~e Ntiond hn~timd
Smeys @LS) proSUPP- mmy Smdlesdwiad
m timme ~dmstiding of tie labor mwket md methtis of daa mumtion. me
Dkcussion Pqers sena hcopomks
mme of tie I&each -g
out of tie pro~.
Mmy of the ~~rs in this serieshave bmn defiverti w find repor~ mmtisio”d
m
pm of a extimd
gmt pm~,
under which pmb ~e awtid
tio”gh a
competitiveprmas. ~e seriesis titended~ ci=tilate tie findingsm kteresti EAem
titim md ou~ide theBmau of Mor Statistics.“:
Pemonstimstd h obtiting a copy of my Dimuwion Rpr, otherNLS repfi,
or geneti itiomation &ut the~
pm=
ad sweys Aould conmti theBUW d
Wr Satistics, Office of =onotic Resemch, Wmhingmn, K 20212-~1, or d
(202) do&745.
Matid h b publicationis k the public domtin md, witi wpmptiate credit,
may& Eprtiu& tithout ptission,
Opinionsmd inclusions exprwsedin thisdwment a hose of theauthor(s)md
do not n=m~y
representm official positionof the B=au of tir
Smtisticsor the
U.S. Depment of Labm.
Employment Continuity Among New Mothers
Jacob Alex Kleman
Arleen Leibowitz
Rand Corporation
Mach
1994
~s paper W= fidd
by tie U.S. Dep_ent
of hbor, Bweau of hbm SbtistiG under Gmt Number
E9-J- l@67. me views expressd hme - those of tie authors md do not nwesstily reflwt tie views of
tie U.S. Deptient
of bhr.
Sally bon,
LP&nkr, Jom K~ey, Na@& Kostm, md Jerene
Kelly pmvidd excellent m~tice.
Emplo~ent
Continuity
Jacob Mex ~emm
bong
and &leen
The last two demdes have seen radical ch=ges
In the early seventies,
mothers
work ~ong
of one-month-old
one-month-old
infats
infmts
new mofiers
Leihtiti
in the work pattams
was a rtity.
are employed.
To&y
number of women on ptid ad
By tbe time the infant is three-months-old,
unptid
leave constitutes
nmrly half of dl
– those who me employed,
wptid
leave.
the de facto matimity
12 ad
of
but
This leave tipers
work is nearly at its long-tern
(i.~, it is nemly the same as it is for mothers of children between
me of paid ad
of new mothers.
Only about 10 percent of these mofiers
me actually at work. The difference
not at work — are the la~e
off qtickly,
New hthe~
level
24 months).
~is
leave POET of kericm
employers.
Le@slation
at the state ad
federal level now reqtires
women may return h their old jobs &r
federal stitute,
one h four in the state stitutis).
su& legislation
&smce
How mmy
of a legislated
matimity
right ti maternity
of matamity
Similarly,
the eligibl~ty
d~amic.
To be covered women m~t
maternity
leave, ad
reqtirementa
employer
*T
have had a cetitin
Lon@tudinal
study.
Sumey-Youth
womm
length.
me
the impact of these
market choices at a
market choices before ad
&r
we use the longitudinal
work histo~
Doing so is comphcatad
It follows a sample of about Sk thousmd
h women
number of months of fill-time
on women’s I*or
as pati of the continuous
(NLS-W.
They ~rmtie
the maternity leave statites
Considetig
To evaluata the likely effects of such Ie@slation,
Supplements
jobs ti the
a leave of up to a ~mtied
for coverage mder
data on labr
of
how many women me covered by
are d~tic.
not only information
point h time, but also longitudinal
h the Employer
the impotice
covemge.
the federal Family Leave A&).
leave laws reqtires,
that
leave of several months (three h the
This paper evaluates
leave stitutes
the right to return to their pre-c~dbitih
(a year mder
h Waratae
women already returned ti theti pre-childbifih
leave laws @ven their non-universal
The protections
tenme
a maternity
employem
beca~e
chil=lfih.
dati colleded
da& of the National
the NLS-Y is a cohofi
who were aged 14 to 21 h 1979.
Some recent mothers were born before the cohort represenhd
in the NLS-Y, some were born
—.
-2&r.
For our pumoses,
extrapolate
statements
We estimate models of the labor supply bebatiors
the NLS-Y sample.
Tboaa models include re~essom
from the set of all racent mothers
education).
(We, ye=
majtity
(88 percent)
the corresponding
tith
new mothers
stiilar
leave stitutes
employer.
marital stitus,
of all recent mothers.
demo~aphic
~oditi etisttig
to the Jue
cbmacteristics
about 20 percent are working pati-time
is, however,
as the mothers (97 percmt).
lower
are still
is 51.3, for all wome”n
a yanr before their cMd was born,
Sk months&r
not working at all. Among all demo~aphidly
the
Both among
similar women, far from all womm
women who worked full-time
The
or not they had a child in the
eightaen months latar; for new mothers, the fiwre
is 56.5. bong
practice.
both before md &r
This percentage
number among all women (wbetber
and among all demo~aphimlly
working Ml-time
for a s-pie
of women who work fill-time
birth of a child return to their pre-childbirth
the fiWre
of birth, racdetbnicity,
Sumey.
Ow basic finding is that the matamity
overwhelming
of recent mothem using
of recent mothers are derived from the Fertihty Supplement
1990 Cument Population
titerim)
We
which describe how tie NLS-Y s-pie
We then use the model h predict bebatior
The characteristics
tha
about all recent mothers.
our NLS-Y based results h the set of dl recent mothers using re~ession
standardization.
@ers
we want to m~e
the child is born, md 28 pement are
sitilar
women, only 10 percent are not still
working fill-time.
These high rates of return to the same employer
&ong
partitime
(whether
continuity
workers,
are particular
h fall-time
only about 8 percent work for their pre-pre~mcy
full- or pafitime)
sk months fir
over a similar 18 month intemd
childbirth.
kong
workers.
employer
all women, ratas ofjob
are dso low (34 percent), but not as low as for
new mofiers.
These emplo~ent
new mothers.
continuity
In particular,
rates va~
emplo~ent
titb
continuity
the demoWaphic
mtis
for full-time
characteristics
of the
work, before ad
the bitih of the ckild are lowaat for first births md higher for Iatir bifihs
(33.8 percmt
after
for
first bitihs vs. 52.1 percent sacond bitihs, md 56.3 percent for third and higher bi~s).
Thus, although
most women are working sbotily
afier the btib
of the child, even some
women wbo worked full-time before the birth of their first child, titilly
Across all first bitihs,
about 19 percmt
of all women worked fall-time
child md are not working at all sti months nfter the bitih of the child.
leave the ~or
&fore
force.
the birth of the
-3The paper then uses fiis combind
the federal Family Leave &t (FLA).
NLS-Y/CPS
approach ti estimate the coverage of
k the effoti to bnild a walition
FLA was dell%erately wafted to cover only some new mothers.
tith
50 or more employees,
pretious
md employees
new mothers.
Specifically,
only employers
with 12 months tenure md 1250 hours duting the
year (about 24 hours per week) are covered.
worked, and firm size in the ~-Y,
for passage, tie federal
Using the data on job tenure, hews
we show that the FLA covers only a minoriti
Each of the exclusions
is importit.
of wortig
Among the 63 percent of new mothers
who were working a year before the bifih of the child, only 77 percent meet the fill-time
work requirement.
Of them, only 68 percent meet the job tenure requirement.
women who meet the full-time work and the job-tinure
are working in large enoWh fires.
Thus, the FM
requirement
guarantees
working women the right to return to their pre-childbifi
Together,
Both analyses
mothers.
n~rly
these findings have impotiant
sWgest
Of those
only about 59 percent
h only about 32 percent of
employer.
imphcations
for the likely effec~
of the FW
that the FLA till have only minimal effects on the lnbor supply of new
First, only women who work full-tilme are covered by the FW
all women wbo are working six months afir
same employer
they worked for during pre~ancy.
pre-preWanW
employer
is alr=dy
stidard
tiong
Were,
the hirtb of the child are working for the
Thus, the ~’s
business
practice.
right h return to the
Second, the FLA only rovers
about a third of all new mothers who were working a year before the bitih of the child md 41
percent of new mothers
many new metiers,
employers
who worked full-time.
evm before the FLA.
&we
emphasized
may tiect
other dimensions
qtitting
strictly limited the amomt
fier
of leave.
the birth of their children, but that
Given tie ‘&oice”
her job, a women may ‘chosen the sborhleave.
FLA te longer job protectid
of women’s labor market
in our model, it is possible that, prior to tbe new laws, women
would have liked to have tiken longer l~ves
employers
do not apply b
and those covered new mothers were almost always returned h theti
Family leave legislation
behatior.
Thus, the law’s pmtactions
leaves, new mothers till
of a vev
shotil-ve
Perhaps given tie right mder
we
longer leaves.
or
tie
ABSTRA~
Recmtly
both state md
The key protision
of tit
mother is ~mateed
position.
Ustig
work statis
percent)
afir
cMdbitih
However,
an excess probabfity
protections
to ffl-tme
new mothers.
few pati-time
tith
Longitudind
leave legislation
at the sme
ttis
~ost
workers would satisfy the tenure ad
paper
comelatis
leave legislation
mfficientiy
lmge -s.
Leave Act covers ody
workers is rdatively
90
on emplo~ent
similar women, new mothers
sufficient job tenme
to ffl-ttie
or equivalent
to work at the sne
is unlikely to have a major effed
that the federal Fmily
the recent
W women (nealy
continue
of Ieating their jobs. Finally,. most matefity
The restriction
leave Iegidation.
dmation),
Sumey-Youth,
after tildbitih
to all demo~aptically
workers titb
matertity
employer
work stitus before pre~mcy.
botb before ud
compared
NLS-Y, the paper estimates
wortig
have enacted
is that afier a leave (of a tiited
data tiom the National
Thus maternity
continuity.
legislation
govements
the right to retmn to her pre-leave
who work fi~-ttie
employer.
federd
limits its
Ustig
the
about a third of dl
utimpotint
firm-size requirements.
do have
because
L ~ODUC~ON
The Ftiy
CEnton
Leave A& of 1993 (FLA) was the first piece ofle~slation
si~ed
mothers
into law.
(mong
retitatement
The FLA, which took effed
tithout
penalty at the job held at the s~
tid
enormous
pofiticd
the FLA is yet b be detirmtied.
of the leave.
md social si~cmce,
In this paper we assess the Iikdy
what propotiion
force pticipation
for the passage of the FM
by mothers
of a cti~
of dl new mothe=
has &own
of you~
W&en.
rapidy
cme
to work
=e
tier
a shoti
they be&
a new job.
thee
=ong
hours
ctid
mderstading
the cover~e
with
new mothers tith
at Iecct
a y-
~emm,
was born md did
To&y,
more thm hti
giting b~
to the s=e
is mcid
Such a high
=d
~~ysis
job her
b understitig
to bow
Dotig
Of
Wdbtih,
or
the &pa&
of
job chan~ng
the FLA ody
of job tenme
of the FLA is dso tipotimt
whether
a female worker is
so requires” comptig
song
stim
covers womm
ti
which new mothers continue to work &r
provisions
=oud
to the job held h pre~mcy.
a ctid.
Bemuse
md
Yet, there has been fi~e
rek
Such itiomation
to the job afisr hatig
b the period stidied.
a week
by
fise h labor
the jobs they held h pre~=q
point of tiew it dso impotimt
women who =e
give btih
of
by de~g
labor supply, espeddly
months &r
leave..
women
a right to ret-
From the -ployer’s
to retire
mathW
of legislation,
the FLA, wM& Waatees
~ely
ad
over the past two decades (Leibotitz
in the labor force ody
in the absence
whether
&@ace
horn the substmtid
Women’s
level of labor supply suggests that women =e retiting
whether,
the passage
effects of the FM
to the labor force until their youngest child entered school.
re~ng
Mthough
c~dbtih
In the past, women tended to quit their jobs when thek fist
not rem
the right h
of new mothers would be coverqd by the FLA.
Much of the tipetis
1994).
to new
pay ad
the pradicd
pre-FLA labor supply patterns for women fo~owtig
the bfih
1, 1993 W~aties
others) the right to up to 12 weeks of leave tithout
of this legislation
exaitig
AuWst
that Beaident
fires
gitig
tith
btih
job chxg
women who did not
worm
more tha
25
at least
50 ~ployees,
md how this relates h
to uderstatig
the ~ely
tipact
of
ttis new legislation.
In this paper we use Iongitutial
(NLS-~
dets-e
wverage
and representative
wkt
propofion
restrictions
population
data from the National
data from the Cument
h.git.ti
Popdation
of new mothers me covered by the F@
-g
relating to fmm size, job tanure md hours worked.
S~ey
of Youth
S-y
(CPS) to
into accomt
We dso tivesti~k
the
2
the @a&titics
wotid
of women who return to the job they held in pre~~cy
be cmered
&sting
bustiess
by the FM.
practiw
Tfis
with regal
fm women who have not returned
The balance
the fiteratire
allows us to dete-e
to matetity
as follows.
Section II retiews
labor supply by age of the youngest
economic model.of time away from work =ound
retire
b
wfich
combties
presents
ow
identies
Section
L=ve
diredions
on job continuity.
M.
W motivates
for fitire
of yomg
c~tien.
etings
on the followtig
was h force.
Sedion
fatis snd
III presenb
a
describes
ow
methodology,
Se&ion V
of logistic re~essions.
ow restits
on coverage
of the
relates the results b the famfiy leave debate md
res=rch.
The last two decades have seen major ad
mothers
md
Section W presents
The conclusion
coties
new options
the stylized
chdd.
they
the bitih of a child md the decision to
the NLS-Y and the CPS using a system
r=ults
federal Fmfly
employer.
stiply
leave, or whether it protides
stiple
the pregnm~
whether the FM
to their jobs in the period &fore the FU
of the paper proceeds
on wom-’s
md whethm
widely noted chages
Writing in 1974, Mincer ad
chmactirization
Polachek
ti the work patterns
btit
a theov
of
of women’s
of women’s labor force behavior
Blfier their schooling, the life qcle of martial women features seueral stages which
differ in the nature and dewee of labor-market and home inuestint.
%m
is usually
continuous mrht
work prior to the birth of the first child.
The sg.cond stage ia a
petiod of non-participation
related to childbeari~
and child mre, laeting between 5
and 10 years, followed by intermittent participation before the youngest child reaches
school we.
The third stage is a more permanent return to the labor force for some,
though it my mwin
intermittent for others. (Mincer ~d Polachek, 1974, p. S83).
This characterization
of the National
w-
based on tabulations
Lo@tidinal
Sumey of Mature Women.
to 44 b 1967, had their first c~d
The patims
Fi~re
tit
Mticer
1 shows women’s
from the (then rmently
ad
fist
wave
Most of these women, who were 30
during the baby boom of the mid-1950s.
