CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Retirement, Disability, and EmploymentIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis

Social Security and the Evolution of Elderly Poverty

Open access
Engelhardt, Gary, Gruber, Jonathan·2004·NBER Working Paper
DOI 10.3386/w10466
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We use data from the March 1968March -2001 Current Population Surveys to document the evolution of elderly poverty over this time period, and to assess the causal role of the Social Security program in reducing poverty rates. We develop an instrumental variable approach that relies on the large increase in benefits for birth cohorts from 1885 through 1916, and the subsequent decline and flattening of real benefits growth due to the Social Securing "notch", to estimate the causal effect of Social Security on elderly poverty. Our findings suggest that over all elderly families the elasticity of poverty to benefits is roughly unitary. This suggests that reductions in Social Security benefits would significantly alter the poverty of the elderly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w10466

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 11 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Relative poverty among elderly households did not decrease during the 1980s and 1990s.

    “First, while there has been a major decline in absolute poverty among elderly households, that decline has been much smaller for relative poverty, which did not decrease in the 1980s and 1990s.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the early 1990s recession, elderly and non-elderly poverty followed a similar pattern.

    “The difference between the elderly and nonelderly emerges in the recession of the elderly 1980s, when nonelderly poverty rose dramatically while elderly poverty rose only slightly, and the recession of the early 1990s, where elderly and nonelderly poverty followed a similar pattern.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Relative to the non-elderly, inequality among the elderly declined significantly from the late 1960s through the early 1990s.

    “Relative to the nonelderly, inequality among the elderly declined significantly from the late 1960s through the early 1990s.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The estimated effect of Social Security on poverty is much stronger for families than for households, especially for widows, widowers, and divorcees.

    “Our regression results show that the effect of Social Security on poverty is much stronger for families than for households, in particular for widows/widowers and divorcees.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In OLS, a $1000 increase in annual benefits lowers the elderly household poverty rate by 2.8 percentage points.

    “Using the fraction of elderly households below federal poverty threshold (the head-count ratio) as the dependent variable (row 1, Panel A), a $1000 increase in annual benefits reduces the poverty rate by 2.8 percentage points (column 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Across all elderly families, the estimated elasticity of poverty with respect to Social Security benefits is approximately one.

    “Our findings suggest that over all elderly families the elasticity of poverty to benefits is roughly unitary.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    At the household level in 2000, the poverty rate was 5% for married elders, almost 22% for never-married elders, and 16-17% for divorced and widowed elders.

    “At the household level, the poverty rate of married elders in 2000 was only 5%; for never married elders, it was almost 22%.For divorced and widowed elders, it was 16-17%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Shared living arrangements fell steeply early in the sample when benefits rose fastest, then reversed and rose when benefits fell and flattened.

    “Once again, there is a steep decline in the early years of the sample, when benefits are rising most rapidly, then a turnaround and rise in shared living arrangements when Social Security benefits fall and flatten.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    From 1967 to 2000, the number of married or widowed elders rose by 50%, the number of divorced elders rose by almost 500%, and the number of never-married elders rose by over 300%.

    “While the number of married or widowed elders rises by 50% from 1967 to 2000, the number of divorced elders rises by almost 500%, and the number of never married elders rises by over 300%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Never-married elderly had no poverty decline; they started with the second-highest poverty rate in 1967 and had the highest rate by 2000.

    “Particularly striking is the lack of poverty decline for never married elderly, who start out with the second highest poverty rate in 1967 and have the highest rate of these groups by 2000.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the early 1980s recession, non-elderly poverty rose dramatically while elderly poverty rose only slightly.

    “The difference between the elderly and nonelderly emerges in the recession of the elderly 1980s, when nonelderly poverty rose dramatically while elderly poverty rose only slightly, and the recession of the early 1990s, where elderly and nonelderly poverty followed a similar pattern.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The instrument's benefit levels rise through 1910, increase sharply from 1910 to 1916, drop steeply in 1917-1921, and then rise more gradually.

    “Benefits are rising steadily until 1910, and then ramp up quickly from 1910 through 1916, before falling precipitously in the 1917-1921 period, and then rising more slowly thereafter.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the visual inspection, poverty at ages 65 and older fell rapidly for early cohorts when benefits were rising, and the decline slowed substantially after the 1916 notch but continued.

    “There is a rapid decline in poverty for early cohorts, where benefits are rising, and this rate of decline slows substantially after the notch in 1916, although the decline does continue.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the late 1960s and early 1970s, both elderly and non-elderly poverty declined.

    “During the period of most rapid Social Security growth, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, both elderly and nonelderly poverty are declining.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Poverty patterns by age group are remarkably similar; every age group shows a steep decline in poverty in the late 1960s and early 1970s and a much slower decline in the 1980s and 1990s, with no evidence of a relatively large effect on one particular age group.

