Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108AGING IN THE 21S T CENTURY 88 Effects on Work Status While expectations of working longer increased during the recession, were these expectations realized? A common-sense speculation was that those with jobs might try to work longer than they had planned in order to offset wealth losses. Some older workers were laid off during the recession. Were they able to return to work as the economy recov- ered? How do they compare to earlier cohorts? Gustman et al. (2015) explore the la- bor market outcomes of the Early Baby Boomers who were in their mid-50s at the beginning of the Great Recession looking at various work transitions. The percentage of Early Baby Boomers who were still working in 2006 when they were aged 53 to 58 is 62%, and 40% in 2012 when they were aged 59 to 65. Interestingly, these changes are very similar in the prior cohorts. The original HRS cohort, aged 53 to 58 in 1994, transitioned from 63% not retired to 42% six years later. A key difference between cohorts is in layoffs and unemployment. Eleven percent of those in both the HRS and War Babies cohorts reported a layoff over six years compared to 14% of Early Baby Boomers in the six years between 2006 and 2012. Similarly, 8% of Early Baby Boomers reported a spell of unemployment over the 6 years compared to only 4% for the older cohorts. At the recession’s peak, half of those who experienced a layoff ended up reporting themselves as “not retired but not work- ing.” But only a quarter of those who declared themselves to be “not retired” or “partially retired, not working” had experienced a layoff. Most of the increase in “not retired” or “partially retired, not working” appears to reflect a change in expectations about the potential or need for future work — a change that is not the result of an actual job loss (Gustman et al. 2015). Another study finds that declines in housing wealth during the Great Recession lowered retire- ment probabilities of married males by as much as 14% to 17%. This delay is offset in cases where the household had either DB or DC pensions (Ondrich and Falevich 2016). Social Security Claiming Social Security may serve as an important safety net for older, displaced workers. HRS research shows that the majority of workers who qualify for Social Security retirement benefits claim those benefits at the Early Entitlement Age of 62, despite potentially higher benefits associated with delaying claiming (Gustman and Steinmeier 2005). Higher proportions of workers claimed Social Security benefits at age 62 during the Great Recession. High unemployment rates in 2008 led to a 5% increase in the probability of early Social Security claiming relative to a less severe reces- sion in the years 2001 to 2003 (Rutledge and Coe 2012). On average, early claimers filed for Social Security six months earlier than they would have in the earlier recession, reducing their monthly Social Security benefit by 4.6% of average month- ly benefits. While lower-income individuals in both recessions are the most likely to claim at age 62, surprisingly, individuals at all levels of socioeconomic status increased claiming at the same rate in the more recent recession. Spending Changes Reducing household spending might be another response to hard economic times. Almost 33% of those aged 54 to 64 in 2009 report decreasing their spending in the prior years. Spending de- creases are lower in older groups: a 24% decrease for 65- to 74-year-olds, and a 16.8% decrease for those aged 75 and older (Hurd and Rohwedder 2010c). Typically, spending would tend to in- crease, especially for the youngest group. Figure 5-3 shows various reasons for reducing spending, stated by participants as “somewhat” Higher proportions of workers claimed Social Security benefits at age 62 during the Great Recession. Job loss during the recession led to a 10% decrease in spending overall.