Poverty Dyamics Among MatureWomen:
Evidencefrom the NationalLongitudinal
Surveys 1967-1989
Donald
The
O. Parsons
Ohio State Universi~
[email protected]
Jmuq
1995
~s paperwm tided by theU.S.Dep-at
ofLahr, Bweau ofLabor Statiadcs
molarstil pmchase
order.
The viewsewressadhereae thox &the authorsaad do notnec=stilyreflect
thetiem ofthe
U.S.Dq_ent
ofhhr.
. . . ..-.
tive sma~
&ecu
Massive
program
and
reduced
among
trasfer
the
population
average
to
Disuatch,
At
the
rent reduction
to achieve
orighs
the same
confront
on increased
sion
later
first
come.
such
possibility
outside
resolvable
tem.
long
life
The
of
these
retirement
second
with
as
a broader
is
among
(CQlumhus
wom~
to secure
C=
the
be
cw-
it is possible
tool.
it is i~orcant
Without
“Is aged
or
a husb=d,
redistribution
aqeement
policy
and
in the desire
of the cmrent
m
extenshocks
or death?
is
unlikely
distribution
and
rely
expanded
wealth
s dis~ility
problem
the
of
muse
an
pri=rily
of negative
on the appropriate
insurance
plmers
through
poverty
~estion
to how
an mderstanding
perhaps
or is .it tie result
a social
changes
Aqing
70 perc~t
men. “
these
the
is not
Select
‘tWomen are
U.S.
than
of poverty
of whether
the aged,
to the aged,
a divorce
is a basic
issues,
age women.
Lrnsfers
condition
rate
in the
less
a House
rewired
Westion
policy
to poverty
caah
was
than
s~ly
poverty
persons
to ask how
ewenditmes
a second
the
incidence
in poverty
kve
cheaply.
as the otiy poverty
of a life
resolved
lead
tirecr
program,
in
among
tkt
raises
goal more
either
of poverty
the processes
SS1
in poverty
all
reported,
It is natual
the huge
1959
Citing
metier
retirement
of
The
however.
time,
In
retirement
system,
[1989) the rate
population,
25, 1992)
same
later
secu=ity
into=
that
14.2%)
their
September
helped.
than
a sdcomittee
spend
social
security
(12. 4% versus
report,
Mely
years
the
Americans.
greater
Thirty
the agtig
subcommittee
aged
of
5?%
22.4%) .
across
TO
was
especially
SUPP 1 emental
levels
65+
(35.2% versus
more
related
the poverty
persons
eqal
program,
is
social
The
to
be
of in-
potentially
insm~ce
sys-
The
set
Nat ional
for e~lortig
this
information
on
in the first
year
ewlore
retire
sample.
respondents
Major
into
analysis
were
Su~ey
Offering
5000
dmatics
on
of
of the ~lysis
Women
a Tarter
of a
respondents
provides
midlife
the retirement
52 to 66 years
findings
from
focuses
of Mature
femle
(1967) , the NLS panel
h
The
issue.
approtimtely
income
family
sqle
Longitudinal
period
the
to tie
provides
century
of
a valuable
eve of
period
of age
opportunity
to
for the
retirement
stiset
at which
&ta
detailed
30 to 44 years
for a stist=tial
1967-1989
a rich
of the
time
the
age.
include:
1)
poverty
dynamics
are
quite
stable.
Over
much
of this
time,
Specifically
an income
model
with a permaent
coqonent
=d
a white
noise component
has the
“fits” the &ta
rather well . This structure
implication
that the ent~
into -d
exit from poverty are independat
of
the intemwing
time inte~al.
The exit rate from poverty,
for example , will be the same over twenty years as over five.
The exit md
entry rates are especially
st~le
over time intervals
exceeding
five
years.
poverty entv
?nd retention rates do appear to ti~=ge with age,
however, increasing
si~ifi~tly
as respondents
approach
retirement
age.
2)
Three
quarters
of
The overall level of poverty persistence
is high.
all aged
females
in poverty come from families with low incomes
(less
than twice the poverty threshold)
in midlife.
Forty pert-t
come from
The aged poor
families
that were in poverty
themselves
at midlife.
problem is much more tb
a social insurance
problem.
Most also had
low incomes in midlife.
3)
The persistence
of poverty was especially
high for black
women
Two thirds
of aged poor black
women
were also poor
two decades before.
Ninety percent of the aged black poor kd
low incomes
(less than twice
the poverty threshold)
two decades before.
4)
in midlife , the
Despite the large fraction or aged poor who were poor
social
insurance
problem
is not inconsequential.
Approximately
one
Warcer
of the poor in 19S 9 had family
incomes
that were more
than
twice
the poverty
level in 1967.
The majority of these e~er+enced
a
marital disnption.
Most intact families t~t
reported a ~tas trophic
de c 1 ine in income
reported
the l~or
force with&awal
of the hush=d.
%parently
private. ad
p~lic
insur-ce
mechanisms
failed
to protect
women in these situati~ns
from major declines in economic status
ii
5)
the daughters
were much better
In the retched mother-daughter
sa~le,
They were only half as likely to be h poverty at
off economically.
Pzalleltig
the lives of their mothers,
the sae
age as their mothers.
however,
poor daughters
were primarily
draw
from families that were
=most
one half the poor daughters
had poor mothers,
themselves
poor.
almost
80 percent
had low income mothers
(less tti
twice the poverty
ttieshold] .
iii
I.
Introduction
Massive
program
and
reduced
among
transfer
the related
the
poverty
persons
65+
especially
programs,
supplemental
levels
of
57%
greater
was
1
Thirty
the population
average
(12.4% versus
e~al
across
the agtig
sbcomittee
report,
more
to
likely
Disuatch,
helped.
rent
At the
to achieve
the same
goal
either
0 f poverty
that
on
direct
SS1 program,
of
benefit.
(cncial
to moral
standing
of
primrily
an extension
tive
the
weal th shocks
or death?
The
poverty
policy
h
The
in
the rate was
of
a House
than
how
rewired
U. S .
less
than
poverty
70
Agtig
(Colufius
women
to see-e
of whether
is
percent
men. 1,
these
rate
the
Select
Z,
WOme D are
in poverty
~estion
sharp lY
the poverty
incidence
to ask
have
persons
Citing
can
the
be
cur-
it is possible
issues , it i.s importut
Without
age women.
among
the aged,
to the aged,
tool.
Even
the
hehvior
processes
condition
is a basic
1
know
plmers
through
mut
of
rely
consequences
earlier
without
in the life
an
Is aged
or a nub-d,
redistribution
“the
an eqmded
or is it the result
1if e such as a divorce
possibility
to
an wderstmding
fidirect
are ~ow~le
socio -economic
long
policy
perhaps
tha
on recipient
Westions)
of a life
later
first
levels
tizard
underlying
all
1959
retirement
cheaply.
“cash transfers
SS1
of
reported,
a second
to poverty
only
In
e~enditures
retirement
as the
increased
cycle
more
of these
lead
metier
the huge
.
however.
It is natural
raises
among
the processes
increased
time,
2
security
sys t em,
(1989)
later
retirement
1992)
in poverty
To confront
o r i gins
25,
same
reduction
population,
their
that
14.2%)
a sticomittee
spend
Septefier
years
social
income
Americans
than
22.4%)
not
security
aged
versus
(35.2%
the
underpoverty
of nega-
s dis~ility
question
and
is
unlike
lY
to be resolved
tribution
of
potentially
surmce
income.
resolv~le
Nat ional
this
inf ormat ion
on
in the
year
first
plore
family
entire
sawle
second
with
ctiqes
on the appropriate
insurance
in the desi~
into
analyses
the
aged
problem
of the. current
of
stresses
a ten
year
of
dis -
and
is
social
this
in-
and
italics]
Conversely
that most
poverty.
will
At
have
Bane
persistence,
than
same
very
of
long
two.
of
one
than
As
poor
and
of age
to
ex-
for
the
of the
at which
year
many
of people
before
who
of
(1984) , for
out
of
poverry
found
tnose
years.
,,
stnck
cone lude
tive
discussion
are
individuals
will
to
of
(1986) are
they
of program
“Only a Ii ctle
one-half
over
among
poverty
2
period
Ducm
findings,
and Ellwood
the ~jority
spells
s–dset
design
into
in
poor
who ever become
time,
the
in dispute.
his
less
especially
a year
opportunity
to the general
in poverty
persistently
of those
the
living
considerably
remain
more
for
individuals
As he sumarizes
.perience poverty
for
of
detailed
30 to 44 years
1967-1989
data
of age.
issue much
the
poverty
on the
poverty,
flows
of
fox a s~stantial
information
an
a rich
to the eve of retirement
from midlife
will
provides
a rich
provi~s
contributes
poor
of poverty
pmel
respondents
the =alysis
of the itiitiduals
levels
female
52 to 66 years
period.
(p .3)
of a century
foas
the large
next,
a ~arter
to follow
one-half
in
Women
period
were
poverty,
of Mature
the retirement
value
persistence
example,
5000
(1967) , the ~S
the respond=ts
reduce
time
agreem-t
a social
Offering
issue.
approximately
-d
Beyond
fomd
is
Suney
income”””dwamics-
The
sample.
over
The
Longitudinal
set for ~loring
the
a broader
system.
The
time
outside
only
to be
who
~-
[author,
by
s
the high
who
remain
in
their
study,
,SWe
a short
are poor
they
over
escape.
stay
in
at a given
“
(P .21)
Wowing
the
would
ing
proportion
be helpful
of
the
measures
to poliq
or ig ins
are
likely
the persistently
rely
focuses
, ones
on five
neglecting
study
19s9.
each
might
s cohort
reflects
Mature
The
design
aggregate
8. 7%
in
1981
in the NLS
preceding
Mature
the sumey)
to
and
for
a
understand-
--appropriate e PO1 icy
poor
important
and
study
for
both
independent
the oversawling
agati
blacks
with
of
well,
Table
from
average
in
the
in
NLS
from
19S1.
the rate Aout
thee
of poverty
rates
b
income
the
years,
In “the
A.
13. 9% in 1966
in
Mature
later
1, Panel
for the
declines
tO .14.2%
respondents
(family
collected
the
S2 -19s 7-
of blacks
attrition
to 13. 6% in 19S6
was
In particular
with
Y
1967- 19S 9,
1967-1972-1977-19
conducted
rate declines
POvert
the...analysis
period
status.
for
The mtional
and
year
experience
rather
term
to ret+rernent,
the years
were
10n9
poverty
Women, s Suney
similar
tr..ulY
differential
trends
increasing
whites
provide
in income
adjust
increasing
.
that
populatiofi
and Ellwood
the twenty-two
over
average
11.8 % in 1976 before
for
over
the poverty
before
reasOn
the B-e
from midlife
inte~iews
poverty
Women, s cohors,
and
anal YZin9
stretch
tr-sitions
.
the. poverty
is iqortant
should
fluctuations
, weighted
research
NLS
in
for the occasionally
study
Of
face-to-face
years
poverty
different
transitions
poverty
of these
origi=l
tion
t~t
zxtended
Women,
of
objective
tem
types
of poverty.
the
shorter
measures
female
from the
year
these
fOr the same
The Dmca
of the persistence
processes
Of
pl=ers
to be wite
&ta
Reflecting
each
o f aged
poor.
on the PSID;
evidence
of
to a low
info--
calendar
year
14. 7% ti 1966
The
patterns
times
greater
to
are
for
blacks.
The
sharper
the natio-1
cross
decline-. and
sectional
recovev
data
presumbly
3
reflects
life
in the NLS
cycle
th-
phenomena.
in
In
particular
moved
into
families
they
initially
Moreover
creasing
the
and
the
retirement
The
lives
age
these
status
individual
poverty
mtrices
vals.
I consider,
among
transit
ions
ing
family
the
life cycle.
I then
origi=
poor
this
1989.
income
tum
they
question,
Poverty
I&gths
process,
and
in Section
of poverty
or are
other
among
older
the victims
I e~loit
persistence
a
the
and husbads,
trend
frequency
and
l~or
as
the
home
earnings
=d
of
force
ea=ings,
of inmarital
participation
especially
respondents
portion
of
effect,
section
the
ii) the st~ility
issue
we
those
reached
and
special
events
later
full twenty- two years
in
on estimates
of
at
of
inter-
poverty
tr~sitions
primarily
in
of &ta
the
year
concern
poor
look
of the. .~derly-
of poverty
of
the
poverty
we must
twenty
stnceme
during
life
implications
the aged
high
however,
fifteen,
i)
late
I report
for the stochastic
4
this
as
less
i.ncOme shOcks
ten,
issues,
is strikingly
earnings
negative
of this
of adverse
own
respondent
declined.
tbt
women.
The
in om
process
111 to the
B-
families
dispropor-
and rewired
of lost
income
and
matured
health
five,
panel
growing
In the next
over
ages
Of fsetttig
impact
respondent
respondents,
grotih
explain
time.
tr=sition
of vawing
in the
the
suggests
the masitude
over
1,
dominant
family
respondents
records
Table
was
The
the
pattern
To qantify
ages,
the declining
average
1 i f e cycle
of
time
becomes
and
younger
experience.
over
tbt
at
force--children
and spouse.
husband,
reveal
poverty
e~erienced
in time,
of the respondent
of
trends
growth
accumulated
importance
age
later
labor
respondents
of
dis solut ion
at
ewerienced
to
a result
out
p“overty
returned
care.
of
surveys,
disproportionately
tionately
as
within
life?
betwe-
demographic
over
here,
the
life-long
TO
answer
1967
group
ad
in
ques?ion,
part i cularly
aPPrczimtely
surv*7
forty
(1989)
suf f icien~ly
also
close
not help
ck~
slide
women
grow
process
in economically
c lder .
