Long-Term-Care Utility and Late-in-Life Saving

Ameriks, John; Briggs, Joseph; Caplin, Andrew; Shapiro, Matthew D.; Tonetti, Christopher

doi:10.3386/w20973

Cited by 55 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ameriks et al () (following Ameriks et al ) introduce survey instruments of value in identification in the form of “strategic survey questions” (SSQs). The survey instruments were developed for participants in the Vanguard Research Initiative (VRI) panel of wealth‐holders (see Ameriks et al for details on the panel and the surveys).…”

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Survey development requires one to specify the model precisely up front. Ameriks et al () propose a health‐dependent utility function to capture the possibility that people might value expenditure differently in the LTC state. Specifically, utility when in need of LTC associated with expenditure level e LTC is

θ_{L T C} ({}, ([], {((), e_{L T C} + k_{L T C})}^{1 - σ}) true/ ((), 1 - σ)) .

…”

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research of this form has examined the relationship between both inter vivos transfers and LTC (Norton, Nicholas, and Huang ) and bequests (Fahle ; Groneck ). In addition, there is currently ongoing work with the VRI (Ameriks et al ) that develops a simple model of inter vivos transfers. It treats parental utility from inter vivos transfers in a manner analogous to the standard warm‐glow modeling technique for the bequest motive.…”

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ameriks et al () documents the empirical features of “family expenses” in the VRI panel. We briefly summarize these findings here, leaving a comprehensive treatment to that paper.…”

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Measuring and Modeling Intergenerational Links in Relation to Long‐term Care

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long‐term care has profound intergenerational implications. It can be costly for those who need it and onerous for loved ones who provide it. We pinpoint three intergenerational aspects of long‐term care that require further research. One concerns the link between costs of private care and intergenerational wealth transfers. The second concerns the link between participation in care and the work and welfare of family providers. The third relates to intergenerational tensions that these and other late‐in‐life interactions create. We outline innovations in modeling and measurement that would improve understanding of intergenerational linkages and their implementation in appropriate panel data. (JEL D91, I13, J22)

show abstract

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

θ_{L T C} ({}, ([], {((), e_{L T C} + k_{L T C})}^{1 - σ}) true/ ((), 1 - σ)) .

…”

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ameriks et al () documents the empirical features of “family expenses” in the VRI panel. We briefly summarize these findings here, leaving a comprehensive treatment to that paper.…”

Section: Preparing For Care: Precautionary Saving and Bequest Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring and Modeling Intergenerational Links in Relation to Long‐term Care

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 In such an economy, one might think that unemployment insurance, by stabilizing aggregate demand, would stabilize output and thus reduce overall welfare losses. However, it turns out that even though more generous unemployment insurance indeed mitigates the collapse in aggregate consumption, output, and wages in the short run and reduces the welfare losses of the job losers (just as it did in the benchmark economy), larger unemployment insurance benefits increase the welfare losses of those who do not lose their job in a recession.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Distribution of the Welfare Losses of Large Recessions

Krueger¹,

Mitman²,

Perri³

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How big are the welfare losses from severe economic downturns, such as the U.S. Great Recession?How are those losses distributed across the population? In this paper we answer these questions using a canonical business cycle model featuring household income and wealth heterogeneity that matches micro data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). We document how these losses are distributed across households and how they are affected by social insurance policies. We find that the welfare cost of losing one's job in a severe recession ranges from 2% of lifetime consumption for the wealthiest households to 5% for low-wealth households. The cost increases to approximately 8%for low-wealth households if unemployment insurance benefits are cut from 50% to 10%. The fact that welfare losses fall with wealth, and that in our model (as in the data) a large fraction of households has very low wealth, implies that the impact of a severe recession, once aggregated across all households, is very significant (2.2% of lifetime consumption). We finally show that a more generous unemployment insurance system unequivocally helps low-wealth job losers, but hurts households that keep their job, even in a version of the model in which output is partly demand determined, and therefore unemployment insurance stabilizes aggregate demand and output.

show abstract

Inequality in life expectancies across Europe and the US

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use harmonized household panel data from Europe and the US and a three-state survival model to provide comparable measurements of education and gender inequalities in total, healthy, and unhealthy life expectancies at age 50. Common across countries, the education advantage in total life expectancy is larger for males but the education advantage in (fewer) unhealthy years is larger for females. Counterfactual decompositions show that these results arise because the education advantage in conditional survival rates is relatively more important for males, while the education advantage in better health transitions is relatively more important for females. Across countries, the US stands out with the largest education gradient in healthy life expectancy.

show abstract

Long-Term-Care Utility and Late-in-Life Saving

Cited by 55 publications

References 4 publications

Measuring and Modeling Intergenerational Links in Relation to Long‐term Care

Measuring and Modeling Intergenerational Links in Relation to Long‐term Care

On the Distribution of the Welfare Losses of Large Recessions

Inequality in life expectancies across Europe and the US

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About