How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
The U.S. population is aging at such a rate that within a few years, older Americans will outnumber the country’s children for the first time, according to census projections. But rising rents, health care and other living costs mean that for many entering their retirement years, balancing the household budget can be a struggle.
To get a better understanding of how much of a struggle, a team at the University of Massachusetts Boston established a benchmark against which to measure the financial security of Americans aged 65 and over. Jan Mutchler is Professor of Gerontology and Director of the Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging in the Gerontology Institute at UMass.
What is the Elder Index?
Jan Mutchler: The Elder Index is a measure looking at how much income is needed for older people to maintain independence and meet their daily living costs while staying in their own homes. It is based on the bare-bones budgets of singles and couples aged 65 or over. For 2019, we found that the average income needed by an older individual in rental housing to meet all basic needs was $25,416, and for a couple in rental housing it was $36,204. The index breaks this figure down county by county.
Why did you create it?
Mutchler: The brainchild of researchers at the Gerontology Institute at UMass Boston, including myself, the index was created to provide a realistic benchmark for what it costs older people to get by and remain independent. It can help guide and support the development of policies meant to promote the well-being of older adults and also serve as a financial planning tool for older people and their families to help alleviate economic insecurity.
How does economic insecurity differ from poverty?
Mutchler: The federal poverty line is widely used to summarize hardship and insecurity, but we know that the benchmark is way below what an adequate lifestyle requires. The Elder Index defines economic security as the income level at which older people can cover basic and necessary living expenses without relying on loans, gifts or income support programs like food subsidies and housing assistance. It is also uniquely focused on thresholds specific to older adults’ expenses.
What are the major living costs faced by older Americans?
Mutchler: Housing and health care top the list. Medical bills in particular can be very expensive, especially as people move into their 70s and 80s and encounter chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment and medications. For couples, health care is especially costly — there is no family plan for Medicare, meaning couples pay twice the individual rate. Social Security plays a critical role in meeting these costs. Many older people also draw on pensions, savings or other assets to pay the bills or continue to work into later life, at least on a part-time basis. But even so, a significant number of older Americans are forced to make ends meet by holding back on the health care they need, going into debt, or using other strategies that do not support health and well-being.
How big a problem is economic insecurity among the elderly?
Mutchler: Our research shows that in 2019, half of older Americans living on their own lacked the income needed to pay for their basic needs, as did 23% of couples. Taken together, we estimate that more than 10 million people aged 65 or older and living independently have incomes below the Elder Index. In short, it is a big problem.
Who are most financially vulnerable among Americans over 65?
Mutchler: Older people in regions with low average incomes, such as in Mississippi and Louisiana, are vulnerable. But there is also a problem in more affluent areas that have seen jumps in the cost of living and housing, such as in parts of Massachusetts and Vermont, and notably in the San Francisco area. Older people who live alone also tend to be at higher risk. To some extent, this just reflects economies of scale in their household budgets. But people living alone are also more likely to be women and are older on average, which would also put them at a higher risk. It is important to note that the vulnerability seen in later life is a reflection of lifelong disparities in the ability to earn an adequate wage, accumulate Social Security credits and save for retirement. For these reasons, women and older people of color both are more likely to be at risk.
What measures can be taken to better support older Americans?
Mutchler: Any effort has to include protecting and enhancing our Social Security system, as many older people rely on it for most or all of their income. Likewise Medicare, which forms the basis for receiving medical care for nearly all older Americans. Meanwhile, subsidies and benefits targeting low-income older people can really help. But these programs need to be widened, as typically the only people eligible are at or very near poverty levels, rather than being economically insecure. Communities, too, need to better promote economic security through affordable senior housing and making sure older residents receive the benefits available to them. Finally, we really need more conversations about what the true cost of retirement living is and how people can plan for that. At present, people are not adequately informed. As a result, too many people enter retirement without financial security.
[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]
Jan Mutchler, Professor, Department of Gerontology, McCormack Graduate School Director, Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging, Gerontology Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The kennels also have many dogs that need to be reunited with their owners. To find the lost/found pet section, click here.
The following dogs are ready for adoption.
‘Blue’
“Blue” is a male Staffordshire Bull Terrier mix with a short blue and white coat.
