midlife and wellbeing, charles waldegrave

© The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unitwww.familycentre.org.nz

The Impact of Poverty on Wellbeing during Midlife

Charles Waldegrave, The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit, Lower Hutt, Wellington

Michael P Cameron, Populations Study Centre and Department of Economics, University of Waikato

Presentation to New Zealand Psychological Society Annual Conference 2010, Rydges

Hotel, Rotorua, Tuesday 20 July 2010

Charles Waldegrave & Peggy Koopman-Boyden (Eds)

Authors: Ben Amey, Michael Cameron, Peter King, Peggy Koopman-Boyden, Ian Pool, Suzan van der Pas

and Charles Waldegrave

Midlife New Zealanders Aged 40-64 in 2008: Enhancing Wellbeing in an Ageing Society

© The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit www.familycentre.org.nz

Population Studies CentreUniversity of Waikato

Enhancing Wellbeing in an Ageing Society (EWAS) Research Programme Directors: Richard Bedford and Charles Waldegrave

The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit, Lower Hutt, Wellington and the Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton

Funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology

Official Launch hosted by the Families Commission 14 August 2010


The research programme included two large scale national random sample surveys of independent and semi-independent New Zealanders between the ages of 65 and 84 years, and between 40 and 64 years.

Enhancing Wellbeing in an Ageing Society (Koopman-Boyden & Waldegrave (Eds), 2009) has already documented the initial results from the survey of the 65-84 year-old New Zealanders.

This publication presents the first results of the 40-64 year-old survey. The study provides the first comprehensive set of results of a national random sample of midlife New Zealanders.

A fuller understanding of the baby-boomer and Gen X generations who are about to become superannuitants.


The aim of the research was to

“provide the understanding that is essential for policy formulation and the delivery of services for enhancing wellbeing in an ageing New Zealand society”.


The theoretical background and conceptualisation of wellbeing combines a subjective sense of satisfaction with Amartya Sen’s notion of the capability to access resources and to do something with them.

Wellbeing in this research involves people both experiencing a sense of satisfaction with life, and acquiring appropriate capabilities to achieve a good quality of life.

This conceptualisation is consistent with current developments across disciplines and with the views of stakeholder groups questioned at the beginning of the research programme.

This broad conceptualisation of wellbeing is necessary to take into account the social context in which wellbeing is achieved.


A national random sample of 1,958 people aged 40-64 years in 2008

• 1,000 females (51.1 percent), • 958 males (48.9 percent)

Weighted for age and gender according to proportions in the 2006 census

A Computerised Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) method of data collection undertaken by the University of Waikato’s Department of Societies and Cultures during late January to June 2008.


The ten broad domains of the Ministry’s annual Social Reports have been used to structure this monograph under the following domain areas.

These ten domains provide a broad coverage of the capabilities, needs and subjective areas of satisfaction that is consistent with the theoretical approach adopted in this research

• Culture and Religion.• Rights and Entitlements

• Social Connectedness • Economic Standard of Living

• Safety• Work and Retirement

• Living Arrangements • Education

• Leisure and Recreation • Health


Subjective Wellbeing was associated with the following Social Indicators

• Good health• A higher personal income• A higher level of asset wealth• Home ownership• An expectation of rights and entitlements that include financial

security, family support and access to health and residential care• Living with a partner• Current or most recent employment status• Not having long periods outside the workforce during their working

lives – for men• A higher level of educational qualifications• More likely to be older when finished schooling • Participation in leisure and recreational activities• Participation in community organisations• Easy access to amenities like shops and public transport• Not going without essential items and services• Experiencing safety around the home and the neighbourhood • Seeing the neighbourhood as safe at night• Considering religious faith to be important


p-value of <0.001Those with a higher level of wellbeing were:• Health: Experiencing good physical and mental health. • Education: More likely to have higher qualifications• Work: In current or recent employment• Economic Living Standard: More likely to have a higher personal

income, higher asset wealth, not going without essential items and services, and owned their own home. There was a negative association with those who considered they had inadequate income to afford necessities

