Your employees fear outliving their retirement savings — and they expect you to help

Eight in 10 American workers have financial fears about living longer — and an overwhelming majority say their employer has a responsibility to do something about it. That is the headline finding from new TIAA research that concerns every HR leader managing retirement benefits for a multi-generational workforce.

The 2026 TIAA Retirement in the Age of AI and GLP-1s Survey, conducted by KRC Research among 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 to 65 between July 27 and July 31, 2026, finds that most American workers believe employers should offer retirement plans with options for converting savings into guaranteed income that never runs out. Released to coincide with National Retirement Security Month, the research identifies two forces making that expectation harder to meet: artificial intelligence (AI) and GLP-1 medications, a class of drugs originally developed to treat diabetes and obesity whose potential to extend healthy lifespans is simultaneously exciting and financially alarming.

What your workforce is worried about

The anxiety runs across every income level and generation, but it's especially important for HR leaders thinking about plan design and employee communications.

Fifty-three percent of respondents worry most about withdrawing too much from their retirement savings and running out of money before they die — compared to just 21% who worry about underspending. Only 16% say they are prioritizing financial planning over physical health to prepare for a longer life, while 53% say they focus on both equally.

The top financial fears associated with living longer are ones HR leaders will recognize from benefits conversations: 46% fear running out of money to cover basic day-to-day living expenses; 42% worry about not having enough disposable income to enjoy extra years in retirement; 41% fear the high cost of long-term medical, memory, or nursing care; and 30% worry about becoming a financial burden on their children or family members.

Forty-three percent of survey respondents say they are not confident that traditional retirement planning methods adequately account for longer lifespans. That figure rises to 49% among women and 47% among Gen Z workers — two groups that HR leaders are increasingly focused on retaining and supporting through tailored benefits strategies.

Tim Pitney, Managing Director and Head of Lifetime Income Distribution at TIAA in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says the industry has long asked too much of the average worker.

"As an industry, we've been trying for decades to make the common worker an investment expert," Pitney told IBB. "And I think it's difficult."

The longevity gap HR leaders need to understand

Part of what makes the retirement anxiety in this survey so consequential for employers is that it is grounded in a real miscalculation — one that affects how employees think about their financial futures and, in turn, how they engage with the retirement benefits HR teams put in front of them.

Workers tend to anchor on average life expectancy at birth — roughly 78 averaged across males and females — without accounting for what reaching retirement age actually does to those odds. A 65-year-old has already survived the events that pull down population averages. Their true planning horizon is considerably longer.

"You get to 65, you survived any other major healthcare issues or disasters, and now your longevity is not 78 — it's more akin to like 87 or 88," Pitney said. "And then for a couple, for one to survive, it's into the 90s, 94, 95 or so."

For HR leaders, that recalibration has two practical implications. First, retirement plans that treat age 65 as a finish line — delivering employees a lump sum and wishing them well — are structurally misaligned with how long those retirements will actually last. Second, employees who underestimate their own longevity are likely to underestimate how much they need to save, and may arrive at retirement financially underprepared — a workforce wellbeing and reputational issue for employers who care about outcomes beyond the working years.

"Plan sponsors are getting a little more paternalistic than maybe they had before, providing more income solutions and a landing spot for people that want to stay within the retirement plan," Pitney said. "For years, we've been talking about this concept of a retirement tier built in as a plan design mechanism — and what that means is having that landing spot, to give people a reason to stay in the retirement plan."

AI and GLP-1s: a workforce planning problem as much as a retirement one

For HR leaders managing multi-generational workforces, the survey's AI findings add a layer of complexity that extends well beyond retirement planning into workforce strategy.

Forty percent of Americans overall view the rise of AI in the workplace as a threat to their retirement plans. Among Gen Z workers — the cohort HR leaders are most focused on attracting and retaining — 42% are extremely or very concerned that AI could disrupt their careers or reduce their earning potential before they retire comfortably, the highest level of concern of any generational cohort.

The logic is direct: if AI shortens careers or reduces earnings during the accumulation years, employees arrive at retirement with smaller balances and a longer time horizon to fund. That is a compounding problem, and it lands on HR's plate in two ways — as a workforce anxiety to address through communications and benefits design, and as a genuine risk to the retirement readiness of employees who may have saved less than previous generations.

On healthcare costs — a top concern for HR leaders in their own right — the survey finds American workers nearly evenly split on what AI will do in retirement: 27% believe AI will increase healthcare costs by creating expensive new breakthrough treatments; 22% believe it will lower costs through greater efficiency; 20% expect no significant financial impact; and 32% simply do not know. Seventy-seven percent already identify the rising cost of healthcare as a direct threat to their retirement plans, behind only the rising cost of living and inflation, cited by 80%.

"If AI shortens the working career, that shortens the amount of time that workers can save through workplace retirement programs and puts an even bigger burden on the individual to save for themselves — but then be able to turn that into sustainable income in retirement," Pitney said.

What leading employers are already doing

The survey's findings coincide with a broader market shift that HR leaders should be tracking. According to the Life Insurance Marketing and Research Association (LIMRA), total US retail annuity sales reached a record $464.1 billion in 2025 — a 7% increase year over year and the fourth consecutive annual record. That volume reflects workers actively seeking guaranteed income solutions at retirement — often by rolling money out of employer plans and into the retail market.

The implication for HR leaders is significant. Employees who leave their employer's retirement plan at retirement to purchase retail annuity products are, in many cases, paying considerably more for income solutions than they would if those solutions were available inside the plan itself. The question of whether to build a credible retirement income tier into the workplace plan — giving employees a reason to stay — is increasingly one of employee financial wellbeing, not just plan administration.

TIAA is scaling that model across the broader 401(k) market. By the end of 2026, the firm expects to serve 1,000 unique institutions using customized solutions with embedded lifetime income in default investment options, reaching approximately $100 billion in assets and around one million participants by next year.

Ninety percent of survey respondents agree that all Americans should have access to retirement savings accounts and the resources and education needed to manage their funds effectively. That near-universal expectation is both a benchmark and a brief: the retirement benefit is no longer judged only by whether it exists, but by whether it actually helps employees navigate a longer, more uncertain retirement.

"An annuity doesn't care what AI does," Pitney said. "Regardless of what happens — whether medical advances extend longevity or don't move the needle, whether interest rates rise or fall — that guaranteed income payment will continue to arrive."

The question for HR leaders is whether their current retirement plan design is making that kind of certainty available to the people who need it most.