SHARE-ISRAEL PROJECT
Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement Among Israeli 50+
Conference on:
First Longitudinal Results from the First Two Waves:
2005/06 and 2009/10
The Van leer Jerusalem Institute
17.10.2012
Socio-economic Status
Leah Achdut , Ruppin Academic Center and Van Leer Institute
Rita Troitsky, Sami Shamoon Academic College
Aviad Tur-Sinai, Central Bureau of Statistics and Ben Gurion University
Dimensions of Socio-economic Status
• Income changes (entire and panel samples)
• Objective and subjective poverty (entire and
panel samples)
• Persistent poverty (panel)
• Determinants of the transition probabilities
out of labor force (panel)
• Income Inequality and income polarization
(entire and panel samples)
• Income mobility (quintile transitions)
Household’s Net Income* (2010 prices)
Wave 1
Entire
Sample
Panel
Sample**
Mean
income
Median
income
Mean
income
Median
income
9,511
Wave 2 Real change
(%)
11,741
23%
7,255
8,110
12%
9,264
10,848
17%
7,144
7,706
8%
* Incomes were top-coded. In Wave 1 incomes were reported for 2004 .
** Based on Wave 1 weights.
Household’s Equivalent Income*
(2010 prices)
Entire
Sample
Panel
Sample**
4
Mean
income
Median
income
Mean
income
Median
income
Wave 1
Wave 2
4,149
5,581
Real annual
change (%)
6.1%
3,045
3,955
5.3%
4,544
5,560
4.1%
3,493
4,103
3.3%
* Incomes were top-coded. In Wave 1 incomes was reported for 2004 .
** Based on Wave 1 weights.
Poverty Rates : Entire Sample
Households with net income below
50% (60%) of the median net income*
(adjusted to family size)
Poverty line=50%
Poverty line=60%
Wave 1
24%
31%
Wave 2
25%
30%
P-value of the
differences
0.61
0.74
*median net income of the aged population.
Poverty Rates: Panel
Households with net income below
50% (60%) of the median net income*
(adjusted to family size)
Poverty line=50%
Poverty line=60%
Wave 1
25%
30%
Wave 2
24%
31%
P-value of the
differences
0.70
0.82
*median net income of the aged population.
Persistent Poverty
Transitions Matrix (Panel)
Wave 2
Wave 1
Non- poor
Poor
Non- poor
83%
17%
Poor
59%
41%
Persistent Poverty
Percentage of total panel population
poor in both waves
poor only in wave 1
poor only in wave 2
not poor in both waves
7%
14%
13%
66%
Persistent Poverty
Transitions Matrix (Panel)
Wave 2
Wave 1
Non- poor
Poor
Non- poor
83%
17%
Poor
59%
41%
One of our research questions is what are the determinants of the
transition probabilities out of labor force?
Multivariate analysis of probability of getting into poverty in
Wave 2 (Logit regression based on the Panel)
Variable
Odds
Ratio
1. Employment transitions (ref.
group=employed in both waves)
Employed only in wave 2
Variable
Odds
Ratio
3. difference in family size
between waves
1.42*
0.35** 4.Education
not employed in both waves
2.78*
5. Living with spouse in wave 1
but not in wave 2
Employed only in wave 1
3.24*
6. Population group (ref.
group= senior Jews)
2. Age (ref. group=less than 54)
0.90*
2.37*
Non-Jewish
3.63*
55 - 59
0.92
New-immigrants
5.87*
60 - 64
0.51
7. No. of chronic diseases
(wave 1)
1.15*
65-69
0.26*
8. Change in no. of chronic
diseases (ref. = no change)
70-74
0.23*
An increase
0.99
75+
0.31*
A decrease
0.97
Objective and Subjective Poverty
Objective Poverty (50%) and Being Able to Make Ends Meet
Wave 1
Non- poor
Poor
Total
With great difficulty
19%
36%
23%
With some difficulty
38%
33%
37%
Fairly easily
27%
19%
25%
Easily
16%
13%
16%
Total
100%
100%
100%
Wave 2
Non- poor
Poor
Total
With great difficulty
14%
49%
22%
With some difficulty
28%
30%
28%
Fairly easily
32%
15%
28%
Easily
26%
7%
22%
Total
100%
100%
100%
Household’s Employment status and Being Able to Make Ends Meet
with great difficulty
with some difficulty
fairly easily
easily
100%
19%
31%
80%
25%
19%
17%
26%
60%
32%
37%
40%
43%
29%
23%
20%
25%
26%
21%
21%
7%
0%
at least one member out of
employment in both waves
both members are employed in at least one member is out of at least one member re-entered
both waves
employment wave 2
employment in wave 2
Objective Poverty (50%) and Self Assessment of
Changes in the Household’s Financial Situation (Panel)
wave 1
not poor
poor
total
greatly improved
1%
1%
1%
somewhat improved
8%
9%
8%
remained the same
66%
57%
64%
somewhat deteriorated
21%
25%
22%
greatly deteriorated
5%
9%
6%
total
100%
100%
100%
wave 2
not poor
poor
total
greatly improved
2%
0%
2%
somewhat improved
10%
9%
10%
remained the same
66%
46%
62%
somewhat deteriorated
16%
27%
18%
greatly deteriorated
6%
18%
9%
total
100%
100%
100%
Household’s Employment Status and Changes in the Household’s
Financial Situation (Panel)
improved
100%
80%
deteriorated
11%
32%
60%
40%
remained the same
25%
25%
59%
63%
15%
12%
67%
61%
20%
22%
0%
7%
at least one
member out of
employment in
both waves
both members
at least one
are employed in member is out of
both waves
employment
wave 2
at least one
member reentered
employment in
wave 2
Inequality and Polarization Measures : Net Equivalent Income
(Entire Sample)
Gini
Atkinson
(0.5)
P90/P50
Wolfson
Wave 1
0.470
0.187
2.91
0.264
Wave 2
0.479
0.204
2.93
0.263
P-value of
the
differences
0.52
0.17
0.89
0.88
Inequality and Polarization measures: Net Household
Equivalent Income
(Panel)
Gini
Atkinson
(0.5)
P90/P50
Wolfson
Wave 1
0.485
0.211
3.08
0.177
Wave 2
0.461
0.178
2.95
0.188
P-value of
the
difference
0.092
0.210
0.75
0.652
Relative Share of Each Quintile in
Total Incomes (Panel)
Quintile 1
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Quintile 5
100%
80%
49%
50%
40%
24%
22%
20%
15%
15%
0%
9%
3%
9%
4%
Wave 1
Wave 2
60%
17
Income Quintile Transition Matrix (Panel)
wave 2
wave 1
1
2
3
4
5
1
34%
25%
19%
13%
8%
2
30%
30%
19%
11%
10%
3
20%
23%
28%
18%
10%
4
8%
16%
19%
32%
23%
5
7%
6%
14%
24%
48%
Conclusions
• Various measures indicate that poverty, income inequality and
income polarization remain relatively stable over the follow-up
period.
• Yet, 25% of people aged 50+ are living in poverty and the Gini
index is about 0.48 .
• About one third of the families experienced poverty. Only 7%
experienced persistent poverty.
• Income mobility: About a quarter of people aged 50+ move from the
top to the bottom of the income distribution and substantial
proportion moved from the bottom to the middle of the.
• Objective and subjective poverty are strongly related.
• Retirement, health, age, Household composition, education and
Nationality and seniority in Israel were found as determinants of the
probability of getting into poverty.