they cannot afford the premiums. Many small employers that do not offer health benefits are potential purchasers. Twelve percent are either extremely or very likely to start offering health benefits in the next two years, and 17 percent are somewhat likely to start offering health benefits. A number of factors would increase the likelihood that a small business would seriously consider offering a health benefits plan. Two-thirds of small-business owners said they would seriously consider offering health benefits if the government provided assistance with premiums. Almost one-half would consider doing so if insurance costs fell 10 percent. In addition, one-half would be more likely to seriously consider offering a health benefits plan if employees demand it. Many small employers with health benefits have recently switched health plans, and 34 percent report that they did so within the past year. Affordability for the employer and the worker is clearly a critical factor affecting the likelihood of switching health plans. Nearly all employers who have switched health plans within the past five years cite cost as the main reason. One-third of companies offering health benefits think they will change coverage, and 5 percent think they would drop coverage if the cost of health insurance were to increase by 5 percent.     

The 1999 Small Employer Retirement Survey: building a better mousetrap is not enough

As of 1995, there were 5.3 million small-employer firms (100 or fewer employees) in the United States. These small firms employed 38.0 million individuals, representing 38 percent of all employment. Therefore, low retirement plan coverage among small employers directly affects a sizeable fraction of the national work force. There are a number of reasons why more small employers do not offer retirement plans. Cost and administration-related issues do matter, but for many small employers these take a back seat to other issues. For some, the main driver is the financial reality of running a small business: Their revenue is too uncertain to commit to a plan. For others, the most important reasons for not sponsoring a plan are employee-related, e.g., the workers do not consider retirement savings to be a priority, or the employer's work force has such high turnover that it does not make sense to sponsor a plan. Many nonsponsors are unfamiliar with the different retirement plan types available to them as potential plan sponsors, especially the options created specifically for small employers. For example, most nonsponsors said they have never heard of (36 percent) or are not too familiar with (20 percent) SIMPLE plans for small businesses. Fifteen percent of small employers report that they are very likely to start a plan in the next two years, while 24 percent say this is somewhat likely. Nonsponsors report that the two items most likely to lead to serious consideration of sponsoring a plan are an increase in profits (69 percent) and business tax credits for starting a retirement plan (67 percent). Major drivers of low retirement plan sponsorship among small employers are who they employ and the uncertainty of revenue flows. While issues of administrative cost and burden matter, they are only part of the puzzle. Therefore, the solution is not simply "build it and they will come," by creating simpler and simpler retirement plans geared to small businesses. Rather, it is build it and they will come once the business reaches a certain level of profitability and stability, and once retirement planning and saving are more of a priority for the small employer's workers.     

Defined contribution health benefits

This Issue Brief discusses the emerging issue of "defined contribution" (DC) health benefits. The term "defined contribution" is used to describe a wide variety of approaches to the provision of health benefits, all of which have in common a shift in the responsibility for payment and selection of health care services from employers to employees. DC health benefits often are mentioned in the context of enabling employers to control their outlay for health benefits by avoiding increases in health care costs. DC health benefits may also shift responsibility for choosing a health plan and the associated risks of choosing a plan from employers to employees. There are three primary reasons why some employers currently are considering some sort of DC approach. First, they are once again looking for ways to keep their health care cost increases in line with overall inflation. Second, some employers are concerned that the public "backlash" against managed care will result in new legislation, regulations, and litigation that will further increase their health care costs if they do not distance themselves from health care decisions. Third, employers have modified not only most employee benefit plans, but labor market practices in general, by giving workers more choice, control, and flexibility. DC-type health benefits have existed as cafeteria plans since the 1980s. A cafeteria plan gives each employee the opportunity to determine the allocation of his or her total compensation (within employer-defined limits) among various employee benefits (primarily retirement or health). Most types of DC health benefits currently being discussed could be provided within the existing employment-based health insurance system, with or without the use of cafeteria plans. They could also allow employees to purchase health insurance directly from insurers, or they could drive new technologies and new forms of risk pooling through which health care services are provided and financed. DC health benefits differ from DC retirement plans. Under a DC health plan, employees may face different premiums based on their personal health risk and perhaps other factors such as age and geographic location. Their ability to afford health insurance may depend on how premiums are regulated by the state and how much money their employer provides. In contrast, under a DC retirement plan, employers' contributions are based on the same percentage of income for all employees, but employees are not subject to paying different prices for the same investment.     

