Senior Women Web

Blog

  • MetLife Mature Market Study: An $8.4 Trillion Boomer Inheritance

    The Baby Boomers, whose financial portfolios have been the focus of much discussion about poor economic prospects, may be finding a ray of hope in the distinct possibility that they will receive an inheritance, according to “The MetLife Study of Inheritance and Wealth Transfer to Baby Boomers.”

    The study, authored by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for the MetLife Mature Market Institute, reports that Boomers will inherit $8.4 trillion at 2009 levels. The median per person figure is $64,000. $2.4 trillion has already been received.

    The figures, drawn from national survey data, say the wealthiest Boomers will be given an average of $1.5 million, while those at the other end of the spectrum will be left $27,000, an amount that represents a larger percentage of the latter group’s overall wealth. Two-thirds of all Boomers stand to receive some inheritance over their lifetime.

    Additionally, the study reports that the Boomer cohort has or will receive a substantial sum from their parents while the older generation is still alive, increasing the total transfer of assets from $8.4 trillion to $11.6 trillion.

    Total household wealth for Americans of all ages amounted to $65.9 trillion in 2007 (adjusted to 2009 levels), making the Boomers’ inheritance a significant portion of total American wealth.

    Sandra Timmermann, Ed.D., director of the MetLife Mature Market Institute, cautions, however, “Regardless of the anticipated amount, any prospective inheritance is uncertain. Parents or grandparents who expect to leave a bequest may revise their plans based on fluctuations in their asset values. Wealth may be consumed by medical and long-term care costs, or simply by virtue of long life. In short, Boomer households should not count on an anticipated inheritance and forego the need for increased financial planning and retirement saving.”

    Other key findings of the study include:

    • Most Boomers will receive their inheritances in late middle age, upon the death of the surviving parent. To date, the overwhelming majority of inheritances are passed from parents to children (63% of inheritances and 74% of dollars); grandparents are the second most common source. Few Boomers now have living grandparents, but a majority have at least one living parent.
    • Although only 17% of Boomers had received an inheritance by 2007, two-thirds will eventually receive one. The incidence of receipt increases with income, but 50% or more of households at all income levels will eventually receive an inheritance.
    • Though high-wealth households receive much larger inheritances in dollar terms, these amounts represent a smaller share of their wealth — 22% for those in the top tenth compared to 64% for those in the second-to-bottom tenth.
    • Considering only past inheritances, the median amount Boomers received by 2007 — adjusted for inflation — is about the same as that received by the preceding 1927 – 1945 birth cohort at the same ages.

    “The MetLife Study of Inheritance and Wealth Transfer to Baby Boomers” may be downloaded from www.MatureMarketInstitute.com.

  • Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli?

    Three Professors Dissect Health Reform Debate
    101222_hlfac.jpg

    Professors George Annas, Wendy Mariner
    and Leonard Glantz (l to r)

    If the Obama administration is to prevail in enacting federal healthcare reform, it must provide “a persuasive limiting principle” to convince the Supreme Court that ruling in favor of the individual coverage mandate would not create a precedent for unlimited federal authority to require citizens to buy goods from private sellers, three BUSPH scholars argue in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Professors George Annas, Wendy Mariner and Leonard Glantz, of the Health Law, Bioethics and Human Rights Department at Boston University School of Public Health, say the Affordable Care Act has caused “constitutional turmoil” because of the “insistence by conservative legislators during the health care debate that any reform preserve the private insurance industry, which necessitated the addition of the individual mandate that is now being fought in the courts by similarly conservative forces.”

    “Why, for example, is there no constitutional fuss over Medicare, Medicaid, or veterans’ health care?” the authors ask. “These programs raise no constitutional issue because they are government benefit programs funded by taxes, and the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare.”

    Annas, Mariner and Glantz explore the debate over whether the government can require 30 million uninsured Americans to obtain coverage, noting that Congress has “never required anyone to buy a product from private industry.” They note that the Supreme Court has issued both narrow and expansive readings of the Commerce Clause, making it difficult to predict how the Court will view the requirements of healthcare legislation.

    “If the federal government can require people to buy insurance in order to keep premiums affordable, could it also require people to buy baby aspirin or a gym membership to keep those premiums affordable, on the theory that using these products reduces the use of health care services and thus insurance costs?” they ask. “Or, as Judge [Roger] Vinson asked at the December 16 oral arguments in Florida: ‘If they decide that everyone needs to eat broccoli,’ can Congress require everyone to buy broccoli?”

