me National
Longitudtid
Smeys ~S) pmgm mppfls mmy stidics
desi~d
b ticIwe mdmstidtig of thelabormmket md methoh of &ta coUcctia~c
DismssionPapersserieskcovrates sme oftheresexchctig outoftheprom.
my
ofthepperstithisseries
kve beendefivwed
asfid rqotismtissiond m
paflof an cxwmwd
pat pro~am, wd.r wtich Bmti =. am&d
&ou& a
competitive
procms.
me smiesistikndedtoctictiate
tkefindkgs
tointmestdr=bm
witinmd oukidctheBwcau ofLaborShfitics.
P*ons titeratdk obmintig
a mpy ofmy Discretion
Papw,otier
NS wfis,
orgeneral
tiomationabouttbcW
pro= ad sme~ *odd conmt theBm=u of
bbor Stititi@,
Office
ofEconoti.Reseach,Watigtom DC 2~124001, ord
(202)606-7405.
Mattialintispublication
istithepublic
domti ad, titbappropriate
tit,
my berqroducedtitiout
pentission.
Opiniomad conclusions
expreswdh this
docmmt ze tiosc
oftkeauthor(s)
ad
do notnecesstily
rep=nt m offlcid
position
oftheBumu ofL*
Sbtistim
m the
U.S.De-at
ofLabor.
The Evolving Structure of Female Work Activities:
Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey
of Mature Women, 1967-1989
Donald
The
0.
Parsons
Ohio State University
[email protected]
December
1994
TMs paperwas findedby tbeU.S.Depanment ofLabor,Bm=u ofLaborStatiadcs
undersmallpurchase
order.
The tiewseqreasedhereMe tioseoftheauthorsmd do not neces~y
reflect the tiws of the
U.S.Depa~ent ofLabor,
tiecu ti ve Sma~
The
changed
spend
market
work
radically
the ,resulting
work
data
Sumey
from
is used
from
time
an
little
decades
market.
study
has been
Women, s Cohort
the
Work
perspective.
hours
week.
full-
Three
changes
life
in
cycle
part-time
i) part- time..weeks” -d
weeks
part-time
hours
full-time
per week,
and
and
per
based
part-time
exist
week,
iii ) part- time
structure
or
possibilities
hours
Longitudinal
categories
full-
of
.......In. this
work
fom
real-
structure
National
into
share
time
to the
of
has
greater
.strnctuxe
the
weeks
St”ates
large
evolution
‘,part -time,, work
framework:
that
of
and
this
devoted
is partitioned
or
the. U“nited
Despite
the
Mature
to
in
as. a greater
or
dichotomies:
and
wome~
activities
on two work
per
several
to characterize
annul
adult
in the labor
comparatively
location,
of
in the last
stistantial
study,
behavior
in
this
i.i) full. time
weeks
and hours
per
week.
The
analysis
preferences
for
cyclical
factors,
both
and
how
to
these
children,
likely
data
work
weeks
are
to be
-d
are
the
demand
year
likely
hours
over
of
per
to
are
High
into weeks
structure
and
per week
greater
preferences”
divided
the
year
technologies
weeks
have
per
while. hours
customer
greater
1 ikely
a supply
for an employee, s weeks
demands
tion
adopts
framework
and hours
be
likely
week.
costs
and
per “eek.
year
by
are
Similarly
time
school
week
she supplies
For
seasonal
and of the
by
1 ikely
the
school
and
produc
-
to induce
worker
to the
women
have
Employer
to be affected
t“he total
hours
per
influenced
training
per
Employers
fim
with
&y
is
md
small
are both
important.
The
National
set
fox
tb
activity,
Longitudinal
tivestigation
including
Survey
of recent
the growth
of Mature
Women
=-s
the
of part-time
b
work.
provides
structure
It offers
a va.l~ble
of
female
a ~rter
of a centu~
dents
30
i~ortant
to
the
period
to
44
years
opportunity
eve
of
information
of
retirement
The
the respondents
Major
findings
age
in
to e~lore”
for a s=stantial
transition.
time
of detailed
study
were
for
s~set
on approximately
the
first
year
the d~amics
the
entire
sample
of the analysis
choices
and
during
focuses” on the 1967 -19S9
female
(1967) , and
of work
of the sample
52 to 66 years
5000
into
the time
period
respon-
provides
from
the
of
an
midlife
retirement
this
great
at the end of which
of age.
.,.,,
—
include:
1)
The most obvious trend in work-time
stricture over the 1967-1989 period
for the Mature
Women, s cohort is the life cycle shift from-no work to
full -“time (full-time weeks and full -time hems
per week) and then back
The percent
of all respondents
who work full-weeks
and hours
again
rises from 27 percent in 1967 to 40 percent in 1977 before
falling
to
Conversely
the percent not working at all falls
28 percent
in 1989.
from 48 percent in 1967 to 39 percent in 1982 before rising again to 49
There
is also a major shift o“ut of part:year/full percent
in 1989.
week work and into full”-year/pare-week
work between 1967 and 1972 that
persists persists
throughout
the sample period.
2)
mong
employed women, the most obvious phenom@na
in this data are i )
the life cycle
sensitivity
of part-year work (the midlife shift from
part-year
to full -Vear work and return) ; and ii) the secular
increase
in full -year/part-week
status, which dotiles between 1967 and 1977 (to
19 percent of all employed respondents)
3)
Large
and sustained
differences
<n work-time
structure
exist across
industries --”str”ong evidence that the employer, s preferences
are imp or tant .
Manufacturing,
for example,
Of ferS few Part-time
~~s
jObs.
Ninety-three
percent of all employees
in that sector
work
full - time
a significant
share,
2S percent
work less th=
forty
hours , though
This patten
is consistent
with a great deal of specialweeks a year.
ized training -d
a relatively
institutional
work stmcture
that atiits
Conversely
in the wholesale
and retail
sector,
35
little diversity.
percent of all employees work less than 35 hours a week; in the professional sector 26 percent; and in personal seuices
47 percent.
4)
Part -year work appears
to be driven by seasonal and cyclical factors.
Industries
such as a~iculture
and manufacturing
kve
large numbers
of
employed
fe-le
workers who USU1lY
worked full hours but for less th=
Agriculture,
wklesale
a“nd retail,
personal
forty weeks in the year.
services , -d
the entertainment
industries have the greatest nufier of
This no
,,
casual’, jobs, those with part -year and part -week e~lopent.
tiong the larger emplop=t
doubt
reflects
strong
seaso”nal factors.
ii
-.
sectors, personal
Semites
and
st-d
out as especially
likely
to a lesser extent
to offer
part-time
wholesale
hours but
and retail
full weeks.
5)
At the individual
level, the polar states--no work and full-time work-Eight ypercent
5f the
are quite
stable
over five year periods
.
nonworkers
and two -thirds
of the full -time workers were in the same
Wong
the various
combinat ions of part - time
state five years later.
part -year or part -week, only the full -year/part -week state was
states,
found
in the same state
five years
stable, with 40 percent of these
later.
The other
categories,
especially
casual work (part-year ~
part-week) , are transitory
states, at l=st
fro”m““a““five year perspecOnly ten percent of the casual workers in the first period were
tive
casual workers five years later.
6)
casual
work
(part -time weeks and hours) would appear to be a stepping
~ong
casual
workers
in 1967,
stone to more stable work commitments.
fifty percent
wer”e split more” “or less e~ally
between full-year/partweek work and full -year/full -week work in 1972.
About
one-third
were
Conversely
two- thirds
of the respondents
who were in
not working.
casual jobs in 1972 were out of the labor
force
five years
earlier.
Few full-year workers return to casual, part-year
and part-week,
work.
7)
Marital disruption
increases Iaor
market activity.
It is natural
.to
imagine
that the withdrawal
of the hush-d
from the labor force would
have the same labor market effect on the spouse as a marital disruption
since
the family income effect is the same in both d“asu-”-loss of husNot only is the rate of -try
Such is not the c=e.
band, s ea=ings.
into full-time
work not increased
with the departure
of. the husband
The likelihood
that a respondent
who
from the work force, it shriti.
is married with spouse present will be working full-time
in 19.89 is cut
in half if the hush-d
is not in the labor force.
The–evidence
is cons is tent with
the hypothesis
that this is due to greater home nursing
demnds
on the woman.
8)
Less work
intensity
in the pre-retirement
years increases
the early
The average work withtiawal
rate of the various ‘partretirement
rate.
time
categories
is twice
that of full-time
workers
in the “early
retirement
period.
This is despite the Limited pension coverage
among
Although there are s.i~if i cant year- to-year fluc part-time
workers
tutions
in pension coverage,
especially
in the smaller
work status
categories,
the general
pattern
is one in which
the most
casual
employees
(P~/P~)
have only one fourth the coverage of the full - time
workers
(FYR/m)
More interest ing, perhaps, the FYR/P~” workers have
coverage only modestly higher tha
the PYR/P~
workers,
28 percent versus 2.2 percent.
I n contrast,
the PYR/~
workers have coverage rates
t~t,
while less than full-time workers, are dotile those of the other
PYR categories
. Apparently
a full work week is the crucial pension
eligibility
factor.
iii
i.
Int reduction
The
market
ctiged
work
radically
spend
some
time
little
ing work
activities
include
the
that
less
vironment
of
in
Parks
(1988)
labor
force
focusing
respondent,
The
set for
the
paper
to
tem
of detailed
portmity
retirement
for
dwamics
Sumey
of
age
to e~lore
for
skset
the
the growth
information
the
t=ends
of work
entire
sample
of the sample
and
during
it
not
does
from
just
Mellor
of mature
a
as
and
of
women,
a rich
of
It offers
data
fe“ma1 e work
a ~arter
of a
f“emale respondents
an importat
from midlife
the retirement
the time
en-
could
provides
(1967) , and provides
choices
the work
2
.
Women
5000
on
week
dimensions
in the strut ture
into
a work
of weeks,
activities
on approximately
the. dwamics
work,,
activity
1990)
Viewed
and weeks
of part -time work..
year
as
horizon.
nu~er
work
of Mature
in the first
(1988, 1989,
,,part -time
of these
of the resuit -
Certainly
hours
share
reallocation,
for characterizing
a limited
characterize
time
defined
s planning
I.use b“oth the
invest igat ion ‘of ret-t
including
to...44 years
stantial
long
hours
is
specified.
a year,
Nat i ona.1 Long”i tudinal
activity,
century
activity
rarely
perhaps
time
work
has
..Lrnportant exceptions
and Blank
The rationale
typical
In tlis
on the
part-time
States
and gr=ter
to the stwcture
1980b)
the
full
large
in that structure.
studies
United
this
is
perspective,
the
Despite
devoted
(1980a,
1
in
as a greater
measure
longer
involve
changes
women
decades
this
to
easily
bas been
35 hours.
correspond
time
adult
several
Hanoch
In most
than
with
study
or
work
work.
is
in the last
of
in the iabor market.
comparatively
part-time
behavior-
of this great
to the eve
period
30
op of
for a s~-
trasition.
The
study
focuses
dents
were
The
mture
on
the
52 to 66 years
analysis
of
hours/weeks
over
long
change
the
data
work
stmcture.
with
family,
marital
W&t
husband?
outline
of
I also
weeks
worked
tramework
aspects
per
for
analysis
the
that
of
demand
differences
in
work
hours/weeks
work
change
in
implications
retirement
activity,
of””earlier
the composition
.
in the labor
work
of work
panel
force
of
the
structure
activities
maturing
of
status
process
reent~
In
way.
tbt
NLS
mold
of
the
111.
her
of her
can be fo-d
Mta
this
on
observed
concluding
I turn
I
tiork structure
2
work
in
the early
the
on
the
and
provide
IV
the
static
to
con-
industrial
dynamics
of m jor f~mily
some
retirement
deci -
hours
various
Section
VI with
a
hours/weeks)
including
assessment’
decisions
income.
(joint
develop
in Section
during
data
chracteriztig
V
I present
work
These
structure,
In Section
II
the hours/weeks
structural
structure,
of
Section
respondents.
“includtig ~
dynamics
The
dynamics
e .g . the
statistics
Section
status
the
hours/weeks
market
of the NLS
4
the
aspects
work
does
forces
of work
the respon-
qeriences
describe
is the
the crucial
among
probabilities,
in
to
or the change
consideration
begins
time
perspective.
circumstances,
descriptive
year
sideration
the
HOW
economic
of the evolution
on transition
3
family
into
supply
in the following
the
provide
and
How stale
disruption,
proceeds
hours/weeks
exploited
of job transitions?
The paper
sion.
then
in
the
a demand
of time?
ins ights
in the patterns
brief
is
changes
at the end of which
.-
describes
from
intervals
period
of age.
first
Women, s Cohort
aspect
on
1967-1989
of
cbnges
obsenations
period
and
the
avai”labili”ty
of
Work
II.