The ongoing growth of defined contribution and individual account plans: issues and implications

This Issue Brief discusses the implications of the growth of defined contribution (DC) retirement plans and individual account plans and the subsequent impact on employers, employees, and retirement planning. It also presents a look at data regarding contributions to retirement plans, employer trends regarding retirement plans, and the potential impact of changes to the federal Social Security retirement system. The findings and data in this article are drawn from material presented at a policy forum sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) Dec. 7, 2001, in Washington, DC. Today, prospective retirees need to be able to generate about 75 percent of their current income to maintain their standard of living in retirement, up from 63 percent of their income in 1997, according to the Replacement Ratio Study, by Aon Corporation and Georgia State University. However, the most recent data show a decline in the percentage of income that average employees are saving. While it is too early to quantify, it does not appear that the retirement provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) are strongly influencing the movement to DC plans. However, employers appear very interested in the provisions of the new law with regard to both defined benefit (DB) retirement plans and DC plans. The number of large employers offering DB plans continues to decline, from 85 percent in 1990 to 73 percent in 2000, according to the Hewitt study. Although employers may have little influence over some factors that affect participation rates in voluntary retirement plans, they have various options to increase participation rates, such as "matching" employee contributions, offering loan features, and providing education to employees about the plans.     

Health insurance portability: COBRA expansions and job mobility

This Issue Brief discusses continuation-of-coverage mandates under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). It provides background information on health insurance portability and job mobility, data on the cost to employers of providing continuation of coverage to former employees, and a summary of empirical research on COBRA's effect on employee benefits and job mobility. COBRA coverage can be considered advantageous for most workers, as it allows continuation of the health insurance policy they had in place at work when they lose or leave a job. Although employees can be required to pay 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, they can usually realize significant savings compared with the cost of purchasing the equivalent insurance policy in the private market. Many employers consider COBRA to be a costly mandate for three reasons. First, premiums collected from COBRA beneficiaries typically do not cover the costs of the health care services rendered. Second, COBRA imposes an additional administrative cost on employers. Third, many employers view the penalties for noncompliance as excessively large. According to a survey conducted by Charles D. Spencer & Associates, of the 10.2 percent of employees and dependents who were eligible for COBRA coverage in 1996, over 28 percent elected it. In addition, average employer claims costs for COBRA beneficiaries amounted to $5,591, compared with $3,332 for active employees in surveyed plans. According to Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the COBRA population is much older than the general insured population. COBRA beneficiaries also have higher personal income than the general insured population, with this difference being almost entirely due to differences in retirement income. Any attempt to expand COBRA coverage, either through subsidies or by allowing workers to choose from plans with lower premiums, would likely result in increased employer health care costs. As a result, employers may consider various alternatives to reduce, shift, or eliminate the impact of this increased cost. One alternative would be to continue requiring active employees to share in the increased costs through higher employee contributions. A second alternative would be to reduce or eliminate health care benefits for active employees and/or future retirees and their families. A third alternative would be to reduce the size of the work force eligible for health insurance benefits. Finally, employers may pass additional costs on to workers or consumers.     

Demographic and employment shifts: implications for benefits and economic security

This Issue Brief examines factors affecting the population's age distribution and composition, such as mortality rates, fertility rates, and immigration. In addition, it examines factors affecting labor force composition, such as immigration, increased labor force participation of women, and retirement trends, and discusses the potential impact of these changes on publicly financed programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and federal employee retirement systems. The discussion also highlights the implications of these population and labor force changes on employers, employees, and retirees. The elderly population--now 31.8 million, representing 12.6 percent of the population--is projected to experience tremendous growth between 2010 and 2030, when the baby boom generation reaches age 65, rising from 39.7 million, or 13.3 percent of the population, to 69.8 million, or 20.2 percent of the population. Growth in the elderly population has implications for retirement and health care systems. Population projections suggest that the traditionally pyramid-shaped work force, with a proportionately greater number of younger workers than older workers, will be replaced with a more even age distribution. Consequently, significant and continued modifications to benefit packages, such as changes in compensation structures in which earnings automatically rise with age, are likely to occur. Women's labor force participation began to accelerate in the mid-1950s, rising 75 percent among women aged 25-44 in 1991, although there is some indication that this growth may be flattening. With women comprising a greater part of the labor force, employers will be encouraged to develop and implement programs to better accommodate their needs. Increased life expectancy, a decreased percentage of entry level workers, changes in Social Security's normal retirement age from 65 to 67, and employer plans to raise the normal age of retirement or provide incentives to delay retirement, could raise the average age of retirement. However, other factors, such as poor health, other sources of retirement income, and individual preferences for retirement, could still dominate the retirement decision. The combination of increased average life expectancy guaranteeing more years of retirement to finance and rising dependency ratios increases the future cost of Social Security financing. Medicare financing is also an important policy issue because the program is projected to experience financial difficulties in the short term, resulting from explosive health care costs. In addition, Medicaid expenditures are consuming increasing amount of shrinking state budget resources--a large portion of which is used to finance nursing home care for a growing elderly population.     

