U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 1

Disparities in Automatic Enrollment Plan Availability

by Javier Celis

San Diego State University

Originally Posted: August 30, 2010

Savings and thrift plans have become a popular retirement savings alternative to traditional pension plans; the inclusion of an

automatic enrollment feature is gaining traction and is especially prevalent in certain worker and establishment groups.

Introduction

Most defined contribution retirement plans offered in the private sector are savings and thrift plans. Forty-three percent of all

private industry workers participated in a defined contribution retirement plan in 2009,1 and 64 percent of those workers were

enrolled in a savings and thrift plan.2 Savings and thrift plans usually allow for a worker to make pretax contributions to an

individual retirement savings account. These contributions may be matched to various degrees by the employer to induce

participation and increase levels of employee savings.

The automatic enrollment feature, previously known as “negative election,” has been utilized for several years in retirement

savings plans; however, only recently were employers provided relief from fiduciary liability. Through the Pension Protection

Act of 2006,3 Congress sought to encourage employers to make automatic enrollment available to their employees. Upon

hire, employers have the statutory authority to simultaneously enroll an employee in the companys savings and thrift

retirement plan with a default contribution rate. The default contribution is usually a pretax deduction, as a percent of

earnings, and is deposited into an employees retirement account. Although a worker may opt out, these plan provisions

have been hailed as an effective method to encourage proactive retirement saving behavior.4

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently published data from the National Compensation Survey (NCS) on the prevalence and

provisions of automatic enrollment and default contribution features in savings and thrift plans. The NCS March 2009 data5

show that availability of these plan provisions differs by wage level and by establishment size.

Wage Group Disparity

Chart 1 shows the percentage of three groups of workers--private industry workers, those in the lowest earnings quartile, and

those in the highest quartile--whose employers automatically enroll new employees in their savings and thrift plan.6
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 2

Among all private industry workers who participated in savings and thrift plans, 19 percent also had this automatic enrollment

feature. However, when the data are disaggregated based on average wage percentiles, there is variation in availability.

While 21 percent of private industry workers in the highest wage quartile had employers that automatically enrolled

employees in their companys savings and thrift plan, only 11 percent of workers in the lowest quartile had this provision

available. Compounding this disparity, 95 percent of workers in the lowest tenth wage category were not offered

automatically enrolled savings and thrift plans.7 According to a 2008 report by the Employee Benefits Research Institute

(EBRI), the inclusion of such plan provisions, or in this case the lack thereof, can have significant ramifications for workers

building a retirement nest egg, especially for the lowest of wage earners.8 The disparity in defined contribution plan

participation varies greatly between the highest and lowest wage categories. Whereas 62 percent of workers in the highest

wage quartile participated in a defined contribution plan, only 19 percent of workers in the lowest wage quartile participated in

such a plan.9 It appears that increases in the availability of automatic enrollment provisions would provide substantial benefits

for lower wage earners.

Establishment Size Disparity

In 2009, another EBRI study found a positive relationship between employee participation in retirement plans and firm size.10

This suggests that increased availability of automatic enrollment provisions would increase employee participation across all

establishment sizes, including smaller firms. As can be seen in chart 2, NCS data from 2009 reveal similar disparities in the

availability of automatic enrollment plans by establishment size.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 3

Workers in larger establishments were almost 3 times more likely than their counterparts in smaller firms to work for a

company that includes an automatic enrollment provision in its savings and thrift retirement plan, 25 percent compared with 9

percent. There is also variation in participation in defined contribution plans among these establishment categories. Fifty-five

percent of workers in larger establishments participated in a defined contribution plan, while only 32 percent of workers in

smaller establishments participated in such a plan.11 Workers from smaller firms are likely to benefit from efforts to make

automatic enrollment more prevalent.

Default Contribution As A Percent Of Employee Earnings

According to NCS data, the median default contribution in private industry ranges from 2 percent of employee earnings at the

10th percentile to 4 percent at the 90th percentile, with a median default contribution of 3 percent of earnings for all workers.

These estimates are consistent with a survey conducted by the industry group Mercer that found that, among the employers

that use automatic enrollment, 62 percent use a default contribution of 3 percent of employee earnings, 20 percent use a

contribution greater than 3 percent, and 11 percent use 2 percent as their default contribution.12

A deduction of 3 percent of earnings has various consequences for workers of different wage categories. Although lower

income workers would appear to have the most to gain from widespread automatic enrollment implementation, a contribution

rate of 3 percent of earnings places a higher strain on their disposable income. This may be one underlying cause in the low

take-up rate for lower wage earners.13 The take-up rate for the lowest wage quartile was 49 percent, while workers in the

highest wage quartile had a take-up rate of 81 percent.14 It is possible that lower participation rates among low-wage workers

has less to do with willingness and is more attributable to financial ability.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 4

