782 lines
No EOL
79 KiB
HTML
782 lines
No EOL
79 KiB
HTML
<!doctype html>
|
|
<html lang="en" class="no-js">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta charset="UTF-8" />
|
|
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1" />
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
|
|
<title>Research: The Retirement Prospects of Divorced Women</title>
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:dateCreated" content="2012-02" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:contentOffice" content="ORDP:ORES" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:contentOwner" content="publications@ssa.gov" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:coderOffice" content="ORDP:ORES:OD" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:coder" content="op.webmaster@ssa.gov" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:dateCertified" content="2025-01-01" />
|
|
<meta name="description" content="Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis" />
|
|
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis"/>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/policy/styles/doc.css" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/policy/styles/global.css" />
|
|
<!-- SSA INTERNET HEAD SCRIPTS -->
|
|
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-/JqT3SQfawRcv/BIHPThkBvs0OEvtFFmqPF/lYI/Cxo=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
|
|
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.head.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
<script>(window.BOOMR_mq=window.BOOMR_mq||[]).push(["addVar",{"rua.upush":"false","rua.cpush":"false","rua.upre":"false","rua.cpre":"false","rua.uprl":"false","rua.cprl":"false","rua.cprf":"false","rua.trans":"SJ-3a3bb884-f513-47e3-a86c-84bab05e21dc","rua.cook":"true","rua.ims":"false","rua.ufprl":"false","rua.cfprl":"false","rua.isuxp":"false","rua.texp":"norulematch","rua.ceh":"false","rua.ueh":"false","rua.ieh.st":"0"}]);</script>
|
|
<script>!function(e){var n="https://s.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if("False"=="True")e.BOOMR_config=e.BOOMR_config||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams=e.BOOMR_config.PageParams||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams.pci=!0,n="https://s2.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if(window.BOOMR_API_key="LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB",function(){function e(){if(!o){var e=document.createElement("script");e.id="boomr-scr-as",e.src=window.BOOMR.url,e.async=!0,i.parentNode.appendChild(e),o=!0}}function t(e){o=!0;var n,t,a,r,d=document,O=window;if(window.BOOMR.snippetMethod=e?"if":"i",t=function(e,n){var t=d.createElement("script");t.id=n||"boomr-if-as",t.src=window.BOOMR.url,BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),e=e||d.body,e.appendChild(t)},!window.addEventListener&&window.attachEvent&&navigator.userAgent.match(/MSIE [67]\./))return window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="s",void t(i.parentNode,"boomr-async");a=document.createElement("IFRAME"),a.src="about:blank",a.title="",a.role="presentation",a.loading="eager",r=(a.frameElement||a).style,r.width=0,r.height=0,r.border=0,r.display="none",i.parentNode.appendChild(a);try{O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}catch(_){n=document.domain,a.src="javascript:var d=document.open();d.domain='"+n+"';void(0);",O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}if(n)d._boomrl=function(){this.domain=n,t()},d.write("<bo"+"dy onload='document._boomrl();'>");else if(O._boomrl=function(){t()},O.addEventListener)O.addEventListener("load",O._boomrl,!1);else if(O.attachEvent)O.attachEvent("onload",O._boomrl);d.close()}function a(e){window.BOOMR_onload=e&&e.timeStamp||(new Date).getTime()}if(!window.BOOMR||!window.BOOMR.version&&!window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted){window.BOOMR=window.BOOMR||{},window.BOOMR.snippetStart=(new Date).getTime(),window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted=!0,window.BOOMR.snippetVersion=12,window.BOOMR.url=n+"LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB";var i=document.currentScript||document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o=!1,r=document.createElement("link");if(r.relList&&"function"==typeof r.relList.supports&&r.relList.supports("preload")&&"as"in r)window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="p",r.href=window.BOOMR.url,r.rel="preload",r.as="script",r.addEventListener("load",e),r.addEventListener("error",function(){t(!0)}),setTimeout(function(){if(!o)t(!0)},3e3),BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),i.parentNode.appendChild(r);else t(!1);if(window.addEventListener)window.addEventListener("load",a,!1);else if(window.attachEvent)window.attachEvent("onload",a)}}(),"".length>0)if(e&&"performance"in e&&e.performance&&"function"==typeof e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize)e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize();!function(){if(BOOMR=e.BOOMR||{},BOOMR.plugins=BOOMR.plugins||{},!BOOMR.plugins.AK){var n="false"=="true"?1:0,t="cookiepresent",a="eyd7g6aaiaaamjqacqdfqaaaabt3mow4-f-3a9677895-clienttons-s.akamaihd.net",i="false"=="true"?2:1,o={"ak.v":"39","ak.cp":"1204614","ak.ai":parseInt("728289",10),"ak.ol":"0","ak.cr":4,"ak.ipv":6,"ak.proto":"h2","ak.rid":"c99dfd","ak.r":19138,"ak.a2":n,"ak.m":"dsca","ak.n":"essl","ak.bpcip":"2607:f378:40:6::","ak.cport":40614,"ak.gh":"184.50.26.202","ak.quicv":"","ak.tlsv":"tls1.3","ak.0rtt":"","ak.0rtt.ed":"","ak.csrc":"-","ak.acc":"","ak.t":"1739995868","ak.ak":"hOBiQwZUYzCg5VSAfCLimQ==905VoruPqHaeSmSYXdYcda/0eyjyun5j9xC+Z4U4k2QvFJq8awxWF1xkcaTgwU3Zbo36GzFOiJy+7QwLX+UenfZxkWtREgSHRL749K6exM6Za4c2VpjVDeXSf31QuJe9FkvWtU+yDxlZ0k1iTOSO1aenC4wbyPSrDQAPI6euf1STRKLHcVh1pJthi6EvkS1F3yOxvZaPgAORHxUyNSNelEPTbnMvqPHjMA5Nlgrc39YP6SZqmIY4nL9ALT5mmz4o/6qDLDKoffU9mzdBQ+gKtuqAbdvMtIwkJl2DrUn7NVdR8LmeFJOdjM+7QwNIjooLHYfGsRtM8gZRjZY6J6O3PasXGYtpMPUtEEc1EEyk+4FezG8z6LQtVM1bIb59gMw9WB1W1IcF8f11f2p4NShO8iau8pk8JFNI4c7pxBn+CJA=","ak.pv":"98","ak.dpoabenc":"","ak.tf":i};if(""!==t)o["ak.ruds"]=t;var r={i:!1,av:function(n){var t="http.initiator";if(n&&(!n[t]||"spa_hard"===n[t]))o["ak.feo"]=void 0!==e.aFeoApplied?1:0,BOOMR.addVar(o)},rv:function(){var e=["ak.bpcip","ak.cport","ak.cr","ak.csrc","ak.gh","ak.ipv","ak.m","ak.n","ak.ol","ak.proto","ak.quicv","ak.tlsv","ak.0rtt","ak.0rtt.ed","ak.r","ak.acc","ak.t","ak.tf"];BOOMR.removeVar(e)}};BOOMR.plugins.AK={akVars:o,akDNSPreFetchDomain:a,init:function(){if(!r.i){var e=BOOMR.subscribe;e("before_beacon",r.av,null,null),e("onbeacon",r.rv,null,null),r.i=!0}return this},is_complete:function(){return!0}}}}()}(window);</script></head>
|
|
<body class="research">
|
|
<article itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
|
|
<meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2012-02" />
|
|
<meta itemprop="image" content="cover.jpg" />
|
|
<header>
|
|
<div id="hLogo"><a class="navLogo" href="/policy/index.html">Social Security</a><a class="navSearch" href="https://search.ssa.gov/search?affiliate=ssa">SEARCH</a></div>
|
|
<div id="hRedBar">
|
|
<div id="hDocInfo">
|
|
<h1 itemprop="headline">The Retirement Prospects of Divorced Women</h1>
|
|
<div id="hByline">by <span itemprop="author">Barbara A. Butrica and Karen E. Smith</span><br>Social Security Bulletin, <abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 72, <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 1, 2012 (released February 2012)</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</header>
|
|
<nav>
|
|
<div id="breadcrumbs" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/BreadcrumbList">You are here: <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Social Security Administration</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="1" /></span> > <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/policy/index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Research, Statistics & Policy Analysis</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="2" /></span> > <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/policy/docs/ssb/index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Social Security Bulletin</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="3" /></span> > <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name"><abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 72, <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 1</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="4" /></span></div>
|
|
<div id="rspaUtil"><ul><li id="mail"><a class="js-ga-event" href="#" rel="nofollow" data-event="outbound-link" data-event-action="click" data-event-label="email-this">Email</a></li><li id="print"><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Save/Print</a></li></ul></div>
|
|
</nav>
|
|
<div class="innards">
|
|
<div id="relatedInline">
|
|
<h4>Related Content</h4>
|
|
<div class="rcItems">
|
|
<p>Latest information for <a href="/survivor">surviving divorced spouses</a></p>
|
|
<p>Research Summary: <a href="/policy/docs/research-summaries/divorce-women-retirement.html">Divorce and Women's Social Security Retirement Benefits</a></p>
|
|
<p>Population Projection: <a href="/policy/docs/projections/populations/divorced-spousal-2050.html">Divorced Spousal Beneficiaries in 2050</a></p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="introBox">
|
|