Polachek described were begiting
labor force paficipation
based on data from the Jme
avtilable)
Cument
Popdation
to chmge
by age of the yomgest
Sumey
(CPS).1
Clemly,
ctid
by the 19709.
in months,
at Iatir dates, a
lThe basic CPS “titsfiew is desi~ed to supply the nation,s official uemplo~ent
stitistim, and it
therefore contiins carefti probes about work statm, distitisfig
labor force paficipation from
and
non-paticipation,
emplowent
from work, -d
paid from unpaid leave. See ~emm
3
~eater
percent~e
c~dbtih.
of women were labor force pafitipats,
pticipated
in the labor form.
had tisen ten points to about 45 percent.
tith
the
period
fo~otig
h the emhest period, 1973-75, about 35 percent of mothem of tio-yem-olds
25-36 montk)
nom,
at ea~
about 55 p~cmt
Eight ye=s
Iati
(1981-83),
(aged
the permntige
For the most recent period (1990), work is now the
of mothers of two-yar-olds
p~itipatig
h the labor for=
Leibotiti (1994) for a description to tie Jme CPS data =d the ksues tivolved b utig it b
mdyze women’s labor force behtior. The dati for 1973-75 ad 1981-83 .we sbple averages of the
rates of pficipation
over the thee-year bands, using the Jme sumey, wtich is the month h
which the intifiew includes information about the age of a wom~’s yomgest ctild h months.
The da& for 1990 is computed differently. The CPS is a rolling pael where indtiduals be
htetiewed
for up to fom consecutive months. me dati for 1990 cornb~e i~o~ation
for UP ~
fow monthfy 1990 interviews that women responding in Jwe 1990 dso protide& Reweigti
accounts for &flerentid match rates (each inktietis
weight is computed as one over tie nmber
fomd for a patiicdm worn=). Detds of the matitig
procedure me av&lable on
of intefiews
request,
4
700A
6070
500A
aYo
3070
200A
i
16
11
6
Fig. l—LAor
CMd,
become
has tie
less steep.
of work song
In the emliest
months
fo~otig
tidbtih
demly
in fiWre
2, wtich
(1990).
FiWre
2 dso
relation
period, as the youngest
rose nemly 10 percentage
mothers
36
31
from 1973, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1982, 1983 June
1990 CPS file.
level of the pmtitipation-age
labor force patiicipation
26.
Force PAitipation
(LFP) for Mothers by Age of Y:mgest
1973-75, 1981-83, and 1990
Source Authors’ tabulations
CPS ad from matched Jue
Not ody
21
of older &l&en,
points.
the ticrease
was ofly two percentage
ma~fies
the sde
plots emplo~ent,
s~ed
child aged horn 7 b
36 months,
By 1990, despite the higher levels
b
ptiltipation
points. ti
of the previous
which subtratis
up, but the fines have
ch=ge
between
7 =d
cm be seen more
plot for the most recmt
the unemployed
36
Wriod
from labor force
5
pticipmts.
as Wely
The fi~e
to kve
demonstrates
&aati@y
that mothem of on~yea-ol~
ae
ne=ly
a job as mothers of tkee-yem-olds.
65.0
63.0
1
61.0
59.0
57.0
55.0
53.0
51.0
49.0
47.0
If/
45.0
,
t , ,
,
,
t
,
I
t
Fig. &Deti
Sowce:
These ckges
Authors'
tabdations
(1990) uses Smey
leatig
work dutig
iden~
stifi~
&omauthor's
pre~nq
to work ~r
tiende.
childbtih.
Rowm
ad
re~g
,
u
,
,
,
I
LFP
Child b Months,
matched 1990Jme
song
updates in the Statistical Abstrmt)
of Income =d
tie-series
‘–––-
by Age of Youngest
b women’s labor force pticipation
Hayghe (1986, tith
,
252729313s35
Employment
of Emplowent
,
,
7911131517192123
—
of retire
,
,
135
noted.
, , ,
Ptiupation
CPS~e,
new mothers have bmn tiddy
is m offidd
retiospetive
to work ofter c~dbtih
Several papers used h=md
1990.
&ta
somce.
on the tig
for fist
models to adyze
Papers by Even (1987) usiog the fist
VComeU
bfi
the_
wave of the NatioA
of
h
6
Sumey of F-fly
the National
Lsibotiti,
stim
Grofi
(agti
Longititid
~em=
This
Sumey–Matie
md Wtiti
Women,
(1991), ad
~eman
Matirnity
Leave
Of Homd
stitige
jugg~ng
of the tie
c~d-rtistig
several yeas
quitting
(=
ad
mmgements
sefion,
m~es
For women who ti~
a ye=,
that flow
alternative.
it becomes
(1982)
us~
using the SEP,
both for emplo~ent
md
have W shown
(LFP) measwe
the reemployed
tie
who =e
to mainti
their
the months
timediatiy
pticip~ts
(see FiNe
at work w=
15% k 1990, not vw
folloting
3).
force paficipati
~eater
atidly
employed,
ad
for
1),
be away from the
employees
jotifly
to
for the new mother
h
the new ctid.
In the neti
comefion
to theti
ad
childbtih,
different
ti 1973-1975.
mother
in 1990 tha
pre-pre~a~
as may
ten percent were on unpaid leave.
in 1973-1975,
employer
shine
of one-month-old
from the percentage
By 1990, however,
The last two
leave
while
st~
In fad, this leave t~ng
for a l=ge
The percent of new mothers
leave.
is
those
Such ptid or unptid
period.
accomts
sedon
emplo~mt),
those on wpaid
but not at work.
away from work h the early post p~
as were wortig,
ad
(those actively se&g
women
enjoying
for
period of FIWre
used h the plots k the pretious
categories
women
or the -Eer
for/enjoying
md at work, those on paid leave, ad
allows
stiats~es
be away from the labor maket
conttitity
ctiw
different
a simple model of these choices.
of fom mtsgories
include
possible
When women ti~
who me employed
in
of the labor force
chil&en
of new mothers
atidly
who were
women wwe on ptid leave
Thus, LFP is newly
thee
but most of these labor form phitipmts
were
on leave born a job.
This
use
of ptid
and unptid
emphasizes
this point by plottig
essentidy
disappeared
Convemely,
the permntige
foti
(1990)
possible for employers
away horn the workplace
we outke
ag~egab
*es
McLaugMin
(1993) using the ~S-Y
from work
job is the ody
The labor force patiicipation
kbor
btis),
OComell
h the quote from Mincer md Pola&ek
the pre-pre~acy
spend some be
away
a weer.
labor force for well waler
a
data on fist
patterns.
Tke Importace
mde
retrospective
month folloting
&er
tio
leave
ptid
ad
months
of mothers
Mdbtih.
is a vev
actidly
shofimn
unptid
and
the
leave
acco-odation.
explicitly.
mptid
at work wows
leave
The ptid
~er
25 percentage
Fiwe
4
leave
has
ttiee
pobts
month.
by the
7
60°A
5070
400A
3070
200/.””
1oOA
07.
1
2
3
4
5
■
7
6
W
❑
V
❑
8
L
■
9
10
11
i2
U
Fig. &Components
of Labor Force P*itipation
by Age of Yo~gest
Ctild, 1990. W-Work, V-Ptid Leave, L-Unptid Leave, U-Emplopent
Somce:
Tabulations
from autiors’
matded
1990 Jwe
CPS me..
—
8
30
25
20
\
15
10
5
0
1
5
3
9
11
e
Fig. -Paid
and Unpaid ~ 1990 by &e ofYomgest
Child h Months V-Ptid Leave, L-Unpaid Leave,
Souce:
However,
retting
ustig
to a job
employer
Tabulations
CPS data it is not possible
held
dufig
prewacy
employer,
pattirm.
to detertine
or whether
(or whether they held no job in pre~anw).
model for time away from work tier
s-e
from authors’ matchti
ad
a methodolo~
Tfis methodology
combties
childbfih
for exploring
cross-section
1990 Jue
whether
they ae
CPS me..
these
working
women
are
for a different
The next two sections describe a stiple
incorporating
these dpaic
the decision
aspects
data from the CPS tith
to return to the
of matemal
work
lon~tutid
data
9
&om the NLS-Y to adtiess
md how this compmes
~.
A MODEL
folloting
stiple
model.
over
co=umption
for women who ad not give bifi
employer,
Women
(fmfies)
tititmeous
C(t) ad
md the role of matefity
m-ize
additive
a Me-tie
subutifity
a given employer
in the period.
to work, whether
leave is mptied
u~ty
tition
fiction
by the
U wtich
V, a tidion
is
of Me-the
leisure L(t)
U = j:e-*V[c(t),L(f~t]
where B is the be@g
tie
tith
of the new mother’s labor supply choice — when b reti
h the pre-~dbtih
titegd
contitiw
FOR ~~~~
b reti
the
about new mother’s
tith job continuity
~Am
The essence
questions
dt
(1)
of working life, E is “the end of Me, ad
it is usefi
to thi~
of t=O as
of the bitih of the c~d.
To fores on the essence
&oice
at each inst-t
utity
fiction
consumption
of the problem,
is dichotomous
V is additive
is comtat
ad
we titiher
(a womm
h leisure
tipw
by ass-g
tit
the labor
either works or does nOt w.Ork), fiat the_ sub
and consumption,
=d
that the mm@
utflity
equal to y. Thus,
v(t) = v[L(t);t]+ ye(f)
Note that we explicitly
nom fization
the c~d
allow the utfiity of leisure to vv
of t=O noted above.
monototic~y
inmeastig
though
Specfic~y,
pre~mcy
tith
we ass-e
h chfldblfih,
faces a life-time budget constrfit
~:e-r’pC(f,dt=y
Discounted
He-the
the age of the c~d,
that the utfity
ad
t, thus the
of Ieiswe
monotofidy
d-e-
pefied
mmke~)
is
as
labor etings
is discounted
value
(a tindion
at the m=ket
(ass-g
lifetime
of other hous~old
of when she work).
titerest
capiti
+j:e-r’w(t,[l-L(t)]dt
consu.rnption equals discounted
k the sum of the present
utity
(2)
ages.
The household
woma’s
of
rate.
inwme,
of
(3)
income, where Metie
ticome
y, (e.g. from a spouse)
For convenience,
we ass-e
md
that
10
Then the =smptions
on the utility of Ieisue
tiply
that the household
&ooses
tiee
it~s
3)
lifetime consumption.
Substititig
tito the lifetime utfiity expression
We illustrate
inmease
this ~aphicdly
in the nmbr
k
Fi~e
5.
horn the budget eonstitint,
The utiity
of weeks since c~dbtih.
Lifetime
of Ieisme
utity
ti
we have
is f~g
tith
be mtimtied
if the
end of leave is chosen at e=e*, where the utifity of Ieiswe equals the weeMy wage.
$
wee~y
wage
= w.
weeHy wage at
dtermtive
job = w=
wage
~*ea
e.
Weeks since ctidbtih
Fi~re
5 Wage md .tiEty
of lesiure by weeks fo~otig
Wo
wage at pre~acy
wa
wage at dtemative
e*
wconstified
ea
sti
eO
m-urn
retm
accutiated
date to pre~~q
dak for a new (dtemative)
dowable
tidbtih
job
joh (forfeitkg
*
spdc
job
job
leave for matifity
at pre~mey
job
a
mpitd)
11
So f=,
valuation
givm
we have dscussed
of leisure ~d
her wage.
day in a spot m~ket.
dewed
e’ weeks of leisme,
(dtirnative)
to her if she retmns
matetity
pre~aq.
wage
dwation
of materfity
problem.
However
Ieiswe
consumption
we cm
Equation
h
assme
in Fi~e
to work amber
used b m~ne
a woma
tam
the tioice.
comparw
matefity
she would
chosen
l~ve
K a job
that job
h
prefemed
e“, there ia no
must choose betieen
have &osen,
or sa~tig
a lower wage (shorn
consumption
tfid
term is the higher eatigs
hfetime
utiity
horn emtings
with this employer.
on a new job (Ua) tith
mat~~
from e. b e= (tha hited
%
faces a
l~ve
the
of
leave vs.
for the lower wage w=), the second
&om work betieen
e. md e=, ad
the at-dated
the
fim-spetic
working life.
a lower dtemative
Mso, the longer the Nowed
In evaluating
~ though he
at the old job (Uo) where
(w. - Wa) horn not forfeiting
wage mWor
job more attractive.
utility
appropriate
on the mment job over the remaiting
a higher ifitid
Instead of bebtig
of working
g at the the
ia the additiond
stiying
lifettie
is the lowermtility
tim
pre~aq
chmse
5).
leave, but ret-
Clemly
the wage lower.
5, the womm
tbn
but
a lower wag&2 At that new
if the womm’s
That difference k Metirne utitity is:
~pital
cotid
Cle=ly,
ea we&s.
humm
the woma
that w ~ > Wa.
the employer’s
A
before etiaustig
hve
leave lasts e. weeks, tith
-itsd
Alternatively,
to work (at a later date) at a new job tith
for labor,
the fit
on retwfing
already
matertity
where
tied offs.
her, she would
if e’ > e. as iHustratid
5 c-be
spot mmked
job is condition
leave does not exced
by reti~g
on the woma’s
she had in pre~m~
date would be latw (ea>e*) =d
avtilable
by retiting
point e= k Fi~e
to the employer
leave of e. weeks.
reti
were
Therefore,
ofly
whether to work or not on my
where e“> eo, but, at a new job, she tiU e-
job the opttid
a higher
forgotig
In fact women do not hose
h come back to the pre~aney
the employer’s
with
e as though it depended
Rather, a new mother faces a labor market tith
higher wage, Wo, is avtilable
the abfity
the optim
wage m~es
leave, the more attractive
the gtin from hating
‘Sin= spetic h~m
capital is a major c’mponent of eafings
mns~ption
of changing jobs ~ be comiderable.
re~g
a tigher
to the
ti
be
wage &er
the
(Topel, 1991), the mst ti ~gs,
12
return
from matefity
thm
the remtining
jobs,
even mong
worbg
fife.
women
more job specfic
retmn
leave, we shotid
trfing,
the expected
dwation
of this job, rather
OW results show that there is more tiover
who do not become
mothers.
longer offered leaves, ad
k pd-ttie
Thus, we expect that women
til-time
jobs wotid
tith
be more ~ely
to
to the job held h pre~mcy.
In ttis section, we destibe
Suey-Youth
(NLS-W
longitutid
patterns
Iongitidid
and
However,
inditiduds
ad
the
year-old
period of time.
estimates
sheme
that over-smpled
titefiewed
the
Employer
bong
shce
NLS-YS
pu~ose
Supplement
the tiormation
repotied
conttitity
~though
computing
stiple
the
went,
probability
Wsptics,
dso cometi
-d
1979.
though
chnges
-ployers.
In contrast,
the CPS has
but does not fo~ow
data horn the two sources
sample was &am
ad
labor
tiough
market
Thus,
selected
b
a s~pltig
This original smple
the 1990 intetiew.
d~mics,
on each job held stice
of
ti 1978 from 14- h 21-
wwe
poor whites.
is hours worked ad
at each
the
has been
ConsiWent
intetiew
pretious
~
intefiew.
whether this job is the sme
as the one
using the NLS-Y
data it is possible
job
it pos~
to track
time.
has longitutil
representative
for differential
estimate
people sponsored by the U.S. Depatiment
Here we use dab
intetiew.
saple,
we combtie
12,000 tiditiduds
itiormation
colleded
poor whites.
3Work & more mmon
The otigind
of measutig
NLS-Y
Therefore,
to
The NLS-Y data me
(and thus of new mothem),
ofyowg
Appro*ately
colleds
ti the pretious
emplo~ent
saple
blacks, Hisptics,
audly
(CPS)
inditidud
of new mothers.
Longitidin~
of job mntinuity.
of Labor Statistics.
women.