Hours,
A. A. Brief
Dewnd
in
the
jobs
more
or
fro”m the
ant
rigidly
forced
to pay
defined
f im, s demnd
ized
training
The
If
tend
to adjust
market
in both
in more
time
of daily
production
in a g“oods “producing
service
producirig
firms .
book-keeping,
by
be
some
case
of the. same
full-year
and cyclical
fire.
despite
et.c.
worker
5
and
variations
fim
costs
will
the additional
in product
tim
can
may
be
extract
import-
in ways
flexible,
the
it will
unattractive
as part-time/full
be
sob
fixed
- time,
are set by the
The
need
for
fim
-d
special-
decision,
with
by having” the worker
put
be affected
and by access
Part -time ho.u.rsmy
is also
among
dimensions
the hour”s and weeks
per week
.Khe fim, s demand
jobs--but
su&
per year,
training
Hours
forces --ceteris
by the
for
circumstances.
t=Ying
the
hiring
.zalue
fim
(1989)
the fim
in the second
ta limit
most
offered
is not
the
or weeks
a factor
they
its job dem~&
technology
for lob characteristics
be
with
that
market
are set by the
is flexib.le along
to compensate
and product
will
attributes
the labor
on the advantages ..thg firm
the
per week
ttiough
job attributes
and PaxSon
in hours
ics teckological
specific
the attributes
will
.
wages
=tonji
either
with
If the tectiology.
the fim
higher
Market
to be chmeled
depending
attractive
characteristics,
The
set,
.
to the worker,
finds
Jobs
to them.
attribute
worker
tend
the job with
available
less
forces
way.
choose
and The Labor
Ove~.iew
supply
special
and workers
Weeks,
Theoretical
and
a very
work
even
costs
by
to customers
be valued
of
the nature
by the
training,
in
f im
payroll
for weeks
per year
may be..detemined
parib.us, high
training
jobs
likely
demmd
3
to be strongly
md
affected
in cooperating
w“ill tend
to
by seasonal
factors.
The
worker
is
the.-weeks per
year
cept. a
wage
lower
tht
hours
during
de~nd
her
the
time
an i~ortant
child
a greater
but
the household,
most
The
Hours
calendar
world , and
become
here
that
the
time
of the
viewed
every
through
the
dertaken
analysis
and Work
it will
or
1989 =uHey
for
this
focuses
the ~S
tite~iew
two
in
tr%niitions
4
introduce
choices
As
more
events
in
in the fiauscr.ial
week.
6
These
and
sa
was
been
t“&nty:
44 at
reinter.
available
empirical
over
a
survey
of 30 and
have
tem
b.owever,
a panel
the. ages
long
of these
order.
is
highlight
the
hours
aspects
is b
data
an-
fratiewo”rk “adopted
doing
women
of the
determine
hdeed
important
between
to
on fiv”e year
per
199.2, although
order
that
not. only
might
Women, s cohort
In
study.
jobs
Trends
even
women, s Cohort
the bulk
offer
husband! s disability
aefore
at the time
prefer
economic
Recent
to look at
1967.
through
and
in the
that
demands
in the awual
5, 000 women
jobs
induce
the household
Mature
demands
and weeks
horizon,
vector
care
demand.
or hours
Mature
ac-
Negative
separately.
the MS
approximately
year
year
she will
care
should
Per Year:
that
be useful
acti~. ity
above,
ftist
Child
jobs
plaming
paribus,
she will
disruption
Weeks
of a plaming
of work
with
marital
si”mply weeks” per
As noted
began
for. full-time
and
prefer
the woman, s hours
to imagine
of the data,
The Data.
frame,
year.
per week
child
she will
fall , which
year. is a macural
Nonetheless
description
into
with
of job the respondents
Week
two parts
two dimensions
that me-s
the hours
Ceteris
well
In a weekly
prominently
over
a ,,job,,
mesh
demands
it is natural
hours , not
weeks
are
demand
per
preferences
the school
aspect
alter “the type
Work
that
day.
during
life. cycle
work
nual
jobs
framework
only
ages,
B.
for
school
the woman
to have
characterize
In a ~ily
household.
also may
1 ikely
work
only
was
un-
processes,
the
two
year
per~~d
neglecting
1967-1989,
part icular
shorter
the study
estimates
1972-1977-1982-1987-1989
with
respondents
All
statistics
correct
for
and
blacks,
be fomd
The
the
frequencies
original
tions
population
co~utations,
the
total , although
will
not
sum
weighted
whites
even
to. the totil
exit
after
cause
should
a work
adjusting
the weighted
and need
for the
small
Tbe
by
bers
nutiers
of blacks
Work
Hours
week
for
The hours
tively
statistics
Der
Week.
pattern
few
percent,
in 1967
respondents
because
worked
ad
a table
five
.In
1967-
conducted
be
the
to
For
and white
1 I report
to those
less
than
of the fi”xed costs
20 to 34 hours,
with
5
the
observain
sum
the
to the
across
tables
in
the
Of blacks
and
exiting
that
state,
in the survey,
tables
not
are
be-
normalized
the weighted
after
num-
the
raw
hours
per
weighted.
the distribution
is similar
of
to
example
total. frequencies
inve~als
can
report)
error.
nu~er
in the suney,
the
this
normalized
races
of
statistics
of entries
number
riutier of other
whites
oversampling
rounding
close.
total
weights. to
not necessarily
The addition
year
work
of
will
are appropriately
In Table
at
Because
in the black
race add
whites
respondents
1967--perhaps
15
-d
are
the sum of the reported
is not
of blacks
an
idea of the nufier
n“ot even
state
by the raw nufiers
population
accomp-y
tab~es
some
data.
be close.
frewencies
were
wweighted
that
various
within
matrices,
status.
the years
inteviews
including
summaries
tbe
table
over
by ~S
(co~ar~le
to give
fre~encies
transition
who
in
the
they
design,
statistical
fre~encies
underpinning
face- to- face
attrition
reported
emlo~ent
transitions
“are weighted
sampling
for differential
in
years.
in this paper
in the relevant
status
Extended
of these
initial
fluctuations
work
.
in eati
tem
of work
for” 1967””to 1987 arid in 1989.
in later ”years.
a twenty
of work
three
hour
week--lo
activities.
~arters
In 1967
percent
Somewhat
working
relain
more,
35 hours
or
The work
more.
Between
sample.
tween
hours
distribution
1972
and
traditional
retirement
in
ages,
little
the fraction
1987,
Only
72 to 73 perCent.
ch=ged
1989,
does
as
the
over
the
working
oldest.
the fraction
22
years
full-time
of
the
varied
be-
respondents
working
reached
full”-t”ime fall
t.o 68
percent.
The
similar
distribution
for whites
dents
workd
week,
and
are
(1989)
and
In many
ways
similarity
Blank
the
8 percent;
Lhe
income
has
reported
periods,
Blank
long
pe-rio-ds as well
race..
between
In
for
of e~loyed
15 percent
worked
and
FOr
for
whites
feature
of
the large
white
women
respon.
the
... By the
were
17 percent,
these
remzktily
20 to 34 hours
black
12 percent
74 percent,
73
pe.r-
end of the
percent,
and
19
10 percent.
statistics
difference
per
is
in family
the
structme
the two groups .
work
hours
The ~S
(19S9)
five ymr
Matrices
that
were
75. percent
statistics
given
respondents
20 hours .
percent,
for blacks
hours,
family
for the
than
mo-st remarkable
work
employed
week,
less
corresponding
short
and
per
72 “p”ercent, 16
in
total
matrices
hours
for
In 1967
and blacks.
35 or more
percent,
and
hours
10 percent.. worked
cencages
perioa
of
Table
intend
data
2,
activities
indicates
r report
1967-1972
the
ar-e Wi-te. stale
that
is
work
hours
in total
other
periods
are similar.
metiers
metiers
metiers
who were
who were
who were
the
and hy age
Importtit
include:
Age
Age
Age
= 1
=2
=3
Cohort
cohort
Cohort
Race
Race
Race
= 1
= 2
= 3
Race white
Race black
Other races
6
30-34
35-39
40-44
in 1967
in 1967
in 1967
case
over
over
transition
VOUp
ings
.deftiti~s
The
transition
time
matrix
employed
employed
workers
in
1972
20 to 34 hours
full -time
week.
work
1-19
working
a period
Weeks
Worked.
of
worked
in
25
the
year
for each
worked
the suneys
longer,
to
To provide
worked
was
computed
weeks
and
1987,
worked
dents
either
weeks
The
spread
over
There
is
time
the
those
to work
hems,
deal
working
were
20-34
were
working
hours
per
concinued
and 42 percat
of hours
=d
since
activity
more
first
some
genera
~S
to
were
persistence
examined
collected
so has a standard
mllected
data
even
were
““for each
of weeks
worked
year
were
year,
52 week
framework
worked
varies
across
apart , others
percent
divided
worked
in
work
all
for the sumey
in Table
in each
of” weeks
by the nutier
at all or worked
15
to
20 percent
intermediate
expected
life cycle
7
than
more
80 percent
than
three
of the sample
categories
1967,
The well -tiom
3.
years--more
years
--1- 25%,
pattern
1972,
of
of
of all respon-
is almost
26- 5.0%, and
of increasing
1977,
hi-polarity
quarter
.—
worked
intemiewe&
the
the
of weeks
weeks
which
one
they
is
on the weeks
the last su~ey,
on when
here
lly””the percent
survey
suneys
format
reported
evident
the three
hong
who
frame
=e
remaining
or
depending
of weeks
did not
also
because
as the nu~er
1989
is
20-34
of full-
1967
(1-19) , 33 percent
hours
su~eys
and weeks
a stan&rd
The distribution
1982,
in
60 pe”rcent
continued
of work
The
stise~ent
in the survey
a week)
almost
is a gr.~t
dimension
individual,
ro=d.
88 percenc
then a-s well.
workxg
the inteniew
survey
by
there
frame.
on average,
and
were
in a year
intesiew
last
short
that
as five years.
individual.
the
weeks
percent
second
prior
hours
but 32 percent
Clearly
The
weeks
full-time
on especially
as long
in the
since
in the first. year,
later,
reveais
more
week
per
hours,
or
working
those
over
35
sample
were
ful 1- time.
number
(working
five years
.Wong
for the full
of
all
wifotily
51- 75% .
full: time work
-.
and
decreasing
women
return
child
care Cd
retirement
to shrink
first
work
labor
in the
Working
most
of
stantially
pproach
but
only
weeks
as
some but
less
sample
This
observation
4.
white
By 1989,
white
respectively.
only
27 gercent
of blacks
did” not work
tion
levels
-d
There
despite
average
appears
long periods
to be a great
The
of time
1967-1989
is much
t ions,
Table
5.
The
total
weeks
worked
1967,
1972,
1977,
report
e d no weeks
eighty
percent
less
e~ally
and
worked
over
of available
distributed
1987,
over
weeks
appears
strongly
in
the
the argument
worked
between
that
white
and
‘women “were working
percent
more
than
were
40 percent
46
three -~arters
percent
This
and
of
41 per-
whites
of
convergence.
of large
sti -
of black
By 1989” “the-percentages
of change
differences
in work
of cumulative
than
are
worked
weeks
and
Igeg,
8
weeks
measure
Only
only
The remaining
the intementig
week
but
were
of
work
in educa-
intensity
worked
the individual
in the s=pie
this period;
weeks
of all
of the two groups
weeks
the total
1982,
worked
at all.
deal
less bipolar
l“ess
traditional
Forty-nine
In 1967
distribution
emulative
weeks
for blacks
income
the
reach
more
In 1967 black
the persistence
family
period
veys
47 percent
as
respo”niibil ities”.
the percentages
md
has occurred
of
women
Eor blacks
activity
rearing
comte~arts.
cent
and
76 percent
1982)
arid =@ire
is consisterit with
to child
Table
or
although
period,
35 percent ..of white
for white
than
convergence
their
available
44 percent
they
the
sample,
than
more
(thro”ugh
again
a remarkable
in the
females
years
ch”ildren Mture
“weeks are a response
is
earlier
fo”rce as their
withdraw
intervals”.
There
women,
the
then
over
part-time
the
to
ages.
time
black
part-time
year
is
derived
frame
for
1.4 percent
27 percent
sample
categories
““
over
the
distribu from
the
the six
sur-
of the
worked
metiers
over
sa~le
more
than
are more
or
Work
sition
week
worked
work
rates,
cent
of those
in 1972
Tale
than
10.9 percent
working
the
range
whites
111.
Wite
proceed
we simply
stead
in
adopted
a four-way
Pm/
Pm/
F=/
F~
similai.
have
step.
7
Much
an amual
=
=
=
=
29.9
among
increases
transition
Work
Table
from
those
63.3
who
per-
worked
19.6 percent,
matrices
and
Conversely.
the
tO 77 PeTcent
.Over
.
Zor
blacks
stnctural
per
week
component
it clear
that
the two
need
would
be lost
information
of work
activity.
and
We consider
of jobs:
part -year and part-week work;
part -year and full-week;
ful 1 -year and part-week;
md
full-year and fu”ll-“week;
where:
part -week
part -year
1967
and
6.
and an hours
measure
with
Time
s,ection make
useful
fell
K4-SeS frOm ~2 Percent
The
a week
in 19?2
.tran -
the fra.ction
correlated
percent
commitment
“.Again. see
hours
classification
Pm
FWK
PWK
/FWK
week
imperfectly
and to 27.7 percent,
of Female
both
dire?t>y. usin9” fiYe -Year
not working
weeks,
in 1972
of tine preceding
lock
but
to
categories.
structure
hours
analyses
all
1967 work
of 1967
The Evolving
brief
of
full-time
are also
Annual
in 1967
more
on the 1967 -197.2 transitions,
The percentage
working
as the
again
is strongly,
percent
percent
same
6.
not
25
can be measured
Focusing
matrices.
of weeks
less
mobility
= work week of less than 35 hours; and
= weeks worked since last s-ey
that is less ~than
76.9 percent
(40/52) of all weeks avail~le.
the
not
if
in-
The
decision
to
treat
somewhat
arbitrary
~Y
~paid
have
Before
be
to
of
March
,,part-y-r’,
the
here
work
population
amual
work
work
a work
structure
as
forty
for the NLS- panel,
WORK
trends
information
of less
are
the
weeks
not
STA~S
They
use
ttin
50 weeks,
as their
comparable.
WOR~RS
1972
20.5
26.6
10.3
42.5
1977
.21.8
2s.0
11..1.
42.1. .
1982
20.3
20.8
12.9
1986
19.0
18.8
12.7
Summarizing
week
year,
jobs,
these
especially
full-week
part-week
jobs;
jobs
To
stistantial
way,
week
results,
since
there
and no trend
the
extent
the disparity
has
%
the
9.9 %
42.1 %..
