THE LONG-RANGE DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS

FOR THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

April 23, 2012
Demography, Page 2

PRINCIPAL DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS 

OVERVIEW

SECTIONS

1 FERTILITY

2 MORTALITY

3 IMMIGRATION 
Demography, Page 3

Overview

Each year the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and 

Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds provides an annual report to the Congress on the financial 

and actuarial status of the OASDI program. Projections of future cost and income are produced 

by the Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) based on three separate sets of long-range (75-

year) assumptions for the key demographic variables. The intermediate (alternative II) set of 

assumptions represents the Trustees’ best estimate for future experience, while the low cost 

(alternative I) and high cost (alternative III) sets of assumptions are more and less favorable, 

respectively, from the perspective of program cost. The intermediate assumptions are also used 

as the central tendency for the stochastic projections presented in the OASDI Trustees Report. 

This memorandum presents the demographic assumptions used in the 2012 annual report of the 

Board of Trustees.

The key demographic variables are total fertility rates, average annual reductions in total agesex-adjusted mortality rates, and average annual levels of immigration. The table below lists the 

assumed values for these key variables used in the 2012 Trustees Report. The ultimate fertility, 

average annual reductions in mortality rates, and average annual immigration assumptions are 

essentially unchanged from those used in the 2011 Trustees Report. However, changes in the 

demographic starting values and revisions in transitioning to ultimate rates, result in a reduction

(worsening) of the OASDI actuarial balance of about 0.03 percent of payroll for the intermediate 

assumptions of the 2012 Trustees Report. Additionally, updated historical data resulted in a 

decrease in the OASDI actuarial balance of about 0.02 percent of taxable payroll. This brings

the total for all demography changes, to a reduction (worsening) of the OASDI actuarial balance 

of about 0.05 percent of taxable payroll.

Key Demographic Assumptions for the Long-Range (75-year) Projection Period

2011 Trustees Report and 2012 Trustees Report

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative

2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative

2012 Trustees Report Less 

2011 Trustees Report

I II III I II III I II III

Total fertility rate (children per 

woman), starting in the 25th year

2.3 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average annual percentage 

reduction in total age-sex-adjusted 

death rates for the 75-year 

projection period

0.32 0.78 1.31 0.39 0.77 1.18 0.07 -0.01 -0.13

Average annual net immigration 

(in thousands) for the 75-year 

projection period

1,385 1,075 785 1,375 1,080 790 -10 5 5

The remainder of this paper provides details regarding the historical and assumed future values 

for each of these demographic variables.
Fertility, Page 1

1. FERTILITY

ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SSA

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE........................................................................................................ 2

1.3 ASSUMED FUTURE FERTILITY RATES...................................................................................... 3

TABLE 1.1 PAST AND PROJECTED TOTAL FERTILITY RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES...................................................5

TABLE 1.2 HISTORICAL TOTAL FERTILITY RATE, BY COUNTRY.....................................................................................6

CHART 1.1: HISTORICAL TOTAL FERTILITY RATE FOR THE UNITED STATES ..................................................................7

CHART 1.2: CENTRAL BIRTH RATE FOR FIVE YEAR AGE GROUPS: HISTORICAL AND ASSUMED ALTERNATIVE II

PROJECTION ...................................................................................................................................................................8
Fertility, Page 2

1.1 Summary

The ultimate total fertility rates for all three alternatives of the 2012 Trustees Report are the same 

as those used in the 2011 Trustees Report. The ultimate total fertility rates are 2.3, 2.0, and 1.7 

children per woman for the respective low cost, intermediate, and high cost alternatives. Final 

birth data for 2008 from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) resulted in a total 

fertility rate (TFR) of 2.08. The NCHS also reports a preliminary TFR of 2.01 for 2009 and 

provisional birth data indicate an even lower TFR in 2010. Although the TFR has dropped 

sharply from a level of 2.13 in 2007, this was probably largely due to the effects of the recession. 

Thus, the Trustees assume an increasing TFR from 2010 through 2015 consistent with the 

projected recovery from the recession. After 2015, the TFR decreases linearly to hit the ultimate 

TFR of 2.0 in 2036. This path starts lower than the 2011 Trustees Report path in the beginning 

of the projection period but is similar to the 2011 Trustees Report path from 2015 onward. This 

new path results in a decrease in the long-range actuarial balance, under the intermediate 

alternative, of about 0.02 percent of taxable payroll.

In addition to the overall level of the TFR, the distribution of birth rates by age of mother has 

implications for the size of the population. The historical trend toward lower birth rates for 

women below age 30 and higher birth rates for women above age 30 through 2036 is continued. 

This trend is unchanged from that assumed for the 2011 report. This continued trend results in a 

somewhat smaller and slightly older population in the future than if the future distribution of 

birth rates by age of mother were fixed at the current rates. 

1.2 Historical Experience

Past TFRs in the United States are shown in table 1.1 and chart 1.1. The TFR for a given year is 

defined as the average number of children that would be born to a woman throughout her 

lifetime if she were to survive the entire childbearing period and were to experience, at each age 

of her life, the birth rates1observed in that year. During the period 1917 through 1924, the TFR 

was more than 3.0 children per woman. From 1924 through 1933, the TFR declined from 3.1 to 

2.2 children per woman, and then remained level at 2.1 to 2.2 children per woman through 1940. 

After 1940, the TFR once again began to rise, reaching a peak of 3.7 in 1957 and staying above 

2.8 for the “baby boom” years of 1946 through 1965. This period of high fertility was followed 

by a period of declining fertility. The TFR reached a historical low of 1.7 in 1976. In one 

decade, from 1962 to 1972, the TFR declined from 3.4 to 2.0 children per woman. Beginning in 

1977, the TFR remained fairly stable at 1.8 children per woman until 1987, when it started to 

increase, reaching 2.1 in 1990. Since 1989, the TFR has remained fairly stable, fluctuating 

between 2.0 and 2.1. 

The increase in the TFR since 1976 is primarily due to increases in birth rates among women in 

their 30s. After dropping dramatically between 1960 and 1976, birth rates for women in their 

20s remained quite stable between 1976 and 2006 (see chart 1.2). Because much of the decline 

in birth rates for women in their 20s was understood to represent a desire to defer births until 

women were in their 30s, the gradual increases in birth rates for women in their 30s for 10 to 15 

 

1

The ratio of the number of live births to mothers of a specified age, to estimates of the midyear female population of that age.
Fertility, Page 3

years after 1976 were expected. However, birth rates for women in their 30s have continued a 

rising trend through 2007.

1.3 Assumed Future Fertility Rates

The NCHS reports a TFR of 2.08 in 2008. Based on preliminary data, the NCHS estimates a 

TFR of 2.01 for 2009. Based on the total number of births reported in 2010, which is about 3.0

percent lower than the total number of births reported in 2009, the TFR for 2010 is estimated to

have been 1.95. For 2011, the TFR is estimated to have been 2.03, reflecting a partial recovery 

from the low point of the recession.

The Trustees do not expect the TFR to return to the high levels experienced during the baby 

boom. Several changes in our society have occurred during the past 50 years that have 

contributed to reducing birth rates. Some of these changes are:

 increased availability and use of birth control methods,

 increased female participation in the labor force,

 increased postponement of marriage and childbearing among young women,

 increased prevalence of divorce,

 decreased death rates among children (requiring fewer births for a desired family size),

and

 an increase in the percent of women choosing to remain childless.

The Trustees do not expect a significant reversal of these changes. In addition, a sharp decline in 

the TFR to the low levels experienced by certain other industrialized countries is unlikely due to 

economic, demographic, and cultural differences between the U.S. and those countries. 

The Trustees assume an ultimate TFR of 2.0 for alternative II. The 2007 and 2011 Technical 

Panels both suggested keeping the ultimate alternative II TFR assumption at 2.0. In addition, an 

ultimate TFR assumption of 2.0 is consistent with the 2009 National Population Projections 

released by Census.2 In these projections, Census assumes a TFR in 2010 of 2.06 declining to 

2.03 at the end of their projection, in 2050.

As shown in Chart 1.2, a continuation of the historical trend for increasing birth rates for women 

over age 30 and decreasing rates for women below age 30 for another 25 years (through 2036) is 

assumed, with age-specific rates remaining constant thereafter. This changing distribution of 

fertility rates by age of woman has significant effects on population size, but these effects 

essentially stabilize once the age distribution of fertility rates stabilizes. 

Examining data from other countries is useful in selecting a range of ultimate assumptions for 

the low cost and high cost alternatives. Historical TFRs during the period 1980-2008 that were 

reported to the United Nations are shown for 24 nations in table 1.2. The TFRs for the most 

recent year shown in the table range from 2.7 in India to 1.4 in Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan,

and Portugal. However, if India is excluded from the comparison, the highest TFR is 2.2 for 

New Zealand followed by 2.1 for Ireland, Mexico, and the United States. Although the TFR in 

the industrialized countries has been observed at levels as low as the 1.2 to 1.4 range, the cultural 

 

2

See http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/2009projections.html
Fertility, Page 4

and economic climate in the U.S. makes it highly unlikely that our TFR will go below the level 

of 1.7 achieved in 1976 for any sustained period of time. Thus, the Trustees’ ultimate TFR 

assumption for the high cost scenario is 1.7 children per woman. Using the range of past 

experience for the United States and other nations as a guide, the Trustees’ ultimate TFR 

assumption for the low cost scenario is 2.3 children per woman.

