Worker Opinions About Employee Benefits: Differences Among

A monthly newsletter from the EBRI Education and Research Fund © 2015 Employee Benefit Research Institute

December 2015 • Vol. 36, No. 12

The Effect of the Current Population Survey Redesign on Retirement-Plan Participation Estimates, p. 2

Worker Opinions About Employee Benefits: Differences Among Millennials, Baby Boomers, and Generation X Have Implications for Plan Sponsors, p. 12

A T A G L A N C E

The Effect of the Current Population Survey Redesign on Retirement-Plan Participation Estimates, by Craig Copeland, Ph.D., EBRI

The Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) is one of the most-cited sources of income data for retirement-age Americans. The Census Bureau redesigned the income questions starting in 2014 in response to findings that this survey has misclassified and generally under-reported income (in particular, sources of retirement income).

While the redesign of the survey did capture more income, especially pension income, it also significantly lowered the survey’s estimates of retirement plan participation among those most likely to participate. Furthermore, these new CPS participation results trended downward in contrast to other surveys on retirement plan participation.

The unexplainable decreases in the participation level after the CPS redesign and the conflicting time series of the participation levels in CPS relative to other surveys raise doubts about the use of CPS data to assess future retirement plan coverage policies.

Worker Opinions About Employee Benefits: Differences Among Millennials, Baby Boomers, and Generation X Have Implications for Plan Sponsors, by Paul Fronstin, Ph.D., EBRI, and Ruth Helman, Greenwald & Associates

Millennials are less likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to report health insurance as the most important benefit they receive at work. Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers or Gen Xers to report that they value life insurance and paid time off as the most important benefit.

Millennials are less likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to report that the benefits a potential employer offers are extremely important in their decision to accept or reject a job. Millennials are also more likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to be open to non-traditional ways of obtaining benefits.

Millennials are more likely than other workers to respond that they do not know about their benefits. Participation in various employee benefit programs is generally lower among Millennials than among Baby Boomers and Gen Xers.

ebri.org Notes • December 2015 • Vol. 36, No. 12 2

The Effect of the Current Population Survey Redesign on Retirement-Plan Participation Estimates By Craig Copeland, Ph.D., EBRI

Introduction The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (fielded in March of each year) to the Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, is one of the most-cited sources of income data for those whose ages are associated with being retired.1 However, research has shown that this survey has misclassified certain types of income and has generally under-reported income—and in particular, sources of retirement income.2 In response to this research, the Census Bureau has redesigned the income questions in the CPS to address the issues from the prior design. In 2014, researchers at the Census Bureau conducted a test of the new set of CPS-income questions by doing a spilt-panel design, where 3/8 of the sample received the redesigned questions while the remaining 5/8 received the traditional questions.3,4

Yet, when a questionnaire is changed, the changes can affect results from other areas of the survey that are not changed. In this case, the questionnaire was lengthened and new information was given to respondents when asking the additional income-defining questions. Consequently, more nonresponses could result, and if the respondents did answer, a higher likelihood of incorrect information could be collected due to respondent fatigue and confusion from new questions.

In addition to the income questions, the March CPS includes two questions about workers working for an employer sponsoring a pension plan and whether the worker was included in the plan. The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has done annual reports on pension participation among workers based on this data.5

However, the most recent changes in the questionnaire have led to some significant anomalies in the time series of the estimated level of participation by workers in an employment-based retirement plan. This report examines the estimates of pension—used by the Census Bureau to mean any employment-based retirement plan—participation from both the traditional questionnaire and the redesigned questionnaire used to address the underreporting of income against each other and with the trend in the estimates of retirement plan participation prior to the redesign years. It also compares the CPS results to another widely cited survey on employment-based retirement plan participation and discusses the growing issues surrounding this and other household surveys.

Trends in the Traditional and Redesigned Survey In the 2014 CPS, which provides results for 2013, both the traditional questionnaire and a split-sample design for the redesigned questionnaire were used to conduct the survey. Under the traditional survey design, the percentage of all workers found to be working for an employer that sponsored a plan was 50.2 percent, compared with 47.6 percent from the redesigned questionnaire, a difference of 2.6 percentage points (Figure 1). For full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64, the difference was even larger at 3.7 percentage points (60.8 percent traditional vs. 57.1 percent redesigned) and for public-sector workers ages 21‒64 the difference was 3.3 percentage points.

The 2015 survey continued with the redesigned questionnaire, and the percentages of workers working for an employer that sponsored a plan were found to have decreased among each work force. In particular, the percentage of full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64 working for an employer that sponsored a plan declined by 2.7 percentage points from 2013 to 2014. The other work forces had declines of these percentages of just over 2.0 percentage points, except for public-sector workers ages 21‒64 who had the smallest decline at 1.6 percentage points.


The percentages of workers participating in an employment-based retirement plan among each work force were also found to be lower in 2013 under the redesigned questionnaire relative to the traditional questionnaire. For example, the percentage of full-time, full year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64 participating in a plan under the traditional survey design was 53.0 percent, compared with 49.5 percent under the redesigned questionnaire, a difference of 3.5 percentage points (Figure 2). The difference between the two questionnaires for public-sector workers ages 21‒64 was even larger at 3.9 percentage points. The other work forces had participation-level differences of just less than 3.0 percentage points among the two questionnaire results.