Past
poverc.f?
In Section
of the h~sb~d,
0 f thes ~ faciors
study
between
of
these
impqrtant
ability
their
,Iaughters
pe~lts
a more
I first
review
long
of
.
for major
p lay
no
are
that
loss
precede
hus-
into ~d
into
dismption
the
in family
as they
entry
of mrital
lead
of
movements
e~lore
ro l“e
to the con-
and
threats
declines
programs
into poverty
disnption
I then
incomes
ial way.
risks
the d~amics
22 years
i=urmce
in +laining
this
is rewired
is ~ite
in midlife
twin
of
had
shocks
uninsured
“ith&a”al
processes
in family
economic
status
question.
the Yomg
Or leSS
income
at two points
= si~ifibmt
b
term
economic
individ~l
empirical
tO match
these
force
income
marital
do
many
in a Stistmt
result,
years
e~lmation
of social
families
one
of the suney
the evidence
i~ort~t
r=~sitions
1 inka~e
the same
above,
last
1967,
that little
just
fKportance
economic
status
period.
~ntergener=~ional
generational
an
s l~or
in
Redesig
tbt
~e
extent
~,
poor
the major
suggest
in accowting
the 1967-1989
The
with
noted
the
year
that negative
situated
marriage
To what
Out Ot poverty.
over
; as
studies
within
line
in
first
of the aged poor
indicate
well
sample
who were not
It is ““natural to ask what
band, s incOme
and
facts
To cite
respondents.
in the
into poverty.
the ~ jority
poverty
trary,
in poverty
to the poverty
:l~ne of these
in
blacks
of the total
respondents
for C?.eir gentle
would
percent
were
before: ‘-of thse
among
P=eciSe
stiset
i* &lmost
in time,
A valuable
age match
5
status
surelj
but
how
feature
of the mature
Women, s Sumey.
suggests
me
between
women
timing
the
a co~arison
.
The
100ser
much
of
the
inter-
tti
so
that
remains
MS
respondents
is the
with
of the two suneys
mO=herS
in
the
firSt
survey
&ta
year
(1967)
pemits
pairs
with long
internal
and
some concluding
Female
How
vals?
The
develop
tions
over
1967,
1972,
sights
income
tions
1977,
income
those
for these
V.
This
mother-
processes
Section
VI
offers
1982,
process,
c~le
lengths
and
Mature
The study
contained
matrices
the
structure
ii) the stability
of poverty
hy the suney,
time
us
tr=si
-
underlying
transitions
the
in-
family
of poverty
essentially
years
importmt
the
to
tr-si-
generate
of
it
inter-
survey
provide
i) the impli=tions
is
poverty
that
be h
permits
measures
within
will
likely
same
Women
stochastic
covered
HOW
these
of the processes
I consider
the
of
in poverty
twenty?
so over
These
1989.
is not
or
remin
Survey
stmcture
for
who
fif teen
will
1987 and
section
Intenals
questions.
of various
income
into
in the
sentially
unchanged
hve
and
out
of
poverty
and 2) in the location
interested
chmges
(1988) .
over
period
the
from
to retirement.
Movements
family
stiey
mobility
Section
woman
Longitudinal
lengths
of the life
a mture
in poverty
to
this
Long
ten years,
the stochastic
of varying
midlife
later,
woman
over
that
it
intenals
In
family
part
is
answer
into
later
of intergenerational
in
processes
D~mics
National
an
a comparison
life qcle
five years
a mature
in. a much
of intergenerational
therefore
Poverty
that
daughters
remrks.
likely
poverty
the
the measurement
daughter
II.
and
fomer.
ac-ulated
in
Although
real
tem
over
time.
are
a
function
of the poverty
the official
since
poverty
its inception,
To mximize
6
line.
miformity
of
changes
1)
in
We are especially
line
has
been
es-
a variety
of mimr
of
poverty
the
definition
tion,
across
was used
=1
rect
and
for
t~les
initiaL
the
romding
nutier
error
necessarily
of entries
ber
exiting
races
are
after
the
by
are
most
likely
removed,
it ,tiillbe useful
clusive
and
POOR , =
POOR,
sification,
defined
exhaust
POOR
md
to
raw
POOR.
and
OTHER
in
leave
group
from
POOR
as follows :
7
NOT
noc
even
be
of the
t o t al
num -
riutier of other
ad
white
in the swey,
not
frequencies
weighted.
into
time to time.
OR
not
addition
the
total
poverty
I will
of
The
in the black
vicinity
families
Occasionally
(NEAR
the
e w i 11
the sum
small
race add to the
and
to partition
NOT
the
of each
need
is not
some
Because
a t~l
matrices,
are appropriately
enter
categories
and
fremencies
nutiers
by
for
tD give
be close.
total
blacks,
in the various
&ta.
within
exit poverty
incomes
ive
the
adjusting
groups
with
t~le
to COr-
of
frequencies
the
inf la-
on CPI-U-X1.
weights
reported
transition
the weighted
for both
respondents
to
is based
for
oversampling
they should
who
The statistics
raw nutiers
threshold
whites
the
~
the fremencies
SUM
adjusted
pOPulatiOn
f re~enc$es
weighted
after
because
nutiers.
Because
ad
even
normalized
the weighted
the
of blacks
suney,
not
by ~S
mdeqiming
ions,
will
in
adjustment
population
of obsemations
poverty,
in the
tables
to the origiml
example,
report ed rider
The
attrition.
t+les
of POVertY,
including
to” the “total, although
across
For
close.
desip,
in the cowutat
sum
inflation
are weighted
sawling
differential
of
The
in this paper
are nomalized
idea
the 1988 def titi”on
in all years.
t~les
for the
years,
of
poverty
than
are” those
mare
three
mutually
ex-
The
disc-s
POOR) .
the
=tegories
a two
The
way
are:
clas -
categories
are
Respondents
in families
poverty ttieshold;
PoOR
N2AR
NOT
Other
POOR
Race
Race
Race
= 1
= 2
= 3
Race. white
Race black
Other races
will
fOUr
, and
?2-a2,
twenty-year
who
in a later
be poor
2 for
into
averages
The
ten year
for
sumey
intervals
poverty
POOR
changes
intenals,
those
varying
five year
the entw
already
these
not poor
OV-
still
as the obse~ation
rate
in poverty
into poverty
is 38%.
8
will
the POOR
are
tier
6. 5%
fifteen
in
matrices
The
entry
period
of the NOT
approximately
fifty
five years.
intewal
is
in
respondent
trasition
after
be
tabulated
five percent
poor
ten-
[67-S2,
in the initial
Conversely
be
the probability
in the appendix)
--a little
later.
the
to
as thee
survey
statistics
from the full
can be fowd
themselves
little
~nsider
.t~t
five years
times
traditions
the prob~ility
were
times
transitions
first
who
two
82-a71 , as well
in
length
tti
two
k
1967
ti 1967
in 1967-
the
intenal
find
30-34
35-39
40-44
[67-a71
as well:
respondents
(47% ) of the POOR
story
svey
one -d
more
five-year
77-a2,
poverty
mtrices
of
themselves
in
the official
include:
of
tr=sition
and also
of
tr-sition
72-77,
between
income
who were
who were
who were
a n~er
at or below
77-87] , two fifteen-year
is not
in the later
5. 5% over
find
percent
rate
[67-77,
one
(the cowlete
POOR
[67-72,
with
metiers
metiers
me~ers
pemit
in faCt
a respondent
Table
rate
su~eys
incomes
to follow
Cohort
Cohort
Cohort
1967-1989
poverty
the tales
=1
=2
=3
tr=sitions
72-a7]
h
Age
Age
Age
estimated,
that
used
incomes
in families with
ctiestild; ad
Respondents
in families
pov~rty threshold.
definitions
The
year
Respoti-ts
the poverty
POOR
with
l~gth~s.
and
year
the
over
retention
inte~als
the
figures
are
respectively
Apparently
among
the
there
NOT
POOR
poverty
push
of
threshold
Even
in pOverty
The
movements
the
into
the
stnctme
and
and
relationships
Lillar”d and
very
Willis
simple
relatively
husbad,
tion,
and
productivity
proximately
to
income
ad
six
be identical
ten,
the lifi
ory
the
in poverty,
c 10S e to
de.cities to
there
stmcture
is
a great
in poverty
of family
Because
one.
in
both
transition
for -ample
of family
average
such
individual
region
of
=e
Wwletely
stability
income
levels
of
will
entry
length,
an
process
with
co~onent
=d
2)
based
on
or absences
of
income
is presumably
as presence
cbracterfitics
residence
-d
rates ..of.differing
component
characteristics,
income
of the
is the sum of 1) a pem=ent
intenals
across
between
e 1 ement
are
such
[Neither
stale,
,,pem-ent’!
1) .
will
these
but
of any
be &iven
might
earnings
weli
In such
the pe-ent
co~onent
t~t
relatively
intenals
years
and
ftid
for exawle,
..(1978, Fi~re
wi~l
level
especially
are not
income
stnctue
rates,
Consider
factors
Willis,
year
stmcture
transit
that
35%.
they
as
nor
may
a
educa ~riad
be
ap-
sol .
Lillard
five
stochastic
st~le
and
and
status,
of the tidividuals
is a close
The permanent
on relatively
intellei.gence,
start
8%
later.
between
family
years
extraordi-~
third
of tr-sition
component.
stable
wobse~ed
the
(197S) .
incomes
the stocbstic
stmctw.e--tico.me
a white..noise
one
years
threshold,
who
Y
in poverty
have
require
of poverty
detemine
exit
than
between
and out
poverty
would
twenty
relationship
of whom
for those
More
twent
of st~ility
mmy
and
3 6% , over
and
deal
respondents,
stability.
1967 were
of
is. a great
tito poverty.
deal
7%
a model,
length;
shrink
over
by such a stockstic
the
transition
whether
two years
only by the distributions
co~onent
9
fitted
correlations
matrix
apart
of
or
the
[although. at the practi-1
as
the
int-val
lengthens]
.
Lillard
and
processes
income
these
Willis
across
do not
short
inte~als
do
==1
dissipate
tem
processes,
noise
decoqosition
ent~
rates
with
the ent~
over
rate
fifteen
tion rate
of the original
30% over
The
Survey
t~le
of the
shv
as
year
poor
in our
to
The
analysis
five yeirs
cycle.
the rate of ent~
reaches
ten
pewent
annual
i~act
of
of
earning
to
fifteen
component
is otiy
a. modest
time
inte~al.
ugward
The
is 5. 5%, over
same
c=
the exit
rate
from poverty) .
remains
across
age
into poverty
traditional
no
in
chmge
in
ten
on
the
last period.
process
in
the
may
1987
thse
not
be
as the following
and of ret-tion
retirem~t
share
five years,
of age to 15% among
is correct;
6. 5%,
ret~-
The
e f f ect
in the
md
&ift
for the
categories
the trmsition
suggestion
10
have
in poverty
50 to 54 years
that
be said
poor ‘is 47% over
intenals
remin
rates
The
to
The
who
in poverty
respondent
shocks
to the next.
internals
additional
B) suggest
the
There
that
1, Pmel
indicates,
increases
of poor
respondents
in the life
that
wderlying
8.1%.
10% among
(T&le
late
first
m
five year
twwty
ten years,
increases
-- from
60 to 64
stable
After
over
(or conversely
population
ten.
percentage
over
frm
of the intenening
into poverty
in poverty
with
of income.
the length
7. O% -d
implies
is limited
rates
consist-t
“bite
which
autoregressive
longer.
of tr=sition
are broadly
a mOr,e cOmplex,
from one year
however,
-d
for
&ta,
cowletely
of five years
twenty
evidence
eanings
The progression
ad
find
ages:
in poverty
=TES
1~0
-Y
TOTZ
RET-ION
IN POmTY
9.2%
35. 9%
AGE
52-56
in 1989
6.9%
33 .5%
AGE
57-61
in 1989
8.o%
34.2%
AGE
62-66
in 1989
12.8%
40.1%
rates
into poverty
-t~
6.9%
md
to
as
12.8%,
62-66
more
five
to 7.4%
entq
9.3%.
The
is reported
Overall
sitions
are
parameters
five
year
entq
whise
noise
pattern
is evident
almost
dotiles
matrix
increase
patten
from which
from
in
is evident
as
4. 9% in 1967-1972
the
last
period,
transitions,
ages,
these
, tbough
For the sa~le
2.
coming
as the cohort
as the
fram 4 .9 percent
estimates
the belief
by
a set
to. the eve of retirement.
, with
are
also broadly
income
as the
AS the respondents
the
with
characterized
trmsitions
Persistence
cycle
in Table
entry
rate
sw
enter
into
of Poverty
among
11
of
are
derived
Over
the
much
Women
trm-
transition
of the period,
with
retirement
and
poverty
fixed
of a pemment
poverty
Matme
t~t
consistent
increase.