For each alternative, the ultimate TFR assumption is reached in the 25th year of the projection 

period (2036) as has been the practice for previous Trustees Reports. From 2012 – 2015, the 

intermediate TFRs equal a weighted average of the TFRs from 2006 – 2010, with heavier 

weights on the most recent data. However, the more recent years are weighted less as time 

progresses until 2015, where the TFR would be equal to a straight average of the 2006 – 2010 

TFRs. This produces an increasing TFR from 2011 through 2015 for the intermediate 

alternative, which is consistent with a projected economic recovery. Then, the intermediate 

TFRs linearly grade to the intermediate ultimate TFR from the TFR level estimated for 2015. 

For the low cost and high cost alternatives, the TFRs gradually grade away from the intermediate 

alternative path until 2036, when the ultimate TFRs are attained. Chart 1.2 includes the resulting 

age specific birth rates for five-year age groups projected using the intermediate assumptions.
Fertility, Page 5

Table 1.1 Past and Projected Total Fertility Rates for the United States

Calendar Year 2012 Trustees Report 2011 Trustees Report

1920 3.263 3.263

1930 2.533 2.533

1940 2.229 2.229

1950 3.028 3.028

1960 3.606 3.606

1965 2.882 2.882

1970 2.432 2.432

1975 1.770 1.770

1980 1.820 1.820

1985 1.835 1.835

1990 2.068 2.068

1991 2.057 2.057

1992 2.043 2.043

1993 2.018 2.018

1994 2.002 2.002

1995 1.981 1.981

1996 1.980 1.980

1997 1.974 1.974

1998 2.002 2.002

1999 2.008 2.008

2000 2.054 2.054

2001 2.032 2.032

2002 2.025 2.025

2003 2.055 2.055

2004 2.060 2.060

2005 2.064 2.064

2006 2.116 2.116

2007 2.126 2.126

2008 2.078 2.086 1

2009 2.008 1 2.032 2

2010 1.951 2 2.076 2

2011 2.026 2 2.073 2

Alternative I:

2015 2.104 2.120

2020 2.151 2.165

2025 2.197 2.210

2030 2.244 2.255

2036 + 2.300 2.300

Alternative II:

2015 2.056 2.060

2020 2.043 2.045

2025 2.029 2.030

2030 2.016 2.015

2036 + 2.000 2.000

Alternative III:

2015 2.008 2.000

2020 1.935 1.925

2025 1.861 1.850

2030 1.788 1.775

2036+ 1.700 1.700

1

 Preliminary Social Security Administration

2

 Estimated Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Fertility, Page 6

Table 1.2 Historical Total Fertility Rate, by Country

1980 - 2008

Country 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Most Recent TFR

Australia 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0

Austria 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Belgium 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 — — — 1.6 — — — — — — — 1.8 — 1.8

Canada 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 — 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 — 1.7

China 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.8 — 1.8 — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8

Denmark 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.7 — 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9

Finland 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

France 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Germany 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 — 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4

Greece 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5

India 4.4 4.3 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 — 2.7

Ireland 3.2 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1

Italy 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 — 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Japan 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4

Mexico 1 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.3 — — — 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1

Netherlands 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 — 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8

New Zealand 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2

Norway 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0

Portugal 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 — 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4

Spain 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5

Sweden 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Switzerland 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5

United Kingdom 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 — 1.9

United States 2

1.8 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

1

 Estimate for Mexico (from INEGI website) for 1999 -- 2.9

2

 Estimate for the U.S. (from NCHS NVSR 59-01) for 1999 - 2008 -- 2.0075, 2.056, 2.034, 2.013, 2.0425, 2.0455, 2.0535, 2.1005, 2.122, 2084.5.

Source: United Nations Demographic Yearbook Historical Supplement 1948-1997

 United Nations Demographic Yearbook Fertility Supplement 1980-1999

 United Nations Demographic Yearbooks 2000 - 2008

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Fertility, Page 7

Chart 1.1: Historical Total Fertility Rate for the United States

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Fertility Rate

Calendar Year

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Fertility, Page 8

Chart 1.2: Central Birth Rate for Five Year Age Groups: Historical and Assumed Alternative II Projection

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Central Birth Rate

Calendar Year

Historical Proposed

Alternative II

Projection

14-19

25-29

20-24

30-34

40-44

35-39

45-49

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Mortality, Page 1

2. MORTALITY

ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SSA

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

2.1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING MORTALITY ASSUMPTIONS ............................................... 2

2.3 TRUSTEES’ ASSUMPTIONS VERSUS HISTORICAL TRENDS AND OTHER ASSUMPTIONS .......... 4

2.4 PAST EXPERIENCE BY CAUSE OF DEATH................................................................................. 6

2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS TECHNICAL PANELS................................................ 7

2.6 ASSUMED FUTURE RATES OF REDUCTION .............................................................................. 8

TABLE 2.1 HISTORICAL AND ASSUMED RATES OF REDUCTION IN MORTALITY............................................................11

TABLE 2.2 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN AGE-ADJUSTED CENTRAL DEATH RATES FOR THE 2012

TRUSTEES REPORT .......................................................................................................................................................13

TABLE 2.3 ANNUAL RATES OF REDUCTION IN CENTRAL DEATH RATES BY AGE GROUP, SEX, AND CAUSE ................15

TABLE 2.4 AGE-SEX ADJUSTED CENTRAL DEATH RATES ............................................................................................16

CHART 2.1: HISTORICAL UNITED STATES AGE-SEX-ADJUSTED CENTRAL DEATH RATES FROM 1900-2007................17

CHART 2.2: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION IN AGE-ADJUSTED DEATH 

RATES FOR POPULATION 65+ .......................................................................................................................................18
Mortality, Page 2

2.1 Summary 

The ultimate annual rates of mortality reduction for the 2012 Trustees Report are based on 5 

causes of death, reduced from 7 used in the 2011 Trustees Report. Heart and vascular disease 

are combined, becoming cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus is now included with all 

other causes. The ultimate rates chosen for the intermediate alternative are cost neutral; there is 

neither an increase nor a decrease in the actuarial balance. There are no new mortality data for 

the 2012 Trustees Report, as 2008 data are unavailable. The lack of an additional data year 

created another preliminary year, 2011, before the projections begin in 2012. Due to the 

methodology used for transitioning from 2007 through 2011 (as described in section 2.6), this 

causes a +0.01 change to the actuarial balance.

The high cost and low cost alternatives are now a percent of the intermediate alternative and, as 

such, are no longer displayed separately in the tables. Male and female ultimate rates of 

improvement have been set equal to each other, but are displayed separately for comparing to 

last year’s ultimate values.

2.2 Considerations in Selecting Mortality Assumptions

Projections of mortality improvement are subject to uncertainty that is possibly greater than any 

other variable used in Trustees’ assumptions. Some demographers argue that life expectancy is 

potentially limitless and that rates of mortality reduction will increase substantially in the future. 

Others believe that mortality improvement will be substantially more difficult to achieve in the 

future, and that rates of reduction will diminish rapidly.

Lee and Carter have suggested that, in the face of such uncertainty, a prudent choice for future 

rates of mortality improvement might be to assume continuation of the average trends 

experienced over a long historical period. Key to this approach is the selection of the 

“appropriate” historical period to be used in determining the annual projected levels of mortality 

reduction. For many years Lee and Carter suggested using the period starting with 1900. The 

average rate of mortality improvement for the group aged 65 and older during this period is close 

to the ultimate intermediate assumption for the 2012 Trustees Report. More recently, Lee and 

Carter have suggested a period about half as long, starting with 1950, which would result in 

somewhat faster projected rates of mortality improvement. If a period twice as long were to be 

used (1800-2000), then the rates of reduction would be substantially less. Relative to the entire 

period of existence of humankind, the twentieth century was a time of exceptionally rapid 

mortality decline.

Using extrapolation of the average trends experienced for the past century (or for any other 

period) to project future mortality presumes that there will be constancy to these rates of change 

in the future that has not occurred in the past. We believe it is crucial to study not only the 

differing historical rates of decline for various periods, but also the conditions that contributed to 

these variations. Only after considering how future conditions will differ from the past can we 

speculate about future mortality improvement.
Mortality, Page 3

A number of extremely important developments have contributed to the generally rapid overall 

rate of mortality improvement during the past century. These developments include:

• Access to primary medical care for the general population (in particular, the access due 

to Medicare and Medicaid health coverage for the elderly, disabled, and poor),

• Discovery of and general availability of antibiotics and immunizations, 

• Clean water supply and waste removal, and 

• The rapid rate of growth in the general standard of living. 

Each of these developments is expected to make a substantially smaller contribution to annual 

rates of mortality improvement in the future. The diminishing effect of these factors has already 

been in evidence since 1982.

Future reductions in mortality will depend upon such factors as: 

• The development and application of new diagnostic, surgical, and life-sustaining 

techniques,

• The rate of future increase in health spending and the efficiency of that spending relative 

to mortality improvement,

• The presence of environmental pollutants, 

• Changes in amount and type of physical activity, 

• Improvements in nutrition, 

• The incidence of violence and suicide, 

• The isolation and treatment of causes of disease, 

• The emergence of new forms of disease, 

• The evolution of existing forms of disease, 

• Improvements in prenatal care, 

• The prevalence of obesity,

• The prevalence of cigarette smoking, 

• The misuse of drugs (including alcohol), 

• The extent to which people assume responsibility for their own health, 

• Education regarding health, and 

• Changes in our perception of the value of life. 

In reviewing the above list, future progress for some factors seems questionable when recent 

statistics are considered. Recent National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) releases have 

reported a substantial increase in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes, decreased 

environmental air quality, and an increase in negative side effects from invasive surgical

procedures. On the other hand, there is good basis for speculation that there will be substantial 

breakthroughs in advancing medical technology and treatment in the future. The extent to which 

such new technologies will have purely positive effects (like improved sanitation) versus mixed 

effects (as in the case of chemotherapy) will determine their potential for improving mortality. A 

fundamental consideration, however, is the ability and willingness of our society to pay for the 

development of new treatments and technologies, and to provide these to the population as a 

whole. 