Conclusion

The retirement savings literature includes much analysis of the need for workers to forego some consumption today in favor

of a more secure tomorrow. Studies show that employer-initiated savings and thrift plans can provide substantial incentives to

induce this savings behavior. In the words of Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag, “Inertia, it turns out, is a

powerful force in decisionmaking, so people tend to stick with a default, even when they can, at low cost, pick another

option.”15 Efforts on behalf of employers to increase the availability of automatically enrolled savings and thrift plans could

lead to increased participation. But the powerful inertia described by Orszag has been the subject of a number of critiques as

well. U.S. News & World Report retirement analyst Emily Brandon, for example, has argued that the automatic enrollment

provision “makes people less responsible for their own retirement decisions” and at its essence, is a “very paternalistic

system.”16 Thus, for many lower income workers, any default contribution may feel more like a wage garnishment than a

benefit. Although the ramifications of automatic enrollment and default contribution provisions are likely to continue to be

contentious, available data show substantial variation in the availability of these benefits among workers.

Javier Celis

is a graduate student in economics at San Diego State University; he was an intern in the Office of Compensation Levels and

Trends during summer 2010. For more information on this article, please send e-mail to NCSInfo@bls.gov or call (202)

691-6199.

Notes

1 National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2009, Bulletin 2731 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, September

2009), table 2, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_coverage.

2 National Compensation Survey: Health and Retirement Plan Provisions in Private Industry in the United States, 2009, Bulletin 2749 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, July 2010), table 20, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_details.

3 Pension Protection Act of 2006, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov/

EBSA/pensionreform.html.

4 Ariel Education Initiative and Hewitt Associates, 401(k) Plans in Living Color: A Study of 401(k) Savings Disparities Across Racial and Ethnic

Groups, on the Internet at http://www.hewittassociates.com/Intl/nA/en-Us/Knowledgecenter/ArticlesReports/ArticleDetail.aspx?cid=6992.

5 National Compensation Survey: Health and Retirement Plan Provisions in Private Industry in the United States, 2009, Bulletin 2749 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, July 2010), table 23, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_details.

6 The quartile groupings are based on the lowest 25 percent (average hourly earnings of $10.50 or less) and highest 25 percent (average

hourly earnings of $24.22 or more) of average wages for all private industry workers, which may include workers both above and below the

threshold. The quartile values are based on the estimates published in National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United

States, 2008, Bulletin 2720 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 2009), on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm.

7 National Compensation Survey: Health and Retirement Plan Provisions in Private Industry in the United States, 2009, Bulletin 2749 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, July 2010), table 23, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_details.

8 Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland, The Impact of PPA on Retirement Savings for 401(k) Participants, Issue Brief No. 318 (Employee

Benefit Research Institute, June 2008), on the Internet at http://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=3948.

9 National Compensation Survey: Incidence and Provision of Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2009, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Bulletin 2731, September 2009, table 2, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_coverage.

10 John MacDonald, Retirement Plan Participation: Firm Size Differences—An Update, Fast Facts No. 147 (Employee Benefits Research

Institute, December 8, 2009), on the Internet at http://www.ebri.org/pdf/FFE147.08Dec09.Final.pdf.

11 National Compensation Survey: Incidence and Provision of Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2009, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Bulletin 2731, September 2009, table 2, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_coverage.

12 Mercer Survey Finds Majority of Defined Contribution Retirement Plans Feature Automatic Enrollment, Mercer (www.mercer.com),

November 10, 2008, on the Internet at http://www.mercer.com/print.htm?

indContentType=100&idContent=1327690&indBodyType=D&reference&wwparam=1277826368.

13 The take-up rate is an estimate of the percentage of workers with access to a plan who participate in the plan.

14 National Compensation Survey: Incidence and Provision of Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2009, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Bulletin 2731, September 2009, table 2, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/#bulletin_coverage.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 5

15 Peter Orszag, “Behavioral Economics: Lessons from Retirement Research for Health Care and Beyond.” A Presentation to the Retirement

Research Consortium (Congressional Budget Office, August 7, 2008), on the Internet at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9673/08-07-

Presentation_RRC.pdf.

16 Emily Brandon, “Planning to Retire: The Case Against 401(k) Automatic Enrollment,” U.S. News & World Report, June 30, 2009, on the

Internet at http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/06/30/the-case-against-401k-automatic-enrollment.

Chart 1. Percent of workers in savings and thrift plans with automatic enrollment feature, selected wage quartiles,

private industry, March 2009

Avg Wage All workers Lowest 25% of wage earners Highest 25% of wage earners

Automatic enrollment available 19% 11% 21%

Data for Chart 2. Percent of workers in savings and thrift plans with automatic enrollment feature, private industry ,

March 2009

Establishment Size 1 to 99 workers 100 or more workers

Auto Enroll Available 9% 25%

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Information and Marketing Services, PSB Suite 2850, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC

20212-0001 | www.bls.gov/OPUB | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | Contact Us