The Great Recession hurt a lot of people and this loss of wealth will follow millions into retirement, according to a report released Thursday.

Early baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1955) may be “the last group on track to retire with enough savings to maintain their financial security through their golden years," the study finds. But the rest of us are in for a world of hurt -- especially Gen-Xers (born between 1966 and 1975).

The study by Pew Charitable Trusts, Retirement Security Across Generations: Are Americans Prepared for Their Golden Years? shows that early boomers lost 28 percent of their median net worth; late boomers (born between 1956 and 1965) lost 25 percent from 2007 to 2010. However, Gen-Xers lost nearly half (45 percent) of their wealth – about $33,000 on average – during that same time period. And they didn’t have that much savings to begin with.

“Gen-X is the first generation that’s unlikely to exceed the wealth of the group that came before it and face downward mobility in retirement,” said Erin Currier, director of Pew’s Economic Mobility Project. “They have lower financial net worth than previous groups had at this same age and they lost nearly half of their wealth in the recession.”

Financial planners generally recommend that you save enough to replace 70 to 100 percent of your pre-retirement income when you leave the workforce. Pew’s research shows the typical Gen-Xer will only be able to replace half of that income.

When it comes to retirement savings, late boomers (born between 1956 and 1965) are more like Gen-X than early boomers. They’re on track to replace only 60 percent of their pre-retirement income.

RELATED: Retirement age in US rises to 61 (from 57 in the 1990s

You may be surprised to learn that some people saw their wealth grow during the recession. Pew found that a sizable minority of households – 39 to 44 percent – had a positive change in wealth between 2007 and 2009.

“As an example, more than a third of households in this age group experienced gains in home equity during that two-year period,” Currier noted.

Gen-X: the most financially-challenged group
Gen-X wasn’t in very good shape before the recession hit. Their net worth was less than other age groups that came before them. They also had lowest rates of home ownership of all the groups studied.

The recession only made things worse. They experienced the largest percentage decline in median net worth, losing nearly half of their wealth.

Gen-X has significantly higher levels of debt than those in the other groups did at the same age. Pew found that the average Gen-Xer has already accumulated $80,000 in debt.

Key Findings

• Early boomers are financially prepared for retirement: Those born between 1946 and 1955 are approaching retirement in better financial shape than the age groups that came before them. This group benefited from both the dot-com boom and the housing bubble.Americans in their 50s and 60s have higher overall wealth, financial net worth, and home equity than Depression babies (born between 1926 and 1935) or war babies (born between 1936 and 1945) had at the same ages.
• Wealth accumulation and savings for Americans born after 1955 is mixed: Neither Gen-Xers (in their 30s and 40s) nor late boomers (in their late 40’s and 50’s) are on track to exceed the financial position of those immediately preceded them.
• Baby boomers and Gen-Xers have significantly lower asset-to-debt ratios than do older Americans: Depression and war babies spent the last two decades reducing their debt, while baby boomers and Gen-Xers have been accumulating it. In 2010, war babies had accumulated assets worth 27 times more than their debts. In contrast, assets for late boomers were only four times their debts. Gen-Xers’ assets were about double their debts.

Pew’s Erin Currier believes there is a clear takeaway message for America’s policymakers from this data.

“As they focus attention on America’s retirement security, particular consideration should be paid to helping  the youngest groups change course to make up for these losses in order to prevent downward mobility in the long-term,” she said.

Herb Weisbaum is The ConsumerMan. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter or visit The ConsumerMan website.

Getty Images stock

Women having babies in the United States are more educated than ever, a trend that has accelerated during the recession.

The recession has been bad for a lot of people, but one sector is benefiting: babies.

Women having babies in the United States are more educated than ever, a trend that has accelerated during the recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

In the three years after the recession started in 2007, there was a 17 percent decline in births among women who did not have a high school diploma. By 2011, only 14 percent of new moms lacked a high school diploma, according to the report released Friday.

As of 2011, 66 percent of mothers with infant children had at least some college education, compared with 18 percent in 1960.

“We have a short-term-trend that is an exaggeration of a long-term trend,” said Gretchen Livingston, a senior researcher at Pew and the lead author of the report.

That’s good news for the babies, the Pew report notes, because of other research that has made a strong link between maternal education levels and healthy birth weights, delivering at term, improved cognitive skills and higher academic achievement. 

“It is difficult to determine whether maternal education is causing some of these outcomes, or if it is serving as a proxy for some other causal factor (for example, economic well-being). What is irrefutable, though, is that on average the more education a woman has, the better off her children will be,” the report states.