100. R %
.100.0
%
100.0
%
100.0
%
-45.9
49.5
100.1
1)
hs
been
has
been
of note
~/FWK
~/~wK
198”2; there
jobs ; there
reported
, WOMEN
28.4
(1988, Table
period
def init ion
to those
19.5
Parks
will
so the ““magnitudes of
1967
ad
who
be comparable.
OF ~LO~
%
it
19.66-1986
PYS/F~
Mellor
is
in this period.
the
&ta.
should
Panel,
structwe
over
strictly
trends
Women
PYR/PWK
Source:
per year
as full -tifie work”e”rs those
.in work
experience
week
but
more
of the NLS Mature
such
measures
or
e. g. teache~s,
to the analysis
(1988}” compile
CPS
work
vacations,
review
Mellor. and Park
year
is designed.. to include
sumer
turning
useful
us ing
but
full
is most
been
toward
a large
a modest
h
NLS
a trend
upward
the prevalence
panel
trends
probably
10
due
full-year,
decline
drift
of
differ
in
fullpart-
in full-year,
part-year,
from
to life cycle
these
part.
in
effects .
a
The
each
structure
of the
trend
five
again.
in 1967
interval
is the shift
of all
percent
life
cycle
1972.
toward
sample
Of those
7 reveals
who work
Of
part-week.
both
in 1977
and
work
to
before
period
falling
to
There
most
for
work
full-time
and
rises
28
is
also
f=Om
work
27 per-
in” 1989.
in 1967
to
there
Sriift.ouc
betwee~
persists
back
C1.-rly
a tijor
ftill-yeai/part -week work
Mature
then
percent”
in 1989.
at
obvious
the
from 48 percent
to 49 percent
here.
is =eported
The
7.
full -time
at all falls
again
into
Table
1967-1989
full-year/part-week
year
The
stmcture
the
In 1972
workers--46
f=om
of work
Mellor
and
in
respondents
categories,
data
high
part-year
part-week.
part-year
with
no
the
in
nonworkers,
of
1967
and
throughout
the
period.
Table
worked
from
effects
work
shift
over
rising
part-year/full-week
This
dates
not working
in 1982 before
strong
survey
including
respo”ridents who work
to 40 percent
the
39 percent
work-time,
structure
The percent
Conversely
are
year
in work-time
Women, s cohort
cent
of female
percent
activity
Parks,
worked
again
versus
7 can
be
in- 1967,
of part-week
approximately
/19.2%)
work
only
was
also
work
17 percent
higher
twice
as 9r4at
to provide
estimtes
fOr
for
the
24 percent.
recomputed
for working
population”
and pare-.week work.
(6.9%
full-year
the likelihood
was
of part-year
36 percent
1967,
who
but
Table
correlation
respondents,
fi-g”ures:
11
pemitting
of the
a comparison
—
WORK
sTA~S
OF =LOYED
PYR/Pm
1967
13.2
1972
WOR~RS
PR/
FWK
~~E
WOMEN
FYR/PWK
m/FwK
.23.6 %
10.7
7.6
8.9
20.3
63;3.
100.1
1977
7.2
6.6
19.0
67.2
100.0
1.9s2
8.8
8.4
17.8
65.0
100.0
1987
9.0
11.2
18.7
61.1
100.0
1989
12.2
14.3
19.2.
54.2
99.0
All
statistics
Source.: Table
Among
the
sitivity
work
This
jobs
obvious
retun)
between
tkt
%
.100.0 %
7
most
cohort
52.5
%
weighted.
of part-year
and
doubles
are
%
, ~S
of
offer
work
; and
1967
phenomena
in
this
(the midlife
shift
ii) the increase
and
rew”lar
female
emplovent
from
i) the
part-year
in fdl-year/pait-week
1977. (to 19 percent
employed
data are
of all
respondents
were
at part-time
life
cycle
s~-
to full-year
status,
which
employed
respondents)
much
likely
hours
more
in the later
.
to hold
years
of
the survey.
IV. The
Industrial
In this
industrial
Section
their
the
section
correlates
II, ‘employers
workers.
week
Determinants
are
To the extent
Both
jointly
of’ the Time
I examine
the demand
of the work-time
are
not
the weeks
detemined
the employer
has
Structure
side
worked
of the &rket,
structure
necessarily
of jobs .
indifferent
in the
year
and
by the employer, s md
rigid
work
12
of Jobs
time
looking
As
discussed
to the “~rk
the
it the
hours
time
worked
in
of
in
worker, s preferences.
requirements
that. deviate
\
from
the
costs
worker, s preferences,
or of special
she presumably
the
can
instead
reflect
evidence
cheaply
patterns
could
In
across
one-digit
exampie,
employees
28
full-hours
specialized
mits
Industries
such
ices , and
jobs,
strong
those
forty
in
reflect
which
work
-
base,
will
tbe
time
and
will
work
appears
as
agriculture
part-year
factors.
I report
se fiices
to be driven
who
&ve
and part-week
the
full
and
a great
an”d retail
of
.
all
share,
pe>-cent work
deal
of
that
ad-
sector,
35
stmcture
in the professional
larger
and
cyclical
have
large
hours
but
retail,
the greatest
emplopent.
13
are
Manufacturing,
with
a week;
work
there
a. significant
by seasonal
wholesale
industries
of
percent
work
l~or
47 percent.
worked
Agricdture,
Clearly
Still. sixty-six
manufacturing
usually
Among
1989.
is consistent
35 hours
(-d
structure
Ninety-three
institutional
indus t ria 1 ...
sk+ll
industries.
a year.
thm
and
the
though
is strong
a15h0ugh
different”
in the wholesale
less
in personal
of
hours,
weeks
industries
important,
jobs.
This patten
the entertainment
seasonal
training
customer
situations
across
across
full-time
work
in the year.
with
and
stricture
1“977, and
structure
Conversely
female”” workers
weeks
1967,
and a relatively
employees
26 percent;
employed
th=
-e
10,
part-week
full weeks.
Part. -year
forty
less
diversity.
of all
sector
structure
aggregation
for
sector..work
work
time
or
the worker, s preferences,
8 through
few
training
little
percent
Tables
offers
and
the
in work-time
in that
percen”t
as
industries
differences
process
In
case.
in work- time
emerge
mixes .
for
this
the employer, s preferences
supply)
major
in
hirtig
preferences
differences
that
of laqe
The work
the worker.
accommodate
those
because
of the. production
s preferences
employer
Large
attributes
compensates
employer,
perhaps
This
employment
numbers
for less
personal
ntier
factors.
of
of
tti
serv ,,casual,,
no dotit
reflects
sectirs,
personal
-
senices
and
likely
to offer
Below
large
to a lesser
part-time
I sumamrtze
numbers
extent
of
and professional
hours
some key
mature
women,
wholesale
but
and retail
statistics
namely
in three
manufacturing,
19?7
2.5
1989
4.9
~OLESALE
~
1977
11.1
%
1989
17.9
PROFESS IONW
16.3
%
%
9.1 %
3.9 %
54.5
100.0
%
5.5
64.4
%
99.9
16. U %
42:S
%
99.9
%
5.6%
29.5
53.7
%
99.9
%
9.3
29.7
24.8
%
stieistics
%
43.2
100.1
those
professional
, one
out
9.7 %
21.5
%
19.8
13.9
49.2
%
100.0
%
65.3
%
100.0
%
.55..9.
100.0
are weighted.
the D6.7 -19 S.9..
period
while
%
5.4 %
10.4
1989
into
100.0
22.0
7.8 %
1977
shift
65..7 %
:
1967
statistics
3.? %
RETAIL:
%
shift
retail,
%
25.1
19.1
the
and
wholesale
Fm/Pwx
27.5
%
1967
cially
employ
:
3.1 %
fallen,
that
STA~S
Pn/FWK
1967
Over
tidutries
semices
Pm/ Pm
All
out as especially
full weeks.
WORK
~FAC~ING
st=d
the relative
of wholesale
services
is
struck
of part-time
and retail
, have
by
work
full-year/part-week
emplo~ent
the
cycle
in midlife
work
sharply.
volatility
is. quite
(~/PW)
14
of manufacturing
and professional
increased
life
share
noted
services,
has
espe-
Reviewing
these
of part -year
work:
large.
earlier
The
aggregate
is not
evident
I
in all
industries.
changed
very
sector
and
Pn/FWK
week
little
.n manufacturing,
between
:967 and
Indeed
v.
status
comes
Individual
The
fact
not
that
mean
rather
to
so.
How
to
are pronowced
is
the
stable
are
important
the
job
directly
of
Seniority
rules
year;
if they
a quite
workers
do not
we will
take
Five
for
were
shift
large
toward
ant retail
shifts
from
full -year [pa”xt-
insure
status
transition
again
that
tables
Age=l
,2,3
chage
tO change
jobs,
if
of
these
choices
perspective
entrants
way
into
and weeks
Blank
work
nOt
commit-
eMPl O,yerS,
mature
women?
of new
the market
through
positions,
in
will
presents
job
work
they often
as a stepping
work
or
Of .SPeCial interest
distinction
(1989)
..work hours
is the behavior
full-time
jobs?
full-time,
their
enter
that new entrants
to work
1972-1977,
status
their
in industrial
not
new
hours/weeks
the two issues
1967-19.72,
i)
the
matter.
work
had
Must
full-years
wanted
muld
from a policy
use part-week
up
year
there
work-time
working
almost
different
the
market.
into
importance
even
the wholesale
differences
respondents
they probably
part -time work , gradully
they move
distribution
:hese two sectors.
the ~S
that
even more
entrants
In both
1989.
~uch of the overall
from
there
that
but
Perhaps
work-time
D~amics
ments,
do
the
xector, however,
the professional
to F~/P~.
work
does
Indeed
stone
Rours
can not.
that
t.o full
here
evolution.
less weeks
evidence
do
in a
are
suggests
time
hours
.
in turn.
transition
1977-1982,
are reported
denotes
matrices
and
in
women
15
are
reported
19 S2-1989
in Tables
respective~y.
total,
by
age
30-34,
35-39,
and
race .
and
40-44
11-14
The
work
Recall
in
196?
respectively)
ber
of
might
and
parameters
be. useful
within
each
matrix,
provide
These
ii) Race=l
denotes
in these
to. focus
job status
tables
on some
blacks.
The
large
num -
somewhat
damting
at first,
so it
For example
essentially
of the
stability
the retention
the diagonal
of
each
work
of the
rates
transition
status
category.
are:
Five
Y=r
1967-72.
Work
appears
Race=2
key ones.
categov,
a measure
whites,
Work
Status
Retention
Rates
1972-77
1977-.82
1982-”S7
Am
77.2
80.5
89.6
79.0
Status:
NONE
68.8 %
TO NON2
%
%
%
P~/PWK
TO P~/PWK
4.7
17.5
15.0
10.4
1.1.9
P~/FWK
TO P~/FWK
12.2
6.2
12.8
15..7
11.7
~/PWK
TO F~/PWK
32.5
38..7
41.9
43...
&..
F~/FWK
TO F~/FWK
75.9
77.2.
77.3
66.1
All
statistics
Work
Status
work,
are
workers
years
of
quite
Clearly
stable. over
the
two-thirds
of the
later.
hong
the various
categories,
only
to
, at
casual
workers
relatively
least
did
in
work
years
state
were
casual
go?
it may
16
work
74.1
five
-
was
in the same
stable,
years
be safe
of the nonstate
with
later.
Only
workers
f.dll-time
states,
part-week)
The
and
?ercent
of part-time
perspective.
workers
and
were
state
(part-year
year
period
part-time
across
same
no
Eighty
workers
cotiinations
the
a five
in the first
stable
full-time
casual
from
the
states,
full-year/part-week
found
especially
states
Where
be
the
polar
fti{e year. peiiods.
and
these
“39.1
are. weighted.
Stabilitv.
or part-week,
%
pait-year
40 percent
The
other
, a“re transitory
ten percent
five years
transition
to focus
five
of the
later.
parameters
on
one
of
are
them,
say
1967-1972,
out
of the. labor
equally
Table
sense
work
cotitments..
dents
earlier
Job
in casual
to
it
report ed
jobs
directly
one- third
split
more
full -year/ full -weeR
stone
were
or
less
work.
to more
In
stable
~,
return’,. to casul
Two-thirds
work.
in 1972 were
of
out of the labor
before,
for
are
ferent.
for new
be
the
force
entrants,
in Table
with
from
respon-
five
years
fUll -tlfie (weeks” and
hours)
in such
one- third
jobs.
jobs,
About
with
do
the remainder
not
part -time
take
work,
in
work,
the
B.
while
only
especially
draw
are
xeported
of
employed
market
of new
ef-”
for
all
-te90g
in
above
but
Similar
work
years
in Tale
were
to
the work-
five
are
two- thirds
40 percent
11-14.
quite
dif-
employed
entrants
in
were
end up in full -year/part -
primarily
in casual
j ohs,
enter
full year/part
17
A.
entries
new entrants
with
the no work
to
likely
distribution
The distributions
almost
the
they
entrants
not
appropriate
to be fomd
a random
who were
of
or are
in “Table 15, Panel
1967,
of all
of new
These
out
be useful
to isolate””the ent~
by dropping
those
15, Panel
a job
One way
entries.
it will
those
The work-time
workers
of comparison
constructed
those
first?
stmcture
the remaining
do
““employment
can be calculated
convenience
reported
Of
work-time
process,
How
full-time
work
of” all em~loyed
renotiing
can
into
the
of the entry
carefully.
or part-weeks
breakdoms
through
and
were
to be a stepping
and part-week
more
respondents
7 and
entrants
work
about
few of the full -year workers
the importance
compare
structure
employed
week
in 1967,
fift”y ”-percent
appear
Certainly
part -year
status
would
mechanism
Is
fe.ct is
These
work
Given
the
return?