    “In fact, the patterns are remarkably similar across these age groups.In every case we see the steep decline in poverty in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the much slower decline in the 1980s and 1990s.So there is no evidence here of a relatively large effect on one particular age group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Inequality among the elderly increased sharply in the late 1990s, rising faster than inequality among the non-elderly.

    “But inequality exploded in the late 1990s among the elderly, rising at an even faster rate than inequality among the non-elderly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the late 1960s and early 1970s, elderly relative poverty fell while non-elderly relative poverty rose.

    “During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the relative poverty rate of the elderly was falling, just as was the case with absolute poverty, although in this case the declines came against a backdrop of rising nonelderly relative poverty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Real Social Security expenditures per capita and the ratio of those expenditures to mean non-elderly income per capita moved together until the mid-1980s, after which relative Social Security generosity declined even as real benefits continued to rise slowly.

    “The series move in tandem until the mid-1980s, but after that point there is a decline in relative Social Security generosity even as benefits continued to slowly rise in real terms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 2000, households containing 65-69 year olds had a poverty rate of 7.5%, while households containing elders aged 80 and above had a poverty rate of 13%, almost twice as high.

    “In 2000, households in which 65-69 year olds resided had a poverty rate of 7.5 percent; households in which elders ages 80 and above resided had a poverty rate that was almost twice as high, at 13%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At the family level, effects are much larger for widows, though smaller in elasticity form than for married households.

    “At the family level, the effects are much larger for widows, although they remain smaller in elasticity form than for married households.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Other marital groups have much smaller responses, significant at the household level only for widows.

    “The responses for other groups are much smaller, and are only significant at the household level for widows.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Inequality results weaken when the sample is restricted, confirming an insignificant effect of these policy changes on inequality.

    “The inequality results also weaken when the sample is restricted, confirming the insignificant effect on inequality of these policy changes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the restricted sample, the shared-living elasticity falls to -0.34 and is marginally significant.

    “There is also a dramatic reduction in the elasticity of shared living arrangements, which falls to -0.34 and is marginally significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Social Security significantly reduces inequality among elderly households, but for elderly families this result is very sensitive to including controls.

    “For elderly households, there is a significant reduction in inequality, but for elderly families, this finding is very sensitive to the inclusion of controls in the model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Married couples have the most elastic poverty response to Social Security, with very large estimated elasticities across outcome measures.

    “Surprisingly, married couples appear to have the most elastic poverty response to Social Security, with very large estimated elasticities in Table 4 across the various outcome measures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    IV estimates imply elderly household poverty rate decreases of 3.5 percentage points without controls and 3.1 percentage points with controls.

    “The IV estimates in columns 2 and 3 imply decreases in the poverty rate of 3.5 and 3.1 percentage points without and with controls, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the restricted sample, log results resemble Table 2; household poverty effects rise and family effects fall, converging to an elasticity of -0.8 to -1, large enough to more than explain the time-series poverty trends.

    “The log results are very similar to Table 2.The effect on poverty for households rises and for families falls, with both converging in an elasticity of -0.8 to -1, which is still large enough to more than explain the time series trends in poverty rates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    From 1967 to 2000, the sample poverty rate fell from 28.3% to 11.6%, a 16.7 percentage point drop, while simulated benefit Z rose by $5760, or 91%.

    “Over the 1967-2000 period, the poverty rate for this sample fell from 28.3 percent to 11.6 percent, or by 16.7 percentage points, while the simulated Social Security benefit, Z , rose by $5760, or 91%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The timing of the decline in shared living is consistent with rapid benefit growth in the late 1960s and 1970s and flattening benefits in the 1980s and 1990s, supporting the view that Social Security benefits are a major determinant of living arrangements.

    “This is very consistent with the rapid run-up in benefits in the late 1960s and 1970s, and the flattening of benefits in the 1980s and 1990s, supporting the notion that Social Security benefits are a major determinant of living arrangements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If higher Social Security benefits make widowed and divorced elders more likely to live independently, this creates more elderly households but leaves the number of elderly families unchanged.

    “In particular, if higher Social Security benefits make the widowed and divorced more likely to live independently, then this will create more elderly households but keep the number of elderly families the same (because in our definition of family, elderly living alone or in shared arrangements are their own family).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study follows Krueger and Pischke's methodology to define an instrumental variable for observed Social Security benefits.

    “We follow their methodology to define an instrumental variable for observed Social Security benefits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krueger and Pischke (1992)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The absolute poverty measure holds living standards constant and does not allow for productivity growth; with positive real productivity growth, federal-threshold poverty will tend to fall over time because the threshold adjusts only for inflation.