Just as the percentage of workers working for an employer that sponsored a plan declined in 2014, the percentage of workers participating in an employment-based retirement plan in each work force did so as well (Figure 2). The largest decline in plan-participation from 2013 to 2014 was among full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64, where the percentage participating was 49.5 percent in 2013 under the redesigned questionnaire, compared with 46.6 percent in 2014. All other work forces had declines in the percentages participating from the 2013 redesigned questionnaire estimates to the 2014 estimates of between 1.0 and 2.0 percentage points.

Age—Looking at full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64, workers ages 35‒64 had lower percentages participating in an employment-based retirement plan at 4.0 percentage points or more under the redesigned questionnaire relative to the traditional questionnaire in 2013 (Figure 3). Those workers younger than 35 had percentages participating around 2.0 percentage points lower under the redesigned questionnaire. The percentages participating were found to decline again in 2014, with those ages 25‒34 having the largest drop from 2013 at 3.4 percentage points. However, among these workers ages 35‒44 and 45‒54, the next-biggest declines occurred at 2.9 percentage points after the near 4.0 percentage point lower estimated value under the redesigned questionnaire in 2013.

Earnings—Workers with higher earnings showed the largest drops in the percentages participating in an employment-based retirement plan under the redesigned questionnaire in 2013 and into 2014 (Figure 4). For full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64 with $75,000 or more of earnings, the percentage participating was 5.2 percentage points lower under the redesigned questionnaire than under the traditional design in 2013 (68.6 percent vs. 63.4 percent). This percentage was another 2.3 percentage points lower for this group in 2014, reaching 61.1 percent. For comparison, the percentage participating was 2.0 percentage points lower under the redesigned questionnaire in 2013 and an additional 1.7 percentage points lower in 2014 for these workers earning $20,000‒$29,999. For those workers earning $30,000‒$49,999 and $50,000‒$74,999, the percentages participating were lower by nearly 4.0 percentage points under the redesigned questionnaire in 2013 with an additional decline of nearly 4.0 percentage points in 2014.

Number of Employees—Workers at larger employers had higher likelihoods of participating in an employment-based retirement plan. Under the traditional design, the percentage of full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64 who worked for an employer with 1,000 or more employees who participated in a employment-based retirement plan was 64.4 percent in 2013, while under the redesigned questionnaire, this percentage was 59.8 percent—4.6 percentage points lower (Figure 5). In 2014, the percentage for these workers was an additional 3.9 percentage points lower, reaching 55.9 percent. These same types of workers at employers with 100‒499 employees had a 4.0 percentage point lower percentage participating under the redesigned questionnaire in 2013 (53.2 percent vs. 49.2 percent), with an additional 4.8 percentage point decline in 2014 to 44.4 percent from the redesigned questionnaire for 2013. In contrast, the percentage point differences in the participation levels for workers who worked for employers with fewer than 50 employees were less than 2.0 percentage points both in 2013 between the traditional and redesigned questionnaires and from the 2013 redesigned percentage to 2014.

48.7%50.2%

47.6%45.4%

53.5%54.8%

51.8%49.7%

48.5%49.9%

46.9%44.8%

60.6% 60.8%

57.1%

54.4%

79.4%81.0%

77.7%76.1%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

All Workers

All Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64Private-Sector Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64Full-Time, Full-Year Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64Public-Sector Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the March Current Population Survey 2013‒2015.(T)-traditional questionnaire (R)-redesigned questionnaire. Both the traditional and redesigned questionnaires were fielded in 2014 (2013 results).The 2012 results were from the traditional, while the 2014 results were from the redesigned questionnaire.

* Current Population Survey.

Figure 1Percentage of Various Workforces Working for an Employer That Sponsors an Employment-based Retirement Plan Using the CPS,*

Traditional vs. Redesigned Questionnaire, 2012‒2014

39.5% 39.8%

37.3%35.4%

44.4% 44.5%

41.6%39.7%

53.6% 53.0%

49.5%

46.6%

39.1% 39.4%

36.5%34.7%

71.6% 72.1%

68.2%67.0%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

All Workers

All Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Full-Time, Full-Year Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Private-Sector Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Public-Sector Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Figure 2Percentage of Various Workforces Participating in an Employment-based Retirement Plan Using the CPS,*Traditional vs. Redesigned Questionnaire, 2012‒2014




29.3%30.6%

28.8%27.5%

46.0% 46.1%

43.8%

40.4%

54.9%53.5%

49.4%

46.5%

59.7%58.4%

54.5%

51.6%

60.5% 60.9%

56.3%

54.0%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

21–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64

Figure 3Percentage of Full-time, Full-year Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21‒64Participating in an Employment-based Retirement Plan Using the CPS,*

Traditional vs. Redesigned Questionnaire, by Age, 2012‒2014



17.4%

15.8%

11.8%14.4%

16.7%

20.4%18.8%

16.2%

34.0% 33.8%31.8%

30.1%

53.5% 53.5%

49.6%

45.8%

66.6%64.4%

60.8%

56.9%

70.7% 68.6%

63.4%61.1%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

Less than $10,000 per Year $10,000–$19,999 $20,000–$29,999

$30,000–$49,999 $50,000–$74,999 $75,000 or more



Figure 4Percentage of Full-time, Full-year Wage Salary Workers Ages 21‒64

Participating in an Employment-based Retirement Plan Using the CPS,*Traditional vs. Redesigned Questionnaire, by Earnings, 2012‒2014