Table
workers
(101/168)
Entrv.
secure
bother
as part- y-r
were
consider
time
casual
who
casual
full -year/part -week
that
defined
hong
force..
between
labor,
11.
but
week
jobs.
Cle-ly
disproportionately
jobs.
What
entrant
as
can
be. presumed
table.
they
New
age,
entrants
with
from
40 percent
less
intense
to
the
be
have
percent
as they
effects
a decliting
entering
are also
age or because
evident
likelihood
full-time
.This could
to 30 percent.
work
aging
work
be because
they
Of
in the
full -time
steadily
new
work
declining
the
respondents
have
trotile
securtig
-the
stability
1
.to a
lesser
want
intense
ones.
Although
status--for
year/part
does
to
full-time
-week
occur
this
work
work-- ttit
between
ample , more
force
I have
~arter
Table
were either
not
of
and
dis~ise
the
Between
.
1967
respondents
who
Of
in full-time
limited
in weeks
extent
turnover
and
1972,
about
work
or hours
full-
ex.
labor
.12 perce=t
in 1967,
or not
that
for
were. out of the
type of ..job in 1972,
those
of” work-time
the stistmtial
ti some
11.
in jobs
work
categories
30 percent
jobs,
stressed
no
should
in .1967 were working
full-time
and
work-time
than
point.
in
almost
employed
one
at all
in 1972.
may
In the re-inder
of this section,
induce
in
change
enumerate.
Some
maturation
of the
sorbed
in child
retirement
children,
and
the respondents,
status.
which
freeing
time. that
t ion and
the- .fourth,
Maturinq
Children.
family
obviously
husband,
respondent
patterns
the retiremmt
For most
from
s work
is often
I consider
decline
factors
are
phenomenon,
would
the labor
dismption
to
e g
the
be .a-
traditional
“or the .ons.et.of
opportunitiesmderinsmed.
three
easy
otherwise
fortie at
that
-are. random
Ml
of these
may
in this
alter
sec-
in the next
of the .xespondents
care. responsibilities
cycle
marital
process,
several
hypotheses
life
the
the
work-time
Plausible
the withdrawal
limits
consider
to predictable
Others--most
that
, against
196.7, child
related
care,
ages.
a disability
events
are
work
I will
, who
consist
were. age
entl~
and
30
to
44
predict~ly
in
I
throughout
these
the
women
on
time at home
child
life
of the panel
average
children
fo”rce.
some
two
with
full-time
P~/~
(weeks
respondents
hours)
full-time.
youngest
child
children
6 to 18 years
over
respondents
Marital
with
DisnPtion.
on respondents,
tween
is
1967 and
described
respondent
impact
a
reports
Panel
A
puted
in total. and
1967 and
of
not married
both
years
There
market
this
1989
zero-one
being
table,
dichotomous
with
; mauied
mrried
in
of
were
in
27 percenc
of
and more
than
hal f
as age
respondents
of
with
increase
financial
greater
In this
table,
present,
force
activity
marital
e~al
zero
losses
labor
in work
MSP
be-
state
to one
25 the
otherwise.
transition
matrix
In
is ~om-
transitions--married
in 1967 but not
1989
only
labor
work
a three-fold
on changes
marital
che
9 per~nt
impos”e m~or
Status
of
2..
variable
spouse
youngest
increases
the
stimulate
17.
the 1967-1989” work
(MSP67/MSP89)
ad
to
disruption
in Table
married
than
often
for the four possible
in 1967
in 1989
(NMSP67/MSP89).
in
(MSPS7/NMSP89)
; and
unmarried
;
in
(~SP67/~SP89)
is strong
entry.
in full-time
of marital
force
of
of
Fox respondents
out
Only
full-time,
less
likely
1.989 are reported
by
working
age
in part-time
systematically
child
are
were
involved
30 percent
disruptions
in”tum
by
By way af contrast,
Almost
that
as ““the de.man.ds on their
percent
option.
work
conj ectuxe
conjecture.
out of the l~or
of age were
to
structure
were
popular
Full-time
Marital
?2
percent
were
force
this
age,
the yomgest
which
The
activity.
of
work.
increases
reasonable
labor
conf ims
the most
and
the
is
work- time
seventy
with .no children
working
on
years
Of the remainder,
type,
were
under
it
to
16, strongly
in 1967, Table
with
return
The &ta
stiiti.
and
evidence. that marital
In 1989,
work:
of
23 percent
those
with
of those
disrupted
19
“disruption
whose
does
marriages
marriages
increase
were
labor
intact
37 percent
were
were
i~
pattern
This
full-time
work.
emplopent
independent
is evident
for the entv
rates
f~-
Lime
disrupted
mar-
The Rate of Entg
into Full-Time Work in 1989
Status b
1967 and by Marital Status Transition
67-89
of. init id
work
and
into
state.,for- stale
riages :
By Work
MS P/MSP
MSP/NMSP
NONS
17.9
34.0
P~/PWK
30.4
P~/FWK
29.6
Fm/PwK
28.3
29.4
F~/FWK
29.1
40.8
23.0
36.8
Work
Status :
TOT=
A1l
statistics
SO~CE:
Not
Table
ofiy
in
stable
work
marriages
t~e
Force
withdrawal
more
or another
the
from
effect
on the spouse
effect
is the
same
in both
however,
Table
case,
37..9.
zot
working
were
already
labor
cases--loss
full-time
the
ltior
more. lfl~ely to he
full- time were
(41 percent
force.
marriages.
It is mtural
to imagine
would
of husbmd,
The behavioral
vers=
Respondents
in dismpted
force
ten
to be engaged- in part-time
disruption
20
1967
working
ltiely
those
as a ~rital
17.
from
more
Husband.
the
in
employed
for exit
than were
of
of the husband
who
slightly
market
the
‘“
to stay
holds
were
Withdrawal
were
those
likely
The. reverse
of one
Labor
who
in 19S9,
points
29. percent)
47. s
17
workers
percentage
%
are weighted.
are_.~espondents
full-time
%
have
since
.
the
same. labor
the major
s earnings
difference
the
that
ec=omic
Such
between
is
not
dismpted
marriages
we
and
construct
of ent~
stable
data
into
ones with
comparable
full-time
a nonworking
husb~d
to. that immediately
work by work
becomes
above,
Wite
clear
describing
if
the
raEe
increased,
it
status :
The Rate. of Ent~
into Full-Time Work in 1989
Work
Status
in
1967 and by Transitions
BY
in Hush-d, s Work Status, 1967-89
LFPH/LFPH
Work
Status
LFPH/NLFPH
67:
NO~
23.6
Pm/PwK
42.0
15.9
P~/FWK
46. s
17.0
F~/PWK
30.7
~/F~
39.8
20..6-
30.2
15.3
TOT&
All
statistics
SO~CE:
Not
Table
only
stiitis
is cut
and
do
partly
.2.8.0..
the
demands
between
married
result
but
her
but
the
of labor
are due
i* nOt
labor
work
nursing
force
time,
whose
force
husbands
21
fOrce -
between
at
this
of a disability.
increase
When
of poor
more
(1977)
are
l*Or
wives
(retires) ,.the wife
activities.
Parsons
in the
withdrawals
for reasons
time
full -tire-ein 1989
in leisure
voluntarily
to the Qnset
on her home
respondents
*O”rk nOt
will be working
the husband
withdraws
of wife
the demands
for
full-time
from complementarities
Xutier
importance
from
intO
that a respondent
A l=ge
to withdraw
that
@ntry
is mamied.
however,
is the
find
of
If Lhe husband
volutaw,
forced
rate
likelihood
as well.
suggests
may
the
husbands.
retire
not
my
*
17
in half. if she
This
10.7
are weighted.
is
The
%
in the
age
W&t
labor
is
the wife
dramatically
The work
are
this
the husband
health,
maY
than
differentials
farce
and
those
—...
who
ar’e not
nursing
most
“b”y age
30
to..he health
to
34
in
years
of
age
of” S marriea”’ woman
respondents
whose
those
1989,
only
1967
(57-61”” In
cent,
for
respectively,
work
those
retirement
rates.
are
to withdraw
one
could
working
the
that
to
are
the
reported
the respondent
in 1982,
in totiI
the
one
reach
that
above
will
and by
differentials
provide
in Ttile
in
19S9)
are. greatest.
work
is
Mong
etimple,
the
is 39 percent
among
in” both
1967
and 19S9
fo~ce between
For
1989.
12
s withdrawal
1989) , for
are
wi”th the
chose
27 percent
p“ercent
1967
and
35-39
in
and
and
;
17 per-
8 percent
4 percent.
Mechanism
a priori
one
labor
how work
could
force
workers
The
and
five-year
Below
age brackets,
1987:
22
ftid
On
the
part-time
this
50-54,
hand,
to continue
matrices
question.
as a fwction
likely
ocher
it easier
I summarize
in 1987
that
transition
on
in flu~ces
therefore. are more
ages.
might
evidence
14.
structure
conjecture
retirement
not be working
the three
force
statistics
clear
years.
in
work
of only
part-time
the hwband,
out of the labor
in
hand,
lea St co=isi~t
in full-time
traditional
intierval
when
in the l~or
to th@
retirem=t
1987
being
(62-66
It is not
1S at
(52-56
the Retiremwt
comitted
imagine
1982
tables
less
as they
into
and
On
1967
the comparable
for a differential
Behavior.
in
the
in full-time
40-44
Stricture
ages,
dropped
were
1989),
Retirement
workers
were
husbads
30 percent
but
Vii.
husbands
whose
chat
related,
likelihood
among
a Way
At the yomger
hypothesis
likely
those
differ
the
for
The
full
probability
of work
5“5-59j aid
status
“6O -“64 in
Percent
BY Prior
Age
Work
Status
of Respondents
Not Working
Work Status
(19S2) and A9e
TOT=
60-64
55-59
50-54
87:
in 1987
in 1987
82
89.6””%
NONB
85.1
%
84.4
%
96.2
Pn /PWK
31.1
%
59.8
%
51.4
46.9
Pn/FWK
20.1
24.4
67.1
38.5
FYR/PWK
14.6
19.9
34.3
22.6
7.?
17.1
3.0.4..
17.9
33.8
46.1
64.3
48.8
m/FwK
ALL
All
The
statistics
evidence
retirement
are weighted.
supports
years
withdrawal
rate
full-time
workers
catego~
dents
thn
were
structure
ferent
more
.
earlier
that
For
rates
reported
not
i t is
time work
situations,
part -week
work.
But
well -hen
where
what
intensitY
is
twice
of not working
five
status
year
i.s closely
retirement
of coverage
is
more
across
defined
across
23
of
the
are higher
in each
no femle
respon-
is not
but not perfectly
that pensio”n coverage
part-time
that
work
basic
much
dif-
1 i~@Q.
with
matrices.
and
is not wifom
Pre -
previously--the
categories
transition
ia-&he
The average
rat.:.
categories
working
for earlier
coverage
wOrk
retirement
levels
acro”ss-work
comfortable
aut pension
less
--by the “age of 60 almost
pens ion coverage
financially
example,
early
the
transitions
were
that
part-time
AI though
who
of nonwork
retirement.
the
of the various
Pens ion Coveraqe.
a
the conjecture
increases
working
than
%
types
in
loosely
work
is mch
the
with
early
environments
lower
usual
.
in part-
manner
of pa”rt-time work?
of
Begiming
in 1977,
available. to the WOrker
Women,
The
identical
question
benefits
was
changed
pens ion
form
respondent
makes
e~loyer
time
five year
intenal
a
correspondence=
tified
standard
to a standard
year
in which
of
YES .to the CPS coverage
plan,, as one
a
offered.
answered
,,
retirement
See
Tables
sumey
years
clude
some
limited
who
Tale
19
as
asked
in more
following
1977.
a flashcard
years
all
Mature
the
fringe
except
the response
19.8.9,
possibility
a pension
plan
both
two
were
questions
all
~estion,
fringe
but
WestiOn
asked
their
fringe
Social
cohort
(1982)
first.
indicates
respondents
offered.
8 percent
benefits
who
identified
employer
only
for
“retirement
in the
7 percent.
quest i on,
the
this
own
.of the
than
the
Of the
benefits
of
for
to
coverage
~estions
~estion.s
other
collected
of the responses
CPS pension
one
coverage
on
their
a’
of
idenemployer
18.
1977,
1982.
not -employed
be
For
CYS pension
NO to the CPS
plan,’
through
to those
of the
was
intervals
40 rn 1969
have
the
of the NLS
~estion
from
benefits
program. ,, Detailed. .ififomation
pension
union
year
to her.
A co~arison
in 1979. )
the respondents
benefit
identify
progr-.
of f~+nge
of metiers
Ret ir.ement benefits ? ‘nwas
response
~,
retirement
to
available
or
program,,
answered
the fringe
including
or Railroad
strong
periodically
to a ,1
retirement
‘ZDOeS your
first
was asked
is a “rettiement
coverage,
Security
the
the
employer
one possibility
on the variety
“fore in each of the five
asks
her
~estion
.Fortmately
s Cohort.
or less
a sumary
currently
coverage
can
computed
important
regularity
22
present
1987,
and
pension
19S9.
respondents
The
coverage
da-
by
of pension
for
(the fringe
working) , but a more
dropping
24
by work
benefit
from
status
19.S2 through
st~~rd
this group
coverage
by work
for the
1989
in-
are
not
Testions
measure
of
pens ion
the t~ulations
structure
emerges :
.
h
Pension
Work
19.77
Status:
Coverage
19s2
1989
27..4 %
18.1
Am
P~/FWK
44.8
39.8
60.0
60.2
51.2
F~/ PWK
41.2
25.7
20.9
25.6
28.4
~/FWK
73..0
72.6.
