reported no cash income at all are excluded from the total, the latter proportion rises to 86 percent.

Size of Income

Except for public assistance and contributions from relatives, the proportion with income from each of the sources discussed was smaller for the nonmarried persons than it was for aged couples. It follows, therefore, that the nonmarried were at a considerable disadvantage in terms of total cash income; their median income was $1,130, compared with $2,875 for couples. A third of the nonmarried persons aged 65 and over had less than $810 during 1962, and a third of the couples had less than $2,200.

There is diversity among the aged not only in sources of income but in the amount received. Thus, at the other end of the income scale, percent of the married couples reported $10,000 or more and 2 percent reported $15,000 or more. Among the nonmarried, 4 percent had $5,000 or

On a per capita basis the income position of nonmarried men was roughly equivalent to that of couples. For independent living, however, one person needs considerably more than half as much as two who share a home, and the lower the level of living the smaller the difference.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has recently estimated the cost of a "modest but adequate" level of living for an aged person alone at $1,800, compared with $2,500 for a retired couple. The cost figures were adapted from those developed for retired couples renting their home in the fall of 1959 in 20 large cities to allow for reduced costs resulting from homeownership and somewhat lower costs in the smaller communities and to take account of the differences in costs for those living alone.

By this standard, at least 1.9 million of the 5.4 million couples with the husband or wife aged 65 or over and at least 5.7 million of the 8.7 million other aged persons could not be considered economically independent on the basis of the money income reported in the 1963 Survey. Those sharing a home with relatives-particularly common among widows and other nonmarried women—are included in the calculation in order to provide a measure of those who could live independently if they wished and their health permitted.

OASDI BENEFICIARIES AND NONBENEFICIARIES COMPARED

In general, OASDI beneficiaries are better off in terms of income than nonbeneficiaries if they are not married and worse off if they are. The difference reflects in large part the degree of attachment to the labor force. The median money income in 1962 of beneficiary couples (those with head or wife aged 65 or over whose benefits started before 1962) was $2,710, compared with $3,580 for

Reporting on income..

5,445 8,731 2,402 4,719 7,709 2,173

Willard Wirtz, statement in Hearings Before the Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Eighty-eighth Congress, on Medical Care for the Aged, November 18-22, 1963, and January 20–24, 1964.

Margaret S. Stotz, "The BLS Interim Budget for a Retired Couple," Monthly Labor Review, November 1960; Mollie Orshansky, "Budget for an Elderly Couple: Interim Revision by the Bureau of Labor Statistics," Social Security Bulletin, December 1960; "Technical Note: Estimating Equivalent Income or Budget Costs by Family Type," Monthly Labor Review, November 1960.

couples not receiving benefits (table 3). Money income of less than $1,000 was reported by 4 percent of the beneficiaries and 10 percent of the nonbeneficiaries, and incomes of $5,000 or more by 15 percent and 35 percent.

Couples and nonmarried persons who received their first benefit in 1962 are excluded from these and subsequent comparisons of beneficiary and nonbeneficiary units in this article because income in the year of retirement is not meaningful in appraising the income of beneficiaries. Eight percent of the beneficiary units aged 65 and over who were on the rolls at the end of 1962 received their first benefit in that year.

Nonmarried men on the benefit rolls had a median income of $1,375 (slightly more than half that of couples) and other nonmarried men had $1,135. For nonmarried women the median money income in 1962 was about $1,200 for those receiving OASDI, and only $755 for the others. Women

Also excluded are a small number of units with benefits starting before 1962 who had entitled children or whose own entitlement was based on the record of a child and of couples when the husband's entitlement is based on his wife's work record. These exclusions were intended to maximize comparability with beneficiary data collected in late 1957.

whose benefits were based on their own work record were better off than those drawing widow's benefits based on the employment of a deceased husband; the median incomes were $1,300 and $1,100.

The difference in income between beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries results in large part from differences in age and from source of income, which are, of course, interrelated.

