Erwerbsminderungsrentner: Sinkende Leistungen und wachsende Einkommensunterschiede im Alter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Deutsche Rentenversicherung (German statutory pension insurance scheme), since the mid-1990s, the number of people claiming a reduced earnings capacity pension has plummeted. However, 2005-2010 saw a slight rise. Since 2001, the actual level of reduced earning capacity payments has also fallen. Consequently, the financial security of recipients has, once again, become the focus of socio-political debate. SOEP data confirm the income risks that those claiming reduced earnings capacity pensions will increasingly be subject to in the long term. In the period from 2001-2011, on average, one-quarter of all recipients were living in income poverty. Moreover, analyses using data from the SOEP longitudinal study also indicate increasingly negative income disparities among recipients of reduced earnings capacity pension once they have reached the statutory retirement age. Die Zahl der Zugänge in die Erwerbsminderungsrente ist nach Angaben der Deutschen Rentenversicherung seit den 90er Jahren stark gesunken. In den Jahren 2005 bis 2010 erfolgte ein leichter Wiederanstieg. Seit 2001 haben sich auch die Zahlbeträge bei den Zugängen zur Erwerbsminderungsrente verringert. Damit ist die materielle Absicherung bei Erwerbsminderung wieder in den Blickpunkt der sozialpolitischen Diskussion gerückt. Die Daten der Längsschnittstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) bestätigen die langfristig zunehmenden Einkommensrisiken bei Erwerbsminderungsrentnern. Im Mittel lebten im Zeitraum von 2001 bis 2011 ein Viertel aller Bezieher einer Erwerbsminderungsrente in Einkommensarmut. Zudem weisen die Analysen zu den relativen Einkommenspositionen der Bezieher einer Erwerbsminderungsrente darauf hin, dass dieser Personenkreis nach Erreichen der Regelaltersgrenze im Durchschnitt ein geringeres Haushaltseinkommen aufweist als die übrigen Rentner und dass diese Differenz im Zeitverlauf wächst.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".