• Rights and entitlements: More likely to expect rights and entitlements that include financial security, access to health care, residential care and family support

• Leisure and Recreation: Participating in more leisure and recreational activities

• Living Arrangements: Living with a partner • Safety: Experiencing safety around the home and the neighbourhood,

and consider the neighbourhood to be safe at night• Social Connectedness: Participating more in community

organisations.


p-value – Not significant• Work: No significant relationship with intentions to retire.

p-value of <0.05Those with a higher level of wellbeing were:• Education: More likely to have completed their highest qualification at

an older age• Living Arrangements: More likely to consider living in a desirable

neighbourhood important for continuing to live in the same place• Social Connectedness: More likely to have a higher number of social

contacts • Religion: More likely to consider religious faith to be important.

p-value of <0.01Those with a higher level of wellbeing were:• Education: More likely to have left school at an older age• Work: There was a negative association for men with more periods

outside the workforce• Living Arrangements: Having easy access to amenities like shops

and public transport.


Distribution of Total Personal Income before Tax (%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

No inco

me$0-$5

$5-$10

$10-$15

$15-$20

$20-$30

$30-$40

$40-$50

$50-$60

$60-$70

$70-$80

$80-$100

$100-$120

$120-$160

$160-$200

$200-$250

Over $

250

Total Personal Income before Tax (000s)

Resp

onde

nts

(%)


Average Total Personal Income, by Gender, Age and Marital Status

60,86240,000Divorced

53,02545,000Widowed

66,23045,000Married/Partnered

60,20440,103Single

Marital Status

68,03835,00060-64

68,63545,00055-59

62,06745,00050-54

64,14248,51145-49

65,37045,00040-44

Age Cohort

49,50731,137Female

79,29256,912Male

Mean Income$

Median Income$Gender


Total Value of Assets (not including family home) by Level of Ownership (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No assets

$0-$50

$50-$100

$100-$250

$250-$500

$500-$1,000

$1,000-$1,500

$1,500-$2,000

Over $

2,000

Total Value of Assets (000s)

Leve

l of O

wne

rshi

p (%

)


Subjective Assessment of Adequacy of Money by Personal Income (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

up to $20 $20-$40 $40-$60 $60-$80 over $80

Total Personal Income (000s)

Subj

ecti

ve A

sses

smen

t of A

dequ

acy

of M

oney

(%)

Not enough money

Just enough money

Enough money

More than enough money


Level of Overall Wellbeing by Personal Income (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

up to $20 $20-$40 $40-$60 over $60

Total Personal Income (000s)

Ove

rall

Wel

lbei

ng (%

)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied


Types of Housing Tenure (%)

Other 0.1

Boarder 0.8

Rented house 15.1

Owned by another family member, 0.4

Provided by employer, 0.5

Owned by the respondent and another family member,

0.1

Owned by a family trust 5.0

Rented unit/house in retirement village, 0.5

Owned by the respondent or spouse, with a mortgage

42.2

Owned by the respondent or spouse, without a

mortgage35.3


Overall Wellbeing by Housing Tenure (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Owners Renters Others

Housing Tenure

Ove

rall

Wel

lbei

ng (%

)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied


Types of Housing Tenure 65 to 84 years (%)

Owned by respondent or spouse, without a

mortgage69.3%

Owned by respondent or spouse, with a mortgage

7.1%

Owned by a family trust10.5%

Owned by another family member

1.5%

Owned by the respondent AND another family

member0.4%

Rented unit/house in retirement

village3.2%

Rented house7.6%

Boarder0.3%

Other0.2%


Private Dwelling Estimates by Tenure (%)

28.966.930 June 2006

29.067.830 June 2001

25.670.530 June 1996

23.173.630 June 1991

RentedOwner–occupied1Period

1 Includes dwellings owned by individuals or held in a family trust (from 2006)


Numbers below Poverty Thresholds from the EWAS and MSD Studies (%)

11 (ages 45-64)10.860% constant value used in

Social Report

18 (whole population)

12.660% of median

10 (whole population)