The caveat to that element is that on the extreme end, older women tend to have higher health risks during late pregnancies, Livingston said. And while overall, women are having fewer babies since the recession started, the exception is women in their 40s, whose biological clocks leave fewer options to delay a pregnancy until the economy rebounds. Since 2008, birth rates are up 9 percent for women ages 40 to 44, according to the study.

“This short-term trend may be due to the fact that younger, less educated women have been particularly hard hit by the recession, and thus have delayed childbearing, the report states. “Or, it may be the case that younger women know that they have the time to ‘make-up’ childbearing when their prospects improve in the future, while the typical 40-year-old does not have that opportunity.”

The study also points out that the percentage of higher-educated mothers can be linked to the fact that the share of women with at least some college education has more than doubled since 1960 and has again stepped up since the recession started.

In recent years, the share of women ages 15 to 44 with less than a high school diploma declined by 5 percent and the share with only a high school diploma but no further education declined by 4 percent. During that time, the percentage of women of child-bearing age with a college degree increased by 6 percent while the women with at least some college education increased by 3 percent.

 Though the media has focused on the plight of unemployed dads, it’s moms who are suffering the most in the current recession, a new study shows. 

The study, which looked at the outcomes for laid-off workers across the United States, found that married women with kids spent more time in-between jobs than married dads.

Making matters worse for the moms was the big pay cut they took once they finally found a job: On average moms lost $175 per week more than dads, according to the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

For the study, co-author Michelle Maroto, an assistant professor in the sociology department at the University of Alberta, scrutinized four sets of data from the Displaced Workers Supplement, a nationally representative survey conducted by the Census Bureau every other year.

The 2010 survey, for example, included nearly 4,400 displaced workers (people who had been laid off or lost a job because of a plant closing), who took an average of 17 weeks to find a new job.

When the researchers broke down the data according to marital and parental status, they found that moms experienced a significant “motherhood penalty” while fathers got a “daddy bonus.”

Maroto’s data doesn’t offer explanations as to why moms are taking such a big hit, but there have been hints from experimental studies.

Recent research has shown that employers will choose a dad over a mom because they fear that moms won’t be as available or committed to the job, Maroto says.

The assumption is that moms are more likely than dads to make the family their top priority. So, if a child gets sick, it will be the mom, and not the dad, who takes time off from work.

Intriguingly, employers are more likely to hire single women than a single man. Maroto wasn’t sure what to make of that. But, she points out, when single men and single women do find new jobs, they take an equal hit to their salaries – which ends up being a lot larger, by $123 per week, than that experienced by married men

For women who fear they might be in danger of suffering from the motherhood penalty when looking for a new job, Maroto has some advice: Don’t volunteer anything about your family in job applications and interviews. 

“What I’d say to mothers with children is that you don’t necessarily have to disclose your personal details when you’re applying for a job,” she says. “It’s definitely not something you want to indicate on our resume.” 

More money and business news:

• The case for shutting up: How we really waste time at work
• Governments' radical solution to underwater mortgages: seize them
• Domino's new order: Hold the 'pizza' in our name
• Slideshow: The most-marketable Olympians
• Video: Wine snobs getting fleeced by fraud
• Sign up for our Business newsletter

Follow TODAY Money on Twitter and Facebook 

Tadija / featurepics.com

Putting on makeup to get a man may not be the most feminist concept, but it may also be hard-wired into women's brains.

When the economy goes sour, women stock up on products that can enhance their looks, a new study shows.

The reason is that women, consciously or not, are seeking to make themselves more attractive to the dwindling supply of men with good jobs, researchers say.

And in a bad economy, this suggests that companies selling beauty-enhancing products such as lipstick and designer jeans ought to hype the notion that with them you’re more likely to land a man, says study co-author Sarah E. Hill, an assistant professor of psychology at Texas Christian University.

“We may not consciously think we’re buying them to make ourselves more desirable to men,” Hill says. “But our lizard brains go after these things even when we think we’re too smart to be lured in by manipulative advertising claims like, ‘these jeans will help get you a man.’”

Hill and her colleagues got the idea to look at beauty enhancing products after she read an article describing the surprising success of Mary Kay, Inc., back in 2010 –  a time when the rest of the economy was tanking.

To see if the so-called lipstick-effect was broader than just one company, Hill and her colleagues examined 20 years of data scrutinizing the relationship between unemployment rates and sales of products that could be used to increase attractiveness, such as cosmetics, perfumes, and designer clothes.