69.0
68.6
Al though
in
the
tke
have
are year-to-year
casual
full-time
sus
22
while
less
factor.
reported
be eligible
have
cent
age
age
for
and
coverage
who
of concern,
for
than
the P~/FWK
coverage
have
are
week
21.5
“..
%
70.8
for
those
particularly
double
those”. of
force
but not present
who
payouts
m~e
1989,
2:3.
but not
incidence.
rates
ttit,
other
PYR
be
receipt
if no~
them
most
In fact,
only
60
of
percent
workers
~anv
rises
may
pIanS
to 72 per-
62-66
years
Nonetheless
fall-hours
.
ineligible
~nes , becau=e
who would
ver-
eligibility
M-y
Of COUSe
in 1989
of the
%.orkers
from pension
urider most” plans
its growing
25
h
receipt
work a full -weeks
given
&he
pension
t~t
in which
percemt
,,covered,, by a plan.
of the samp”le, those
pension
2s
coverage
is vested.
in 1989, .Table
Pasion
is one
the ~/PWK
have
disttict
especially
the coverage
workers,
job separations
out of the labor
third
fourth
Pertips,
her pension
they are
for payout.
emerges
workers
is ~ite
were
pafients,
coverage,
is the cncial
though
income
one
the P~/PWK
even
restrictions
rate
higher
will
ody
inteXe6tk9,
workers,
of pension
the oldest
have
a full work
workers
for futwe
eligible
that
the firm before
payouts
receipt
pattern
More
pension
leave
respondents
the general
full-time
Of couse
pension
pension
In contrast,
Apparently
of the pare-year
ions h
(P~/PWK)
modestly
than
may
fluct~t
(Fm/FWK)
only
.
A worker
those
e~loyees
percent.
categories
for
categories,
workers
coverage
%
are weighted.
smaller
the most
%
1987
17;9
statistics
20.8
Respondetics
PYR/PWK
All
%
of Empioy&d
of
low
is a source
VI.
Conclwion
dsta
The
National
set
for
work
dents
30
important
to
the tivestigation
activity,
of a centuv
the
period
.Longitudinal
including
of detailed
to
44
years
opp.ortwity
eve
of
Survey” of Mature. Women
of recent
the growth
to e~lore
retirement
for a stist=tial
for
the
first
the dwamics
entire
sdset
of the saqle
fie -alys
is include:
year
sample
during
of ..fsale
.
It offers
5000
choices
and into
the time
a ~arter
female
(1967) , and
of work
a valuable
s t ruc ture
work.
on approximately
the
the
b
of part-time
information
of “age in
trends
provides
respon-
provides
from
the
an
midlife
retirement
of this
great
transit ion..
Major
f indiig<
of
1)
The most obvious trend in work-time struct=e
over the 1967-1989 period
for the Mature W“omen,s cohort is the life cycle sh~”ft from no work
to
full - time
(full -titie weeks and full-time hours ““per week) ad
then back
again.
The percent of all respondents
who work full -weeks
and hours
rises
from 27 percent
h 1967 to 40 percent b 19-i7.b&fore falling
to
28 percent b
1989.
Conversely
the percent
not working
at all falls
from 48 percent in 1967 to 39 percent b 1982 before rising again to 49
percent b
1989;” There. is also a -jor
shift
out of part, -year/fullweek work and into. ftil-year/part -week wo”rk between B67
an~ 1972 tht
persists persists
tfioughout
the sample period.
2)
Among
employed
women,
the most obvious phenomein this data are i)
the life cycle sensitivity
of part-year
work
(the midlife
shift
from
part -year
to full -“year work and re.tu-) ; and ii) the secular ticrease
in full-year/part-week
status, which dodles
between 1967 ad
1977
(to
19 percent of ail employed respondents)
3)
Large and sustained
differences
in work-time
sLructure
exist
across
industries
-- strong evidence tbt
the employer, s pref erenc.es are import-t . Manufacturing,
for..example,
offers
few part -tim”e hours
jobs .
Ninety-three
percent
of all employees
in tht
sector work full-time
hours, though a significant
share,
28 percent
work less than forty
weeks a year.
This pattern is consist-t
with a great da
of specialized traintig ~.d a relatively
institutional
work stmct~e
that atiits
little–diversity.
Conversely
.in the wholesale
ad
retail sector, 35
percent of all employees
work less than 35 hours a week; in the professional sector 26 percent; and in personal senices
47 percent.
26
.
I
4)
Part-year work appears to be driven by seasonal and cyclical
factors .
Industries
such as agriculture
and manufacturing
kve
large nuders
of
employed female workers who usually worked full hews
but for less than
Agriculture,
wholesale
and re=il,
personal
forty
weeks
in the year.
services,
and the entertainment
industries have the gr=test
number
of
This no
and part-week
e~lo~ent.
,,caaual,f .jobs, those with part-year
the larger
emp”lo-pent
dotit reflects strong seasonal factors . Among
sectors,
personal
senices
ad
to a lesser extent wholesale
and retiil
stand out as especially
likely to offer part-time
hours but full weeks.
5)
At the individual
level, the polar states--no
work and full-time work-Eighty
percent
of the
are
quite
stable
over
five year periods.
nonworkers
and two-thirds of the full - time workers
were in the same
Among
the various cofiinations
.of part- time
state
five years
later.
stites, part-year
or part-week,
only the full -year/part -week state
was
stable,
with 40 percent
of these
found
in the same state five years
The other categories,
especially
casual
work
(part-year
AND
later.
part-week)
, are transitov
states, at least from a five year perspecwere
Only ten percent of the =SU1
workers in the first period
tive.
casual workers five years later.
6)
Casual work (part-time weeks and hours) would appear
to be a stepping
tiong casual workers in 1967,
stone
to more
stable
work commitments.
fifty percent were split more or less eWaIly
between
ful”l-year/part
week work and full :year/full-week
work in 1972.
.~out one-third
were
not working.
conversely
two-thirds
of the respondents.
whO were
in
casual
jobs in 1972 were out of the labor force ”””fiveyears earlier.
7ew full -year workers retu~
to casual, part-year
and park-week,
work.
7)
It .is mtural
to
Marital
disruption
increases labor market activity.
imagine tbt
the withdrawal
of the husband from the labor
force would
have the same l~or
market effect on the” Spo”u-seas a mrital
dismption
since the family inmme
effect is the same in both cases--loss
of hus Not only is the rate of ent~
Such is not the case.
band, s earnings.
into full-time work not increased
with the departure
of the husband
The likelihood
that a respondent
who
from the work force, it shriks.
is mrried
with spouse present will be working full-time
in 1989 is cut
The evidence is conin klf
if the husband is not in the labor force.
sistent with the hypothesis
that this is due to greater
home nursing
demands on the woma.
8)
Less work intensity
in the pre -retirement
years
increases
the early
The average work withtiawal
rate of the various partretirement
rate.
time categories
is twice that of full-time
wOfkers
in the
earl Y
This is despite the limited pension coverage among
retirement
period.
part- time workers.
mthough
there are si~ificant
.Y.ear-tO-Year
flucespecially
in the smaller work status
tuations
in pension
coverage,
categories
, the general
pattern
is one in which
the most
casual
employees
(PW/PW)
have only one fourth the coverage Of the full-time
workers
(-/~)
. More interest ing, perbps,
the _/P~
workers have
coTerage only modestly higher tti
the P~/Pm
workers, 28 percent, versus 22 percent. . In contras”t, the P~/~
workers have coverage
rates
while
less than full-time workers, are do~le
those of the other
that,
27
,,
.
Apparently
P=
categories.
eligibility
factor.
a full
28
work
week
is
the
crucial
pension
REFEWCES
I
Altonj i, Joseph
G. and Cristina
Constraints,
and Hours -Wage
(April 1988) : 254-276.
!,~lmu~~aneou~
Rebecca M.
Work among Female Household
1988) :177-204.
B1*,
Over
,,JOUTnal
of
preferences,
Labor
HOurs
Economics
6
Modeltiq the supply of Weeks
and .Hours of
Heads ,, Journal of Labor EcQnQmics
6 (April
part-Time
Work,,, Research
Market
in Labor
Choices
ECOnOmics
(1990) : 137-158
Hanoch,
Giora
P. Smith,
University
,,
HOUrS
and
ed. , Female
Press, 19ao.
Weeks in the Theory of Labor
Labor
SUPDIV.
Princeton,
(19aoa)
,,A MUltivariate
Estimation.
‘, in James P
N.J. : Princeton University
Earl F . and
Mellor,
from a Different
19aa) : 13-la
Model
of
Labor
SUPPIY. “
N.J.
in James
: Princeton
Supp I”y: Methodology
Smith, ed. , Female Labor
Press , 1980.
(1980b)
SuDDly.
and
?.rinceton,
William
Parks II, ‘lAYear, s Work: Labor Force Activity
Perspective
‘, Monthlv
Labor
Review
111 (september
Donald O. ‘f
Health, Family
Economic Review 67, Septetier
Parsons,
SUPply
,,
The Role of Part -Time work in Women, s Labor
Time. ~,MA
Proceedings
(May 1989) : 295-299.
,!
UnderSt~ding
11
H. Paxson,
Trade-offs.
,,
~abor
Stmctur S, and
1977, 703-712.
29
Labor
Supply,
‘r American
.
The
Distribution
of Work
Hours, the ~S
1967-1989
Hours
1967
Mature
Wamen, s Cohort
per Week
1-19
20-34
35+
TOT=
9.8%
15.4%
74.8%
100.0%
(2756)
1972
.10.7
17.1
72.2
100.0
[2447)
2977
8.7
18.1
73.3
100.1
(2045)
1982
8.0
19.0
73.1
100.1
(1966)
9.3
18.8
72 ..0
100.1
(1473)
11.9
19.9
68..3
1987
--
1989
All
data
are weighted
30
100.0
!14421
Rate of Ent~
into Full-Time Weekly .Work Hours
By Initial Work Hours for Workers Employed in Both Years,
Time Internals of Five -d
Twenty-two,
1967-1989
WORK HO~S
FRON :
1-19
~y-
WO
52.1%
1967-1989
IN INITIAL
20-34
=
Y=
35+
=SITIONS
70.1%
FI~
Ym
74.1%
TRANSITIONS
1967-1972
42.1%
57.8%
88.2%
1972-1977
25.2
52.6
91.0
1977-1982
35.5*
48.9
91.5
1982-1987
21.4%
32.0
89.5
AVESAGE
sOnCE:
All
data
31. o%
Parsons
are
(1994,
47. 8%
“Work Hours” )
weighted.
31
90. 0%
TASLE
The WS
3
The Percent of Weeks Worked,
Mature Women, s Cohort, 1967-1989
Percent
o%
J44.0%
1967
of Weeks
Workad
76-100%
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
6.5%
6.6%
6.5%
“36.3%
Total
99.9%
(5077)
1972
37.2
5.1
3.6
6.3
47.9
100.1
(4315)
1977
35.1
3.s
3.3
5.1
S2.6
99.9
(3747)
1982
36.2
3.0”
.3.4
S.o
52.4
100.0
(338s)
1987
43.4
3.2
3.3
4.5
4s. s
100.1
(1473)
1989
44.5
5.1
5.2
4.0
41.2
All
data
are
weighted.
32
100.0
(2952)
T~=
Weeks
Worked
o%
Pu
N
4
in 1967 and
1989,
By Age
28-=%
NPd
1-25%
NPd
and Race
76-loo%
NPd
51-?5%
NM
352
8.9
372
7.3
348
6.8
WI
N
%77
Age
1
2
3
712
678
690
44.2
41.6
37.5
121
1~
122
7.5
8.7
8.6
135
119
118
8.4
7.3
8,4
116
115
115
7.2
7.1
6.3
1
2
3
1855
367
3a
45.9
27.9
41.4
233
IM
9
8.6
7.5
10.3
=
137
8
8.4
9.9
6.S
a8
IW
$0
6.3
7.8
11.5
528
806
m
32.8
37.3
m.2
1s12
1825
1840
w
o%
N
NI
Age
Pa
1-25%
Pd
N
26-=%
N
Pd
51-75%
Pti
N
l=
87
76-1~%
N
Pd
2235
44.0
=
6.5
m
8.6
331
6.5
1845
1
2
3
748
762
727
47.2
45.2
40.2
114
104
111
7.2
6.2
6.1
126
104
108
a.o
6.2
5.9
107
116
108
6.8
8.9
6.0
1
2
3
z~48
30
46.0
27.2
45.7
2a9
35
5
6.5
8.5
7.a
280
51
5
6.3
9.5
7.0
284
40
7
6.4
7.4
10.9
Al
N
S.3
=77
437
ml
757
x.a
=.6
4~.a
191
1888
1808
I*1
285
19
34.9
49.3
2a.7
4473
537
a6
R=
33
T=LE
4
(cent inued)
Unwighmd
1-25%
NWN~
26-50%
51-75%
N
Pa
llQ
1346
45.7
146
S.o
157
5.3
1
2
3
267
431
630
29.4
44.8
62.3
43
w
53
4.4
5.2
5.2
*
W
51
5.7
5.2
5.0
1
2
3
m
379
16
44.6
46.9
43.2
111
32
3
5.2
4.1
8.1
119
36
2
5.6
4.7
5.4
Ml
Age
76-100%
N
Pa
4.0
1181
40.0
44
w
35
4.5
4.2
3.5
547
332
242
%.0
40.7
23.9
963
1o11
87
30
2
4.1
3.9
5.4
869
m
14
40.6
36.5
37.8
2139
775
37
R-
-b
Wtied OnPermnt),1989
1-25%
PuNPti
N
26-50%
51-75%
NPti
76-lW%
N
Pti
Ml
N
1312
44.5
149
5.1
154
5.2
119
4.0
1217
41.2
2952
1
2
3
266
434
~
27.0
44.2
60.6
42
52
s
4.3
5.3
5.5
55
51
46
5.7
5.2
4.8
45
39
35
4.7
3.9
3.4
m
406
256
57.3
41.5
25.6
962
964
1005
1
2
3
1162
137
13
44.2
46.8
43.6
136
12
1
5.2
4.2
3.0
141
12
1
5.4
4.2
2.0
104
13
2
4.0
4.4
5.0
1065
118
14
41.3
a.3
46.5
2626
NI
Ra-
34
S
T==
Cumulative
0%
NM
UnwlghMd
NI
we
1
2
3
R=
1
2
3
Wtgb@d
Au
Age
1
2
3
R1
2
3
Weeks
Worked,
196? -1989,
and Racea
. ..81*
NW
21NM
1 -2W
NW
By Age
w
13,4
345
14
320
13
81
103
146
10.2
t26
17.1
90
120
135
11.3
14.6
45.8
m
*
132
262
64
4
14.5
10.2
125
22a
115
4
125
18.3
125
w
13.s
317
6a
113
I&
11.0
f13.4
i7.o
318
22
4
14.4
9.4
15.8
81-1NW
NI
N
3n
15.3
=
27.1
2468
112
121
q5.4
151
131
9a
19
16
112
a
239
165
3.3
a.1
19.3
793
237
76
5
13.1
124
15.6
263
68
6
15.6
142
16.a
462
198
10
Z.5
31.3
31.3
627
32
129
m
i25
367
15.7
662
26.8
2468
76
119
123
9.7
14.2
14.4
64
96
728
10.8
11.7
44.8
149
1%
103
f9.1
16.1
121
m
m
~a5
33.2
26.5
19.3
780
83?
al
275
40
2
124
17.1
9.9
277
28
3
12.5
121
12.9
349
35
3
15.6
14.9
129
577
76
B
26.1
326
3?.6
2211
232
25
1g82,
1987.
