In one report, researchers found that a company’s low performers — and not the company’s best workers — actually reported being more motivated and engaged in 42 percent of the 207 companies surveyed. So clearly, job performance doesn’t predict employee engagement. And it’s employee engagement (in other words, a worker’s commitment, involvement and satisfaction) that largely drives businesses to succeed.

Many factors go into engagement measures, including wages, career advancement opportunities and how employees feel about their company.

The findings suggest that many organizations are allowing their lowest performers to just get by because they’re not holding them accountable for their work, says Mark Murphy, CEO of Leadership IQ, the consulting firm that conducted the survey. And that may make middle and high performers in those firms feel less motivated to come to work every day.

[Read: Interview Questions You Should Never Ask]

In a separate study, workers around the world say they are slightly happier in their jobs now than they were over the last several years,  even though only 1 in 4 think they’re paid what they’re worth.

Researchers at Aon Hewitt, a human resources consultancy, studied more than 2,500 companies representing 3.8 million workers worldwide to measure employee engagement.

Overall, engagement levels rose to 60 percent in 2012, up from 58 percent in 2011 and 56 percent in 2010, according to the annual study released Tuesday.

Yet some of the key findings in the study indicate workers are less than satisfied in certain areas.

For instance, only:

• 47 percent of workers say they have advancement opportunities at work.
• 44 percent of employees think they are paid fairly for their contributions.
• 49 percent of workers think their company is effective at communication.
• 48 percent of employees say they’ve been recognized for their extra efforts.

Photo: Boston Public Library/flickr

Also of Interest

• What Women of America Really Wanted for Mother’s Day… a Job
• How Much Income Will Your 401(k) Provide
• Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being

See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more

Younger boomers (in their late 40s and 50s), and Gen-Xers (in their late 30s and early 40s) are on track to retire with skimpier savings. Consequently, they’re likely to face a pared-down lifestyle in retirement.

Put another way, they’ll be the first two generations that don’t do better financially than the group that came before.

[Read: Can you count on working until you're 70?]

From 2007 to 2010, older boomers born between 1946 and 1955 lost 28 percent of their median net worth — about $68,000 on average. It could not have come at a worse time for those on the verge of retiring.

Younger boomers born between 1956 and 1965 lost 25 percent of their net worth — about $37,000, the study found. Gen-Xers (born between 1966 and 1975)  lost 45 percent of their wealth – about $33,000 on average – during that same time.

The study, Retirement Security Across Generations: Are Americans Prepared for Their Golden Years?, was done by the Pew Charitable Trusts to examine how the recession affected the wealth and retirement security of  boomers compared with other age groups.  

Though the timing of the recession affected older adults more than others — they have fewer working years in which to build back savings — it seems they weathered the storm fairly well. According to the study, older boomers retired, or are on track to retire, with about 70 to 80 percent of their pre-retirement income.

Here’s where it gets worse: Younger boomers are on track to replace only 60 percent of their pre-retirement income. Gen-Xers are on track to replace just half their income in retirement.

Financial experts generally recommend that you save enough to replace at least 70 percent of your pre-retirement income.

Among the study’s other findings:

• Older boomers approached retirement in better financial shape than previous generations, thanks to the dot-com boom and the housing bubble.
• Boomers and Gen-Xers have been accumulating much higher debt-to-asset ratios than the previous generations had at the same ages.
• By the end of the recession, the majority of people in each of these demographics were homeowners.

Photo: Ben K Locek/ flickr

I know what you’re thinking. How does $220,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs represent a decline? Well, if that same couple retired last year, they would’ve needed $240,000, according to a Fidelity Investments report released Wednesday.

By all means, the figure is daunting. But at least the costs are moving in the right direction: That’s 8 percent less than a year ago.

Fidelity’s been forecasting retiree health care costs since 2002, and only one other time (in 2011) did it predict spending would go down (8 percent).

As many retirees already know, medical costs account for a disproportionate chunk of their income. So this is pretty decent news, particularly if lower costs become a long-term trend.

[Read: 4 Options to Finding Affordable Care]

But let’s be realistic. How many of today’s workers are able to sock away $200,000-plus just for out-of-pocket medical expenses in retirement?

That’s why “it’s extremely important that health care costs are factored into retirement savings strategies today so that retirees can be prepared to pay their medical bills throughout retirement,” says Brad Kimler, executive vice president of Fidelity’s benefits consulting business.