8.950% of median

MSD: peopleEWAS: people

aged 40-64Poverty Threshold


Multivariate Logit Model of Poverty, using the 50% of Median Income Poverty Line

0.007***0.4470Home Owner (1 = yes)

<0.001***10.8394Divorced or Separated

<0.001***19.3618Widowed

<0.001***16.2139Single‡

0.8450.8668Non-Home Assets $1 million-$1.5

million

0.032*0.0924Non-Home Assets $500,000-$1 million

0.084*0.4054Non-Home Assets $250,000-$500,000

0.079*0.3455Non-Home Assets $100,000-$250,000

0.5930.7866Non-Home Assets $50,000-$100,000

0.1470.5170Non-Home Assets $0-$50,000†

0.8911.0399Gender (1 = male)

0.010**1.0582Age

p-valueOdds RatioVariable

* significant at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level, ** significant at 1% level, † comparator group is those with no assets, no respondents with more than $1.5 million in assets were poor with this poverty line, ‡ comparator group is married or partnered people.


Multivariate Logit Model of ‘Satisfaction with Economic Standard of Living’

0.2511.2831Home Owner (1 = yes)

<0.001***0.4351Divorced or Separated

0.001***0.2933Widowed

0.074*0.6086Single‡

0.005***8.3967Non-Home Assets over $2 million

0.056**7.3526Non-Home Assets $1.5 million-$2 million

0.003***5.2306Non-Home Assets $1 million-$1.5 million

<0.001***7.7721Non-Home Assets $500,000-$1 million

<0.001***4.3737Non-Home Assets $250,000-$500,000

0.001***3.2419Non-Home Assets $100,000-$250,000

0.009***2.2571Non-Home Assets $50,000-$100,000

0.089*1.5496Non-Home Assets $0-$50,000†

0.068*1.000006Income

0.020**0.6625Gender (1 = male)

0.097*1.0218Age

p-valueOdds RatioVariable

* significant at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level, ** significant at 1% level, † comparator group is those with no assets, ‡ comparator group is married or partnered people.


Multivariate Ordered Logit Model of Overall Wellbeing

0.3220.1679Home Owner (1 = yes)

<0.001***-0.9535Divorced or Separated

0.001***-1.1001Widowed

<0.001***-1.2670Single‡

0.091*0.5799Non-Home Assets over $2 million

0.9240.0350Non-Home Assets $1.5 million-$2 million

0.038**0.5814Non-Home Assets $1 million-$1.5 million

0.1150.3099Non-Home Assets $500,000-$1 million

<0.001***0.7677Non-Home Assets $250,000-$500,000

0.004***0.6079Non-Home Assets $100,000-$250,000

0.023**0.4894Non-Home Assets $50,000-$100,000

0.016**0.4902Non-Home Assets $0-$50,000†

0.049**0.0000019Income

0.001***-0.4081Gender (1 = male)

0.008***0.2317Age

p-valueCoefficientVariable

* significant at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level, ** significant at 1% level, † comparator group is those with no assets, ‡ comparator group is married or partnered people.


Critical Factors that Protect Older New Zealanders from Falling Deeply into Poverty.

• The fundamental importance of the universal NZ Superannuation payments.

• The high level of home ownership among the current population 65 years and over.

• Both are susceptible to change and the results of such change could lead quickly to high levels of poverty among the new older population.


Threats and Challenges for the ‘Baby-boomers’ as they Become Old

• NZS depends upon political will for its sustainability. • Debate continues about the level of payments, the age

of eligibility and current contributions into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

• The increasing trend of falling home ownership could present serious poverty problems if it continues.

• Mortgage free homes have been critical to preventing many older New Zealanders from dipping below the poverty threshold when they cluster so close to the internationally set poverty lines.


http://www.ewas.net.nz/Publications/filesEWAS/EWAS_M2.pdf

http://www.familycentre.org.nz/

http://www.ewas.net.nz/Publications/filesEWAS/EWAS_M2.pdf

http://www.familycentre.org.nz/

midlife and wellbeing, charles waldegrave

Documents