TABLE 7.-Size of money income by work experience and OASDI beneficiary status for units aged 65 and over: Percentage distribution by

income interval, 1962 1

Information is not now available on income according to the number of weeks worked in 1962. Preliminary analysis of data on the work experience in 1962, however, suggests that most of the nonbeneficiary men with full-time jobs worked the greater part of the year, but that beneficiary men with full-time jobs were much more likely to work only part of the year. Few men who expect to remain at work in full-time jobs the year around apply for benefits.

For couples with either or both husband and wife working in 1962 at jobs that were usually full time, the median income was $4,110 if one or both was a beneficiary, and $6,060 if neither was a beneficiary. When the jobs were part time, the median was $3,000 for beneficiary couples and $2,400 for nonbeneficiaries. Among those with only part-time jobs the beneficiaries-married or not-did better, on the average, than the nonbeneficiaries. The advantage of beneficiary status was greatest for those with no work. The relatively small group of nonbeneficiary units with part-time jobs had median incomes much closer to those of units that had not worked at all in 1962 than to those whose jobs were usually full time.

Private pensions and public assistance.-Persons with private pensions constitute the economically elite among the retired OASDI beneficiaries: Their median total income of $3,400 was only one-sixth less than that of beneficiary couples with at least one member working at a full-time job. And for nonmarried beneficiaries a private pension did as much as full-time employment to raise the average level of money income. At the other extreme among the beneficiaries were those who had turned to public assistance.

The median income for beneficiary couples with private pensions was about twice the median of $1,730 for couples whose benefits were supplemented by public assistance money payments (table 8). For the nonmarried the differences were similar. The median for those with a private pension was roughly $2,200, and for those receiving public assistance it was about $1,150, with only minor differences between men and women.

Number (in thousands):

$3,000 to $3,999.

The vast majority of beneficiaries received neither a private pension nor assistance. They were a diverse group. Presumably they included almost all who had full-time jobs (and probably most of those with part-time jobs). But they also included those living on the margin of poverty, with or without help from relatives. Consequently, although almost one-sixth of the beneficiary couples with neither a private pension nor public assistance had incomes of $5,000 or more, about twice as many (one-third) had less than $2,000.

Few nonbeneficiaries have private pensions-so few that no analysis of the income of those who do, based on the sample study, would be statistically valid. It is significant, however, that-except for nonmarried women-among those not receiving assistance nonbeneficiaries had more income than beneficiaries, on the average, presumably because of employment. Nonbeneficiary units receiving assistance, on the other hand, were at a considerable disadvantage compared with the beneficiary units receiving assistance to supplement benefits-at least in part because of the maximums placed on assistance payments by most States and the fact that limited funds make it impossible for some States to meet full need as determined under their own standard." On the other hand, some of the cash assistance received by the beneficiaries may have been to meet heavy medical expenses rather than merely for family living expenses. Nonmarried women receiving neither OASDI benefits nor public assistance had the smallest cash income of any group. A considerable proportion of them were maintained in institutions at public expense or were supported entirely by the relatives with whom they lived.

The number with "too little" income

What do these wide disparities mean in terms of the number of persons who do not get enough for their needs? Although there is no agreement on a precise standard of poverty or of adequacy, the budgets developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to provide a modest but adequate level of living have been widely used as a benchmark that it would be desirable to meet. It was noted above that at least 1.9 million aged couples and 5.7 million nonmarried persons aged 65 and over had cash income in 1962 that was less than the amount required to live independently at this modest but adequate level of living-$2,500 for a couple and $1.800 for an individual alone.

When those whose benefits started in 1962 are omitted, it is found that total income in 1962 was less than the amount needed under the BLS definition of modest but adequate for 44 percent of the beneficiary couples and 72 percent of the nonmarried beneficiaries, compared with 37 percent of the nonbeneficiary couples and 79 percent of the nonmarried nonbeneficiaries, aged 65 and over (chart 4). Total retirement money income, as defined earlier, was too small to provide this level of living for roughly two-thirds of the beneficiary couples and four-fifths of the other aged beneficiaries.

11 David Eppley, "Concurrent Receipt of PA and OASDI by Persons Aged 65 and Over, Early 1963," Welfare in Review, March 1964.

AGED UNITS 65 AND OVER WITH 1962 MONEY INCOMES LESS THAN NEEDED FOR A 'MODEST BUT ADEQUATE' LEVEL OF LIVING

Even among the elite of the retired OASDI beneficiaries who received a private pension as well as an OASDI benefit, there was a substantial number whose money income was less than the amount required for the modest but adequate budget-17 percent of the couples and 29 percent of the nonmarried aged.

As would be expected, only a small proportion of the aged who received any public assistance had as much income as the BLS budget would require. On the other hand, only 10 percent of the nonbeneficiary couples and nonmarried men with full-time jobs had cash income below the cost standards of $2,500 and $1,800. Some of them were probably rural residents with opportunity to supplement cash earnings by homegrown food.

12

The standard for the retired couple's budget has been translated into specific quantities to permit pricing." Although no couple would buy in exactly the manner of the budget, these quantities make it possible to visualize the level provided. The budget provides, for example, not quite an egg a day per person for the table and for use in cooking and about a half-pound of meat, poultry, or fish-barely enough for two small servings per day. For the entire year, it provides for a total of 15 restaurant meals. Since the couple was assumed to be in good health for their age, there was no provision for a special diet and practically none for household help or the expensive types of medical care that are all too often associated with the terminal illness that strikes 1 in 10 aged couples every year.

Five-sixths of the couples were assumed to have a telephone for which they paid the minimum rate. The budget assumes the couple has an average inventory of clothing and house furnishings. Following are examples of certain types of clothing that could be purchased to maintain their inventory: The man can replace his topcoat only every ninth year, and his wife can buy three dresses each year, including housedresses. Ownership of an automobile was assumed for about one-fifth of the couples-with the percentage varying somewhat with the size of the city-and replacement was allowed every 7 or 8 years. For those without automobiles, four bus or trolley fares a week were included. Husband and wife could thus ride together to church, or to visit friends, or to shop, or to go to the movies in the 1 week in 4 that they had the cash to pay the admission fee.

12 Margaret S. Stotz, op. cit.