<p id="synopsis" itemprop="description">For decades, policymakers have discussed how to remedy the high poverty rates of older widows. Yet older divorced women are more likely to be poor than older widows, and historical divorce and remarriage trends suggest that in the future a larger share of retired women will be divorced. This article uses the Social Security Administration's Modeling Income in the Near Term (version 6) to project the retirement resources and well-being of divorced women. We find that Social Security benefits and retirement incomes are projected to increase for divorced women and that their poverty rates are projected to decline, due in large part to women's increasing lifetime earnings. However, not all divorced women will be equally well off; economic well-being in retirement varies by Social Security benefit type.</p>
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<div class="eightypercent">
|
|
<p>Barbara Butrica and Karen Smith are senior research associates at the Urban Institute.</p>
|
|
<p>This research was funded by the Social Security Administration (contract <abbr title="number">no.</abbr> <abbr class="spell">SS</abbr>00-06-60113 and order <abbr title="number">no.</abbr> <abbr class="spell">SS</abbr>00-10-31234).</p>
|
|
<p>Contents of this publication are <a href="/policy/accessibility.html">not copyrighted</a>; any items may be reprinted, but citation of the <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> as the source is requested. The findings and conclusions presented in the <i>Bulletin</i> are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Social Security Administration or the Urban Institute, its trustees, or funders.</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h2>Introduction</h2>
|
|
<div class="abbrtable">
|
|
<table role="presentation">
|
|
<caption>Selected Abbreviations</caption>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>generation X</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr>MINT</abbr>6</td>
|
|
<td>Modeling Income in the Near Term, version 6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>primary insurance amount</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr>SIPP</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Survey of Income and Program Participation</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Social Security Administration</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>The high poverty rates of older widows have drawn the attention of policymakers and the media, and widows have been the focus of much of the research on older women's economic well-being (Angel, Jimenez, and Angel 2007; McGarry and Schoeni 2000; Sevak, Weir, and Willis 2003/2004; Weir and Willis 2000). However, among older women, those who are divorced have dramatically lower incomes and higher poverty rates than widows and most other Social Security beneficiaries (Weaver 1997). According to recent data, around 20 percent of divorced women aged 65 or older live in poverty, compared with 18 percent of never-married women and 15 percent of widowed women. Differences in poverty rates are even larger at the oldest ages—22 percent of divorced women aged 80 or older are poor, compared with only 17 percent of never-married women and 15 percent of widowed women (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2010).</p>
|
|
<p>Older women are much more likely to be married or widowed than they are to be divorced or never married. Currently, only about 11 percent of women aged 65 or older are divorced and only 4 percent have never married. By contrast, 41 percent of women those ages are widowed (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2010). Recent trends suggest that those proportions could change in the future. Divorce rates increased sharply between the 1960s and early 1970s. After falling slightly, rates leveled off in the mid-1980s; but in a historical context, they were still relatively high (Ahlburg and De Vita 1992; DaVanzo and Rahman 1993; Goldstein 1999; Norton and Miller 1992; Stevenson and Wolfers 2007). Most individuals who divorce will remarry, but the remarriage rate has decreased, and second marriages also often end in divorce (Norton and Miller 1992).</p>
|
|
<p>Although the divorce rate has leveled off and may even have begun to reverse (<abbr class="spell">NCHS</abbr> 1991; Stevenson and Wolfers 2007; Tejada-Vera and Sutton 2010), the characteristics of divorce have been changing. In particular, the duration of marriages ending in divorce appears to have declined among more recent cohorts of women. Among first marriages, the share of women who were still married at their fifth anniversary declined from 93.0 percent for those married <span class="nobr">1960–1964</span> to 87.1 percent for those married <span class="nobr">1990–1994</span>. The share of those who remained married at their tenth anniversaries declined from 82.8 percent for those married <span class="nobr">1960–1964</span> to 74.5 percent for those married <span class="nobr">1990–1994</span> (Kreider and Ellis 2011).</p>
|
|
<p>These divorce and marriage-duration trends suggest that, over time, increasing proportions of women will be divorced when they reach retirement, which has implications for their retirement security generally and their Social Security benefits specifically. A number of studies have already documented the potential effect of divorce and marriage trends on Social Security benefits for future women retirees (Butrica and Iams 2000; Harrington Meyer, Wolf, and Himes 2006; Tamborini and Whitman 2007; Tamborini, Iams, and Whitman 2009). Because divorced retirees might receive Social Security divorced-spouse benefits, widow benefits, or neither, a divorced woman's marital status does not necessarily reflect the type of benefit she is eligible to receive (Weaver 1997); yet the type of benefit she receives will dramatically affect her economic well-being in retirement. This article considers how divorced women's projected retirement incomes, Social Security benefits, and poverty rates vary by benefit type. It also updates Butrica and Iams (2000) with projections generated by an updated microsimulation model.</p>
|
|
<p>We find that Social Security benefits and retirement incomes are projected to increase for future divorced women and that their poverty rates are projected to decline, due in large part to women's increasing lifetime earnings. But not all divorced women will be equally well off. In particular, divorced women who receive only retired-worker benefits are a diverse group. For example, those without marriages lasting at least 10 years (the requirement to qualify for benefits based on an <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> earnings history) are expected to have low retirement incomes and high poverty rates. That group is projected to represent one in three divorced women in the generation X (<abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>) cohorts (born <span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>). Others will have earnings histories that will qualify them for basic retired-worker benefits that are greater than <span class="nobr">one-half</span> of their ex-husbands' basic retired-worker benefits. That group is projected to represent one in four divorced women in the <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> cohorts, and is expected to have the highest retirement incomes and lowest poverty rates among all divorced women.</p>
|
|
<h2>Social Security Benefits for Divorced Women</h2>
|
|
<p>Depending on their circumstances, divorced Social Security beneficiaries can receive either retired-worker benefits, which are based on the individual's own covered earnings history; auxiliary benefits, which are determined by a living or deceased former spouse's covered earnings history; or a combination of both. Thus, divorced women receive Social Security benefits either as retired workers, divorced spouses, or surviving divorced spouses. They can also receive widow benefits from a prior marriage that ended in widowhood. Retired-worker benefits are computed by wage indexing annual earnings over a divorced woman's working life, then calculating her average indexed monthly earnings (<abbr>AIME</abbr>) to determine her primary insurance amount (<abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>)—the benefit payable at the full retirement age, which currently is 66. Divorced women with 40 or more quarters of coverage over their work lives are considered fully insured and may receive retired-worker benefits.</p>
|
|
