This issue of Generations Journal is precious—simultaneously a monument to a bygone era and a plea for continued research and policy attention to those left behind from the promise of Social Security. In 2023, we proposed a special issue presenting research conducted by the Social Security Administration’s newest Retirement and Disability Research Center (RDRC) about groups unable to claim the benefits to which they were entitled and those entitled to insufficient benefits. We did not imagine that before that issue was published, the government would have terminated the entire RDRC program (six national centers supporting a generation of researchers with a body of independent investigation on the sustainability, sufficiency, and efficiency of Social Security benefits and of the Social Security Administration).
Nor could we have imagined that terminating the RDRCs would be an early salvo into a campaign to actively suppress independent research and settled science—particularly about government programs. This campaign has now expanded into dramatic cuts to National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation funding, the elimination of scientific advisory committees, and reductions in scholarly work and oversight on food safety and climate change across multiple agencies. It most recently culminated in the Aug. 1 firing of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for releasing job growth numbers deemed politically problematic to the president.
The research here might have become a relic much like Pompeii, depicting life as it was at the moment of the eruption—some dishes half-washed and some sculptures near completion. For the New York Retirement and Disability Research Center, when our “stop work” order arrived from DOGE on February 20, 2025, some projects were complete, others had data from portions of studies that could be analyzed, and many still have open questions we’d really like answers to.
But instead of a relic, let us together make this issue one monument in a temple we build together as we continue the search for independent evidence to answer serious policy questions; let it represent the courage to communicate those findings clearly, regardless of whether doing so is politically expedient. This search requires collaboration between those least served by existing programs, the practitioners who see these people, and the researchers—inside and outside of government—who can help translate their experiences into data.
This collaboration has never been easy, and in this political environment, each of these three populations feels threatened and may doubt they have the energy for new partnerships. In this issue, we showcase the interdependence of people reliant upon public benefits, the practitioners who serve them, and the researchers who help tell their stories. The stakes are high and we call on the readers of Generations Journal to meet the moment.
This special issue always seemed like an opportunity for research teams to speak directly to practitioners and policymakers, which many did habitually, on pressing issues of the day, including: Caring about the Care Workforce and Families; Barriers to Benefits for Marginalized Populations; and The Surprising Effects of Student Debt, Digital Trust, and Climate Change on Older Workers and Retirees. Today, this dialogue is more critical.
Here is a brief summary of what you will find in this volume.
Theme 1: Caring about the Care Workforce and Families
In an article titled, “The Complex Impact of ‘On’ and ‘Off the Books’ Work (Estimating What We Miss About Direct Care Workers’ Employment, Earnings, and Retirement Savings),” Ruth Finkelstein, Jessica Halliday Hardie, and Cecily Johnson investigate the overlooked employment patterns and retirement security of direct care workers. These workers are low-paid and disproportionately female and non-white. Though caring for frail older adults is important, these jobs offer little social insurance or financial security. Many direct care workers straddle the formal and informal labor markets, often working “off the books.” This key feature of the labor market prevents them from qualifying for Social Security benefits. The authors find that existing data sources miss key forms of labor and, in doing so, conceal the retirement insecurity of a crucial workforce. Despite their prominence in the labor market, direct care workers are left behind by Social Security.
In “Contending with Home Care Needs After a Work Disability,” Jennie Kaufman and Na Yin examine the challenges faced by workers who experience a work-limiting disability and require home care support, such as help with dressing, bathing, cooking, or shopping. Family members often step in to provide this care, which can place significant strain on households already facing economic insecurity. The article highlights the experiences of older workers with disabilities, their home care needs, and the sources of care they rely upon. Although unmet care needs are widespread, they also tend to fluctuate over time. These findings underscore the importance of designing federal benefit and healthcare systems that can better respond to the dynamic and often unstable realities of disabled workers’ care needs.
‘Though caring for frail older adults is important, these jobs offer little social insurance or financial security.’
