3 feist ifa feist- 477_intergenerational transfers

3 feist ifa feist- 477_intergenerational transfers

• 1.
  Changing Family Structures and Intergenerational Transfers of Time and Money within Families Helen Feist PhD | Deputy Director Australian Population and Migration Research Centre, University of Adelaide [email protected] www.adelaide.edu.au/apmrc
• 2.
  Intergenerational Family Transfers •Intergenerational familial support as social insurance • Assistance can take many forms • Changing societies, changing families and ageing populations are influencing the nature of family support between generations • Growing number of seniors now and into the future often seen as an economic and service burden…but what is the reality? Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 3.
  Changing Population andFamily Structures Declining Fertility rate + • increasing life expectancy Proportion of Australian Population Aged Under 15 years and 65 years +, from 1901 to 2006 means more older people, 40 fewer younger people 35 < 15 years 65+ years • The rise in the proportion 30 of the older population is also indicative of a rise in 25 lone person households in Percent 20 coming years 15 • Smaller families mean 10 fewer sources of support for older people, 5 particularly those living 0 alone 1901 1921 1931 1971 1991 1996 2001 2006 Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 4.
  Outline of theResearch • How much time is given to, and received from, different generations by older people and what is the economic value of this? • What demographic and socio-economic attributes influence the transfers of time and money between generations? • How much money is given to, and received from, different generations by older people? • What motivates the older generation to make time and/or money transfers? • What are transfers used for by the younger generation? • Are time and money substituted for each other and what influences the substitution? Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 5.
  Respondent Family Typologies NoKPS: PANKS: PAKS: KANPS: No Kids or Parents Parents and No Parents and Kids, Kids and No Kids or the ‘sandwich Parents generation’ NoKPS 4% PAKS KANPS 44% 47% PANKS Life Impact | The University of Adelaide 5%
• 6.
  Age/Gender of actualsample and weighted sample 25 Males W Males 20 Females 15 W Females Percent 10 5 0 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Age Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 7.
  Respondent Household Structures 140 50-54 120 65-79 100 80+ 80 60 40 20 0 Children A step or A sole parent Shared care Adult living Adult living Related Unrelated living with blended family parenting alone with partner adults living adults living parents family and no together together children Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 8.
  Giving and receivingpractical help • 61% provide practical help to family members Median amount given, 5 hours/week/household • 30% receive practical help from family members Median amount received, 5 hours/week/household Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 9.
  Giving or ReceivingTime Transfers by Age 90 Provide practical help 80 70 Receive practical help 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Age Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 10.
  How Much Timeis Given Number of hours of practical help given per week by respondent age 50 - 64 65 - 74 75+ No amount 3.6 9.9 10.0 stated Up to 5 hours 44.0 42.0 60.1 5 hours or more 52.7 48.6 30.1 Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 11.
  Amount of TimeGiven by Gender How much they give per week... 60 69% of males said they 50 give practical help compared to 60% of 40 Males females 30 20 Females BUT females who do help give more 10 time than males 0 None Up to 5 5 hours or hours more Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 12.
  Who Gives Timeby Income Time given by respondent income 5 hours or more $80,000+ < 5 hours 0 $40,000 - $80,000 Up to $40,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 13.
  Other Factors InfluencingTime Transfers • Children: respondents with no children were the least likely to both give and receive both practical and financial help • Siblings: a smaller proportion of people with no living siblings provide help to family members compared to other groups but... • Marital status: Respondents who were separated divorced were more likely to give practical help to other family members but.... Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 14.
  Summary of TimeGiven and Received Gave Practical Received Practical Help Help Proportion of individuals 60.7% 29.2% Average number of 7.1 8.0 hours/week/person* Annual value/person** $9,658 $10,882 Total value for Australian 36.3 Billion 19.4 Billion 50+ population * Only those respondents who gave or received ** Based on Australian Average Weekly Earnings hourly rate, $26.16 Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 15.
  The Value ofGiving for the Australian Economy Approximately 36 Billion per annum is given in practical help to other family members by people aged 50 years and over in Australia, this compares to: • A national government annual expenditure on health in 2010 of $21 billion; • The national government annual expenditure on education in 2010 of $8.5 billion, or the • National government annual expenditure on defence in 2010 of $19.4 billion. It can also be compared to: • Value of production in the mining industry: $25 billion • Value of retail industry: $14.6 billion (ABS Cat No. 5206 Table 6) Life Impact | The University of Adelaide
• 16.
  Project Researchers: Lisel O’Dwyer PhD Helen Feist PhD Kelly Parker PhD Jennifer Buckley PhD George Tan PhD For more information regarding this project please contact: Dr Lisel O’Dwyer [email protected] Life Impact | The University of Adelaide