~
a The ratio
of reported
weeks
worked in 1967, 1972, 1977,
Ige g to the ntier
of total weeks covered in these SU-eYs.
TABLE
Weeks
worked
6
Transitions,
1967-1972
Wightid
Wks
Wrked
(in Percent),1387
0%
f-25%
26-50%
51.75%
76-100%
NI
Age=l
o%
1-25%
26-50%
57-75%
76 -100%
NI
Ag0%
1-25%
26-50%
51-7s%
76-100 ‘k
NI
Age4
o%
t-25%
26-W%
51-7s%
76 -100%
N/
%Ce%
o%
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-1~%
NI
Race+
o%
1-25%
25-50%
5? -75%
76 -100%
Atl
o%
26-50%
NW
1-26%
N-
51-75%
N
Pd
76-lm%
Pd
N
Atl
N
N
Pti
1224
73
n
B
171
~604
63.3
29,9
27.7
19.6
10.9
37.2
112
3i
16
16
44
219
S8
fl.7
5.7
6.9
Z8
5.1
63
20
12
14
*
la
3.2
7.5
42
5.3
2.0
3.6
la
15
25
25
W
271
5.6
5.5
e.1
9.3
6.2
6.3
426
420
149
161
t~7
2065
22.1
45.4
53.3
59.9
47.0
1934
265
279
m
7%
43%2
386
2e
25
2a
52
518
59.0
W.3
24.4
28.5
12.4
38.0
4a
12
4
5
9
n
7.4
124
3.9
5.1
21
S.7
32
9
6
2
17
M
4.9
$.8
5.7
2.0
4.0
4.7
m
7
8
11
31
107
7.?
7.1
7.a
?21
7.3
7.8
~m
40
59
47
313
597
21. f
41.5
56.3
52.3
74.2
43.8
654
9a
101
m
421
1363
364
25
24
12
B
m
60.8
28.6
28.0
13.3
11.3
36.1
43
9
4
7
6.9
10.6
4.a
a.i
?2
1?
3
3
5
?6
43
26
3.4
3.1
6.2
3.2
3.1
33
6
8
10
25
az
5.2
6.7
a.8
fl.7
5.1
5.9
165
44
4a
=
366
887
24.5
50.6
55.3
60.7
7a.7
49.6
632
87
66
a7
493
1364
454
26
28
16
63
97
70.2
30.7
30.9
10.9
9.7
37.5
19
10
8
4
27
66
3.0
124
a.7
4.3
4.1
44
14
9
3
?
13
47
2.2
10.5
3.6
7.9
2.0
3.0
25
2
10
4
42
m
3.a
2.6
~o.a
4.3
6.5
5.3
134
3a
42
61
B
7W
20.7
43.7
46.1
=.7
n.7
49a
647
a3
93
92
552
1565
9%7
57
49
s
119
1179
=.1
m.5
26.3
19.3
11.1
36.1
8j
21
10
12
w
134
5.6
11.4
5.1
6.3
2a
5.0
47
13
7
11
30
la
3.2
7.1
3.5
5.a
2.a
3.5
64
10
17
la
69
1%
5.8
5.3
9.2
9.6
6.4
6.4
324
66
lM
111
a25
162
223
45a
*.e
m.1
76.e
47.0
1454
IM
166
163
1073
3090
201
21
42
la
61
343
65.2
27.4
37.7
21.5
10.5
29.6
24
11
0
3
la
65
7.7
14.7
7.2
3.9
3.2
5.6
11
2
5
3
19
40
3.4
2.9
4.5
3.0
3.3
3.4
7
7
10
7
30
59
21
a.8
9.0
a.o
5.1
5.1
67
35
46
53
@
652
21.6
46.3
41.5
83.6
77.8
56.3
309
;
36
n.~
n
110
u
579
1153
TASLE
7
The Time Stmcture
of Work Activities,
The ~S
Wture
Women, s Cohort, 1967 -19S9
WOM
NO=
Pm/Pm
1967
47.7%
6.9%
1972
40.4
4.5
STA~S
Pm/m
m/Pm
12.3%
5.3
5.6%
12.1
m/m
27.4%
37.7
TOTZ
99.9%
(4697)
100.0
(3960)
1977
40.5
4.3
3.9
11.3
40.0
100.0
(3282)
1982
39.4
5.3
5.1
10. s
39.3
100.0
(3137)
1987
49.1
4.6
5,7
9.5
31.1
100.0
(2799)
1989*+
49.0
6.2
7.3
9.8
27.6
99.9
(2698)
All ~ta
are we-ighted
37
‘1’mLE 8
Work Status by Indilstry, 1967
Woti
Status In
1967
lndust~
[n
1967
PYR/PW
J
D
AGRIC
MIN
CONS
mu
Tc&Pu
W6R
FINAN
BUS&
PSER
ENTER
PROF
PU6A
m
N
Pd
28
40.0
i
8.3
20
3.4
10 13.3
a7 17.5
5
5.1
9 20.0
79 19.7
8 26.7
95 142
7
5.6
349 13.3
PYR/F~
FYR/P~
Pd
N
Pd
28 40.0
2 33.3
2 16.7
170 28.9
9 12.0
116 23.3
12 122
12 26.7
57 f42
11 36.7
la9 25.3
2a 222
616 23.5
3
1
4
22
3
73
10
6
123
3
5a
11
317
4.3
16.7
33.3
3.7
4.0
14.7
102
13.3
30.7
10.0
a.r
a.r
12,1
N
FYR/F~
N
P&
11 15.7
3 50.0
5 41,7
3n
64.0
53
222
71
18
142
a
345
aO
1335
70.7
44.6
72.5
40.0
35.4
26.7
51.7
63.5
51.0
All
N
70
6
12
589
?5
498
98
45
401
30
667
126
2617
PYR/P~
N
Pd
15
31.6
i
9.;
20
3.t
13 14.8
107 t9.1
5
4.0
a 15.5
51 21.8
9 22.9
111 16,3
6
5.1
346 132
PYR/FW
N
FYR/F~
Pd
21 45a
3 U.o
3 16.2
181 27.5
11 11.9
122
22.0
15
14
35
Is
169
2S
617
12.a
m.o
15.1
36.9
24.8
23.7
23.6
2
4.0
0
4.0
5 32,7
25
3.7
4
4,6
a9 16.0
10
8,5
7 14.0
66 25.1
4 11.1
66
9.7
11
9.1
262 Io.a
N
Pd
NI
N
9
3
6
432
62
23a
87
23
65
10
335
77
1372
la,6
52.0
40.0
65.7
66.7
42a
74.7
44.5
3s.0
27.1
492
622
52.4
46
r
14
657
w
557
117
52
232
36
662
124
2617
TDLE
9
Work Status by Industry, 1977
Wo~ Status in 1977
lndus~
In 1977
PYR/P~
AGM
WIN
CONS
mu
T-PU
W6R
nNAN
BUS&
PSER
ENTER
PROF
PUSA
u
PYR/F~
FYR/P~
N
Pd
N
Pd
N
P&
8
36.4
3
13.6
5
22.7
z
8
2
29
2
3
26
Io.i
22
3.1
10.4
1.8
6.4
10.8
3
34
2
16
3
7
10
1
43
6
128
15.0
9.4
3.1
5,7
2.5
14.9
5.4
12.5
6.1
5.0
6.6
i
13
8
79
22
12
68
1
134
6
375
21.{
3.6
12.5
28.3
18.0
25.5
47.6
12.5
19.0
7,4
19.4
4+
6
127
e,i
5.0
6.6
QYR/FWK
Pa
All
N
6 27.3
2100.0
10 52.6
W6 64.9
52 81.3
155 55.6
95 77.9
25 532
67 362
6 75.0
460 682
1W 62.6
1~
67.5
22
2
19
363
54
279
122
47
165
a
704
121
1936
N
I
,,
PYR/Pm
N
Pd
Ni
N
PYR/F~
N
P&
5
2s.0
2
9.7
3
i
9
3
34
3
3
19
Io.i
2.5
3,a
11.1
1.8
6.6
16.6
55
6
139
7.6
4,7
72
i
35
3
17
4
6
7
0
36
8
126
17.i
9.1
3.8
5.6
3.0
17.1
6.1
2.6
5,4
6.4
6.5
i
15
10
91
26
11
43
1
1=
10
366
la.3
23.i
3.s
13.7
n.5
19.6
23.1
39.1
15.4
21.5
82
19.0
o
21
II
323
55
166
106
26
42
6
457
100
1303
43.0
W.o
48a
M.5
7a.6
53.7
75.6
53.0
37.9
82.1
65.3
60,7
67.3
18
2
23
382
70
309
142
49
110
8
700
123
1936
T~LE
work status
10
by IndUstrY,
1989
Wow Status in 1989
lndust~
UnwbW
In 1989
PYR/P~
N
*
0
AGRIC
MIN
CONS
MANU
TC&PU
W&R
FINAN
BUS&
PSER
ENTER
PROF
PUSA
ALL
6
Ps3
35.3
i 12.5
8
4.3
2
5.3
37 19,6
9
9.8
13 22,8
28 20,1
5 41,7
64 10,6
6
8.6
171 12.7
PYR/F~
FYR/PWR
FYR/FWS
N
Pti
N
Pd
N
Pd
All
N
5
1
1
46
9
19
8
a
16
1
70
7
191
29.4
25.0
12.5
24.5
23.7
10.1
a.7
14.0
11.5
a.3
13.7
7.5
14.2
4
23.5
i
10
5
50
la
11
55
4
99
9
266
12.5
5.3
132
26.5
19.6
19.3
39.6
33.3
19.4
9.7
19.7
2
3
5
124
22
83
57
25
40
2
26a
69
720
11.a
75.0
62,5
66.0
57.9
43.9
62.0
43.9
2a.6
16.7
%.4
742
53.4
17
4
a
lea
3a
la9
92
57
139
12
511
93
1346
PYR/P~
PYR/F~
N
Pd
N
Pd
4
22.6
6
1
0
51
9
18
6
8
13
I
71
6
192
*,5
30.3
2.9
26.1
22.7
9.3
7.9
14.3
13.6
a.9
13.9
6.1
14.3
i 14,3
10
4.9
3
7,1
36 17.9
9
8.8
14 25.0
21 21.7
6 40.6
53 10.4
10
9.7
I*
t2.3
FYR/PWR
N
Pd
4
27,0
i
11
7
59
22
11
30
5
101
a
260
12.9
5.5
17.4
29.7
21.1
19.5
31.5
39.6
19.a
8.8
10.3
FYR/Fws
N
P&
2 13.9
3 69.7
r 70.0
136 64.4
20 52.8
W 432
66 822
23 412
32 332
1 10.9
2a5 55.9
75 75.6
730 542
16
4
9
202
3a
lW
106
57
S5
t4
510
69
1346
T}3LE
Work
S-tus
Trmsitions,
By Age and Race
WO*
N
Nme
Pd
_- !
11
1972
w~
PYmm
N
Sbms,
1967-1972
P&
w~
w~
NI
N
Pti
N
Pti
N
Pd
N
1221
85
108
42
89
1544
*.8
35.2
25.1
19.0
8.a
42.1
101
11
18
19
19
16s
5.7
4.7
4.2
a.s
1.9
4.6
61
12
52
4
61
191
3.6
5.0
12.2
2.0
6.0
5.2
170
61
Z
73
73
409
9.6
26.3
7.6
32.5
7.3
11.1
ZI
72
218
85
762
1=
12.5
29a
51.0
37.0
75.9
37.0
1774
241
42a
224
1003
%71
38a
2a
43
14
2a
m
m.1
30.2
m.7
22.4
10.0
43.1
m
7
3
4
7
71
8.6
7.1
2.4
6.2
2.5
6.1
24
6
15
3
19
67
4.1
6.0
11.2
4.2
6.a
5.8
67
29
10
22
29
155
11.4
31.2
6.9
33.6
10.2
13.3
s
23
68
21
197
=7
9.a
25.6
4a.a
33.4
70.4
31.6
%7
92
122
a
279
llW
333
32
28
15
29
486
67.0
38.4
20.2
21.3
9.2
41.5
31
3
2
5
3
44
5.3
4.0
1.4
7.1
1.0
3.7
17
2
19
2
la
m
3.0
z.a
13.7
2.6
5.a
5.0
52
14
13
22
23
123
9.0
16.5
9.7
31.4
7.3
10.5
a9
32
75
27
237
480
15.6
38.3
55.0
37.6
76.7
39.3
572
83
136
71
1171
450
25
2S
13
32
55a
73.2
37.3
24.7
14.5
7.7
41.7
20
2
13
10
9
54
3.2
2.6
a.5
11.3
2.2
4.0
20
4
18
0
24
66
3.2
6.6
11.7
0.0
5.?
