MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2117125206 · doi:10.59962/9780774852111-011

Saving before and after Retirement: A Study of Canadian Couples, 1969-92

2007· article· en· W2117125206 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaofen Lin

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Health Care Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpouseConsumption (sociology)EconomicsDemographic economicsRetirement agePermanent income hypothesisLife-cycle hypothesisCross-sectional dataCohortLabour economicsEconometricsMedicineFinance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This essay examines issues of life-cycle savings of Canadian elderly married-couple households just before and after retirement within both a pooled cross-sectional and a synthetic longitudinal framework. We investigate whether the saving behaviour of elderly couples appears to be motivated by life-cycle factors, how the growth of our economy has affected lifetime income, consumption and savings across generations, and, because we use repeated cross-sectional data, the 1969-1992 FAMEX, how to correct the age profiles distorted by the presence of differential mortality between the rich and the poor. We intend to provide evidence both for the empirical justification of the standard life-cycle model and for policy makers concerned with various social programs for the elderly in Canada. The pooled cross-section results on overall median age pattern indicate that, though income and consumption are both decreasing with age, the decrease in consumption is relatively smooth while income falls considerably at retirement age. Savings and saving rates thus exhibit a distinct pattern: they drop sharply at retirement age, but rise again thereafter. When households are grouped into four types according to retirement status of both spouses, it is clear that this saving dip is found only among both-retired couples. For couples with at least one spouse working, saving rates remain high throughout the age span. It is also found that controlling for income, households with both spouses retired have the highest saving rate among all types. In the cohort analysis, the age profiles show that income and consumption remain at about the same level or even increase with age after retirement. There are significant cohort effects in both income and consumption in that younger cohorts have higher income and higher consumption than older cohorts. Moreover, these effects are about the same for both variables. However, the age profile for the saving rate is very similar to those based on pooled cross-sections: a sharp drop at retirement, a quick rise thereafter. We find no cohort effects on saving rates in our sample. This is the core reason that saving profiles are the same in both cross-section and cohort analysis. Synthetic cohort analysis, however, is biased by the fact that the poorer tend to drop out from the sample earlier because of higher mortality. Based on the idea that decreasing quantiles with age should be used instead of the straight median for every age, a new method is developed to correct the median profiles for differential mortality. Two cases, the extreme case and the normal case, are illustrated in detail. Using population survival rates from the Canadian Life Table and the top 20% (in wealth distribution) survival rates from a Canadian study due to Wolfson, et al., we are able to estimate the varying quantiles and to correct the age profiles from the cohort studies. Differential mortality does make a difference in estimated lifetime behaviour. The corrected income profile is fairly constant after retirement. Consumption decreases throughout the age range. Saving rates now are lower and flatter after retirement. However, there is no sign of a further drop in saving rates after an initial drop at retirement age. If anything, we still see a tendency for the saving rates to rise after retirement.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,706

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooksMême sujetGlobal Health Care IssuesTravaux en français237 207