<p>Auxiliary benefits are computed for each eligible previous marriage reported by a divorced woman. Any person with a previous marriage that ended in divorce is eligible if the <span class="nobr">ex-spouse</span> was fully insured for Social Security benefits and the marriage lasted at least 10 years. A person with a previous marriage that ended in widowhood is also eligible if the spouse was fully insured.<sup><a href="#mn1" id="mt1">1</a></sup> Auxiliary benefits are based on the earnings history of the <span class="nobr">ex-spouse,</span> deceased <span class="nobr">ex-spouse,</span> or deceased spouse from each marriage. If an <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> is alive when a woman claims Social Security benefits on his earnings record, the auxiliary benefit (also known as divorced-spouse benefit) is effectively equal to <span class="nobr">one-half</span> of the <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>.<sup><a href="#mn2" id="mt2">2</a></sup> If an <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> is deceased when a woman claims benefits, the auxiliary benefit (also known as a surviving-divorced-spouse benefit) is effectively equal to the deceased <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> full <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>. Likewise, for a marriage that ended in widowhood, the auxiliary benefit (also known as a widow benefit) is effectively equal to the deceased husband's full <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>After computing an auxiliary benefit for each eligible marriage, the Social Security Administration (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>) selects the highest auxiliary benefit and compares it with the divorced woman's own retired-worker benefit. If she is not entitled to a retired-worker benefit, she receives the full auxiliary benefit as a divorced spouse, surviving divorced spouse, or widow beneficiary. If she is entitled to a retired-worker benefit that is less than the auxiliary benefit, she is "dually entitled" and <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> supplements her retired-worker benefit with the difference between her retired-worker benefit and the full auxiliary benefit to which she would be entitled. Finally, if she is entitled to a retired-worker benefit that exceeds the auxiliary benefit, she receives only the retired-worker benefit.</p>
|
|
<p>Thus, a divorced woman's Social Security retirement benefit depends not only on her own earnings history, but also to a large extent on her marital history and the earnings histories of her previous spouses. Furthermore, a divorced woman with multiple marriages could receive an auxiliary benefit from any of her former spouses. Although she describes herself as divorced, at retirement she may receive a divorced spouse benefit, surviving divorced spouse benefit, or widow benefit from Social Security. In cases where none of her marriages ended in widowhood or in divorce after 10 years, a divorced woman will be ineligible for any auxiliary benefits. This article will show that the type of benefit a divorced woman receives will dramatically influence her economic well-being in retirement.</p>
|
|
<h2>Methods</h2>
|
|
<p>We assess the retirement prospects of divorced women using the latest version of <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>'s Modeling Income in the Near Term, version 6 (<abbr>MINT</abbr>6). <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 uses data from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation (<abbr>SIPP</abbr>) matched to Social Security administrative earnings and benefit data through 2008 as the basis for its projections. For individuals born from 1926 through 1975, <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects each person's marital changes, mortality, entry to and exit from Social Security Disability Insurance rolls, and age at first receipt of Social Security retirement benefits.<sup><a href="#mn3" id="mt3">3</a></sup> It also projects family income including Social Security benefits, pension income, asset income, earnings, Supplemental Security Income, income from coresident household members, and imputed rental income.<sup><a href="#mn4" id="mt4">4</a></sup> Asset balances in retirement accounts and financial assets outside of retirement accounts in <abbr>MINT</abbr>6's starting <abbr>SIPP</abbr> sample are adjusted to align with distributions in the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances.<sup><a href="#mn5" id="mt5">5</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p><abbr>MINT</abbr>6 is ideal for this analysis because it directly measures the experiences of survey respondents as of the early 2000s, thus accounting for nearly the full working careers of those born before 1946, the first half of the work lives of the baby boom cohort, and first third of the working lives of the <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> cohort. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects their income and characteristics into the future, adjusting for expected demographic and socioeconomic changes. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 also accounts for major changes in the growth of economy-wide real earnings, the distribution of earnings both between and within birth cohorts, and the composition of the retiree population. All these factors will affect the retirement incomes of future retirees.</p>
|
|
<p>We separately analyze four <span class="nobr">10-year</span> birth cohorts we label war babies (born <span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>), leading boomers (born <span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>), trailing boomers (born <span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>), and <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers (born <span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>).<sup><a href="#mn6" id="mt6">6</a></sup> We analyze the characteristics, Social Security benefits, and total income of divorced women in these cohorts at age 70. We exclude divorced women who are projected to ever receive Social Security disability benefits. Because of the legislated increase in the full retirement age, the increase in the delayed retirement credit, the elimination of the retirement earnings test after reaching full retirement age, and changes in pension and health insurance incentives, older adults are increasingly likely to work into their late 60s. Given these trends, we report total income at age 70 to better represent the characteristics and economic well-being of those who have actually retired. We report all income projections in 2011 price-adjusted dollars.</p>
|
|
<h2>Results</h2>
|
|
<p>We begin by describing the projected marital status of women at age 70 to identify the prevalence of divorced women in the future. Then, we describe the projected benefit type of divorced women, accounting for changing trends in marital status and earnings of all marital partners. Those projections show how changes in women's earnings affect the distribution of benefits by type over time. Next, we describe the projected average monthly Social Security benefit of divorced women by benefit type. This is followed by a description of total retirement income from all major sources. Finally, we describe the projected poverty status of divorced women by benefit type and cohort.</p>
|
|
<h3>Projected Marital Status</h3>
|
|
<p>Over time, the percentage of 70-year-old women who are married is projected to remain constant; however, the composition of their nonmarried counterparts is expected to change dramatically. Among war baby women at age 70, 58 percent are expected to be married, 16 percent divorced, 4 percent never married, and 22 percent widowed (Table 1). However, the distribution of 70-year-old women by marital status is expected to change in later cohorts as life expectancies rise and greater percentages of older women never marry or divorce and never remarry. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects increases in the shares who are divorced and never married, and a decline in the share who are widowed. As a result, future cohorts of 70-year-old nonmarried women are most likely to be divorced. Among <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> women, for example, 20 percent are expected to be divorced at age 70, 13 percent widowed, and 10 percent never married.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table1">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 1. </span>Projected marital status of women at age 70, by birth cohort (percentage distribution)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:10em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="4" style="width:7em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Marital status</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">War babies<br>(<span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Leading boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Trailing boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers<br>(<span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>)</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Total</th>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td>16</td>
|
|
<td>20</td>
|
|
<td>20</td>
|
|
<td>20</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Never married</th>
|
|
<td>4</td>
|
|
<td>6</td>
|
|
<td>8</td>
|
|
<td>10</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Widowed</th>
|
|
<td>22</td>
|
|
<td>15</td>
|
|
<td>13</td>
|
|
<td>13</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Married</th>
|
|
<td>58</td>
|
|
<td>58</td>
|
|
<td>59</td>
|
|
<td>57</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Sample excludes women projected ever to receive Disability Insurance benefits.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">Rounded components of percentage distributions do not necessarily sum to 100.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>A woman's marital status does not necessarily determine the type of Social Security benefit she receives. As discussed above, a divorced woman could receive an auxiliary benefit from a living or deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband.</span> If none of her previous marriages ended in widowhood or in divorce after at least 10 years of marriage, however, she is ineligible for any auxiliary benefit.</p>
