摘要翻译：
我提出证据，结合昂贵的思想解决了退休文学中的三个谜题。第一个难题是，如果有激励因素，在法定的国家养老金年龄(SPA)时，劳动力市场大量退出的程度似乎与理性预期不符。除了这个谜题的证据之外，我还包括一个实证分析，重点是流动性约束是否能解释这种聚集，并发现它们不能。通过探索一个与聚合概要相匹配的rational Agent的生命周期模型，这个谜题的本质得到了澄清。该模型通过高估SPA对较贫穷个人的影响而低估其对较富裕人群的影响，成功地匹配了总量。第二个困惑是人们经常错误地对待自己的养老金规定。关于第二个难题，我将对SPA的理性不注意纳入前面提到的生命周期模型，从而允许错误的信念。据我所知，本文不仅首次将理性不注意纳入生命周期模型，而且首次用非实验个体选择数据对理性不注意模型进行了评估。这促进了另一个重要的贡献：用主观信念数据约束注意力的成本。初步结果表明，理性的不注意提高了总的拟合度，并更好地匹配了整个财富分配的参与对SPA的反应，从而提供了第一个难题的解决方案。第三个难题是，尽管从精算上看，推迟领取养老金福利的选择是有利的，但使用率极低。该模型的一个扩展产生了对最后一个谜题的解释：精算计算暗示延迟是更可取的，忽略了跟踪养老金的效用成本，这可以通过索赔来避免。这些困惑是在英国女性水疗中心改革的背景下进行研究的。
---
英文标题：
《Rational Inattention and Retirement Puzzles》
---
作者：
Jamie Hentall MacCuish
---
最新提交年份：
2019
---
分类信息：

一级分类：Economics        经济学
二级分类：General Economics        一般经济学
分类描述：General methodological, applied, and empirical contributions to economics.
对经济学的一般方法、应用和经验贡献。
--
一级分类：Quantitative Finance        数量金融学
二级分类：Economics        经济学
分类描述：q-fin.EC is an alias for econ.GN. Economics, including micro and macro economics, international economics, theory of the firm, labor economics, and other economic topics outside finance
q-fin.ec是econ.gn的别名。经济学，包括微观和宏观经济学、国际经济学、企业理论、劳动经济学和其他金融以外的经济专题
--

---
英文摘要：
  I present evidence incorporating costly thought solves three puzzles in the retirement literature. The first puzzle is, given incentives, the extent of bunching of labour market exits at legislated state pension ages (SPA) seems incompatible with rational expectations. Adding to the evidence for this puzzle, I include an empirical analysis focusing on whether liquidity constraints can explain this bunching and find they cannot. The nature of this puzzle is clarified by exploring a life-cycle model with rational agents that matches aggregate profiles. This model succeeds in matching aggregates by overestimating the impact of the SPA on poorer individuals whilst underestimating its impact on wealthier people. The second puzzle is people are often mistaken about their own pension provisions. Concerning the second puzzle, I incorporate rational inattention to the SPA into the aforementioned life-cycle model, allowing for mistaken beliefs. To the best of my knowledge, this paper is the first not only to incorporate rational inattention into a life-cycle model but also to assess a rationally inattentive model against non-experimental individual choice data. This facilitates another important contribution: discipling the cost of attention with subjective belief data. Preliminary results indicate rational inattention improves the aggregate fit and better matches the response of participation to the SPA across the wealth distribution, hence offering a resolution to the first puzzle. The third puzzle is despite actuarially advantageous options to defer receipt of pension benefits, take up is extremely low. An extension of the model generates an explanation of this last puzzle: the actuarial calculations implying deferral is preferable ignore the utility cost of tracking your pension which can be avoided by claiming. These puzzles are researched in the context of the reform to the UK female SPA.
---
PDF链接：
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06520