“I was expecting to find sales of these products to at best be flat when unemployment was high,” she says. “That would have been interesting enough. But when we found that people were actually spending more during times of high unemployment, I thought that was fascinating.”

Data on sales of makeup, skin care, and fragrances in department stores echo the trend seen by Hill, with an increase in sales when unemployment was becoming bigger and bigger news. Sales rose 9 percent between 2009 and 2010 and another 11 percent between 2010 and 2011, according to The NPD Group, a market research company.

Next, the researchers ran a series of experiments to see if fears of high unemployment would affect the buying habits of men and women. In one, they asked 154 college students to read either an article on architecture or one on the economy, which was a modified version of a Wall Street Journal story that had originally been headlined “Worst Economic Crisis since the ‘30s With No End in Sight.”

Related: Do you make $30,000 a year or less? We want to hear from you.

The student volunteers were then asked to indicate their level of desire to purchase six products. Half the products – form-fitting jeans, form-fitting black dress (or polo-shirts for men), lipstick (or men’s facial cream) were chosen because they could be used to enhance physical appearance. In contrast, the other half were products such as, a wireless computer mouse, a stapler, and headphones.

Sure enough, women who read the story about the tanking economy were more likely to want to purchase beauty-enhancing products than women who read about architecture. Interestingly, choice of reading matter made no difference to the men.

Hill suspects the lipstick effect only impacts women because men in our culture don’t care whether their mates make a lot of money.

“There’s no impetus for men to make themselves more physically attractive to potential mates,” she says.

What Hill would like to know – and that may be the subject of a future study – is whether men who do have good jobs will be looking  for ways to advertise that fact to women they want to date.

“Perhaps if they have a good job in a recession they might do things to advertise that, such as wearing a flashy wristwatch or buying a fancy car.”  

The Great Recession and slow-like-a-slug recovery has hit all Americans in some way, but there’s been a lot of debate about who’s been hurt worst.

By one measure, Gen X appears to win the unenviable prize. This week, the Census Bureau reported that 35- to 44-year-olds saw their median household net worth decline by more than half, on average, between 2005 and 2010.

Still, every age group took a hit, and that was reflected in what our readers had to say about the post.

About half of the more than 27,000 readers who took our survey said they were worse off financially than back in 2005.

Many complained that their homes and investments are worth less, and yet costs for things like health care were going up. For others, it’s just been really tough to find, and keep, a good job.

“Had a full time job 2 years ago. Lay off. Now working part time and still looking for that full time job. Hourly wages have going down,” one reader wrote.

Still, others said that thanks to promotions, education, marriage or smart financial planning they were doing better than seven years ago, or at least about the same.

“Much better off, but I know that a) I am blessed and b) I am the exception,” one reader wrote.

No wonder so many of us aren’t looking forward to retiring. A separate post this week reported on a survey finding that only about half of working-age Americans were actively looking forward to retirement. For those who aren’t, to cost of retiring is a big factor.

A little more than one-third of the more than 28,000 people who took our poll on that subject said they were looking forward to retirement, but were unsure if they’d have enough money for it.

Many said they’ve had to adjust their expectations for retirement, and may not be able to take as many trips or do other things.

“Won't be able to live as I had originally planned, but at least I'll be out of the rat race and enjoying life!” one reader wrote.

Still, many readers said they were more than ready to make the leap, both emotionally and financially. Some are literally counting down the days.

“I can't get there soon enough. I've got to hang on for 896 more days, then free to do what I like on my own schedule. Wooohooo,” one reader wrote.

Now that the economy has been adding jobs at a steady clip, more of us are ready to tell our boss to “show me the money!”

After years of seeing tiny or non-existent pay increases, employees are more optimistic than they have been in four years that employers will hop on the raise bandwagon soon, according to a study released Wednesday by Glassdoor, a job listings site.

Raise optimists outnumbered pessimists for the first time since 2008, when the website began its quarterly Employment Confidence Survey.

Among the more than 2,000 adults polled last month by Glassdoor:

• 43 percent said they expected a raise in the next 12 months.
• 38 percent said they did not.
• 46 percent said they expected their company outlook to improve in the next six months, up 6 points from three months earlier.

Is this just wishful thinking on the part of recession weary workers?Maybe not.

Raises are indeed slowly making a comeback, said Ken Abosch, group compensation leader for Aon Hewitt, a human resources consulting firm.