Small employers and health benefits: findings from the 2002 small employer health benefits survey

Overall, 19 percent of small employers offering health benefits made changes to their health plan between 2001 and 2002. Sixty-five percent increased deductibles and co-pays; 35 percent switched insurers; 30 percent increased the employee share of the premium; and 29 percent cut back on the scope of benefits. Twenty-six percent increased the scope of benefits offered. Nearly one-quarter of small employers offering health benefits think their firm would change coverage and 3 percent think it would drop coverage if the cost were to increase an additional 5 percent. Most small employers offer sound business reasons for offering health benefits to workers. Many report that it helps with employee recruitment and retention, and increases productivity. More than three-quarters report that offering health benefits is "the right thing to do." Most small employers that do offer health benefits report that it has a positive impact on various aspects of the business, such as recruitment, retention, employee attitude and performance, employee health status, and the overall success of the business. Most small employers that do not offer health benefits tend to think that not offering them has no negative impact on the above aspects of their business or the overall success of the business. However, those not offering benefits are more likely than those offering them to report that most of their employees are high-turnover and stay on the job only a few months. Small employers that offer health benefits tend to be distinctly different from those not offering them. Worker income in firms not offering health benefits tends to be considerably lower than in firms that do offer them. Employers not offering health benefits are more likely than those offering them to have a smaller proportion of full-time employees, and employers that do not offer health benefits have a larger proportion of females, workers under age 30, and minority employees. Of small employers that offer dependent coverage, more than 40 percent report that workers do not take coverage for their dependents because the dependents have coverage from somewhere else, but 35 percent report that employees decline dependent coverage because they cannot afford the premiums. Many small employers that do not offer health benefits are potential purchasers. Eleven percent are either extremely or very likely to start offering health benefits in the next two years, and 22 percent are somewhat likely to start offering health benefits.     

Employers' knowledge and utilization of accommodations

Increasingly, employers are providing a variety of accommodations to applicants or employees with disabilities. However, little is know about the resources that employers access to identify and develop accommodations in the recruitment, hiring and retention of employees with disabilities. Human resource professionals and supervisors were surveyed to determine the extent to which businesses were aware of, and utilized, the vast array of workplace supports available. Findings indicated that employers have limited awareness of workplace supports and rely primarily on their own organizational resources in identifying and securing accommodations. Yet, business professionals expressed confidence in their ability to meet and support the needs of employees with disabilities despite many supervisors indicating that they did not have the authority to secure accommodations for workers with disabilities.     

Social protection for retirees: the diminishing role of employers

Jobs are changing in ways that will reduce benefits for retirees. This paper explores the variety of pressures that will tend to produce this result. One major factor is that employers have been responding to cost pressures and the need for flexibility by redesigning jobs. There has been a trend--which is likely to continue--toward more part-time and temporary jobs, more subcontracting, and more contingent-pay systems. The consequences are complex and not all bad, but for retirees the tendency will be toward fewer, less generous, or less secure benefits. As workers approach retirement age facing the prospect of diminished benefits, increasing numbers of them will have to choose work to maintain their standard of living. At the same time, demographic pressures will gradually push employers to seek new pools of workers, including retirees. Gradually, employers are likely to provide fewer social-protection benefits to older people, but more employment opportunities.     