    Read the full text of the New England Journal of Medicine Perspective piece.

  • The Glum March of the Baby Boomers

    Survey Findings about America’s Largest Generation

    by D’Vera Cohn and Paul Taylor, Pew Research Center

    The iconic image of the Baby Boom generation is a 1960s-era snapshot of an exuberant, long-haired, rebellious young adult. That portrait wasn’t entirely accurate even then, but it’s hopelessly out of date now. This famously huge cohort of Americans finds itself in a funk as it approaches old age.

    On Jan. 1, 2011, the oldest Baby Boomers will turn 65. Every day for the next 19 years, about 10,000 more will cross that threshold. By 2030, when all Baby Boomers will have turned 65, fully 18% of the nation’s population will be at least that age, according to Pew Research Center population projections. Today, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older.

    Perched on the front stoop of old age, Baby Boomers are more downbeat than other age groups about the trajectory of their own lives and about the direction of the nation as a whole.

    Some of this pessimism is related to life cycle — for most people, middle age is the most demanding and stressful time of life. Some of the gloominess, however, appears to be particular to Boomers, who bounded onto the national stage in the 1960s with high hopes for remaking society, but who’ve spent most of their adulthood trailing other age cohorts in overall life satisfaction.

    At the moment, the Baby Boomers are pretty glum. Fully 80% say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today, compared with 60% of those ages 18 to 29 (Millennials), 69% of those ages 30 to 45 (Generation Xers) and 76% of those ages 65 and older (the Silent and Greatest Generations), according to a Pew Research Center survey taken earlier this month.

    Boomers are also more downbeat than other adults about the long-term trajectory of their lives — and their children’s. Some 21% say their own standard of living is lower than their parents’ was at the age they are now; among all non-Boomer adults, just 14% feel this way, according to a May 2010 Pew Research survey. The same survey found that 34% of Boomers believe their own children will not enjoy as good a standard of living as they themselves have now; by contrast, just 21% of non-Boomers say the same.

    The 79-million-member Baby Boomer generation accounts for 26% of the total U.S. population. By force of numbers alone, they almost certainly will redefine old age in America, just as they’ve made their mark on teen culture, young adult life and middle age.

    But don’t tell Boomers that old age starts at age 65. The typical Boomer believes that old age doesn’t begin until age 72, according to a 2009 Pew Research survey. About half of all American adults say they feel younger than their actual age, but fully 61% of Boomers say this. In fact, the typical Boomer feels nine years younger than his or her chronological age.

  • Viral Emails Never Die: FactCheck Draws Up the 2010 List

    FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, releases what they’ve dubbed the Viral Spiral:

    Summary

    There’s a reason they call chain e-mails “viral” — their transmission is swift, extensive and very hard to stop. They tend to contain indignant, outraged messages that are nearly always false and often malicious. We can’t say exactly which virus these nasty messages resemble, but it isn’t one whose effects go away on their own while you drink plenty of fluids.

    In 2010 we continued to see new outbreaks of viruses that we first refuted years ago. And in addition, there were a large number of new infections. Despite what you may have been told:

    • It’s not true that the White House is planning to tax all credit card transactions.
    • Muslims are not being exempted from the new health care law.
    • President Obama did not order up a private jet for the family’s pet dog, Bo.
    • Speaker Pelosi’s spending for liquor on congressional trips isn’t notably different than that of her predecessor. And Pelosi herself doesn’t even drink alcohol.
    • The new health care law does not contain a 3.8 percent “sales tax” on the sale of all personal residences.
    • Obama did not cancel the National Day of Prayer nor did he participate in a Muslim prayer event at the Capitol.

    Here are this year’s most virulent and pestilential inbox-busters.

    Analysis

    Ever since we first launched in late 2003, we’ve been fielding questions from our readers about anonymous e-mails that travel from inbox to inbox like some kind of plague. We get so many that we launched our Ask FactCheck feature three years ago. In 2008 we advised readers: “Assume all such messages are wrong, and you’ll be right most of the time.” That advice still holds in 2010.

    Some of this disinformation has proven to be impossible to eradicate. The very first viral e-mail we handled in an Ask FactCheck claimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was trying to institute a windfall tax on retirement income. Everything in the message, from the claim to the quotes, was a full-on fabrication, and we said so in December 2007. And yet, we were still being asked about this bogus claim as recently as September 22, 2010.