But don’t expect your employer to break the bank.

Aon Hewitt surveyed nearly 1,500 U.S. companies last year about expectations for pay increases in 2012 and found employers planned to pay an average raise of 2.9 percent, up slightly from 2.8 percent in 2011, although way up from the record low 1.4 percent for 2009.

“Organizations are still very concerned with the health of economy, and they’re feeling pressures of global economy,” Abosch said. Many firms, he added, “fought hard in the last few years to gain control back over their fixed costs.”

Unfortunately for you working stiffs, your base salary is a big chunk of those costs, so employers want to do everything they can to keep a lid on it.

On the bright side, he added, more employers are paying out bonuses.

“Our statistics show that 90 percent of U.S. companies are providing bonuses as far down as the person sweeping the floor in the factory,” he said. That is up from 78 percent in 2005 and about 50 percent just 15 years ago.

The Aon Hewitt survey found:

• 86 percent of employers said they would fund variable pay based on company performance this year. In some cases, however, that is being combined with reduced merit pay raises and even layoffs.
• Nearly one in five employees (19 percent) are concerned they could be laid off in the next six months, up two points from the fourth quarter after declining the preceding two quarters.
• One-third of employees are concerned coworkers could be laid off in the next six months.

“Positive economic and company indicators are driving increased optimism around pay raises and company outlook, but that optimism hasn’t yet spilled over into individual job security or view of the job market,” said Rusty Rueff, career and workplace expert for Glassdoor.

“Employers should pay attention to employee expectations around pay and be more transparent to ensure employee sentiment is aligned with reality, which will help avoid disappointment that can impact morale.”

Greg Carroll left his job as an executive chef in 2009, when  his boss asked him to slash his 500-person staff by half. Since then, Carroll has done some catering, some consulting and some cooking in private homes. But full-time work has proven elusive.

So a few months ago, the 51-year-old Carroll posted an ad on Care.com, a site that pairs caregivers with potential employers. As a divorced father of four, he’s changed diapers, coached soccer and cooked healthy meals for his family. “I’m a great dad … so I thought (child care) might be something to look at.”

Heather Snyder

'Manny' Travis McGowin (center) with his two charges, Carson (left) and Lucas (right).

Carroll is part of a growing trend of men turning to child care work as a way to earn money in a difficult economy. Candi Wingate,  president of the Norfolk, Neb.-based Nannies4Hire.com, estimates she’s seen a 10 percent jump in men looking for childcare work since the economy turned south. Johanna Flattery, with Care.com, said men advertising for child care jobs on the site has risen more than 30 percent since October 2008.

Some of these men are unemployed teachers, or daycare workers looking to go the “manny route.” Some are dads, like Carroll, with plenty of real-world experience but no formal background in caring for other people’s kids. And some have virtually no child care experience, but hope someone might give them a shot, anyway.

The overwhelming majority of nannies and babysitters in the U.S. are women, and plenty of potential employers reflexively shy away from hiring men to care for their kids. Child care is still considered by many to be a “woman’s job,” and parents may wonder why a guy would want to warm bottles, wipe up snot and play with Webkinz.

There are plenty of reasons why families would want to hire a man to watch their kids, said Flattery. “Anecdotally, we’ve seen a lot of mothers with pre-teen boys and teenagers who tend to pursue a male care provider. The reasons have been because these men can ‘keep up with’ the boys and participate in activities.” And single moms with male children often seek out men as care givers because they want a male role model for their sons.

Travis McGowin, a firefighter and part-time “manny” from Prattville, Ala., started working with children at a local YMCA and kept on doing child care throughout fire school.

“I do continue to do this for the extra income, especially because of the way the economy has gone in the past few years,” said McGowin. But he also just loves working with kids.

“Kids accept people for who they are, instead of superficial things. If you have a genuine interest in what they’re doing, they’re going to be interested in you. If you show them love and interest, they’ll love you,” explained McGowin. “Kids have this whole unconditional love thing, and that’s what kept me in it the longest, more so than the money, actually.” 

Have you noticed more men getting into child care? And would you hire a man to care for your children?

A new University of Kansas study indicates that men are more likely to cheat on their spouses during tough financial times.

By The Associated Press

With some experts predicting the economy is already slipping back into recession, now's the time to make sure you and your family are prepared to handle another downturn.

"It's important to understand that recession doesn't mean a bad economy — we've had that for years now," said a recent report from the Economic Cycle Research Institute, which has called the last four recessions accurately. "It means an economy that keeps worsening, because it's locked into a vicious cycle."