Can we expect future economic growth to continue to have as much impact on medical advances 

and mortality improvement as it had during 1900-2007? For the intermediate assumptions, 
Mortality, Page 4

economic projections for productivity and real wage growth are similar to the historical 

experience during 1900-2007. However, the rate of future increases in medical spending as a 

percent of GDP is assumed to be slower than in recent decades. Thus, a slower real rate of 

increase in medical spending projected for the future would be consistent with assuming that the 

rate of future improvement in mortality will be somewhat lower than the average rate during 

1900-2007. 

Education and income are factors that are well correlated with mortality differences in the 

population. More education and higher income are associated with lower mortality. It is not 

entirely clear whether this correlation is largely due to the benefits of higher income and 

education, or to the “selection” of more advantaged (and thus healthier) individuals in gaining 

access to the best education and job opportunities. If the former factor is important, then 

increasing education and income for the population as a whole may provide some further 

benefits, but substantially less than in the past. 

Finally, we must consider that improvements in mortality and extension of longevity through the 

last century were relatively unconstrained by limitations of senescence and gradual deterioration 

of body systems. While we do not subscribe to the notion that there is a fixed limit for human 

longevity, it is true that average human lifespan has improved more than the maximum observed 

lifespan. This suggests that even with continued technological advances, the inherent limitations 

of the physical body and the mind to endure successfully past 110 years will gradually result in a 

decelerating force of mortality improvement. This maximum observed lifespan can be expected 

to continue increasing, but only at a very modest pace.

2.3 Trustees’ Assumptions versus Historical Trends and Other Assumptions 

Table 2.1 shows average rates of reduction in mortality for three broad age groups over two 

historical periods. In addition, the table includes the following ultimate rates of reductions (the 

rate of reduction in mortality averaged over the last 50 years of the 75-year long-range period): 

 Those assumed for the intermediate ultimate assumptions for various Trustees reports 

(choosing those reports that included changes in the ultimate assumptions or in the 

methodology), 

 Those recommended by various Technical Panels, and 

 Those resulting from a survey taken at a Society of Actuaries (SOA) seminar. 

Rates of improvement shown on the first page of table 2.1 reflect age-sex adjustment to the 

distribution of the 1990 United States population; those on the second page use the distribution 

of the 2000 United States population as the basis for the age-sex adjustment. As seen by 

comparing the rates in table 2.1 under the intermediate assumptions of the 2002 and the 2004 

Trustees Reports (for which ultimate rates of improvement were the same), the difference in 

using the different populations for age-sex adjusting makes little difference in the ultimate 

average rates by the broad age groups. However, it should be noted that if age-sex adjustment 

were made to a year later than 1990, then average assumed future rates of improvement would 

generally be higher in relation to the historical rates for the aged. For presentations other than 

table 2.1 of this memorandum, rates of improvement are presented with age-sex adjustment to 

the distribution of the 2000 United States population.
Mortality, Page 5

Table 2.1 provides the assumed ultimate average annual percent reductions in mortality for the 

intermediate assumptions of the 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 Trustees 

Reports. The 1999 and 2000 Trustees Reports are included because ultimate annual percent 

reductions were increased substantially in the 2000 Trustees Report. The 2002 Trustees Report 

is included because changes in methodology were made that resulted in increased ultimate 

annual percent reductions. The 2004 Trustees Report is included to provide comparability in the 

results using a different population for the purpose of age-sex adjustment. The 2008 and 2009 

Trustees Reports are included because ultimate annual percent reductions were revised. The 

2011 Trustees Report is included because changes in methodology were made that put more 

emphasis on the recent historical data.

Also included in table 2.1 are the assumed ultimate annual percent reductions in mortality 

recommended by the 1994-96, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2011 Technical Panels and the median 

response from actuaries, demographers, biologists, and economists who participated in the 1997 

Society of Actuaries Seminar. Focusing on mortality for ages 65 and over, it should be noted 

that since 2000, the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions have provided for an ultimate rate of 

reduction that is only a little less than the average experience of the last century. While the 1999 

Technical Panel recommended significantly faster ultimate rates of reduction, the 2003 Panel 

suggested rates of reduction closer to the Trustees’ assumptions. In addition, the improvement 

suggested by the 2003 Panel would be even closer to the Trustees’ assumptions if the 

deceleration they envision were assumed to occur more uniformly in the future, rather than just 

starting after 75 years. The 2007 Technical Panel recommended faster improvement than what 

has been assumed by Trustees in the past and recommended using the experience since 1950 as 

the primary basis for setting the rates of improvement. The 2011 Technical Panel recommended 

targeting 88.7 years of life expectancy at birth in 2085, which implied a considerably faster 

ultimate rate of improvement. A further analysis of the recommendations of previous technical 

panels is presented later in this report. 

Comparisons of historical and assumed rates of improvement for the age group 65 and over 

(where mortality is concentrated) are included in table 2.2. All rates of improvement shown in 

table 2.2 reflect age-sex adjustment1to the distribution of the 2000 United States population. For 

the age group 65 and over, the rate of improvement experienced during 1900-2007 averaged 0.77 

percent, while the rate of improvement during 1982-2007 averaged 0.69 percent. Thus, the 

average rate of improvement for the most recent 25 years was about 90 percent of the average 

rate of improvement for the entire 1900-2007 period. In fact, mortality at ages 65 and over 

generally improved at about this slower rate (or less) during 1900-2007 with the exception of 

two notable periods. The first was for the World War II period and subsequent years, 

1936-1954. During this time frame, dramatic advances in the standard of living were achieved 

due to expanded medical practice including the introduction of antibiotics. The second period 

was from 1968-1982, during which additional dramatic advancements in medicine were made 

and access to medical services was greatly expanded through Medicare and Medicaid for the old, 

frail, and disadvantaged, those who account for the vast majority of deaths in the population.

 

1

 The age-sex-adjusted death rate is the crude rate that would occur in the enumerated total population as of April 1, 

2000, if that population were to experience the death rates by age and sex observed in, or assumed for, the selected 

year.
Mortality, Page 6

Chart 2.1 displays the annual age-sex-adjusted central death rates experienced since 1900. An 

examination of these rates reveals a sequence of distinct periods of mortality reduction. Table 

2.2 provides average annual rates of reduction2for these periods. During the period 1900-1936, 

annual mortality reduction averaged about 0.7 percent for males and 0.8 percent for females. 

During the following period, 1936-1954, there was more rapid reduction (with the help of 

antibiotics and other advances in medicine), averaging 1.6 percent per year for males and 2.4 

percent per year for females. The period 1954-1968 saw a much slower reduction of 0.7 percent 

per year for females and an increase of 0.2 percent per year for males. From 1968 through 1982, 

rapid reduction in mortality surged (with the help of Medicare and Medicaid), averaging 1.8 

percent for males and 2.2 percent for females, annually. From 1982 to 2007, more moderate 

reduction in mortality returned, averaging 1.2 percent per year for males and 0.5 percent for 

females.

For the period 1982-2007, the average annual rate of improvement for females was considerably 

less than that for males. For all other periods mentioned above, the opposite is true, i.e., the 

average annual rate of improvement for males is less than that for females. Chart 2.2 shows 

differences between male and female annual rates of mortality improvement for the age group 65 

and older for each year of the period 1969 through 2007. Differences are shown for rates based 

on Medicare data. Even with normal year-to-year variation, it is clear that improvement was 

generally greater for females until about 1980, as had been the case since the beginning of the 

past century. However, it is also clear that female improvement was generally less than or equal 

to that for males beginning about 1980.

2.4 Past Experience by Cause of Death

In the past, the reduction of mortality rates has varied greatly by cause of death. In assessing 

past experience and future possible improvement in mortality, we believe it is useful to 

understand the variations in mortality by cause of death. For the period 1979-2007, we have 

analyzed average annual reductions in central death rates by age group and sex for four major 

groups of causes of death (see table 2.3). The residual causes of death (Other Causes) were 

combined and analyzed as one group. When all ages are combined, the largest rate of reduction 

was in the category of Cardiovascular Disease, which has been about 2.5 percent for males and 

about 2.1 percent for females. The category of Violence, which includes accidents, has averaged 

about a 0.8 percent reduction for males and about a 0.2 percent reduction for females. For males, 

the rate of improvement for Cancer has been about 0.6 percent per year, and for females about

0.2 percent per year. The categories of Respiratory Diseases and Other Causes averaged 

increases ranging from about 0.1 percent to 2.3 percent per year. 

 

2 Average annual reductions were calculated as the complement of the exponential of the slope of the least-square 

line through the logarithms of the central death rates. The rates for the period 1900-2007 are a weighted average of 

the rates shown for the five separate distinct periods of change.
Mortality, Page 7

2.5 Recommendations of the Previous Technical Panels

The 2011 Technical Panel appointed by the Advisory Board recommended generally larger rates 

of decline than those assumed under the 2011 Trustees Report. Their recommendation was for 

an assumption which would result in a life expectancy at birth of 88.7 in 2085. This is achieved 

by having a 1.26 percent reduction in death rates for all ages and both sexes. This is a large 

increase over the recommendation of the 2007 Technical Panel.

The 2007 Technical Panel appointed by the Advisory Board recommended generally larger rates 

of decline than those assumed under the 2007 Trustees Report. Their recommendation was for 

an assumption of a 1.0 percent reduction in death rates for all ages and both sexes. Their 

recommendation was based on the average rate of reduction in the total population (all ages 

combined) observed for the period 1953-2003.

