In a Friday New York Times column, Floyd Norris presented a pretty bleak picture for the future of retirement in the US. But he did it with such compassion and humanity that I’d call it recommended reading for other reporters who are serious about covering this critical issue. Norris, who is taking a buy-out from the Times and will be leaving in a few weeks after 26 years, summed up the predicament as follows:
The baby boomers now retiring–a group that includes me–may be the last American generation to leave work assured of adequate income in old age. In place of defined-benefit pensions, future generations will be left with their own savings. Employers, private or public, are no longer willing to accept the investment risks that come from managing plans that promise benefits, so that risk has been transferred to workers.
Norris opened the column with this question: “When people are old, should governments guarantee they have incomes?” He cited the federal commitment made by FDR when Social Security was established in 1935, and that of Gerald Ford when he signed the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA, in 1974. ERISA guaranteed that pensions from private employers would be paid even if companies providing them failed. Norris then detailed the sorry tale of mine workers and truck drivers who were promised benefits from certain kinds of pension arrangements known as multiemployer plans but probably won’t get them. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which guarantees such penions, says many are likely to fail within 10 years, including two recently-added large ones. A commission set up to look at the problem proposed letting plans cut benefits quickly from current retirees to save something for future ones. That draconian solution, Norris notes, makes it hard for pension-holders to survive—the PBGC now pays out a maximum of $12,870 to workers on the job for 30 years. Further, Norris writes, “in the current century, spending taxpayer money to help the unfortunate is unpopular.”
The outlook for future retirees is not cheery, and it’s a topic that warrants further press attention. Besides Norris’ column, I’ve seen a few bright spots in coverage in recent months–stories that show how hard it is for those in the middle and at the bottom of the income ladder to make do in retirement. For example, in August, Harper’s published a memorable piece headlined, “The End of Retirement,” describing the lives of “geriatric migrants” forced to “hit the road” and seek (often seasonal) work. “Aging isn’t what it used to be,” wrote Harper’s Jessica Bruder. “In an era of disappearing pensions, wage stagnation, and widespread foreclosures, Americans are working longer and leaning more heavily than ever on Social Security, a program designed to supplement (rather than fully fund) retirement. For many, surviving the golden years now requires creative lifestyle adjustments.” In October, Al Jazeera America ran its own less ambitious piece on these so-called “workampers.”
Back to Norris’ column: It was about pensions, but it sent an implicit warning about healthcare. Norris wrote about investment risks and obligations for providing retirement income being transferred from employers to workers. A similar transfer is happening now with health insurance. That’s what this business of $4000 deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums of over $12,000 is all about. Maybe Norris doesn’t have time for a column on this ripe topic, but his recent column provides a good starting point for someone else.
Related content:
The enduring myth of the greedy geezer
The media discover the ‘chained CPI’
6 ways reporters can cover Obamacare open enrollment
Trudy Lieberman is a longtime contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review. She is the lead writer for CJR's Covering the Health Care Fight. She also blogs for Health News Review and the Center for Health Journalism. Follow her on Twitter @Trudy_Lieberman.