|
|
<p><abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that the proportion of divorced women at age 70 with any <span class="nobr">10-year</span> marriage will decline from 80 percent of war babies to 70 percent of leading boomers and <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers (Chart 1). Consistent with other researchers (Harrington Meyer, Wolf, and Himes 2006; Tamborini and Whitman 2007; Tamborini, Iams, and Whitman 2009), we expect that over time, fewer divorced women will be eligible for auxiliary benefits based on their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> earnings records.</p>
|
|
<div class="chartCenter">
|
|
<div class="chart700" id="chart1">
|
|
<div class="title">Chart 1.<br>Projected percentage of divorced women at age 70 to have at least one marriage last at least 10 years, by birth cohort</div>
|
|
<div class="scrollChart"><img src="v72n1p11-chart01.gif" alt="Bar chart. War babies: 80. Leading boomers: 70. Trailing boomers: 68. GenXers: 70." width="700" height="390" /></div>
|
|
<div class="onlyNote">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h3>Projected Social Security Benefit Type</h3>
|
|
<p>Trends in shorter marriages and increases in women's labor force participation and earnings will affect the type of Social Security benefits that future cohorts of divorced women receive. Table 2 shows the projected distribution of divorced women at age 70 by benefit type, and how the distribution is expected to change over time. Among divorced women in the war baby cohort, <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that 64 percent will receive only retired-worker benefits, 26 percent will be dually entitled, 5 percent will receive only auxiliary benefits, and 5 percent will be ineligible for any Social Security benefits.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table2">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 2. </span>Projected Social Security benefit status of divorced women at age 70, by benefit type, spouse who would provide the highest auxiliary benefit, and birth cohort (percentage distribution)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:16em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="4" style="width:7em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Benefit type</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">War babies<br>(<span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Leading boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Trailing boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers<br>(<span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>)</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">All divorced women</th>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired worker only</th>
|
|
<td>64</td>
|
|
<td>61</td>
|
|
<td>67</td>
|
|
<td>70</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>26</td>
|
|
<td>32</td>
|
|
<td>27</td>
|
|
<td>23</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Auxiliary only</th>
|
|
<td>5</td>
|
|
<td>3</td>
|
|
<td>2</td>
|
|
<td>3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Nonbeneficiary</th>
|
|
<td>5</td>
|
|
<td>4</td>
|
|
<td>4</td>
|
|
<td>5</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retired worker only</th>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>52</td>
|
|
<td>24</td>
|
|
<td>27</td>
|
|
<td>37</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>11</td>
|
|
<td>18</td>
|
|
<td>15</td>
|
|
<td>12</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">No auxiliary benefit <sup>c</sup></th>
|
|
<td>37</td>
|
|
<td>58</td>
|
|
<td>58</td>
|
|
<td>51</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>27</td>
|
|
<td>14</td>
|
|
<td>22</td>
|
|
<td>30</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>73</td>
|
|
<td>86</td>
|
|
<td>79</td>
|
|
<td>70</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Auxiliary only</th>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
<td>100</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>57</td>
|
|
<td>53</td>
|
|
<td>70</td>
|
|
<td>56</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>43</td>
|
|
<td>47</td>
|
|
<td>30</td>
|
|
<td>44</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Sample excludes women projected ever to receive Disability Insurance benefits.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">Rounded components of percentage distributions do not necessarily sum to 100.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">a. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended in divorce. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">b. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended either in widowhood or in divorce, with the <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> dying before his <span class="nobr">ex-wife</span> received benefits. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">c. None of the previous marriages ended in widowhood or divorce after at least 10 years of marriage.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>Between the war baby and leading boomer cohorts, two sociodemographic shifts are expected to take place. First, the share of marriages lasting at least 10 years is projected to decline dramatically (Chart 1). Consequently, for divorced women, leading boomers are less likely than war babies to be eligible for auxiliary benefits from their ex-spouses; the share of retired-worker-only beneficiaries projected to be ineligible for auxiliary benefits increases from 37 percent among war babies to 58 percent among leading boomers. Second, women's labor force participation is projected to increase between these cohorts (Blau and Kahn 2007; Goldin 2006). As a result, for divorced women, leading boomers are more likely (32 percent) than war babies (26 percent) to be dually entitled (receiving both auxiliary and retired-worker benefits) at age 70.</p>
|
|
<p>Between the leading and trailing boomer cohorts, two different sociodemographic developments are expected. First, the gap between men's and women's earnings is projected to narrow as women's earnings increase and men's earnings fall off (Blau and Kahn 2007; Goldin 2006). Second, life expectancies are projected to increase, which means that trailing boomers are less likely than leading boomers to be widowed at age 70. As a result of those two trends, trailing boomers are more likely than leading boomers to receive only retired-worker benefits at age 70 because their <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s only have to exceed half their living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr>PIA</abbr>s instead of their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> entire <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s. Among divorced women, <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that 61 percent of leading boomers will receive only retired-worker benefits, increasing to 67 percent of trailing boomers.</p>
|
|
<p>Those developments are projected to continue beyond the trailing boomer cohort. Among <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> divorced women, <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that 70 percent will receive only retired-worker benefits at age 70, 23 percent will be dually entitled, 3 percent will receive only auxiliary benefits, and 5 percent will be ineligible for any Social Security benefits.</p>
|
|
<p>It is worth highlighting the <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projections of the shares of divorced women who will receive retired-worker benefits at age 70 (including the dually entitled): 90 percent of war babies, 93 percent of leading boomers, 94 percent of trailing boomers, and 93 percent of <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers. The fact that over 90 percent of divorced women in all cohorts are projected to be retired-worker beneficiaries suggests that divorced women have long participated in the labor force in large numbers; but because their earnings are expected to increase significantly over time, more are projected to receive only retired-worker benefits (and fewer will also receive auxiliary benefits).</p>
|
|
<p>A divorced woman's Social Security benefit can be based on her <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> earnings alone, her deceased husband's or deceased <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> earnings alone, her own earnings alone, or a combination of earnings. Therefore, benefit amounts, total income, and poverty levels are likely to vary substantially across benefit types. For example, the situation of a divorced woman receiving only retired-worker benefits because her <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> is more than <span class="nobr">one-half</span> her <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> will differ from that of one receiving only retired-worker benefits because her <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> is more than her deceased husband's or deceased <span class="nobr">ex-husband's</span> full <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>. For the latter woman, the requirement for receiving only retired-worker benefits is much more difficult to satisfy because wives' earnings tend to be lower than their husbands' earnings. Despite the narrowing gap, women's earnings on average remain lower than men's (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2011, Table 4.B6). Finally, both of these women are likely to differ from a divorced woman who receives only retired-worker benefits because her former marriage lasted less than 10 years.</p>
