OVERVIEW

PRESENTATIONS BEGIN APRIL 10 COMING UP IN APRIL: HOUSING DECISIONS FOR THE ELDERLY

SYLLABUS

Key to Boyd and Bee Chapters 15 and 16.

Ah....middle age...spread? Presbyopia? Wrinkles? Crisis?

Is 50 really the new 30?

Maybe so! The "average" (type of average not specified but probably median) American male born in 2008 could be expected to live nearly to age 76 and his female counterpart nearly to age 81. This compares quite favorably with median longevity of approximately 54 (female) and 55 (male) years of age during the 1920s.

Longevity has continued to increase and there is some indication that Black and White differences in age at death are decreasing:

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012.

Recall that these overall estimates include individuals who died in infancy or at very young ages (Black infant mortality is higher than White). More specialized life tables that estimate longevity for those who have survived to specific ages differ and racial differences narrow even further (my data are from Statistical Abstracts 2012, Tables 105 and 106 for age specific estimates). For example, in 2008, White males who had already lived to age 50 could expect to survive on the average to age 79; comparable average longevity for Black 50 year old males in 2008 was age 76. 50 year old White females in 2008 could expect on the average to survive to age 83 while 50 year old Black females in 2004 could expect on the average to survive to age 81.

So maybe 50 is the new 30 after all. And, most of us survive to at least middle age.

PHYSICAL ASPECTS

Much is made of the vicissitudes and "deteriorations" of middle age, defined as stretching approximately from age 40 to age 60. And, there is no denying that physical changes occur, many of them for the worse. At the same time, many individuals experience relatively few problems with these changes and others, especially women, become more comfortable with their physical identity and less concerned about living up to media proclamations of "beauty".

WHAT HAPPENS TO MOST OF US?

Our metabolisms do generally and gradually slow down as we age, and for some of us this means putting on weight. Pregnancy, hormones, and menopause can also influence weight and the distribution of weight for women. Men often develop a "paunch" around the waist.

Brittle bones and osteoporosis become potential problems during middle age for women after menopause (the average is around age 50, but perimenopause occurs prior to that). Men also develop osteoporosis but typically later than women due to thicker bones and a more gradual drop in testosterone than women experience with estrogen and progesterone.

Our muscles become more flaccid and we begin to look somewhat more "blubbery".

Regular exercise obviously can, during middle age, and to some extent even into old age, influence our metabolism, muscular structure and (if not overdone among women) prevent osteoporosis as well as weight gain. Remember the late Jack LaLane!

Most middle aged people experience presbyopia, or the stiffening of the muscles and lenses in the eyes, making it difficult to focus on small print close up (I always caution students submitting manuscripts for publication and conference consideration to avoid very small fonts--after all, who do you think reads these materials but--generally--the middle-aged?) Some also begin to experience cataracts, where the lens of the eye becomes cloudy and opaque (more prevalent among those with considerable sun exposure--without sunglasses). Hearing declines too although not as dramatically, and, whereas most of us will notice when we must hold the newspaper further and further away to read the print (presbyopia), we often don't notice hearing loss until someone else tells us.

We lose our hair--on our heads (especially men), but also in other areas of our bodies. We get wrinkles and age-related "liver spots" on our skin.

I know...this really all sounds like something to look forward to...

Fertility declines steeply among women and more gradually among men during the early part of middle age. On the other hand, more women in their early 40s are bearing children, although the numbers are still relatively small. Births to unmarried mothers in their 40s have also risen slightly. For example, 131,000 women of all marital statuses aged 40-44 years old (the oldest level where the Census collects statistics to date) gave birth in 2010 compared with 77,000 women in 1990. In fact, the Census is now (finally?) gathering birth data on women aged 45 to 54! In contrast, the number of births among teenage girls dropped steeply, from 521,826 in 1990 to 409,840 in 2009 and the teenage girl birth rate dropped from 59.9 per 1000 in 1990 to 39.1 per 1000 in 2009.
 