Comparison With Bureau of Labor Statistics Data As shown, significant declines in the percentages of workers participating in an employment-based retirement plan in 2014 relative to the much lower 2013 redesigned questionnaire estimates were found in the CPS data. Even given the lower participation levels found in 2013 under the redesigned questionnaire relative to the traditional questionnaire, the decline in 2014 was a record amount dating back to at least 1987. Assuming the same difference between the traditional and redesigned questionnaires would have persisted into 2014, Figure 6 shows the trend from 1987 through 2014 (with the adjustment).6 The adjusted difference in 2014 relative to the traditional 2013-questionnaire estimate for all workers was a 3.0 percentage point decline, which was a larger year-to-year difference than any other year since at least 1987. The next-largest difference was a 2.0 percentage point increase from 1993 to 1994. Furthermore, for full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64, the percentage point difference from the adjusted 2014 participation level and the traditional 2013 participation level was a 4.3 percentage point decline. The next-largest year-to-year difference for that group was a 2.6 percentage point increase from 2006 to 2007.

Not only were the differences larger than at any point since at least 1987, the decline contradicted the findings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ National Compensation Survey (NCS).7 This survey found that the percentage of private-sector wage and salary workers at establishments with 500 or more employees participating in an employment-based retirement plan increased in 2014 to 77 percent from 76 percent in 2013 (Figure 7). In contrast, using the closest direct comparison between the two surveys because of the differences in their data collection methods, the percentage of full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21‒64 who worked for an employer with 500 or more employees was found to decrease for the CPS from 63 percent for the traditional questionnaire and 59 percent from the redesigned questionnaire in 2013 to 55 percent in 2014.

What the CPS Redesign Did Do While the redesigned questionnaire certainly had an impact (reducing) on the reported levels of workers participating in employment-based retirement plans, it did address the issues surrounding the reported sources of income for those ages 65 and older. Figure 8 shows the resulting decline in the percentage of all workers participating in an employment-based retirement plan from 39.8 percent under the traditional questionnaire in 2013 to 35.4 per-cent in 2014 under the redesigned questionnaire. At the same time, the percentage of Americans ages 65 or older who had pension income8 increased from 31.7 percent under the traditional questionnaire in 2013 to 36.6 percent in 2014 under the redesigned questionnaire. Consequently, while the redesign of the CPS questionnaire showed a less positive picture for current workers in retirement-plan participation, it revealed a more robust picture of those receiving pension income once they reached retirement age.

Conclusion While the redesign of the CPS questionnaire achieved one of its primary goals of capturing more income—especially pension income—it appears to have had a serious impact on the results of other variables within the survey. As shown by this article, it resulted in sharp declines in the estimated retirement plan participation levels of current workers. Furthermore, those most affected were those groups with the highest likelihoods of participation—those older, with higher earnings, and working for larger employers.

Unless further survey modifications are made,9 what has happened in the most recent years to the estimated retirement plan participation levels from CPS and what that means for the future estimates from the survey will make it difficult to judge any future effects of policies addressing workers’ retirement plan coverage using the CPS. The unexplainable decreases in the participation level in 2013 after the CPS redesign, the opposite direction of CPS’ time series in the participation level relative to other surveys (i.e., NCS), and the findings of the misreporting of participation by respondents relative to administrative data in a similar survey,10 all lead to this conclusion of an uncertain efficacy of using CPS for an assessment of retirement plan coverage policies.


The issues with the retirement plan participation estimates from CPS are not the only concerns facing large government surveys. Various issues have affected virtually all of the household surveys with increases in nonresponse rates of surveys, nonresponses to specific questions if the respondent does participate, and measurement errors from respondents giving incorrect answers. Therefore, the use of administrative data—data from the actual administrators of the program or accounts being examined—has become and will continue to be an increasingly important addition to the evaluation of various economic and government program issues facing the United States.11

17.8% 16.7% 16.1% 14.6%

31.5% 31.3%29.5%

27.7%

44.0% 43.6% 42.2%

37.8%

52.9% 53.2%

49.2%

44.4%

57.6%54.7%

51.1%50.1%

64.6% 64.4%

59.8%55.9%

79.9% 80.1%77.0%

74.3%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

Fewer Than 10 Employees 10–49 Employees 50–99 Employees

100–499 Employees 500–999 Employees 1,000 or More Employees

Public Sector



Figure 5Percentage of Full-time, Full-year Wage Salary Workers Ages 21‒64 Participating

in an Employment-based Retirement Plan Using the CPS,* Traditional vs. Redesigned Questionnaire, by Employer Size (Number of Employees), 2012‒2014

