Thursday, May 9, 2013

Attention Boomers: The Economy Needs You to Work Past 70


Published: Thursday, 9 May 2013 | 12:11 PM ET
By: Steve Yoder
















 
Melanie Stetson Freeman | The Christian Science Monitor | Getty Images
 
A senior citizen works as a sales associate at Home Depot in the lumber department.
If you imagine that age 81 means shuffleboard, golf carts, and sitting on the beach, David Mintz will make you reconsider. The founder and CEO of food brand Tofutti, Mintz works 15-hour shifts, sometimes driving 500 miles a day to visit his factories. He sleeps four or five hours a night and works out every morning. "I'm working harder now than 20 years ago," he says.
Mintz and others like him are leading a shift toward working later into life. Just 11 percent of people older than age 65 were still working in 1993, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Today, that figure has reached almost 18 percent – and it's climbing.

Most of these workers are not just putting in a few hours: A 2008 study of people age 50 and older who retired and then went back to work found that 54 percent were employed full time and 19 percent worked more than 41 hours a week.

All of this could mean good news for the larger economy. As baby boomers move into their later years, the 65-and-over population will grow from about 13 percent in 2010 to a projected 20 percent by 2030. The rising population of seniors who work will bring stronger economic growth – if companies can retool to accommodate an older workforce, say economists and experts.
But if companies fail to plan ahead, they might also see costs mount: By one estimate, health insurance premiums for workers age 65 and older cost companies almost three times as much as those age 25.


People working in their later years could help with the country's fiscal problems, says Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist who is finalizing a study on the issue. Every additional year that a person stays on the job brings more revenue to the federal treasury in income taxes. If current trends continue, working seniors will have a positive, if small, impact on federal deficits under the most plausible budget projections.

Reinforcing the Nest Egg

More working seniors also could lower demand for social services by cutting the number of Americans who don't have enough money in retirement. In 2008, the federal and state governments spent nearly $15,000 per elderly person on income security and tax credits, according to a report earlier this year from the Urban Institute. Every year that a person delays taking Social Security past his or her full retirement age (anywhere from age 65 to 67, depending on the date of birth), the check amount grows by 8 percent, says Sara Rix, who focuses on the economics of aging at AARP's Public Policy Institute.

That continues up to age 70, when everyone must draw a check. "You're not going to get that [8-percent] return anywhere else… and it's a guarantee," Rix says.

It may be hard to imagine with unemployment at 7.5 percent, but more seniors on the job could help alleviate a labor shortage in the years ahead. That's because the U.S. population is aging: While the proportion of seniors is growing, the percentage of those in their prime working age is stagnating, says Richard Johnson, an economist who directs the Urban Institute's retirement policy program. By 2030, if people retire at age 65, the number of workers per retiree will drop from 4.5 to 3, according to a 2010 study by the Rand Corporation.

"We really need older people to stay in the labor force to provide the workers that the economy needs to continue to grow," says Johnson. In an April 2012 survey of 430 human resource professionals, 72 percent said the loss of talented older workers poses a problem or potential problem for their organization.

If younger people worry that older colleagues staying on the job might cut into their opportunities, those fears aren't supported by recent data. A study last fall by the Pew Economic Mobility Project found that from 1977−2011, every one percentage-point increase in the employment rate of older workers was associated with a slight decline in youth unemployment. That's partly because employed older workers also create jobs by starting businesses themselves, or offer skills that allow companies to expand operations.

But other experts worry that later retirement could shrink company bottom lines if the workers who stay do so because they don't have enough retirement savings. The typical household, age 55-64, had only $120,000 in their 401(k) or IRA account in 2010, according to a study last summer from Boston College's Center for Retirement Research. The report also noted that 13 percent of those ages 60-64 had no retirement account at all.

Those who feel obligated to keep working tend to have worse health and work in jobs that are more strenuous, compared with older knowledge workers who choose to keep going. Susan Conrad of Plancorp Retirement Plan Advisors says that among this group, health care, workers' compensation, and disability costs are higher than for others, while productivity is lower. A study by MassMutual Financial Group calculated that for companies with more than a thousand employees, increasing the portion of their workforce of those over age 60 from 10 percent to 30 percent hiked their health care and disabilities costs by about $2 million. Johnson also estimates that a company spends an average of about a thousand dollars more per year for an older worker.

Johnson argues, however, that there's not much evidence that older workers are less productive – their productivity simply takes different forms. They may make fewer creative breakthroughs and process information more slowly, in general, but their knowledge and experience improve with age. An older telephone salesperson might make fewer calls, for example, but sell more by drawing on years of experience, he says.
 