We feel that the approach of the 2007 and 2011 Technical Panels fails to take into account 

significant deviations in the rates of reduction by age groups as evidenced by the data shown in 

tables 2.2 and 2.3. The rates of reduction at younger ages have been much larger than the rates 

experienced at older ages. While we agree that differences by age will diminish in the future, we 

do not believe they will vanish. 

The 2007 and 2011 Technical Panels’ recommendations stand in stark contrast to that of the 

2003 Technical Panel, which recommended using the rates of reduction by age and year as 

indicated in the table below. For rates of reduction for years between 2002 and 2012, the given 

rates of reduction are interpolated between these two years. Similarly, for each year, agespecific rates are interpolated between the ages given in the table. The 2003 Technical Panel 

also recommended that there be no differentiation between males and females.

2003 Technical Panel Assumed Ranges of Mortality Decline By Age

Exact Age Initial 2000-2002 Ultimate 2012-2077

0 2.84 2.50

20 1.16 1.11

75 1.16 1.11

95 -0.48 0.64

122.5 -0.48 0.00

A key finding of the 2003 Technical Panel was their recognition of the likelihood that mortality 

improvement will decelerate in the future. This general concept is entirely consistent with the 

assumptions used in the Trustees Reports for decades. However, the panel’s approach was 

somewhat awkward. While they assumed deceleration for ages up to about 80 through 2012, 

they assumed no deceleration between 2012 and 2077. After 2077 though, the 2003 Panel 

assumed all rates of decline would decelerate to the point of having no further decline in 

mortality after around 2200. We believe that the Trustees’ assumptions present a superior 

approach compared to the approach recommended by the 2003 Technical Panel, where through 

the use of different death rates by cause, a steady deceleration is assumed at a very slow pace, 

continuing throughout the 75-year period and indefinitely thereafter, and approaching rates of 
Mortality, Page 8

decline that are about one-third the rates assumed for the earlier portion of the projection period 

(rather than reaching zero decline by 2200).

2.6 Assumed Future Rates of Reduction

Table 2.4 provides age-sex-adjusted mortality rates for historical years and the assumed future 

rates of reduction. For the 2012 Trustees Report, the base year for the mortality projections is

2007. The age-sex adjusted mortality rates presented in table 2.4 use the 2000 Census 

population as the standard population for the age-sex adjustment.

Instead of using the measured mortality rates for the last single year of data (calendar year 2007) 

as the starting point from which mortality projections are made, we use a set of mortality rates 

calculated to be consistent with the trend inherent in the last 12 years of available data, 1996 

through 2007. This procedure reduces the impact of wide fluctuations that tend to occur in 

annual data on the starting levels used for the mortality projection. 

Because reductions in mortality have differed widely by age in the past, the ultimate reductions 

in death rates have been selected to vary by age group. Historically, reductions have been very 

rapid at the youngest ages. However, reductions at the highest ages, ages 85 and over, have been 

very slow. The Trustees’ assumptions have reflected for many years the belief that neither of 

these extremes will persist indefinitely into the future. The Trustees’ assumptions have reflected 

slower improvement at the youngest ages than evidenced since 1900 and faster improvement at 

the highest ages (85 and over) than experienced historically. While this “compression” of rates 

of mortality improvement is in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Lee and Carter method, 

it was nevertheless endorsed explicitly by the 1999 Technical Panel, where Ron Lee was the 

principal demographer on the panel.

Assumed rates of improvement in mortality by cause of death have long played a role in the 

projection of ultimate mortality improvement for the Trustees Reports. These rates of 

improvement by cause of death (see Table 2.3) serve as an important basis for analysis relative to 

past trends and for an initial assessment of potential future mortality improvement. Rates of 

improvement by cause provide a useful, even if sometimes indirect, basis for analysis of past 

effects for specific behavioral and health trends, like the evolution of heart disease and cancer 

over time. Data specific to behavioral aspects like diet, exercise, stress, and smoking, for 

example, are not directly applicable death rate trends. Trends in death rates by cause serve as 

proxy for linking these behaviors to death rates. 

The averaging period for determining starting levels of annual mortality reduction is 10 years. 

Average annual reductions observed for the period 1997-2007 are calculated by age, sex, and 

cause. These annual reductions are also used to estimate death rates for preliminary years, years 

between the year of final data (2007) and the year of the Trustees Report (2012). For years after 

2011, the reductions in mortality under Alternative II are assumed to change rapidly from initial 

levels of 100 percent3of the average annual reductions observed for the period 1997-2007 to the 

 

3

If the average rate of reduction for a particular cause age-sex group during the period 1997-2007 is negative, then 

75 percent of that average rate is assumed after 2007 for the intermediate alternative.
Mortality, Page 9

assumed ultimate rates of reduction for years 2036 and later. Similarly, changes in the rate of 

mortality reduction from 2012 to 2036 are assumed under the low and high cost scenarios, but 

the initial levels of reduction are assumed to be 50 percent and 150 percent,4respectively, of the 

average annual reductions observed for the 1997-2007 period. 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the number of causes of death is reduced from 7 to 5. The 

ultimate rates of improvement in the low and high cost scenarios are a ratio to the intermediate 

alternative, with low cost being 1/2 of the intermediate rates of improvement and the high cost 

being 5/3 of the intermediate rates. The ultimate average annual percentage reductions by sex, 

age group, and cause of death for the intermediate alternative in the 2012 Trustees Report are 

presented in table 2.3, along with the intermediate assumptions from the 2011 Trustees Report, 

and the average rates experienced during the period 1979-2007 and 1997-2007. 

Table 2.2 shows historical rates of improvement and the rates of improvement by alternative for 

the 2012 Trustees Report, summarized by age group and sex. For the intermediate alternative, 

projected rates of improvement for ages under 50 are generally lower than those experienced 

over the period 1900-2007, consistent with our expectation of continued generally slower 

improvement in the future for these age groups. For males age 50 and older, the average 

projected rates of improvement for years after 2007 are slightly higher than those experienced 

since 1900. The projected rates of improvement for women age 50 and older are slightly lower 

than those assumed for men and generally lower than the rates experienced by this group of 

women over the period 1900-2007. This is consistent with our long-held belief that average rates 

of mortality improvement for women, which had been faster than for men until around 1980,

would ultimately converge with male improvement rates. Evidence that improvement for 

females will not always be faster than for males is apparent in data for years since 1980. The 

rate of improvement in mortality for women age 65 and older averaged only 0.31 percent per 

year during the period 1982-2007. This amount was just under one third the average rate of 

improvement for aged men during this period (1.03 percent). 

Table 2.2 also shows that, for all ages combined, the rate of improvement under the intermediate 

alternative for the period 2036-86 is 0.75 percent per year for men and 0.71 percent per year for 

women. While the summarized ultimate rate for males is the same as used in the 2011 Trustees 

Report, there is a small decrease in the rate for females, which was 0.73.

A comparison of the basis for past improvement in mortality with the expected basis for future 

improvement suggests that future improvement is likely to continue, but at a generally slower 

rate than experienced during the extraordinary 1900-2007 period for ages under 65. It seems 

more reasonable to expect the rate of mortality improvement for the age group 65 and older for 

the next 75 years to be close to that experienced during 1900-2007 (0.77 percent as shown in 

table 2.2). While more recent experience indicates that mortality of the aged declined at only 

0.69 percent per year over the 1982-2007 period, the Trustees believe the average annual rate of 

 

4

If the average rate of reduction for a particular cause age-sex group during the period 1997-2007 is negative, then 

100 percent of that average rate is assumed for the low cost alternative and 50 percent is assumed for the high cost 

alternative.
Mortality, Page 10

decline of 0.71 percent (as shown in table 2.2) over the period 2007-2086 for the intermediate 

assumption is reasonable in this context.
Mortality, Page 11

Table 2.1 Historical and Assumed Rates of Reduction in Mortality1

1999 1994-96 October-97 1999 2000 2002 2003

1900-2000 1982-2000

Trustees 

Alternative 22

Technical 

Panel3

SOA 

Seminar4

Technical 

Panel5

Trustees 

Alternative 26

Trustees 

Alternative 27

 Technical 

Panel8

0 - 14 3.30 2.74 1.20 3.30 0.95 2.20 1.35 1.55 2.33

15 - 64 1.44 1.15 0.57 1.40 0.75 1.12 0.75 0.78 1.11

65 & Over 0.73 0.49 0.50 0.75 0.60 0.98 0.65 0.70 0.92

1Rates of reduction are the average of male and female annual rates of decline in age-adjusted central death rates. The rates for the period 1900-2000 are a weighted

 average of rates for five separate distinct periods of change.

2The 1999 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2023-2073.

3The 1994-96 Technical Panel (appointed by the Advisory Council) recommended assuming reduction at the average rate experienced during the century.

4The Society of Actuaries Seminar included 60 actuaries, demographers, economists, and other experts on Social Security financing. 

 Values shown are the median responses of the participants.

5The 1999 Technical Panel (appointed by the Advisory Board) recommended that ultimate rate of reduction in mortality be increased at all ages

 (over the 1999 TR assumptions) by enough to increase the projected life expectancy at birth for 2070 by 3.7 years (to the level assumed for the high-cost alternative).

6The 2000 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2024-2074. Ultimate rates of mortality reduction increased.

7The 2002 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2026-2076. Changes to projection methodology increased rates of mortality reduction.

8The 2003 Technical Panel ultimate assumptions are for the period 2027-2077.