Families are already feeling the pain. Recent data show they're earning less and cutting back on spending.

So how can a family that is already hunkered down prepare for even worse times?

Start by assessing the health of your household finances and job security. Then lay out a plan to handle critical and long-term risks to each.

Each family's response will be unique, reflecting its situation, said Patricia Seaman, senior director at the National Endowment for Financial Education. Those who fear their job is on the chopping block, for instance, may decide it's time to move into crisis mode on the financial front before the pink slip arrives. Those who are less concerned may decide now is the time to make themselves more indispensable at work.

Here are some ideas for putting together your own plan:

FINANCES

Most of financial planner Chris Bixby's clients at Key Private Bank are more aware of their financial situations now than they were three years ago, and are more conscious to avoid overspending. But he said few have cut back as much as they could have — or perhaps should have. Now, he said, it's time for a financial reality check.

In general, there are two ways to find savings when it comes to regular spending: trim the big expenses and eliminate the little ones.

For instance, take a careful look at big bills such as your insurance policies, especially if they haven't been updated recently. Does your homeowner's policy reflect the current value of your house, or the bubble price? Are you paying several insurance companies and missing out on multiple policy discounts?

Reworking your policies can save hundreds of dollars a year.

If you don't have an emergency fund to fall back on, those savings can provide a kick-start to building one. Such a fund should be a priority, NEFE's Seaman said. Households should aim to have at least six months of expenses stashed away, more if you're fearful of a job loss, because it's so common these days to be out of work for long periods.

Some other areas where you might be able to find savings:

• Housing. Mortgage rates are at an all-time low and refinancing could shave hundreds off your monthly payment. Even if your credit standing is less-than-stellar and you can't get the lowest possible rate, you still may be able to save with a new loan. Compare rates offered by several banks.
• Bank accounts. More banks are adding monthly fees and service charges. Switching banks is one way to save on fees, but you might avoid some of that hassle by simply linking accounts, adding direct deposit or using bill payment services. Automatic bill payments can also help you avoid late fees.
• Credit cards. Annual fees are no longer rare and interest rates have climbed. Although it's best to pay off the balance each month to avoid interest charges, if you carry a balance make sure you're getting the best rate possible. Sometimes, a simple phone call to the bank that issued the card will result in a rate reduction because they want to keep your business, said NEFE's Seaman. Also ask if the annual fee can be waived.
• Monthly payment plans. There are pros and cons to monthly plans. On the positive side, utilities and other service providers like heating oil companies will often allow customers to enroll in level billing plans that can reduce monthly expenses by spreading payments over the whole year. That can be especially helpful during winter months when heating and electric costs spike. The flip side is monthly plans for gym memberships, online music services and other lower priorities. These seemingly small charges quickly add up and are wasteful if you don't use them. Identify which can be eliminated.
• Everyday spending. If you're not the type to track every penny you spend, check out personal finance management software to get a picture of where your daily dollars are going. Many banks offer links on their websites, or try a free third-party site like Mint.com or Yodlee.com's MoneyCenter. These programs will sort your spending into categories and produce charts and graphs that may surprise you — spotlighting budget busters like excessive ATM fees or an over-reliance on take-out food. Once you've done the work to trim where it doesn't hurt, it might be time to take a look at some items closer to the heart. For instance, the average household spends about $115 per month on subscription entertainment, including cable and satellite services, video games and publications like magazines, according to the NPD Group, a market research firm. It may be hard to pull the plug during football season — but if you're in crisis mode cutting out cable may be necessary.