A possible worker shortage in some fields is causing a number of companies to retool their operations to retain older workers. The shortage of nurses, for example, has led hospitals to redesign layouts so that work stations are closer to patients, says Jacquelyn James of Boston College's Sloan Center on Aging & Work. And the shortage of truck drivers has some companies redesigning vehicles to create more comfortable sleeping spaces, she says. Other firms are changing work schedules: The April 2012 survey of human resource professionals found that about a quarter of companies are offering more flexible work arrangements and part-time positions to attract older workers.

With U.S. birth rates dropping and the population getting older, encouraging more companies to create incentives for older workers to delay their retirement parties could benefit us all, says Johnson.

Full Article:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100724186

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Health Concerns Top List of Americans' Retirement Worries: Study



Health Concerns Top List of Americans' Retirement Worries: Study

















Stigur Karlsson | E+ | Getty Images
 
Health problems and the cost of healthcare are the biggest concerns for those entering retirement, according to a study released on Monday from Bank of America's Merrill Lynch.
The findings, part of a larger study focused on how people are feeling about and preparing for retirement, were based on a survey of more than 6,300 individuals aged 45 and older across the United States.

When asked what their biggest worry was about living a long life, 72 percent of retirees surveyed said serious health problems. Among other concerns cited by respondents were running out of money to live comfortably and not being a burden on their family.

The study, co-conducted with research firm Age Wave, divided respondents into those that have more than $250,000 in investible assets and those that have less than $250,000.

When asked what their top financial worries for retirement were, 52 percent of those surveyed in the affluent population group and 37 percent in the latter - ranked healthcare expenses as their biggest concern.

Other concerns included outliving their money, lack of personal savings, social security and company pension.

The study cited worries about the long-term stability of government healthcare programs, such as Medicare, and unexpected medical expenses as reasons why healthcare costs topped the list of concerns for retirees.

"It requires that people give some thought to what other contingencies" they have in place to prepare for those unexpected expenses, said David Tyrie, head of personal wealth and retirement at Merrill.
Health problems were also listed as the top reason for early retirement, rather than financial success, with 34 percent of retirees surveyed ranking it first. Sufficient financial resources came in as a second reason, with 27 percent of retirees surveyed listing it as their top reason.

Read More Here.   http://www.cnbc.com/id/100712038

Friday, April 26, 2013

CNBC Report: Oops! Economic Growth Wasn't So Great After All

Oops! Economic Growth Wasn't So Great After All

 Reuters.

U.S. economic growth regained speed in the first quarter, but not as much as expected, which could heighten fears the already weakening economy could struggle to handle deep government spending cuts and higher taxes.

Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace.
Part of the acceleration in activity reflected farmers' filling up silos after a drought last summer decimated crop output. Removing inventories, the growth rate was a tepid 1.5 percent.
Given the smaller-than-expected increase and signs the economy has weakened in recent weeks, the GDP data will probably weigh on U.S. stocks. It could also give ammunition for the Federal Reserve to maintain its monetary stimulus.

Q1 GDP Up 2.5%
 
CNBC's Rick Santelli reveals the latest numbers on economic growth in the U.S. And Dean Maki, Barclays, discusses what it indicates about the economy and the impact on the markets.
The U.S. central bank, which meets next week, is widely expected to keep purchasing bonds at a pace of $85 billion a month.

Data ranging from employment to retail sales and manufacturing weakened substantially in March after robust gains in the first two months of the year. There are indications the weakness persisted into April.

Broad-Based Gains
 
The GDP showed contributions to growth from all areas of the economy, with the exception of government, trade and investment by businesses in offices and other commercial buildings.
Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, increased at 3.2 percent pace - the fastest since the fourth quarter of 2010. It grew at a 1.8 percent rate in the fourth quarter of last year.
However, households cut back on saving to fund their purchases after incomes dropped at a 5.3 percent rate in the first quarter - a bad sign for future spending growth. The drop in income was the largest since the third quarter of 2009.
The saving rate - the percentage of disposable income households are socking away - fell to 2.6 percent, the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2007, from 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Much of the gains in first-quarter spending came from automobile purchases and outlays for utilities, which were boosted by unusually cold temperatures. Consumers managed to step up their spending despite the return of a 2 percent payroll tax and higher gasoline prices.

Despite the spike in gasoline prices, inflation pressures were benign in the first three months of the year.