Fidelity’s forecast is closely tied to spending in the Medicare program. Spending per enrollee rose by just 0.4 percent last year and 1.9 percent between 2010 and 2012. That’s well below the 7 percent annual increases that were the average between 1985 and 2009, the report said.

One reason for the lower Medicare spending: More boomers retired, bringing a large influx of younger enrollees into the Medicare population. Younger retirees tend to have lower health care expenses than older beneficiaries.

Also, many common brand-name drugs have gone generic, reducing the cost of prescription medicine overall. The Affordable Care Act is also expected to bring down the cost of government spending on health care.

Fidelity’s forecast used as its example a couple age 65 using Medicare and with no employer-sponsored retiree health coverage. It assumed average life expectancy from age 65 to be 17 years for men and 20 years for women. About one-third of the forecast costs are Medicare Part B and D premiums; the remainder covers Medicare copayments and cost-sharing costs.

Long-term care and dental expenses were not included in the estimate.

To help your bottom line, consider these ways to save on health care costs now:

• Visit a public community health center that charges fees on a sliding scale based on your income.
• Ask your doctor if there are safe, lower-cost alternatives to your current prescriptions. Also check with your insurance company because the plan’s list of approved generics can change over time without a doctor’s knowledge.
• You don’t have to be a member of warehouses such as Costco or Sam’s Club to fill your prescriptions there. Also check prices at local pharmacies like WalMart or Walgreens.
• Get a 90-day supply of medication you take on a regular basis. It’s cheaper than a 30-day supply.

Photo: DIAC Images/flickr

Employers are required by law to provide an outline of what workers can expect to get in estimated monthly retirement income from their traditional pension plans. But that’s not the case for 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

[Find out if you're saving enough for retirement with AARP's calculator].

Maybe your 401(k) balance is at $200,000, for instance, and you’re less than a decade from retirement. If your plan doesn’t break down for you how much you’ll likely accumulate at your current savings rate in a given number of years, or how much that balance is estimated to provide on a monthly basis over the course of your retirement, based on current market conditions, then how do you know if you’re saving enough to meet your goals — even with other sources of income?

The government wants to take the guess work out of that scenario.

The Department of Labor is developing rules that would require workers to get estimated income illustrations from their defined contribution pension plans so they can understand more thoroughly how long their retirement savings might last.

The department is asking for input from retirement planning specialists, employers, workers and others as it looks for ways to educate people and help them save more effectively for retirement. [Click here for instructions on how to provide input].

It’s not a moment too soon to ask for such feedback. With each passing decade, workers increasingly are asked to shoulder the responsibility for their retirement as the share of employers offering traditional pension plans shrinks.

According to the DOL, the number of defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s has more than tripled over the last 35 years. At the same time, the number of traditional pension plans, which guarantee monthly income, declined by half.

Clearly, we could benefit from retirement planning guidance.

So what’s the best way for employers to illustrate how much workers can count on at retirement from their 401(k) plan since there are so many variables between now and then? The Washington Post’s Michelle Singletary says one idea being considered involves a statement showing estimated payments based on your current plan balance.

Another idea, she says, might consider these variables:

• You’d make contributions until you retire at age 65, increasing the savings amount by 3 percent a year.
• You’d get an annual return of 7 percent, an assumption based on historical market returns in 401(k) plans.
• You’d get a return of 3 percent annually to account for projected future inflation (what your dollars will be worth, say, 15 years from now).

The DOL offers a calculator to help you with projections. Go to www.dol.gov/ebsa/ and search for “Lifetime Income Calculator.”

Photo: Ivan Kmit/Alamy

A survey by the Securian Financial Group found that about half of 526 retirees polled in March carried mortgage debt into retirement. And it appears that even greater numbers of boomers will follow suit.

[Read: Fixing One Family's Finances]

The poll asked 495 pre-retirees ages 50 and older if they expected to carry mortgage debt into retirement; 67 percent said yes. In similar surveys by Securian in 2007 and 2009, just 30 percent of near retirees said the same.

Michelle Hall, a market research manager at Securian, called the latest findings troubling.

“For retirees on fixed incomes, debt payments are extremely burdensome and become more so as the cost of living rises,” Hall says.

It’s not that boomers wouldn’t like to pay off their homes before they exit the workforce for good. But high unemployment and falling home values — the stubborn stains of the Great Recession — have taken their toll and “dramatically changed” many boomers’ financial plans, Hall adds.

[Are you saving enough? Use our calculator to find out].