CAREER

• There are steps you can take if you think your company may start cutting back staff, said Eleta Jones, associate director of the Center for Professional Development at the University of Hartford, Conn.
• Solve problems. "Think about the business issues your organization is dealing with," she said. Are there ways you can help by pointing out problems that could be weighing down the company, but not registering on management's radar? By raising the issues and offering solutions, she said, you may raise your profile and remove yourself from the list of people to be let go. 
• Get the boss's attention. "People assume their boss knows what they're doing, the projects they've done, the things they've accomplished," Jones said. That may not be the case, so when something goes well, especially if a customer is involved, make sure management is alerted. This is particularly relevant before a performance appraisal. She advises anyone who is expecting a review to provide a summary of accomplishments before it is prepared as a way to make sure all your work is reflected in the evaluation.
• Sell yourself. Outside the office, it's important to have a resume prepared and up to date. But having more than one, each tailored to different types of jobs or even to different companies you want to target in a job search, is an even better tactic.
• Expand your connections. Networking can start at a professional organization, alumni club, social group, church or even the dentist's chair, Jones said, recalling an acquaintance who landed a job after mentioning to his dentist that he was looking for work. Online resources like LinkedIn.com and to a lesser extent Facebook can also be places to make connections, but Jones said face-to-face networking is usually more successful. "It's a matter of trying to cast your net in a lot of different directions."
• Don't be too aggressive. Job seekers, or potential job seekers, should approach new contacts for information, not for a position. For instance, pick a company that you're interested in applying to, seek out people who work there, and ask questions about their division, the business climate and so forth. "You don't want to impose yourself too hard on somebody," Jones said, but she added that most people are willing to offer information and advice.
• Search smart. Information about who is hiring can also be found on targeted websites that specialize in certain types of jobs, like idealist.org for nonprofit jobs or computerjobs.com for tech work. But going directly to an organization is often more successful.
• Stay involved. If you are out of work, keeping busy is important. Volunteering a few days a week, for instance, can provide structure to what seems like an aimless day, offer networking opportunities and be included on a resume. It can also remove some of the stress from the job hunt. "Be careful about filling up time doing things other than looking for a job," Jones said. "You can't look for a job all day long."

Here’s one of the ways the recession and financial crisis has changed many people’s lives: They’ll be spending more years at the office.

A new survey of Americans 55 and over finds that those older Americans now expect to retire at age 69, on average. A decade ago, they expected to retire at 64.

The survey of about 1,000 people 55 and over was conducted by Harris Interactive for SunAmerica, which sells variable annuities and other investment products.

So what’s keeping us at the office longer? Blame the recession and weak stock market gains over the past decade. That’s left many people more worried about whether they’ll have enough money to fund their golden years.

Forty-four percent of those surveyed said they feel “secure” about their financial situation these days, compared with 62 percent who felt that way before the recession began.

In addition, 28 percent are currently angry about their financial situation.

Even after they retire, about two-thirds said they would like to continue to do some work. The respondents were almost equally split on whether they would keep working for the stimulation and satisfaction, or would be doing it for the money.

SunAmerica is a unit of insurance giant AIG, which was a key player in the 2008 financial crisis. AIG was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy when it received billions of dollars in federal bailout funds in the fall of 2008. The company has since gone through extensive restructuring.

Council on Foreign Relations

The old recession norm went like this: Economy dips, jobs get lost; economy gains, jobs get added.

 In other words, a V shape.

The new normal looks like a U – and an increasingly elongated one at that.

A new graphic from the Council on Foreign Relations shows what many jobseekers are already painfully aware of: Since the 1990s, the U.S. job market has hobbled slowly back to health, struggling along even when the economy was on the mend.

The situation was even worse in the Great Recession. Although the biggest recession since the Depression has officially been over for around two years, millions of Americans remain jobless. The unemployment rate was 9.1 percent in May; the June jobless report is due out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics next Friday.

This CFR’s outlook is not heartening for jobseekers: If the current trends continue, job levels will not be back to where they were prior to the recession until 2016, according to their calculations.

We may not always like our family members, but many of us love them enough to make a major sacrifice: Working longer.

A new survey from TD Ameritrade found that more than half of all baby boomers – defined as those born between 1946 and 1964 - would be willing to financially support their adult children, even if it took away from their own savings goals, including retirement.

That’s not necessarily just a theoretical idea. The survey of about 1,000 adults found that 44 percent of boomer parents expect they will have to provide some financial support for their children, and most would feel obligated to help if they were asked. About half of the baby boomer parents also said they have had children 25 or over live with them for three months or longer.

The good news: The kids are more than happy to return the favor, even at their own expense. The survey found that 88 percent of Generation Y respondents and 91 percent of Gen X respondents would financially support their parents even if it took away from their savings and retirement goals.

Even if you aren’t helping out your kids or your parents, plenty of you will be working longer because of the recent recession.

The survey, conducted in March and April, found that around one-third of respondents have stopped or reduced their retirement savings as a result of the recent recession.

Plenty of us seem to be aware of the repercussions. About half of the approximately 1,000 adults surveyed said they plan to retire later than expected as a result of the current economic conditions.

We may not be saving enough, but we sure are fretting about it a lot.

A separate Gallup poll released Wednesday found that Americans’ biggest financial worry is retirement: 66 percent of us are worried we won’t have enough money for retirement.