The
increases
in the ten-year
are consistent
well
midlife
shift;
earlier
from
to the oldest--52-56
also
life
double,
3.
reasonably
element.
age group
A similar
reported
almost
in poverty
r“ates into poverty
estimates
process
1967-1989
the yowgest
of retention
trmsition
in Tdle
poverty
income
parameters
full
the
interval
with all of the increase
poverty
from
term
poverty
year
into
from
parameters
The same
rate
move
the
33. 5% to 40.1%.
in 19 S2-1987,
1982-1987.
over
The rate
modestly--from
a whole,
to
we
in 1989.
in the transition
III
OF:
PO~RTY
a simple
component
long
and a
period,
the retention
rate
the
in
In this
section
femle
poverty,
period
1967
some
at
13
return
focusing
h
percent
The persistence
(48%)
of
the
in
the
1967
1967
blacks
were
76% w=e
of
either
low
poor
income
or
is in poverty
strong
or
POOR
women
were
the
locked
for
the
later
su(only
timost
1989
one-half
For
I“n 1989.
sampie
that
was
hong
poor
blacks
in 1989.
By
poor.
years
full
that,
who heqa
in poverty
Of the total
NEAR
aged
“over the
reveal
for blacks.
also
of
at the time of the
is 29%.
near
black
trmsitions
twenty-two
in 1967 were
fi~e
antecedents
Of those
in midlife.
in total
POOR
the
parameters
in pOVertY
in poverty
either
Of
on poverty
is especially
mrresponding
57%
ma jority
begins
of the population
).
issue
transition
36% remined
suney
whites
the
The
3.
aged poverty
poverty,
to
our disassion
to 1989, Table
least,
vey period
we
age
of
30-44,
the
poor
in
great
into a lifeti”me of 10WT in-
come.
To
from
need
answer
the long
to
was
possible
211)
earlier
of
the
the
poor
ence was
were
poor
far
poor
near
or =e
backwards
also
poor
in the
poor
rather
in 1967?
1989” were
among
than
aged
poor
of negative
forwards
.
Refomulatinq
are draw
late-life
the poor
Of
the data
in
the
also poor
with
sample,
in 1967,
Table
66 percent
in 1967.
negligible--thirty
total
2ven among
percent
primrily
shocks
in 1989,
this
fract ion of the aged poor
For
blacks,
also poor
the
the product
that a large
in
1989
from
whether
life cycle.
strong
in
of
way,
were
wbt
it
is
in poverty
41
percenc
3.
The persistence
(111/ 167)
or
whites
goverEy
(35 / 115 ) of
, we
the
(87
of
two- thirds
poor
persistin
1989
in 1967.
The bulk
were
question
to conclude
is especially
of
tem
look
fraction
much
the
of the
poor
in
remininq
1967
In
poor
total
in 1989
were
three
~rters
12
drawn
from
(160/211)
families
that
of the poor
in
1989
were
dram
in
1989
among
alternatives
tive
about
they
to
aged
less
than
twice
(149/”167) or almost
(POOR
is more
greater
or
than
share
From
large
NEAR
the
poverty
9 out of 10 of the
POOR)
simply
of
families
all
.ag.:d poor
pa~ents
(SOCial
of
long
problem
WOU1 d seem
a failure
22
of
years
seem
life
to rewire
conce~
soc”Lal
“femles
a policy perspective--this
transfer
the sttiborn
poor
income
is 71%” (82/115):
were-aged.
to confront
the
aged
The
policy
income
the fi~re
programs.
before
wi”th 1967
89 percent
low
the
decades
will
in
whites
Poverty
surance
blacks
were
For
before.
families
mong
threshold.
poor
from
in-
“were poor
suggests
Security
that
ad
SSI)
poverty--concern
about
the. not-aged
poor.
IV.
of Large , Late-Life
Sources
One need
are
not work
tird
poor
at
midlife
stability
of
the .eaming
structure
the
in
over
19S9 poor
1967?
parently
shocks
e~lain
Put
of
were
ad
to develop
also
poor
note
differently,
“is suffici=t.
would
be
although
.of the Poor
PO~
in family
these
in 1989,
in 1967.
the
There
transition
- 95 -2
theories
family
neither
and
to
of
why
women
who
retirement
age.
The
members
But. what
, private
valuable
Status
approach
(ttit is, were
13
1*685
they
cycle
that,
the NOT
as
individual
respondents
share
plausible
of
not poor
it
in Economic
power
the large” declines
large
shre
life
these
faile@
reason~ly
POOR .
who
For
I should
small
the
are
Declines
of
family
of the 25 percent
POOR
social
know
and
nor
NEAR
insurance
what
of
POOR)
have
negative
“’
ap-
economic
income.
,,insurance
*out
are
from
25%,
failures-{
they
]ust MY
NOT
POOR
are
a
are a relatively
more
NOT
(income
POOR
th=
more
than
dotile
more
the poverty
than
were
(5. 1%)
this
of
large,
possible
sources
marital
disruption,
and
passtig
over
fimly
that
of the husb~d
are
in the Mature
Comon
Certainly
spouse
cent
who
percent,
black
percenc
among
black
both
whites
across
sample
from
respondents
NEAR
come
death
force .
this period.
mrital
as
from
e~erienced
in percentages
m~ied
were
spanning
a fall
POOR
ticome
stmctures,
two
t“o mind:
the hush-d;
of
b
FOr
immediately
Both
Five
category.
family
of
PmR
pronounced.
e~erienced
of respondents
reported
themselves
stire. divorced
respondents
larger,
the
che
or
interval
5. i% of the 1967 NOT
traditional
shocks
states
their
By 1989 that statistic
reported
an
-d
these
L)
2) the
phenomenon
Women, s cobrt.
over
present.
h
the. l~or
standpoint
the
of blacks
divorce
status
of
Only
the titemediate
from
.of respondents
84 percent
over
race differences
income
is
even
sa~le,
16.2%
the marital
income
tribution
total
entrenched
of negative
withdrawal
is rare,
again
whites
rather
cohort,
family
In the
in 19S 9, although
percent
this
to POOR
two decades.
POOR
status
level)
widowed
and percentage
84 percent
to
points,
to _.68..
percent.
from
from
the
1967,
with
The per-
3 percent
Both
although
to 19
white
“and
the decline
for blacks.
64 percent
a
dis -
married
tiong
was
blacks
to 43 percent,
By
1989,
26 percent
as widowed.
Both
the widowed
70 percent
themselves
as
from
In
19S 9.
perc&t.
trends,
fell
and
status
tiopped
11
adversely
4, I report
in 1967
increased
adverse
present
In T&le
marital
5 percent. to
these
wit”h spouse
report
had
shifted
of
ad
all
the
,...
divorced
are
these
~eri~ced
economically
mjor
a dismption
vtilnerable,
declines” &
emnomic
in a long
s o these
status.
14
Eer”ti economic
activities
surely
partnership
precede-d some
and
of
The
female
decline
in family
would
both
also
1967
do
ad
reported
sag
For
it.
in Ttile
available
The
only
in
year,
zero
otherwise.
suney
week
measure
categorical
labor
those
who
reported
1 ess
force
k
The
device,
force
that
comfortable
who
were
ing
less
percent.
Of
ad
to
with
40
more
of the labor
are
1989;
the
in the previous
with
the stndard
in
Table
CPS
As
6..
~L<rn,~lar
to the
WOWING..
,.,
Only
force
in 1989.
Of those
reported
that
were
who
a
st--
4 percent
in 19 E8,{t.he..pr:vi0us
they
are
neces -
is Wite
weeks
activity
provides
spouse
the
is
force
an
one of poverty.
weeks
course
retirement
we~s
in
.of
year) ,
worked
in the
labor
weeg.
life
than
or
in 19s 8, 12 percent
period
mrried
for those
1989
variable
for. 1967 =d
reported
measure
present
@estions
statu”s
of this measure
worked
40
force
is
spouse
activity
40 or more
status
the. spouse
in 1967: and
constricted
worked
especially
in l~or
family”” f in.antes
plmed
the weeks
were out
suney
decline
force
working
they
the 1967-1989
labor
week
labor
was
the husband
measure,
40 weeks
the
So a dmy
witi
statuses
CPS su~ey
A comparison
of
reported
than
if
force
a catastrophic
condition”” in
are ma=ied
of” the” usual
1989.
to one
who
s l~or
sta&rd
to suffer
of a dis~ltig
respondents
the hush-d,
5.
from her husbmd
the onset
“construction
is e~al
dard
not separate
income;
1989,
for the
duw
need
present
a year .
iwact
alternative
In 1967
reported
By
1989
typically
only
that
15
from
6 percent
their
s labor
of respondents
husbands
the same
force
over
a financially
were
figure” had””incrZased
of the ue~ectetiess
not. have
is stistmtial
path
t~t
of the husband,
a function
will
of the hush-d
workto 44
withdrawal
of the withdrawal.
econotic
conse~ences
on
A
as
the
early
onset
tributes
to
of
a disabling
catastrophic
xow
condition.
declines
in
family
much
this meti~ism
incomes
an
is
con-
empirical
~estion.
Eow many
of
the
processes --marital
tbt
structed
separately
status
The
.
by
in
both
results
e~erienced
1989,
to
spouse
present
another
band, s work
accomted
for
result
are
income
fomd
b
.
economic
few
~ses
shock.
among
which
women
conclusion
these
were
economic
arred
prior
to the
initial
su~ey
from
poverty
in 1967
POOR)
path
in 1989
is not
consewences
similarly
to POOR between
of.
51
1967
“(11) rewined
mmied
with
adverse
i-n––the hus -
shift
51)
of all
tises
in 1989
adverse
of
these
two
ftim
status
md
Indeed
sources
cases
are
“in either
disnption
be
is largely
events.
decline
present
marital
cm
The descent
spouse, s work
large
spouse
majority
spouse
economically
with
force
with
in the
one
married
“0,.f
the
.
from tirried
(41 of
by
con-
s labor
the vast
in 1967 to poverty
not married
The n~ative
The
=
of the remaining
1989.
for those
is wafii~tius.
are not preceded
majority
who
eleven
percent
were
processes
POOR
status
ion or a” chage
against
The
86
matrices
husband,
two
two
-- e-lain?
Apparently
from NOT
e~erienced
“circumstance
disnpt
insurance
but
The
7.
these
with~awal
ad,
in
these
Another”
In total
this way.
trmsitions
.in marital
3
the period
of tiital
inadequate
there
over
by
a tr-sition
a change
transition
in Table
can
declines
force
transitions
explained
category.
status
a comfortable
the
are
3.3 e~erienced
present
by
are reported
respondents
and
poverty
status
years,
cases
status
and husband, s l~or
marital
of” lirge-dec”line
who
incorn%
1967-19.89
~estion,
present
family
dis~ption
To awwer
spouse
large
my
of
to
1967
have
b“e
or
oc-
year.
well
to being
defined.
16
comf ort~ly
out
Forty-four
of poverty
percent
of
(NOT
the
respondents
were
at least
paths
into
mamiedare
tti
from
all
to
poor
in
ing the. great
The
OE
Even
not
between
=j ority
Economic
int e xvals
status
covered
the National
30 to 65 years
additional
econorn”ic mobility
NLS
had
preretiremenr
respondents
for
consequence,
daughter
matrices
mtrices
population
pairs,
in
the
is
possible
pemitting
same
way
[the tr-sition
*“eights]
.
The
town
a Ck9e
to
working,
.raritY Of each.
in =rital
present
status
tO married
a husbad
with
reentering
factors
must, be sought
st~le
sa~le
desi~
an
: young
and
cohorts
to
men
among
Su=ey
comparison,
To economize
men.
the different
it
husband
socio-economic
Longitudi.Ml
of age.
four’ cohorts
aged
successes
to be extremely
proxi-tely
original
The
of the
tht
eqlain-
elsewhere.
~rends
appears
by
to
(4/1 05 ) , involve
1989.
of the large
Intergenerational
invOlve
incomes
spouse-present
Of the relatiV%
with. spOuse
4 percent
1967 -d
fatily
Reversals
7.
not working
because
married
fewer,
Tale
2 ) husbti
impact
r=ched
1) not married-with-
(18 of 105 or 17%)
categories
force
above,
md
limited
had by 1989
ttieshold,
described
in five
present.
1967
the poverty
have
one
labor
IV.
twice
poverty
likely
spouse
were
with-spouse-present
Less
the
who
draw
construct
from
a sample
that
constmcted
matrices
are
In particular
mature
aP -
permits
an
one”.
The
by
it is possible
life
the
of
to co~are
-
mothkr
t.rans>tio?
cycle
1967
and
poss~le
family.
composed
age
W?men,
whenever
the same
the
women,
intergenerational
weighted
17
of the” ~S
costs,
of
have
of Matug?
women,
construction
we
in
intergenerational
on su=eying
were
women
tr~sition
Mature
Women
the economic
a
-
statm
the
6f the Mature
poverty
status
The
of age.
Mature
34
the following
cycle,
cent
to
poverty
fell
fram
The
at ion
the
from
mother,
true
of
-ng
~
was
true
the
relatively
limiting
We i~ose
of age
with
34 to 44 years
the analysis
that
to
restriction
in
only
tb
two times
across
shift
the mother
tem
to
point
is sig-
in
the
pairs,
were
19 perat
24 percent
the poverty
for
of
threshold.
The poverty
the generations
1 if e
in poverty
but only
for blacks.
in poverty
ow
the
the
in 1967,
9 percent
advantaged
b
blacks,
rates.
rate
from
POOR
daughters.
class
18
is
across
the
more
in
9.
gener-
chage
POOR
The
in
‘-posit ive,,
Eve~
in.
economic
the generations.