4.9
52
19
9
29
22
132
8.4
2a.9
6.0
32.7
5.4
9.a
73
17
76
37
32a
~
11.9
24.6
49.1
41.5
79.0
39.6
615
67
155
a9
415
1340
917
60
72
29
88.5
35.9
24.4
79
5
13
13
12
122
5.9
3.1
4.5
9.1
1.a
4.6
47
9
35
3
43
138
3.5
5.3
12.1
2.2
6.2
5.2
132
43
23
45
51
m
9.8
25.4
7.9
30.7
7.4
11.1
164
51
1=
s
524
944
123
m.3
51.1
38.0
75.9
zs.a
1338
10
9
4
7
10
3.4
12.4
2.9
6.4
z.a
41
4.1
7
3
12
1
la
41
2.4
4.1
a. 1
1.3
4.a
4.2
19
19
a
48
27
119
7.0
24.3
5.5
42a
7.2
12.1
43
la
al
3a
2=
481
15.6
24.1
53.4
33.4
76.0
46.9
61
113
198
27
45
18
34
322
20.0
6.8
42.2
71.5
35.1
30.0
16.2
9.2
32.7
41
294
145
690
2635
T~~
12
Work Status Tr~sitions,
By Age md Race
WO*
Nme
NW
N
Pd
s*tis,
PY~
N
1972-1977
19n
Pti
w~
N
pa
w~
N
Pa
Al
N
3.9
S4
5
Q
11
*
lm
28
L8
6.2
3.2
4.4
3.7
88
~
6
130
71
325
7.3
24.0
4.1
36.7
6.3
11.0
107
35
92
102
871
lzm
8.9
28.7
61.0
W.4
77.2
41.0
1210
123
151
335
1129
2948
22
12
0
9
8
51
5.6
21.7
0.0
8.~
26
5.5
15
0
5
4
17
41
3.9
0.0
7.2
3.8
5.s
4.4
S4
12
3
51
16
116
8.9
22.9
5.3
43.5
5.3
12.7
48
21
41
36
235
362
12.5
39.6
=.0
31.1
78.1
41.5
35
54
84
116
301
920
14
7
%7
20.4
1
8
4
34
2.9
8.0
1.1
3.6
12
2
1
3
14
31
3.1
5.0
1.2
2.9
3.7
3.3
29
7
1
39
25
102
7.7
23.0
3.4
37.6
6.5
10.9
19
11
30
37
304
~
4.9
33.3
76.5
35.1
78.5
42.4
360
32
39
104
37
942
81.3
45.8
40.6
28.8
12.3
44.8
11
3
1
10
6
31
2.4
8.7
2.9
8.3
1.5
2.9
7
3
5
3
18
36
1.5
8.1
9.4
2.6
4.2
3.3
24
11
1
40
29
lM
5.5
26.7
2.9
35.0
6.7
9.8
41
3
21
29
331
426
9.3
8.7
44.2
25.2
75.4
39.2
446
3
43
115
439
1086
M9
23
30
45
83
870
77.2
25.8
27.5
18.7
10.7
41.2
37
16
2
20
13
88
4.1
17.8
1.9
8.2
1.7
4.2
25
3
7
6
32
74
2.7
3.7
6.1
3.2
4.1
3.5
64
22
4
95
49
7.2
24.1
4.0
39.8
6.2
11.1
78
26
67
72
m
348
8.8
28.6
60.5
30.0
77.4
40.1
892
90
111
239
782
2114
2m
7
?
27
36
277
79.5
25.4
23.2
27.5
9.3
34.9
3
1
0
7
6
18
1.0
2.4
0.0
7.5
1.4
2.0
8
1
3
3
25
41
3.3
4.8
9.9
3.2
6.5
5.2
17
9
2
m
24
82
6.8
33.7
5.6
30.9
6.3
10.4
24
9
19
m
296
376
9.4
33.7
61.2
31.0
76.5
47.6
252
27
31
w
367
794
935
31
41
m
119
1191
7.2
25.4
26.9
19.6
10.5
40.4
47
22
3
27
18
116
3.8
17.5
1.8
8.7
1.6
266
9
15
16
26
331
69.1
15.9
2s.4
13.5
8.5
%.9
m
6
6
17
39
375
60.6
18.3
16.1
16.4
10.2
39.8
%2
~7
20
33
54
466
42
a
T~~
wOrk
Ons,
Status Tr=siti
By Age and Race
wok
N
N{me
Pti
13
PYWM
NW
Sbtis,
1977 -19s2
1982
PY~
N
P&
w~
NW
w~
N
Pd
6.5
31.9
68.7
=.5
7.3
41.3
1112
27W
51
42
112
%1
661
1076
110
lffi
858
27
19
37
96
Iw
80.5
24.6
17.9
121
8.8
36.7
56
17
5
26
24
129
5.4
15.0
4.3
8.6
2.1
4.8
16
4
14
21
n
131
1,5
3.7
12.8
6.9
0.9
4.8
M
27
7
127
64
260
24.8
6.4
41.9
4.8
70.3
70
s
62
92
658
1119
212
6
7
9
22
257
71.6
12.1
17.0
7.9
6.2
29.8
22
9
3
8
4
47
7.6
18.2
7.2
7.2
1.2
5.5
12
3
8
11
27
61
4.1
5.4
17.8
10.1
?.6
7.1
20
17
2
40
21
Im
6.8
33.0
5.7
S.8
5.7
11.6
28
16
22
44
287
3=
9.6
31.3
=3
39.0
79.3
46.0
283
13
6
14
23
339
80.5
39.1
18.7
14.2
6.5
23.7
26
3
0
9
9
46
7.5
9.1
0.9
8.7
2.6
5.5
2
1
1
4
22
m
0.4
4.1
2.0
3.7
6.2
3.4
22
6
2
47
10
66
6.2
16.8
6.1
*.9
2.7
9.8
19
10
22
20
296
373
5.4
30.6
72.2
26.5
82.0
42.6
372
8
6
14
52
62
86.4
28.9
17.9
14.9
13.5
46.5
9
4
2
9
10
34
2.1
16.5
4.2
10.1
2.6
3.5
2
0
6
6
27
41
0.6
0.0
16.8
6.7
6.9
4.3
24
5
3
4
24
%
5.6
19.9
7.3
43.4
6.0
9;6
23
9
f9
23
277
m
5.4
34.6
=.6
24.9
71.0
26.0
431
26
35
92
615
18
12
27
67
739
79.8
23.2
16.8
12.4
6.7
36.8
43
11
2
18
16
91
5.6
14,3
2.7
8.6
2.1
4.8
12
3
10
16
52
94
1.6
4.1
14.4
7.6
6.7
4.9
43
20
5
66
39
189
6.2
24.9
7.0
41.3
5.0
10.4
53
26
42
65
599
784
6.8
33.4
59.1
3.2
n.5
41.1
771
79
71
214
m
1%7
236
7
10
9
34
86.9
30.4
23.1
121
10.0
39.1
6
3
6
8
8
32
2.8
12.1
12.7
10.0
2.4
4.2
1
0
2
2
25
30
0.4
0.0
5.4
2.1
7.3
4.0
16
7
1
41
14
76
5.7
30.7
3.2
al
4.0
10.3
77
6
25
19
261
322
4.1
26.8
=.6
23.8
76.3
42.4
297
43
6.1
351
34
30
lm
361
875
973
T=LE
wOrk
statTr~sitiOns,
By Age and R+c?
WO*
N
Nme
Pd
14
Sams,
1982-1987
1987
PYmw
Pd
N
PY~
N
Pd
m~
N
Pd
NI
N
883
62
49
m
783
1241
a9.6
46.9
38.5
22.6
i7.9
46.8
22
14
11
3a
26
111
2.2
10.4
a.9
13.5
2.5
4.4
15
4
20
7
98
145
1.5
3.3
*5.7
2.5
9.6
5.7
34
32
7
121
39
234
3.5
24.4
5.a
43.4
3.a
9.2
31
20
40
50
674
a15
3.2
15.0
31.2
Ia.o
ffi. 1
32.0
965
132
i2a
279
1019
2544
204
1?
11
14
2a
274
85.1
31.1
20.1
14.6
7.7
33.6
4
lo
6
12
5
36
i .9
f17.a
9.a
12.2
1.4
4.5
3
3
11
3
34
a
1.3
5.6
Ia.a
3.0
9.4
6.6
14
13
4
45
15
90
5.7
24.2
7.6
45a
4.0
11.2
15
11
25
24
2al
355
6.1
21.2
43.6
24.4
77,5
43.9
239
53
%
98
362
ao9
273
~
6
19
59
387
M.4
59.6
24.4
19.9
47.1
4a. f
12
3
2
16
10
42
3.7
s.a
6.6
16.6
2.9
5.0
11
1
6
1
31
51
3.5
2.8
24.4
1.5
a.a
6.1
11
11
0
m
a
68
3.3
22.5
1.3
40.a
2.2
a. 1
i?
5
11
20
240
292
5.1
9.0
43.2
21.2
69.0
3.7
323
w
15
32
m
94
575
96.2
51.4
67.1
=.3
30.4
64.3
5
2
4
10
11
32
1.3
5.a
9.1
11.3
3.5
3.6
0
0
3
3
34
40
0.1
0.0
7.2
2.9
lo.a
4.4
10
a
3
m
f?
76
2.5
2a.3
6.2
43a
5.4
a.5
0
4
5
7
155
171
0.0
14.6
10.4
7.a
49.9
19.1
29
47
a7
311
a94
614
4a
37
43
130
a70
a9.2
49.0
40.6
21.7
la.2
48.7
15
10
9
2a
17
79
2.2
10.4
9.6
J4. I
2.4
4.4
11
3
14
5
69
lm
1.6
3.6
15.7
2.5
9.6
5.a
26
22
5
a5
25
163
3.7
23.3
5.9
43.0
3.4
9.1
23
13
26
37
473
571
3.3
13.7
2a.2
la.6
=.3
32.0
689
94
91
198
713
17%
2W
11
7
24
48
31
92.0
34.2
23.4
30.6
16.4
4s.7
8
4
1
6
12
31
2.9
11.5
2.6
a.2
4.1
4.3
2
o
3
1
30
37
o.a
0.0
11.0
1.a
10.0
5.1
5
13
2
36
la
75
~.a
33.7
7.0
46.4
6.1
10.4
7
5
17
10
la7
227
2.6
15.6
S.1
13.0
63.4
3~.5
283
33
31
79
2%
7m
TAE~
15
The Distribution
of Work Activities
Conditional
on work Status Five Years Earlier
The ~S
Matme
Worn=,s Cohort, 196?- 1987
Work
Status
Pn/Pws
Pmel
A
Distribution
In T, Total
m/Pws
Pn/Fww
=/=
1972
7.6
8.9
20.3
63.3
100.1
1977
7.2
6.6
19.0
67.2
100.0
1982
8.s
8.4
17.8
65. o
100.0
19s7
9.0
11.2
18.7
61.1
100.0
Conditional
P-cl
B
Work Status Distritition
In T
h Not Betig E~loyed
Five Years
Pm/m
m/Pm
40.0
12.2
32.0
38.9
27.6
7.6
31.3
21.4
14.7
33.5
18.2
1977
16.9
1982
1987
til &ta
are weighted.
SO~CES:
Pmel
A, Tale
*
7; P~el
%
B, Tables
45
11-14.
TOT=
mlm
30. s %
L972
11.1
-/Pm
Earlier
33.4
30.3
*
100.1
100.0
99.9
99.9
4
T~LE
Work
Stitus
by Age
By
~e
Wm
Child,
Nme
Al
Aged
o-2
3-5
6-18
19+
Nme
NI
Age=2
o-2
3-5
6-18
19 +
NAl
hce~
o-2
3-5
6-18
19+
NAI
Smtis,
Child,
1967
18s7
w~
NI
N
PY~
N
Pu
N-
53
57
176
10
26
322
6.5
6.5
8.2
6.6
4.7
7.1
85
91
294
23
M
=
10.6
10.4
13.7
15.4
11.8
12.3
20
31
1=
12
29
257
2.5
3.6
7.7
7.9
5.2
5.7
89
125
829
84
287
1174
8.6
14.3
29.3
429
51.7
25.9
8K
872
2147
l=
555
69.4
81.2
=.8
33
32
51
7.3
7.7
10.8
52
50
74
17.7
12.0
15.7
19.3
51.7
4
120
3.2
8.2
12
188
9.2
12.8
3.5
3.4
6.5
i8.2
7.1
4.8
36
&
147
1
82
332
8.~
15.7
31. ~
81.8
61.2
22.6
448
26
780
16
14
31
0
10
70
190
182
378
5
34
728
73.3
88.1
42.6
19.6
22.9
50.1
18
18
59
0
7
102
6.8
6.5
7.9
1.3
4.7
7.0
23
26
w
5
22
174
8.9
9.5
13.1
22.8
14.7
12.0
3
68
4
5
80
1.2
4.2
7.5
17.1
3.5
5.5
25
38
2~5
9
80
~
9.8
13.8
28.8
39.2
54.2
25.3
79
732
392
3?