House payments are but one of boomers’ financial concerns. Those nearing retirement say they expect to carry other types of loans into retirement, too:

• Credit card debt: 40 percent
• Car loan: 32 percent
• Student loan: 14 percent
• Home equity loan: 10 percent

Just how much debt do they expect to take into retirement? More than half say $25,000 or more; one-third say $50,000 or more.

We can’t blame the recession entirely. According to a report by the nonprofit Urban Institute, the share of older adults with debt had been rising even before the recession took hold.

Between 1998 and 2010, the share of adults ages 65 and older with household debt rose from 30 percent to 43 percent. Even more disturbing, the median debt balance grew 56 percent over the same period, from $13,586 to $21,165, the report found.

Mortgages, as you might’ve guessed, accounted for much of that debt.

Photo: Images of Money/flickr

The criminal indictment, reported by USA Today, says Mission Settlement in New York, its owner Michael Levitis, and three employees were charged with using their customers’ fees to pay for personal expenses. The charges stemmed from a referral by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the first such action by the agency.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara says Mission “preyed upon the financial desperation of people around the country who — like so many ordinary Americans — were simply struggling to pay down their debts after the financial downturn.”

The CFPB also filed a civil case against Mission and another debt-relief service provider, Premier Consultant Group in New Jersey, seeking to halt their operations.

According to the CFPB civil complaint, the two providers charged consumers illegal up-front fees for debt-settlement services that never materialized. Those actions caused consumers to fall further into debt, and some even had to file for bankruptcy.

“Today’s action takes aim at two operations we believe are designed to profit through unscrupulous and illegal business practices,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. “Consumers deserve better.”

[Related: Debt Management Vs. Debt Settlement. Which Is Best?]

Levitis and his employees allegedly told would-be customers that they’d have to pay only 55 percent of the amount owed to settle their debt, USA Today reported, citing the indictment. In return, the customers were told to make affordable monthly payments that would be held in escrow until the firm had negotiated final settlements. Clients were told Mission would take only a $49 monthly fee for its efforts, it said.

From 2009 through March 2013, some 2,200 customers paid nearly $14 million to Mission. The company took $6.6 million in fees from those customers and paid about $4.4 million to creditors. For 1,200 customers, the company allegedly took nearly $2.2 million in fees and “never paid a single penny to the customers’ creditors,” the indictment says.

“Most of Mission’s customers failed to achieve the reduction in debt that the defendants had promised them, and some of them suffered further declines in their credit ratings, were sued by their creditors and/or fell into bankruptcy,” the indictment alleges.

Prosecutors are seeking civil forfeiture of nearly $2.2 million and other assets allegedly generated by the scheme.

Photo: Images Of Money/flickr

“Moms are more likely and open to having deep, detailed discussions,” says Lauren Brouhard, a senior vice president for retirement with Fidelity Investments, which conducted the survey.

“What’s really important is that these not just be surface discussions,” Brouhard adds. “Nobody wants surprises down the road, so it’s important that they have these conversations now, when they’re not reacting to some financial or health emergency.”

Of course, not all families are alike. But generally, moms more than dads initiate discussions with their kids about living comfortably in retirement, caring for elders and estate planning, according to the findings, which were released Tuesday. The parents polled were age 55 and older.

Get in on the discussion: Largest Tax Increase in American History!

Among the findings:

• 70 percent of moms, and only 55 percent of dads, say they’d had comprehensive talks with their adult children about what it takes to be financially secure in retirement.
• 79 percent of moms had discussed wills or estate planning with their adult kids, compared with 69 percent of fathers.
• 66 percent of moms, and 56 percent of dads,  had discussed health topics and caring for elders.

Yet, interestingly, more than half of the dads surveyed (54 percent) say they see themselves as “the pragmatist” when having financial conversations with their adult children.

Moms describe themselves as “the empathizer” in the family more than dad does (15 percent vs. 6 percent). Perhaps that’s why 64 percent of mothers surveyed say it’s “not at all difficult” to start a conversation with their child about their savings and investments compared with 54 percent of fathers.

When it comes to caregiving, mothers more than fathers (13 percent vs. 3 percent) say they expect an adult child to care for them if they become ill. More fathers than mothers (47 percent vs. 32 percent), however, are counting on their spouse in that situation.

As Mother’s Day approaches on Sunday,  a separate survey was just released about mom’s worth. We may think we’re priceless, but in fact, our value has steadily declined over the last two years.