In “Caregiving and Retirement: Social Security and the Financial Strain of Eldercare,” authors Jessica Forden, Siavash Radpour, Teresa Ghilarducci, and Erin Simmons highlight the growing financial burden placed on unpaid family caregivers, especially women, who support older relatives without adequate institutional backing. Drawing on mixed-methods research, including in-depth interviews, the authors show how Social Security, while not designed for this role, is increasingly used as a financial stopgap by caregivers forced to reduce or leave paid work. These caregivers often face a precarious retirement after years of prioritizing others’ needs over their own. The study underscores the need for policy reforms that treat caregiving as real work deserving of compensation and support. The authors advocate for investments such as universal paid family leave, affordable long-term care services, and respite programs to reduce the economic and emotional toll on caregivers and prevent Social Security from becoming a de facto care subsidy. This work has strong implications for aging policy and reinforces the urgency of building a sustainable care infrastructure in the United States.
Siavash Radpour, Jess Forden, and Teresa Ghilarducci, in “Unseen Costs: How Providing Eldercare Impacts Work and Economic Security,” examine the often-overlooked economic costs of unpaid eldercare, revealing how caregiving responsibilities, especially frequent, high-intensity care, reduce labor-force participation, with particularly acute impacts on women and caregivers of color. Using national survey data and robust causal methods, the authors demonstrate that caregiving not only limits current employment but also compounds long-term economic insecurity by reducing lifetime earnings, retirement savings, and Social Security benefits. The findings highlight how the U.S. reliance upon unpaid family care, driven by high formal care costs, creates systemic inequalities, particularly affecting lower-income and minority households that are more likely to need care and less able to afford formal supports. The authors call for policy reforms, including paid family leave, compensation for family caregivers, and expanded access to long-term care services and supports, to protect caregivers’ financial stability and promote equitable aging outcomes. As the population ages, these interventions are essential to sustain workforce participation and economic security, while ensuring that care needs are met across diverse communities.
Theme 2: Barriers to Benefits for Marginalized Populations
christian gonzález-rivera and Ruth Finkelstein, in “Left Behind Twice: Fixing Social Security for Formerly Incarcerated Elders,” based their study upon interviews with older adults reentering society after serving time in prison. It exposes a sloppy and under-resourced interrelationship of programs, including Social Security programs that have the effect of excluding formerly incarcerated people from retirement and disability benefits. Because prison labor is not covered by Social Security, even decades of work behind bars does not count toward eligibility. The main challenges are that many individuals are released without identification, housing, or knowledge of the benefits system, and are under-skilled to navigate an increasingly digital bureaucracy. This group is doubly marginalized—first by incarceration, then by exclusion from the benefits system that defines disability without reference to social context and work dependent upon setting.
The article titled “Understanding Late Arriving Immigrants’ Social Security Eligibility and Retirement Security” by Na Yin, Yu-Jhen Chen, Joelle Saad-Lessler, Yiyi Wu, and Ruth Finkelstein drills down on a significant group that works in the United States but doesn’t have access to Social Security. Why? Immigrants who migrate to the United States at ages 50 or older are often not qualified for Social Security or Medicare due to insufficient U.S. work history and, importantly, totalization, or credit from work and contributions from their home countries. Using quantitative data (American Community Survey and Survey of Income and Program Participation) they show that late-arriving immigrants are overrepresented among Social Security “never beneficiaries,” despite lifetimes of work. The design of U.S. retirement benefits is tied rigidly to U.S.-based, covered employment and, crucially, selected nations, leaving behind thousands of workers mostly because of the lack of a totalization agreement.
In “The Social Security Retirement Earnings Test: What Lower Income Workers and Retirees Need to Know,” Frank Heiland, Joelle Saad-Lessler, and Karen Richman highlight the need to improve understanding of the Social Security Retirement Earnings Test (RET), especially among the lower-income workers and retirees who are most affected by it. The RET reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who claim early and continue working but compensates them with higher monthly payments after reaching full retirement age. Drawing on qualitative research in underserved communities, the authors demonstrate that many claimants mistakenly believe benefits withheld under the RET are lost permanently, leading to misinformed retirement and labor decisions. These misconceptions are particularly harmful for financially vulnerable populations with limited liquidity and low financial literacy. By addressing knowledge gaps around the RET, policymakers have an opportunity to reduce inequality and improve retirement outcomes for millions of Americans.