He has been neutered.
He is dog No. 2420.
‘Burke’
“Burke” is a male Labrador Retriever with a short black coat with white markings.
He has been neutered.
He is dog No. 2628.
‘Charlotte’
“Charlotte” is a female Akita mix.
She is dog No. 3040.
‘Clarice’
“Clarice” is a female German Shepherd mix puppy.
She has been spayed.
She is dog No. 3402.
‘Deejay’
“Deejay” is a female German Shepherd mix with a short tan and white coat.
She is dog No. 3413.
‘Fable’
“Fable” is a female Alaskan Malamute mix with a brown and buff coat.
She is dog No. 3044.
‘Linus’
“Linus” is a male Staffordshire Bull Terrier mix with a short gray and white coat.
He is dog No. 3255.
‘Precious’
“Precious” is a female Staffordshire Bull Terrier with a short black coat.
She is dog No. 3268.
‘Roxy’
“Roxy” is a female Miniature Pinscher with a short red coat.
She is dog No. 3406.
‘Woodrow’
“Woodrow” is a male Staffordshire Bull Terrier with a black and white coat.
He is dog No. 3281.
Clearlake Animal Control’s shelter is located at 6820 Old Highway 53, off Airport Road.
Hours of operation are noon to 4 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday. The shelter is closed Sundays, Mondays and major holidays; the shelter offers appointments on the days it’s closed to accommodate people.
Call the Clearlake Animal Control shelter at 707-273-9440, or email
Visit Clearlake Animal Control on Facebook or at the city’s Web site.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
The National Weather Service said dry weather returns from Thursday through Saturday with milder temperatures.
There also is the potential for north winds with gusts of up to 30 miles per hour on Thursday and milder wind conditions on Friday.
The forecast calls for a dry start to the new year, with warmer temperatures for New Year’s week.
The specific Lake County forecast calls for predominantly dry and clear conditions through New Year’s Day, with the exception of Sunday, when there is a chance of showers.
Daytime temperatures are forecast to rise from the high 40s to the high 50s over the course of the next week, with nighttime temperatures ranging from the low to high 30s.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
SB 395 - Chapter 869 (Archuleta), also known as the "Wildlife Traffic Safety Act," was enacted with the intent to eventually make available for utilization the roadkill meat of deer, elk, pronghorn antelope or wild pig.
However, the legislative language does not permit the general public collection and utilization of roadkill animals, but rather authorizes development of a program for what the bill describes as "salvageable wild game meat."
Such a program is not yet in place, contrary to many news articles and social media traffic.
SB 395 only authorizes the California Fish and Game Commission to adopt regulations, in consultation with the California Department of Transportation, California Highway Patrol and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, to establish such a salvageable wild game meat utilization program.
It would mandate any such program to include a permit and a reporting process.
"Many Californians think it will be legal to possess and utilize roadkill on Jan. 1, which is the technical effective date of the Wildlife Traffic Safety Act, but that's not the case," said David Bess, CDFW Deputy Director and Chief of the Law Enforcement Division. "There is no collection or utilization program in place. We are trying to avoid any confusion by misinformed citizens who think it is lawful to collect roadkill animals."
In addition, SB 395 authorizes CDFW to create a roadkill reporting database to help wildlife managers identify the places where wildlife/vehicle collisions are most common.
Data from such a reporting system could support wildlife conservation efforts conducted through regional conservation investment strategies. That program is also not yet in place.
However, the University of California, Davis has a public reporting system called the California Roadkill Observation System, or CROS, that is currently operational.
Any citizen can contribute roadkill data and photos to CROS, either anonymously or as a registered user.
The CHP Registration Enforcement and Guidance, or CHP REG, program replaces the Californians Help Eliminate All The Evasive Registration Scofflaws, or CHEATERS, program.
Since the program’s inception in 2004, the CHP has recovered approximately $26 million in registration fees.
In 2018, the CHP surpassed $3.2 million in recovered fees from residents avoiding California registration.
“California loses millions of dollars in revenue every year from vehicles being unlawfully registered in other states or countries,” CHP Commissioner Warren Stanley said. “This program relies on the public’s input to support our investigators in returning funding to the state. Recovered registration fees are important to the California economy and are invested back into local communities.”