It turns out that the value of mom in 2013 is $59,862 , down from $60,182 in 2012, and from $61,436 in 2011, according to Insure.com’s annual Mother’s Day Index. The index uses wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate mom’s value based on a list of household tasks.

The moms surveyed had children age 12 and under living at home.

“Average wages for typical mom jobs have been dropping, pushing down mom’s annual value,” says Amy Danise, editorial director of Insure.com. “But the cheaper wages make it easier to hire someone else to do mom’s jobs, if a family wanted to outsource mom.”

When asked how much they’d have to pay someone else to do all their household work, most mothers surveyed (56 percent of 500 moms) place their own value at less than $40,000 a year, while 7 percent put their value at $100,000 or more, according to the survey of mothers.

Perhaps this detail should be revealed after Mother’s Day — but 62 percent of dads put mom’s value at less than $40,000.

If they could hire someone to do all their household jobs, moms say they’d spend the extra time:

• With family: 40 percent.
• Traveling or visiting museums, parks, historical sites and the like: 11 percent.
• Doing exercise or playing sports: 9 percent.

What do fathers think mom would do with those extra hours? They said mom would spend time:

• With family: 25 percent.
• Shopping: 15 percent.
• Reading: 8 percent.

As if we didn’t know this already: “A mother’s value at home is often overlooked,” Danise says.

Photo 1: Playingwithbrushes/flickr 

Photo 2: Juan Monino/Getty Images

A new study finds that nearly one in two pre-retirees expects to work part-time or full-time in retirement — but in another line of work altogether.

They’ll apparently need the income, because one in two also expects to be helping their adults kids financially. One in three expects to be providing some degree of financial support to their grandchildren. One in seven is prepared to help out their parents with money.

[Read: Why part-time or contract work may be for you]

The findings of the Merrill Lynch report, Americans’ Perspectives on New Retirement Realities and the Longevity Bonus, were based on a survey of more than 6,300 people age 45 and older.

Get in on the discussion: Largest Tax Increase in American History!

Among the highlights:

• 24 percent say their ideal work arrangement in retirement is to “cycle” between periods of work and leisure.
• 52 percent say income is the top reason to work; 48 percent cite mental stimulation and satisfaction.
• 16 percent say they want to start their own business.
• 13 percent say they expect to work full-time.

And then there’s the 17 percent who say they hope to never work for pay again.

Most adults have financial concerns in retirement. But interestingly, the study found that people who earn more than $250,000 annually are more worried than those making less about health care expenses in retirement (52 percent versus 37 percent) and outliving their savings (34 percent versus 28 percent).

Here’s another surprise: 38 percent of pre-retirees think they’ll miss a reliable income most in retirement. But 34 percent of retirees say social connections are what they miss most; 29 percent cited income.

Despite Americans’ intention to work longer, nearly three in five retirees say they left their jobs for good earlier than they thought.

Here’s why:

• 34 percent cited health problems.
• 27 percent said they had sufficient financial resources.
• 24 percent  cited layoffs.
• 16 percent say they wanted to spend more time with family.
• 10 percent say they needed to look after a family member.

When asked what was most important to pass on to future generations, three in four cited values and life lessons. One in three said money and financial assets.

I’m pretty sure my kids are hoping I’m the one in three.

Photo: Goingslo/flickr 

Among all workers 55 and older, the  jobless rate remained at 5.5 percent last month, same as in March.

For men in that age group, the rate held steady at 5.7 percent for the second consecutive month. For women, the unemployment rate fell from 5.2 percent in March to 4.8 percent in April. That’s a considerable improvement, though levels tend to be more volatile for women because their figures are not seasonally adjusted.

Nationally, the jobless rate ticked down one-tenth of 1 percent to 7.5 percent, the lowest level in four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Some 11.7 million people are out of work, down by 673,000 from January.

To understand how far we’ve come, consider that the jobless rate in April, 2012, stood at 8.1 percent;  in April, 2011, it hovered at 9 percent; and in April, 2010, it hit 9.9 percent.

[Read: How Should Older Workers Navigate the Job Market?]

April’s better-than-expected jobs report eased economists’ fears of a spring slowdown leading into a summer slump. That’s been the pattern over the last several years—a stronger recovery early in the year that peters out as spring and summer approach. Still, the economy needs to add at least 200,000 jobs a month for the jobless rate to fall.

