1 / 19

Socio-economic Status Leah Achdut , Ruppin Academic Center and Van Leer Institute

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

kadeem
Télécharger la présentation

Socio-economic Status Leah Achdut , Ruppin Academic Center and Van Leer Institute

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SHARE-ISRAELPROJECTSurvey 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 Institute17.10.2012 Socio-economic Status Leah Achdut , Ruppin Academic Center and Van Leer Institute Rita Troitsky, Sami Shamoon Academic College AviadTur-Sinai, Central Bureau of Statistics and Ben Gurion University

  2. 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)

  3. prices) 2010Household’s Net Income* ( * Incomes were top-coded. In Wave 1 incomes were reported for 2004 . ** Based on Wave 1 weights.

  4. Household’s Equivalent Income*(2010 prices) * Incomes were top-coded. In Wave 1 incomes was reported for 2004 . ** Based on Wave 1 weights.

  5. Entire Sample: Poverty RatesHouseholds with net income below 50% (60%) of the median net income* (adjusted to family size) *median net income of the aged population.

  6. Poverty Rates: Panel Households with net income below 50% (60%) of the median net income* (adjusted to family size) *median net income of the aged population.

  7. Persistent PovertyTransitions Matrix (Panel) Wave 2 Wave 1

  8. Persistent Poverty Percentage of total panel population

  9. Persistent PovertyTransitions Matrix (Panel) Wave 2 Wave 1 One of our research questions is what are the determinants of the transition probabilities out of labor force?

  10. Multivariate analysis of probability of getting into poverty in Wave 2 (Logit regression based on the Panel)

  11. Objective and Subjective Poverty Objective Poverty (50%) and Being Able to Make Ends Meet

  12. Household’s Employment status and Being Able to Make Ends Meet

  13. Objective Poverty (50%) and Self Assessment of Changes in the Household’s Financial Situation (Panel)

  14. Household’s Employment Status and Changes in the Household’s Financial Situation (Panel)

  15. Inequality and Polarization Measures : Net Equivalent Income (Entire Sample)

  16. Inequality and Polarization measures: Net Household Equivalent Income (Panel)

  17. Relative Share of Each Quintile in Total Incomes (Panel)

  18. Income Quintile Transition Matrix (Panel)

  19. 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.

More Related