|
|
<p>Table 2 also reports, for each benefit type, the projected distribution of divorced women according to the spouse whose earnings record would provide the highest auxiliary benefit (living <span class="nobr">ex-husband,</span> deceased husband or <span class="nobr">ex-husband,</span> no qualifying marriage).<sup><a href="#mn7" id="mt7">7</a></sup> Among war babies, more than half of retired-worker-only beneficiaries will receive those benefits because their own <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s are greater than <span class="nobr">one-half</span> of their living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s. Another 11 percent will receive those benefits because their own <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s are greater than their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> full <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s, and 37 percent will receive only retired-worker benefits because they do not have a qualifying marriage. The composition of retired-worker-only beneficiaries is expected to change significantly over time because of changes in women's earnings and divorce patterns (Goldin 2006). Among <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> divorced women who are projected to receive only retired-worker benefits, 37 percent will have <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s that exceed <span class="nobr">one-half</span> of their living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s, 12 percent will have higher <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s than their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands,</span> and over half will not have a qualifying marriage.</p>
|
|
<p>Although it is not uncommon for divorced women to have <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s that are greater than <span class="nobr">one-half</span> of their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s, it is less common for them to have <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s that exceed their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> full <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s. Consequently, between 70 percent and 86 percent of dually entitled beneficiaries qualify for such benefits based on the higher deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> earnings.</p>
|
|
<p>In summary, divorced women are projected to rely increasingly on their own retired-worker benefits and decreasingly on auxiliary benefits based on the earnings of their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> or deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands.</span></p>
|
|
<h3>Projected Social Security Benefit Levels</h3>
|
|
<p>Table 3 shows how projected monthly Social Security benefit amounts differ according to benefit type.<sup><a href="#mn8" id="mt8">8</a></sup> Given the way Social Security determines benefit levels, it is not surprising that average benefits for divorced women in all cohorts are projected to be highest for those whose deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> earnings provide the highest auxiliary benefits (for dually entitled women), or would provide the highest auxiliary benefits if they were eligible (for retired-worker beneficiaries). Women in the retired-worker-only subgroup have higher <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s than their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands—an</span> uncommon occurrence; among war babies, monthly benefits are expected to average $1,200 in 2011 dollars. Women in the dually entitled subgroup also have relatively high lifetime earnings, but their <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s are lower than their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s. As a result, Social Security benefits for these women are equal to the full amount of their deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s, unless actuarially adjusted for early or delayed retirement; among war babies, monthly benefits are expected to average $1,390.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table3">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 3. </span>Projected average monthly Social Security benefit amount for divorced women at age 70, by benefit type, spouse who would provide the highest auxiliary benefit, and birth cohort (in 2011 dollars)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:16em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="4" style="width:7em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Benefit type</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">War babies<br>(<span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Leading boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Trailing boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers<br>(<span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>)</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">All divorced women</th>
|
|
<td>1,100</td>
|
|
<td>1,310</td>
|
|
<td>1,370</td>
|
|
<td>1,520</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retired worker only</th>
|
|
<td>1,150</td>
|
|
<td>1,280</td>
|
|
<td>1,380</td>
|
|
<td>1,570</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>1,180</td>
|
|
<td>1,250</td>
|
|
<td>1,430</td>
|
|
<td>1,660</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>1,200</td>
|
|
<td>1,470</td>
|
|
<td>1,530</td>
|
|
<td>1,680</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">No auxiliary benefit <sup>c</sup></th>
|
|
<td>1,100</td>
|
|
<td>1,230</td>
|
|
<td>1,310</td>
|
|
<td>1,480</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>1,220</td>
|
|
<td>1,520</td>
|
|
<td>1,560</td>
|
|
<td>1,610</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>770</td>
|
|
<td>960</td>
|
|
<td>950</td>
|
|
<td>1,110</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>1,390</td>
|
|
<td>1,620</td>
|
|
<td>1,730</td>
|
|
<td>1,820</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Auxiliary only</th>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Sample excludes women projected ever to receive Disability Insurance benefits. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">a. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended in divorce. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">b. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended either in widowhood or in divorce, with the <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> dying before his <span class="nobr">ex-wife</span> received benefits. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">c. None of the previous marriages ended in widowhood or divorce after at least 10 years of marriage.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">d. The projected sample size is too small to provide reliable information.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>By contrast, <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that average benefits will be lowest for divorced women at age 70 who are dually entitled because their own <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s, although positive, are less than <span class="nobr">one-half</span> their living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s (for example, such benefits average $770 for war babies). Social Security benefits for these women are equal to half their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>, unless actuarially adjusted. Even retired-worker-only beneficiaries with no qualifying marriages are expected to receive higher average monthly Social Security benefits ($1,100 among war babies). Across cohorts, the ranking of benefit amount by benefit type remains unchanged, even as average amounts increase.</p>
|
|
<p>Average benefit amounts increase over time primarily because women's earnings have increased, but also because the Social Security taxable maximum earnings amount has risen, so that higher earnings are counted when <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> calculates benefits. Additionally, <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 assumes positive real wage growth in the future. Taken together, average Social Security benefits are expected to increase 38 percent overall, from $1,100 per month for war babies to $1,520 per month for <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects increases over time in average Social Security benefits for all divorced women, regardless of their benefit type.</p>
|
|