Sumey
popdation.
if a ptiiwlar
of the U.S. population
extended
men md
Population
is not representative
The NLS-Y is a longitidind
Labor, Bweau
Cummt
us to detimine
s~ple
b yield poptiation
Jme
data horn the National
labor supply for a representative
dow
for ~
a method for combtig
md
the NLS-Y smple
a representative
tith
consider
estimates
chage
of matifity
but a stratified
smple
This is stiply
comected
non-response
data,
leave.
fist,
that deliberately
ustig
problems
dati, -
for
the NLS-Y is not a
oversmpled
the 1979 sample weighti
at the fwst intefiew).3
h the weightd than in the wweighted
four
Second, the avtiable
seen in Appenti
black,
(which
data
Table B-1.
13
tidude
ad
women
1990.
Bemuse
NLS-Y b~
smple
who @ve
W
between
of the lage
not destiba
that emo~ed
tha
1978 (retrospective
the-series
chmges
the behatior
aswtis
h behatior,
of recent mothers.
at the 1979 titiew)
skuply avma@g
~rd,
ovm W
the NLS-Y is a cohoti
women who were aged 14-21 in 1979. These women were 25-33 h 1990,
there is no tiormation
is ader
btih
on women gitig
we woufd We,
bwhs
mhg
at later ages.
Fmdly,
it difficult to present
as always, the smpIe
~yses
moss-dmmg
by
Covanates.
To ad&ess
first st~e,
W of these problems
we estimate
The re~essors
Hsptic,
titaest
(ptity,
stratified
conhol
cdendm
we employ a two-stage
logistic regessio~
period).
tith the d-o~aphic
NLS-Y s=ple.
The weights
dimensions
contiol
Then in the second stage, we use the re~ession
for a smple
In the
of the NLS-Y saple
as well as for the demo~aphic
and the
shateg.
on the W
for the non-representativeness
yew)
education
smpfig.
form bektior
. system of weighted
expfititly
age, ad
simul@eously,
chmacteristics
of d
(black,
of sub~tive
for nomespome
and
model to prediti
labor
rwmt
mothem
&am
from the 1990 June CPS.
In order h exmtie
das~
Iabr
folloting
btih
fo-
tiasitions
across labor force statuses md over employers,
status prior b
pregua~
c~dbktb
(6 months
&er
for MO remom.
fist,
we wmt
pre~~.
Secoti,
re~ement.
the bifi
before the bti
of a c~d).
We &ose
emplo~ent
is consistent
Sk months
long enough so that most women who are returting
leave.
We could not ex~ne
becausa the W-Y
=d
those who =e employed
titmd
th&
tha
Sk months,
pre~a~
employer,
Our ~d
employer
is to iden~
if a moderately
FM),
but instead
notid
above that LFP ties
is a plausible
emplo~ent
does not distinguish
of a ctid)
12 months
tith
the ~s
afier the bifi
to work hve
at a much emlier
we~ betw~n
md at work (see ~em=
bemuse
time (for ==ple
those who me employed
1994).
more women may have chmged
jobs tier
ret -g
matetity
the set of women who wodd
long maktity
quit becawe
ody
this titi~
3 months)
ad
on leave
With a lower
tititiy
dewed
shghtly tier
the fist
to
leaves.
have returned to thek pre-pre~=cy
leave had been offered (e.g. the 12 weeks
thek mploy=
is
come ba& from mateti~
Leibotitz,
tie
by the
~ month tenme
ad
thus obswtig
md
before the
a point where labor supply wm not tieded
12 months before the bifi
We amine
(12 months
we WOS*
ody
a much shotier
few months post-p~,
cutioff for ths concept. To check the robustness
of the
Ieava. Stice
we
sti months
of this cukoff, we dso comider
14
resdts
tith
a
tidbfih,
18 months post-dehve~
the mother
faces
options differ for tedders
absences
of more tha
OW pre-btih
work (mud
uossible stituses:
-d
fi~-ttie
employers
has thee
statuses:
seater
tb
emplo~ent
ae udikely
18 months ti~
detisio~
to offer matefity
no work, pati-time
35 or .rnore hours per week).
yields
For postidetivew
work for the same employer
employer
thifien
work for sae
the 13 c~s
whetha
pre~an~
or new employer.
C*
status,
after, ~d
we d-e
or for a Merent
Cross-class-g
into a tiee-stidure
c=es:
of d
less th=
btihs
before
the bifi
Ml-time
c~dbtih.
h
Fiwe
6.
h
Those who
emplowent.
At the n%
statises
the ~S-Y
=d
to fi~-time
employer.
decision points, ltieled
of women &oostig
of the tid
obsemations
At the root
At the next Ievd, they detide
to the sme
there me 12 didbtomous
to women
from patittie
a hmdrd
md
detide whether to rem
tO note that some of the ce~s kve
the tr~sitio~
work for
At the lowest level of the tiee, those who work both
of women in each of the 13 fid
12 months
kPOtimt
ctidbtih
or not to work &r
6 shows the percentage
The nmber
md
no work
no work before b pd-ttie
as represented
pal-time
or ~-ttie.
this bee stidue,
to L. Fi~re
smple
detide whethw
fier
Ustig
five
employer,
pre-btih
(3 x 5, less the two impossible
employer
decide bebeen
to work pd-tfie
before tid
leave for
work, and fill-tie
(highest Ievd) of the tree is the decition whether or not b work before pre~=g.
level, women
c~e
&er).
We -age
work bsfore
c~d
18 months.
stituses
employer
different
ad
no work, .- pa~time
before to tiU-tie
s-e
md timts
work for the sme
post-defive~
For intends
a findmentally
dassfitition
hous
tindow.
=d
ody
the percentages
&r
the b~
ae
labor
&om til-ttie
A
node.
breed on the
force b&tior
of the cMd.4
a small number of obsemations
work, =d
letbrs
each option at emh decision
for which we obseme
18 months
tith
to p-time,
It is
(espetiWy
whi~
have
each).
4N0ta that many women appear h the smple mo~ tia onw (they have sevwd bti
yems). We have mde no com=tiom for my indwed m=elation.
over the 12
15
‘“’k”ur’ngpregnancy
&Pati.trmti”ll-time
/
Work afier Chlldbitih (n~m)
~s~
B
88% / 12%
E
1
5s~h14?%
41%159Y.
F
Same EmPloyer (“olyes)
J
45-AI 55~h
G
c
Pan-tlm@ull-tlm,
Ffnal Satus
K
H
497. [5?%
41%[ 5s~h
30% I 70%
31%169%
78% I 22%
10
71
12
&
96
13
12345678
E&&
2169 169 2M
Ml
-II
W.0% 3.1Y. 4.4-A
8.1‘k 7.6-A1.6°h 3.1% 0.9% i 52-A 2.1Y. dS% i S% ?3.%
Peme.mge
Ustig
stituses
Final
the
Representation
shotihnd
md detisions
9
<t%/m%
Raw cell tint
Fig. &fiee
BP–Before
85
83
166
m
823 171
242
7M
of Systim of Logistic Re~essions
Pre~mW
ad
AC-&er
Chldbtih.
me
hd
=G
Shtus
1: No work BP or AC
2 -No work BP , p~ttie
work AC
3 -No work BP , ~-time
work AC
4- Ptittie
work BP , no work AC
5- Pti-time
work BP , pati-time work at Merent
employer AC
6; Pti-ttie
work BP, fill-ttie
work at different employer AC
7- P&-the
work BP , pti-ttie
work at sme employer AC
8- Pti-ttie
work BP , fill-the
work at same employer AC
9- Ml-the
work BP, no work AC
10- N-ttie
work BP , pti-tie
work at ~erent
employer AC
11- Fti-tie
work BP, fiU-time work at ~erent
employ= AC
12- N1-tie
work BP , p&tie
work at sme employer AC
13- N1-tie
work BP , ffl-ttie
work at sme employer AC
Decision
A
B
C
D
E
L
Points
- Work at M BP
- bong
those not working BP , work AC
- hong
those not wortig
BP, Ml or p@tfie
- Fall-time or p~-ttie
work BP
- hong
those worting p&ttie
BP , work AC
work AC
.—
16
F - ~o~
those wor~
different employs
G - bong
those working
pti-time
work
H - bong
those working
p-time
work
I - kong
those working
J - hong
those wor@
~erent
employer
K- hong
those working
p-time
work
L - bong
those working
time work
The dichotomous
logistic re~esaion.
were
wcha~g
procedure.
tith
working AC, return to the sme
pti-ttie
BP ad
retuting
p~-time
BP and returning b the sae
fi~-time
~aduate
-enfly
mfied,
BP ad
indude~
black,
&aactafitics
of the. mothers
black,
(16 or more
ye=s
of ay
yea,
pre-ts
whether
time or p~ttie
(node C).
ColUn
statuses.
we present
behatiors.
A comptison
representative
nmber
To tiaw
simtiations
m.-ed,
age ad
Table
equations
employer
or a
fi~-ttie
W-time
or
or pati-
by a weighted
two-step
ti levels md
ye=
titeracted
of biti,
national
Of edu=tion),
matied
vtiables
but not
were always
the intercept.
AnY other
from the second step.
on the NLS-Y s-pie
of
of a choic6 made at a node
Table C-1 shows Iogit coefficients
afier childbearing
relates
or
a stiple
once
estimatid
(node A in Fi~e
for
6) and for. those not worhg
(node B) and if this job was fiU-
the fill-fidpti-tke
of parameters
B-2).
of dl new mothws.
that interact
out these tipliations
of the distibutiori
of the obse~ed
for each ie~ (@ven
well (See Appendix
never
For example,
fow
fi~-ttie
choice for women
(node D).
a l=ge
interpreted,
probabiEties
6.
they worked
who worked before pre~acy
yield the obs-ed
age, age squared,
results for the predictors
in Fi~re
before pre~acy,
ustig
were entered
first child,
work before pre~~cy
The tables cont~
selected
less than 1.26 (p= O.50) was &opped
schematidly
the probability
were
In the second step the fo~oting
cdendm
Each col~n
represented
nodes is estiated
or
ti both the CPS and the NLS-Y md that
of education),
m intercept.
employer,
some coUege (i.&, 13 or more yeas
C presents the logistic re~aasion
new mothers.
to the sae
vtiables
~ISpmic,
high school tiopout,
Hispmic,
employer,
or a
fill-tie
to a different employer,
at each of the 12 decision
that were av~lable
with a t-stitistic
Appendix
retuting
ReWessors
-d
to a different employer,
fall-time BP and retuing
tioice
rati,
employer
full-time BP, work AC
til-.@e
B_Pand working AC, return to the s-e
for first b~
memplo~ent
vtiable
BP ad
At the first step the followtig
a dmmy
college
pati-time
covtiates)
However,
as noted
ways to
h a scale that is more eatily
6f women across dynmic
probabilities
the NLS-Y
in com”pficatid
in the NLS-Y
tith
labor form
the predicted
shows that the model fits the data
wher,
the NLS-Y
mothers
me not
17
To etirapolati
given btih
b the l~t
that they were
represmtative
as expe~ed
ttiee
to dl mothers,
that the NLS-Y saple
me
fist
estiate
the probabfities
fidy,
we mtitiply
the bfih).
btihs.
probabilities
of each
predictions
across tie CPS smple.5
V. ~S~TS
fid
yo~ger
stiti.
(so
the ctiadtiati~
bla&s,
thm the CPS smple
Mgh shool
We then use the system
of each choiw
the
Compatig
of the c~d
of
the new mothers h tie NLS-Y data, we fid
is cotiiderably
probabfity
hop-outs,
of lo~stic
di&otomous
The estimatas
we present
modds
b
h the CPS smpla
detision
below
those who wwe
re~ession
at each node for each worn=
at each
(more &
point
to field
me averages
the
of these
ON JOB CONTI~
To mderstmd
recmt
behtiors
then compmed
the
re~essiom
diffmences
before
NLS-Y dso over-represents
=d
in the 1990 June CPS who had
36 months md who were age 19 or over at tie bti
over age 18 a yea
never retied,
~lore
dl women
new mothers from the CPS tith
yeas).
mmket
we selectid
for women tith
to job mobfity
robustness
h
mothers’ job mobifity, we fist
~tie
the &matieristics
of demo~apticdy
of those
of new mothws
simflm
comparisons.
how job mobfity
present stidations
vties
smples
of d~mic
as of 1990, which me
of dl womem
Fin~y,
we use the
between
fist
~d
labor
system
later bfihs
We then
of logistic
md
tith
in education.
Job Contitity
Table 1 shows work statis
prior to pre~~.
The estiates
the Iogit re~essiom
chmackristics
after cbifdbtih
obsmed
on NLS-Y
(the colmns)
for new mothas
described
moss tibrdated
ti the left pad
above to m~e
predictions
by work titis
me ob~ed
for womm
by ustig
tith
the
for new mothers b tie CPS kr 1990.
5Appenti T&le B-3 mmpmes the weightad NLSY &b titb the ~tiapolation b the weightad CPS
popdation.
Compmed to the NLS-Y, the CPS has a smaller shine of women who work neither
before pre~cy
nor &er c~fiti,
a smaller stie
of women who work ~
tie
hfore
pre~mcy ad then stop worki~, and a lager she of women who work M tie before and &er
their prewancy.
18
Job Conttitity
for New Mothers ad
~)
Pati
None .._DM
Work before
pre~aw.
ta
Pati
Same
Table 1
for Demo~aphidy
Full
Diff
Fdl
Sme
New mothers — M months before bifi
None
Pa&time
fiH-time
Total
25.6
14.4
11.6
51.5
2.7
4.6
2.2
9.4
6.0
2.5
11.9
1.5
6.3
7.8
None
Ptitime
~-fie
Total
3.4
4.9
26.5
fiea
mm State
N1
~
Diff. Sme
Toti
bitih (18 months titwd)
53.2
28.1
16.9
5.2
5.5
15.3
..
.
2.3
22.1
5.9
45.4
. .....<
100.0
100.0
women — internal of 18 rnotiths
4.0
7.8
12.6
0.8
16L6__16.2
3.7
2.9
11.4
b 6 months tier
27.0
41.3
100.0
Non-Mothers
of Be for
~ti
Ptie
DM S-e
None
Total
0.6
18.8
19.4
N
Sitilm
15.0
10.5
3.7 22.6
25.7
46.9
29.4 100.0
16.5
6.3
‘17.8
26.8
34.2
1.8
16.4100.0
54.7100.0
NOTE:
Weighted tabulations &om the Jwe 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic re~ession
model. N1-time
work is 35 or more hours per week Columns refer h emplowent
twelve
months before c~dbtih.
Rows refer to emplowent
six months afier ctidbtih.
N=5793
The fist
thee
rows of the tdle
ph-ttie
or employd
til-ttie
represent
emplo~ent
status
womm
was not employed,
employed
p~time
employed
til-time
The fist
tith
tidex
whether
12 months
foUoting
employed
a different
a woma
before
delive~.
pal-time
gitig
ae
pmel
defive~.
pti-ttie
work when their timt
theti c~d
the pre~mq.
women
fill-time
However,
(71.9 percent).
the probability
Overfl,
-d
of theti child.
when their Mat
before the bifih (46.8 percent) =d
before the btih
bong
distb~sh
(as pr+pre~a~)
of Table 1 relates to women who gave btih
at work fo~oting
ti-time
The fist
tith
sae
employed
five colmns
whether
the
mployer,
employ=,
or
with a different employer,
to be labor force pticipmts
who worked
sme
employed
tbird of women were not working at all before the btih
udikely
bifi.