37.6% 38.0%38.9% 39.0% 39.7% 39.4% 39.0%

41.0% 41.0% 41.7% 41.8%43.6% 43.8% 44.4%

43.0%41.8% 42.0% 41.9%

40.9%39.7%

41.5%40.4%

39.6% 39.8% 39.7% 39.4%40.8%

37.8%

46.1% 46.2%47.2% 47.4% 46.8% 46.5% 46.2%

48.2%47.8%48.4% 49.1%51.0% 51.1% 51.6%

49.8%48.2% 48.4%

48.3%

47.0%

45.5%47.4%

46.0%44.8% 44.9% 44.6% 44.2%

45.8%

42.7%

58.4% 58.3% 59.0% 59.5% 58.9% 59.0%57.7%

59.6%57.9%

59.0% 59.2%60.3% 60.4% 59.8%

58.3%56.7% 57.1% 56.6%

54.8%

52.7%

55.3% 54.8% 54.4% 54.5%53.7% 53.5%

54.5%

50.2%

39.8% 40.0%40.9% 41.3% 40.8% 40.4% 40.1%

42.1% 42.2%43.1%

44.2%46.1% 46.1% 46.7%

45.1%

43.1%43.2% 43.0% 41.7%

40.3%42.0%

40.7%39.2% 39.5% 39.2% 39.1%

40.8%

37.5%

75.6% 75.6% 76.3% 76.1% 76.1%75.2% 74.5%

77.6%76.7% 77.1%

75.5%77.2% 77.2% 77.3%

75.3% 74.8%75.8% 75.8%

74.8%73.3%

75.4%74.5%

72.9%71.9%

73.2%71.5%

73.6%

70.8%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 6Percentage of Various Work Forces Participating in an

Employment-Based Retirement Plan, 1987–2014(2014 Number Adjusted for Difference Between

Traditional and Redesigned Questionnaires in 2013)

All Workers All Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Full-Time, Full-Year Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64 Private-Sector Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Public-Sector Wage and Salary Workers Ages 21–64

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates from the 1988–2015 March Current Population Surveys.


64% 63%

59%

55%

76% 76% 76%77%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

CPS

BLS-NCS

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the March Current Population Survey 2013‒2015.(T)-traditional questionnaire (R)-redesigned questionnaire. Both the traditional and redesigned questionnaires were fielded in 2014 (2013 results). The 2012 results were from the traditional, while the 2014 results were from the redesigned questionnaire. (Only CPS was redesigned. The BLSnumber was entered twice for 2013.) The CPS population is restricted to those workers who worked full-time, full-year and were ages 21‒64. * Current Population Survey.** Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 7Percentage of Wage and Salary Workers Working for Private-Sector Employers

With 500 or More Employees Participating in an Employment-based Retirement Plan, CPS* vs. BLS** National Compensation Survey (NCS), 2012‒2014

39.5%39.8%

37.3%

35.4%

31.2%

31.7%

35.9%

36.6%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

2012 2013 (T) 2013 (R) 2014

Pension Participation-All Workers

Pension Income Receipt-Ages 65or Older



Figure 8Comparison of the Percentage of All Workers Participating in an Employment-based

Retirement Plan vs. Percentage of Those Ages 65 or Older Who Are Receiving Pension Income Using the CPS,* Traditional and Redesigned Questionnaires, 2012‒2014



Endnotes 1 The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the Current Population Survey (CPS) for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by interviewing

about 57,000 households and asking numerous questions about individuals’ work statuses, employers, incomes, and basic

demographic characteristics. Thus, the CPS has traditionally been able to provide detailed information about workers from a

broad sample of Americans who are participating in an employment-based pension plan, making it possible to establish a

consistent, annual, and timely trend across numerous worker characteristics and the characteristics of their employers. For

more detail see, http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/about.html

While the CPS provides excellent detail on overall participation in employment-based pension plans (or retirement plans—

used interchangeably in this article), it does not provide specifics about the individual plans—such as the worker’s plan type

or whether the individual worker is eligible to participate in the plan sponsored by his or her employer or union. This makes

the definition of terms in this study important:

The term sponsorship rate is defined as the percentage of workers in the specified work force who worked for an

employer or union that sponsored a plan in a given year for any of its employees, though not necessarily for the

worker in question.

In this discussion, the term percentage of workers participating in a plan is not synonymous with the standard

retirement plan term participation rate, which is generally understood to mean the percentage of eligible workers

who participate in a plan. Consequently, participation rate is not used in this analysis; instead, the terms

participation level or percentage participating are used. To reiterate, those terms refer to the fraction of workers in

the specified work force who participate in an employment-based pension or retirement plan regardless of the

workers’ eligibility to participate in a plan. (An eligible worker is one who is offered a plan and meets the

requirements to participate.)

Lastly, the term participating in a plan (or pension or retirement plan) as used here always refers to a pension or

retirement plan provided through an employment-based arrangement, not a plan such as an individual retirement

account (IRA) that workers can fund outside of an employment-based arrangement. Furthermore, since there isn’t a

distinction made in the data between defined benefit and defined contribution plans, participation includes either

plan type.

2 For example, see Bruce D. Meyer, Wallace K. C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan. “The Under-Reporting of Transfers in

Household Surveys: Its Nature and Consequences.” Harris School Working Paper #09.03, 2009 and John L. Czajka and

Gabrielle Denmead. “Income Data for Policy Analysis: A Comparative Assessment of Eight Surveys.” Mathematica

Reference No.: 6302-601, 2008 available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/incomedata.pdf

3 For a complete explanation of the changes to the survey, see Jessica L. Semega and Edward Welniak, Jr. “The Effects of

the Changes to the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement on Estimates of Income,”

Proceedings of the 2015 Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) Research Conference, available at

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2015/DEMO/ASSA-Income-CPSASEC-Red.pdf

4 See Craig Copeland, “Examining the New Income Measures in the Current Population Survey,” EBRI Notes, no. 5

(Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2015): pp. 8–15 for another comparison of the income received by those ages 65

or older under the traditional and redesigned questionnaires.

5 For example, the most recent publication is Craig Copeland. “Employment-Based Retirement Plan Participation:

Geographic Differences and Trends, 2013.” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 405 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, October 2014).

