SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 998

TABLE 1-8-PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION OF SELECTED AGE GROUPS, BY REGION: 1980 TO

Source: Bureau of the Census, State Population and Household Estimates to 1985, With Age and Components of Change. Series P-25, No. 998.

The number of older persons who reported migrating from State to State was 50 percent higher in the 1970's than in the 1960's, according to estimates from the Retirement Migration Project, using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Of the nearly 1.7 million Americans over the age of 60 who moved out-of-State during the second half of the 1970's, nearly half went to either Florida, California, Arizona, Texas, or New Jersey. Three States had an especially large increase in the numbers of older immigrants between 1960 and 1980: Arizona showed a 215-percent increase, Texas a 191percent increase, and Florida a 110-percent increase. Florida captured over one-quarter of all the interstate migrants over age 60 during the last two decades. New York is the top contributor of el

derly State-to-State movers while California is second, Illinois third, and Florida and New Jersey fourth and fifth.

Older persons who move to another State are relatively affluent, well-educated, and are frequently accompanied by a spouse. Many older persons who move to nonmetropolitan areas are motivated by positive images of rural or small town life or negative views of metropolitan life. Most have pre-existing ties to the new area, such as family, friends, or property.

(NOTE. Data in this section on elderly migration are taken from The Retirement Migration Project; The Center for Social Research in Aging; The University of Miami; September 1984.)

SOME SUN BELT RETIREES "COUNTERMIGRATE" TO THEIR HOME

STATES

There is also recent evidence of a new trend called "countermigration" in which a small number of older people, who move to another State at retirement, are moving back home or to a State where family members live. Though this trend is relatively small in absolute numbers, it is statistically significant.

Findings from the Retirement Migration Project show that Florida lost significant numbers of elderly migrants to States outside the Sun Belt-namely Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, all States which also send migrants to Florida. For example, 56 percent of the more than 9,000 residents of Florida who moved to New York in the 1970's had been born in New York. The average age of these countermigrants was 73 years. This was more than double the number who moved to New York from Florida during the previous decade. Another Sun Belt State, California, also lost migrants to other areas-but not to States which generally lose large numbers to California. Those leaving the Sun Belt are more likely to have income below the poverty line, and many are disabled or are living in institutions or homes for the aged.

Chapter 2

ECONOMIC STATUS

Older Americans as a group have a lower economic status than other adults in our society. This largely results from changes in status often associated with aging: Retirement from the work force, the death of a spouse, or a decline in health. In retirement, the elderly lose earnings and become reliant instead upon Social Security benefits supplemented with pensions and the assets they have accumulated over their own lifetimes. With limited potentials to improve their income through their own work, the elderly become economically vulnerable to circumstances over which they have no control: The loss of a spouse, deterioration of their health and selfsufficiency, Social Security and Medicare legislation, and inflation. In recent years, there has been a growing perception that the economic status of the elderly as a group has improved significantly, and that they now have economic resources approximating those of the younger working population. Counting cash income alone, there remains a substantial discrepancy between the young and the old. However, the elderly have economic benefits and resources other than cash which enable them to meet their needs in retirement. If all of these additional resources could be converted to a cash value, the economic status of the elderly as a group would be closer to that of the nonelderly.

However, the economic status of the elderly is far more varied than that of any other age group. While some older persons have substantial resources, a surprising number have practically none. Comparisons of average statistics conceal the simple fact that an unusually high proportion of the elderly have incomes and other economic resources below or just barely above the poverty level.

A. MEDIAN CASH INCOME

OLDER PEOPLE HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER CASH INCOME THAN THOSE UNDER 65

Compared strictly on the basis of money income, persons 65 and older, on average, receive substantially less income than those under 65. In 1985, the median income of families with heads aged 65 or older was $19,117, about 63 percent of the median income of families with heads aged 25 to 64 ($30,504) (see table 2-1). The median income of elderly individuals not living in families was $7,476, about 47 percent that of nonelderly individuals ($16,064).1

1 The median income statistics in this chapter were calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the Bureau of the Census March 1986 Current Population Survey. CRS's calculated medians are derived from individual records and vary slightly from published Census Bureau statistics based on grouped data.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March 1986.
Data tabulated by the Congressional Research Service.

TABLE 2-1.-MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, 1985: OLDER AND YOUNGER FAMILIES AND UNRELATED

The distribution of money income is substantially more unequal among the elderly than it is among the nonelderly. In 1985, 36 percent of the families with a head age 65 or older had money incomes below $15,000, compared to only 19 percent of the nonelderly families. There is a greater concentration of nonelderly families than elderly families at the very lowest income level, indicating the better income protection available for the elderly poor as opposed to the nonelderly. (See chart 2-2.)