At this rate of growth, says economist Adam Hersh with the Center for American Progress, “we will not reach full employment until June 2021.”

One troublesome spot in the report: More Americans were working part-time in April because they couldn’t find full-time work, or because their hours were cut, the BLS noted. Their numbers rose by 278,000 to 7.9 million.

One devastating spot in the report: One in two unemployed older workers was out of work for six months or more in April. That figure underscores the brutal challenge many older job seekers face in finding work. Overall, the number of long-term unemployed fell by 258,000 to 4.4 million last month.

Once again, the duration of unemployment last month grew for older workers to 50.2 weeks from 49.2 weeks in March. For those under 55, the duration in April grew to 36.9 weeks from 35.7 weeks the month before.

Given the amount of time it’s taking workers 55-plus to find a job, it’s not surprising that some have given up altogether. The number of older discouraged workers (people who stopped looking for work because they grew so discouraged by their prospects) rose by nearly 50,000 in April.

To highlight the plight of older job seekers, PBS NewsHour will air a broadcast Friday night as part of its series on older workers and the economy. Correspondent Paul Solman looks at the grim prospects facing the long-term unemployed.

Underemployment, which combines the unemployed with those who are working part-time because they couldn’t find full-time work, stood at 17.5 percent in April. That was down from 18.2 percent in April 2012, according to the Gallup polling organization, which tracks that data.

In the latest report on downsizing, employers announced plans to trim payrolls by 38,121 in April, the lowest level of job cuts since December, according to the outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas.  For the first four months of 2013, the pace of downsizing—at 183,162—was virtually the same as a year ago.

The retail industry suffered the biggest job cuts announced in April, the report said.

“The biggest concern is that consumers, who had been holding up the economy for so many months, are starting to scale back their spending as wages continue to stagnate,” John A. Challenger, chief executive officer, said in a statement.  “American’s wages are not quite keeping pace with increased expenses.  As a result, we are not going to see a big increase in consumer spending.”

Aerospace and defense firms announced 2,927 job cuts last month, most of which were blamed on federal spending cuts or concerns over sequestration.

The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid fell last week to a seasonally adjusted 324,000, the lowest since  2008, the government reported earlier this week. The four-week average, a more accurate gauge, fell by  16,000 to 342,250.

Photo: KYNGPAO/flickr

Also of Interest

• Women Face Tough Challenges in Retirement… But Can Overcome Them!
• Retirement Gamble: Wake-Up Call on 401(k) Fees
• Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being

See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more

Unless we can save a few bucks by switching doctors. Then some of us are out the door before the receptionist can tell us to have a seat.

In a new poll of 713 people, as many as 1 in 3 say they’d rather pay less for their health plan, even if it meant swapping doctors.

Half of those who’d make the switch say they’d do it to save $500 to $1,000 annually on their health plan premium. The other half are more loyal: They wouldn’t ditch their doctor unless they saved between $1,000 and $3,000 or more, the survey found.

More than 40 percent of those polled say they wouldn’t change their physician despite such savings.

The survey was done by the website HealthPocket, which rates and compares health care plans. Steve Zaleznick, the site’s executive director for consumer strategy and development, says researchers were surprised at how receptive consumers were to switching doctors to save money.

Apparently, doctors are surprised, too, by the reasons for which patients change practices. In a separate study by a health research group in late 2011 , doctors believed that 80 percent of patients switched providers because they moved or had a change in insurance. Interestingly, only 38 percent of consumers say they changed doctors for those reasons.

In fact, more than half (58 percent) of the consumers surveyed say they switched doctors for better treatment or service. Yet doctors thought that only 22 percent of patients left for better service, according to the study by the Altarum Institute, a nonprofit health systems research group in Washington.

In case you were wondering, the Physicians Foundation conducted a survey last year to find out whether patients were very satisfied with their family physician or primary-care doctor. Based on their visits in the past year, most of those surveyed said they were.

In the HealthPocket poll, researchers wanted to assess patient satisfaction ahead of the changes taking effect next year with the Affordable Care Act. Other than cost, consumers mainly choose certain health plans because their doctor participates in that plan’s network of providers.

On the HealthPocket website, a category was added that enables consumers to review and compare health plans (including Medicare and Medicaid) to see which plans their doctors accept.

Hang In There/flickr

Also of Interest

• Walgreens to Become 1st Retail Chain to Diagnose, Treat Chronic Conditions
• Nurse-Practitioners: The Answer to the Doctor Shorage?
• Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being

See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more