6 Specifically, the difference between the traditional and redesigned numbers for 2013 is added to the 2014 number to give

an attempt to have a consistent time trend. This does assume that the differences between the traditional and redesigned

would remain the same if they were still conducted. This wouldn’t necessarily happen, but it gives a point of reference for a


consistent time trend. For all wage and salary workers ages 21‒64, the calculation would be the difference between the 2013

numbers from figure 2 (3.54 percent) added to the (39.73 percent) for 2014 to get 42.7 percent for the adjusted number. In

many cases, such as that just enumerated, rounding causes a potential 0.1 percentage point difference compared with just

the rounded numbers in Figure 2.

7 The National Compensation Survey (NCS) is conducted annually in March by the Bureau of Labor Statistics by surveying

Untied States business about their compensation cost trends, incidence of benefits, and detailed benefit provisions.

Estimates from the NCS are for civilian workers—workers in private industry and in state and local government—by various

employee and employer characteristics. Federal Government, agricultural, household, and self-employed workers are

excluded. For more detail on the NCS, see http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2015/overview.htm

8 Pension income includes income from traditional pension plans, defined contribution plans, and individual retirement

accounts (IRAs). The redesign of the questionnaire was better able to capture irregular withdrawals (i.e., one time lump

sums) from DC plans and IRAs that were missed under the traditional questionnaire.

9 Both the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) have modified

their pension participation questions at least once. A typical addition was a follow-up question to try to capture those

contributing to a defined contribution (401(k)-type) plan. However, adding more questions to the Current Population Survey

(CPS) would just add to the issue of the lengthening of the survey causing increasing nonresponse rates. Furthermore, the

CPS’s focus is on poverty, income sources, and health insurance ownership. Consequently, any potential changes to

improve pension participation numbers would need to be considered against adversely affecting the focus of the survey.

10 See, for example, Irena Dushi, Howard M. Iams, and Jules Lichtenstein. “Assessment of Retirement Plan Coverage by

Firm Size, Using W-2 Tax Records,” Social Security Bulletin. Vol. 71, No. 2, May 2011

www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n2/v71n2p53.pdf

11 For a detailed examination of this topic, see Bruce D. Meyer, Wallace K. C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan, “Household Surveys in Crisis,” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 29, No. 4, Fall 2015, pp. 199-226.


Worker Opinions About Employee Benefits: Differences Among Millennials, Baby Boomers, and Generation X Have Implications for Plan Sponsors By Paul Fronstin, Ph.D., EBRI, and Ruth Helman, Greenwald & Associates

2015 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey Underwriters AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC

Cigna

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

Mercer LLC

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Prudential Financial Inc.

The Segal Group, Inc.

Unum Group

Introduction The Millennial Generation, also known as Millennials or Generation Y, is the demographic cohort with birth years ranging from the early 1980s to early 2000s (Strauss and Howe, 1991). Compared with prior generations, Millennials are more likely to be detached from traditional institutions (Pew Research Center, 2014). Millennials are the largest age group to emerge since the Baby-Boom generation, and employers will have to make adjustments to how they engage them. Employers that have depended on employee benefits as a primary tool to recruit and retain workers may need to rethink the role that employee benefits play with Millennials. The remainder of this paper focuses on differences in opinions regarding employee benefits. Differences among Millennials, the Baby-Boom generation (individuals born between 1946‒1965), and Generation X members (those born between 1966–1976) are examined.

The Importance of Employee Benefits While health insurance is by far the most important employee benefit regardless of age cohort, Millennials are less likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to say it is the most important benefit. Two-thirds (67 percent) of Baby Boomers report that health insurance is the most important benefit, compared with 63 percent among Gen Xers, and 60 percent among Millennials (Figure 1). Millennials are also less likely than Baby Boomers to report that a traditional pension or retirement savings plan is the most important benefit. Millennials are more likely than Gen Xers or Baby Boomers to report that they value life insurance and paid time off as the most important benefit. Over 12 percent of Millennials report that paid time off is the most important benefit, compared with 6 percent of Baby Boomers.

Overall, Millennials are less likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to report that the benefits a potential employer offers are extremely important in their decision to accept or reject a job. Less than one-third (31 percent) of Millennials reported that benefits are extremely important compared with 39 percent among Gen Xers and 41 percent among Baby Boomers (Figure 2). Millennials are more likely to report that benefits were somewhat important.

Hence, it is not surprising that Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers and Generation X to be open to non-traditional ways of obtaining benefits. Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to report that they prefer to take the money spent on employee benefits other than health insurance (Figure 3) and they are more likely than Baby Boomers to be open to taking the money spent on health insurance (Figure 4) and decide for themselves whether to purchase those benefits and how much to purchase.

67%

6%

12%

1%

6%

63%

4%

8%

3%

11%

60%

2%

8%5%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Health Insurance Traditional Pension orDefined Benefit Plan

Retirement Savings Plan Life Insurance Paid Time Off

Figure 1Most Important Employee Benefit, by Age Cohort, 2015

Baby Boomers Generation X Millennials

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald & Associates, 2015 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey.Note: Categories were excluded when less than 5 percent of all age cohorts ranked the employee benefit as most important.

41% 42%

14%

2% 2%

39% 40%

17%

3%

1%

31%

42%

23%

3%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not too Important Not at all Important

Figure 2Importance of Benefits That a Potential Employer Offers in Decision to Accept or Reject Job, by Age Cohort, 2015


Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald & Associates, 2015 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey.