Obviously "late parenthood" extends parenthood way past the time it used to do, with many social ramifications. And, of course, if we did not have increased longevity, women didn't even live long enough on the average to become parents in our 40s. For example, 150 years ago, American women on the average died before age 50. In fact, many people didn't live long enough to become grandparents.

Although most women have some menopausal symptoms (e.g., "night sweats," hot flashes, vaginal dryness), three-quarters do not see these as very uncomfortable and most women do not take replacement hormones (this was true even prior to 2002 when U.S. government experimental data through the Women's Health Initiative began to indicate that rather than making one "feminine forever",  hormone replacement therapy or HRT could be a causal factor in heart disease, stroke, or certain types of cancers). At its highest peak, no more than 30% of post-menopausal women were estimated to be taking HRT. Decreases in male and female sex hormones are one factor contributing to slower metabolisms, weight gain, shape changes, and osteoporosis among the mid to late middle aged.

Death rates begin to rise, especially for males, and in they rise in the cases where lifestyles contribute to illness. You can see the phenomenon that my mother used to refer to (she was widowed in her early 60s) as the "Widow's Table" at celebratory events, such as weddings, in the table below. as I noted in class, sex differences in death rates begin to climb in the teens and do not really converge until individuals survive into their 80s.

However, it is important to note that death rates in most age groups continue to drop, even from 2007 to 2008!

I mentioned above the death rates (and possibly children's health) due to lifestyles--and these occur more among middle aged men than middle aged women. Until the 1980s, for example, men were more likely to smoke and still are more likely to drink, especially to drink heavily. Both smoking and drinking (as well as the use of illegal substances, also more common among men) contribute to the two generic leading causes of death which rise steeply in middle age: cardio-vascular illness and various carcinomas. Deaths due to HIV or AIDS are still a small relative number in recent years but projections are this rate will climb. See the Dr. Gupta's interpretation about the recent news release about changes in breast cancer rates:
 

Well, now that we are all good and depressed about the physical changes that occur at midlife, let's turn to the cognitive and social ones. For many of us, these are cause for far more elation, especially if our physical health is reasonably good.

Yes, toward the end of the midlife period, toward age 60, there is some "discernable loss" of short term memory--where are those keys? And where did I put the car in this vast parking lot? It's unclear, however, whether at this point, how much of the loss is really noticeable, or whether uneasy midlifers are simply more apt to notice these memory slips than those at earlier ages might because of fears about potential dementia or Alzheimer's (and for a relatively unfortunate few in this age group, symptoms of both begin to occur).

On the other hand, midlife can be a time of tremendous cognitive and social growth, even of risk-taking for the lucky ones.

Many tasks requiring any kind of cognitive skill at this point are practically automatic. "Everyone knows" how to operate the car, the washing machine, the TV remote control (maybe), use Roberts Rules of Order, and the obsolete operating system on the home computer. Thus, these tasks fade into autotomacity. Although it may take midlifers a bit longer to learn new cognitive skills, once learned, there is little, if any, age difference in performance. And those are key findings.

Many midlifers, taking advantage of their automatic knowledge, learn new skills (translation: we get a little bored and intellectual challenges can be fun). According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, about one-half of American adults enroll in some kind of course or training each year. Some of these may be training or workshops on the job, some may be hobby courses at the local community center, but over three million adults aged 35 or older were enrolled in post-secondary degree programs at colleges, schools and universities in 2005 (the latest date for which reliable large national datasets are available.) In research I did while at the NCES in 2009, I found that adults with less formal education were more likely to take any level of course, especially in technology, than those with more formal education.

Tasks and occupations related to leadership reach their zenith in this age group. Many midlifers become head of their division, store, company, or become self-employed by choice. For those in professional and managerial jobs, the midlifer may be at the pinnacle of his or her career success. A certain number voluntarily change careers (see gender issues, below). Those involved in volunteer work often rise to lead their organizations.