Employees with Long Term Illnesses or Disabilities in the UK Social Services Workforce

Between 6% and 16% of the working age population have a long term illness or disability. 'Disability' is not consistently defined, however, and neither the distribution of disabled employees nor the nature of their disabilities is well documented. This paper presents the findings of a study of statutory social services employees in the UK and for the first time provides an estimate of the proportion of workers with long term illnesses or disabilities. Over a fifth had a self-reported long term illness or disability, 8% a condition which affected daily life. The distribution and nature of these, and the effects of gender, age, occupational categories, and work experience such as job satisfaction, stress and sick leave, are examined. Changes in legislation and the profile of the working age population are likely to increase the number of people with disabilities in work. The paper concludes that at a time of difficulties with recruitment and retention, social services and other social care employers must develop a range of responses to support and retain the diversity of people with disabilities in work.     

Attitudes About Working Beyond Normal Retirement Age: The Role of Mandatory Retirement

The Dutch government abolished mandatory retirement for national-level civil servants in 2008, but not for employees in other sectors. This study analyzes whether national-level civil servants have different attitudes and plans about working beyond normal retirement age than employees in other sectors. Results show no clear differences between the groups. A national ban on mandatory retirement would presumably not lead to many more older workers continuing to work beyond normal retirement, but would need to be integrated in a much broader policy reform that also addresses employment protection legislation and seniority-based wages.     

Are employers changing their behavior toward older workers? An analysis of employers' surveys 2000-2009

This article addresses possible changes in Dutch employers' behavior regarding the recruitment and retention of older workers during the last decade. The authors analyze surveys administered to Dutch employers in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2009. The results show that efforts to recruit older workers are changing, congruous with the economic climate, while retention behavior shows a clear and rather gradual time effect. The authors conclude that the position of older workers has improved between 2000 and 2008 and has done so in comparison with other underrepresented groups in the labor market. During the recession, recruitment of older workers declined substantially, while efforts to retain older workers are in both absolute and relative terms higher than in 2000. With respect to organizational policies, the authors conclude that throughout the period under observation these policies are dominated by measures that "spare" older workers.     

A “brer rabbit” case for reverse mandated benefits

Reverse mandated benefits is a government-mandated policy that requires employees to provide their employers with benefits that workers would not provide otherwise. Of course, only those benefits would be mandated that are worth more to employers than they cost, as determined by political authorities. My case for such a policy argues that it is at least as sensible as policies mandating that employers provide benefits to their employees that would not be provided otherwise.     

Overcoming Inertia: Do Automated Saving and Investing Strategies Work?

Many workers do not take advantage of savings opportunities provided to them at their workplace, nor do they always make wise investment decisions regarding employer plans. Various automated strategies have been implemented by employers with the objective of increasing retirement plan participation and, hence, the financial security of workers. Automatic strategies work by proactively arranging some type of action (e.g., plan enrollment) to occur unless people specifically opt out. This article examines and synthesizes previous empirical research about five automatic savings and investing strategies: (a) automatic retirement savings plan enrollment, (b) automatic contribution increases, (c) automatic portfolio rebalancing, (d) automatic rollovers, and (e) automatic investment plans. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy are discussed, along with implications for financial educators.     

Social Protection for Retirees

Jobs are changing in ways that will reduce benefits for retirees. This paper explores the variety of pressures that will tend to produce this result. One major factor is that employers have been responding to cost pressures and the need for flexibility by redesigning jobs. There has been a trend-which is likely to continue-toward more part-time and temporary jobs, more subcontracting, and more contingent-pay systems. The consequences are complex and not all bad, but for retirees the tendency will be toward fewer, less generous, or less secure benefits. As workers approach retirement age facing the prospect of diminished benefits, increasing numbers of them will have to choose work to maintain their standard of living. At the same time, demographic pressures will gradually push employers to seek new pools of workers, including retirees. Gradually, employers are likely to provide fewer social-protection benefits to older people, but more employment opportunities.     

Increasing older persons' employment in Finland: in search of a new strategy.

Using Finland as a case study, it is argued that early retirement will probably no longer be used on a large scale to reduce older-worker labor-force participation and unemployment among older workers. Instead, new strategies are needed to enhance the ability of older workers to remain productive and in the labor force, and to facilitate the reintegration of unemployed older persons back into working life. Both tasks require massive pioneering efforts. Reducing unemployment rates among older workers, particularly, requires completely new kinds of labor-market measures.