45%

40%

15%

43%

39%

18%

30%

45%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employers continue to choose and pay forbenefits the way they do now

You choose your benefits from a list. Youremployer then pays the same amount they

currently spend toward those benefits, and youpay any remaining amount if there is any

Your employer gives you the money theycurrently spend on benefits, and you decide

whether to purchase benefits on your own andhow much to spend

Figure 3Preference for Obtaining Employee Benefits

(Other Than Health Insurance), by Age Cohort, 2015



51%

34%

15%

42%

39%

19%

39%

42%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employers continue to choose and pay forhealth insurance the way they do now

You choose your health insurance. Youremployer then pays the same amount they

currently spend toward that insurance, and youpay any remaining amount, if there is any.

Your employer gives you the money theycurrently spend on health insurance, and youdecide whether to purchase health insurance

and how much to spend.

Figure 4Preference for Obtaining Health Insurance, by Age Cohort, 2015





Engagement Millennials are more likely to respond that they do not know about their benefits than other workers. Millennials are, across the board, more likely than Baby Boomers to respond that they do not know if their employer offers them various employee benefits, and they are often more likely to respond that they do not know about their benefits than Gen Xers. For example, Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers to respond that they do not know if they are offered cancer insurance, long-term care insurance, a pension plan, and stock options (Figure 5).

Participation in various employee benefit programs is also generally lower among Millennials than among Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, when workers are offered the benefit. While there is no difference in participation by age cohort for health insurance participation, differences are very small for dental and vision insurance, and participation in the following benefit programs is lower among Millennials: pension plan, retirement savings plan, stock options, health insurance for early retirees, disability insurance, life insurance, accidental death or dismemberment, critical illness, and pre-paid legal (Figure 6). Millennials and Gen Xers report that they are more likely than Baby Boomers to have supplemental health insurance for retirees on Medicare, long-term care insurance, home health insurance, pet insurance, and auto insurance.

It is not surprising that Millennials are generally less likely than Gen Xers and Baby Boomers to be engaged in employee benefits. When it comes to understanding the advantages of voluntary benefits, Millennials are less likely to report the advantages as strong advantages, and are more likely to report them as moderate advantages (Figure 7).

Confidence and Decision Support Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to be extremely confident in their ability to make informed decisions about benefits (Figure 8). However, Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers and Gen Xers to be extremely likely to use an employer-provided, independent, third-party benefits provider, when provided at no cost (Figure 9), and more likely to take advantage of online programs (Figure 10). Despite the higher confidence levels and interest in using employer-provided resources to make decisions about benefits, Millennials are more likely than Gen Xers and Baby Boomers to report that offering separate open enrollment periods for health insurance and other employee benefits would be useful. More than four in 10 Millennials report that separate open enrollment periods would be useful (12 percent extremely useful; 31 percent very useful), compared with about 29 percent among Baby Boomers, and 34 percent among Gen Xers (Figure 11).

Despite their younger ages, Millennials are more likely to be very confident that they have enough money saved to cover expenses if a significant illness or accident caused them to be out of work (Figure 12). However, Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomers to report that being out of work will cause great hardship (data not shown).

Baby Boomers Generation X MillennialsA health savings account (HSA) that comes with a health insurance plan 7% 9% 10%Traditional pension, defined benefit, or cash balance plan 7 9 14Retirement savings plan, such as a 401(k), 403(b), 457 or profit sharing plan 2 3 3Stock options 5 8 12Supplemental health insurance for retirees on Medicare 25 32 32Health insurance for early retirees 28 36 34Long-term disability 11 19 16Short-term disability 9 13 12Long-term care insurance 16 23 25Life insurance 3 5 7Dental insurance 1 4 3Vision insurance 3 4 5Supplemental health insurance for workers 23 28 27Accident insurance 21 25 24Accidental death or dismemberment insurance 13 18 19Critical illness insurance 23 31 29Cancer insurance 23 32 33Home health insurance 28 35 33Pet insurance 5 8 8Pre-paid legal services 8 11 12Homeowners insurance 5 8 8Auto insurance 4 7 7

Baby Boomers Generation X MillennialsHealth insurance 85% 86% 84%A health savings account (HSA) that comes with a health insurance plan 40 37 45Traditional pension, defined benefit, or cash balance plan 80 65 63Retirement savings plan, such as a 401(k), 403(b), 457 or profit sharing plan 88 81 78Stock options 53 54 48Supplemental health insurance for retirees on Medicare 11 21 21Health insurance for early retirees 18 27 14Long-term disability 65 66 50Short-term disability 69 67 51Long-term care insurance 16 32 28Life insurance 80 77 65Dental insurance 81 83 77Vision insurance 76 75 74Supplemental health insurance for workers 31 22 32Accident insurance 43 40 39Accidental death or dismemberment insurance 61 64 51Critical illness insurance 31 28 26Cancer insurance 27 33 24Home health insurance 17 29 40Pet insurance 8 15 41Pre-paid legal services 40 43 29Auto insurance 38 26 47Homeowners insurance 33 31 35Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald & Associates, 2015 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey.