1989,
(in 19S8
rare
the
The mother-daughter
poverty
were
be
in T&le
daughters
13 percent
across
rates,
will
poverty
were k
their
of their
NOT
trasition
are reported
reduction
of
rates
daughter,
trmsition
Wtrices
1S percent
mothers
at the same
pronomced
in 196”7, 35 perc~t
only
of the daughters
of the &ughters
the inte~enerational
to
status
foE whites.
tr-sition
POOR
of
by
of the mothers
less
especially
s long
mothers
was
they were
of 695 mother -hughter
(47) percent
to 24 percent
tkt
contributed
the POOR
-act
mothers
sa~le
intergenerational
status
tergenerational
class
are
to 6 percent
large
of their
family_ incomes
gains
guar=tees
economic
than
tid
even
63 percent
14 percent
30 to 44 years
1988 wh-
economic
but ofi y 8 percent
Forty-s
the &ughters
tht
the
In the -tched
8.
34-44.
The
h
of age in 1967.
sample,
th-
of the mthers
age
Worn=
be made more
44 years
matched
better
T*le
cm
they were
malysis.
this
nific=tly
in 1967 when
of the Yowg
age pairing
Women
In
Women
but
to be
in 19S9,
fall
for
but
the
Of
same
precise)
.
the
same
into poverty
from
either
mother
or
daughter;
fered
6 percent
a declfie
Looked
look
different
th”e mother”
HerseIf.
across
percentage.
=most
from
do
mothers.
term
daughters
half
notdiff”er..
tithough
antecedent
pov=ty
in poverty
Four
from
status
who
came
the &ughters
out of five
which
were
signific=tly
the daughters
long
on past
. ID P“art%cu>%r.
from poverty
POOR” or
those
off
.fa@lies.
a “familiar
=AR
One,
the
-melY
in
These
of aged
.mot hers,
POvertY
is
who
POOR.
for the origins
than
on
term
(42 o“f 54) of th”e &ughters
are better
of .poye”rty” is
the
.in pove,rty” had mothers
either
from
record
.is dependent
as well “as. acrg~s”.1.>fe.
(24 of 54)
families
so very
pres-t
gener?tioqs.
in @ovaty
themselves
statistics
long
of
one
came
suf -
of this ma~itude.
does not
status,
poor
of the daughters
of poverty
..
poverty
poverty
3 percent
the intergenerational
of
were
only
perspective,
record
large.
ad
at from $ differat
the origins
the
of the mothers
the
in the
past.
v.
Conclusion
The National
ins ights
30 =d
1)
into
the
““Longitudinal “SUNeY
long
tem
poverty
of mture
dparnics
Women
offers
of feml.es
a wide
betw~eq
rage
..the ages
of
of
66 years: “
over
much
of this
time,
the poverty
d~amics
are quite
stable.
specifically
an income mode I. with a permanent
component
and a white
noise
component
‘mfi”ts” the data rather well.
This stmctme
has the
i~liCatiOn
“tht the entw
into ad
exit from poverty are
independent
The ex:.t rate from poverty,
for exof the intem-tig
time int=al.
a~le,
will be the same over twenty
years
as over five . The data
suggests
a process
not mlike
this is in operation.
Especially
after
the first five year” tite~al,
the exit and entv
rates are Wite
st~le
across
greater
time intervals
. Poverty entw
=d
retmtion
rates &
increasing
significantly””
as the
appear to c~ge
with age, however,
respondent
approaches
r.etirem=t
age.
19
2)
Three
quarters
of
The overall level of poverty persistence
is high.
all aged females
in poverty come from families with low incomes
(less
Forty percent” come
from
t~
twice the poverty tfieshold)
in midlife.
The aged poor
families
that were in poverty
themselves
at miflife.
problem is much more tti
a socw
fisurance
problem.
Most also
had
low &comes
“in”midlife.
3)
Twofie persistmce
of poverty was. especially high fOr black
women.
thirds of. the aged poor were also poor two de-des
h
the past.
Ninety
percent of the aged black poor had low incomes
(less than twice
the
poverty threshold)
two decades .befo.re..
4)
Despite the brge
fraction of aged poor who were poor
in midlife,
the
social
insurance
problem
is not inconsequenti.a.l.
APPrOtiately
one
~ar.ter ..of.
“the_poor in 1989 &d
family incomes” ttit were ar least twice
The m jor.ity of these e~eri-ced
a mrital
the poverty level in 1967.
disnption.
Most intact fatiilies that reported a catastrophe c decline
in income
reported
the
labor
force
withdrawal
of the husband.
Apparently
Pfivate .-d P*lic
insur=ce
mechanisms
these women from - jor decities h emnomic
status.
Hopefully
the -alpis
from
work
exit
from poverty.
the period
Social
to
security
terns
over
survey,
oldest
the
third
has
evidence
a major
appears
is a large
low
last
protect
income
of total
families,
decades.
were
have
traditional
o f married
in the U.S.).
respondmts
only
have
By the time
of
and
is also
family
52 to 66 years
into
i~ortmt
ad
beta-e
McGar~
(1992)
in retirement”,
~ite
in
real
the
1989
stable
at the
time of
of age,
so tbt
ages
study
transition
of ent~
income
it has been
retirement
the
st~ility,
Unfortwately
respondents
reached
trmsition
the cu~ent
that
on the rate
to be one of uusual
fraction
several
suggests
impact
The work/retirement
among
the
the v.a.lue.
of extending
1967-1989
retirement
fOllowing
especially
demowtrates
The
to 1992 and beyond.
tom
to
In the matched mother-daughter
sa~le,
the &ughters
were much better
off economically.
They were only half as likely to be in poverty at
Paralleling
the lives of their mothers,
the same age as their mothers.
however,
poor daughters
were pri-rily
draw
from fatilies that were
had poor mothers ,
timost one tilf the pOOr&ughters
the~elves
poor.
almost
80 percent
had low income mothers
(less tti
twice the poverty
ttieshold) .
5)
share
ftiled
(although
husbm-
of tht
age,
the 1992
smey,
the respond~ts
given
o~y
the
a larger
m~iage
cus were
5s
20
I
to
69
ment,
years
ad
of age,
so ttit all. would
the mj ority ..would have
have
reached
21
reached
traditional
the..age
of e=ly
retire-
ret irern_e.nt_ages
B-e,
Mary Jo,
D~amics
23.
Dmc~,
,fS~iPPing Into -d
Out ‘of Poverty: The
and David T. Ellwood,
of Spells, “ Jou~al
of Human Resources
21 (Winter >986) : 1-
Greg, Years
of POVertV,
Years
of Plenty:
The Chanqinq
Economic
FQrtnes
of ~erican
Workers and Families.
tibor, MI: ~iversity
of Michigm,
1984.
Lilliard,
Lee
A. and Robert
Mobility, ,’Economecrica,
McGarq,
J.
46
s,
DYnamic
.Aspect S Of
Willis,
(Septetiex 1.978): 985-1012-
Ea?nin9s
Measurement
Error,
Povertv
Transitions
and PrQqram
Kathleen.
Participation:
A Studv of Povertv Wonu
the Elderly.
Ph.D. dissertation, SW
StOUy Brook, Auwst
1992.
22
___
TABLE
Poverty
Rates,
National
-d
1
~S
Mature
Women, s C6hort
1966-1988a
P-L
~b
Total
NATIO~
TOT=
White
~
Black
Total
mTuRs
White
12.2%
41.8%
13.9%
10.1%
14.7%
1966
A
1971
12.5.
9.9
30.9
10.9
1976
11.8
9.1
31.1
8.9
19B1
14.0
11.1
34.2
1986
13.6
11.0
1988**
13.0
10.1
o-34
15.7*
1967
1.972
1977
35-39
a =1
&ta
Income
sumey.
are
Black
43 .2%.
-7.5
.36.9
28.4
0 ..7
:6..2
— 31.0
31.1
.12.6
9.7.
37.1
31.3
13.6
40-44
AGE
45-49
3.6.1
‘1O.9
SO-54
55-59
13.7%
12.7%
12.4%
10.4%
10.2%
9.4%
7.0%
10.2%
8.0%
7.7*
10.4*
.10 .2%
12.4%
1987
SO~CES:
National
years ) ; ~
Matwe
Wom
6.5.
1982
b
NLs
: Statistical
Abstract
of the Unites
States,
Women: Parsons
(1994, ,’
Poverty status,, )
6Q-64
15.0%
(various
wtighted.
in fo~tion
for the tiS Mature Women is for
Ages
in P=el
E are as of s=ey
&te.
23
the year
precedfig
the
“
TAS~
Rates
Time
of -t W
InteHals
into Poverty
of Five,
Ten,
2
-d
Retent iOU
Fifte-
=d
~=ty
mms
in Poverty
Years,
1967-1989=
or:
~ION
2N P~~
(In Poverty in
Initial Year)
~Y
=0
Pomm
(out of Poverty in
Initial Year)
FIVE
at
=
WSITIONS
44.9*
1967-1972
4.9%.
,.
1972-1977
4.6%
39.3%
1977-1982
5.0%
51.2%
1982-1987
?.4%
52.4%
47. 0%
5.5*
dV~GE
T~
=
~SITZONS
1967-1377
4.9%
33.3%
1972-1382
5.4%
38.7%
1977-1387
9.3%
41.5%
AVF&GE
37. 8+
6.5*
.
FI~
_
~SITIONS
1967-1982
5.3%
29.9%
1972 -1?87
8.8%
41.5%
7.0*
A=GE
35. 7%
~
1967-1907
_
34.6%
8.1%
~-m
1967-1989
SO~CE:
a N1
~SITIONS
-
35.9%
9.2%
parsons
data
are
(1994,
‘rPoverty
=SITIONS
S2atw
-i)
weighted.
24
T~LE
Poverty Tr=sitions,
3
1967
-19S9,
BY Age =d
Race
Unweightid
Nat Pmr
F!.qww
Pa
557
251
123
N=r
Fcq_
Pd
Pwr
Fmmw
All
M
F,-
=7
1585
577
277
105
1M9
75.8
6~.4
43.1
66.8
185
107
51
315
1a.5
22.5
20.9
19.9
51
73
a7
211
S.7
16.1
3s.9
13.3
892
4s2
243
1585
5.5
14
219
172
225
133
83.6
72.8
31
32
11.3
17.6
14
I7
S.1
s.a
54
Im
41.6
ia.3
154
%
49
406
52.9
74.6
13
?5
13.5
13.8
31
~
33.5
11.4
269
183
93
545
16.3
2a.2
2a.3
22.5
13
26
52
91
5.2
17.4
40S
17.2
252
149
127
528
243
m
32
365
79.4
62.0
41.1
69.1
46
36
!9
101
15.0
24.8
24.7
19.1
47
19
26
82
S.5.
13.1
34.2
11.8
m
145
77
79
X
31
146
28.7
27.5
29.2
2a.5
19
40
51
110
6.a
30.5
48.1
21.5
275
131
106
512
207
55
z
2aa
w. 1
44.3
34.0
56.2
87 .27,6
33 26.6
20
x
6.4
29.1
18 25.5
139. 27.1
2a
86
40.4
16.7
314
125
72
512
66.6
120
66
21
209
18.5
21.9
16.4
*9.2
33
48
40
?27
5.1
15.5
31.3
11.1
646
310
128
1066
~
1%
64
766
76.8
63.4
53a
70.4
119
=
21
20s
18.1
21.5
17.3
19,0
34
47
36
115
5.1
15.1
29.1
10.6
306
119
1067
60.5
%.5
21.3
33.3
24
41
74
139
27.9
30.4
29.1
29.3
10
42
lza
I 7a
11.6
31.1
49.6
37.5
as
13s
2%
475
63
61
56
laO
59.5
44.0
24.2
37.6
26
39
64
729
24.3
28.3
27.7
27.1
?7
33
111
167
16.2
27.6
46.1
35.1
lffi
139
m
47s
74.7
55.5
31.8
58,7
1
182 83.1
115 66.9
39
60
357 65.5
2
198 76.6
81 54.4
3a 30.7
318 60.2
3
177 84.4
42
55
24 22.6
m
256
145
111
97
19.4
24.6
25.1
353
22.3
44
93
167
301
5.9
19.9
43.2
19
25
33
11.4
19.2
12
24.
30
aa
19.5
16. I
41
42
36
119
746
52a
1
495
194
67
2
52
52
=
158
7s.4
63.6
52.3
25
659
T~LE
Marl Cal
Status
in
1967
4
md
Maribl
Unweigh-d
N
MSA
MSP
Pet
N
P&
19S9,
BY Age
Race
in 1967
Stitis
W3dMed
N
Pti
=d
Dvorced
N
Pet
Sep-ted
N
P&
Nwer Mti&
N
P*
All
N
All
Age
4064
80.0
46
0.9
145
2.9
262
5.0
285
5.6
2m
5.?
5062
1
2
3
Race
1
2
3
1273
1310
1481
79.0
80.5
80.3
15
12
1Q.
