Why are more older Americans staying in the workforce?
The golden years are looking different for a growing number of older Americans who are staying at their jobs and becoming a larger part of the workforce.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1 in 5 workers were 55 or older in 2023. In that same year, 15 percent of workers were between 55 and 64, and about 7 percent were 65 or older.
For some, the decision to stay in the workforce past retirement age is based on a desire to stay active and engaged. For others, money is the most significant factor.
Nearly 80 percent of older workers said they are still working because they need the paycheck or because they want to keep building their retirement savings, according to the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies.
A recent survey from insurance company Allianz Life found 64 percent of Americans worry more about running out of money than they do about dying. Reasons include high inflation and taxes as well as a lack of support from Social Security benefits.
The survey showed the fear of running out of money was more prominent in Gen Xers (70 percent), who are in their 40s and 50s, than in baby boomers (61 percent), who may have already retired.
Another survey from Northwestern Mutual reported that 51 percent of Americans 'somewhat or very likely' believe they will outlive their savings.
Experts have said that with such risks as market volatility, creating a strong retirement or financial strategy with the help of a financial professional could help ease these worries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed ‘sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she wants to know how the quasi-governmental Department of Government Efficiency gained access to 'sensitive' student loan information at the U.S. Department of Education. On Monday, Warren and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, both Democrats, called for the agency's acting inspector general to find out how that breach happened. They were joined by Democratic senators from eight states, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Warren said lawmakers learned of the potential breach of systems at Federal Student Aid after DOGE, which was helmed until recently by tech titan Elon Musk, infiltrated the agency. In response, Education Department officials revealed that DOGE workers 'supported' a review of the FSA's contracts. As a part of that review, one employee was granted 'read-only' access to two internal systems that held sensitive personal information about borrowers. The agency said it had since revoked that access. But, according to Warren, it did not explain why that access had been revoked, or whether the employee had continued access to other databases. 'Because of the [Education] department's refusal to provide full and complete information, the full extent of DOGE's role and influence at ED remains unknown,' the lawmakers wrote in a June 8 letter to René L. Rocque, the agency's acting inspector general. That 'lack of clarity is not only frustrating for borrowers but also dangerous for the future of an agency that handles an extensive student loan portfolio and a range of federal aid programs for higher education,' the lawmakers continued. Warren, Markey and their colleagues have called on Roque's office to determine whether the department adhered to the Federal Privacy Act, which dictates how the government can collect and use personal information. They also asked Roque to 'determine the impact of DOGE's new plans to consolidate Americans' personal information across government databases.' 'It won't end well for Trump' if he does this amid LA protests, ex-GOP rep says All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing Markey: Trump using National Guard in LA to distract from big cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
You need to earn 70% more now than 6 years ago to afford a median US home — but there's still hope for buyers
Think owning a home is still the American Dream? Well, you now need a six-figure income just to afford the mid-tier of that dream. According to the latest April Housing Trends Report, the income needed to buy a median-priced home in the U.S. has soared to $114,000 — a staggering 70.1% jump from just $67,000 six years ago. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) For context, Americans' actual median household income was $80,610 in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In other words, most Americans can't afford most homes on the market. In fact, 57% of households can't even buy a $300,000 home, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). It might be fair to call this situation a crisis. Here's how we got to this point and what comes next. A key factor driving the housing crisis is a lack of supply. Property developers across the country have chronically underbuilt homes since the Great Recession of 2008, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As of 2025, the market faces an estimated shortage of 4.5 million homes. A lack of supply encourages buyers' bidding wars, which drive prices up. That's what we've seen over the past six years. Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it Unfortunately, there are signs that this crisis could get worse. In April 2025, construction began on 1.36 million new homes, down 1.7% compared to the same time last year, according to the Census Bureau. The NAHB points to the rise of interest rates as an exacerbatubg factor. High interest rates not only make it more difficult for construction companies to finance projects but for homebuyers to afford mortgages. However, it's not all doom-and-gloom for potential buyers. report found a silver lining emerging in the market. According to Realtor's analysis, some homeowners in certain parts of the country are 'meeting buyers in the middle.' In other words, they're willing to take a price cut on their home listing. Housing inventory is starting to build in several high-cost markets, including San Diego, San Jose, and Washington, D.C. These cities have also seen sharp increases in the number of homes listed on the market — rising by 70.1%, 67.6%, and 69.3% respectively since last year. As of April 2025, active listings were up 30.6% year-over-year across the country. That's a huge surge of inventory that could give buyers in some markets more bargaining power. In fact, some buyers are already snapping up bargains with 18% of listings seeing price reductions in April. The current housing market is far from ideal. But if you and your family earn an income high enough to qualify for a mortgage, this could be a good time to seek out deals and buy. Keep an eye on price trends and inventory levels in your local market and speak to an experienced realtor to find your dream home at a reasonable price. Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Moriah Balingit, The Associated Press