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012

Historical average 

annual percent 

reductions in 

age-adjusted death 

rates

Assumed ultimate (after 2020) annual percent reductions in age-adjusted 

death rates

(Using the 1990 Census Resident population as the standard population for age-adjusting)
Mortality, Page 12

 Table 2.1 (Continued) Historical and Assumed Rates of Reduction in Mortality1

2004 2007 2008 2009 2011 2011 2012

1900-2007 1982-2007

Trustees 

Alternative 22

 Technical 

Panel3

Trustees 

Alternative 24

Trustees 

Alternative 25

Trustees 

Alternative 26

 Technical 

Panel7

Trustees 

Alternative 28

0 - 14 3.20 2.50 1.55 1.00 1.57 1.55 1.56 1.26 1.56

15 - 64 1.38 1.23 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.26 0.98

65 & Over 0.77 0.69 0.69 1.00 0.65 0.71 0.66 1.26 0.65

1Rates of reduction are the average of male and female annual rates of decline in age-adjusted central death rates. The rates for the period 1900-2005 are a weighted

 average of rates for five separate distinct periods of change.

2The 2004 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2028-2078.

3The 2007 Technical Panel ultimate assumptions are for the period 2031-2081.

4The 2008 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2032-2082.

5The 2009 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2033-2083.

6The 2011 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2035-2085.

7The 2011 Technical Panel ultimate assumptions are for the period 2035-2085.

8The 2012 Trustees ultimate intermediate assumptions are for the period 2036-2086.

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012

Historical average 

annual percent 

reductions in 

age-adjusted death 

rates

Assumed ultimate (after 2030) annual percent reductions in age-adjusted death rates

(Using the 2000 Census Resident population as the standard population for age-adjusting)
Mortality, Page 13

Table 2.2 Average Annual Percent Reductions in Age-Adjusted Central Death Rates for the 

2012 Trustees Report 1

Sex Age 1900-1936 1936-1954 1954-1968 1968-1982 1982-2007 1900-2007 2007-2036 2007-2086 2036-2086

Male 0-14 2.90 4.78 1.65 4.33 2.60 3.18 1.54 1.55 1.55

15-49 1.47 3.05 -0.26 2.23 1.03 1.51 0.77 0.84 0.87

50-64 0.42 0.98 -0.11 2.28 1.74 1.00 1.07 1.06 1.05

65-84 0.19 1.17 -0.12 1.46 1.52 0.79 1.19 0.93 0.78

85+ 0.22 1.21 -0.89 1.56 0.05 0.38 0.62 0.56 0.53

65+ 0.20 1.18 -0.35 1.49 1.03 0.66 0.96 0.78 0.67

Total 0.72 1.57 -0.23 1.77 1.16 0.98 0.96 0.83 0.75

Female 0-14 3.13 5.06 1.72 4.15 2.37 3.23 1.55 1.56 1.57

15-49 1.54 4.68 0.28 2.96 0.37 1.83 0.67 0.84 0.94

50-64 0.71 2.58 0.76 1.74 1.15 1.27 1.11 1.08 1.06

65-84 0.35 2.05 1.06 2.05 0.59 1.01 0.88 0.79 0.73

85+ 0.23 1.21 0.13 2.06 -0.14 0.54 0.42 0.47 0.50

65+ 0.31 1.77 0.72 2.05 0.31 0.84 0.69 0.65 0.63

Total 0.84 2.37 0.73 2.16 0.47 1.17 0.75 0.72 0.71

Total 0-14 3.00 4.90 1.68 4.25 2.50 3.20 1.54 1.55 1.56

15-49 1.50 3.72 -0.07 2.47 0.81 1.64 0.73 0.84 0.90

50-64 0.55 1.64 0.20 2.09 1.52 1.12 1.08 1.06 1.05

65-84 0.28 1.62 0.44 1.74 1.09 0.91 1.03 0.86 0.75

85+ 0.23 1.21 -0.18 1.88 -0.06 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.51

65+ 0.26 1.49 0.24 1.78 0.69 0.77 0.81 0.71 0.65

Total 0.78 1.96 0.25 1.97 0.86 1.09 0.85 0.77 0.73

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

1Using the 2000 Census Resident population as the standard population for age-adjusting April 23, 2012

Historical Period (last final year of data is 2007) Alternative II
Mortality, Page 14

Table 2.2 (Continued) Average Annual Percent Reductions in Age-Adjusted Central Death Rates

for the 2012 Trustees Report 1

Sex Age 2007-2036 2007-2086 2036-2086 2007-2036 2007-2086 2036-2086

Male 0-14 0.80 0.79 0.79 2.47 2.52 2.55

15-49 0.33 0.41 0.45 1.32 1.37 1.40

50-64 0.46 0.53 0.57 1.80 1.64 1.55

65-84 0.65 0.53 0.45 1.79 1.35 1.09

85+ 0.24 0.27 0.29 1.06 0.89 0.79

65+ 0.49 0.42 0.39 1.50 1.15 0.95

Total 0.47 0.44 0.42 1.53 1.25 1.09

Female 0-14 0.81 0.80 0.79 2.48 2.54 2.57

15-49 0.19 0.38 0.48 1.25 1.41 1.51

50-64 0.51 0.55 0.57 1.82 1.68 1.59

65-84 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.41 1.17 1.03

85+ 0.05 0.19 0.28 0.85 0.78 0.74

65+ 0.26 0.32 0.36 1.17 1.00 0.89

Total 0.29 0.36 0.40 1.27 1.11 1.02

Total 0-14 0.80 0.79 0.79 2.48 2.53 2.55

15-49 0.28 0.40 0.46 1.29 1.39 1.44

50-64 0.48 0.54 0.57 1.81 1.66 1.57

65-84 0.53 0.47 0.44 1.59 1.25 1.06

85+ 0.11 0.22 0.28 0.92 0.82 0.76

65+ 0.36 0.37 0.37 1.32 1.07 0.92

Total 0.38 0.40 0.41 1.40 1.18 1.06

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

1Using the 2000 Census Resident population as the standard population for age-adjusting April 23, 2012

Alternative I Alternative III
Mortality, Page 15

Table 2.3 Annual Rates of Reduction in Central Death Rates 

by Age Group, Sex, and Cause

2011 TR 2012 TR 2011 TR 2012 TR 2011 TR 2012 TR 

1979 to 2007 1997 to 2007 2035-2085 2036-2086 1979 to 2007 1997 to 2007 2035-2085 2036-2086

Under Age 15 Under Age 15

Heart Disease Cardiovascular Disease 2.74 4.41 2.2 2.3 2.59 4.12 2.2 2.3

Cancer Cancer 2.61 1.29 1.5 1.5 2.15 1.09 1.5 1.5

Vascular Disease 2.5 2.5

Violence Violence 2.95 2.64 1.0 1.0 2.33 1.97 1.0 1.0

Respiratory Disease Respiratory Disease 3.02 1.59 2.0 2.0 3.11 2.27 2.0 2.0

Diabetes Mellitus 1.0 1.0

Other Other 2.56 1.15 1.7 1.7 2.46 1.25 1.7 1.7

Resulting Total ** Resulting Total ** 2.66 1.56 1.55 1.55 2.45 1.49 1.57 1.57

Ages 15 - 49 Ages 15 - 49

Heart Disease Cardiovascular Disease 2.13 1.14 1.5 1.5 1.23 0.53 1.5 1.5

Cancer Cancer 1.78 2.28 1.5 1.5 1.59 1.64 1.5 1.5

Vascular Disease 1.8 1.8

Violence Violence 0.93 -0.83 0.7 0.7 0.21 -2.01 0.6 0.7

Respiratory Disease Respiratory Disease 0.94 1.07 0.5 0.5 -0.11 0.43 0.5 0.5

Diabetes Mellitus 0.3 0.3

Other Other -0.37 1.71 0.8 0.8 -0.73 -0.45 0.8 0.8

Resulting Total ** Resulting Total ** 1.02 0.54 0.86 0.87 0.54 -0.13 0.89 0.94

Ages 50 - 64 Ages 50 - 64

Heart Disease Cardiovascular Disease 3.17 2.95 2.2 2.2 2.56 3.10 2.2 2.2

Cancer Cancer 1.51 1.90 1.5 1.5 1.18 1.90 1.5 1.5

Vascular Disease 2.0 2.0

Violence Violence 0.72 -2.75 0.5 0.5 0.15 -3.81 0.5 0.5

Respiratory Disease Respiratory Disease 1.22 0.97 0.7 0.7 -0.72 1.03 0.7 0.7

Diabetes Mellitus 0.3 0.3

Other Other -0.38 -2.02 0.6 0.6 -0.45 -1.24 0.6 0.6

Resulting Total ** Resulting Total ** 1.75 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.19 1.05 1.06

Ages 65 - 84 Ages 65 - 84

Heart Disease Cardiovascular Disease 3.02 4.38 2.2 2.2 2.62 3.79 2.2 2.2

Cancer Cancer 0.55 1.71 0.8 0.9 -0.40 0.68 1.0 0.9

Vascular Disease 2.0 2.0

Violence Violence 0.76 0.12 0.5 0.5 0.07 -0.85 0.5 0.5

Respiratory Disease Respiratory Disease 0.33 2.08 0.3 0.3 -2.69 0.28 0.3 0.3

Diabetes Mellitus 0.3 0.3

Other Other -0.83 -0.87 0.3 0.3 -1.65 -1.70 0.3 0.3

Resulting Total ** Resulting Total ** 1.44 2.27 0.76 0.78 0.57 1.25 0.76 0.73

Ages 85 and older Ages 85 and older

Heart Disease Cardiovascular Disease 1.37 2.58 1.2 1.2 1.52 2.65 1.2 1.2

Cancer Cancer -0.67 0.91 0.5 0.5 -0.75 0.05 0.5 0.5

Vascular Disease 1.8 1.8

Violence Violence -0.70 -0.31 0.3 0.3 -0.95 -1.88 0.3 0.3

Respiratory Disease Respiratory Disease -1.32 1.81 0.2 0.2 -2.57 0.30 0.2 0.2

Diabetes Mellitus 0.2 0.2

Other Other -2.39 -2.33 0.2 0.2 -3.35 -3.42 0.2 0.2

Resulting Total ** Resulting Total ** 0.04 1.06 0.55 0.53 -0.08 0.43 0.53 0.50

Total Total

Heart Disease Cardiovascular Disease 2.49 3.44 2.14 3.15

Cancer Cancer 0.64 1.64 0.16 0.96

Vascular Disease

Violence Violence 0.84 -0.77 0.20 -1.75

Respiratory Disease Respiratory Disease -0.06 1.87 -2.27 0.38

Diabetes Mellitus

Other Other -0.85 -1.04 -1.57 -1.96

Resulting Total ** Resulting Total ** 1.12 1.59 0.75 0.75 0.49 0.88 0.73 0.71

Social Security Administration

* Alternative 1 is 1/2 times Alternative 2; Alternative 3 is 5/3 times Alternative 2. Office of the Chief Actuary

**Resulting total represents average annual percent reduction in age-adjusted death rates for the last 50 years of the 75 year projection period.