Figure 5Percentage of Workers Who Do Not Know if Their Employer

Offered Them Benefits, by Age Cohort, 2015


Figure 6Percentage of Workers Participating in Various Benefits, Among Workers Offered the Benefit, by Age Cohort, 2015


49%

55%

43%

32%29%

33%

45%

49%

39%

34%

28%

33%

40%

46%

35%37%

31%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strong Advantage Strong Advantage Strong Advantage Moderate Advantage Moderate Advantage Moderate Advantage

You can choose whichbenefits you want to

purchase

Purchasing benefitsthrough your employer

may cost less thanpurchasing them on

your own

You may be able totake the benefits withyou when you leave

your employer

You can choose whichbenefits you want to

purchase

Purchasing benefitsthrough your employer

may cost less thanpurchasing them on

your own

You may be able totake the benefits withyou when you leave

your employer

Figure 7Select Advantages of Voluntary Benefits, by Age Cohort, 2015



23%

52%

22%

2%0%

24%

45%

25%

4%

1%

26%

46%

24%

3%1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Extremely Confident Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not too Confident Not at all Confident

Figure 8Confidence in Ability to Make Informed Decisions

About Employee Benefits, by Age Cohort, 2015




17%

35% 34%

11%

3%

16%

36% 36%

10%

2%

20%

34%33%

9%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not too Likely Not at all Likely

Figure 9Likelihood of Using Employer-Provided, Independent, Third-Party Benefits Provider, When Provided at No Cost, by Age Cohort, 2015


Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald & Associates, 2015 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey

17%

34%

36%

10%

3%

17%

38%

36%

8%

2%

20%

45%

28%

4%3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not too Likely Not at all Likely

Figure 10Likelihood of Using Employer-Provided Online Program,

When Provided at No Cost, by Age Cohort, 2015




8%

21%

32%

28%

12%

9%

25%

36%

22%

8%

12%

31%30%

21%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Extremely Useful Very Useful Somewhat Useful Not too Useful Not at all Useful

Figure 11Usefullness of Offering Separate Open Enrollment Periods for Health

Insurance and Other Employee Benefits, by Age Cohort, 2015


Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald & Associates, 2015 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey

8%

18%

36%

24%

15%

7%

17%

33%

22%

20%

8%

25%

27%

22%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Extremely Confident Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not too Confident Not at all Confident

Figure 12Confidence That Savings is Large Enough to Cover Expenses

Due to Significant Illness or Accident That Caused Work Disruption, by Age Cohort, 2015





Appendix―The 2015 WBS These findings are part of the 2015 EBRI/Greenwald & Associates Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey (WBS), which examines a broad spectrum of health care issues, including workers’ satisfaction with health care today, their confidence in the future of the health care system and the Medicare program, and their attitudes toward benefits in the workplace. The survey was conducted online June 10–19, 2015, using the Research Now consumer panel. A total of 1,500 workers in the United States ages 21–64 participated in the survey. The data are weighted by gender, age, and education to reflect the actual proportions in the employed population.

Previously published trend data from the EBRI/Greenwald & Associates Health Confidence Survey (HCS) may differ from those published in more recent reports as the prior data have been recut from the total adult population to match the survey population of the WBS: workers ages 21–64. In addition, comparisons of 2015 data with data from years prior to 2013 should be viewed with caution due to the move from telephone to online methodology in 2013.

No theoretical basis exists for judging the accuracy of estimates obtained from non-probability samples such as the one used for the WBS. However, there are possible sources of error in all surveys (both probability and non-probability) that may affect the reliability of survey results. These include imperfect sampling frames, refusals to be interviewed and other forms of nonresponse, the effects of question wording and question order, interviewer bias, and screening. While attempts are made to minimize these factors, it is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from them.

The WBS is co-sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization, and Greenwald & Associates, a Washington, DC-based market research firm. The 2015 WBS data collection was funded by grants from eight private organizations. Staffing was donated by EBRI and Greenwald & Associates. WBS materials and a list of underwriters may be accessed at the EBRI website: www.ebri.org/surveys/hcs/

References Pew Research Center. "Millennials in Adulthood: Detached from Institutions, Networked with Friends." 2014.

Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. Harper Perennial, 1991.

1100 13th Street NW · Suite 878 Washington, DC 20005

(202) 659-0670 www.ebri.org

www.choosetosave.org

Where the world turns for the facts on U.S. employee benefits. Retirement and health benefits are at the heart of workers’, employers’, and our nation’s economic security. Founded in 1978, EBRI is the most authoritative and objective source of information on these critical, complex issues. EBRI focuses solely on employee benefits research — no lobbying or advocacy.

EBRI stands alone in employee benefits research as an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization. It analyzes and reports research data without spin or underlying agenda. All findings, whether on financial data, options, or trends, are revealing and reliable — the reason EBRI information is the gold standard for private analysts and decision makers, government policymakers, the media, and the public.

EBRI explores the breadth of employee benefits and related issues.

EBRI studies the world of health and retirement benefits — issues such as 401(k)s, IRAs, retirement income adequacy, consumer-driven benefits, Social Security, tax treatment of both retirement and health benefits, cost management, worker and employer attitudes, policy reform proposals, and pension assets and funding. There is widespread recognition that if employee benefits data exist, EBRI knows it.

EBRI delivers a steady stream of invaluable research and analysis.

EBRI publications include in-depth coverage of key issues and trends; summaries of research findings and policy developments; timely factsheets on hot topics; regular updates on legislative and regulatory developments; comprehensive reference resources on benefit programs and workforce issues; and major surveys of public attitudes.