In “Supporting LGBTQ Older Adults in Retirement Through Research and Advocacy,” Mark Brennan-Ing, Jennie Kaufman, Yiyi Wu, and Cicely Johnson focus on LGBTQ+ older adults who face unique barriers to retirement security because of a lifetime of labor market discrimination, which causes interrupted earnings, and until just recently (2004 and 2015) could not be legally married so they were not eligible for spousal and survivor benefits. Using national statistics and qualitative interviews, the authors show that, as expected, lower lifetime earnings, lack of family based caregiving networks, and limited access to retirement planning services (and indirectly Social Security benefits tied to marriage) compound vulnerabilities. LGBTQ+ older adults rely heavily upon Social Security and report being well-treated by Social Security personnel in this New York City–based sample. What is to be done? More research, inclusive service design, and policy protections, especially due to rising threats against the LGBTQ community.
‘Workers experiencing precarious employment are significantly less likely to expect to work full time past age 62, the earliest eligibility age for Social Security benefits.’
In “The Precarity Trap: Employment Instability in Mid-Life and The Challenge of Working Full Time Past Age 62,” Duygu Basaran Sahin, Frank Heiland, and Na Yin provide new evidence on the consequences of precarious employment among workers in their 50s and early 60s, a critical period for building retirement security. Using nationally representative data from the Health and Retirement Study, the authors show that precarious work, defined by job insecurity, insufficient hours, or part-time status, is common among older workers, particularly among those with lower education and those from racial and ethnic minority groups. They find that workers experiencing precarious employment are significantly less likely to expect to work full time past age 62, the earliest eligibility age for Social Security benefits. This disconnect between mid-life employment conditions and later-life work expectations suggests that precarious work acts as a structural barrier to achieving full retirement age, with long-term implications for retirement income adequacy. The findings underscore the need for labor market reforms and retirement policy innovations, including stronger protections for nonstandard workers to ensure that Social Security can deliver on its promise of retirement security for all.
The article “Cash Is King: Effects of Un(der)reported Income on the Social Safety Net” by Karen Richman, Joelle Saad-Lessler, and Frank Heiland examines how cash-based employment and underreporting of income undermine retirement security and access to safety net programs for Black and Latino workers. Drawing on qualitative data from focus groups and surveys, the authors highlight the widespread lack of understanding about Social Security and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). These factors often lead workers to accept cash wages and forgo formal reporting, limiting their accumulation of Social Security credits and eligibility for EITC. The findings show that many workers regret these decisions later in life, once they confront reduced benefits and insufficient retirement income. The study underscores the need for targeted financial education, simplified program rules, and stronger protections in the informal labor market. Improving workers’ understanding and ability to engage with the formal economy is critical to ensuring equitable access to programs like Social Security and the EITC, particularly for marginalized communities, which disproportionately rely upon them in retirement.
Theme 3: The Surprising Effects of Student Debt, Digital Trust, and Climate Change on Older Workers and Retirees
Karthik Manickam and Erin Simmons, in“Student Debt Is Not Just for Kids (A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Impact of Student Debt on Retirement Security and Claiming Age),” shed light on an often-overlooked issue: the burden of student debt among older Americans and its profound impact on retirement security. Through a mixed-methods approach combining national data and in-depth interviews, the authors reveal how education loans, whether taken for oneself or for a child, can disrupt retirement planning. Interview participants consistently described their debt as a personal responsibility yet also expressed resignation and distress over its unmanageable nature late in life. These findings highlight the inadequacy of treating student debt and retirement as isolated, individual issues. Instead, the authors argue for systemic policy reforms, including targeted loan forgiveness, expanded income-based repayment plans, and an end to Social Security garnishments for student loan defaults. The study’s implications are clear: ensuring retirement security in the United States must include addressing the student debt crisis, not just for the young, but for older Americans, too.