    Sometimes these viral claims come from liberals maligning conservatives, as when President Bush was falsely accused in 2004 of wanting to bring back military conscription, or when Sarah Palin was falsely accused in 2008 of banning a long list of books from the Wasilla library, a list that included some books that had not even been published at the time. But most of the false claims we are asked about are authored by people attacking Democrats and liberals. We don’t know why.

    Still Sliming

    A look at our inbox shows that the urge to slime President Barack Obama hasn’t really diminished since the 2008 campaign. Then, we dealt with false claims that he wouldn’t put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance; now, we have seen doctored photos purporting to show him using the wrong hand. Then, we had claims that he was a Muslim; now, we hear false reports that he canceled the National Day of Prayer but allowed a Muslim celebration to go forward, andcomplaints that he undermined national security by appointing “devout” Muslims to Homeland Security posts — as though religious devotion were evidence of terrorist sympathies. Then, peopledoubted the birth certificate image his campaign provided; now, they circulate bogus claims about court actions demanding his birth records. Then, he ate arugula; now, e-mails claim (falsely) that he flies his dog around on a private jet. (That one started with a misinterpreted newspaper report that was quickly clarified by the paper, but the tale of the flying dog wags on in cyberspace.)

    Obama has been joined in the stocks by Nancy Pelosi. This year, Pelosi’s drink tab was a major topic of discussion — e-mails claimed that she spent more than $100,000 of public money on food and alcohol on congressional delegations. We found that to be an exaggeration, and records showed that her travel expenses, though high, were equivalent to former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s. (Also, Pelosi doesn’t drink alcohol.) We debunked a similar claim about Pelosi’s plane travel from the same group, Judicial Watch, two years ago. But that didn’t stop people from passing this one on.

    Continue with the rest of the viral spiral at the FactCheck.org site:

     

  • Sonia Sotomayor Communicates Without Doubt

    by Nichola Gutgold

    Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not afraid of running a ‘hot bench’ and routinely asks many questions of lawyers who come before the Supreme Court. That was certainly true in November when Carter G. Phillips represented the State of California and argued that a federal court order mandating the state to reduce its prison population by 40,000 over a two-year period was “extraordinary and unprecedented.”

    Justice Sotomayor was, on that day as she was on her first day on the nation’s highest court in 2009 and many days since, the justice with the most questions. Her tendency to ask many questions possibly stems from her confident communication that comes without hesitation. In an interview in her chambers, Justice Sotomayor described her communication style and her thoughts about speaking in public.

    She recounted an exchange during her law school days at Yale. She said, “I was in law school one day with my three closest male friends. The law school was then only about 20% female. It wasn’t unusual to be the only woman in the class. One of those men turned to me and said, “Sonia, you argue just like a guy; you never show any doubt.” She elaborated: “Men never question if what they are saying is valuable. Women instead will ask:  ‘Have you thought of this?’ or ‘What do you think of this?’ ” She observes that often when women communicate there is an attempt to minimize [the scope of their questions] and to be non-confrontational. She added, “Men just jump in. Men use the active voice and women use the passive voice, except when women are talking about emotion. Then it is reversed.”

    Justice Sotomayor has been honing her public speaking skills since her grammar school days when she was a member of the forensic team. In high school she won a contest to give the valedictory speech at graduation. She reflected on her high school message about the hope of change. She remembers speaking about how difficult it would be to change to make this a better society. It is a message she still sends today in her speeches. Being the speaker at her high school graduation inspired her to do more with her life, she said.

    When asked if she enjoys speaking in public she said that she has become accustomed to public speaking through practice. She said, “I thought that it would be important to be able to speak well in public, and anything you work to improve your skills and do well, you tend to like. Very few people are natural actors, for example, since singing and acting are skills that you need  to acquire, just like public speaking. I think I started to like speaking because I took the time to learn it.”

    She warns, however that just enjoying speaking is not enough to make someone an effective speaker. She said, “I do think that you need to keep an edge of fear in you that you should not lose.” She described one of her supervisors in the district attorney’s office who said that the day you walk in the trial and you are not fearful is the day you will fail.

    Though well experienced and a frequent speaker at universities and forums, Justice Sotomayor never takes for granted that she can speak well without preparation. She always aims to write her speeches in advance or to at least have an outline. She can still remember her anxiety back in 1992 in district court. She said: “it took me a number of weeks to go out into the courtroom. I can remember hearing my knees knock. After ten minutes the jitters stopped. I found my pond. This little fish had found her pond.” Though she is known for her frequent questioning she admitted: “Even now, I still get flutters when I ask that first question.” She said, “If I’m asked to speak impromptu now, which I often am, I will sit in the audience, listening carefully and thinking about a theme to try to figure out what to say that will contribute.”