Many, perhaps even most, of midlifers have assembled a "surrogate family" by this time of relatives by blood or marriage (including their children's marriages), neighbors, coworkers, and friends. Of course, the level and kind of support can differ by social role; we wouldn't expect coworkers to necessarily assist with family functions (although many do). However, the net effect is to provide a potential support network for the midlifer both in times of happiness (who do you invite to your son's wedding?) or sorrow (e.g., widowhood).

For those who married in their 20s and/or who had children in their 20s and early to mid 30s, many of these children are leaving for college or to create their own homes, a time of mixed, but largely positive, feelings for parents (see the Midlife Crisis, below). Studies of marital satisfaction consistently show that levels of satisfaction rise when children leave home, up to level approximating those of young married (see Boyd and Bee on "Marital Happiness").

On the other hand, socially, many of today's midlifers are part of the "sandwich generation." For those who had children in their 30s or even their 40s with elderly parents, many experience caregiver "role overload" with responsibilities for both their children and their parents. The "soccer mom" who races from work to take the children to extra-curricular activities to visiting elderly parents (there are "soccer dads" too) complains in national surveys about constantly feeling rushed and experiencing fatigue.
 

When her children were in elementary and high school, my cousin Caron, who fortunately could both afford to be and wanted to be a full-time mother, was also extremely active in volunteer work. After her children left to set up their own households, Caron entered the job market--she is now a highly successful fund raiser for a non-profit agency, getting paid for many of the activities she once did as a volunteer. At the same time, her husband, a successful professional, began taking singing lessons. Who knew, he had secretly craved a career in music?

Most of us have goals we harbor for our work and family lives, and by midlife, many of us have achieved at least some of them. Previously, for men, life success was assumed to be measured by career achievement, steady paid employment and a hefty salary. For women, it was assumed to be success as a daughter, wife and mother. It's unclear whether these assertions actually reflected real adult desires or social and behavioral scientists' assumptions about these adult desires--or even the expectations of significant others. It's unclear because even now, with the partial exception of studies of students at several levels, we tend to ask men much more about their career aspirations and women about their familial satisfactions. For example, some 20 years ago, in in-person interviews, several student interviewers and I asked a random sample of approximately 400 male and female adult Tallahasseans to rank the importance to them of meaningful paid work, a high income, a "meaningful philosophy of life", a happy family and other life goals. There were absolutely no sex differences in the rankings and 60% of both women and men rated "a happy family" in first place. This in a community with a high median level of adult education.

In any event, although most women--including married women with children at any age--in the early 21st century are in the labor market (either employed or seeking employment), women more often work part-time than men and are less often full-time, year-around workers. In the United States, women are the vast majority of parents receiving custody in cases of divorce and unmarried mothers overwhelmingly have child custody. Women are more often caretakers of senior parents than their brothers are. Studies of time use (OPTIONAL: see research by John Robinson at University of Maryland) indicate that wives put much more time into domestic work and child care than husbands do. Thus, regardless of attitudes, values, or aspirations, taking all the data together,  it's fairly safe to assume that American men devote more energy to paid employment and women to family care throughout much of the earlier portion of the adult lifespan, in part regardless of their felt desires.

At midlife, there is some indication of shifts in these gender patterns. The difference in the labor market rates between women and men after age 50 begins to narrow, in part because retirement rates for men have sharply increased after age 55 (this trend may not continue, see below). However, in addition, national surveys of adults suggest that midlife women express more interest in careers than at earlier ages, and some women return to school, earning baccalaureate and advanced degrees and taking new paid positions. Thus, current data suggest that women and men become more alike in employment patterns during midlife than before.

At about the same time, there is the suggestion, that, like my cousin Alan, men begin to explore avenues that they bypassed before in search of higher status jobs and more income at earlier ages, in part "to support a family." Sometimes the new avenue involves paid employment, but in a different field, possibly with less income. For example, there is a higher percentage of men in alternative pathways to teaching certifications for elementary and high school than there are currently enrolled as education undergraduates. Men begin to explore hobbies (singing lessons, perhaps?) and volunteer work as well. Men in second marriages often rearing a second family say they are spending more time with these children than they did with their "first family" of kids.