In “Computers Block Access to Social Security: Exploring the Role of Digital Trust in Online Interactions with SSA Services by Beneficiaries,” Yiyi Wu, christian gonzález-rivera, Christopher Ho, and Ruth Finkelstein explore how digital trust, or the lack thereof, affects immigrant older adults’ use of online Social Security Administration (SSA) services. Despite high smartphone use and general digital engagement, participants reported limited interaction with SSA’s online platforms due to three key barriers: difficulty navigating web-based platforms (especially compared to mobile apps), deep distrust of sharing sensitive information online due to fears of fraud, and significant language access challenges. The research highlights that while many older immigrants are digitally capable, systemic design flaws and a lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate features impede equitable access to vital services. As SSA pushes toward digital-first service delivery amid staffing reductions, the authors emphasize that policy must not neglect in-person and phone-based support. Instead, they recommend a dual strategy: improving digital design through user-centered, multilingual mobile apps with clear privacy protections, while also strengthening partnerships with trusted community organizations to offer in-person workshops and guidance. These findings underscore that building trust, not just building technology, is critical for equitable digital access to public benefits.
The article “Burn Out Reimagined: Extreme Heat, Work Disability, and Sociodemographic Disparities in America,” by Mara Getz Sheftel, Jennifer Brite, Na Yin, and Deborah Balk, examines the growing risk that extreme heat poses to older U.S. workers, particularly those in heat-sensitive occupations, and highlights the disproportionate burden faced by men, Black and Latino workers, immigrants, and those with lower education levels. Using nationally representative data from the Health and Retirement Study matched with O*NET (Occupational Information Network) occupational heat exposure measures, the authors find that older adults in jobs with high exposure to heat are significantly more likely to report work-limiting health conditions by age 55. The study underscores how climate change intersects with occupational and social inequalities to exacerbate work disability risks for vulnerable populations. Its policy implications are clear: comprehensive federal protections against occupational heat exposure are urgently needed, alongside stronger disability support, expanded healthcare access, and retraining programs for workers unable to continue in heat-exposed jobs. Without such interventions, climate-driven health disparities are likely to deepen, especially among older and marginalized workers.
In “Uprooted in Later Life: Disparities in Natural Disaster Displacement Among Older Americans and Its Impact on Well-Being,” Jenna F. Tipaldo, JK Goongoon, Frank Heiland, and Deborah Balk highlight the growing vulnerability of older Americans to displacement from natural disasters. Using nationally representative data from the Household Pulse Survey, the authors estimate that 1.2% of adults ages 65 and older, more than 600,000 people annually, are displaced due to disasters. Displacement often results in serious disruptions to basic needs and well-being, including electricity loss, food and water shortages, psychological distress, and exposure to scams. The analysis highlights that the impacts are not evenly distributed: low-income and minority older adults face disproportionate burdens. These findings underscore the importance of maintaining and strengthening safety net programs like Social Security and disaster assistance, not only to ensure consistent income amid displacement, but also to protect older adults’ health, safety, and access to critical services. The study calls for better real-time monitoring and data collection to inform equitable, responsive policies that promote resilience and retirement security in the face of more frequent and severe natural disasters.
Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to curtail research and communication among experts, we—and ASA—have come together to sustain the work and passion of the New York Retirement and Disability Research Center. When the “stop work” order arrived from DOGE on February 20, 2025, several projects were already complete or near completion, but many pressing questions remained. This issue carries forward that unfinished work.
We believe it is vital to maintain the courage to communicate scholarship, even when it falls out of political favor. Collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners has never been simple, especially when any group feels its role is under threat. Yet, in this Generations Journal, we highlight their interdependence: the people who rely upon public benefits, the practitioners who serve them, and the researchers who help bring their experiences to light. This special issue offers research teams the opportunity to speak directly to practitioners and policymakers on urgent issues shaping the most important social insurance program in our nation.
Teresa Ghilarducci, PhD, is the Irene and Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis at The New School for Social Research. Ruth Finkelstein, ScD, is the Rose Dubrof Executive Director of the Brookdale Center for Healthy Aging at Hunter College, as well as a professor at the School of Urban Public Health, both based in New York City. Na Yin, PhD, is an associate professor at the Marxe School of Public and International Affairs at Baruch College, co-director of New York Retirement and Disability Research Center, and a faculty associate at CUNY Institute for Demographic Research, in New York City.
Photo caption: Austin, TX, April 5, 2025: Activists protest Donald Trump’s policies, including the creation of DOGE under Elon Musk, at the Hands Off rally at the state capitol.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/Vic Hinterlang