    In a 2001 speech delivered at University of California at Berkeley that has garnered a lot of attention for her comment about being a “wise Latina woman,” another statement in that speech has received little attention. In that same speech she also said: “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.”

    Has America made progress since her speech almost a decade ago? She said, “I think it is worse now. We hear so many times that we are ‘a land of immigrants’ but there is a debate over immigration and we are struggling to find that line.” Indeed, her warning to her high school audience that it would be difficult to change to make this a better society, was prescient.

    In the meantime, Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be confidently asking questions, without doubt, to indeed make this a better society.

    ©2010 Nichola Gutgold for SeniorWomen.com

  • An Annual Treat — Goosed

    by Julia Sneden

    Christmas at our house is nothing if not traditional, both in the generic sense and in the keeping of our own, personal traditions. The decorations and timing of our Yuletide celebrations almost never vary. We follow the same schedule, and put up the same excessive but un-exotic décor year after year.Christmas ornament

    Edibles are a large part of our tradition, too. Our dining room sideboard boasts several kinds of cookies and candies, both homemade and store-bought. Our Christmas menus vary little from one year to the next.

    Such consistency is comforting to old and young, and is cheerfully (and sometimes mockingly) referred to as “the same old Christmas;”  same, that is, except for those years when fate takes a hand.

    The first time that happened was the year that I slid on an icy road and put my car through a fence just days before Christmas. I was fine, but the car was definitely the worse for the experience, and we had to make do without it until well into the New Year. I hastily re-did some of the last-minute plans, and we had a rather restrained Christmas (no last-minute shopping) while we counted our blessings.

    Then there was the year that one of our sons couldn’t be home for Christmas. It felt a bit bleak, but we survived it. I’m sure it was harder on us than on him. He was invited to spend Christmas Eve with a friend’s wonderful, Polish family, and on Christmas Day, he served at a soup kitchen, enjoying every minute of it.

    There was the year that we had a Russian exchange student living with us, and he invited his mother to join us for all of November and December. She didn’t speak English, but that didn’t seem to matter. We all got along just fine with smiles and gestures.

    Less pleasant was the year that I came down with stomach flu in the middle of Christmas Eve dinner, followed serially over the course of the next three days by seven more family members. Only one son and the baby managed to escape. That was the year we discovered that there is no such thing as a house with too many bathrooms.

    But the strangest Christmas of all was the Christmas of the Goose. John, my husband, was born in the wrong century. His vision of  Christmas is informed by a heavy dose of Dickens and merrie olde England. It’s not enough to watch every version of A Christmas Carol that is shown on television, year after year. He hangs an Advent wreath over the center of the dining table. He sings along with the Advent hymns on a CD of the Canterbury Cathedral Choir. He sings The Boar’s Head in Latin as I carry in the roast. He reads Dylan Thomas’s A Child’s Christmas in Wales aloud to the family every Christmas Eve. He puts Christmas crackers at each place at table. He has even been known to remind us about Boxing Day.

    One year, as we were cleaning up from Thanksgiving, he suddenly said: “Let’s have a goose for Christmas this year.” I was stunned. “Yes,” he said, agreeing with himself where I could not, “a Christmas goose would be an adventure.”

    (My only previous experience with goose occurred before we were married, in 1960. I was in Denmark, visiting with friends, and was invited to share the goose-liver stew that was made up of leftovers from their Christmas dinner of a few days before. It was absolutely delicious, but no one thought to enlighten me about the digestive effects of over-indulgence in such a rich dish. I wondered why I was the only one who took second helpings. I soon found out. The dinner was followed by an attack of flatulence that could have powered one of the rocket engines of our fledgling space ships).

    “I don’t know how to cook a goose,” I whined. John smiled and held out a page from one of those glossy cooking magazines.

    “Here,” he said. “It’s all set out for you.”

    “But even Scrooge thought that turkey is best,” I said. “That’s what he sent to Bob Cratchit’s house.”

    “There’s a whole menu here,” he replied. “Should be fun. I’ll make the pies.”

    I gave in to what seemed like a handsome offer. I promptly farmed out a couple of the side dishes to my teenage sons, and sat down with the goose recipe to scope it out. There were lots of caveats about controlling the amount of fat, thoroughness of cooking, proper basting, etc., but it didn’t look too hard. I figured I could handle it.