<p>Although divorced spouse benefits are lower on average than surviving divorced spouse benefits, many divorced women will become eligible for the higher benefits if their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> die. Chart 2 shows projected average Social Security benefits for divorced women whose highest auxiliary benefit (assuming they qualify for one) would come from an <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> who is still living. For those in the war baby cohort, average benefits are $1,080 per month. If their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> die, their average benefits are projected to increase 22 percent to $1,320 per month. For those in the <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> cohort, average monthly benefits are projected to increase by 25 percent if their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> die, from $1,530 to $1,920. The transition from a divorced spouse to a surviving divorced spouse would increase benefit amounts for 54 percent of war babies, 60 percent of leading boomers, and 65 percent of late boomers. Among <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers, that share would drop slightly, to 61 percent.</p>
|
|
<div class="chartCenter">
|
|
<div class="chart700" id="chart2">
|
|
<div class="title">Chart 2.<br>Projected average monthly Social Security benefit for divorced women at age 70 before and after their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> die, and percentage of divorced women whose benefits are higher as survivors, by birth cohort</div>
|
|
<div class="scrollChart"><img src="v72n1p11-chart02.gif" alt="Two series bar chart with line chart overlay linked to data in table format." width="700" height="362" /></div>
|
|
<div class="table altTable"><a class="altToggle" href="">Show as table</a>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table equivalent for Chart 2. </span>Projected average monthly Social Security benefit for divorced women at age 70 before and after their <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> die, and percentage of divorced women whose benefits are higher as survivors, by birth cohort</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:15em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:7em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup" rowspan="2">Birth cohort</th>
|
|
<th class="spanner" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">Monthly Social Security benefit (in 2011 dollars)</th>
|
|
<th scope="colgroup" rowspan="2">Percentage of divorced women with higher benefits<br>as a survivor</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">Ex-husband</span><br>alive</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">Ex-husband</span><br>deceased</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">War babies (<span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>)</th>
|
|
<td>1,080</td>
|
|
<td>1,320</td>
|
|
<td>54</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Leading boomers (<span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>)</th>
|
|
<td>1,150</td>
|
|
<td>1,480</td>
|
|
<td>60</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Trailing boomers (<span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>)</th>
|
|
<td>1,290</td>
|
|
<td>1,680</td>
|
|
<td>65</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">GenXers (<span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>)</th>
|
|
<td>1,530</td>
|
|
<td>1,920</td>
|
|
<td>61</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="noNotes" colspan="4"> </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="onlyNote">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h3>Projected Retirement Income</h3>
|
|
<p>Although Social Security benefits comprise 90 percent or more of total income for nearly <span class="nobr">one-third</span> of beneficiaries (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2010), the majority of retirees receive additional sources of income. Table 4 shows projected average total income for divorced women at age 70. Total income includes income from assets, earnings, imputed rent, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security benefits, and pensions.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table4">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 4. </span>Projected average total annual income for divorced women at age 70, by benefit type, spouse who would provide the highest auxiliary benefit, and birth cohort (2011 dollars)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:16em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="4" style="width:7em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Benefit type</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">War babies<br>(<span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Leading boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Trailing boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers<br>(<span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>)</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">All divorced women</th>
|
|
<td>47,400</td>
|
|
<td>57,500</td>
|
|
<td>68,100</td>
|
|
<td>75,500</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retired worker only</th>
|
|
<td>50,400</td>
|
|
<td>61,500</td>
|
|
<td>75,400</td>
|
|
<td>82,500</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>54,100</td>
|
|
<td>73,800</td>
|
|
<td>87,400</td>
|
|
<td>104,200</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>51,800</td>
|
|
<td>61,400</td>
|
|
<td>58,200</td>
|
|
<td>73,200</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">No auxiliary benefit <sup>c</sup></th>
|
|
<td>44,800</td>
|
|
<td>56,400</td>
|
|
<td>74,300</td>
|
|
<td>68,700</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>45,200</td>
|
|
<td>54,900</td>
|
|
<td>57,200</td>
|
|
<td>69,300</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>41,100</td>
|
|
<td>64,000</td>
|
|
<td>47,500</td>
|
|
<td>66,900</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>46,700</td>
|
|
<td>53,300</td>
|
|
<td>59,900</td>
|
|
<td>70,300</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Auxiliary only</th>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Nonbeneficiary</th>
|
|
<td>17,200</td>
|
|
<td>18,600</td>
|
|
<td>17,400</td>
|
|
<td>28,300</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Sample excludes women projected ever to receive Disability Insurance benefits.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">Rounded components of percentage distributions do not necessarily sum to 100.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">a. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended in divorce. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">b. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended either in widowhood or in divorce, with the <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> dying before his <span class="nobr">ex-wife</span> received benefits. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">c. None of the previous marriages ended in widowhood or divorce after at least 10 years of marriage.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">d. The projected sample size is too small to provide reliable information.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p><abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that total income of all divorced women in the war baby cohort will average $47,400 at age 70; however, there are some striking differences by benefit type. For example, those projected to receive only retired-worker benefits at age 70 because their own <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s would exceed <span class="nobr">one-half</span> their living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>s are expected to have the highest income in all cohorts. Among war babies, their projected total income averages $54,100. By contrast, nonbeneficiaries are expected to have the lowest income in all cohorts. Among war babies, their projected total income averages only $17,200. Interestingly, projected incomes for beneficiaries are very similar across benefit types in the war baby cohort; they range from $41,100 for dually entitled beneficiaries whose living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> earnings records provide the highest auxiliary benefit to $54,100 for retired-worker-only beneficiaries whose living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands'</span> records would have provided the highest auxiliary benefit had these women been eligible.</p>
|
|
<p>Between the war baby and <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> cohorts, total income for all divorced women is projected to increase 59 percent, from $47,400 to $75,500. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that retired-worker-only beneficiaries whose living <span class="nobr">ex-husbands</span> would have provided the highest auxiliary benefit will experience the largest increases in total income—from $54,100 among war babies to $104,200 among <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers. Furthermore, projected incomes by benefit type vary much more for <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers than for war babies.</p>
|
|
<h3>Poverty Rates</h3>
|
|
