MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117125206 · doi:10.59962/9780774852111-011

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpouseConsumption (sociology)EconomicsDemographic economicsRetirement agePermanent income hypothesisLife-cycle hypothesisCross-sectional dataCohortLabour economicsEconometricsMedicineFinance

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooksSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207