The colmns
tith
employer,
was not employed,
shows that nemly
one-
These women ae
ve~
is 6 months old+fly
of worhg
19.4 percent
was higher for women
even higher for women who worked
about hdf
of new mothers
(4S.5 percent)
is 6 months old.
who worked
is Sk monti
To exmine
in pre~acy,
the high propofion
old suggests that many women retin
how job continuity
who we working
whw
to the job they had prior b
differs by level of pre-pre~mw
work status,
19
tie five columns
on the right show distributions
women who worked
mong
ti-time,
ptittie
women who worked til-tie
More tha
basis.
before becomtig
PA-time
work by the ttie
employers.
How
this
does
demo~apbica~y
level
job
mobtiity
chmge
of Table 1) for women.
dso
workers
&age
ptity
were wor~g
for a different
pre~anq
hong
others.
retwn
an intemd
employer.
movement
&out
hdf
to fi~-tbe
kother
or a new employer.
were working
of 18 mon~s,
fti@ percent of the pa-tie
at the s-e
later.
give bitih.
or a new job.
bother
experience
a comptison
childbtih.
employer
over a
18 month
~dbfih
in the
preditiom
for women
Therefore,
the second
chmatieristim
bong
over h=
of pti-tie
43 permnt
boundq
for both new
before
to work on a pti-tie
before pre~mcy
basis.
those who re~ed
ctidbiti.
work, for
b
work, the vast
In contrast,
moved to ti~-tie
tend to move to fi~-tfie
their
were vew -dy
of these women were still worm
patitime
~-
18 months later.
33 percent moved to p-tie
following
or
women who work P*
sfightly more (56.57.) mtinttied
workers who did not give btih
Thus, women wor~g
of
we used
of young women who are wortig
pti-time
six months
Ody
general
was much WeaWr for women
20 percent retire
Women worting
p~tiie
h
the majority
(51.3 percent) of.new mothers who worked fi~=tie
work.
work &er
~oup
across the fill-time/pti-ttie
the sme
to full-tie
not re-ed
demo~aphic
Job stabfity
for the sae
status over m 18 month period.
majority
idaticd
on a ptitie
wortig,
employer
in the CPS.
high.
before the cument bitih) who differ ody in whether
fi~-time
montk
obsemed
the control WOUp who did not give bitih ody
to return
To protide
qtik
to the job they held
md 6 months @m
Over 80 percent (26.8+54.7=81.5)
There is considerable
ad
tie
status ad
f6r women tith
~er
time at a petit in time me stiU wortig
mothers
titb
The second panel shows that the contiol
jobs frequently.
who work Ml-the.
to retire
We then used this equation to m~e
of the new mothers
age, education,
not they had a Afld.
the
comp=e
in emplo~ent
in Table 1 shows job continuity
(race/ettitity,
employer,
those who w-e
to the 12 months before pre~mcy
with the chmatietistics
pael
of
data to estiate
ae
than 10 percent did so. More than htihad
simflm women who did not give btih?
period (equivalent
top pmel
were much less ~ely
their child was 6 months old. tiong
had chmged
the NLS-Y
to theti pre-pre~mcy
for
Table 1 shows that
before the bkth, levels of job continti~
workws
pre~~kfewer
work status sepmately
or not at dl before pre~=~.
60 percent of these women retm
or fall-time
of post defive~
more th=
work, eithw
p-tie
18
jobs, except if they
20
The data k Table 1 show that almost au (85%) new mothers
before the bitih ad
months
FMs
work fier
the btih
on either a W1-time
@amtee
Even tithout
mmket
retmn
or pti-time
of the tight to retmn
the protetion
comtitmwt
(those
mother
basis.
retain
One titerpretation
relativdy
who worked
til-time
before
is possible.
theti pre~mw’
or a longer leave, but to reti
leaves tha
the bti
tith
6
is that
pratiice.
this high labor
of their c~d)
Our model emphasties
titig
of the women
tithin
of this finding
etittig
both
did not
employers.6
inte~retation
employer,
our sti-month
employer,
few of the woma
ofien face a choice between
Perhaps
to the s-e
to the pre-leave job merely coties
of the FM,
to their pre-pre~m~
However,
of the @d,
who work fill-time
a shorter leave tha
cut-off is too shoti.
who retm
m~ retnkg
thek wages on a new job till
they would like, k order h return h
to a different job at lower w~es.
Perhaps at that intemd
to thek old employer,
allowed by their prewancy
jobs, stti
that new mothers
w~e
new jobs tier
be lower, it is possible that ttie
stice the bifi
almost au
women choostig
longer
the sk month cut-off.
Since
out of the labor force cmdd be
quite 10ng.7
To comider
the ret-off
this possibility,
is 18 months
longer titemd,
wortig
&r
2 shoting
few fill-ttie
6 =d
18 months
leave,
utihty
6~s
workers
(so the totil
employer.
information
internal k 30 months).
fill-tie
retmed
home
suggests
tbt
qtite
before the bitih ad
who me
with the restits
quictiy
in the int=vd
h retire
of lack of matafity
for even longer
over the twelve
In terns
month
tibwd.
to
leave.
long leaves or were defied
=Wment.
in FiWe
eighteen months.
few women who w=ted
from doing so be~use
does not seem ti be a plausible
hops
at this
to work for a new employer
wOmen chOse tO stay away from the wOrkplace
of staying
~~n,
This is comistent
that @ven that they could not tak
This however,
as Table 1, except that
does not tise much between sti ad
post-patium
jobs were prevented
It is possible
months.
have the sae
that labor forw patiicipation
theti pre~mcy
~Y
the bifih
the s=e
most women (79Yo) who were wortig
the btih
The fati tkt
between
tier
Table 2 repotis
the right to
tha
eighteen
of ow model, the
Most of the
not to say that they might not have prefefid longer leaves. The m~ent
of the model setion
w= that liti@d (or non-etistent) employer leave polities tight hve cawed tiem ti retm to
work emlier than they wotid have like~
71n the Imwge
of the model, for my
women 6 months is between eo and e%
21
women
who _
sfl
not working
at 18 months
presmably
above uses the Cemus
definition
have much tigher
utity
of
leiame,
The tiysis
how
presmted
per week.
However,
the ~
covers women wortig
of fill-time
20 hems
there many women wortig
20-35 hours before pre~mmy
option they do not c-ently
have to return h theti pre-prewmmy
Table 2 presents
hous
a week.
wortig
&
W-
of job continti~
tie
case tith
for women worm
the 35 hom
fomdy
who ~ently
protetid
20 hews
cmently
reti
we~acy
reti
by the FM
per week
reti
in l~ge
job?
Fewer thm
before
to N-tie
work
work ti-tie
after
fiw
md
tiH pmtide
~d
less th~
60 percent
employ=.
Thw,
pre-pre~n~
therefore
Under this dtition
childblfih.
childbtih
he
a
jobs
of
20
of women
the types
would
be
10 percent of the working women who work less
pre~aq
h theti old employer.
to theti
or more.
The second pmd
more thm
per week mhoff,
nmbers
a we&
for whom the FU
20 or more hours per week return to thek pr+pre~mmy
of women
thw
estiates
work as 35 or more
ad
Few
me
not mverd
by the FQ
as we~, most Ml-tie
women
who
most non-workem
worked
pti-tie
do not work at d
workem
before
fo~o~g
deEvev.
Table 2
Job Contitity
for New Mothers 18 Months -r
C~db&h
-d by Detition
of N-Time
Work
Statis &er
Fork
Work Before
Wemaw
None
Pti
DM
Pd
Sme
Childbtih
Full
DIff
Fdl
Same
% of Before ~em~m
(%1
Total
None
P&
DIff
New Mothers —18 Months tier
None
P&-tie
Fti-time
Total
5.0
18.6
39.6
11.3
3.5
19.2
1.7
8.9
10.7
7.5
3.5
12.9
0.0
17.7
17.7
25.5
52.2
100.0
19.6
35.7
25.6
144
1L6
51.5
2.7 46
1.5
2.2
6.3
7.8
9.4
3.4 6.0... 0.6
2.5
18.8
1L9
19.4
31.7
27.0
41.3
100.0
Ftil
Same ToM
CMdb~
44.4
6.6
6.7
17.1
29.3
6.7
0.0
33.8
100.0
100.0
—
New Mothws —Ftil-We=20+
None
P&tie
~U-time
Total
Pti
N
Same Diff
Sta~
25.6
14.4
11.6
51.5
hourtiweek
2.7 =
4.6
1.5
22
6.3
7.8
9.4
3.4 =
0.6
6.0
2.5
18.8
11.9
19.4
NO~
Wtightid
tabulations
from the Jtie
‘1990 CPS ustig MS-Y”” logistic
re~ession
model. ~U-ttie
work is 35 or more ho~s per week. Colws
refer to
amplowent
twelve months before c~dbfi.
Wws refer @ emplopent
sk months
&
ctidbtih.
N=5793
3L7
27.0
4L3
100.0
..
22
Job
Continuity
Differences
TMs setion
p~icipation
behatior
presmts
of mothers
Thin, for ex-pie,
age).
Table
bfihs.
presenti
Education
Gvel
by education
tbt
levd.
These
(e.g., first bitihs) tith
big~~t
&ermces
h
skuulations
compae
the
that of those h mother
In each rose, we allow dl the chmatiefitics
the r-tits
for women hatig
betie=
Mtsmatively,
at a time.
C. Appendix
md
ad
of labor force bhtior
h one catsgow
dl other &erences
to &=ge
tidations
rates by ptity
(e.g., second bfis).
~ea~r
by Patity
women
one codd
Restits
the smple
differences
The top panel presents
work status follotig
ad
patid
from those simdations
Table A-2 conttis
3 mines
-mine
me=
women
dso include the eff~s
at thek
effetis by dloting
are presented
=d
for the sub-~oups
in labor force pattsms
work statis
of the women to Amge.
thek second biti
at their fist
second btihs
ody
(e.g.
h Appenti
considered
btih
of
one covtiate
dismssed
sumomding
foUowing the fist
mtiww
the fist
below.
=d
md the botim
second
pand
the second btih.
Table 3
~.
None
P&time
Ffl-time
ToM
16:0
5.0
18.6
_39.6
4.4 _
1.7
11.3
3.5
8.9
19.2
10.7
1.97.5
3.5
12.9
0.0
17.7
17.7
22.3
25.5
52.2
100.0
71.8
19.6
35.7
19.944.4
6.6
6.7
17.1
8.3 ~
29.3
0.0
6.7
33.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
Second Bitih
None
Pti-time
Ftil-time
Total
25.3
20.8
8.5
54.5
2.4 ~
1.4
1.6
5.3
1.8
5.6
7.3
5.2
2.6
12.0
1.1
19.8
20.9
31.9
30.2
38.0
100.0
-d
None
Pti-time
~-tie
Total
36.1
17.2
7.7
61.0
1.3
0.9
1.4
3.6
0.9
4.3
5.3
4.2
5.3
1.2
10.7
0.8
18.8
19.5
41.6
25.0
33.3
100.0
79.3
68.9
22.3
7.4
~
4.6
4.1
5.9.. 17.1
14.7
6.7
3.5
52.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.8
68.7
23.0
3.0
3.6
4.2
3.8
12.9
‘1O.2
21.0
9.5
3.0
56.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
Btih
NO~:
Weighted t~tiations
from the Jme 1990 CPS using ~S~
logistic “re~ession
model. ~-tie
work is 35 or more hems per week. Colums
refer to emplopent
tielve
months before c~dbitih.
Rows refer to employmmt Sk month &r
Wdbtih.
N=5793
23
Before the birth of the first child, nealy
hdf of d
women work til-time.
work and ody
But tier
31 percent me working
80 percent of d
the first ctid
full.tbne
Work ratis inmeme
the fist
ow neti measure
kve
c~d
ad
dectied
pobts
about 8 percentage
lower thm bdore
months old.
The pre-
12 months prior to the d&ve~
date of
in the intmd
between
potits,
but raks
of til-ttie
more thm
etidence
tiee-qwrters
of heterogeneity
contrasts
for ti-time
me even stionger
to 38.0 percent.
bong
is mnsiderably
employer)
after the first btih
employer).
No*
dso tbt
-ong
of
of non-work
p@ttie
women.
Before the birth of
ae
worti~
b&ore
points lower (68.2=30.2+38.0).
work before pre~aW,
those who work full-tie
however, job contiuity
thm
fites
the bti
work me SM 14 permntige
of all women (77.7=25.5+52.2)
the fignre is 10 percmtage
sme
sti months tier
12 months prior to the second birth.
the birth of the second c~d,
percent
is &
the first birth.
Table 3 reveals considerable
their fust ad,
is born, ofly 60 percent of women
when the c~d
birth labor supply for the second birth is measmed
the second child.
wom.m work, md more h
wM&
declties
from 52.2
before theti second pre~aq,
higher (77.7 percent wortig
(64.3 percent worbg
ad
66.8 percent for the
and 50.9 percent fOr the sae
work, which grew &om pre-pre~mW
before the first birth to a level of about 30 percent”fi~oting
The
level of 25 percent
the dr~ bfih,
deches
mmkedfy
titer the second birth (horn 30.2 percent to 12.6 percent).
The third pael
heterogeneity.
of children
The percentage
iumeases,
time work tith
T&le
of women worbg
the sme
stiilm
comptisons
to continue
wortig
~er
more
education
expedatiom
=d
tith
more
fds
groups.
S& months tier
employer.
Wtite (1990).
to ody
the birth, 73 perc~t
~e more likely to return to the s~e
titigs
the
=e
21
~e much more ~ely
on re=g
fiese
&er
high school &op-outi.
high school graduafes
me not working.
the findings of Desti =d
b ti-
Both before ~d
do not work before the birth, in wntiast
trtitig,
of
as the nwber
re~g
Condition
on-the-job
etidence
parity.
across edu=tion
the birth of a c~d.
gradwtes
tith
tith
Fufiemore,
outs, but ofiy 47 percent of ~aduates
work, high s&ool
ti-time
me much more Ekely to work th=
of high school drop-outs
percent of high school gaduates.
md wortig
additional
of women who worked ti-tie
employer increases
high school ~aduates
hdf
to higher order births, fids
but the perwntage
4 presents
pre~anq,
Newly
of Table 3, relatig
of drop
to ~-tie
If we XSotiata
consistent
tith
ou
24
Table 4
of New Mothers, by Edutition
Job Continuity
Work After Ctildbtib(%)
Pti
Pam FuU fill
None Diff
Sae
Diff
Sme
Work before
pre~ancy
% of Before Prem~ m state
Pd
Pti
ml
mu
None
DIff
Same D~
Sae
Total
Total
Wgh School Drop-outs
None
Pat-time
Full-time
TOtd
~
48.1
11.6
12.9
72.6
2.1
2.8
.1.2
6.1
4.8
1.2
0.7
6.~”
1.0
3.8
4.7
0.3
9.6
9.9
~gh
None
Pd-tiie
FUU-ttie
TOtd
21.0
14.9
11.4
47.3
2.8
4.9
2.3
10.1
1.6
6.8
8.4
6.9
2.8
12.9
3.7
87.5
68:7”--16.4
45.9
4.3
,...
16.9
28.2
100.0
5.9
13.3
8.8
7.2
2.5
1.7
34.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.5
15.5
23.9
6.4
2.3
46.9
100.0
100.0
4.2
10..1
9.6
32.9
12.4
2.5
46.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
School Graduates
0.7
20.6
21.3
29.1
43.9
100.0
51.4
25.9
16.9
5.3
CoUege Graduates
None
Ph-time
Full-time
TOtd
14.1
17.2
10.9
42.3
3.7
4.4
2.8
10.9
1.9
11.8
5.5
19.2
1.5
4.5
6.0
19.7
35.8
44.5
100.0
0.9
20.8
21.7
71.7
48.1
24.6
18.7
12.3
6.3
NOTE: Weightid tabdations
from the Jme 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y Iogistilc re~ession
model. Fall-time work is 35 or more hours per week. Columns refer to emplopent
twelve months before c~dbitih.
