Friday, 04 January 2008
Picture of Average Oldest Boomers
The oldest boomers, born in 1946, become eligible for early Social Security benefits this year which makes them candidates for elderhood – although they apparently don’t like that designation. The average 62-year-old boomer, according to a recent survey, won’t think of him- or herself as “old” until age 77 and 10 months.
Since average life expectancy in the U.S. today is about 77 years, boomers, ever the innovators according to the media, have accomplished their goal of never getting old; just don’t call yourself old until you’re dead. In fact, those surveyed say one of the worst things about becoming 62 is “getting older.”
The survey [pdf], from MetLife Mature Market Institute, conducted interviews in November 2007, with a thousand American boomers who will turn 62 in 2008. Among the other findings:
They are married with 2.4 children older than 18 not living at home and two grandchildren. Both parents are dead.
They like the name “baby boomer” and they like the word “retirement” to describe the next phase of their lives. They expect to be fully retired by the time they are 66 and four months, and the best things they like about being 62 are “freedom” and “not having to work.”
Right now, they are still working full-time with an average annual income of $71,000 and a net worth, excluding their homes, of $257,000. They have received or expect to receive between $113,000 and $210,000 in inheritance from their parents.
The survey also reports that boomers say, “They have done a good job of ensuring a steady stream of income for their future, and in planning to live their early retirement years to the fullest.”
Maybe, maybe not. Reading this rosy picture, one wonders who it is that MetLife interviewed. The national savings rate dipped into the negative in 2005 and 2006 and will likely be so for 2007 too. The only other time in U.S. history with a negative savings rate occurred during the Great Depression in 1932 and 1933. In mid-2007, consumer debt (not including mortgages) was at $2.5 trillion which works out to about $8,200 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
The report buries a couple of related items: those who do not already have long-term care insurance have no plans to buy it any time soon, but if they were to take out a reverse mortgage, they would use the funds to purchase that insurance and pay down debt. [emphasis added]
Of course, this report comes from a marketing organization that advises corporations on how to part boomers from their money, so it is understandable that there are no figures on actual debt that could curtail the oldest boomers’ retirement plans.
One other item of note: the average boomer born in 1946 (being, then, 23 in 1969) did not go to Woodstock. Sometimes I think I’m last person alive who did.
[At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Kay Richard steps back - quite literally - into her childhood in Ashes to Ashes.]
Posted by Ronni Bennett at 05:33 AM | Permalink | Email this post
Comments
Ronni Getting ready to turn this machine off and run errands.
Still trying to digest what I just read. 10 years older then this report and trying to figure out where I am at. Is it good or bad. Less income, more net worth nothing expected inheritance wise.
Do not think of myself as old but sure do not feel like I did 10 years ago. Still trying to figure out can I go to the ocean like my heart desires. Or do I just stay in my new cottage and create a garden and watch granddaughters. Ernestine
Posted by: Ernestine on Jan 4, 2008 10:20:32 AM
I was born in 1947 and found the survey very interesting. I have been married to the same man since 1968 and we have 1 grown daughter and no grandchildren. Although we are financially well off, both of us still work at our professions. Our health is still good but we enjoy more naps than we once did. We still enjoy the same things that we used to but now at a more sedate pace. Life is still interesting and enjoyable.
Posted by: Florence on Jan 4, 2008 11:52:08 AM
You are not alone in your Woodstock experience, but just like this survey it was a relatively small and self selecting group. Most of the elders I am familiar with now are the different from this study. They come from varied demographics and clearly do not have the lasting partnerships or the economic security or hopes that the survey describes.
Posted by: Judith on Jan 4, 2008 2:01:20 PM
I'm a 52 year old boomer. It won't be long till it's SS time. Lord help me, I am getting old. :-)
Nice read
Thank you,
James Baldwin
Spokane WA
Posted by: James Baldwin on Jan 4, 2008 2:18:10 PM
Pre-war, 1941 here and married to a 1953 who brings home the health insurance. Though some of my bits match or actually exceed theirs, I still need to work. The elders I work with in no way match the parameters of this marketing survey. One of my truly old ladies lived for quite a while without a refrigerator because she couldn't afford to buy one. Another had a stroke and had to return to work so she could pay her bills. She used a walker to get to work, but the bosses wouldn’t let her have it when we were open. Every day I see some who work two to three jobs. Only a few have the freedom to work as a choice.
You bet I worry about them every time I go to work.
Posted by: Mage Bailey on Jan 4, 2008 2:27:22 PM
What? The bad news is the good news isn’t typical. This survey has to be skewed. The sample must not have been truly random or nationwide. Boomer statistics as I read them indicate a large population bearing large debt, some with drug/alcohol and other health problems that have not improved with age, and generally a sense of entitlement. Surprise? This “age wave” has been written and talked about for decades and the simple truth is that no society can long afford to support the unmet needs of fully twenty percent of its population. A whole new wave of contributory involvement by this massive new segment must be evolved. Nothing less than the remaking of our society into an “integration of elders” will be sufficient.
Posted by: Rabon on Jan 4, 2008 4:34:24 PM
Interesting study. I'm a boomer born in 1947 and I do like the title "baby boomer" and I also do not feel "old" nor do I refer to myself as such. Guess I'm in the minority. I have to agree that I consider "old" late 70's/early 80's....maybe. I know many people that are simply ageless.
We retired 3 years ago, are also okay financially due to wise choices and investments on my husband's part. So we're living our retirement years to the fullest.
I'm in excellent health and hubby is in fairly good health. I'd say about 70% of my friends and acquaintances are where we are concerning the above.
And nope....I wasn't at Woodstock.
