AHS AND L ATER -L IFE M OBILITY Miranda Dietz & Larry A. Rosenthal Goldman School of Public Policy UC-Berkeley.

AHS AND LATER-LIFE MOBILITY

Miranda Dietz & Larry A. RosenthalGoldman School of Public Policy

UC-Berkeley

MOTIVATION:AGING-IN-PLACE AND REAL ESTATE MARKETS

• Boomers Are Different! No Sun City for Us

• Hunch: Census Data Too Shallow To Capture Genuine Mobility Trends

• Exploration: Can AHS Longitudinal Structure For Housing Units Shed More Light?

STRATEGY FOR CAPTURING MOBILITY IN AHS

• Ask All Householders in 2009:“When Did You Move In To This Place?”

• Believe Their Answer! (Trust Recollection By Year)• More Important: Trust Recollection By Month• Problem: Don’t Know How Long Current

Respondent Will Stay In The Future (“Right Censoring”)

• Solution: Use Prior Biannual AHS Draws, By Unit, To Observe Completed Stays (“Backtracking”)

• Concern: We Might Be Undersampling Short Stays (E.g., Arrivals-Departures Between Surveys)

“BACKTRACKING”

AHS MOBILITY: DIFFERENT STORY

AVERAGE DURATIONS (HH-ERS OVER 40)

DISPERSION OF DURATION (HH-ERS OVER 40)

MEDIAN DURATIONS BY GENERATION (MOVERS AND NON-MOVERS)

COMPARING MOVERS AND “STAYERS”

MOBILITY OVER AGE 40

EXAMPLE OF LIFE TABLE (DURATION OF STAY)

CLOSING THOUGHTS

• Mobility vs. “Aging-In-Place”:AHS Provides A Unique Glimpse

• Causes For Later-Life Duration Choice:More Complicated– Boomers Constrained By Reduced

Savings, The Great Recession, AndThe Changing Nature of Work

• Additional Research:– Generation-Mixing (“Hosting”)– Retirement vs. Continuing Labor-Market

Attachment

THANK YOU.

HTTP://URBANPOLICY.BERKELEY.EDU