scholarly journals Retirement Income Security and Well-Being in Canada

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Baker ◽  
Jonathan Gruber ◽  
Kevin Milligan
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 594-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Clark ◽  
Robert G. Hammond ◽  
David Vanderweide

AbstractChoices regarding the disposition of wealth at retirement can have substantial implications for retirement income security. We analyze the factors determining annuity payout option choices within the context of a public sector defined pension plan with no default annuity option. Using combined administrative records and survey data, we explore the role of individual and household characteristics as well as risk preferences, time preferences, and financial literacy. We also document retiree well-being and satisfaction with retirement decision making. The evidence is consistent with predictions over which households might benefit most from each annuity option. Comparing retirees who chose different types of annuities, we find that these groups of retirees report very different levels of well-being in retirement. All retirees report lower levels of retirement income security over time, with strong differences among those who chose different types of annuities.


1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 251-289
Author(s):  
Margaret G. Farrell

The result ERISA compels us to reach means that the Corcorans [who lost their unborn child allegedly as a result of United Healthcare’s negligent determination that hospitalization was not medically necessary] have no remedy, state or federal, for what may have been a serious mistake. This is troubling....In the words of its sponsor, Senator Jacob Javits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974 “to maintain the voluntary growth of private [pension and employee benefit] plans while at the same time making needed structural reforms in such areas as vesting, funding, termination, etc. so as to safeguard workers against loss of their earned or anticipated benefits....” Ironically, one of ERISA’s provisions—its indeterminate provision for the preemption of state law—has probably created more uncertainty about the adequacy and security of health care benefits than any other piece of legislation. Neither ERISA nor any other federal statute comprehensively regulates the content of employer provided health care plans, including benefits provided through managed care organizations (MCOs).


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 977-977
Author(s):  
J. Quinn ◽  
K. Cahill

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian E. Weller ◽  
Jeffrey B. Wenger ◽  
Elise Gould

Author(s):  
Teresa Ghilarducci

The American retirement income security system fails in many ways: it does not cover every worker, provide adequate retirement income, operate efficiently, or distribute government subsidies effectively and fairly. Only about half of workers have a pension at work—one of the best and most practical ways to save for retirement. Many of those pensions are rather small. Workers who do save have limited access to the best quality investment managers, appropriate portfolio structures, low fees, economies of scale, and cost-effective annuities because of the growing use of 401(k) plans that favor the highest-income workers. Consequently, many American workers will face economic hardships when they retire.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document