Thus, during midlife, women and men become more alike probably than they have been since high school. This raises the possibility that those couples who have remained together--or those who form new families in midlife--have the potential to enjoy more similar activities and more similar stresses than they did as young adult men and women.
 

 HOW MUCH OR HOW LONG WILL THESE TRENDS CONTINUE?

I hope by this time that you recognize that at least some lifespan shifts that are often attributed to aging processes may, in fact, result at least as much from birth cohort or "generation" (see also "The Midlife Crisis" below). We often erroneously assume that trends we observe in today's midlife and senior citizens will hold for future generations, including yours, as well. However, for findings that at least in part reflect generation or cohort, these assumptions may not hold. Below are a few examples that could affect any interpolation from current findings:

• Baby Boomers (and thereafter) grew up with lots of preventive medicine: vaccines for common childhood diseases (and measles among Gen Xers and chicken pox among Millennials should be forgotten trials for those who were vaccinated), vitamins, antibiotics from childhood on, and improved nutrition. Younger generations have eschewed smoking cigarettes, although drinking--especially binge drinking--is still problematic among today's youth. However, research released by the CDC in 2013 indicates that binge drinking is relatively frequent among those at midlife too! Relatively few Baby Boomers used "hard drugs" and fewer of more recent generations do. All this means that Baby Boomers and later cohorts have the possibility of a healthier midlife and old age than their parents and earlier generations had (although perhaps not the financial means to enjoy same). That could be why "50 is the new 30". (Or was it 40?)

• Many of today's seniors became grandparents during midlife. This occurred in part because marriage rates were high and age at first marriage was several years younger for both sexes among the Depression Era/World War Two "Lucky Few" children who came of age in the later 1940s and the 1950s than it has been for Baby Boomers and succeeding generations. This earlier generation not only married earlier but became parents at earlier ages than later generations, thus they became grandparents at an earlier age too.

• At the same time, today's midlifers are slightly more likely to become parents (see above on birth rates) during midlife instead of grandparents, extending "occupied parenthood" to later ages than previously. Whereas their parents entered their 50s relatively child free (I remember my parents taking postponed vacations, eating out a lot more), Baby Boomers and probably more recent generations given their later age at first marriage, now juggle kids and parental care. Take it from me, it really is fun to be a grandparent!

• Many of today's seniors have enjoyed employment perquisites that may no longer hold for more recent cohorts. (See Woody Carlson's 2008 book The Lucky Few.) For example, those over 68 in 2012 could retire and claim full social security benefits at age 65. However, early baby boomers must wait until age 66 plus to receive full social security, and later generations...well...must wait even later. Some current proposals want to raise the age of full social security to 69 or 70--for your generation. Today's seniors were more likely to receive full (paid) health insurance during employment, to have better (defined) retirement benefits, and retirement health insurance as part of those benefits (in addition to Medicare). As many Gen X and Millennial citizens have discovered, their employment benefits are not as good or as secure (although vesting in a pension--should it still exist by the time you retire--now generally occurs more quickly), and, indeed, their continuous employment security is not as good either as the current recession made clear. As a result of all these employment and employment-benefit related changes, Baby Boomers can't afford to retire as early as their parents or older brothers and sisters (see also savings, below) and are and anticipate working at paid jobs until later ages than earlier generations did. The 2008 financial situation saw "hits" to many retirement plans, especially to those heavily invested in stocks, although sizable recovery has occurred since then. It is likely that mandatory ages to begin withdrawing from retirement accounts will either change or be eliminated, since midlife and seniors who would begin withdrawing now have accounts that have shrunk in value.

• Baby Boomers have very low savings rates, lower than those of previous generations (Merrill Lynch among others collects data on this one). This again implies later retirement ages and more continuous part-time employment for this particular generation as well as more "belt-tightening" among soon to retire Boomers.