Rows refer to emplo~ent
sti months afier c~dbti.
N=5793
Siti=ly,
worting
retmn
compared
fu~-time
to work
~aduates,
me stiflm
to stitch
ffi-time
employer,
me somewhat
to Ml-time
section,
leave le~slation.
before
md ~er
matefity
Condition
college gaduates
on fall-time
to those of high school
CoUege ~aduates
In the pretious
matetity
high school ~aduates,
before the pre~acy.
college ~aduates
not working.
more ~ely
tith
we presented
Those restiti
the bfih
leave legislation,
ctildbtih
esttiates
suggested
of a child ~e
ad
pditi~ly
before
b
theti rates of
Compared
to be worki~
who work patitime
work &r
work statis,
~aduaks.
more ~ely
me as likely to be
h
pal-time
the pre~ancy
high school
rather tha
=e
somewhat
me high school women.
of job
contitity
that, bwause
&eady
reting
the federd
b
the absence
most women
of
who work
to their pre-preW~cy
FLA, me ufliely
to have
I
25
major effects on job contitity.
leave legislation,
contiui@
In this section, we suggest
and in pticdm
The legislation’s
covemge
The FLA was deliberately
employers
passage
ad
employees
to
continuously
titbin
be
12 months.
protides
did not accomt
to btild
the
Finally,
coverage
for feww th-
for the job tmure
We dete-e
of the chifd.
Wmmtses,
ye=/52
weeks).
To kco~orate
We qlore
To detemtie
the mitimu
etigiiflity
woma
12 month
must
flow
have
more thm
for %gMy
titi
been
1250 hommpemated
this workplati
hdf
of dl workers.
The
that a 50 employee
Howevw,
the GAO estiak
k
setion
ske =d
Watus a yew before defive~
tenure
asb
reqtiement,
fm
dze
ho-
the
per week
over
if she W= worhg
=d
1250 hems per
we compme
(24 months before the bfih).
about
to estimate
for each womm
(here defined as 24 hems per week
the
sent
~dy,
h mo~
for the employer
as of the
effects of the &m size exemption” for the subset of-es
for the FLA, we estirnati
tree shorn
bsfore
M“dbtih.
in Fi~e
7.
the systim
In the nti
level we esttiate
If she qufied
if she was at work 24 months before the bitifi.
K she worked for a fim
tith
of logistic
ID the fist levef we
number of hems (24 or more hems per week).
we detemtie
esttiate
exception
h
she dab.
h the detision
Ievd,
employee
Becker, 1989) estimatd
the job
the ~S-Y
mm~ponding
work
stiong
50 or more workers.
nd
12 months ealier
1981-1985),
for which we have fm
sticient
m
tith
From that point we C= identfi
or not she was working fill-time
(but not
stitiently
to mployers
consider the job tenme,
whether
intetiew.
a codtion
Tbe Est of -emptid
to those of the pretious
the employment
to the employer
on job
requtiemmt.
These estimatis
age 19 at the hfih
yeas
some employers.
there is =
Office (uted h Letioff
of the ~
tbesholds.
employer
ody
A&s
In this section, we apply methods s~a
coverage
h have major effecti
those who receive the top ten percent of ea&gs
General Accomting
tieshold
desi~ed
by
is tiiely
over the past year and must have worked
the pretious
&ditiduds=:
to cover ody
The FLA applies
covered
-ployed
FM,
reason why matetitY
is fm horn tiversd.
crtied
wm
of the legislation.
Futiemore,
the federd
~other
reflessions
estiati
if tie
on hews
if the
worked
a
at the neti
At the lowest level, we
at least 50 workers.
I
26
A
&&
Work B&ore
Pregnancy (no/yes)
37Y. 1 63”k
B
Pa fl-timelFuIl-time
(~4 hour#>*4houm)
Job Tenure
(<12 months/>=12
23°k 177%
c
months)
Firm Size
(*O employeeti
>=50 employees)
32% 168%
%7. 165%
D
F
41 ok I 59V.
9TA I 37.
Final Status
5
Cell Percentage
Fig. % ~ee@presentation
E
36.99.
of-
5.0%
8.8%
Coverage
0.390 .15.470
~tiapolated
Ftid
Stati
1 -No work before pre~a~
(BP)
2- Pati-tiie
work BP, job tenure less thm 12 months
3- P-time
work BP, job tenwe ~eatir th~ 12 months,
4- Pti-ttie
work BP, job tenure ~eater thm 12 months,
5- fill-tine
work BP, job tinure less than 12 months
6- fill-time
work BP, job @nwe ~eatsr than 12 months,
7- W-tie
work BP, job tenme ~eatir than 12 months,
fim
fim
13.370
to CPSS~ple
size less thm 50 employees
size 50 or more employees
firm size less thm 50 employees
fim size 50 or more employees
Decision
Points
A - Work at d before pre~aq
(BP)
B - fi~-ttie
or ptitime
work BP
C - hong
those worbg
pti-time
BP, job tenure ~eater or less b
12 months
D - bong
those wortig
pati-tie
BP md tith job tenwe of 12 months or more, h
Weater or less th
50 aployees
E - bong
those wortig
Ml-the
BP, job tenme ~eater or less thm 12 months
F - bong
those worting fill-time BP ad titb job tenue of 12 monti
or more, fim
~eater or less th~ 50 employees
FoUoting
logistic
re~es&ons
re~estions
because
a procedure
sW=
for ea&
for the brzches
these women
wotid
to that of the pretious
node of the tree (h
Fi~e
setion,
7).
below pa~tie
work beawe
not be revered
by FM
20.490
we estimated
We do not repoti
the smple
due to the hews
Aze
size
weighted
the logistic
sties me smd
md
of work retistion.
27
Ag~n,
we &op
ay
vtiable
(which for these mdy~s
then
usd
to stidate
women.s
These ~e
with a t-statistic
below 1.28, wcept
does not include time or tie-squmed).
the popdation
show
in Fi~e
percentages
7.
for a fist of key vtiabl=
The logistic re~es<o~
for the represtintitive
Complete
logistic re~ession
~
CPS s-pie
resdts
of
me avtil~le
upon request.
The etiapolations
working
a ye=
the hems
hours,
ody
hours
md
eligible.
ody
to the CPS data show that about 63 percent
before the btih
of the ctid
(Node A).
per week requirement
of 24 hous
per week (Node B).
68 percent
tenure
Ody
meet the 12 months
requirements
59 percent
20 percent
of dl
elimfiate
meet the fim
women
md
tenure
Of those who work, 77 permnt
for nemly
size requirement
31 percent
(Node E).
h~
meet
Together,
of those
of 50 employees
of M wortig
=e
Of those who work enough
requirement
eligiblhty
of new mothem
women
the
who remtin
(Node F).
Thus,
me covered
by the
legislation.
Each of the conditions
the hours
percent
requirement,
(.68 x .59).
ae
eltiinates
a majority
the t=me
women worti~
pti-time
til-time
workers
and fire-size
of women,
workers
me ofly
requirements.
but together
Most wortig
the coverage
23 perwnt
bong
they efitiati
6 show the effecti of covfiates.on
tiven ch=acteristiw
Each COIU-
ra@
is ody
of the toti,
Ml-time
co~erage
represents
mverage.
40
the red
workers,
neither
for 60 percent
who meet the efigibfity
women tith
Table 5 presmts
requti-ent
@ven charaderistics.
bong
second btihs
me more likely to be covered than first bitihs, but ttird btis
be covered.
~gh
education
women meet
of
til-ttie.
Tables 5 ad
tiee.
to ttis low coverage rate.
but even -ong
Bemuse
constitints
d] women tith
contributes
school
hop-outs
me less Ekely to be covwed
(22 percent vs. 33 percent for high school ~aduates,
tha
those tith
the per~t
of
at each node of the
dl wor~
women,
me less ~ely
those
tith
b
more
some co~ege, =d
co~ege ~aduates)..
women
for tie
NLS-Y
NLS-Y
‘Table B4 shows tbe percent of women at each br~ch of the tiss. Ths fist mlshows the s~ti
of
obsemed ti the NLS-Y. The second cola
comp=es the obsemed da~ tith the pmdibd fiquenties
NLS-Y data The model fib the NLS-Y dati qti~ well, as he mmpation ad predckd value for the
shown h Appenti Table B4 indicates. figwe B 1 ti the appenti shows the tie estiakd
on tie raw
data.
28
~
Second
Child
58,88
74.21
55.92
7.56
75.19
65.78
Frst
CMId
81.48
.87.17
51.78
0.20
._. 58.69
58.97
Node
A
B
c
D
E
F
““”
Percent Covered hong
Ml New Mothem
Workers
Full-time Workers
NOTE: N covtiates
recent mothers.
Ptid
Comptisons
wtiti
Table 5
Women tith Given Chmacteristics
ma
~ch
Ttird or
s&;Ol
s&;Ol
Some
More C~d
Drop-out
Grad
COUege
. ..4823
39..28.
67.92
72.57
69.32
80.25
76.38
71.90
57.37
41.14
57.76
64.79
7.79
0.58
....6.09” ““” 5.45
69.80
.49.74
71.63
74.39
52.36
56.15
59.93
62.08
N
v~
effects
of v@ng
one (or two) covtiates
are made relative
high stiool
be covered
U22
8.80
24.56
21.61
25.33
22.41
30.17
36.70
36.55
27.93
34.61
49.46
.—.
from case to case. Subsmples
are Mb
June
~aduate.
by MM
th=
blacks me more ~ely
work for lmge fis
22.27
32.79
42.93
1990 CPS saple
at a time are, presented
Table 6 shows that black women me comiderably
(56 percent
to be wortig
fu~-ttie
vs. 39 percent).
25.23
33.18
49.10
24.10
33.20
46.18
ad
married
the fact that
more Wely
(76 percent vs. 62 percent).
P~ial
A
B
c
D
E
F
Perunt Covered
~ New Mothers
~ Workers
Ffl-ttie
Workers
NOTE:
Base Case
Effeds
Table 6
on Coverage Under FM
Base
Case
59.65
81.83
54.92
11.92
76.92
61.92
Black
60.10
95.77
6491
56.85
77.72
75.71
Never
Marned
47.37
81.83
54.92
11.92
67.39
61.92
23.25
38.97
47.63
33.87
56.35
58.84
16.17
34.15
41.73
second bitih h a 27-yem-old
Not
Wed
59.65
90.51
34.88
11.92
64.57
61.92
21.59
36.19
39.98..
retied
&e 19
ls;Btih
71.80
75.53
16.89
0.00
27.22
55.00
8.12
11..3.1.
14.97
6.
more Ekely to
This is due b
(96 percent vs. 82 percmt)
of
in Table
to the base case of a second bifih to a 27-yem-old,
wfites
COUece
Gra~
76.05
67.57
71.56
4.59
79.02
62.14
tie 32
lst-Biti
89.57
91.72
8L06
0.00
85.32
58.80
41.21
46.01
50.17
tie 32
2nd
Btih
68.75
78.04
80.94
0.69
92.90
63.33
31.57
45.91
58.83
white high school ~aduate.
h
29
Coverage
retied
is most Ekely for the wmently
(39 per=nt
for tidows
ad
rdda) became
for the wmently
divorwes).
retied,
covered due to the ~eater
Nelihwd
~ti,
tith
36 percmt
mothers
older mothers
first bifis
(19-yem-
(32-yem-olds)
me more Mely
to be
stitis.
sensitive to demogaptics.
older mothers me more ~ely
of education
Conversely,
(one ye=).
of til-ttie
coverage is not ve~
due to tie comelation
~.
34 percent for the never retied,
job tenme.
almost always have the required tinure
both blacks ad
md least Wely for those who ~e never
Coverage is clemly lower for the ve~ yomgest
they do not have sough
In summ~,
mded
The major vtiation
to be covered.
Effests of edumtion
is that
=e motiy
age at bitih of a child.
Conclusion
The last ho
decads
the early seventies,
of one-month-old
working.
have seen radid
work -ong
ctitien
new mothers was a rtity.
me employed.
The difference
is the lmge
unpaid leave tapers off quic~y.
its long-tern
changes h the work patte~
Ody
nuber
about
level (i.e., it is ne=ly
the s=e
This use of ptid and unpaid leave comtitites
herican
employers.
women my
federd
at the fedwd
ret-
statute,
mothers
bong
one h fom h the state le~slation).
show high levels of job contiuity
those women who work fill-time
(whether
employer.
the labor force me wortig
the number of women ret-g
18-months-old
of the FM
then reti
factig
This fi~e
or not they =e mothers).
ae
to fill-time
Therefore,
~eady
tico~orated
to their ori~d
the c=e,
most women.
actidy
leave.
betieen
at
W md
24
leave poliq
of
to ~matee
that
months (thee
of work pattern
employer
This
work & n-ly
employers
Our mdyses
ue
mptid
of c~tien
leave of sev=d
h the
of new
even prior to the W
is born, over 60 percent reti
comparable
The majority of frdl-ttie
employer
ad
h
of W mothers
of them
the de facto matetity
before theti c~d
is rougtiy
hti
is ttiee-months-ld,
with the s-e
for the s=e
is small.
on ptid
state level now requires
to thek old jobs aRer a matedty
work for the s-e
tifomly
ad
10 percmt
for mothers
months).
Legislation
Today newly
of women
By the time the ctid
of new mothers.
with the fi~e
for fl
to
women
workers who do not *OP out of
they had before de~vew.
work between the time thti
fitihemore,
titien
=e
6- nd
we conclude thnt for most new mothem the reqtiementi
tito mment
employers.
bwtiess
This statement
but rather that the legislation
mere~
practice
women tie
leave =d
b tiply
that this b
is not meat
codifies st=dad
business
pratice
30
Fmfly
leave legislation..may
& we emphmized
dfect
longer leaves fier
Emited
the amount
of leave.
women
may ‘chose”
the shorhleave.
period &r
leaves,
the FM
wortig
for small firms (fewer thm
being reluctat
emmple,
to Cmb
Gmbw’s
reduced
behatior.
or quittkg
stitily
thek job,
of worting
Ofiy
rese=~
that covem
the
this question.
Leave Act,
shoti job tinure
wfich
excludes pati-time
(under a yew),
We estimate that ody
women
are covered
md those
about 20 percent
by the legislation.
If
b avoid the law, coverage could be even lower (e.g., hiring 49
of tidbetig
Wall Street
of Leave Law:
(1992) stidy
age; see Heabbe
Saddkerm
Journal,
5, 1993, Bl).
of the effetis for mandating
health tisumnce
emplowent
but that employers
shofileaves
longer leaves.
can adhess
to hire women
Impad
employer-sponsored
md
tde
50 employees).
or 30 percent
adjust their bebtior
Tg
m=ket
@ven the right under the new laws. h longer
24 hours per week), those tith
new mothers
fires
dl
of vq
the coverage of the federal Fmily
(less tk
workers,
of their c~&en,
Perhaps
was implemented
workers
employers
the bti
Given the ‘@oice”
new mothers
We dso ex-ine
of W
of women’s-labor
b om model, it is possible that, prior w the new laws, women would have
liked ti have tden
job protectid
other dimensions
P1=s,
=ong
eligible
found etidence
womm
h
Au@st
coverage of rnatemi~
that employers
ordw
to
avoid
“Small
For
benefits in
inmemed
the
hours
legislative
requirements.