Female

Male Female

Alternative II* Alternative II*

Male

Historical Historical

April 23, 2012

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female
Mortality, Page 16

Table 2.4 Age-Sex Adjusted Central Death Rates

(per 100,000 population)

Year 2011 TR 2012 TR

1900 2,544.1 2,544.1

1910 2,354.9 2,354.9

1920 2,171.0 2,171.0

1930 1,954.8 1,954.8

1940 1,779.1 1,779.1

1945 1,586.6 1,586.6

1950 1,435.6 1,435.6

1955 1,334.2 1,334.2

1960 1,330.9 1,330.9

1965 1,304.6 1,304.6

1970 1,224.3 1,224.3

1975 1,099.0 1,099.0

1980 1,035.9 1,035.9

1985 984.2 984.2

1990 931.2 931.2

1991 918.8 918.8

1992 905.4 905.4

1993 927.2 927.2

1994 916.2 916.2

1995 913.9 913.9

1996 900.4 900.4

1997 885.1 885.1

1998 878.3 878.3

1999 884.4 884.4

2000 875.7 875.7

2001 867.5 867.5

2002 863.9 863.9

2003 851.8 851.8

2004 820.4 820.4

2005 822.6 822.6

2006 799.8 799.8

2007 782.1 782.1

2008 789.6 1 789.5 1

2009 781.5 1 781.3 1

2010 773.8 1 773.5 1

2011 766.5 2 766.2 1

2011 TR 2012 TR 2011 TR 2012 TR 2011 TR 2012 TR

2015 769.0 762.6 739.6 739.8 709.8 716.5

2020 758.3 750.8 707.8 708.6 655.7 664.9

2025 745.4 735.9 677.4 678.7 607.3 619.4

2030 732.1 720.2 648.7 650.4 563.8 578.7

2040 705.9 689.4 596.6 598.8 489.5 509.1

2050 681.3 660.4 550.8 553.3 428.8 452.2

2060 658.2 633.3 510.5 513.2 378.9 405.0

2070 636.5 607.9 474.9 477.7 337.5 365.5

2080 616.1 584.1 443.2 446.0 302.6 332.1

2090 596.9 561.8 414.9 417.7 273.1 303.4

2100 578.8 540.9 389.6 392.2 247.8 278.5

1 Estimated Social Security Administration

2

 Estimate, Intermediate Alternative Office of the Chief Actuary

Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III

April 23, 2012
Mortality, Page 17

Chart 2.1: Historical United States Age-Sex-Adjusted Central Death Rates from 1900-2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Annual Deaths per 100,000

Year

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Mortality, Page 18

Chart 2.2: Difference between Male and Female Annual Percent Reduction in Age-Adjusted 

Death Rates for Population 65+ 

(based on Medicare data)

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 Difference in Rates (%)

Year

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Immigration, Page 1

3. IMMIGRATION

ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SSA

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

3.1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2

3.2 LEGAL IMMIGRATION .............................................................................................................. 3

3.3 LEGAL EMIGRATION ................................................................................................................ 4

3.4 NET LEGAL IMMIGRATION ...................................................................................................... 5

3.5 OTHER IMMIGRATION .............................................................................................................. 5

3.6 RECOMMENDATIONS OF PREVIOUS TECHNICAL PANELS ....................................................... 7

TABLE 3.1: ANNUAL IMMIGRATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY AREA POPULATION..............................9

TABLE 3.2: LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES: FISCAL YEARS 1966-1991 ...............................10

TABLE 3.3: LEGAL IMMIGRATION LIMITS FOR FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING 1995 ..........................................................11

TABLE 3.4: LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES: FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING 1985 .....................12
Immigration, Page 2

3.1 Summary

For the 2012 Trustees Report, there were no changes to the ultimate immigration assumptions 

from those used in the 2011 Trustees Report. There were, however, small changes to the 

estimated levels of immigration during the first few years of the projection period, reflecting 

recent experience. Table 3.1 displays the annual immigration levels assumed for the 2012

Trustees Report as well as those assumed in the 2011 Trustees Report. These changes resulted in 

a worsening (decrease) in the long-range OASDI actuarial balance, under the intermediate 

alternative, of about 0.02 percent of taxable payroll.

Since 2000, the annual number of legal immigrants (persons becoming legal permanent 

residents) has risen substantially and has averaged slightly over 1.0 million persons per year. 

Based on this experience, no change was made to the intermediate ultimate assumption of 1.0 

million new legal permanent residents per year for the 2012 Trustees Report. Also, no change 

was made to the assumption that legal emigration out of the Social Security area is 

approximately 25 percent of the number of the legal immigrants, or 250,000 per year. 

For other-than-legal (“other”) immigration, the model used in the 2011 Trustees Report is 

continued.

1

 This model incorporates an intermediate ultimate assumption of 1.5 million other 

immigrants entering the Social Security area each year either on a temporary legal or 

undocumented basis. A second component accounts for the significant number of other 

immigrants that adjust status to become legal permanent residents (legal immigrants), thereby 

leaving other immigrant status. The third component reflects those who leave the stock of other 

immigrants and move outside the Social Security area. Therefore, the Trustees’ current 

methodology projects net other immigration as being equal to the gross level of other 

immigration, less other emigration out of the Social Security area, and less those who adjust 

status to become legal permanent residents.

Using this model of other immigration, the level of net other immigration, under the intermediate 

alternative, is estimated to be about 208,000 persons for 2012, 453,000 persons for 2020, 

323,000 persons for 2040, and 279,000 persons by 2080. The average level of net other 

immigration during the 75-year projection period is approximately 329,000 persons per year. The 

following table presents the projected levels of the number of immigrants for the intermediate 

alternative.

 

1 This model was first introduced in the 2008 Trustees Report.
Immigration, Page 3

Annual Net Immigration: Alternative II Levels for the 2012

Trustees Report

Year Legal Other Total

2012 750,000 208,000 958,000

2020 750,000 453,000 1,203,000

2030 750,000 374,000 1,124,000

2040 750,000 323,000 1,073,000

2050 750,000 299,000 1,049,000

2060 750,000 289,000 1,039,000

2070 750,000 283,000 1,033,000

2080 750,000 279,000 1,029,000

3.2 Legal Immigration

The term legal immigration refers to persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the 

United States. These individuals are referred to as legal permanent residents (LPRs). Many 

individuals are admitted to the country legally but on a temporary basis. These individuals are 

included as other immigrants and are discussed in the following sections of this paper.

Legal immigration has been a very important element in the growth of the United States 

population. For the period 1870 through 1930, the population averaged about 13 percent foreign 

born. The Census Bureau estimates that the percentage of the civilian non-institutionalized 

population that is foreign born declined to a low of about 5 percent in the 1970 Census, rose to 

about 8 percent in the 1990 Census, and was estimated to be approximately 12.9 percent in the 

2010 American Community Survey.

Data on the number of legal immigrants admitted to the U.S., which includes U.S. possessions 

and territories and Armed Service posts abroad, are obtained from the Office of Immigration 

Statistics (OIS), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Legal 

immigration averaged nearly one million per year for the period 1904 through 1914. Legal 

immigration decreased greatly during World War I and following the adoption of quotas based 

on national origin in 1921. The economic depression in the 1930's caused an additional but 

temporary decrease that resulted in more emigration than immigration. Annual legal 

immigration increased after World War II to around 200,000-300,000 persons and stayed at that 

level through the 1950's and into the 1960's. With the Immigration Act of 1965 and other related 

changes, annual legal immigration increased to about 400,000 and remained fairly stable until 

1977. Between 1977 and 1990, legal immigration (excluding aliens admitted under the 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA]) averaged approximately 580,000 per 

year. This increase was due to the increase in the numbers of relatives admitted and to the large 

numbers of refugees and political asylees admitted during this period. Table 3.2 lists legal U.S. 

immigration for fiscal years 1966 through 1991, reflecting the immigration categories established 

in the 1965 Act. 