Like a whirlwind, the news of a new lifespan development stage hit the popular and professional media  in the early 1980s. Characterized by the phrase "is this all there is?" the idea of the "midlife crisis" gained almost instant popularity.

What is the "midlife crisis" supposed to encompass? Unlike Boyd and Bee's 20 year span of the midlife adult, "the crisis" covers a much more restricted and slightly different age range. Most writers located it anywhere from the late 30s to the very early 50s and most of the writings centered around males. The popular emphasis was on the midlife "crisee" trading in the old car for a shiny new red convertible (or perhaps a Harley motorcycle), trading in the old job for more glamorous work, and trading in the old wife for a more glamorous shiny young "trophy".

More seriously, the advent of middle age is supposed to spur an era of self-reflection in the individual. Self reflection, as all of us with very busy lives know, is, unfortunately, something of a time luxury, so for a moment, let's examine the assumptions behind this notion with some of the demographic realities:

Myth: The midlife individual has reached a certain pinacle of professional and/or managerial success. They have climbed that initial "mountain" of career achievement. Therefore, they are able for a little while, at least, to contemplate whether "this is all there is". Do they want grander career milestones? Do they want to sit back, watch TV sports and play golf? Or do they want a different career entirely? This is PARTLY true, but see below:

What we know: First, only about 40% of the American adult population has any kind of post-secondary degree, including vocational or Associate of Arts degrees (the percentage was much lower 25 years ago, too). Therefore it is doubtful that most midlife American men even have the luxury for this kind of navel-gazing, although a sizable minority might. Being a machine operative or assistant manager of a fast food outlet are not the kind of careers that provide the residual time and energy for this kind of deep thought, although they might provoke the occupational incumbant to seek further training.

Further, we know that most American women, especially in the 1980s, were crowded into what has been called "the pink collar ghetto" of clerical and retail sales work and the nursing, K-12 teaching and social work professions. Unless they have already climbed into administration, it is unlikely that these women, either, will have the leisure to "enjoy" a midlife crisis. During the age period delineated here, it is also likely that most of these women have children, possibly and simultaneously elderly parents, and have somewhat less continuous career histories than comparable men (see below).

What we know: First, the reaction of most parents when their children "leave the nest" is happiness and relief! Indeed, national studies of adults consistently indicate that parents are unhappy and family conflict often results when adult children return home following a marital or relationship breakup or financial difficulties, often bringing their own children with them (called "fledgling return", see research by Monica Boyd).

Second, in recent years, it is unlikely that most parents in their 30s or even middle 40s would have no children at home unless the nest was empty to begin with. When the first crop of baby boomers hit the 1960s, median age at first marriage was 20 for brides and 22 for grooms. Since that time, over the past 40 years, age at first marriage has shot up by 5 or 6 years for both sexes. Boomers and "Gen Xers" are also having children later than their parents did and having fewer children.

When the nest empties, most women don't experience depression. Either they join the labor force, opt for full-time instead of part-time jobs, or increase their time in hobbies or volunteer work.

What we know: oops--are we talking middle-aged Baby Boomers here? Remember! That's the group saving less and in more debt than previous generations.

 In other words, the demographics tell us that a relative minority of mid-lifers have the educational, financial or time resources to engage in a midlife crisis. If such a crisis is to "occur" at all, it will cover a relatively restricted group in the population. Similar to adolescence, where a certain level of financial security is needed so that adolescents can mull over their identities instead of taking jobs to help support their families, the midlife crisis needs affluence to feed it.

The midlifer is supposed to be evaluating his or her immediate circumstances, often with a disgruntled eye. The housewife may decide to return to college or take a job (NOTE: a lot of this, however, has been fueled by economic necessity, such as divorce or children entering college). Her husband may decide he wants to explore his feelings. Both may take a good hard look at their spouses and decide the marriage isn't working (reality: yes, divorce has risen among midlife couples--as it has for EVERY age group; but statistically, the "7 year itch" is still reality: the median age of the marriage at breakup is still 7 years). All of this is reportedly driven by the physical, emotional and social plateau hypothesized to occur in midlife.