    “First, it holds standards of living constant, and does not allow for productivity growth.Specifically, in a mechanical sense, if there is any real productivity growth over time, so that real wage growth is positive, then poverty based on the federal threshold likely will fall over time, because this measure only adjusts for inflation, not real earnings growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Alternative poverty measures based on 133, 150, and 200 percent of relative poverty lines and on gross and net income produced results that did not differ from the main results.

    “The results did not differ from those presented below.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The simple difference between poverty measured with market income and with income net of taxes and transfers misses crowd-out of real behavior.

    “First, it misses is any”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Krueger and Pischke (1992) first identified the birth-cohort variation in benefits as a useful way to identify behavioral effects of Social Security, in their case for retirement decisions.

    “It is this variation that was first identified by Krueger and Pischke (1992) as a fruitful means of identifying the behavioral effects of Social Security, in their case in the context of retirement decisions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krueger and Pischke (1992)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Elderly divorcees were more income elastic in living arrangements than widows, never-married elders were less elastic, and married elders were not elastic at all.

    “In addition, elderly divorcees were even more income elastic in their living arrangements.But those who are never married are less elastic, and those are married are not at all elastic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Engelhardt, Gruber and Perry (2002) source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Survey-based income measures may be subject to reporting error.

    “Second, survey-based measures of income might be subject to reporting error.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When widowed or divorced elders move out on their own, they remain in the same family but become relatively poor households, raising the household poverty rate.

    “When those elders move out on their own, they are in the same family, but they become relatively poor households, raising the poverty rate among households.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Under the 1977 law, people born before January 1, 1917 were grandfathered under old benefit rules, while those born in 1917-1921 received benefit reductions up to 20 percent lower than observationally equivalent people born in 1916.

    “The 1977 law grandfathered all individuals born before January 1, 1917, under the old benefit rules, but those born in 1917-1921 received benefit reductions that were as much as 20 percent lower than observationally equivalent individuals in the 1916 birth cohort.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Early cohorts born between 1906 and 1926 experienced large exogenous increases in Social Security benefits, partly because of double indexation in the early 1970s.

    “The early cohorts in this range saw enormous exogenous increases in Social Security benefits, partly due to double indexation of the system in the early 1970s.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Holding lifetime earnings constant by construction ensures that all variation in the instrument comes from variation in the benefit formula due to the law change.

    “By holding lifetime earnings constant by construction, this insures that all of the variation in the instrument comes from variation in the benefit formula due to the law change.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The instrument is constructed so that Social Security benefits are identical for each year of birth except for changes in benefits law.

    “The instrument is based on the notion that Social Security benefits should be constructed to be identical for each year of birth except for changes in the benefits law.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The 1977 Social Security Amendments ended double indexation and produced the benefits notch.

    “This double indexing was ended in the 1977 Amendments to the Social Security Act that generated the so-called”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The relative poverty measure does not hold living standards constant; holding real elderly income per equivalent constant, elderly poverty rises as median non-elderly income rises.

    “It does not hold living standards constant.Holding real elderly income per equivalent constant, elderly poverty will rise as median non-elderly income rises.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Age dummies absorb differences across age groups in the outcome, and year dummies absorb general time trends in the outcome.

    “The age dummies control for differences across age groups in the outcome measure; the year dummies control for any general time trends in the outcome measure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Changes in Social Security benefits can change the living arrangements of the elderly, so household- and family-level poverty measures can differ.

    “These analyses can potentially yield very different measures of poverty because changes in Social Security benefits can change the living arrangements of the elderly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even without a causal effect of Social Security, elderly poverty would appear to have fallen as benefits rose, biasing estimates toward finding that Social Security lowered elderly poverty.

    “That is, even in the absence of Social Security having had a causal impact, elderly poverty would appear to have fallen as benefits rose.This would bias estimates toward finding that Social Security lowered elderly poverty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study constructs an instrumental variable for Social Security benefits that is independent of omitted time-varying factors and based on an exogenous measure of lifetime labor income.

    “To circumvent these problems we place (3) in a regression framework and construct an instrumental variable for Social Security benefits independent of omitted time-varying factors and based on an exogenous measure of lifetime labor income.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    This -0.34 estimate is much closer to the full-sample -0.4 estimate in Engelhardt, Gruber and Perry (2002), which used more restricted birth cohorts.

    “This is much closer to the full sample -0.4 estimate in Engelhardt, Gruber and Perry (2002), which was estimated on a more restricted set of birth cohorts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Engelhardt, Gruber and Perry (2002) source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These two implied declines are almost exactly the observed poverty decline, suggesting Social Security can account for all of it.

    “Both of these estimates are almost exactly the same as the poverty decline experienced by these elderly, suggesting that Social Security can explain all of the decline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The difference is due to birth cohorts used; restricting to 1900-1930 makes shared-living effects much stronger for widows and divorcees relative to married couples.