The CHP REG program focuses on residents who register their vehicles out-of-state while living or working in California and operate those vehicles on California’s roadways.
The primary goal of the program is to obtain voluntary registration compliance through education, but, when necessary, enforcement action is taken.
California vehicle registration through the Department of Motor Vehicles is required within 20 days of establishing residency and for all vehicles primarily operated in the state.
The CHP encourages members of the public to report vehicles driven on a regular basis on California roadways with out-of-state registration to the CHP REG program Web site at https://www.chp.ca.gov/Notify-CHP/CHP-REG-(Out-of-State-Registration-Violators) .
When reporting a suspected violator, it is important to include: state of the plate, license plate number, date and time observed, where observed, make, model, vehicle color, and any additional identifying comments.
In 2018, more than 24,000 tips were reported to the website, leading directly to cases investigated by CHP personnel and dedicated senior volunteers.
The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of safety, service and security.
In the U.S., rich people tend to eat a lot healthier than poor people.
Because poor diets cause obesity, Type II diabetes and other diseases, this nutritional inequality contributes to unequal health outcomes. The richest Americans can expect to live 10-15 years longer than the poorest.
Many think that a key cause of nutritional inequality is food deserts – or neighborhoods without supermarkets, mostly in low-income areas. The narrative is that folks who live in food deserts are forced to shop at local convenience stores, where it’s hard to find healthy groceries. If we could just get a supermarket to open in those neighborhoods, the thinking goes, then people would be able to eat healthy.
The data tell a strikingly different story.
Negligible change
We recently studied the impact of opening supermarkets in food deserts in research conducted with fellow economists Rebecca Diamond, Jessie Handbury and Ilya Rahkovsky.
From 2004 to 2016, over 1,000 supermarkets opened in neighborhoods around the country that previously had been food deserts. We analyzed the grocery purchases of a sample of 10,000 households living in those neighborhoods.
Did they start to buy healthier food after the supermarket opened nearby?
Although many people began shopping at the new local supermarket after it opened, they generally didn’t buy healthier food. We can statistically conclude that the effect on healthy eating from opening new supermarkets was negligible at best. We calculated that local access to supermarkets explains no more than about 1.5% of the difference in healthy eating between low- and high-income households.
How could this be?
Why food deserts aren’t the problem
The food desert narrative suggests the lack of supply of healthy foods is what causes reduced demand for them.
But in the modern economy, stores have become amazingly good at selling us exactly the kinds of things we want to buy. Our research suggests the opposite narrative: Lower demand for healthy food is what causes the lack of supply.
Furthermore, local neighborhood conditions don’t matter much, since we regularly venture outside our neighborhoods. We calculate that the average American travels 5.2 miles to shop. Low-income households aren’t that different: They travel 4.8 miles.
Given that we’re willing to travel that far, we tend to shop in supermarkets even if there isn’t one down the street. We found that even people who live in ZIP codes without a supermarket still buy 85% of their groceries from supermarkets.
Tax sugar, subsidize produce
In other words, people don’t suddenly go from shopping at an unhealthy convenience store to shopping at the new, healthy supermarket. In reality, people go from shopping at a faraway supermarket to shopping at a new supermarket that offers the same types of groceries.
To be clear, new grocery stores do provide many benefits. In many neighborhoods, new retail can bring jobs, a place to see neighbors and a sense of revitalization. People who live nearby get more options and don’t have to travel as far to shop.
But the data show that healthier eating is not one of those benefits.
Instead, we would recommend tweaking prices as a better approach to encouraging healthier habits. Taxes on sugary drinks can discourage their consumption, while food-stamp programs could be modified to make fruits and vegetables cheaper.
And, given that we develop long-term eating habits as children, parents and schools can encourage kids to eat healthier.
Health inequality is one of our society’s most important problems. We hope that this research can direct efforts toward ideas that can materially improve health – and away from ideas that do not.
Hunt Allcott, Associate Professor of Economics, New York University; Jean-Pierre Dubé, Sigmund E. Edelstone Professor of Marketing, University of Chicago, and Molly Schnell, Assistant Professor of Economics, Northwestern University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.