Ou
limiting
computations
coverage.
suggest that the hems
Most pti-time
the firm size requirements.
size requirement.
labor force pattim
yew
of tenwe
the FLA.
me-
constraints
conclude
for new mothers.
that women tith
These women me ~eady
is not ve~
workers would not satisfy the tenme
The binbg
We therefore
of work requtiement
me the tenwe
that the FLA codifies, b
impotiant
reqtiements
requhement
a lmge
The limitation
of coverage to til-tfie
the geatest
labor force corntitrnent
quite likely to return to theti pre-pre~anq
ad
in
anWor
the fia
extent, tisttig
workers
tith
me coverd
jobs.
a
by
–31
-
Appendlx
SAMPLE
A
~ANS
Table Al
Smple
Statistiw
for NLSY md CPS S-pies
ad
the B~e
NLSY
Black
Hisptic
Year
Wem)2
Unemployed
Age
(Age)2
HS Drop Out
Some COUege
COUege
Graduate
Not Mtied
Never Mded
Retiom
C~d 1
Eetious
CMd 2+
Ftist X Black
fist x
mspdc
FlrM x Yew
Firti x (Yw)2
First x
Unempl
Ftist x Age
fist x (Age)2
Ftist X HS
Dropout
Ffist x Some
COUege
Ftist x CoUege
Graduate
Ftist X Not
Mtied
Ftist x Never
MAed
Case
CPS
Unweighed
Mea
0.2771
0.1958
83.9450
7054.11
7.3038
2L2575
597.3804
0.3188
0.2456
0.0731
Weighted
Me=
0.1686
0.0619
84.0579
7073.07
7.2571
24.5936
613.8418
.0.2406
0.2740
0.0876
Weighted
Std. Dev.
0.3744
0.2742
2.7099
454.5517
1:3252
2.9997
149:8643”
0.4274
0.4460
0.2828
0.0937
0.2333
0.5614
0.0848
0.1531
0.5252
012786
0.3601
0.4994
0.1033
0.1343
0.6647
0.3043
0.3410
0.4721
0
0
1
0.2072
0.1723
0.3776
0.3124
0.4635
0
0.1054
0.0817
0.0634
0.0338
0.2437
0.1808
0.0359
0.0322
0.1861
0.1766
0
0
36.5952
3056.79
3.2561
39.7081
3324.34
3.4936
41.6043
3510.34
3U7866
30.1777
2716.00
1.8107
42.488S
3823.99
2.5493”
0
0
10.3002
245.6390
0.0911
11.3251
274.2268
0.0748
12.0818
305.0118
0.2630
8:7790
237.2243
0.0341
12.6552
366.6132
0.1815
0
0
0.1417
0.1610
0.3675
0.1636
0.3699
0
0.0472
0.0568
0.2315
0.0859
0.2802
0
0.0240
0.0265
0.1606
0.0268
0.1614
0
0:4756
0.0815
0.2736
0.0582”
0.2342
0
Weighted
M=n
0.1458
0.116590.0006
8100
5.40
27.7500
796.089~
0.1670
0.4237
0.2040
Weighted
Std. Dev.
0.3529
0.3212
0
0
0
5.1018
297.1577
0.3729
0.4941
0.4030
Base
Case
0
o
90
6100
5.4
27
189
0
0
0
0
0
–32–
Ttile
Smple
A2
Means for CPS Subs~ples
~rst
Second
fid
Child
CMld
CMld
HSDO
HSG
CG
Black
.1071
.1368
.1975
.2005
.1348
.0610
Wptic
.0961
.1070
.1501
‘.3184
.0764
.0407
1
o
o
HSDO
.1017
.1453
.2614
.4878
.4447
Soco
.3312
0
.5086
1
.2561
.2124
.2449
COGR
.1388
0
1 .. . .
MamSpP
.7465
.8065
...7297
.5561
..8037
.9293
MmNot
.0?98
.0859
.1481
.1618
““”.0916
.0382
,1047 ....
.1737
.1076
.1222
.2821
timNev
.0325
Child2
0
1
1
.7958
.6384
..5792
Child3
0
0
1
.4693
.2770
.2126
Bla&l
..1071
0
0
.0215
.0388
.0162
Hisp 1
.0961
.0
0
.0661
.0254
.0187
Yew 1
“90.0000
0
0
18.3780
32.5426
37.8704
.29=,84..
0
0
1654:02 “““
Ye= Sgl
6100.0
3403,33
1.1027
1.9526
Unempl
5.4000
0
Q
2.2722
Age 1
26:1818
0
o
4.8567
9.5651
12.2131
0
260.8536
Age Sgl
707.4813
0
119.3250
360.3183
o.
..1017
0
.2042
0
0
HSDO 1
Soco
1
.4878
0
0
0
.1964
.4208
.1031
COGR 1
.2561
0
0
0
.4208
MamNOtl
.0798
0
0
.0209
.0279
.0127
M=Nevl
.1737
0
0.
.0773
.0544
.0239
Yem
90.0000
90
90
90
al.%
Slfi
Ye=Sq
8100.00
6100
8100
8100
Unempl
5.4000
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Age
26.1818
27.5361
29.5639
25.8679
28.1272
30.6514
707.4813
760.3974
908.8661
695.6780
816.2132
956.9756
&eSq
N
1940
2052
1801
4905
1221
888
NOTE:
Table presents the saple
mess
for subsaples
of recent btih
h the
June 1990 CPS. Columns are
First CWd – N fist btihs
Second Ctid – N second bifis
Third Child – fll third (or higher) order bkths
HS DO – Ml High School Drop-outs (12 or less ye=s of schootig)
HSG – Ml those tith erectly 12 ye=s of comple~d edumtion
CG – Ml those titb 16 or more yeas of mmpleted edumtion
Most smple
members we included h two columns (one for their ptity,
one for
their education
WOUE the reception
is those tith
13-15 ytis
of completed
schooltig, who me not ticluded in a schooling ~up).
SOCO - Some COUege
COGR - CoUege Graduate
–33–
Appendix
SUPPORTING
B
T~~S
Table B1
NLS-Y Unweighed
vs. Weightsd
Vnw ei~hted (7.)
Not working
Worting
<35 hours, different aployer
Work <35 hours, S=e
Employer
Work >35 hems, Merent
employer
~
63.3
60.5
6.7
7.5
6.1
6.3
9.3
10.4
Work >35 hems, S~e
Employer
14.6
15.3
NO~:
Wsighted tabdations
from the NLS-Y. Weights =e 1979 sap~
weights.
fill-time
work is 35 or more hours per week. Coluns
refer to
emplo~ent
Sk months before c~dbtih.
ROWS refer to -plo~ent
Sk
months ~r
childbtih.
TAle
B2
Work Statm Before md Mer CWdbtih
Comparison
of Actual ad Predi&ed Frequwties
None
Pti-time
Ftil-time
Total
None DM
34.3
3.3
8.7
1.6
17.5
2.4
60:5
7.5
Sae
Diff
0.6
14.5
15.3
Total
17.1
41.2
100.0
None
Diff
Sqe
DM
S-e
ToM
1.6
8.7
1.7
4.2
0.8
17.1
2.4
17.5
4.7
2.2
145
41.1
7.56.3
10.4 45.3 100.0
60.5
NOTE: Weighted tidations
horn the NL&-Y. Weights me 1979 sapling
weighti.
FuH-time work ti 35 or more hours per week.
Columns refa to emplopent
&
monti
before ctidbitih.
ROWSrefer to emplo~ent
six months ~r
~dbtih.
1.7
4.6
..6.3
4.1
2.2
10.4
Sme
–34–
Table B3
Work Stabs Before =d Mter CWdbfih
fiedi~ed
Frequencies for NLS-Y ad CPS Smples
Work before
pre~ancy
None
PA-time
fi~-time
Toti
None
34.3
8.7
1.7.5
60.5
~S-Y
Preditilons
Percent WOrki~ fier
Ctidbitih
Pd
Pti
fill
Ftil
D,ff
Same Diff
Sa& Total
4.141.7
3,34.1
0.8
17.1
1.8
1.7
4.6
2.2
14.5
41.2
2.4
6.3
10.4 .15.3 100.0
7.5
1990 CPS Wedictions (%)
Percent WOr~
Mer
CMdbtih
PA
~a . ...mm
‘-
None
Diff
S“mi” DW. Sme ToW
3.431.7
25.6
2.746.
. L5
6.0
0.6
27.0
14.4
11.6.
2.2
6.3
2.5 18.8
41.3
51.5
9.4
7.8.
11.9
.19.4
NOTE: “Weighted tabulations from the June 1990 CPS.usfig NLS-Y lo~stic re~eision
modd.
Fall-tie
work is 35 or more hems per week. Columns refer to emplo~ent
twelve months before c~dbirth.
ROWS refer to emplo~ent
eighteen month
*r
ctildbifi.
N=5793
100.0
-35–
Table B4
~
~d
Obs~ed
ivht
Predicted
~U
Redic@d
% of women
. ..
NO work Before Pre~mcy
P&time
Work Otiy
P-time,
LT 50 employees
Ptitime,
GT 50 employees
fi~-time,
LT 12 months
h~-time,
GT 12 months, <50
mployees
Ffl-time,
GT 12 months> 50
40.36
4.64
2.68
1.10
21.05
13.11
17.06
100.00
40.3s
4.66
....2.19
1.60
21.00
13.05
.36.87
4.99
8.82
0.30
15.36
13.31
17.M
..1OO:OO
20.35
100.00
% of women at ead
A - worting
59..64
B - if~ hours >24 hems
85.88
E -if B, have 12 month tenure
58.,90
56.55
F -if E, firm sim >.50
NOTE:
1-7 ““””Percentage in Find Stak
A-D Permntage in Lefi Branch
(less fikely to be covered by FM)
COIWS
do not sum to exactly 100.0% bemuse
59.52
84.36
54.90
55.61..
of rountig
node
63.13
77.03”
67.98
59.30.
..—
—.
–36–
Covemge
of FLA
A
A
Work Before
PreQnancy (“dyes)
40% ! 60%
B
Pan-timti”ll.ume
(@4 hourslti4ho”rs)
9% I91-A
Job Tenure
(<12 month&12
c
E
56-A (M%
42?. 158Sh
montis)
Fl,m Hz,
(60 employesl
tio
emplopes)
D
n% /2m
final Stare,
1
~i~;
Raw Cell Count
C41 Percentage
Fig. B-1:
free
2600
147
2.8Sk
Representation
BP, job
BP, job
BP, job
BP, job
BP, job
BP, job
234
40.470
Using the shorthand BP–Before
statuses -d detisions we
Find Status
1 -No work BP
2- P-time
work
3- Pti-time
work
4- Pati-time work
5- Full-time work
6- Ml-time
work
7- RU-time work
F
tinure
tenure
tenwe
tenwe
tenure
tenure
Rep=q
of ~
4%/
557.
567
%
13
1385
330
1.6W 0.6Sh
Z.7%
Coverage
for -w
md AC-tir
less tha 12 months
~eater tha 12 months,
~eater thm 12 months,
less tkn 12 months
~eakr than 12 months,
~eatir than 12 month,
U3
14.1v. 17.57.
CMdbti.
NS-Y
Data
The find
fim sue less tha”50 -ployees
firm size 50 or more employees
fim size less tha 50 employees
firm size 50 or more employees
Decision
Points
A - Work at afl .B.P.
B - N-ttie
or p-time
work BP
C - Among those worh.ng ptitime
BP, job tenure ~eakr
Or less th12 month
D - Among those worki~ pti-time
BP and with job tenure of 12 months or more, fim size
geatw
or less b
50 employees
E - Among those wortig
Ml-time BP, job tenure WeaWr or less thm 12 months
F - Among those wortig
fill-time BP ad tith job tame
of 12 months or more, &
size
geatir
or less thm 50 employees
-37–
LOGIS~C
MG~SSION
CO~W
Dete~mts
Decision Point
Intercept
by
Black
=sp~ic
Work =0~
-24.0
(46.6)
-0.028
(0.067)
-0.131C
(0.068)
-1.697a
(0.587)
o.oloa
(0.003)
Yew
Unemplo~ent
Rate
Age
o.059a
(0.013)
Age Squmed
School Drop out
Some COUege Credit
-0.348a
(0.059)
o.173a
(0.065)
College Graduati
Not Mtied
Never Mtied
-0.288a
(0.059)
One Pretious
CMd
Ro
CMtien
~etiow
93.72C
(52.68)
-o.335a
&055)
Note: *a= P<O.O1; b=p<05; c=Pc.1O
FOR JOB
Table Cl
of Work Before ~egum@
(&o@t Coefficients ad Stad=d
.._A
. B
Node
~gh
Append~C
P~
~R
ES~~S
AN&YSIS
Emors)
If NO Work Prior.
wo~k &r?.
‘
36.7
[47.4)
0.127
(0.086)
—–=.c
If No Work ~or
md Work tier
fig ~me
-17.0
(7.7)
0.242
(0.194)
1.067
(1.157)
-0.00.6
(0.007)
-0.082C
(0.046)
-0.029C
(0.017)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.101
(0.082]
~Work ~or.
Ml tie?
‘
-9.644
(2.280)
0.068b
(0.034)
0.000
(0.000)
0.418a
(0.118)
0.203C
(0.106)
-0.046a
(0.014)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.038
(0.034)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.060a
(0.018)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.176a
(0.065)
0.000
(0.000)
.0:294
-o.440a
(0.149)
“-0.042
“(0.239)
-0.091
(0.106)
D.
o.202b
(0.082)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
(0.204)
-o.510a
(0.119)
0.000
(0.000)
o.225b
(0.103)
0210
(0.158)
-8.128b
(3.268)
12.169C
(7.318)
E.318a
(2.189)
o.421b
[0.4?3)
-o.204b
(0.089)
-0.218a
(0.079).
.._. ,,...
—
–38–
Table Cl (continue@
(b~t
Coefficients Work and Stm&d
Emors
Detemti~ts
of Work Before Pre~mcy)
c
A
B
If NO Work ~lor
If no Work Wor,
and Work After,
Work After?
FW me
&y Work
0.000
““.
0.635C
-o. 168C
(0.000)
(0.372)
(0.101)
Node
Detision
Black*l
Petit
Hisptic*l
Yem*l
Ye=
Squmed*l
Une”mploment
Rate*l
&e*l
Me
Squaed*l
mgh S&OOl DroPout*l
Some COUege Credit*l
2.041
(1.279)
-0.012
(0.008)
-0.059
(0.037)
o.7Q9a
(0.152)
-o.o14a
(0.003)
-o.lggb
(0.097)
-o.210b
(0.094)
CoUege Graduate*l
Divorced*l
-o.319a
(0.116)
Never Mtied*l
Note “1 tidi~tes
interaction tith
a= p<O.Ol; b=p<.05; c=P<.1O
D
If Work %or,
fiU Tree?