    John made the pies a day ahead, which proved to be wise, since he woke up Christmas morning looking like death itself.

    “I think it’s flu,” he said. He made it through the presents, and then betook himself to bed.

  • Generations 2010 – Who’s Using Social Network Sites

    by Kathryn Zickuhr
    Pew Internet and American Life Project*

    There are still notable differences by generation in online activities, but the dominance of the Millennial generation that we documented in our first “Generations” report in 2009 has slipped in many activities.

    Milliennials, those ages 18-33, remain more likely to access the internet wirelessly with a laptop or mobile phone. In addition, they still clearly surpass their elders online when it comes to many communication- and entertainment-related activities, such as using social network sites and playing games online.

    However, internet users in Gen X (those ages 34-45) and older cohorts are more likely than Millennials to engage in several online activities, including visiting government websites and getting financial information online.

    Finally, the biggest online trend is that, while the very youngest and oldest cohorts may differ, certain key internet uses are becoming more uniformly popular across all age groups. These online activities include seeking health information, purchasing products, making travel reservations, and downloading podcasts.

    Even in areas that are still dominated by Millennials, older generations are making notable gains. While the youngest generations are still significantly more likely to use social network sites, the fastest growth has come from internet users 74 and older: social network site usage for this oldest cohort has quadrupled since 2008, from 4% to 16%. Read more…

    About the Survey

    The primary adult data in this report is based on the findings of a daily tracking survey on Americans’ use of the Internet. The results in this report are based on data from telephone interviews conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between April 29 and May 30, 2010, among a sample of 2,252 adults ages 18 and older, including 744 reached on a cell phone.  Interviews were conducted in English.  For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.  In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting telephone surveys may introduce some error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

    The most current teen data in this study is from a separate Pew Internet survey of teens and their parents conducted from June 26 to September 24, 2009. For more information on these and other surveys cited in this report, please see the Methodology section at the end of this report.

    Read the full report online and, oh yes, visit seniorwomen.com’s Facebook page and sign up for our tweets.

    *About the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project: The Pew Internet Project is an initiative of the Pew Research Center, a nonprofit “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Internet explores the impact of the internet on children, families, communities, the work place, schools, health care and civic/political life.  Support for the project is provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.  The Project’s website is: http://www.pewinternet.org.

  • Shaken Not Stirred; A BBC Bond Collection

    The BBC Archive is releasing a collection of television and radio items examining the Bond phenomenon through the eyes of those who helped shape the world’s most popular secret agent in both print and film.

    Items in the collection reveal the origins, development and more recent literary revival of the suave spy figure at the heart of the longest-running and most financially-successful English-language film franchise to date.

    The collection also features rare behind-the-scenes material providing fans with a window into the world of Bond on film. An episode of Whicker’s World — made available for the first time since its initial broadcast in 1967 — provides a unique glimpse of the personalities and production processes of You Only Live Twice and a photo gallery provides snapshots of life on the set of 1976 classic The Spy Who Loved Me.

    Radio items within the collection provide a unique insight into the creative genius of Bond author Ian Fleming. In a 1958 BBC Home Service broadcast, listeners hear Fleming and fellow ex-journalist and famed mystery author Raymond Chandler — pioneer of the modern private detective story and creator of protagonist Philip Marlowe, later played by Humphrey Bogart — discussing the ingredients which make up the perfect thriller.

    Another radio item in the collection looks at the essential cinematic components of Bond. Director of Goldfinger, Guy Hamilton, discusses the challenge of taking to the director’s chair of the well-worn genre and the perils of delivering a lazy, formulaic film. In the recording of 1974, he talks of the importance of telling the story in familiar international terms: ” …  adventure, excitement, pretty girls, laughs, thrills, suspense” whilst balancing with delivering authentic sets, stunts and compelling villains.

    The collection also reveals the aspirational thread to both the novels and films. In a BBC Radio 4 item of 2008, the historian David Cannadine places the Bond novels in their historical context of depressing post-war austerity in Britain and a very rapid imperial decline.

    In another, director Guy Hamilton notes the golden production rule to put the money up on the screen to make the films look as expensive and spectacular as possible. A 1990 edition of BBC Radio 5’s Cult Heroes focuses on the importance of the cars, clothes, gadgets, gastronomy, and women — aspects of conspicuous consumption which gave the audience a window to the gilded world that Bond inhabits.

