Alex Golub-Sass

Will People Be Healthy Enough to Work Longer

If Americans continue to retire at age 63, a great many will risk income shortfalls especially at older ages. Because work directly increases current income, Social Security benefits, retirement saving, and decreases the length of retirement, a logical solution would be to increase the age of retirement. But are Americans healthy enough to work longer? Using the National Health Interview Study, this paper shows that healthy life expectancy increased by about three years over 1970-2000 for the average 50-year old man. This increase is largely the result of men moving up the education ladder, with minimal increases within educational groups. Moreover, major disparities in healthy life expectancy remain between those in the bottom and top quartiles of the population. And these disparities mean that a vulnerable portion of the population – perhaps those who most need to work longer – might not be able to extend their work lives.

An Assessment of Life-Cycle Funds

Life-cycle funds offer an intuitive approach to retirement investing. Despite their intuitive appeal, the empirical and theoretical support for life-cycle funds is mixed. We examine life-cycle funds using dynamic optimization techniques to evaluate the optimal asset allocation over the life cycle. In our modeling we introduce a utility function that accounts for the individual’s taste for bearing risk and analyze the role of human capital on allocation decisions. The simulations generally support the use of target retirement date funds once human capital is taken into account. Investment fees, however, could potentially erode any increased asset levels that life-cycle funds create. Ultimately, an appropriate asset allocation depends on individuals’ objectives and the opportunities available in financial markets.