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000}”
0.000
(0.000)
-0.538a
(0.164)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000]
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
1.105C
(0.622)
o.997a
(0.177)
-0.025C
(0.013)
0.000”
(0.000)
-o.o19a
(0.004)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0,000
(0.000)
0.0.00
(0.000)
0.301
(0.192)
.o..o.o&(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
o.lo8b
(0.052)
-o.739a
(0.272)
o.o15a
(0.006)
-o.352b
(0.154)
0.000
(0.000)
0.195
(0.170)
first birth indimtor
0.000
(0.000)
o.456b
(0.180)
.0.000
(0.000)
-0.313
(0.190)
–39–
Table C2
Detemtits
WOrtig
Node
E
Detision Point
Intercept
z67.3b
(108.0)
0.465
(0.211)
-o.126b
(0.201)
FIisptic
Yw
Ye=
Squared
Unemplo~ent
Rate
&e
&e
Squared
Mgh School Drop-Out
Some COHege Cre&t
CoUege Graduate
Divorced
One Pretious
5.2ggb
(2.278)
-0.032
(0.014)
-0.178
(0.095)
o.099a
(0.032)
0.000
.(0.000)
-o.255b
(0.128)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.717a
(0.208)
0.000
(0.000)
Never Mtied
Ro
(Lo@t Coefficients
F
Work ~ter?
Black
CMd
of Work Mer Childbtih for Those
Pa+tbe
Prior b Pre~~W
-489.1a
(143.6)
PretiOus CW&en
-0.190
(0.148) .. .
Note: * - p<O,Ol; b=pe.05; c=P<.1O
ad
Return to Sme
.Employer?
3.776
(2.568)
-0,311
(0.221)
-o.u3b
“(0:330)
-0.087
(0.037)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0:000)
0.158a
(0.0s9)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.058
(0201)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.553
(0.435)
-0.093
(0.205)
0.000
(0.000)
Standzd
Emors)
_
.__.
If Ret-to
Different
Employer, Work
Pti-ttie?
-36.0
(13.6)
0.628
(0.390)
0.268
(0.474)
,.
.
H
G.
‘“
If Retire to S=e
Employer, Work
P&tie?
-523.8
(324.5)
0.533
(0.330)
0.443
(0.505)
0.110
(0.079)
0.114
(0.079)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
.o.127C
(0.072)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000.
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000..
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000]
0..000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
““““
:
Omoo
(0,000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.00
(0.00)
0.000
(0.000)
2g.63b
(13.47)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.130b
(0.059)
0.000
(0:000)
0-000
(0.000)
..=
0.000
(0.000)
–40-
Tdle
C2
Determin=ts
of Work After Childbfi
for Those
Worbg
Pad-time Prior to Prep~cy
(LO@t co~cients
Node
E
Detition Petit
Bkck *1
Hisptic
*1
Ye~*l
Ye=
Squared*l
UnemplO~ent*l
&e*~
Age Squared*l
Work ~er?
--:o”~g
(0.279)
0.000
(0.000)
-a.22a.
(3.49)
0,074
(0.021)
o.410a
(0.131)
1.293
(0.360)
-0.029
(0.007)
Mgh School Dropout* 1
0..000
(0:000)
Some College Credit*l
.0.000
(0.000)
COHege Graduate*l
o.505b
(0.229)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
Divorced
Never Mtied
.,
‘
ad
Stadmd
F
&tum to Same
Employer?
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.g60b
(0.396)
0.201
(0.312)
-0.313
(0.322)
-0.839
(0.842)
-0.845c
(0.491)
Note *1 indicates interaction with first biti indicator,
a= pcO. Ol; b=p<.05; c= P<.1O
Emors)
G
If Ret-h
Different
Employer Work
P&-the?
-0.67S
(0.569)”
0.000.
(0.000)
0.000.
(0.000)
-o.oo2b
(0.001)
-o.274b
(0.138)
3.852
(1.231)
-0.076a
(0.026)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.968b
(0.409)
0.709
(0.623)
0.000
(0.000J”
0-000
(o.ooo)’”-
H
If Return to Sae
Employer Work
Part-time?
0.0”00.
(0.000)
0:000
(0.000)
12.592
(7.852)
-0.076
(0.047)
-0.267
(0.251)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.442
(0.456)
0.00.0
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
–41–
Table C3
Determinants
~
Node
of Work Mer
N1-fime
fior
.—
——
1
I
Work &er?
-11.4
(2.6)
0.001
(0.129)
-0.040
(0.183)
Detision Point
Inkrcent
Bla&
msptic
Year
Ye=
Ctidbti
for Tkose Wortig
to Pre@ancy
Squ=ed
Unemplo~ent
Rati
be
o.048a
(0.015)
0:000
(aooo)
0.000
(0.000)
0:034
(0.022)
J
Wtum to Sme
,=, Emflloyer?
L892
(1.422)
0.097
(0.118)
.0.107
(0.155)
-o.051b
(0.020)
0.0.00
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
K
If Retire to
Different Employer,
Work P@-tie?.
.
L
~-Re~”to
Sme
Employer, Work
,.= P@-time
4.170
(2.556)
0.658
(0.232)
0.404
(0.30.1)
0.059
(0.037)
14.313
(5.502)
0.747
(0.220)
0.260
(0237)
-0.032
(0.037)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.057
(0.037)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(o.000j
0..000
(0.000)
0.138a
(0.028)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.463a
(0.093)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.585C
(0.318)
o.431a
(0.127)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.383b
(0.161)
O.m.o
(0.000)
Divorced
-0.257
(0.147)
0.000
(0.oo”m
Nevw Mtied
-0.175C
(0.103)
-0.686a
(0.197)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.945a
(0.271)
-0.488
(0.337)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.507
(0.409)
0.236
(0.170)
0.000
(0.00’0
-0.079
-“(0.514)
~e
~gh
Sqmed
School Drop-Out
Some COUege Cre&t
CoUege Graduate
One Pretious
CNd
6.820a
(2.534)
0.000
ho PretiOus CMtien
(0.000)
NOW * a= p<O.Ol; b=p<.05; c=F<.1O
-0.260
(0.153)
-o.811b
(0.S81)
0.00.0
(0.000)
o.o16b
(0.007)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
._
0.600
(0.000)
=.
–42–
Table C3 (Contiued)
Dete-mts
Node
I
Detision
Black*l
Point
Yem*l
Yea
Square*l
Uiemplo~ent
Rate*l
4.*1
*e
Squme*l
~gh School Dropout*l
Some COUege Crsdit*l
CoUege Graduate*l
Dlvorced*l
Never Mtied*l
(Lotit Coefficients
J
Work tier?
fisptic*l
of Work tier
Childbti
for Those Worbg
Ftil-Ttie
Prior to PreWacy
0.448b
(0.178)
.0.401.
(0.235)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.562a
(0.201)
-o.o12a
(0.004)
0.000
(0.000)
-o.386a
(0.149)
0.000
(0.000)
o.571b
(0.225)
0.000
(0.000)
Note: *1 indicates .titirastion tith
a= p<O.O”l; b=p<.03 c= P<.1O
ad
Stadmd
Return to S-e
Employer?
0.000
(0.000)
Emors)
K
.0.000
(0.000)”
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
.0.000
(0.000}
0..000
(0.000)
.0.000
(0.000)
.0.000
(0.000)
.0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.001
(0.001)
0.000.
(0.00”0)
0.000”
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
L
If RetuM to
Different Employer
Work Pafitie?
0.000
(0:000)
If Retire to S=e
Employer, Work
Ptitie?
0.000
~o:ooo)
..
0.632
(0.465)
..0.000
=.(O:OOO).
0.0.00
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
70.000)
-0.036
,. (0.968)
0.000
(0.000)
_, 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.00Q
(0.000]
0.355
(0.285)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000c
(0.000)
0.454
“(0.320)
0.888
“(0.555)
0.319
(0.173)
0.000c
(0.000)
~~~0.000
(0.000)
fwst bitih indicator
..”’
–43–
APPE~=
S~ATIONS
Tdles
D1 tiough
D6 protide a
h tke body of the paper protided
the CPS tith
chmge
the relevant
betieen
vtiable’s
chaged,
reWession
total effe&s.
tith
a base case
the media
P-g
When titirpreting
of the system of lo@tic
these tables reprment
Ori@d
spetication
re~essions
chages
was completely
Table D1 considers the ptial
pael
is for (othetise
though
blacks
whitis
=e mu~
pregn=W
=e
identiml)
more ~ely
more Udy
employer
md hews
motkers
of the covtiates
effeti,
4
h
b
ONY the stigle
b tit~retig
ti~tidud
hatig
saple
ha
second Wd.
of mothers.
We then
the effects on the joint labor force
h note” that (at leati before the one-s~p
these effects were ticluded
mfld data-tiven
at eafi
node of the tiee, so
In addition, for the ptity
step-me
procedue),
effeds
of the
the system of Iosatic
with fimt b~h.
effect of race. The top pael
blacks.
~e-pre~m~
to work ~-tie
on retutig
is the base case (whites).
rates of work in the&o
smples
(49.2 percent vs. 39.2 permnt).
to not ~vork (56.4 vs. 47.3) ad
conditional
dl
high school gaduate
h (at least) 12 p=ametws.
intiraded
of d
a ptial
They mmespond
it is tipotimt
re~essiom)
(up to a relatively
dlotig
k the June CPS popdation
these tibles
Tables 1 tiough
equation model.
27-ye~-old
One (Or sOmetimes Mo) Of these ch~acteristia
statuses.
D6 compuk
identicd.
effeb.
the chaatiti~
or edumtion),
stigle reWession
worn-
of demo~aphic
They consid-ed
D1 through
A wfite,
EF~CTS
mdysis
(ptity
Tables
in a stmd=d
This is approfimatily
vw
dtemative
the women me othefise
coefficients
We be-
FOR P-m
chaactefistic
the subsets.
D
to ti-time
sfighfly less ~ely
work (84.9 vs. 96.3).
The bottom
me mm,
After pre~aq,
to rem
to theti pre-
–44–
Job ContinuiW
Work
pre~anW
Table D1
Mothws ad Black Mothers:
for ~ti
Work Status After Cb ‘ldbifih(~~
Pti
Pafi
RU
Full
None DIH Sae
.Diff S~e
Total
before
None
P-time
Ffl-time
Total
24.6
21.7
10.1
56.4
2.5=
1.7
1.6
5.9
None
Pti-time
Fall-time
Total
24.2
10.5
12.7
47.3
2.4
1.1
0.6
4.1
Ptiid
~~~e
Pti
re %emmcv
Pti
NI
Stat?
N
Dw
.S=e
Sme
White High Schml Graduate, Age 27,
30.8
79.6
3.8 ~
72.6
3.2
1.2
29.9
2.1
3.1
17.7
39.2
25.8
6.7
8.7
10.1 18.9 100.0
Black High School Graduate, &e
3.8
8.6”
12.5
1.8
1.0
8.2
1.7
.26.3
28.0
19.0
49.2
100.0
Effetis
Diff
Second C~d
8.19
12.25.7
6.9
10.7
42
17.0
8.0
outs.
h
The midde
coUege
is for (othefise
~adwtes.
pre~mcy,
working
pmel
High
slightly less Wdy
M-tie.
wortig
emplo~ent,
employer
more
55.4
25.7
5.9
1.2
:.”
h
pre~ancy.
tith
Des&
20.1
17.6
..
9.7
2.1
~r
women
md Waite,
combract
employer.
~ely
but more
much
likely
me, however,
worting
more
of retire
tith
*SF
on
100.0
100.0
~U-
panel rdatis
employment
to the sme
points) to be
is
mOre likdy
tith
~
f~-time
the pre-prem-cy
Waite (1991).
fiU-tie
h @p
employer
a+
was asso~tid
co~ege ~aduatas
both before
status, nonworkers
me more lik~y
ad
tith
kfore
The difference
sta@g
high school Waduates,
above, more sducation
effeti.
c~dbifih
h. remti.
likely
This appears to be due to differences
the pum education
8.9
53.4
pti-tie
quite stifi~.
condition
to be working
college ~aduates
the ra~s
The botim
to be wortig
This is consistent with Desai ad
When total effetis where extied
fiat
ae
on pre-pre~mcy
p-time
more
However,
chfidbitih.
100.0
100.0
model.
md much less tikely (nearly 15 pwcentage
panel shows that, comp=ed
Con&tiond
to the s~e
ae
we both more likely ti be~
educated.
be wortig,
look quite sidar;
tiop-outs
4.1
45.1
The tip panel refers to high school tiop-
high school Waduabs.
labor form sbtuaes
(84.9 vs. 53.5 percent).
Wely.
identicd)
to be wortig
fdl-tke
The bottim
less
school
Post-childbifi
that high school tiop-outs
contiue
effwt of education.
100.0
27, Second CWd
NOTE: Weighti
tabulations horn the Jwe 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic re~esaion
time work is 35 or more hems per week. N=5793
Table D2 comiders. the ptial
Tot~
md
aud ~-time
wor~w.
Mm
tier
me
the
workers
cOnsist~t
higher for mUege ~adua~s.
tith
awoss tiditidu~
lower ratis of return
h other covtiates
–45–
T*le D2
for High School Graduates and High S~OOl Drop-outi:
Job Continuity
Pfid
Effeds
—.
Work
pre~an~
Work &ter Chdd ti(
1
Pad
Pad
Fu~’ Fu~
DIff
Sme Diff ‘“~me
Total
before
_..No~e
Pti-ttie
FuU-time
Total
3.0
1.9
7.6
36.6
3.4
.=.4
3.7
4.1
7.8
Total
None
Pti-ttie
Ftil-time
TOt~
NO~:
N=5793
. .
Weighted
Table
(c~ently
tith
~r
retied).
the cuentiy
stop working
b the s-e
~r
=e -=.
3.9
32.9
100.0
100.0
24.433.8
7.1
1:4 29.6
tiom the Jme–i990
the P*4
effeti
of a c~d
CPS ustig
of mtitd
ti for (othefise
never matied
(41.6 vs. 30.8).
employer
10.2
28.6
CoNege Graduate, &e 27, ~te
1o.542.9
71.0
4.6 _
3.4
0.7
10.1
43.7
2.7 12.7
7.1 35.4
0.6 13.9
46.9
26.4
.14.5
14.6 100.O _
_, ,
..
..
&“bdations
the btih
7.3
16.7
2.0 ~
0.3
1.3
3.4
16.6
5.6 .17.9
30..5
4.4
12.4
47.3
The bottom pael
the pre~mcy
6.0
7.8
100.0
12.24.1 100.0
10.7
8.0 ““45.1 100.0
2.5 ~
1.7”
1.6
retied,
72.6
14.0
state
w
S-e
Tow
Fti
Diff
2.1
6.7
8.7
5.9 .._
24.6
21.7
10.1
56.4
D3 considers
50.4
24.6
100.0
P“ti
S-e
=gh School Graduate, &e 27, White
3.8 m
79.6
30.8
8.11.2
29.9
3.2
:72.6
6.9
5.7
32 .“ 17.7
39.2
25.8
4.2
17.0
,10.1. 18.9 100.0
—
None
—.
Pti-time
5.2
2.0
7.0
8.1
16.2 “: 10.1
~amw
Pti
Ngne._ D=
statis.
identid)
women =e more ~ely
Whermor%
full-ttie
(31.7 vs. 25.8).
NLS-Y logistic reflection
The top pmel
nev=
retied
Condition4
on retire
modeL
is the base -e
womem
to not be wortig
never retied
100.0
100.0
100.0
women =e
Compmed
both before ad
more ~ely
to work, ratis
of reti
b
_
..
–46-
Table D3
by Mtitd
Status:
Job Continti@
Work
pre @mcy
Work
P&
None Diff
before
None
Pti.time
Fall-time
Total
24.6”
21.7
10.1
56.4
None
Pti-time
fi~-ttie
Toti
‘“37.8””
14.9
12.0
64.8
NOTE
N=5793
Weightid
year-old.
The midde
pmel
mother.