Posted by: Terri on Jan 4, 2008 5:20:04 PM
Born in '46. I wonder if anyone really knows the amount of inheritance potential in the future. Alan Simpson of ComLinks.com throws out a figure of 53 trillion in investment capital. The Boomers might do something different with the money than their parents. My husband & I are from a rural community. We see a change in the farming business--siblings selling their shares creating more farm corporation type operations.
Posted by: Linda on Jan 4, 2008 9:13:45 PM
Hummmph! I'm wondering where any expectations of inherintances may originate? Other than having been taught to stand on their own, I'm fairly sure that my parents inherited nothing of monetary value from the previous generation. Though they were blue-color people, they managed to pay all of their own bills, to the very end, with a significant (not extravagant) sum left to each of their three surviving kids. I plan to leave each of my kids approximately what I was left--adjusted for inflation. I am confident of their abilities to stand on their own, so if there is any "the rest of my money", it may be left to schools or some such.
Posted by: Cop Car on Jan 4, 2008 9:38:22 PM
I'm just ahead of the Boomers (born in 1943) and have been divorced since 1975 and receive state retirement from teaching for 37 years along with social security I took at 62, so I don't have the net worth, investments, and all that married professionals have accumulated.
Most of my life I've noticed that my group preceded social upheavals possibly because of experiences we had. I've posted about my experience of losing my daughter to adoption because it was 1963 and having a baby while not married made others uncomfortable (what a price to pay for that!) and just finished blogging about changes that have taken place about our names.
I didn't go to Woodstock because we had no idea at the time it would be such a big deal AND I was 8 months pregnant and too far away.
Posted by: Joy D on Jan 5, 2008 2:01:43 AM
The Woodstock question and the interpretation by MetLife is pretty funny, actually. Or scary, if you prefer.
The quote was "Just 2% went to Woodstock" - implying that it wasn't such a big deal to these people.
So let's unpack the numbers:
Figure that most of the people going to Woodstock (their 'target market' at the time) were teenagers and people in their twenties. So they would have been born between 1940 or so through 1955 or so. Roughly. Sure, older and younger attended - but you get my point.
The MetLife survey was made up of people born in 1946.
There were over 3,400,000 births in 1946 (in the U.S.)
Fast forward to 1969. Woodstock. Big event. It sold out (meaning, they stopped selling tickets) at 125,000. 300,000-500,000 people showed up, the gates were broken down and hundreds of thousands of people poured in.
But ... figure that there were over 70,000,000 people in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 30 at the time. And, of course, all these people lived all over the U.S.
Guess what. They didn't all go to Woodstock.
MetLife's spin of the numbers: "JUST 2% went to Woodstock."
For fun, let me spin the numbers:
"A WHOPPING, UNBELIEVABLE 68,000 people born in 1946 attended Woodstock! Most didn't have tickets - but braved it anyway! This is an ASTOUNDING number of people from this birth year - and, we can extrapolate, from all the other years (1940-1955). Nothing like this had or has happened before or since. The effect of "Woodstock" on the lives of people born in between 1940 and 1955 - and, in this case, 1946 - is incalculable."
So much for spin.
Posted by: Chuck Nyren on Jan 5, 2008 3:21:07 AM
For an interesting experience, sign up at Harris Poll to take e-mail surveys. Peculiarly, I love to do it. It gives you a good idea how limiting it is to have to choose an explanation from multiple-choice options. I filled out tons of surveys re: a new car I bought a few years ago, and there was no way for me to tell the surveyors the *real* reason why I picked the car I did! (#1--my mother could get in & out of it; it wasn't my first choice. #2--there was room for my dogs.) These weren't listed in the choices!
Posted by: mary jamison on Jan 5, 2008 12:27:45 PM
After reading this article, I asked my Dad (who is now just 77) what he thought about the idea that he'd consider himself old at 77 and 10 months. He was born much earlier than those in the study (1930) and has seen his lifelong savings and investments become fairly meaningless in today's market -- and he does not want to consider himself old. His comment: "I'm not old as long as I can still walk" (this said because he just injured his knee and is hobbling around!)
The study was probably conducted with MetLife customers -- most of whom would likely hold some sort of financial portfolio. A lot of interesting info and love your take on it -- as well as all the comments from other readers.
My parents were not boomers, but understood the change that was taking place in the US. They had insisted on me staying up late to watch both the Beatles and Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show.
I am a boomer, but I was too young to go to, or even understand what Woodstock was all about at the time. I was 10 years old. If I had been older I would have been one of the 2% who had attended.
Posted by: Wendy on Jan 5, 2008 12:28:11 PM
I take those Harris Poll surveys, too, and know what you mean about the choices. I often wish there was a place for comments. I also can't remember how much I paid for many things.
Good points, Wendy!
Posted by: Joy D on Jan 5, 2008 12:44:27 PM
They must be surveying some of their portfolio holders. I don't think more than two of my circle of friends are making anything like that (a group of about 20 women ranging in age from 45-60) although I'd say we were all gainfully employed and solvent. I'd be surprised to hear that more than 10% of us expect to receive anything at all of significance as an inheritance. When I see surveys like this I always wonder what the motive was to release this kind of skewed data.
Posted by: ellen on Jan 6, 2008 6:02:13 PM
While it sounds like the MetLife survey sampled an atypical group of baby boomers, the following two situations might be reflected in the actual net worth and debt of older americans:
1. Older Americans carry less debt that younger Americans (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/Yourcreditrating/P120358.asp)
2. Personal wealth impacts life expectancy. The older a group of people is, the more likely it is for that group to have a higher average wealth.
Posted by: Louise on Jan 8, 2008 1:43:19 PM