The Immigration Act of 1990, which took effect in fiscal year 1992, restructured the immigration 

categories and substantially increased the number of immigrants that may legally enter the 

United States each year. For fiscal years 1995 and later, the 1990 law specified an annual limit 
Immigration, Page 4

that could range between 421,000 and 675,000 for certain categories of immigrants. These 

categories and their limits include those admitted based on: family-sponsored preference 

(226,000 to 480,000), employment-based preference (140,000) and diversity (55,000). Other 

categories of immigrants, such as refugees, are subject to separate limits. The Real ID Act of 

2005 eliminated the numerical limit on asylees and no numerical limitation exists for immediate 

relatives of U.S. citizens. For each of the numerically limited categories, the limits may be 

adjusted annually based on unused amounts from prior years or other categories. Table 3.3 

displays these unadjusted limits and the adjusted limits for each fiscal year 1995-2010.

The annual level of total legal immigration and the levels by category can vary considerably 

from year to year as shown in table 3.4. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, annual immigration was 

about 650,000, the lowest level since the 1990 Act went into effect. This drop is attributed to a 

backlog in the process caused mainly by the longer time required to process the affidavit of 

support and the shifting of responsibilities from the Department of State to the Department of 

Homeland Security. Legal immigration was 841,000 in 2000, over 1,000,000 in 2001, and 2002 

was also significantly above the low levels in 1998 and 1999, mainly due to the efforts to reduce 

the backlog of pending immigration applications. In 2003, legal immigration declined to a level 

of 704,000 due to a slowdown in processing because of increased security checks. Since then, 

the level increased dramatically and peaked at a level of 1,266,000 persons in 2006 before 

declining 16.9 percent to 1,052,000 in 2007. However, a considerable backlog of pending 

applications still exists and part of the decline in 2007 is attributed to an unanticipated spike in 

naturalization applications that temporarily shifted resources away from processing immigration 

applications. In 2008, the level increased slightly from the 2007 level, to 1,107,000. In 2009, 

there was another slight increase, to 1,131,000, followed by a decrease in 2010 to 1,043,000. 

Therefore, for the intermediate assumptions, the Trustees assume that the future legal 

immigration levels will average approximately 1.0 million persons per year.

It is possible that future economic conditions assumed under the high cost alternative and/or less 

favorable attitudes toward immigration could result in generally lower immigration. Therefore, 

an ultimate assumption of 800,000 legal immigrants per year for the high cost (low immigration) 

alternative is used. On the other hand, the significant increase in the number of immediate 

relatives admitted in recent years and the uncertainty of the number of refugees and asylees 

permits the possibility of annual immigration substantially higher than 1,000,000 persons per 

year. Therefore, the ultimate level for the low cost (high immigration) alternative is 1,200,000 

persons per year.

3.3 Legal Emigration

Statistics on emigration are sparse and most analysis is based largely on estimates. Research 

done by the Census Bureau, OIS, and other experts suggests that annual emigration may 

generally be in the range of 20-40 percent of annual legal immigration. We expect emigration 

from the Social Security area to be less than emigration from the United States, especially at the 

older ages. This is primarily because most individuals who leave the United States having 

achieved fully insured status are still eligible to receive OASDI benefits and thus are still 

considered to be in the Social Security area population. For the 2011 Trustees Report, the 

assumed ratio of emigration to immigration was 20, 25, and 30 percent for the low cost, 
Immigration, Page 5

intermediate, and high cost alternatives, respectively. The same relative rates of emigration are 

assumed for the 2012 Trustees Report.

3.4 Net Legal Immigration

Combining the levels of legal immigration with the rates of legal emigration yields ultimate 

levels of net legal immigration of 960,000, 750,000, and 560,000 per year for the low cost, 

intermediate, and high cost alternatives, respectively. These are the same levels assumed for the 

2011 Trustees Report. 

3.5 Other Immigration

The term “other immigration” refers to persons entering the United States in a manner other than 

lawfully admitted for permanent residence. This population consists of two components: 

1) Unauthorized immigrants who are persons who do not currently have legal authorization 

to be residing in the United States.

2) Non immigrants who, according to OIS, are foreign nationals that enter the U.S. with 

authorization to stay for a temporary period of time and for a specific purpose such as 

students and exchange visitors, temporary workers, and diplomats and other 

representatives. 

The stock of the other immigrant population is included in the starting year population level for 

our projections, in accordance with the official policy of the Census Bureau to enumerate all 

persons residing in the U.S., as well as to provide a basis for estimating the total labor force in 

the United States and total births in the Social Security area. 

During the 1990s there was rapid growth in the size of the other immigrant population. In a joint 

project, the OIS and the Census Bureau examined the size of the unauthorized immigrant 

population between October 1988 and October 1992. In 1988 there were over 4 million 

unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States. Not counting those who would be 

subsequently legalized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) program, it is 

estimated that there were still 2.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the population as of 

October 1988. At the time of the 1990 Census, 2.6 million persons were estimated to be 

unauthorized, again excluding those who would subsequently be legalized under the IRCA. (The 

total unauthorized population in 1990 was, roughly, 5.3 million.) Subsequent estimates suggest 

an increase to 3.4 million for October 1992 and approximately 5.0 million for October 1996. The 

rapid rise in the other immigrant population between 1990 and 1996 reflected the continued 

inflow of other immigrants combined with a decreased number leaving this status, due to the 

reduced stock of other immigrants that resulted from the IRCA.

The 2000 Census gave evidence that other immigration since 1990 had been consistently 

underestimated. In producing intercensal estimates of the U.S. population between the 1990 and 

2000 Census, the Census Bureau estimated the average level of annual net other immigration to 

be approximately 550,000. For 2000, DHS estimated a total stock of 9.9 million. It was 
Immigration, Page 6

estimated that by 2005, the total stock was 11.9 million, it increased to a peak of 13.5 million in 

2007, and decreased thereafter to the most recent estimate of 12.6 million in 2010.

The current OCACT other immigration model makes explicit estimates of the following 

categories: (1) the annual number of new-arrival other immigrants, (2) the annual number of 

other emigrants (those leaving the Social Security area), and (3) the other immigrants who adjust 

status to LPR status (adjustments of status). Analysis was done to estimate the average annual 

number in each of these categories over the period 2000-05. This analysis begins with a Census 

estimate of the 2000 population of unauthorized immigrants adjusted to take into account nonimmigrants (those currently admitted with only temporary authorization). The three components 

of other immigration flow are modeled based on the period 2000-05. The table below shows the 

average estimated flow for each component during the period 2000-05:

Estimated Average Annual Levels of Immigration During 

the Period 2000-2005

Other 

Immigration

(1)

Other 

Emigration

(2)

Adjustment to 

LPR Status

(3)

Net Other 

Immigration

(1-2-3)

1,500,000 460,000 490,000 550,000

There is very little data on the number of other immigrants that enter the country each year. The

number of new other immigrants, for the intermediate alternative of the 2012 Trustees Report, is 

assumed to be at a level of 1,500,000 for each year after 2014. It is possible that this level will 

be higher in the future as the other immigrants already present may help family members or other 

immigrants enter the country and the demand for other immigrant labor in the economy may 

increase. Thus, the assumed ultimate level is set at 1,800,000 per year under the low cost (high 

immigration) scenario. Due to the possibility of an increased willingness of governments to 

pursue deportation of unauthorized immigrants or withhold services from them and to crack

down on those who employ them, the ultimate level is set at 1,200,000 under the high cost (low 

immigration) scenario. 

While our analysis estimated the average annual other emigration level (departures from the 

Social Security coverage area) during 2000 through 2005 to be around 460,000, we believe this 

number will rise throughout the projection period. As the stock of the other population rises, 

more emigration is likely to occur. Thus, we are estimating the other emigration largely as a 

function of the population at risk. We developed rates of emigration by age and sex based on the 

number of exits estimated to have occurred during the period 2000 through 2005. Ideally, these 

rates would be developed by age, sex, and duration of stay in the country. Unfortunately, at this 

time, data is too sparse to develop accurate estimates of the current stock by duration of stay. 

However, to take into account that the rates of emigration are likely to decrease as the duration of 

the stock increases, we disaggregated the total emigration for years 2000 through 2005 into two 

pieces:

1) A fixed annual level of emigrants equal to ten percent of recent new arrivals; and 
Immigration, Page 7

2) A set of annual rates of emigration by age and sex, determined from the emigrants 

remaining. 

Applying the method described above results in increasing levels of emigration2throughout the 

period. However, the overall gross rate of emigration (number of other emigrants divided by the 

stock of other) decreases, consistent with a population that is increasing in average age and 

duration of stay in the country. Under the intermediate alternative, the gross emigration rate is 

about 3.9 percent at the start of the projection period, but declines to about 2.8 percent at the end

of the 75-year projection period. 

The methodology also takes into account the fact that there are two ways immigrants attain legal

permanent resident status:

1) New-arrival LPRs are persons who file an application to become an LPR with the 

Department of State while living outside of the United States and become an LPR upon 

entry.

2) Adjustments of Status3are persons who are already living in the United States as 

temporary workers, students, or unauthorized immigrants and apply and receive an 

adjustment of status to an LPR. 

Historically, the adjustment of status category has been a substantial portion of all new LPRs. 

Since 2000, approximately 50 percent of all new LPRs were people that had already been in the 

country as a temporary worker, foreign student, or unauthorized immigrant and who filed an 

application for adjustment to LPR status. It seems reasonable to assume that this trend will 

continue and the Trustees assume that 50 percent of all future LPRs will be adjustments of status 

from the other immigrant population.

3.6 Recommendations of Previous Technical Panels

The levels of immigration recommended by recent Technical Panels (2003, 2007, and 2011) 

appointed by the Social Security Advisory Board are substantially higher than the levels used in 

the 2012 Trustees Report. For the intermediate assumptions, the 2003 Technical Panel

recommended a continuing annual growth rate in net total immigration equal to approximately 

1/2 the annual growth rate in the total population through the next 75 years. Under this 

specification, total net immigration would be projected to reach 1.5 million by 2068, with 

continuing increases thereafter. 