<p>Table 5 shows the projected poverty rates of divorced women by benefit type and birth cohort. As with the Census Bureau's official poverty measure, our measure of income for determining poverty excludes imputed rental income and includes income from coresident family members. Among war babies, 14 percent of all divorced women are projected to be poor at age 70. In all cohorts, projected poverty rates are highest for those ineligible for Social Security benefits and lowest for dually entitled beneficiaries whose deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands</span> provide the highest auxiliary benefit. In the war baby cohort, nearly <span class="nobr">two-thirds</span> of nonbeneficiaries are expected to be poor, compared with only 2 percent of dually entitled widow and surviving divorced-spouse beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table5">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 5. </span>Projected poverty rates for divorced women at age 70, by benefit type, spouse who would provide the highest auxiliary benefit, and birth cohort (percent)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:16em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="4" style="width:7em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Benefit type</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">War babies<br>(<span class="nobr">1936–1945</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Leading boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1946–1955</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Trailing boomers<br>(<span class="nobr">1956–1965</span>)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr>ers<br>(<span class="nobr">1966–1975</span>)</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">All divorced women</th>
|
|
<td>14</td>
|
|
<td>11</td>
|
|
<td>9</td>
|
|
<td>7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retired worker only</th>
|
|
<td>13</td>
|
|
<td>12</td>
|
|
<td>8</td>
|
|
<td>4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>10</td>
|
|
<td>8</td>
|
|
<td>5</td>
|
|
<td>2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>16</td>
|
|
<td>11</td>
|
|
<td>7</td>
|
|
<td>3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">No auxiliary benefit <sup>c</sup></th>
|
|
<td>17</td>
|
|
<td>14</td>
|
|
<td>9</td>
|
|
<td>7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>6</td>
|
|
<td>3</td>
|
|
<td>4</td>
|
|
<td>4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Living <span class="nobr">ex-husband <sup>a</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>16</td>
|
|
<td>11</td>
|
|
<td>11</td>
|
|
<td>10</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husband <sup>b</sup></span></th>
|
|
<td>2</td>
|
|
<td>2</td>
|
|
<td>2</td>
|
|
<td>2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Auxiliary only</th>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
<td>d</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Nonbeneficiary</th>
|
|
<td>63</td>
|
|
<td>57</td>
|
|
<td>66</td>
|
|
<td>44</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations using <abbr>MINT</abbr>6.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Sample excludes women projected ever to receive Disability Insurance benefits. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">a. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended in divorce. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">b. The highest auxiliary benefit among all eligible marriages is (or would be) based on a marriage that ended either in widowhood or in divorce, with the <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> dying before his <span class="nobr">ex-wife</span> received benefits. </td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">c. None of the previous marriages ended in widowhood or divorce after at least 10 years of marriage.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">d. The projected sample size is too small to provide reliable information.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>Overall poverty rates are projected to decline by <span class="nobr">one-half</span> across cohorts—from 14 percent for the war baby cohort to 7 percent for the <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> cohort. At least part of the projected decline in poverty rates is due to assumed positive real wage growth in the future. Most of the decline, however, can be explained by historic gains in women's labor force participation and earnings. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 projects that poverty rates for nearly all divorced women will decline over time.<sup><a href="#mn9" id="mt9">9</a></sup> Even so, in the <abbr title="Gen X">GenX</abbr> cohort, 44 percent of nonbeneficiaries, 10 percent of dually entitled divorced-spouse beneficiaries, and 7 percent of retired-worker-only beneficiaries without qualifying marriages are projected to be poor at age 70.</p>
|
|
<h2>Conclusions</h2>
|
|
<p>Historically, divorced women have had the highest poverty rates among all aged women in the United States. Higher divorce rates mean that a larger share of future seniors will enter retirement divorced. Absent other changes, this trend could increase poverty rates for future seniors. However, important sociodemographic changes will positively affect the economic well-being of future cohorts of divorced women. Our microsimulation results show that the historic increases in female labor force participation and earnings are likely to increase future incomes and reduce future poverty rates for older divorced women.</p>
|
|
<p>A key finding of this article is that not all divorced retiree women are the same. Social Security auxiliary benefits to divorced women with qualifying marriages are determined using different criteria depending on whether the <span class="nobr">ex-husband</span> is dead or alive. All else equal, divorced women with qualifying marriages stand to improve their economic circumstances when their former spouses die because Social Security benefits are more generous when based on the earnings records of deceased <span class="nobr">ex-spouses</span> than on those of living <span class="nobr">ex-spouses.</span></p>
|
|
<p>Divorced women who receive only retired-worker benefits at age 70 have the highest average total income because of their strong labor force attachment and earnings histories. Over time, they have increasingly accumulated more pensions, savings, and greater Social Security benefits based on their own work records. As these retired-worker-only beneficiaries become a growing share of divorced women in the future, they will drive the gains in income growth among divorced women.</p>
|
|
<p>Divorced women who remain at high risk of poverty in old age include nonbeneficiaries and those receiving only auxiliary benefits. Those women have very little attachment to the labor force and accumulate no Social Security benefits on their own earnings. Policy options such as caregiver credits that recognize women's care giving role in supporting children could boost retirement incomes for many of those vulnerable women (Favreault 2010). Such options could prove especially important for divorced women whose child-rearing responsibilities continue or increase after divorce and who receive no spousal income support. Policies that help single mothers enter or remain in the labor force can also help boost family incomes both before and after retirement.</p>
|
|
<div id="notes">
|
|
<h2>Notes</h2>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt1" id="mn1">1</a> <span class="nobr">Widow(er)s</span> must have been married for at least 9 months to be eligible for <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefits. However, the <span class="nobr">9-month</span> requirement is waived under certain circumstances, such as for a woman who could reasonably expect the marriage to last at least 9 months at the outset and whose husband's death was accidental.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt2" id="mn2">2</a> We say "effectively" because Social Security benefits are reduced for early claiming and increased for delayed claiming.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt3" id="mn3">3</a> <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 also projects outcomes for individuals born from 1976 through 2070 using a somewhat different approach from that used for the core cohorts born from 1926 through 1975. However, this analysis is only concerned with individuals born from 1936 through 1975.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt4" id="mn4">4</a> We annuitize assets in <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 to represent the potential, rather than actual, income from assets since most retirees do not convert their financial assets into annuities. <abbr>MINT</abbr>6 takes the stock of wealth in nonpension, nonhousing assets and retirement accounts and (1) annually decays it based on age-wealth patterns in the <abbr>SIPP</abbr> to represent the spend-down of assets over retirement; and (2) converts assets into income by calculating the annuity a couple or individuals could buy if they annuitized 80 percent of their total wealth. Thus, asset income is derived from a series of annuity estimates based on a declining stock of wealth in retirement. Also, we calculate imputed rental income as a <span class="nobr">3-percent</span> real rate of return on home equity.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt5" id="mn5">5</a> For more detailed information about the <abbr>MINT</abbr> model, see Smith and others (2010), Smith and others (2007), and Smith, Cashin, and Favreault (2005). Further sources of information are available at <a href="/policy/about/mint.html">http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/about/mint.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt6" id="mn6">6</a> The baby boom cohort is typically represented as those born between 1946 through 1964. For analytical purposes, however, we define the baby boom cohort as those born between 1946 and 1965.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt7" id="mn7">7</a> By definition, retired-worker-only beneficiaries do not receive auxiliary benefits. However, we show results for retired-worker-only beneficiaries by the spouse who <i>would</i> provide the highest auxiliary benefit if the divorced woman <i>were</i> eligible.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt8" id="mn8">8</a> The projected sample size for auxiliary-only beneficiaries is too small to provide reliable information.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt9" id="mn9">9</a> The only exceptions are dually entitled divorced women whose deceased <span class="nobr">(ex-)husbands</span> provide the highest auxiliary benefit (their projected poverty rates remain at 2 percent across all cohorts) and auxiliary beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div id="references">