An inflation gauge in the government's GDP report rose at a 0.9 percent rate, the smallest increase since the second quarter of 2012. The personal consumption expenditure index had increased at a 1.6 percent pace the fourth quarter.

A core measure that strips out food and energy costs rose at a 1.2 percent rate, still well below the Fed's 2 percent target. Core PCE had increased at a 1.0 percent rate in the fourth quarter.
The lack of inflation should come as welcome relief for American households, but it could cause some nervousness at the U.S. central bank, which may see it as a symptom of the economy's weakness.

Another big contributor to growth in the fourth quarter was inventory accumulation, which added a full percentage point to GDP growth after chopping off 1.5 points from output in the final three months of last year.

Business spending on equipment and software slowed sharply, growing at an only 3.0 percent rate after a brisk 11.8 percent pace in the fourth quarter.
Economists caution that it is too early to blame the cooling in business investment and other more recent signs of economic softness on the $85 billion in mandatory government spending cuts, known as the sequester, that began on March 1.

Homebuilding marked an eighth straight quarter of growth, though the pace moderated from the fourth quarter. Housing added to growth last year for the first time since 2005 and its recovery should help ensure the economy does not contract.
While export growth rebounded, it was outpaced by imports, resulting in a trade deficit that cut off half a percentage point from output.

Original CNCB article

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Surprise! Insider Trading in DC Just Got Easier

Insider Trading in DC Just Got Easier


















Getty Images

While almost no one was looking, a law making it easier for congressional and top executive branch staffers to engage in corrupt trading was signed into law Monday.
The law is a modification of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act. The modification was passed by unanimous consent by the House and the Senate last week with no debate or even discussion.

The STOCK Act, which became law just a year ago, was designed to discourage insider trading by members of Congress and top government officials. In addition to outlawing trading based on non-public information gleaned by government officials during the course of their public duties, the law required extensive disclosure of financial holdings by Congressional staffers and 28,000 senior executive branch employees.

The financial disclosures of these officials were to be posted in an online database open to the public.
The disclosure requirements were an important part of the law. They would have allowed researchers to detect abnormally successful trading activity by unelected senior government staffers—just as similar disclosure requirements for Congressmen and Senators had allowed scholars to produce evidence that suggested members of Congress were benefiting from non-public information.

Currently, although the reports of staff financial positions are officially part of the public record, they aren't readily available. Often they have to be requested from individual agencies using the names of the individuals about whom information is sought. The result is that the public is effectively blocked from learning the information disclosed in the reports.
The public disclosure requirement was arguably too lax to begin with. There's good reason to prohibit trading by senior government officials altogether. Many lawyers, journalists and Wall Streeters who come into possession of sensitive, confidential information as part of their professional lives are barred from any short term trading. Some are barred from owning individual securities at all, allowed to own nothing but index and mutual funds.


The provision of the Stock Act was a compromise in which government officials were required to disclose trades to the public in exchange for being able to trade in the first place. If disclosure proved too burdensome, government officials could simply adopt personal no-trading policies and avoid the cost of disclosing trades altogether.


The new law scraps the disclosure requirements for the staffers, leaving them in place only for members of Congress, Congressional candidates, and the President and Vice President.

People who lament our bitterly divided political situation might want to reflect what bipartisanship and inter-branch government agreement has been able to so quickly accomplish here.

See original article at CNBC.com

Friday, February 8, 2013

Even Brief Spending Cuts Could Hit US Economy Hard

Even Brief Spending Cuts Could Hit US Economy Hard


















Darren Mower | Vetta | Getty Images
 
The U.S. economy could take a big hit from automatic government spending cuts even if Congress only leaves them in place for a month or two.
The cuts were meant to be so painful that they would force Congress to find a more thoughtful way to tighten the budget.
But many analysts assume they will take effect as scheduled, forcing federal offices to furlough some of their 2.8 million workers and trim spending on everything from paper clips to missiles.
It is anyone's guess, however, how long lawmakers will be able to stomach the economic pain. The duration of the austerity measures will determine the force of the blow to the economy. Some analysts think having the cuts in place for more than a few months could trigger a brief recession.

Read More of the CNBC article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100441227/

Friday, January 25, 2013

World Unemployment to Hit Record High in 2013: ILO

World Unemployment to Hit Record High in 2013: ILO

  
  Published: Tuesday, 22 Jan 2013 | 12:00 AM ET

















World unemployment could top record levels this year and continue rising until 2017, the International Labour Organization (ILO) said on Tuesday in its annual employment report.
2009 currently stands as the worst recorded year for world unemployment, with 198 million people across the globe without work.