88
729
77.8
72.5
42.8
29.0
32.2
45.4
2
8
68
10
15
100
2.4
4.1
7.1
7.8
5.4
6.2
11
15
122
18
31
197
10.6
8.4
13.2
14.1
11.4
12.3
2
6
77
8
15
107
1.7
3.1
8.4
6.1
5.3
6.6
8
22
2=
64
125
474
7.6
fl.9
28.7
43.0
45.6
B.5
102
183
922
126
274
424
425
888
30
105
1852
75.6
=.5
43.4
29.2
26.9
51.4
34
38
126
6
17
~
6.1
6.2
8.2
6.3
4,4
6.9
52
59
210
i?
46
w
9.2
9.6
13.6
16.4
11.5
11.9
10
16
113
6
17
1s3
1.8
2.6
7.3
6.3
4.3
5. i
40
61
425
43
m
797
7.2
13.1
27.6
41.8
53.0
24.8
561
619
112
83
117
10
38
368
46.3
35.4
220
16.0
23.0
29.0
22
25
39
5
11
104
9.1
10.8
7.3
9.1
7.1
6.4
46
37
76
6
25
180
18.6
15.6
14.2
9.9
15.7
15.3
19
29
57
10
2i
136
7.7
12.2
10.7
16.0
13.4
11.0
48
61
245
29
84
447
19.3
26.9
46.8
49.0
40.7
38.3
Pa
N
578
*
683
4~
148
2217
71.8
86.2
4f.1
2?.2
a.6
49.0
311
266
169
N
N
Pa
1987
0-2
3-5
6-18
19+
Nme
Ml
Age=3
o-2
3-5
6-18
19+
Nme
WI
bee+
o-2
3-5
6-18
19+
w~
of YoWgest
ad
Race
Pd
None
Age of
Youngest
16
46
11
416
471
2
la
1470
259
275
747
23
148
1453
102
393
3216
247
235
535
80
157
1234
TABLE 17
Work Status Traditions
, 1967-1989
By tirital Status and Husb=d, s Activity
-
—
u
urn
m
—
—
—
—
*
—
—
—
—
.
.
—
—
—
—
u
a
47
comparison
TABLE 1S
of pension coverage ResPOnses
By Age ad
RaCe
Fringe
Benefit
Question
M
NW
Y=
N
in 1982
Pa
a3
46
815
21
m
8.8
%1
36.8
%.7
243
24
13
230
ml
6.5
542
429
18
343
11
3R
6.0
=.5
45.8
57.1
lW
a
16
233
34.7
7.8
X7
a4
11
m=
6
325
5.3
27.3
57.6
lm
B
7
231
mo
Q.Q
=.6
44.8
17
’264
4
235
8,0
W.1
36.4
=.2
212
421
9
16
497
~.6
7.8
621
40.7
24
633
11
723
5.4
m.z
37.9
%.3
445
210
21
14
245
m.s
8.8
=.3
50.0
21
214
10
245
9.1
91.1
41.7
50.0
a
n
33750
232
7.Q
48
334
22
w
11
516
746
1220
231
235
24
TABLE
Pension
Coveraqe
bv work status
By Age nd
k
PN
b
1977
Race
Au
N
Pd
1
le
6=
w
644
low
2
1s
34
m
m
1s
10
m
1a
2m
19
al
1s.4
M.6
mB
322
375
a?
537
fm.o
139
5.s
3n
m.7
7.;
44.1
36.8
n.7
32.4
ai
57.e
m.1
m.1
27.4
4“ s.;
14
4
1 Im.o
s Ima
4222
11 ZD
0
?
49
T~LE
Pension
20
cov~age
by Work Status
By Age ad Race
in 1982
%S’lm,o
m4 Imo
24 =.1
n
s.?
s
4Q
lm9
n
7
10
m
SD
33.7
5.4
23
37.7
m4
Q
24
23
47
51.;
so
TAELE
Pension
Coverage
By
21
by Work Status
and Race
in 1987
Age
P,
N
Im
02
179
=.6
1s.7
m.7
5m
n5
m
12
1s
e
3
m
a
18
m.o
27.7
323
8.2
0.8
37.7
M.f
36.7
12
16
as
m2
=2
36.8
m3
62
4,7
m.4
3
e
4
m,4
=.0
0.4
1S.4
102
?38
672
02
17.7
ma
=4
5.4
15
m2
m
12
mB
3.4
1
7
12
7
Iffi
m
02
n.7
9.1
672
24B
S75
=
113
136
ma
1s7
376
37
770
?m.o
5 Im.o
3
Q
51
o
e
2
15
Q
T~LE
Pension
Coverage
By
22
by Work Status
=d
Race
ti 1989
Age
$
N
73W
N
“w
0.%
10.7
m
370
m.1
43
3s
62
m
mz
56.8
ms
420
328
9.4
7.0
75.8
102
m
s
mo
lZ
lQ
m5
3
m
43
16
a5
6S
-5
ma
15.4
4
s
z
132
157
3=
0.4
47.4
15.7
m.1
S.1
!95
7
14
1
m
11
6
87
14
03
5.0
ZO
70.0
24.6
19.s
1
2
2
6
74
m
M
7.4
mo
m
34.4
24.7
e
4.0
S3
0.4
e.e
95
7.4
53.s
10.0
ms
24
47
10
9
7m
m,4
43.8
81,9
!21
7.3
74.e
m
15
24
llm
S3
7.7
45
=2
3m
15
37
3
e
a
W.5
a.1
?42
4.9
25
S.O
02
5.e
3.e
a.1
W9
as
4
10
4.e
le fm.o
3
m.o
2
7
Q
52
17
53.6
1s
t
2
3
11
33
T~~
bong
Pension
Those
AU
Croee TabuktiOn
23
Coverage in 1982 ad
Pension Receipt in 1989
Out of the L&or
Force in 19S 9, BY Age -d
Race
of %nelon
Coverage In 1832
●nd @aiPt
In 1989 (M
Peneion
Pension
M
Covemge
in 3832
Em@oy&o
Pe_m
Em@oyWetim
Not ~@Oy*
Unwlgh-d
Ye
N
Pa
of the tibor
Re=i@
FoKe
in 1989)
In 1339
k
Wighmd
Ye
N
Pa
NI
N
N
Pti
1112
948
1-
86.5
39.5
80.0
~.8
22
172
718
311
11.5
m.s
71.0
20.2
191
284
Im
1541
52
32
228
3f2
~.8
68.5
95.8
92.2
2
15
10
26
3.2
31.5
4.2
7.8
E4
46
236
=
11.3
54.9
7.8
f6.1
48
38
319
m
88.4
U.5
92s
83.0
6
49
24
79
11.6
=.5
7.1
16.4
54
68
343
436
13
%
79
187
i4.4
88.8
18.1
26.0
70
42
401
5*3
ms
27.8
828
71.4
14
103
83
Z=
16.5
72.2
17.2
28.6
34
lW
484
718
33.8
39.3
89.3
60. f
15
122
81
218
11.2
m.7
10.7
20.0
753
1093
117
79
874
870
87.9
B.9
89.1
~.8
16
124
82
223
12.1
61.1
10.9
20.4
133
204
757
Im
a
3i
91.7
51.?
362
89.5
64.8
8
29
31
w
8.3
43.3
10.5
15.4
72
60
286
423
60
s
252
343
92.6
46.2
88.5
81.4
5
42
33
30
7.4
B.8
11.5
18.6
85
78
236
423
1
2
17
20
2
100.0
2 100.0
2
11.8
4
20.0
; 100.0
3
18.9
4
m.e
2
1
18
20
N
Pd
186
110
857
f253
89.0
41.8
80.4
81.3
21
153
114
m
10.1
662
10.6
18.7
54
30
=1
315
93.2
~.8
=3
=.2
1
13
0
23
1.8
30.2
a8
0.8
s
37
315
407
83.7
45.1
W4
83.9
7
45
23
76
77
43
411
531
85.6
31.2
m.9
74.0
119
79
677
875
207
1071
1541
M:*
Em@oy*o
Pe*a
Em@oy*Pefim
Not Em@oy4
NI
s
43
240
338
Age@
Emtioyed-No
Pe-m
Em@oyed-Pe@m
Not Em@oyed
NI
Age=3
Petim
Em@oyti-No
Em@oyed-Petion
Not Em@oyed
NI
Wee+
Em@oyed-No Petion
Em@oyed-Petion
Not Em@oyed
NI
Race=2
Em@oyti*o
Pe~m
Em#oyed-Petim
Not Em@oyti
NI
ticed
Em@oyMo
Pe~on
Em@oy~eti~
Not Em@oyed
NI
1 lW.O
15
16
M.2
80.0
53
480
7i8
134
201
1:
16
8f. i
79.4
These
1. H-och
(19BOa, b) ~d
BIX
(198S) are -ceptions.
both the hours md weeks dimnsions
of the work decision.
tht
the two dim=sions
hve
~ite
distinct detehnats.
2. x
B1(1990) recently remrked,
dynamics
of Part-time
wOrk over
p.142) .
Blank
(1989)
3.
tively short time
~ . BI~
reports
tite=als,
concludes,
‘There is Vev
little research
Blank
a worker’s
lifetime.
“
that hours
per
e.g. a year.
,S
Preliti~~
studies e~lore
Both conclude
week
wrk
currtit
are
Wite
indicates
sttile
tht
on the
(1990,
over
rela-
part-time
work
used as a stepping s’tone between noneTloy
among adult women is only rarely
used as = alternative
either
ment and full -time eqlom-t,
but is bstead
to full -time emlov-t
or to none.vlop~t,
Blti
(1990, P-142) .
5.
Blank
characterizes
the results
of tm
e~loyer
su=eys
as revealing
that ‘,
the primw
reason f ihire part-time workers is to resolve
s ched Fim
with high weekly -d
&ily
vari-tie
b workload were
uling proble=.
n
Bld
(1990, p.143)
most 1 ikely to ewloy
part-time workers.
6. Blank
(1988 ) presents
weeks decisions.
7.
See
also
-och
evid-ce
(19e Oa, b) ad
B1-
of the
“sititaeity”
(1988j
54
of the hous
md
National
Longitudinal Su~eys
Discussion
Paper
~S)
Series
m
m
01
M1chaeI R. Pergak
How the Federal Govement
Uses Data from
the National Longimdmal Sweys
02
Nomm
M. Bradbm
M~ti R. Frtiel
Regtidd P. B*er
Mich=l R. Pergmit
A Compakion
of Computer-Assisted Pemond
htewiews (CAPI) with Paper-red Pencil kterviews (PAP~ h the N~iond Longimdmal Smey
of Youth
03
Saul Schwm
Robeti Hutchens
George Jtibson
Dynmic Models of the Jo&t Detemrnation
Labor Supply md Fmily Smcmre
04
A. Coh Cmeron
R. M~k Gtiti
Tbomw MaCwdy
The effects of Unemploymat
Compensation
on the Unaplopent
of Youth
05
Heq
Evaluating Competig
Mobifi~
06
Frd
L. Mom
Paula B&er
Evaluation of the 1989 Ctild-cae
Supplemmt
in the National Longitidmal Smey of Youth
07
Au&ey.Light
Mmuefi@ Ureta
Gender Differences
Young Workm
08
LEa M. L~ch
The tipact of Rlvate Sector Tratiig
on bce
md Gender Wage Differentials md the Caeer
Patterns of Young Workem
09
Evmgelos M. Faltis
H. Efimbetb Pete=
Responses of Female LAor Supply ad
to the Demo~aphic
Cycle
10
he
Hill
Jme E. ONeill
A Study of Intercohofi Chmge b Women’s
Work Patims md Etigs
11
hleen Leibowiti
Jzob Alex Kemm
Lirda Waite
Womm’s Emplo~ent
ad Followtig Bbth
12
Lee A. Lillmd
Work Experience,
md Wage Groti
13
Joseph G. Altonji
Them= A. Dw
FmiIy
S. Fmber
Backgromd
of
Theories of Worker
h the Quit Behavior of
Dmtig
Femifi~
Pre~mcy
Job Tenure, Job Sepzation,
md Labor Muk&
Outcom~
14
George J. Boijas
Stephen G. Bronm
Stephen J. Trejo
Self-Seletiion
United States
15
Jmes J. Hectim
Stephen V. ~eron
Peter Z. Schochet
The Detemhmts md Consequencesof Wbhc
Sectormd Rivate Seaor Trtitig
16
R Mmk Griti
Thomas MaCudy
Pticipation
in Low-Wage
Young Men
17
Alm L. Gus~~
Thomas L. Stei~eier
Retuement h a Fmily Context
for Husbmds md Wives
18.
Au&ey L]ght
Trmsitions tiom”School to Work A Smey of
Reseach Ustig the National Longitndtial
Smeys
19.
Ctiitopher
High School Emplowent
kvestient
20.
Mwk Lowenstek
Jmes Spletier
Infomal Tratitig
A Retiew
Some New Evidence
21.
Jacob Alex Klemm
Chmactetig
NLSY Dati
22.
Jacob Mex Klemm
&leen Leibowiti
Employment
23.
Stephen G. Bronmi
C~ol Moore
Incentive Pay, Infomation,”md
&om tie National Longitidmal
24.
Donald O. Pasom
The Evolving SWc~is
of Female Work Activities
Evidence from the National Longitidmal Smeys of
Matie Women SWey, 1967-1989
J. Rti
md Internal Mi~tion
Labor MwkeK by
A Stic-1
Conswption
Model
or
of Existing Dam ad
Leave for Matemi~
Contkuity
k the
Modelhg
the
Among New Mothem
Emtigs
Evidence,
Smey of Youth