What do the data tell us? Aging versus cohort issues

The General Social Survey has routinely surveyed probability samples of American adults since 1972. Among the "social indicator" topics it includes in the Survey core are a series of life satisfaction measures. Adults are asked their degree of satisfaction with their work, their families, their significant others, their hobbies, their neighborhoods and several other life dimensions.

If, in fact, Americans experience a midlife crisis, we should see the following patterns comparing age and birth cohort effects:

(1) There should be a dip in life satisfaction across several life domains such as family, work, or health from approximately the late 30s in age  through the early 50s. Adults should be less satisfied with different aspects of their lives than at earlier or later ages.

(2) Since the midlife crisis is postulated as a life stage, there should be comparatively small changes across birth cohort, that is, at the same ages, recent birth cohorts should look relatively the same at the same ages. No matter whether one is from "The Lucky Few," the "Baby Boom," or "Generation X," the late 30s through the early 50s should be times of travail.

Notice that we must track through age changes in several cohorts to draw these kinds of conclusions.

It's not how many people you study--In research published in 2007 and 2008, economists studied two million individuals worldwide (OPTIONAL: go to HERE and HERE to begin to track this study). Although the data records claim to span some 35 years, it's unclear whether generations could be tracked for 35 years in the 80 countries studied. Even international results should not convince you that generational effects are aging ones because important events, such as financial meltdown have hit globally since the early twentieth century.

When he studied several thousand adults over a 10 year period, Orville Brim a prominent researcher on adult socialization found no evidence of mid-life madness--instead, he found that generally midlife people were stable and happy.

So, at this point, the data are equivocal--midlife crisis or catching particular generations at particular times in their lives. Stay tuned for future research because the theoretical costs of a midlife crisis to families, individuals and societies are too important to ignore if true.

And what transpired in the General Social Survey data...

"Depression children", whom Carlson calls "the Lucky Few", who came of age during the 1930s Great Depression and World War II are generally VERY happy as adults, whether we catch them in their 30s, their 40s or thereafter.

"Baby Boomers" on the other hand, are miserable no matter what age we study them at.

"Gen Xers" are in between, not as miserable as Boomers nor as ecstatic as Depression era children.

In other words, the data don't show evidence for a generalized "midlife crisis" but do indicate that certain generations have more life satisfactions than other generations.

And, guess who were turning 35 about 1981 when early proponents of the midlife crisis began writing? Why, early Baby Boomers, of course.
 

Why should cohort make a difference? One author (Landon Y. Jones, Great Expectations) proposes that it's the difference between the expectations that we form as adolescents and young adults, and the familial and career world that we are about to enter. Depression era children and youth, subject to world war and financial trauma matured into adults during the golden economic era of the 1950s, when the world wide economy was expanding, fueled in part by the growing numbers of baby boom children. Their expectations were considerably lower than the financial bonanza they received.

Baby Boomers, on the other hand, grew up during the halicon 1950s and 1960s when jobs were plentiful, salaries relatively high, and benefits provided. Baby boom youth thus felt they had the leisure to "tune in," "drop out," and explore life, expecting to drop back in to a comparatively wealthy world. Unfortunately when these Boomers returned to the academic and economic world, they encountered exceptional job competition, inflation, stagflation, the beginnings of "outsourcing" and other economic ailments. In other words, their initial expectations were considerably higher than their adult realities. Thus, their continuing adult misery.

"Gen Xers" (birth dearthers) fall somewhere in between.

What's the moral of this story? The issue I have raised before: beware of age comparisons shown at a single point in time. They are confounded with generational or birth cohort issues. What you THINK you know about age may turn out to be something else entirely.
 
 
 

OVERVIEW

SYLLABUS

This page was built with Netscape Composer.
Susan Carol Losh March 1 2014