0.9
0.7
1.3
3.0
4.1
7S
4.8
1.0
21
48
76
m
%
4.9
5.2
lW
95
w
6.2
5.8
4.9
125
83
82
7.8
5.1
4.5
1844
3112
879
73
86.3
S3.2
83.9
20
16
2
0.s
1.2
2.3
61
83
1
1.7
6.0
12
15S
8s
5
4.4
6.4
5.8
72
211
2
2.0
152
2.3
174
112
4
4.8
8.1
4.6
36s6
13s0
87
Mafil
N
All
MSP
Pd
M*
N
Pd
Stitis
WdMed
N
P&
in 1967
~vorced
NPti
Sepmtid
Never Married
N
Pet
N
Pet
All
N
4271
S4.0
41
0.s
103
2.0
234
4.6
173
3.4
260
5.1
1320
1430
1522
63.5
m.6
84.0
14
10
<?
0.9
0.6
1.0
14
35
53
0.9
2.1
29
74
65
*
4.7
3.9
5.3
62
5s
53
3.9
3.5
29
9a
91
71
6.2
5,4
3.9
1812
3868
247
57
86.4
84.1
S?.5
34
7
1
0.7
1.3
0.8
73
29
0
1.6
54
0.0
19?
35
3
4.4
8.5
3.9
89
82
3
20
15.1
3.9
217
41
3
4,8
7.6
3.9
4477
541
65
Age
1
2
3
Race
2
3
Mari6zl S&tis
N
MSP
P&
in 19S9
Al!
N
Sepamted Nw= Married
Pd
N
Pet
N
MSA
P&
N
1581
1927
62.3
9
0.3
569 19.0
m
10.9
104
3.4
126
4.1
-
3
680
649
5ss
65.6
85.0
56.5
3
3
3
0.3
0.3
0.3
IW
181
m
9.6
16.1
29.1
1%
67
101
14.5
S.7
9.6
~
43
11
4.8
4.3
1.0
54
25
37
5.2
35
3.5
996
lm
2
3
1576
328
2s
70.5
40.2
59.0
8
1
0
0.4
0,1
0.0
343
239
7
15.3
29.3
1s.0
214
118
6
9.6
14.4
15.4
26
77
1
1.2
9.4
2.8
70
64
2
3.1
6.6
5.1
22s7
817
38
Matil
S-as
Pd
All
N
All
2
W.ighti
N
MSP
P&
N
M3A
P&
in 1989
Dlwed
NPti
Wdwed
N
P&
se~~
NPti
Nww ~d
N
1=
3.4
2088
67.5
11
0.4
505
16.3
322
10.4
62
2.0
2
3
734
?22
6s3
72.*
70.8
W.o
4
4
3
0.4
0.4
0.3
72
l=
2S2
7.2
14.7
26.7
.140
SS
*
13.8
8.2
9.3
29
26
6
2.9
2.8
0.8
37
35
32
3.7
3.4
3.1
1
2
3
lm
i 32
20
70.4
42.9
62.1
10
1
0
0.4
0.3
0.0
421
79
5
15.3
25.7
14.6
267
~
6
9.7
16.1
17.5
32
28
1
1.2
9.1
3.9
85
1s
1
3.1
5.9
1.9
Age
1
hce
26
I
T=LE
Husband, s Labor
5
Force Status in 1967
By Age and Race
Husband’s
and
Lsbor Force S&tus
1989,
in 1967
Unwighted
Not Woting
N
Pst
Mtghted
All
Wotiw
N
Pet
N
269
7.39
33?+
92.6
3M0
77
70
122
6.67
5.98
9.27
1077
1100
1194
93.3
94
90.7
1170
1316
1
167
5.96
26W
94
2801
2
95
7
12.2
12.3
87.9
87.7
782
57
ALL
Not WorkW
N
Working
Pet
N
Pcr
All
N
218
6.0
Mzz
94.0
3640
60
58
5.3
4.8
1080
94.7
1140
101
7.9
1160
1182
95.2
92.1
Izla
~2a3
182
5.5
3128
94.5
3310
32
11.3
4
10.2
255
39
88.7
89a
2a7
43
Age
1
2
3
Ilw
Race
3
687.
50
Husband’s
NoI Worting
Pet
N
ALL
Unweigl!ted
Worting
Pet
N
Labor Force Status in 1989
All
N
Not Worting
Pet
N
Wsigllted
Working
N
Pet
All
N
a31
46,4
960
53.6
1791
79a
44.5
993
55.5
1791
184
26a
379
2a
45
70.5
473
32a
159
72
55
29.6
657
596
53a
172
260
366
26.4
42.3
69.6
480
354
160
73.6
57.7
30.4
651
614
528
655
166
10
44.1
5a
47.6
a29
120
55.9
42
14a4
2a6
730
4,xa
56.6
39.6
937
47
56.2
43.4
1667
61
6
10
60,4
16
Age
1
2
3
Race
1
2
3
11
52.4.
21
27
I oa
TMLE
Husband’s
Work
Status
by Weeks Worked ~d
Survey
By Age and Race
Activi~
The Number of
Weks
Worked 40+
Not Woting
Worting
Not Wotina
N
Pci
725
34
88.1
3.62
759
43.1
132
9
141
6
Most of Suwey
Wting
N
NI
Pa
Week Activity,
1969,
Nek
Not Woting
N
N
Pet
Worting
N
Pc!
All
N
98
11.9
823
691
87.7
97
12.3
788
904
1~2
96.4
56.9
9ss
1761
36
727
3.7
41.3
937
96.3
973
7761
?1.7
52
28.3
98.1
78.4
124
10
21.6
461
513
Iw
470
.71.8
1.91
654
135
2.2
20.6
239
21
260
90.2
6.65
44.8
26
295
321
9.81
93.4
55.3
265
316
581
220
20
88.4
5.9
29
11.6
313
94.1
239
41.2
342
58.8
wOrtdnQ
354
4
94.7
2.63
20
148
5.35
97.4
374
152
S.6
358
66.1
168 .31.9
526
94.8
.3.4
67.5
152
All
349
5
355
177
32.6
369
157
526
561
87.4
81
12.6
642
30
790
96.4
870
59.6
819
1461
All
Age=l
Not Worting
WOrting
All
Age=2
Not Woting
Worting
Al I
10X
58.7
28.2
173
.470
97.8
519
79.4
481
654
49
249
332
581
Age=3
Not Woting
19
5.2
Race=l
Not Worting
567
87.5
81
12.5
648
WOrting
30
597
3.69
40.9
783
864
96.3
59.1
6i3
1461
591
3.6
40.4
150
4
154
W.9
3.48
55
15
111
126
9.W
%.5
45
165
115
280
149
6
155
91.9
5.5
55.4
All
Race=2
Nol Woting
WOrting
All
28
13
8.7
112
94.5
125
44.6
162
118
280
.--”
._.
.
TmLE
By
7
?Overty
Trmsitions, 1967-1989
Marital Status and Husband, s Activity
POve~ in IUW
POv*
in T*S7
Unweighed
Near
Pmr
NotPoor
All
F,-v
Pti .Fr.-q
Pti F,q.Pti F,m-
tti P*
t* P*
Pw
M
557
251
123
931
74.7
55.5
31.8
58.7
14s
i11
97
353
19.4
24.6
25.1
22.3
MSP67mSPC#
w Pw
390
t-P*
185
P54
.
6W
79.9
66.5
41.s
70.3
84
49
34
167
17.2
19.8
26.2
19.3
14
%
42
90
56.7
35.7
2s>
42.8
52
39
20
111
28.9
31.0
Zo
28.0
26
42
48
118
70.6
78,6
5s.7
65.6
4
3
8
15
23.5
21.4
26.7
24.6
5 8.2
20 31.3
35 25.7
80 23.0
MSP671NMSPE9
,,d Pw
102
,,.” P*
45
Pw
23
Ml
;0
44 5.9
90 19.9
167 43.2
301 19.0
Not P-r
tilkd
Pd
F,w-
Weightid
Near
.-lkti
F,.q_
lM
75.9
746
4S2
3a7
iS8S
676
277 61,2
!0s 43.5
1ffi865.8
Pe
18.4
All
Pwr
-,ltid
F,w_
Pd
a
.,m,l.m
F,m”mv
5.7
891
102 22.5
~ 20.8
316 20.0
~4 16.3
86 35.7
210 13.3
452
242
158s
533
248
2,s
13.7
3Z3
10.4
488
248
130
S66
433
in
46
856
81.3
71.4
53.8
75.8
87 16.3
43 17.3
18 21.2
148 17.1
13 2.4
28 11.3
21 25.0
62 7.2
866
14.4
33.3
52.8
29.2
180
126
91
397
129
47
19
195
57.9
39.3
34,8
49.1
80
37
lt
108
27.1
30.9
19.7
2?,3
33
38
24
94
15.0
29.8
45.S
23.6
222
121
54
397
5.9
76
11
1s
45
71.9
75.1
75.1
73.9
8. 26.2
4 24.9
3 13.5
13 21.0
0
0
..1.9
0.0
5 1S.7
6 9.8
17
14
so
61
3 11.4
3 5.1
23
15
24
61
3 4.9
14 21,9
72 52.9
89 34.1
61
64
T38
261
80
35
2S
143
S5.S
52.0
27.8
54.7
8 8.4
21 31,2
23 23:0
62 19.8
6 6.1
11 18,8
49 49.2
W 25,4
14 2.9
34 13.7
42 323
90 10.4
488
248
130
866
433
177
46
666
81.3
71.4
63.8
75.8
223
115
52
390
220
942
2 1.7
6 11.5
a 2.1
26.6
30.7
So.o
za.z
11
4.6
29 25.4
23 46.0
63 1S.6
241
114
50
405
189
5s
a
250
11.1
2 22.2
2 Z.O
1 16.7
9
a
a
23
6
6
4
17
65.9
87.4
77.4
74.6
is
13
7
2
22
62.2
57.6
11.0
45.2
1
85
NMSP07,NM~p*9
Me P*
N..,
PM,
“m
AI!
S3. S6.9
30 46.9
29 21.3
112 42.9
84
49
34
167
HLFP67=I,HLFPaS=t
w Pm
209 93.7
N,,, P104 W.4
Pw
36 67.3
NI
348 89.2
~LFP67=IIHLFPss=0
N&Pw
166 68.9
N.., ,*,
50 43.9
Pw
12 24.0
N
228 55.3
HLFp@7=oiHLFP09*I
NM6 88.?
N.” P5 62S
P5 a3.3
M
16 69a
HLFP67.oIHLFPsg=o
NM*
-m.o
N.., Pm
6 54a
-9
Pw
M
2 9.1
17 35.4
17.2
19.3
28.2
19.3
14 6.3
9 7.8
11 21.2
34 8.7
64
35
15
114
1
1 12.5
0 0.o2 8.?
5
333
4 35.4
8 36.4
17 35.4
0
5
0.0
21.7
6.7
1 9.1
12 54.6
14 29.2
1
10S 92.4
31 77.S
359 92.0
11
22
4a
29
,
70.6
47.4
31.0
61.7
87
43
1s
148
16.3
t7.3
21.2
17,?
14 5.8
7 S.8
5 11,5
25.._6.4
8a 25.2
33 30.0
9 35.0
110 27.2
2 13.7
0 4.a
0 0.0
2 82
7 26.2
4 31.6
5 33.6
.1s U.2
13 2.4
28 11.3
21 25.o
62 7.2
0
0.0
2 1.8
4 10.7
6 1.6
4.1
11
25 27
9 34.0
45 11.2
2 20.4
i 7.a
t 22.6
4
o
17.2
1.6
1 10.8
8 SS.4
10 20.7
94
87
lW
261
533
248
85
866
2s3
116
40
380
?71
26
4W
11
7
5
23
20
13
15
4a
Tale
The Economic
S-tus
of
NLS
Mothers
ML
Income
Not
Xear
Mothers
Status
Poor
Poor
Poor
Near
Poor
Poor
Poor
Near
Weighted
Sample
(1994,
sizes
75.9%
27.9
16.3
19.1
7.8
in 1988.
1988
(462)
58.2%
79,3%
28.1
14.9
13.6
5.8
,,
Poverty
h
Daughters
53.0%
(22.4)
47.6%
28.4
24.0
62.9
Parsons
their
Daughters
29.0
Poor
and
(695)
8.5%
Poor.
Poor
SO~CE:
1967
196?
BMCK
Not
k
~T_S
~ITS
Not
8
Status 0,)
Parentheses.