 

2 As the stock begins to mature, we expect to see higher numbers of other immigrants in the population and thus 

higher levels of emigration, particularly at the ages 35 and over. The current stock of other immigrants is centered 

very heavily at the younger ages. We believe this concentration at the younger ages is due to (1) the relatively high 

levels of other immigration that began in the late 1990’s (entering at relatively young ages) and (2) the effects of the 

IRCA legislation in the late 1980’s (which removed largely older individuals with required substantial durations of 

residence in the country). These reasons result in a current stock of other population that is relatively young of age 

and low in duration of stay in the country. 

3 The Department of Homeland Security considers refugees and asylees to also be adjustments of status, but for the 

purposes of our model we treat these categories as new arrivals.
Immigration, Page 8

The 2007 Technical Panel recommended setting net total immigration equal to 1.35 million in 

2007 with increases of 1.0 percent per year for the first 25 years of the projection period and 0.5 

percent increases thereafter. This would result in a net immigration flow of nearly 2.26 million 

by the end of the projection period.

The 2011 Technical Panel recommended setting net immigration equal to 0.32 percent of the 

total population for all years after 2025. This would result in a net immigration flow of nearly 

1.63 million by the end of the projection period.

This increase in the level of total net immigration recommended by all panels reflects a number 

of factors, including each panel’s assumption of continuing changes in immigration law to allow 

more immigrants as the population increases. Historically, the Trustees, as well as other Federal 

Government entities, have assumed that future immigration will be consistent with current law 

and that changes based on potential future legislation should not be reflected until enactment. 

Reflecting the possibility of future changes in immigration law is not unreasonable if there is a 

conviction that such changes are truly expected to occur and this change in the basis for 

projecting is fully disclosed. On the other hand, presuming such changes could result in the 

peculiar situation where the Trustees would need to change assumptions in the future because 

immigration law had not been modified. On balance, we retained the practice of reflecting 

changes in the immigration law only upon enactment.
Immigration, Page 9

Table 3.1: Annual Immigration Assumptions for the Social Security Area Population

Alternative Year Gross Legal Net Legal Gross Other Net Other Alternative Year Gross Legal Net Legal Gross Other Net Other

Low Cost: 2011 1,150,000 920,000 1,400,000 357,000 Low Cost: 2011 1,000,000 750,000 1,100,000 151,000

2020 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 570,000 2020 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 636,000

2030 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 467,000 2030 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 503,000

2040 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 408,000 2040 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 429,000

2050 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 376,000 2050 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 390,000

2060 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 360,000 2060 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 367,000

2070 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 352,000 2070 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 354,000

2080 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 348,000 2080 1,200,000 960,000 1,800,000 349,000

Intermediate: 2011 1,050,000 788,000 1,100,000 105,000 Intermediate: 2011 1,000,000 750,000 1,100,000 151,000

2020 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 447,000 2020 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 453,000

2030 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 365,000 2030 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 374,000

2040 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 320,000 2040 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 323,000

2050 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 298,000 2050 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 299,000

2060 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 288,000 2060 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 289,000

2070 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 281,000 2070 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 283,000

2080 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 278,000 2080 1,000,000 750,000 1,500,000 279,000

High Cost: 2011 950,000 665,000 900,000 -46,000 High Cost: 2011 1,000,000 750,000 1,100,000 151,000

2020 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 329,000 2020 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 338,000

2030 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 266,000 2030 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 274,000

2040 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 234,000 2040 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 237,000

2050 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 223,000 2050 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 225,000

2060 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 219,000 2060 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 220,000

2070 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 215,000 2070 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 216,000

2080 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 212,000 2080 800,000 560,000 1,200,000 213,000

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012

Values Used for 2011 Trustees Report Values Used for the 2012 Trustees Report
Immigration, Page 10

Table 3.2: Legal Immigrants Admitted to the United States: Fiscal Years 1966-1991

(in thousands)

Reflecting Categories Established in the 1965 Immigration Act

Fiscal 

Year IRCA1

Total non 

IRCA

Numerically 

Limited 2

Western 

Hemisphere 3

Immediate Relatives 

of Citizens

Refugees & 

Asylees

Other Specially 

Legislated Immigrants 4

1966 — 323 126 148 39 4 6

1967 — 362 153 125 47 30 7

1968 — 454 156 154 44 95 6

1969 — 359 291 — 60 1 7

1970 — 373 287 — 79 — 7

1971 — 370 281 — 81 — 8

1972 — 385 284 — 86 — 15

1973 — 400 283 — 101 — 16

1974 — 395 274 — 105 — 16

1975 — 386 282 — 92 — 13

1976 — 399 285 — 102 — 12

1976 — 104 73 — 28 — 3

1977 — 462 277 — 106 68 12

1978 — 601 341 — 126 122 12

1979 — 460 279 — 138 32 11

1980 — 531 289 — 158 76 8

1981 — 597 330 — 152 107 7

1982 — 594 260 — 168 157 9

1983 — 560 269 — 178 103 10

1984 — 544 262 — 183 92 7

1985 — 570 264 — 204 95 6

1986 — 602 267 — 223 104 7

1987 — 602 271 — 219 92 20

1988 — 643 264 — 219 82 78

1989 479 612 280 — 218 84 30

1990 880 656 298 — 232 97 29

1991 1,123 704 294 — 237 139 34

1

 This category includes those aliens admitted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

2

 Legal limits on immigration visas were 170,000 per fiscal year before 1969, 290,000 per fiscal year for 1969 through 1979, 

 280,000 for fiscal year 1980, and 270,000 for fiscal years 1981 and later. Includes additional visas starting 1989.

3

 Natives of Western Hemisphere countries, their children and spouses, Act of October 3, 1965. This category became

 numerically limited to 120,000 starting fiscal year 1969.

4

 This category consists mainly of children born abroad to alien residents, ministers and their families, beginning 1971,

 spouses of U.S. citizens who entered as fiances and their children, and beginning 1988 Amerasians, special

 Cuban / Haitian entrants, and aliens in the U.S. since 1972.

Source: Annual Reports of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012
Immigration, Page 11

Table 3.3: Legal Immigration Limits for Fiscal Years Beginning 1995

Unadjusted 

Limit

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Family 

Sponsored 

Preference

226,000 to 

480,000 1 253,721 311,819 226,000 226,000 226,000 294,601 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000 226,000

Immediate 

Relatives of 

U.S. Citizens Not Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited 

Not 

Limited 

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Employment 

Based 140,000 2 146,503 140,000 140,000 140,000 160,906 142,299 192,074 142,632 171,532 204,422 148,449 143,949 147,148 162,704 140,000 150,657

Diversity 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Refugees Set Annually 111,000 90,000 78,000 83,000 91,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 80,000 80,000 80,000

Asylees3 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

Not 

Limited

1 The family preference limit is given as a range because it is equal to the larger of: 226,000 or 480,000 minus the previous 

 year's immediate relatives of U.S. citizens minus certain other small categories of children minus certain categories of aliens

 paroled into the U.S. in the second preceding fiscal year plus unused employment preferences from the previous year.

2 The employment-based preference can be higher than 140,000 if certain other preferences go unused in the previous year.

3

 The REAL ID Act of 2005 eliminated the numerical limit for Asylees.

Sources:

Family sponsored, Employment based, and Diversity: Table A1 of 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2010.pdf

Immediate Relatives: all "not limited" unless legislation changes

Refugees: Table 1 of

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_rfa_fr_2010.pdf

Asylees: Historical years: text on page 6 of 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2003/2003Yearbook.pdf

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012

Limit for Fiscal Year
Immigration, Page 12

Table 3.4: Legal Immigrants Admitted to the United States: Fiscal Years Beginning 1985

(in thousands)

Reflecting Revised Categories in the 1990 Immigration Act, Subject to limitation under the Overall Flexible Cap

Fiscal Year IRCA1

Total non 

IRCA2

Family 

Sponsored

Employment 

Based

Immediate 

Relatives

Refugees & 

Asylees Diversity

Other Specially 

Legislated Immigrants

1985 — 570 213 53 204 95 — 4

1986 — 602 213 57 223 104 — 4

1987 — 602 212 58 219 92 3 19

1988 — 643 201 59 219 82 6 76

1989 479 612 217 58 218 84 7 28

1990 880 656 215 58 232 97 29 25

1991 1,123 704 216 60 237 139 22 30

1992 163 811 213 116 235 117 89 40

1993 24 880 227 147 255 127 89 35

1994 6 798 212 123 250 121 75 17

1995 4 716 238 85 220 115 48 10

1996 — 916 294 117 300 128 58 17

1997 — 798 213 90 321 112 49 12

1998 — 653 191 77 283 52 45 4

1999 — 645 217 57 258 43 48 24

2000 — 841 235 107 346 63 51 39

2001 — 1,059 232 179 440 108 42 59

2002 — 1,059 187 174 484 126 43 46

2003 — 704 159 82 331 45 46 41

2004 — 958 214 155 418 71 50 49

2005 — 1,122 213 247 436 143 46 37

2006 — 1,266 222 159 580 216 44 44

2007 — 1,052 195 162 495 136 42 23

2008 — 1,107 228 165 488 166 42 18

2009 — 1,131 212 141 536 177 48 17

2010 — 1,043 215 148 476 136 50 17

1

 This category includes those aliens admitted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

2

 Comprehensive immigration legislation increased total immigration under an overall flexible cap of 675,000 immigrants

 beginning in fiscal year 1995, preceded by a 700,000 level during fiscal years 1992 through 1994. 

Source: Table 6 of Annual Reports of the Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary

April 23, 2012