Retirement in Australia: A Closer Look at the Financial Incentives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Australia, labour force participation among older people, particularly men over the age of 55, has been declining over the last 30 years. Previous research has found that in many OECD countries, the retirement income system actually provides incentives for older workers to retire early rather than remain in the work force. We use data from the first five waves of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey to identify any financial incentives present in the Australian retirement income system. Following Gruber & Wise (2004), we model retirement behaviour where individuals retire in the period that the present value of their lifetime retirement income is maximised. We also utilise an option value model that considers the trade-off between utility drawn from leisure and utility drawn from labour income. Our findings suggest that for men the Australian retirement system provides incentives to retire early, while for women financial incentives are less significant, as the factors that influence women’s retirement behaviour are more commonly found to be family related, rather than financial incentives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".