30
~
Poverty
Trasitians
NotPmr
N
N-r PPw
NI
Age - *
N& Pmr
N= Pwr
Pm,
N{
Age = 2
Not Pwr
Nem PW
Poor
Al
Ag. E 3
Not Pwr
Near Pmr
Pwr
Al
Race = 1
Not P-r
Near Pwr
Pmr
Al
Rse = 2
Not Pwr
New Pw
Pwr
NI
Pti
245 85.1
lW
72.8
102 45.7
4S1 69.2
14 82.4
3 42.9
4 33.3
2? S8.3
Between Mothers
New Pw
Pa
N
Pw
NW
32 11.s
28 15.2
63 30.5
129 18.6
10 3.47
22
12
53 23.8
66 12.2
(1967) -d
All
N
3
2
5
10
~7.7
za~
4i.7
2?.8
2
3
5
28.6
25
13.9
2a8
264
Z3
695
17
7
12
36
Nti Pw
P&
N
313
Iu
71
528
N.m P&
NW
as.o
74,4
53.0
76.9
43
32
39
113
11.6
1a.3
29.1
16.3
20 az4
1 al
1 19.6
23 63.1
4
2
17.6
=.6
4
10
=3
2a.3
P-
All
Pti
N
3.3
9.3
17.9
7.a
36a
194
133
Q
0,0
2 39.3
i 7a.i
3
8.6
25
5
6
36
N
12
1s
24
54
03.9
74.9
=.3
74a
Ta 12.0
16 16.0
la 28.3
62 1s.5
6
9
12
27
4.1
9.0
19.4
a.7
151
102
62
375
166
862
66
37
269
7K3
56.3
7a. t
21
13
la
52
10.7
1s.5
27.7
1s.0
6
7
11
24
3.1
a.2
16.6
a.9
+63
86
65
344
263
133
66
462
229
W
39
366
84.9
76.2
61.7
79.3
32 11.7
21 76.5
16 2S.5
69 14,9
9
?0
a
27
3.4
7.3
12.s
6.8
19
Sf
7*
224
Ie
39
S2
107
a4.1
60.6
=.a
4?.6
3
9
54
*
0
16
37
34
0.0
26.o
26.6
24.0
97
65
50
212
m.s
70.7
46.7
67,3
i4
Is
22
61
12.1
!6.3
293
19,4
5
?2
26
42
4.31
13
23.4
13.3
316
124
66
48
248
86.5
~.7
46.2
72.1
16 10.3
11 12.9
31 26.8
50 76.9
s
8
=
38
3.22
9.41
24
11.1
155
6s
Iw
344
223
102
40
365
84.8
76.7
60.6
79
30
21
i7
m
11.4
15.8
25.8
14.7
10
3.8
10 7.62
9 13.6
S
6.26
T6 84.2
32 =8
60
39
108 48.2
3
7
S1
61
15.8
t3.7
33.1
27.2
72 23.5
43 27.9
56 24.6
31
●
Daughters. (196s )
Ila
92
107
f27
76
32
23S
16.9
14.4
36.S
2a.4
19
65
141
224
L pers~n
2 persons
(Unrelated
Individual
(HOusehOlder
~der
waler
$6,155
7,9S8
9,436
12,092
14,305
16,149
18,248
20,279
24,133
65)
65)
3 Persons
4
5
6
7
8
9
Persons
Persas
Persons
Persons
PerSo=
Persons
souce:
or More
Stati
~
tical
Wstra
nited
States
199
, p .43o
Pael
B
CP1-U-X1 1966-1992
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
19.?6
1977
1978
1.979
1980
1981
19s2
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
3S.2
36.3
37.7
.39.4
41.3
..43.1
44.4
47.2
51.9
56.2
59.4
63.2.
67.5
74.0
82.3
90.1
95.6
99.6
103.9
107.6
109-6
113.6
118.3
124.0
130.7
136.2
140.3
I
32
FOO~O~S
1. ~
2.
statistical
=stract
the United
States
19s5,
Tale
76x.
of the United
States
1993,
Tale
73g
me
data are weighted
to
3. Recall t-t
these are fictional respondmts.
adjust for” avers~~li?g
.~n the orig~l
saWlin9
desi~
-d” for .di.f
ferent ial
attrition,
so the XUbrs
& not rePekSent specific respondents.
33
0
w
PoW
Un~hti
New
N@ PF—WF—
1
2
3
in 1667
W~hN
Pm
WF—
All
NW
N&P-
~F—
w
N—
-
N—
56.3
Fw_
1128
27.8
%
N-l&
F,_
13.9
4056
203
187
178
15.7
!3.7
12.7
lm
1359
?403
m
165
10.1
&z
12
21.4
=
450
57
49.9
1146
28.3
866
21.8
_
582
629
804
45.2
47.9
s,+
406
365
=
31.2
26.3
24.6
310
26a
277
23.6
=7
16.3
1311
1312
97
779
%5
57.3
410
393
31.8
29.0
1433
904
64.5
320
=8
1706
280
37
60.7
24
=.7
763
334
19
20.2
28.6
26
315
553
77
11.2
47.4
233
2818
1167
73
2215
1=
28
62.4
27.0
50.0
977
1s
16
2?.5
26.7
26.6
178! 59.8
1
2
3
Race
1
2
3
678 =8
519 77.4
2976
448
53.6
219
W7
m
613
63.7
217 21.9
242 21.1
170 203
167 16.6
iaz ~s.a
836
631
1149
z
20.6
62.5
402
267
9
170
340
9
Zon
a53
46
Is
246
m
26.1
19.4
31.3
~0.a
6.2
33.9
*8.6
M
Fw-
2025
F—
All
Me
All
Pm
NF—
2365
F-
Zmz
68.9
602
202
325
10.9
2676
m3 61.9
727 70.9
8~9 72.2
~
191
2m
25.6
18.6
101 125
107 10.5
116 102
ai3
1024
464
la.9
197a
110
24
73.5
33.3
66.7
17.6
197
122
6
96 29.7
6 16.7
1135
7.5
36.9
2331
16.7
36
W=shW
Nd Pwr
N-
m
F—
1593
All
i
3
66.5
340 66.5
511 66.7
532 64.5
459
19.3
339
14.2
f52
145
18.7
19.5
120
w
14.a
ti.a
163 19.6
131 15.9
247
203
3
119
218
2
2=1
Pm
N-
All
-N—WN-
NF—
F—
F—
1796
76.5
371
15.6
212
8.9
2361
744
a25
610
mz
566
75.5
77.4
73.7
121
121
~26
15.0
15.6
16.2
76
s
81
9.4
7.0
10.2
607
776
~
1675
666
37
1=
110
26
~.6
4Z2
64.6
283
.. ...76
2
14.0
=.4
7.7
136
74
2
6.5
26.4
7.7
2066
26o
31
812
R1
2
3
13m
242
32
7a.i
3.2
ae.s
14.7
31.2
6.1
7.1
32.6
5.4
35
Wa@hM
Umhti
Nd P=
All
Pm
Nw
FvrnFm_B
N& N—
F—WF—
W
1
14.2
12.6
13.2
16.2
854
627
a85
670
660
ml
S02
76.4
73.0
98
721
11.7
7%9
67
67
a.o
7,7
a34
aa7
144
16.6
W
10.4
8ffi
122
6.7
1821
235
3
=.3
7.7
706
m
1843
105
26
al.z
40.5
a3.3
287
74
3
126
26.7
a~
141
80
3
62
~.?
83
Z2m
259
3T
609
m
a
71.3
70
64.3
~37
139
173
16
16.6
19.5
108
1~
143
Zm
211
3
12.9
29.6
7.7
80.4
Pm
in
F—
N~ Pm
ml
Pm
P*
-
wF-
12476
416
3=
PU N—
All
-
F—
F—
NF—
421
20.6
373
18.2
2046
1444
70.5
346
16.9
258
12.6
68.5
62.2
52.9
lW
129
185
15.4
19.3
27
112
124
137
16.1
ia.5
20
=
=
684
537
a
412
76.4
77.7
61.3
78
111
1W
11.4
15.9
23.8
70
86
Im
70.2
?2.4
74.9
231
Iaa
4
16.1
31.a
15.4
la
221
2
10.4
37.8
7.7
1437
565
26
74.9
3.0
ala
278
68
2
15.4
=2
9.1
176
w
2
9.7
36a
9.1
lalo
12al
67.3
366
19.1
=
13.6
1874
1T77
15
70.8
3.0
S7
=
!8.3
E9
25.0
180
73
2
10.9
36.7
8.3
1=1
2=
1056
73.5
2
3
178
20
w.4
76.9
PO~
1111
N-
61.2
1
2
3
hce
1
All
4,
-
Pw
N-
F—
All
Me
a.7
WmbhM
N-
F—F=F—w
=
1637
un~m
Nd P-
F—
364
3m
S.8
84.6
F—
N—
77.1
17.5
2~
33
All
Pa
1976
446
1464
N—
2566
66.5
2
3
Pa
14
17W
2
3
Race
1
N—
F—
F—
All
Age
Pm
N-
59.2
21.3
s
19.5
1876
183
17.7
23
~
619
=7
418 a8.3
379 61.2
3%4 m.1
97
134
169
j5.4
21.6
27
115
~06
144
1
2
3
911
781
19
w.a
242
~53
5
la.5
28.7
192
152
11.6
21?
2
m.?
7.7
72
18
m4
~
672
217
23
in 1989
~
1
2
3
l=
Z=
~2
n.1
1S
545
2a
36
53
6
z
567
257
123
93*
%
74.7
55.s
31.8
56.7
Iaz 83.7
7?5
66.9
m36
=7
65.5
2
196 ~.6
al
39
3ia
3
Tn
54.4
30.7
w.2
64.4
55
42
24 22.6
Zwm
1
496 76.4
194 63.6
145
111
97
19.4
24.6
25.1
353
=3
25
33
11,4
19.2
m
aa
4
80
167
301
5.9
19.9
~
19
51
73
a7
5.7
16.1
35.9
211
13.3
14
!7
31
62
5.1
9.6
33.5
il.4
63
545
24.6
24.7
19.1
17
19
26
=
5.5
13.1
~.2
If.a
m
145
n
526
27.6
26.6
255
27.1
20
36
29
86
6.4
29.1
40.4
16.7
314
125
72
512
Ia.1
96 21.5
5.1
15.1
W.1
10.6
s
m
119
162
27.6
43.1
35.1
Im
1=
Ia.s
101 =5
677
2~
103
1=
75.8
61.4
43.1
66.8
51
315
20.9
19.9
225
1=
46
4W
63.6
~8
G9
74.6
31
=
13
75
11.3
17.6
13.5
m
146
127
243
60
32
s
76.4
QO
41.1
69.1
36
19
101
746
462
%7
1665
219
172
154
19.s
16.1
12
24
64
lW
5.s
14
41,6
18.3
41
42
36
119
16.3
28.2
28.3
22.5
13
26
62
91
17.4
40.s
17.2
79
36
31
146
28.7
27.S
26.2
za.s
19
40
51
110
6,9
30.s
46.1
21.5
275
131
lW
512
207
s
25
2W
~. 1
44.3
34.0
%2
87
33
18
136
120
18S
33
46
40
121
5.1
15.5
31.3
11.1
646
310
128
1066
=
1w
64
755
76.8
=.4
53.6
70.4
119
21 .s
16.4
192
21
2m
77.3
19.0
M
47
s
115
27.9
m.4
26.1
26.3
10
42
126
775
11.6
31.1
46.6
37.5
86
135
254
475
63
61
=
160
*.5
44.0
24.2
37a
26
39
64
129
243
28.3
27.7
27.1
17
36
111
167
67
?S
%3
66.6
66
21
206
2
52
62
54
166
W5
335
21.3
33.3
24
41
74
136
5.2
546
37
13.a
46 15.0
892
462
243
1565
269
163
?39
230
475
P-in
1972
Unwbhti
Nm
N&P-
PM
‘—~F—~F—
1021
380
72
1473
All
P*F—
88.7
Si. +
12
58.9
101
8.7
263 36.7
197 as
591 23.2
37
m
32a
446
3.2
10.8
5
17.8
743
568
2mo
7210
425
70
aa.a
56.9
17.9
17m
86.9
49.8
13.1
53.4
2a
64
59
Ial
7
32
114
153
26
12.7
S.3
21.3
267
2s1
166
717
a9.4
55.4
11
59.6
27
7.2
92 =.9
75 =.9
134 m
13
19
111
143
3.4
7.6
S. I
17.1
m
248
2m
a7.a
46.1
121
62.4
46
a.9
97 36.9
63 33.2
2=
21.7
17
2a
104
Im
>3
78 7.9
177
82 42:
341 19.9
22
103
lW
231
662
115
25a
145
518
8.4
34.4
372
20.7
276
144
22
445
86a
54.3
18.9
al
35
84
49
176
11.0
35.4
37.2
24.8
722
27 10.3
60 46.9
64 13.1
26s
13?
777
401
1s1
23
89.1
59.2
17.5
575
83.8
34
66
51
171
7.6
33.7
36.6
20.5
15
18
5
86
3.3
7.2
428
10.7
4m
=
?29
w
9.7
15.8
515
243
190
646
530
126
26
634
a9.6
57.1
19.6
72.1
48
7a
45
169
?.9
34.5
%.1
17.a
IS
19
61
96
26
a.4
46.4
10.1
562
236
131
946
26
=
72
137
2.6
7.5
33.5
a
663
518
215
1716
aaa
W7
*
1254
89.3
58.9
24.3
73.1
62
159
64
333
8.2
32.8
42.6
19.4
26
33
6s
129
2.6
7.4
33.0
7.s
lm7
S13
167
1716
10
41
251
mz
65
19.2
67.3
40.8
153
214
373
740
140
77
f7
76.4
34.2
5.0
31.6
26
102
m
221
+4.7
4s.4
27.9
=.9
10
46
za
264
5.9
20.4
67.4
Z.4
176
m
m
m
11s6
3
6s
1n
276
z.a
a.7
44.9
11.1
1
232
125
28
363
2
337
I=
23
4%
3
452
777
23
-z
10.5
37.5
29.6
252
11.9
1
a79 a9,4
3m
565
51 23.7
7236 72.1
2
121
63
78
207
n.f
31.a
4.8
2a
14.4
46.1
27.9
312
38
234
Wxhti
N&P=
—WN—
WN—
F-
889
206
41
1136
1
243
79
17
33a
2
3m
m
14
332
3
347
66
10
41?