The differences are epitomized by the data on the apportionment of their aggregate income by source (chart 2 and table 4). Beneficiary couples received half their income in the form of retirement benefits 40 percent from OASDI alone and 6 percent from private pensions. Earnings made

only one spouse entitled all year as for couples with both husband and wife entitled all year$1,990 compared with $985. Indeed, a third of the former group but only one-seventh of the latter had nonbenefit income of $3,000 or more in 1962 (table 6).

Because nonmarried persons were older than the married, earnings were a much less important part of their income. For those not receiving OASDI benefits, public assistance was of great importance. Cash assistance payments made up 16 percent of total money income for the nonmarried men and 27 percent of that for the nonmarried women, and roughly one-third of the nonmarried reported some support in this form. By contrast, only one-tenth of the nonmarried beneficiaries received any cash payment from a public assistance agency, and such payments accounted for at least 4 percent of their income. (As indicated above, vendor payments for medical care are not included in money income. Their importance to different groups will be analyzed when data become available on the sources of payment for medical care.)

'In some cases the spouse not entitled to OASDI benefits was past age 65 but still employed full-time, and in others the spouse was drawing a pension under another program. In most cases, however, the spouse was under age 65 and employed.

Chart 3

BENEFICIARY UNITS 65 AND OVER WITH LESS THAN $150 PER PERSON

compared in the following tabulation with the median amount received by nonbeneficiaries.

Aged unit

50

Married couples..

Nonmarried:

1957 1962

MARRIED

NONMARRIED MEN (RETIRED)

1957 1962 1957 1962 NONMARRIED WOMEN

(RETIRED)

(WIDOWED)

COUPLES

Received First Benefit Before Start of Your

The Role of OASDI Benefits

The importance of OASDI benefits in reducing the need for assistance is evident. It should not, however, be overemphasized. Nearly two-fifths of the persons now receiving old-age assistance and about three-fifths of all new applicants are already receiving OASDI benefits. A considerable number of beneficiaries need public assistance because of medical care costs, others because their benefits are low. In 1962 a substantial number aged 65 and over received the minimum benefit of $40 payable to a worker who retires at age 65 or to an aged widow, and some received even less than the usual minimum because they chose an actuarial reduction to obtain a benefit before they reached age 65.

A large number of beneficiaries have little cash income besides their benefit. In 1962 about onethird of the nonmarried beneficiaries received less than $150 in money income other than benefits (including public assistance) during the entire year, and one-fifth of the couples had less than $300 in addition to their benefits. There has been little improvement in this respect since 1957, when the income of beneficiaries was last studied (chart 3).

The median money income received by beneficiaries in 1962 in addition to their benefits is

8 Bureau of Family Services, Reasons for Opening and Closing Public Assistance Cases, July to December 1962. Data are for 31 States.

Men.. Women..

Clearly, OASDI benefits are of particular importance for the nonmarried. In 1962 retirement income other than OASDI benefits of as much as $150 per person was received by only 54 percent of the couples and 40 percent of the nonmarried beneficiaries, compared with 44 percent and 34 percent in 1957. The median total retirement income in 1962-that is, money income other than earnings, unemployment insurance, assistance, or personal contributions was $2,000 for couples and about $1,000 for nonmarried beneficiaries. In 1957 the corresponding medians were $1,580 and about $800. A large proportion of the gain resulted from improvement in OASDI benefits.

Relation of Income Size to Source

Among the nonmarried aged, nonbeneficiaries have been shown to be at a considerable income disadvantage. For couples the reverse appears to be true because of differences in extent of employment.

Work experience.-When aged units are classified by their work experience in 1962, it is clear that beneficiaries, whatever their marital status, generally had higher income than nonbeneficiaries, except for those with full-time jobs--that is, jobs at which one usually works 35 or more hours per week (table 7).

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

9 Retirement income is defined to include all income from reasonably permanent sources-twelve times the monthly OASDI benefit, railroad and government employees' retirement benefits, private pensions, private annuities, interest, dividends, rents, and veterans' benefits (although there is an income test for veterans' pensions). If savings are drawn on, interest, dividends, and rents will, of course, be reduced.

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 fulltime.

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 onesixth 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