    The collection also makes available popular discussions which explore the enduring appeal of the franchise. Fans remark on the familiar title sequence and Lois Maxwell — the actress who played Miss Moneypenny in many of the films — presents a guide to the theme songs in a programme from 1995.

  • Curious George Saves the Day: The Art of Margret and H. A. Rey

    La Rue: Découpages à colorerThe Contemporary Jewish Museum presents Curious George Saves the Day: The Art of Margret and H. A. Rey, an exhibition of nearly 80 original drawings that reveal a dramatic story of escape and survival. Curious George, the impish monkey protagonist of many adventures, may never have seen the light of day were it not for the determination and courage of his creators: illustrator H. A. Rey (1898-1977) and his wife, author and artist, Margret Rey (1906-1996). They were both born in Hamburg, Germany, to Jewish families and lived together in Paris from 1936 to 1940.

    Hours before the Nazis marched into the city in June 1940, the Reys fled on bicycles carrying drawings for their children’s stories including one about a mischievous monkey, then named Fifi. Not only did the Reys save their animal characters, but they were saved by their illustrations when authorities found them in their belongings. This may explain why saving the day after a narrow escape became the premise of most of their Curious George stories.

    After their fateful escape from Paris and a four-month journey across France, Spain, Portugal, and Brazil, the couple settled in New York in the fall of 1940. In all, the Reys authored and illustrated over 30 books, most of them for children, with seven of them starring Curious George. Seventy years after the arrival of Curious George in America, the monkey’s antics have been translated into over a dozen languages, including Hebrew and Yiddish, to the delight of readers, young and old, around the world.

    Curious George Saves the Day: The Art of Margret and H. A. Rey was organized by The Jewish Museum, New York. Most of the art and documentation in the exhibition was lent by the de Grummond Children’s Literature Collection, McCain Library and Archives, The University of Southern Mississippi. The exhibition will be on view at the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco until March 13, 2011.

    About the Exhibition

    The exhibition at the Contemporary Jewish Museum offers visitors a rare opportunity to view nearly 80 original drawings and vibrant watercolors of Curious George and other characters. Many of these works have never been displayed before. Preparatory dummy books, vintage photographs, and documentation related to the Reys’ escape from Nazi Europe, such as H. A. Rey’s journals detailing the couple’s perilous journey to freedom, are also included.

    “This wonderful exhibition has something for all ages,” says Connie Wolf, Director and CEO of the Contemporary Jewish Museum. “Children will love seeing and learning about their favorite storybook monkey, and adults will be fascinated by the Reys’ personal story of escape and survival. Art was what saved them and allowed them to rebuild their lives. There’s quite a powerful narrative behind one little inquisitive monkey.”

  • Who Are More Emotionally Balanced and Better Able to Solve Highly Emotional Problems?

    It’s a prediction often met with worry: In 20 years, there will be more Americans over 60 than under 15. Some fear that will mean an aging society with an increasing number of decrepit, impaired people and fewer youngsters to care for them while also keeping the country’s productivity going.

    The concerns are valid, but a new Stanford study shows there’s a silver lining to the graying of our nation. As we grow older, we tend to become more emotionally stable. And that translates into longer, more productive lives that offer more benefits than problems, said Laura Carstensen, the study’s lead author.

    “As people age, they’re more emotionally balanced and better able to solve highly emotional problems,” said Carstensen, a psychology professor and director of the Stanford Center on Longevity. “We may be seeing a larger group of people who can get along with a greater number of people. They care more and are more compassionate about problems, and that may lead to a more stable world.”

    Between 1993 and 2005, Carstensen and her colleagues tracked about 180 Americans between the ages of 18 and 94.  Over the years, some participants died and others aged out of the younger groups, so additional participants were included.

    For one week every five years, the study participants carried pagers and were required to immediately respond to a series of questions whenever the devices buzzed. The periodic quizzes were intended to chart how happy, satisfied and comfortable they were at any given time.

    Carstensen’s study was coauthored by postdoctoral fellows Bulent Turan and Susanne Scheibe as well as Stanford doctoral students and researchers at Pennsylvania State, Northwestern, the University of Virginia and the University of California’s campuses in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

    While previous research has established a correlation between aging and happiness, Carstensen’s study is the first to track the same people over a long period of time to examine how they changed.

    The undertaking was an effort to answer questions asked over and over again by social scientists: Are seniors today who say they’re happy simply part of a socioeconomic era that predisposed them to good cheer? Or do most people – whether born and reared in boom times or busts – have it within themselves to reach their golden years with a smile? The answer has important implications for future aging societies.