1
766
la
z
936
2
1m
m
18
176
All
Pm
NW
~N—
F—
F—
F-
317
?719
Im
217
36
l=
91.5
56.1
18.0
76.o
70
113
81
26a
6.1
30.4
42.0
15.5
28 24
43 11.5
76 36.3
146 8.5
1152
373
193
1719
260
142
106
511
262
66
12
393
86.8
=3
18.6
76.9
6
s
29
69
1.8
14.6
46.6
15.9
25.1
43.4
13.6
7
2.3
16 11.6
25 %.0
4a
9.5
%
341
66
5t2
10
14
44
66
3
10.8
46.3
12.1
m
l=
85
m
~
66
13
W.8
67.6
23.7
432
77.3
24
41
24
a8
al
34.8
44.3
15.8
~2 32
9
7.6
71 320
39 6.9
366
116
54
~
40 10.2
64 37.5
42 37.2
136
21
10
24
61
%
2.6
16.7
54
14.7
361
144
113
646
408
61
10
460
893
51.9
14.3
74.1
41
36
9.1
32.0
26
106
3.3
16.7
8
1.7
19 16.0
34 46.4
m
9.2
e
117
73
646
91.3
565
23.4
79.2
=9
75 26.8
46 48.9
171 14.4
23
27
26
76
27
10.7
27.7
6.4
836
262
64
1166
781
1~
91.7
61.4
23
664
25.7
80.5
51
70
40
161
6.0
26.5
46.9
13.6
20 2.4
25 10.1
25 26.4
70 5.9
652
26
66
1lG
822
329
8.2
34.8
47
74
72
163
6
32
126
167
4.7
20.3
=.9
33
126
166
219
s
132
%
18
204
86.4
36.4
8.7
40.3
16
67
72
la
103
44.4
35.6
30.6
60.2
a
12.9
66.2
146 SB
120 37.9
337 19.6
26
=
156
2.9
14.2
46.2
244
14.2
93s
S.e
15.6
663
8 3.1
42 =.6
41 37.6
91 !7.8
9
21
S1
81
91
48.5
14.7
=.2
20
6
63 40.8
37 33.9
110 19.6
87.2
45.8
6.8
=.4
66
6.9
132
46.6
32.9
322
3.s
666
39
532132
26 192
114 ~.8
147 26.1
1*
204
s
PO-
in i 982
Nd
W
N-
W
I
F—
1~
119
35
1160
1
366
4
14
424
2
329
m
9
376
37
12
2
119
44
13
176
31
88.3
36.7
15.1
66.4
96
1s
%
289
8.6
47.7
24.1
~7.1
35
70
141
246
21.6
60.8
14.5
82.4
40.7
16.5
72
20
42
22
M
5.1
%.9
25.9
14.3
10
22
46
8*
2.5
20.4
67.6
13.8
88.7
36.5
15
70.3
31
44
10
85
8.4
423
?6.7
15.9
11
22
41
74
3
212
63.3
13.8
33
13.8
63
47
46
24
120
12.6
43.7
27.6
21
14
26
51
91
90.8
44.4
293
80.4
m
66
21
153
6.9
38.1
26
728
72.6
28.6
8.4
37.2
31
66
s
134
18.9
44.2
Z6
28.3
1166
112
a
W.4
42.3
20.7
92
107
=
7.1
40.4
2a.o
1%7
772
237
14.0
z
46
?1
148
25
17.3
57.2
8.a
1262
264
139
1663
64.7
46.6
19.0
81.6
75
3.4
31
15
61
363
m.a
10.4
9
13
26
47
1.9
15.1
512
a.o
454
86
49
=9
371
Iw
m
636
372 80.4
37 43.4
7 20.0
417 .76.0
m
34
8
72
7.3
40.3
21.4
13.5
10
14
22
45
2.3
16.4
=.6
as
412
85
37
635
3.8
232
=.6
1s.9
3Z
112
67
571
365
m
11
406
65.8
3.4
20.4
715
47
40
17
Iffi
11.1
43.5
X3
ia.4
13
19
25
=
3.1
21.1
47.3
10.1
425
62
63
571
21
28
32
81
2.2
16.6
42.7
6.8
a
lW
75
1164
876
75
19
971
91.2
46.7
28.1
81.4
64
66
21
1=
6.7
3s
31.6
72.6
20
24
27
72
2.1
14.5
40.4
6.0
661
166
s
1183
14
42
107
163
8.5
27.3
w
34,5
1154
1s
473
1=
46
9
193
74.6
37.4
6.8
40.8
26
~
34
125
15.5
41.6
24.2
26.5
*a
41
66
Is
9.a
n.o
=.9
Z7
lm
152
Is
473
426
42
9
461
40
In* 667
Pow
m
8Z5
92 30.6
26 11.5
1021 =9
1
m
89.1
w
n7
8 11.4
=1
70.5
2
282
B3
36 37.1
11 1s.1
m
=.9
3
25a 74.4
26 22.6
7
8.3
291 53.3
1
766 86.1
57 37.3
14 18.9
857 7s.3
2
m 36.8
35 24.1
*2
7.9
137 30.4
I 070
64
23
a5.7
35.4
16.5
1175
72.4
366
415
91.4
a9
70
23
a
446
36.s
18.7
ao.3
5.1
247
56.9
IU
352
97
73
522
34a
34
6
86.6
42.%
19.S
366
74.5
26
32
47
105
7.5
27a
56
19.2
347
115
64
%
m
26
6
340
T.9
26.4
11.3
=3
32.4
15.6
37
32
35
lffi
4
20.9
46.6
9.1
624
153
74
1151
a13
S
15
863
=9
37a
21.3
76.7
26.1
42a
26s
Z4
23
4a
68
167
15
=.1
63.2
37.1
153
97
44
10
150
56.1
26s
72
33.4
132 121
126 42.9
mm
~
20.3
60
60
l=
273
5.5
26.6
m.6
16.6
27
%8
35 36.3
19 27.1
8% 74.6
16
24
43
83
4
27
61.4
15
42
37
19
86
11.9
33.1
26
18.8
18
24
43
a5
63
57
30
1~
18.2
46.6
35.7
27.5
91
64
9.8
4+.8
24
176
40
62
44
746
301
227
1623
41
122
W
54
71
laz
4.6
24
51.a
11.2
101
9.a
4Z
44
266
3t.a
16.4
23
25
9
57
5.0
41.7
27
103
16
3.5
12
24
52
19.4
66.7
9.4
453
m
42
555
39
28
13
79
9.7
35.1
=3
152
14
1a
22
54
3.5
Z. I
51.2
10.3
396
m
43
521
61
47
15.4
463
402
23.7
6.6
Z.3
46.5
14.0
s
21
12a
26
25
26
76
97
63
w
86
61
92
41.7
36
30
B
s
3.8
20.5
47.5
a.6
s
146
70
1151
32
45
83
1W
19.4
305
60.7
35.6
167
146
137
450
=..31.1
1=
14.7
36
59
44
140
=6
=.5
=1
31.0
124a
236
136
1623
671
75
m
776
1
272
21
10
303
2
234
22
9
2=
3
165
32
11
2~
1
=
52
16
~
2
?9
22
14
112
al.4
28.6
11.7
57.8
121
ila
61
14.7
443
23.8
263222
32
71
163
3.a
27.f
64.5
a24
2Q
266
20
1342
763
75
27
864
83.0
34a
15.7
66.6
132
91
42
f3.a
422
24.4
2=
19s
s
216
170
31
a
Ioz
f83
32
23.0
59a
13.6
1342
87.2
333
12
66.2
27
m
16
73
a.7
4?.8
16.3
15.9
13
12
57
a2
4.2
19
66.7
17.9
312
63
83
=4
20
7
362
a9.6
423
152
7a.a
23
20
10
s
8.0
423
21.0
1=
9
7
24
15.4
m
4a
31
47
63.8
10s
4a
w
82.4
2a.9
~o.a
59a
43
33
25
101
1s.1
43.4
=.1
22a
7
25
21 27.6
46s
77 37.4
264
76
83
443
275
23
7
%
64.7
=.4
122
-.7
43
27
77
87
132
4~.7
31.7
19.6
7
1s
31
52
20
22a
%1
11.7
325
84
%
443
72.4
26
122
47.2
51
s
20
124
22.4
43.1
222
23.1
12
33
W
106
53
=.9
66.6
24.7
22a
123
164
33
12
236
72.1
31.1
~a.3
=.0
m
45
14
119
Z3
429
20.3
27.0
15
27
41
64
5.6
2s.1
61.4
19.0
269
106
67
441
a3.a
36.6
16.2
66.6
=
~
24
178
13.6
423
24.2
19.1
17
30
56
106
2.4
21.1
~.a
11.3
666
142
66
637
*
52
15
861
64.1
37.6
162
7&5
s
=
22
774
13.4
41.6
24.2
38.6
~a
a
=
102
=
20A
=.6
10.9
?=
140
63
=7
67.3
7a.6
8.9
289
22
S
37
114
195
46.6
a.a
26.4
15
41
1s
152
133
34.7
67.5
44a
t %3
IIa
Is
386
a?
W. I
24
19
130
22?
13.3
33.6
24
48
36
106
la~
U.6
24.7
28.%
22 16.6
=332
m
620
146 363
13
Im
146
333
%
441
42
673 ai.3
2a5 sa.s
1ta 27.3
1076 61.6
1
231 88.2
131 73.2
m 33.1
415 68.1
2
216 82.4
66 593
41 26.5
~
61
3
226 74.3
5840
24 20.5
m
54.4
1
=
83.5
226 56.1
65 45.8
%1
74.2
2
56 629
51 38.3
49 17.2
1S
=.a
lffi
115
133
12.8
23.7
=.8
354
20.3
46
66
lal
31a
5.9
77.7
41.a
18.1
626
466
432
1746
824
314
103
1241
282
la
6.1
44
476
45.4
79.2
23
23
s
127
23.3
10.9
267
107
36
411
84.2
64.0
333
70.9
32
40
22
64
274
=
22
7.7
43.9
2as
=
62.7
=
63.9
17
&5
2a
46
91
15.6
23a
15.1
14
20
61
65
5.3
112
33.1
15.a
262
176
160
601
29
41
41
111
11.1
25.3
26.5
192
77
26
73
115
a.5
15.4
47.1
19.9
263
I=
1s
m
m
la.7
46
46
152
31.7
363
26.9
la
4+
47
106
s.a
2a.3
40.2
78.7
a3
75
35
163
1?.4
27.7
24.6
ls.a
37
42
42
121
5. f
122
26.6
10
1215
21
3a
23
T57
23.6
28a
34.4
31
12
44
136
194
13.5
32.1
46.4
36.3
66
133
285
w
14
117
s
72a
345
142
43
a3.7
W.5
=.6
7J, I
8a.o
146 60.2
22a a7.4
64 =.0
ala 75.6
63
55
4a
64.2
3.1
qa.q
167 32a
S
65
63
213
5.6
13.3
34.6
122
16
13
31
59
4.a
7.1
313
9.9
317
185
102
23.9
23.5
16.3
la
20
36
5.a
12.1
33.3
74
Iza
318
167
64
576
56
45
27
la
1s.7
33.5
35.6
23.3
22
31
26
m
62
26
34a
14.0
m
135
75
w
al
73
~
la6
10.9
21.5
23.6
15.3
36
38
34
111
5.2
11.1
26.4
a.1
74a
336
12a
1215
la
41
89
146
18.7
26.0
=.1
292
17
45
?31
192
f7.1
31.9
46A
373
*
141
266
507
112
108
72
113
222
26a
263
16.7
437
267
1746
68
601
Nd Pm
N—
-
F—
910
414
133
1457
1
278
173
54
w
2
m
1%
43
464
3
326
103
36
466=
1
877
319
n
~207
2
80
85
B
218
8.7
Ia.1
31.4
14.5
43
58
aa
166
3.5
9.4
26s
a.7
als
294
2<43
90.4
81.6
43.3
80.5
24
w
26
81
6.3
!2?
27.3
11.3
12
15
3t
56
33
m
29.3
az
371
233
107
714
359
14a
=
544
88.6
73.4
39.5
77s
37
36
29
?02
9.1
17.6
za
14.6
922
+a
9.0
25 27.9
G
73
406
W2
m
W6
W3
104
31
527
852
*.2
=6
n.1
47
46
34
726
102
27.1
35.7
T7.5
27
24
=
76
4.a
13.a
3~.a
10.4
46?
i 75
64
731
827 a8.7
75.0
46.5
81.0
~
75
4$
192
a.z
77.6
28.4
728
28
32
32
63
3.~
7.4
Z%
62
632
427
l=
la
67.6
51.5
18.s
39.1
29
41
115
~az
20.2
=6
=.1
30. I
16
47
123
186
l=
263
420
=.9
126
132
263
W4
129
162
W6
9.3
21.2
35
~8.2
43
66
4.1
10.8
6W
188
297
36.9
fz9
463
2143
89.4
77.2
30.2
70.7
21
X
69
115
6.8
16.1
32.4
16.1
12
15
67
%
3.9
6.7
37.4
13.2
311
224
179
714
m
1=
46
=
88.!
66.7
27.6
69.3
32
41
52
125
9.3
20.7
332
17.9
9
19
61
89
2.6
9.6
36.1
12.8
344
Is
155
W6
a3. 1
55.1
24.3
45
52
52
?46
11,4
27.8
=.1
20.4
22
32
w
114
5.6
17.1
40.5
15.6
396
187
146
731
88.7
74
46.7
80.3
738
61 78,8
44 27.8
186 132
30
31
37
*
3.3
?.2
23.4
6.5
914
431
156
1=
320
71
1217
~
=.9
16.6
36.2
23
47
Iia
lea
13
=
146
197
11.2
21
46.6
32.7
116
167
320
603
87
m
s
2W
96
19.8
=.1
36.9
31.2
1236
107
IT I
62
3~ 1
1066
446
86.6
m
27.5
6a
87.9
72.5
114 =.7
1=
76.8
154
56
866
1
166
67
21
26?