EBRI meetings present and explore issues with thought leaders from all sectors. EBRI regularly provides congressional testimony, and briefs policymakers, member organizations,

and the media on employer benefits. EBRI issues press releases on newsworthy developments, and is among the most widely quoted

sources on employee benefits by all media. EBRI directs members and other constituencies to the information they need and undertakes new

research on an ongoing basis. EBRI maintains and analyzes the most comprehensive database of 401(k)-type programs in the

world. Its computer simulation analyses on Social Security reform and retirement income adequacy are unique.

EBRI makes information freely available to all.

EBRI assumes a public service responsibility to make its findings completely accessible at www.ebri.org — so that all decisions that relate to employee benefits, whether made in Congress or board rooms or families’ homes, are based on the highest quality, most dependable information. EBRI’s Web site posts all research findings, publications, and news alerts. EBRI also extends its education and public service role to improving Americans’ financial knowledge through its award-winning public service campaign ChoosetoSave® and the companion site www.choosetosave.org

EBRI is supported by organizations from all industries and sectors that appreciate the value of unbiased, reliable information on employee benefits. Visit www.ebri.org/about/join/ for more.

CHECK OUT EBRI’S WEBSITE! EBRI’s website is easy to use and packed with useful information! Look for these special features:

• EBRI’s entire library of research publications starts at the main Web page. Click on EBRI Issue Briefs and EBRI Notes for our in-depth and nonpartisan periodicals.

• Visit EBRI’s blog.

• EBRI’s reliable health and retirement surveys are just a click away through the topic boxes at the top of the page.

• Need a number? Check out the EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits.

• Instantly get e-mail notifications of the latest EBRI data, surveys, publications, and meetings and seminars by clicking on the “Notify Me” or “RSS” buttons at the top of our home page.

There’s lots more!

Visit EBRI online today: www.ebri.org

Established in 1978, the Employee BenefitResearch Institute (EBRI) is the only independent nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed exclusively to datadissemination, research, and education oneconomic security and employee benefits.

The Institute seeks to advance the public’s,the media’s and policymakers’ knowledgeand understanding of employee benefits andtheir importance to our nation’s economy.

EBRI’s mission is to contribute to, toencourage, and to enhance the developmentof sound employee benefit programs andsound public policy through objectiveresearch and education.

EBRI has earned widespread regard as an organization that “tells it like it is,”based on the facts. As the Bylaws state:“In all its activities, the Institute shallfunction strictly in an objective and unbiased manner and not as an advocateor opponent of any position.”

EBRI Employee Benefit Research Institute Notes (ISSN 10854452) is published monthly by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC 20005-4051, at $300 per year or is included as part of a membership subscription. Periodicals postage rate paid in Washington, DC, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: EBRI Notes, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC 20005-4051. Copyright 2015 by Employee Benefit Research Institute. All rights reserved, Vol. 36, no. 12.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) was founded in 1978. Its mission is to contribute to, to encourage, and to enhance the development of sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education. EBRI is the only private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, Washington, DC-based organization committed exclusively to public policy research and education on economic security and employee benefit issues. EBRI’s membership includes a cross-section of pension funds; businesses; trade associations; labor unions; health care providers and insurers; government organizations; and service firms.

EBRI’s work advances knowledge and understanding of employee benefits and their importance to the nation’s economy among policymakers, the news media, and the public. It does this by conducting and publishing policy research, analysis, and special reports on employee benefits issues; holding educational briefings for EBRI members, congressional and federal agency staff, and the news media; and sponsoring public opinion surveys on employee benefit issues. EBRI’s Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) performs the charitable, educational, and scientific functions of the Institute. EBRI-ERF is a tax-exempt organization supported by contributions and grants.

EBRI Issue Briefs are periodicals providing expert evaluations of employee benefit issues and trends, as well as critical analyses of employee benefit policies and proposals. EBRI Notes is a monthly periodical providing current information on a variety of employee benefit topics. EBRIef is a weekly roundup of EBRI research and insights, as well as updates on surveys, studies, litigation, legislation and regulation affecting employee benefit plans, while EBRI’s Blog supplements our regular publications, offering commentary on questions received from news reporters, policymakers, and others. The EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits is a statistical reference work on employee benefit programs and work force-related issues.

Contact EBRI Publications, (202) 659-0670; fax publication orders to (202) 775-6312. Subscriptions to EBRI Issue Briefs are included as part of EBRI membership, or as part of a $199 annual subscription to EBRI Notes and EBRI Issue Briefs. Change of Address: EBRI, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC, 20005-4051, (202) 659-0670; fax number, (202) 775-6312; e-mail: [email protected] Membership Information: Inquiries regarding EBRI membership and/or contributions to EBRI-ERF should be directed to EBRI President Harry Conaway at the above address, (202) 659-0670; e-mail: [email protected]

Editorial Board: Dallas L. Salisbury, publisher; Stephen Blakely, editor. Any views expressed in this publication and those of the authors should not be ascribed to the officers, trustees, members, or other sponsors of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, the EBRI Education and Research Fund, or their staffs. Nothing herein is to be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the adoption of any pending legislation, regulation, or interpretative rule, or as legal, accounting, actuarial, or other such professional advice.

EBRI Notes is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. ISSN: 10854452 10854452/90 $ .50+.50

© 2015, Employee Benefit Research InstituteEducation and Research Fund. All rights reserved.

Who we are

What we do

Our publications

Orders/ Subscriptions

Documents

Worker Opinions About Employee Benefits: Differences Among