IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crr/slpbrf/slp77.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Have Older Workers Fared During the COVID-19 Recession?

Author

Listed:
  • Laura D. Quinby
  • Jean-Pierre Aubry
  • Alicia H. Munnell

Abstract

One-quarter of state and local government employees Ð approximately 6.5 million workers Ð are not covered by Social Security on their current job. To remain outside of Social Security, federal law requires that these employees be covered by an employer pension of sufficient generosity. Since many public pensions have grown less generous in recent years and a few plans could exhaust their assets, the question is whether state and local plans currently satisfy the federal standards. This brief, which is based on a recent study, attempts to answer that question.1 The first step is to determine whether the retirement plans for noncovered state and local employees satisfy the Òletter of the law.Ó Specifically, do they meet the IRS ÒSafe HarborÓ parameters, and do these parameters provide income equivalent to Social Security at age 67? Even if the plans meet these requirements, however, noncovered state and local employees still may not receive Social Security-equivalent resources because they face long vesting periods and may not get full cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) Ð albeit, they can claim full benefits earlier than under Social Security. Thus, the second step requires incorporating vesting, the COLA, and retirement ages to produce lifetime retirement wealth. The final step involves addressing the additional complication caused by low funded ratios in a number of pensions for noncovered state and local employees. The discussion proceeds as follows. The first section presents a brief history of the federal regulations that affect noncovered workers. The second section compares the plans currently offered to noncovered workers to the Safe Harbor requirements. The third section examines whether the requirements provide Social Security-equivalent benefits at age 67. The conclusions are that virtually all plans satisfy the Safe Harbor provisions and that participation in a Safe Harbor plan produces about the same level of benefits at age 67 as Social Security. The fourth section shifts from benefits at 67 to a lifetime-wealth measure that reflects differences in vesting requirements, COLAs, and normal retirement ages. This wealth-based generosity test suggests that 43 percent of noncovered public pension plans fall short of Social Security for a significant minority of new hires. The fifth section addresses the implications for valuing benefits of underfunded pensions and potential exhaustion of assets in a few plans. The final section concludes that the issues regarding generosity could be eliminated by extending mandatory Social Security coverage to state and local workers, but the question of how to value underfunded benefits remains a challenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura D. Quinby & Jean-Pierre Aubry & Alicia H. Munnell, 2021. "How Have Older Workers Fared During the COVID-19 Recession?," State and Local Pension Plans Briefs 77, Center for Retirement Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:crr:slpbrf:slp77
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crr.bc.edu/briefs/do-public-workers-without-social-security-get-comparable-benefits/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crr:slpbrf:slp77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Amy Grzybowski or Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crrbcus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.