    “These differences are due to differences in birth cohorts used; when the sample is restricted to the narrower set of birth cohorts from 1900-1930, the effects on shared living arrangements are much stronger for the widows and divorcees relative to married couples.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The log estimate implies family poverty should have fallen by 126%, twice the actual fall, while the level estimate implies a 33% fall, 50% larger than actual.

    “The log estimate suggests that family level poverty should have fallen by 126% (twice the actual fall), and the level estimate suggests that family level poverty should have fallen by 33% (50% larger than the actual fall).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.
47 of 47

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    For divorced or widowed female beneficiaries, Social Security benefits are based on the former or deceased spouse's earnings, and the spouse is assumed to be three years older for calculating the instrument.

    “We assume that her Social Security benefits are based on the earnings of her former or deceased spouse, assumed to be three years older than her, so that the”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Earnings grow linearly between five-year intervals in the constructed earnings history.

    “We then assume a linear trend in earnings in between these five-year intervals.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Earnings grow with inflation after age 60 in the constructed earnings history.

    “This method is used through age 60, and earnings are assumed to grow with inflation for ages beyond 60.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Never-married females' earnings profiles more closely resemble male workers' than median female workers'.

    “We use the same earnings profile even when assigning benefits to never married females, because we assume that their earnings profile would more closely resemble that of a male worker than that of the median female worker.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The prototypical earnings history ends at age 65, so no cohort variation in average retirement ages is incorporated.

    “We also assume that this prototypical earnings history ends at age 65, so that we do not incorporate any variation across cohorts in average retirement ages.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All workers retire at age 65.

    “So we assume all workers retire at age 65; our results are very similar using an instrument that uses a fixed distribution of retirement ages from the 1916 cohort.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Before this study, there had been little direct assessment of the causal role of Social Security in determining elderly poverty.

    “but to date there has been little direct assessment of the causal role of the Social Security program in determining elderly poverty.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The legislative-variation instrument affects elderly poverty only through Social Security benefits, not through other cohort-specific channels.

    “our model is identified solely by legislative variation in benefits generosity across birth cohorts, and not any differences in their earnings history.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The decline in elderly poverty is typically attributed to Social Security growth.

    “This poverty decline is typically attributed to the growth in Social Security over this period”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social Security has been credited with reducing poverty for millions of Americans, especially the elderly.

    “It has been credited with alleviating the burden of poverty for millions of Americans, particularly for the elderly.”

    From Social security and mortality: The role of income support policies and population health in the United States (2011) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Conclusion says the decline in elderly poverty is commonly credited to Social Security and that the authors’ analysis suggests Social Security growth can explain that decline. The paper supports the elderly-poverty point, but the cited passages do not establish that millions of Americans were helped or assess poverty reduction among Americans generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Family poverty response is not stronger in every specification

    Minor

    The paper says the poverty response is stronger for families than households in all specifications. In Table 3's controlled log-IV specification for absolute poverty, the household coefficient is larger in magnitude (-1.062) than the family coefficient (-.989).

  • Regression notes misidentify the divorced sample

    Minor

    The notes call the third set of marital-status regressions "widowed," but Table 4 labels that set "Divorced."

  • Household poverty change is labeled percent rather than percentage points

    Minor

    The linear estimate implies a decline of about 17.8 percentage points. Relative to the stated initial poverty rate of 28.3%, that is a 62.9% decline, not a 17.8% decline.

    Reported 17.8 · recomputed 62.897527

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]2. Danziger, Sheldon, Robert Haveman, and Robert Plotnick, "How Income Transfers Affect Work, Savings, and the Income Distribution," Journal of Economic Literature 19:3 (1981): 975- 1028.
  2. [6]6. Hurd, Michael D., "Research on the Elderly: Economic Status, Retirement, and Consumption," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28:2 (1990): 565-637.
  3. [11]11. Smolensky, Eugene, Sheldon Danziger, and Peter Gottschalk, "The Declining Significance of Age in the United States: Trends in the Well-Being of Children and the Elderly Since 1939," in John L. Palmer, Timothy Smeeding, Barbara Boyle Torrey, eds., The Vulnerable (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press), 1988. 90-10 ratio Figure 5: Income Inequality calendar year 90-10 ratio, nonelderly 90-10 ratio 90-10 ratio, nonelderly 1967 1973 1980 1984 1990 1995 2000 1.50403 1.68915 1.41483 1.67053

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Engelhardt, G., & Gruber, J.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
ORCID
Engelhardt, Gary
Venue
NBER Working Paper
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2004-05
DOI
10.3386/w10466
OpenAlex
W1520224788
Cited by
153
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Retirement, Disability, and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Keywords
social security, old-age poverty, social security benefits, birth cohort, retirement income

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review