2
Zla
%
77
291
3
238
31
76.3
45.7
19.8
59.8
114
106
96
315
f3.8
31.5
3.6
21.8
88.1
~6
20.6
66
77
24
7.5
24
30
71
29.4
16.3
a
26
36
13.9
26.4
36.8
81.0
542
2a.3
66.9
126
a7
s
266
240
76
17
332
89.9
70.2
27.3
7a.3
6.4
n
226
107
la
435
17
15
w
~7.7
19
ia
52
17.3
26a
11.9
18
25
43
aa
6.6
=7
43.9
77a
274
110
66
462
2al
61
14
W6
af.4
56.2
25.0
w.a
42
2S
z
60
327
120
83
5W
262
32
14
a
74.5
32.8
27.3
62.1
266
18.4
10
4.4
16
51
667
310
771
1447
58
s
71
6.0
f7.a
41.5
182
12.6
10
13
3.7
12.5
2a
51
46.0
71.a
106
60
435
132
24.4
37.5
ia.6
T7
5.4
77 16.4
22 37.s
%
11.6
321
lW
56
462
66
42
t7
126
17.5
43.0
=3
23.7
w
24
21
75
8.0
24.2
40.4
44.2
376
63
S2
531
13.0
2a.o
32.2
18.5
267
l=
21.8
73.~
25.8
2~.7
54,3
%
63
27
139
18
442
=6
26.2
29
8.9
S30
36 45.8
103 19.4
72.2
62
55
24
171
13
25.9
28.9
17.1
41
36
m
107
5.a
t7
36.1
10.7
706
2?2
63
lW1
566
121
27
734
8~.8
66.5
34a
73.4
92
53
24
168
129
25.6
30.a
16.8
36
~
27
96
5.3
15.6
34.6
9.8
716
207
7a
lm
66.7
25.6
%2.8
29.9
21
e
77
141
19.4
m.5
36.2
33.2
16
41
100
157
14.8
33.9
51
36.s
106
121
166
426
76
37
26
136
62.0
m.7
14.3
32.6
23
46
67
137
38.8
40.0
36.2
322
23
3
91
1=
192
26.3
46.5
SZ
122
119
164
426
34.9
31
25
127
763
166
46
-7
6.9
Z8
46.6
76.6
=.9
17.3
60.4
18
286
1
81.2
m
121 57.1
2
7!
827
m
2a3
1447
57
77
1~
45
833 87.S
335 65.7
106 22.s
1326 ffi.S
1
263 88.4
146 66s
33 22.5
45266
2
272 w.?
129 =3
35 =6
436 W.7
3
263 W.9
110 56.8
35 22.7
433 64.1
1
722 a8.5
%7
72.4
64 =.8
1093
7a
2
w
at.a
n
46.2
41 132
m
352
7.5
26.1
35.6
19.6
4
4a
200
262
4.6
az
41.8
14.5
w
476
2012
7.3
22
4623
s
34.3
126 la.a
13
la
73
104
4.3
a.s
43.2
152
x
213
166
66s
316
170
32
518
a9z
752
30.7
75.6
300
169
323
141
2a
463
W3
723
31.0
76.6
361
112
=.7
36.6
s
497
329
7za
33322
113 16.6
a.a
36 34.9
72 10.6
71
753
170
364
646
m
425
s
Is
66.4
71.5
31.8
75.0
aO
135
l=
320
7.2
=7
36.1
15.9
m
34
39
163
4.5
s.a
33.1
9.1
26
44
6.9
19.4
14
12
3.9
55
34
103
32.7
15.0
s
64
36.7
9.4
23
6.3
43222
37 40.a
l=
16.0
72
10
26
4a
3.4
5.0
262
7.4
25
a.2
f8
6
47
64
126
24.9
41.3
20
10
13
s
7a
3.3
6.9
Z6.q
123
31
57
~
136
9
31
31.2
19.9
21
77
71
lm
6.1
9.2
al
16
164
1%
m
S7
w
52
207
221
323
14.8
37
4.5
19
4.5
4526
Tol
7.2
a16
424
161
1401
741
=
62
7111
w
73.8
423
76.3
m
91
4a
166
72
2i.a
327
14.1
3a
18
36
62
4.4
25.0
6.6
73
%
116
164
11.8
35.3
37.3
31.9
7
29
154
Iw
110
136
311
m
772
64
33
230
azs
=.0
1=
36.9
13
9.4
54322
lm
=7
176 =.5
10
=
131
171
7.7
17.a
46.0
26.7
6.4
18.6
46.5
329
644
345
46
23
47
az
27.9
12
4.5
Nti -
N~
*
F—
642
217
74
1233
~
m
91
28
375
2
327
67
27
421
3
ma
5a
19
437
1
830
1s
62
257
310
aa
902
73.3
21
42a
3.8
10.5
=.2
9.7
344
135
30.6
76.7
13
14
26
53
mz
362
70
20
472
m.7
a.!
31.5
76.4
29
34
la
a~
6.9
29.5
27.8
73.5
10
12
26
4a
2.4
10.4
40.7
a.f
21.7
49.1
15.a
41a
143
112
674
427
67
15
496
a7.6
46.9
23.9
74.1
44
44
24
113
9.1
Z6.i
33.0
16.7
16
22
24
62
3.3
la.o
36.0
9.2
2a
26
29
a3
3
10.4
31.2
6.6
625
24a
s
1267
640
I=
33
103I
90.0
63a
3.2
al.4
87
~
29
7.2
25.5
=.a
1=
12.5
27
27
24
n
2.a
10.7
27.9
a.1
13
41
12a
la3
9.a
27.5
53.1
34s
.1=
14
243
524
3* I
63
3a
2m
72.9
=.6
17.0
36.7
29
52
70
f4a
17.2
=.5
31.0
282
15
41
1~7
1n
10.0
a.o
QO
33.0
8.2
31.7
23.7
16.3
10
i9
54
83
27
15.1
49.5
13.8
w
12s
lW
85.7
41.3
i?
-.6
41
s
33
132
e.a
37.1
33.9
19.a
19
31
55
I=
4.5
a9.7
=5
67
S
2a
160
7.2
26.1
m. I
126
26
5
77
1%
19.7
36.9
31.7
302
36 36.7
I024 ao.a
2
93 70.5
53 36.6
37 15.2
163 34.9
29.2
76.s
a.o
162
30.9
11.6
30
40
2a
66
89.7
532
24.8
69.9
%
Im
21
22
21
63
294
136
116
646
23
28
36
80
7.5
26a
32.1
14.1
4.1
12
%7 125
51 432
aO 14.7
aa
66.9
23.7
a3.a
95
Im
12s
373
163
la21
7.9
20.6
3.1
16.5
8.7
29.9
31
17.6
a93
m.o
3.2
13.2
36.7
9.0
1077
4m
33a
1821
64
121
105
320
1120
224
40
49
75
l=
16.5
47.2
~4.7
a7.5
53.S
21.8
67.7
41
67
1m
266
3.8
,/
47
67
M
421
tla
a5
602
423
W~hti
N—-—
724
92
34
Em
79.8
33.8
16.6
61 S
1
287
87.S
%
18
m
38.5
24
68.6
2
232 81.?
3636
7 11.1
274 &.4
3
211 m.s
22
9
242
24.2
13.4
52.6
1
644 83.6
65 45.5
19 31.1
728
2
66
2?
Is
110
veq
in 1
113
101
?t
12.5
36.s
34.6
2=
25.6
71.7
6.3
=6
41.5
11.9
114
1=7
m.a
46.7
34.4
79.1
21
26
12
56
5.8
3
15
336
3S2
26.7
12.1
13
13
3.4
Ian
3M
73
17
43
38s
8.8
44
467
276
35
6
64.4
6.8
2a.2
32
23
I7
67
9.a
31.0
33.8
753
19
17
16
52
5.7
z
4.1
11.8
m
75
34
439
256
73.8
7
286
16.1
41.1
41.0
ZO
10.1
30.4
20.5
62.7
W
m
15
101
33
z
21
14
M
26.5
36.s
15.3
=1
73
26
w
770
143
61
974
666
G
1a
747
64.5
47.9
33.3
7a.7
~
46
17
142
9.6
%.7
31.5
14.6
45
22
19
5.7
16.4
S2
133
53
65
0.7
674
123
126
la
3m
74
27
1?
~la
56,5
20,4
13.1
26s
3
47
47
124
22.4
35.7
X6
31.5
30
58
a
153
Z1
43.8
%.3
S.7
134
la
130
23
33
23
79
7.2
%.3
%.7
162
77
23
34
74
5.3
25.3
45.3
152
321
91
?5
467
32
3t
21
64
11.3
33.7
33.3
19.1
20
26
35
81
7
263
65.6
~a.s
264
%
63
436
56
37
27
122
19.2
40.7
40.3
26.5
n
32
31
96
10.9
=2
46.3
20.9
m2
91
a7
m
466
28 19.6
21 34,4
*
9.a
24
52
76
1%
la.5
40.3
%.5
3
1051
220
67
~
47
165
20.6
31 25.2
m
38.8
%s
131 332
875
10.4
S.8
as
16.4
m7
274
2M
1386
S.3
20.9
10.5
27.8
F-
lm
76
37
227
7.7
29.6
46.8
18.7
?4.?
All
=N—
667
70
61
Im
251
80 10.4
50s
21 34.4
151 15.5
WN—
F—
F—
F—
PO
Pwr
NW
Nti W
48
9?
a3z
41.5
29
695
S
mm
395
National
Longitudinal
Suneys
(~S)
Discussion Paper Series
m
~
01
MichaelR Pergmit
How the Federal Govement Uses Data horn
the National Longimdfial Sumeys
02
Nomm
M. Bradbum
M~in R. F~el
Regfiald P. B&er
Michael R. Pergmit
A Comptision of Computer-Assisted Pemonal
htemiews (CAPI)””withPaper-ad Pencil hterviews @API) h tie National Longitidtial Sumey
ofYouth
03
Saul Schwtiz
Mbefl Hutchens
George Jtibson
Dynaic Modck of the Joht Detemtiation of
Labor Supply md Fmily Stictie
04
A. Coti Cmeron
R. Mmk Griti
Thorn= MaCwdy
The effecti of Unemploflent Compensation
on the Unemployment of Youth
05
Hew
Evaluattig Compethg Theories of Worker
Mobility
06
Frd L. Mott
Paula B&er
Evaluation of the 1989 Child-cme Supplement
h the National LongiWdinal Sumey of Yo”tb
07
Au&ey Light
Mmuelita Ureta
Gender Differences k the Quit Behavior of
Yomg Workers
08
LisaM. Lynch
The hpact of Private Sector Tag
on Race
ad Gender Wage Differential md the Caeer
Patternsof Young Workers
09
Evagelos M. Faltis
H. Eli=betbPetms
Responses of FemaIe Labor Supply ad Fefiility
to the Demographic Cycle
10
Ame Hifl
Jme E. ONeill
A Stidy of Intercohoti Chmge h Women’s
Work Patternsmd Emtigs
11
&leen Leibowiti
Jacob Alex Klemm
Lkda Waite
Women’s Employment Durkg Pre~nmcy
ad Followtig Bti
12
Lee A. Lfflad
Work Experience, Job Tenure, Job Sepwation,
md Wage Growth
13
Joseph G. Altonji
Thomas A. DD
Fmily Backgound md Labor Mmket Outcomes
S. Faber
14
George J. Borjw
Stephen G. Bronms
Stephen J. Trejo
SeM-Selection md InternalMi~tioi
United Staks
15
Jmes
J. Hectim
StephenV. Cmeron
PeterZ.Schochet
The Detemtims md Consequent= of Wblic
Sector md Private Sector Tmfihg
16
R. Mak Gtiti
Thomm MaCmdy
P~icipation ti Low-Wage Labor Makes
Yowg Men
17
Alm L. Gus~an
Thomas L. Stetieier
Retkementh a Fmily ContexC A Stic~al Mdel
for Husbmds md Wives
18.
Au&ey Light
Tmsitions from School to Work A Smey of
Reseach Uskg the National Longimdmal Smeys
19.
Ctil_opherJ.Ruh
High School Emplowenb
hv=ment
20.
Mmk Lowenskh
Jmes Spletzer
hfomal Tmhtig A Review of Existig Data md
Some New Evidence
21.
Jacob Alex Klemm
Ch-cterifig
NLSY Data
22.
Jacob Alex Klemm
kleen Leibowitz
Emplo~ent
D.
Stephen G. Bronms
tiol Moore
kcentive Pay, Information, md Eaings
Evidmce
from the National Longimdhal Suwey of Youth
24.
Donald O. Pmons
me Evolvhg S~tis
of Female Work Activities
Evidence from the National Longi~dinal Sweys of
Matie Women SWey, 1967-1989
25.
Donald O. Pasons
Pove@ D~aics
bong
Maine Women Evidence
~om the National Longitidmal Suweys, 1967-1989
U.S.
~—
by
Consumption or
Leave for Mateti@
Continui& kong
PW~lNG
k the
WF1@:
Modehg
the
New Mothem
1995 - l@-685