In its 2013 Global Employment Trends report, the ILO forecasts unemployment numbers will rise by 5.1 million in 2013 to reach 202 million, topping 2009's record.  The report also predicts unemployment will rise further in 2014 to reach 205 million."Unemployment remains as dire as it was during the crisis in 2009," Ekkehard Ernst, chief of the employment trends unit at the ILO, which wrote the report, told CNBC.

While the crisis may have originated in the developed world, the report noted that 75 percent of 2012's newly unemployed came from outside it, with East Asia, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa being the worst affected.

Ernst attributed this to the "spillover effect" of weak growth in advanced economies, and in particular, the recession in Europe.  "The main transmission mechanism of global spillovers has been through international trade, but regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean have also suffered from increased volatility of international capital flows," the report said.  It also blamed incoherence between monetary and fiscal policies and a "piecemeal approach to financial sector and sovereign debt problems, in particular in the euro area."

"The indecision of policy makers in several countries has led to uncertainty about future conditions, and reinforced corporate tendencies to increase cash holdings or pay dividends, rather than expand capacity and hire new workers," the report said.

Ernst added that labor markets can lag other economic indicators, meaning they might not reflect recent upturns in the world economy.  "Labor markets reflect what has happened in the last year… it takes some time for improvement in output to be reflected," Ernst said.

In addition, the ILO is recording rising numbers of people who choose not to search for jobs because they think the situation is hopeless. These people, officially classified as discouraged workers, may choose instead to rely on a partner's earnings or claim welfare benefits, if available.   "The labor market situation has been so bad for so long, discouragement has grown out of proportion," he said.
Despite the gloomy forecast from ILO, some people see a turnaround for the global economy. Pimco CEO and co-CIO Mohamed El-Erian said the world economy could be nearing the end of its "new normal" of high unemployment and slow growth.

"We said in 2009: three to five years," El-Erian told CNBC on Thursday, referring to how long the phenomenon of "new normal" might last. El-Erian coined the term in 2009.

 -By CNBC's Katy Barnato

Monday, January 21, 2013

Super-Rich Shun Banks, Advisers for Next Big Deal


Super-Rich Shun Banks, Advisers for Next Big Deal


Tycoons are shunning banks and wealth managers, preferring to put a flood of money from selling stakes in companies into property and new ventures rather than trust industries whose reputations have been battered by the global financial crisis.

Thomson Reuters data show that proceeds for shareholders selling stakes in companies, excluding governments, have tripled since 2008 to $183 billion last year, creating new millionaires and making many wealthy people much richer.

But little of that cash appears to have made its way to the wealth-management industry, which specializes in looking after - and increasing - the riches of the world's multi-millionaires.
The average increase in assets run for clients by wealth managers and banks was 6.55 percent for the 100 largest institutions in the sector, according to the most recent analysis by finance industry consultants Scorpio Partnership which based its research on published company earnings for 2011.
"Forgetting all the other ways of getting new money (for banks and wealth management firms), there is a deficit there," said Cath Tillotson, managing partner at Scorpio.

Wealth managers argue that people enriched by share sales are often serial entrepreneurs, and so more likely to invest in another business venture than bank the proceeds or put them in the care of an investment manager.

"They would tend to look for a relatively liquid and short-term cash position while they look for the next long-term opportunity, as opposed to saying:'I'm an entrepreneur, I've made a lot of money, I'm going to cash out and become a typical wealth client'," said Paul Patterson, deputy chairman at RBC Wealth Management's 'ultra high net worth' international division servicing the bank's richest clients.
However, strong growth in other sectors favoured by the super-rich, such as London's property market, suggests there may be a problem for banks and wealth managers.

Research from property consultant Savills shows the amount spent on London homes worth more than 5 million pounds reached 4.1 billion pounds ($6.6 billion) in 2012, with the number of transactions nearly doubling since 2008.

Property in stable jurisdictions appeals more than conventional investments offered by banks, in part because of the reputational damage they suffered in the financial crisis, said Yolande Barnes, a research director at Savills.

"You could put it down to they (the super-rich) just don't trust banks to make them or keep their money," Barnes said.

Banks have sought to access new clients through the rush to luxury London property by offering rich buyers mortgages on their Mayfair townhouses, but most of the clients at that end of the market are cash buyers, she added.

Read more on "Remarkable Growth"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100387475/