|
|
<h2>References</h2>
|
|
<p>Ahlburg, Dennis A., and Carol J. De Vita. 1992. "New Realities of the American Family." <i>Population Bulletin</i> 47(2): <span class="nobr">1–44</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Angel, Jacqueline L., Maren A. Jimenez, and Ronald J. Angel. 2007. "The Economic Consequences of Widowhood for Older Minority Women." <i>The Gerontologist</i> 47(2): <span class="nobr">224–234</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn. 2007. "Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Women: <span class="nobr">1980–2000</span>." <i>Journal of Labor Economics</i> 25(3): <span class="nobr">393–438</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Butrica, Barbara A., and Howard M. Iams. 2000. "<a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v63n3/v63n3p3.pdf">Divorced Women at Retirement: Projections of Economic Well-Being in the Near Future</a>." <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 63(3): <span class="nobr">3–12</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>DaVanzo, Julie, and M. Omar Rahman. 1993. "American Families: Trends and Correlates." <i>Population Index</i> 59(3): <span class="nobr">350–386</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Favreault, Melissa. 2010. "Workers with Low Social Security Benefits: Implications for Reform." The Retirement Policy Program Brief Series <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 29. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Urban Institute Press.</p>
|
|
<p>Goldin, Claudia. 2006. "The Quiet Revolution that Transformed Women's Employment, Education and Family." <i>American Economic Review</i> 96(2): <span class="nobr">1–21</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Goldstein, Joshua R. 1999. "The Leveling of Divorce in the United States." <i>Demography</i> 36(3): <span class="nobr">409–414</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Harrington Meyer, Madonna, Douglas A. Wolf, and Christine L. Himes. 2006. "Declining Eligibility for Social Security Spouse and Widow Benefits in the United States?" <i>Research on Aging</i> 28(2): <span class="nobr">240–260</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Kreider, Rose M., and Renee Ellis. 2011. "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009." <i>Current Population Reports</i> P70-125. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau.</p>
|
|
<p>McGarry, Kathleen, and Robert F. Schoeni. 2000. "Social Security, Economic Growth, and the Rise in Elderly Widows' Independence in the Twentieth Century." <i>Demography</i> 37(2): <span class="nobr">221–236</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>[<abbr class="spell">NCHS</abbr>] National Center for Health Statistics. 1991. "Annual Summary of Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: United States, 1990." <i>Monthly Vital Statistics Report</i> 39(13). Hyattsville, <abbr title="Maryland">MD</abbr>: Public Health Service.</p>
|
|
<p>Norton, Arthur J., and Louisa F. Miller. 1992. "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the 1990's." <i>Current Population Reports: Special Studies</i>. Series P-23, <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 180. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau.</p>
|
|
<p>Sevak, Purvi, David R. Weir, and Robert J. Willis. 2003/2004. "<a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v65n3/v65n3p31.html">The Economic Consequences of a Husband's Death: Evidence from the <abbr class="spell">HRS</abbr> and <abbr>AHEAD</abbr></a>." <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 65(3): <span class="nobr">31–44</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Smith, Karen E., David B. Cashin, and Melissa M. Favreault. 2005. <i>Modeling Income in the Near Term 4. </i>Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Urban Institute Press. <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/modeling-income-near-term-4">http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411191_MINT4.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Smith, Karen E., Melissa M. Favreault, Barbara A. Butrica, and Philip Issa. 2010. <i>Modeling Income in the Near Term Version 6.</i> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Urban Institute Press. <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/modeling-income-near-term-version-6">http://www.urban.org/publications/412479.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Smith, Karen E., Melissa M. Favreault, Caroline Ratcliffe, Barbara Butrica, Eric Toder, and Jon Bakija. 2007. <i>Final Report: Modeling Income in the Near Term 5. </i>Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Urban Institute Press.</p>
|
|
<p>[<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>] Social Security Administration. 2010. <i><a href="/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2008/index.html">Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2008</a>.</i> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 2011. <i>Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, 2010.</i> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>. <a href="/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2010/index.html">http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2010/index.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers. 2007. "Marriage and Divorce: Changes and Their Driving Forces." <i>Journal of Economic Perspectives</i> 21(2): <span class="nobr">27–52</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Tamborini, Christopher R., and Kevin Whitman. 2007. "<a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v67n4/v67n4p1.html">Women, Marriage, and Social Security Benefits Revisited</a>." <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 67(4): <span class="nobr">1–20</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Tamborini, Christopher R., Howard M. Iams, and Kevin Whitman. 2009. "Marital History, Race, and Social Security Spouse and Widow Benefit Eligibility in the United States." <i>Research on Aging</i> 31(5): <span class="nobr">577–605</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Tejada-Vera, Betzaida, and Paul D. Sutton. 2010. "Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2009." <i>National Vital Statistics Reports</i> 58(25). Hyattsville, <abbr title="Maryland">MD</abbr>: National Center for Health Statistics.</p>
|
|
<p>Weaver, David A. 1997. "<a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v60n4/v60n4p3.pdf">The Economic Well-Being of Social Security Beneficiaries, with an Emphasis on Divorced Beneficiaries</a>." <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 60(4): <span class="nobr">3–17</span>.</p>
|
|
<p>Weir, David, and Robert Willis. 2000. "Prospects for Widow Poverty in the Finances of Married Couples in the <abbr class="spell">HRS</abbr>." In <i>Forecasting Retirement Needs and Retirement Wealth, </i>edited by Olivia Mitchell, P. Brett Hammond, and Anna Rappaport, <span class="nobr">208–234</span>. Philadelphia, <abbr title="Pennsylvania">PA</abbr>: University of Pennsylvania Press.</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</article>
|
|
<footer><div id="footer">
|
|
<div class="important-info"><h4>Important Information:</h4>
|
|
<ul><li><a href="/agency/">About Us</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/accessibility/">Accessibility</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/foia/">FOIA</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/open/">Open Government</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/agency/glossary/">Glossary</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/privacy/">Privacy</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="https://oig.ssa.gov/report/">Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/agency/websitepolicies.html">Website Policies</a></li></ul>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p class="align-center margin-top">This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.</p>
|
|
</div></footer>
|
|
<!-- SSA INTERNET BODY SCRIPTS -->
|
|
<script src="/policy/js/rspa.doc.js"></script>
|
|
<script src="/policy/js/rspa-shared.js"></script>
|
|
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.body.js"></script>
|
|
</body></html> |