Both bdore
ad
working
wortig
retire
ad
to work
0.8
5.9
6.7.
effek
of age.
the pre~mW
pre~acy;
work pre-pre~anq
til-time
work, retwn
27 comparison,
Age 27, White
9~~
3.6
72.6
3.2
3.9
31.7
3.8
15.6
5.4
14.7
7.4
5.7
41.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
mothers
pre~mq).
identicd)
much less Ikely
women
work 35.3 vs. 25.8).
mother,
a 27-year-old
mother
pre~mcy).
is mud
employer
is more comon
with e~edations
19-
is for & 32-ye=-old
The difference
=e
less ~ely
However,
less ~ely
to be
is clem h
to stip
mnditional
mployer.
on
Note
sMIs.
to be working
Both before and aftw pre~=cy
the
but the older women =e much more
(53.5 vs. 39.2 before, 49.4 vs. 29.0 &er).
this is comistent
=e
model.
Wtite; younger workers should have fewer job spe~c
56.4 vs. 42.4 tier
to the sme
re~ession
k for a (othetise
where the yomger
younger women me slightly more likely to be working patitie,
fiU-time
100.0
100.0
100.0
me more likely h return to the pre-pre~m~
with Desti ad
to a 32-yew-old
likely to be working
4.1
45.1
The bottom pmel
71.4 vs. 56.4 tier
Total
12.2,
10.7
8.0
The top pael
the yomger
StX
N1
S-e
6.9
17.0
&om the June 1990 CPS using NLS~Y lo~stic
fier
(30.8 vs. 21.3 before pre~m~
None
Never Mtied
Wom~,
2.3 m
41.6
3.0
1.2
20.6
2.8
15.7
37.8
8.1
16.9 100.0
the younger workws
Compared
Before ~~nancv
Pd
Pati
Fdl
Dlff
$-e
Diff
1.5m
0.7
1.5
3.6
work 91.9 vs. 72.6, for ftil-tke
that this is tiwnsistsnt
Total
is the base case (a 27-yea-old).
fi~-time
(for pti-time
Fdl
Sae
Mtied
Woman, Age 27, Wbi&
3.8 m
79.6
8.130.8
3.2
72.6
1.2
29.9
5.7
25.8
3.1
17.7
39.2
42
10.1
18.9 100.0
the ptiial
(48.9 vs. 30.8 btiore
both patitime
fill
DM
Effecti
2.5 m
1.7
2.1
1.6
6.7
5.9
8.7
tabulations
Table D4 considers
Pati
Sme
Patiid
song
about job-specific
Condition
older workers
s~s).
on retig
(dike
to
the 18 to
–47-
Table D4
by Matemd Age
Job Contiuity
work
pre ~ncy
before
“”Work After C~-dbtih(%)
Pati
Pfi
Ftil
fill
None D1ff Sae
Diff
Sme
None
Pti-time
Full-the
Total
35.4
29.1
6.9
71,4
3.9
0.3
0.8
5.0
None
Pti-time
Fdl.ttie
ToM
24.6
21.7
10.1
2;5 m
1.7
2.1
1.6
6.7
8.7
.5,9.–
..55>4.
~ None
Pati-time
Full-ttie
Total
NOTE
N=5793
Weighted
2.0
8.0
10.0
the ptiiaf
eff~
from the base case) refer to 19-yem-olds.
& k the comptison
work both before
mostly the M
ody
a quher
pafi-time,
md
mong
91.9
35.3
_
P&
S~e
0.9
4.3
Stak
m
Sme
ml
Diff
6.2
41.3
..-
of one c~d.
Toti
0.3
0.9
0.7
18.2
100.0
100.0
12.210.7
8.0
4.1
45.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
Age 32, fite,
High School_Gradua*.
7.8
8.6
1.8
83.5
100.0
8.4
1.0
25.2
54.1
5.9
2.6
33.3
4.0
100.0
,.20.6
2.4
5.9
3.4 67.7
100.0
1.8 36.2
53.5
M.1
37.3 100.0
June 1990 CPS ustig kS-Y
Io&stic” re~ession
modd.
of ptity
for yomg
The top pmel
mothers.
is for a fist
Here both paels
cM@
the bottom
more M&en
work by mothers
Mmost
of two c~tien
(~etig
pael
me more ~ely
dl yomg
mothem
stip working, mothers of one child =e more likely to conttiue
compmed
of ho
worhg.
W&en
-...
“-–
.—
for a
to not
(before 48.9 vs. 33.3: after 71.4 vs. 40.4) .- The difference
in pti-ttie
mothers
31.7
19.4
100.0
amoss dl ages, women tith
after childbitih
percent hop
~~mw
0
P&
No&_e Diff
Total
0.2
“3.5
3.7
Effec&
...~e 27, White, High School Graduate ...
3.8 ~
30.8
79.6
8.13.2
1.2
29.9
72.6
5.7
6.9
3.1
17.7
39.2
25.8.
A2
17.0
10.1
18.9 100.0
17.8
1.7
13.6
1.5
0.7
11.0 ...1.3
3.2
42.4
4.4
3.8
tabulations &om the
Table D5 considers
second tild.
0.1
0.2
9.9
Paid
tith
is
a drop of
who worked
,_
–48–
Table D5
by Parity for Young Mothers
Job Continuity
Work
~re~=~
Work ~er
Cm dbitih(%l
Pti
Pati
fill
Full
None Diff
Sue
Dti
S=e
before
None
..-
23.3
7.3
9.8
40.4
Pd-ttie
~-time
Total
~ None
Ph-t&e
Fti-ttie
Total
NOTE:
N=5793
Weighted
a first chilm the mid~e
differences
tith
me stitigly
no chfitien
one c~d.
hatig
2,0
8.0
10.0
19.7
0.3
0.9
0.7
18.2
100.0
100.0
100.0.
from the June 1990 CPS usfig
effeti of ptity
for a second c~d.
from the younger
The sae
percent of those women who worked fill-time
fill-time
workers
and at theti pre-pre~~cy
continue
stop working
time sclusivdy
womem
to work fill-time.
(51.1 vs. 20.6).
tith
the cud.
aged 32. The tip panel is for
is for a &d
As e~eded,
Here the
(60.0 vs. 53.3) thm women who tieady
the biti~
are clem
For fwst btihs,
The .differmce
c~d.
before the bitih women
ody
in tie
32.3 percent
con&tiond
before the bitih of their second tid
employer.
Perhaps, betig
pand
mOdel.
have
reverse, so that while 49.4 percent of those who
tier
~ermces
NLS-Y lotistic. r?~essiOn
for older mothrs,
The bottim
the btith, these relations
do.
Total
Second CMd, 19 Ye=-old Mother
48.9
72.4
7.9
9.6
0.1
0.2
31.7
91.9
0.9
62
3.5
B.4
4.3
41.3
02
35.3
9.9
3.7 100.0
.,
theti second child work full-time
their first bltihs
Full
Sae
100.0
100.0
100.0
different
&er
.None
Pti
Fdl
Same DW
0.0
16.8
.we more likely to be working fill-time
However;
have just hti
Tot~
t
Pti
Diff
20.8=
11,9
1..1
the paid
pmel
~e
Ftist Ctid, 19 Ye=-old Mothw
6.9 m
33.3
69.7
9.5_
0.0
47.1
15.6 72.2
0.3
5.6
4.6 27.5
0.2
3.3
19.5
50.0
M.8
3.? 100.0
tabtiations
Table D6 comiders
Effects
3.2 m
0.1
34.0
0.9
5.4
5.5
38.1
0.3
0.8
5.0
29.1
6.9
71.4
P@@
ody
36.5 percent
is that more of the single pfity
older they have the satings
of those women
responses.
continue
67.7
to work
of the fiU-ttie
mothers
to be able to tiord
simply
to spmd
–49–
Job Conttiuity
None
Pti-ttie
Fdl-ttie
Toti
Table D6
by Parity for Older Mothe~
li.o
12.8
30.6
55.4
4.5 ~~ ““
1.7
0.0
3.8
2.2
.3.8
8.5
None
Pfitime
Fdl-ttie
Total
17.8
13.6
11.0
42,2
1.7
1.5
1.3
4.4
None
Ph-ttie
N-time
ToM
28.5
16.5
8.4
53,4
1.2
1.3
1.5
4.0
—————
8.4
1.8
12.1
1.0
36.2
37.3
~d
NO~:
Ftil-tie
0.6
3.7
.4,3
Effeti
.~kSt CMd, 32 Y--old
Moth=
16.6
72.2 27.2
0.1
.54.7
7.3
8.9
0.0
23.4
3.7
51.1
“1.4 21.9
60.0
10.4 21.9 100.0
_SSco_nd Ctid,
0.7
3.2
3.8
Pti
25.2
53,5
100.0
Ctid,
7.5
0.9
1.3 26.0
11.4 :.26.9
32 Ye=-old
,
0.0
‘6.3
Mother
54.1
20.6
-“
,-.
38.0
2.4
0.0
36.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
33.3
3.4
4.0
67.7
100.0
100.0
27.9
3.4
3.2 63.6
~ ~~
100.0
100.0
__
2.6
5.9
5.9
2.4
..
32 YeW-old Mother
26.9
40.9
100.O
“6”1.5
20.6
–. :..:...
5.0”
3.6
2.2
9.0
.
Weighted tabdations
horn the Jme 1990 CPS ustig NLS-Y logistic re~ession
work is 35 or more hours per week. N=5793
“-.”
The bottim
p=el
relates to third bitihs for older mothers (32-yem-olds).
bitih, mothem me less likely to be worbg
(21.3 vs. 32.2) thm
full-the
women hating a second ctid.
Ekely to work fi~-time,
although the conditioml
(40.9 vs. 53.0 ad
Mer
more Wely
the btith, those tith
rates ~e quits stiar.
model.
Before theti tfid
to not be wortig
more c~tien
me less
B~LIOGW~
Cherb,
hdew.
hnals,
Des&,
Ame%an
Sonalde,
~er
Lfida
BWh.
Chages
h beri-
FetiiE@,
of Political and Social Sctince
J. Wtite.
1991.
Occupational
“Women’s
Mtiage,
Divorce,n
510:145-157.
Emplowent
Ch=acteristim
md
ad
Dting
Ee~WcY
Work Commi@ent,”
=d
American
Review 56(4):55.1-566.
W~m
E.
Economiw
5(2).
Gmber,
~went
Acahmy
ad
the Mst
Sociological
Even,
1990.
1987.
Jonatha.
“Cmeer
1992.
horn Health Insurace
Intemptions
‘The Effitien~
Benefits
Folloting
Childbitih,”
and a Group-Speufic
for Matertity:
Mmdated
NBER Working
Journal
of Labor
B=efi~
Etidence
Paper, 4157, C-bridge
Massachusetts.
Hayghe,
Howmd.
ItiatsY
mermm,
1986.
Monthly hbor
Jacob, ad
Mothers of Ve~
~emm,
Jacob.
Lo~itudiml
“Rise
in Mother’s
Revtiw
109(2k4345.
&leen
Yomg
1993.
Survey
Mlbotitz.
C~tien,m
Jacob,
prep=ed
Leibotitz,
ad
md
Discussion
C~d
Paper
Leibotitz.
hsotiation
Jacob ~m~
Cme Choice
have
Form
Atiitity
Includes
‘The Work-Emplowent
Those
Distition
tith
bong
in Journal of Human fisources.
for Matefity,”
(also RAND
fotihcomtig
Labor
md
as National
Poptiation
Profl=
DRU-505-NICHD).
&leen
for Poptiation
&leen,
fotihcoming
“Chmactititig
WOrkiug Paper 93-3~
me-,
1994.
Lahr
1992.
of berica
‘Tfittie
bud
and Linda J. Wtite.
Differences
Work by New MOthe.~,n paper
Meettigs,
1992.
by Chiltien,s
Age;
Linda Wtite.
1991.
Denver, CO.
‘%mplopent
Journal
of New Mothers
of Human
Resources,
112-133.
hibotiti,
hlea,
Pregnancy
Jacob ~em~
and Following
Birth.
ad
RAND N-3392-DO~CHD.
Wown’s
EmplWment
During
– 5.1 –
Lefioff,
Doma
the Statw:
R., md Syltia M. Be&er.
Townrds
1989.
a Comprehensive
“Fmfly
Approach,”
ad
Me&cd
Hmvard
Leave Legidation
Jou~l
b
of b~”slation
26403-463.
McLaughlin,
Steven
Sumountig
hcer,
D.
1982.
the First Bom/
“DiffersntiaZ
Journal of Martiage
Jacob, and S. Polachek.
Women,m h Economics
Schultz (New York
Nakmma,
Nice,
Academic
OCOmd,
ad
1974.
“F~fly
of the Family:
of Female Labor-Force
and the Family ,44
Investments
Marriage,
Colombia University
Masao
Patterns
Children
in Hmm
Pticipation
407–20.
Capitnk Etings
and Human
of
Capital, cd., T. W.
Press), pp. 397+29.
Nokamura.
w88.
New York.
The Second
Pay
Che&.
Press.
Mhk.
Census,
American
Saddkem,
Cument
“Maternity
Population
Heabbe.
1993.
Ftis
h U.S. Bweau
Series P-23, No. 165, Work ad
D. C., U.S. Gvement
“SmW
1961~5,n
Try to Cmb
Printtig
Office
of the
Family Patirns
of
pp. 11–57.
Impact of Leave Law,- Walz Street
5, B1.
of the Census.
Edition, Waiti@n,
Lsave fiagementx
Reports,
Women, Washington,
Journal, Auwst
U.S. Bmeau
1990.
D.C.
1990.
Statistical
Abstiad
of the United
States:
1990.
llOtk
National
Lon@tidn~
DMcWion
Smveys
Paper
(NLS)
Seri=
-
~
01.
How the Fdemf Government Uses Dam fmm
the Natimrd hngimdind Suweys
02.
Nomm
M. Bmdburn
Mdn R. F-cl
Reginald P. B&er
Michael R. Pergfit
03.
Saul Schw-
Robeti Hrrtchens
George J*bsmr
A Comptilon
of Computer-Assisted Pemond
Intwiews (CAPI)”witi Paper-ad Pencil hterviews @APD in tie Natimmf hngimtind
Smey
of Youth
Dyntic Models of tie Joint Detemdntion
hbor Supply md Ftiy
Smcti
of
me effwk of UnaplOyment COmWnsatiOn
on the Unemployment of Youth
Evaluating Competig
Mob~lty
05.
Od.
Frti
L. Mott
PaulaBWer
of Worker
Evaluation of the 1989 Child-m
Supplement
in tie Nationti bn~mti
Sumey of Youth
&n&r Difference
Young Workers
07.
~mries
ti the Qtit Behatior of
08.
Lisa M. Lynch.
The Impwt of Wvae Sectur Trtiting on Rme
md Gendm Wage D1fferentiils md the &eer
Patternsof Young WOrhrs
09.
Evmgelos M. Fdtis
H. Efimbeth Petem
R=pons= of Fetie bkr
to the Demo~apMc Cycle
10.
Anne HI1l
Jme E. ONeill
A Study of Inticohmt Chmge in Women’s
Work Patterns md &ngs
11.
&leen hibowi&
Jacob Mex ~emrm
Unti Wtite
Women’s Employment D*g
md Following BN
Regnmcy
Work Experience, Job Tenu% Job Sepxation,
md Wage Gmwtb
12.
13.
Supply md Fetiiity
Joseph G. Mtonj
Thomti A. Dunn
Folly
Bmkgmund ad Labor M&et
Outcomw
14.
J. Borj=
Stephen G. Bronms
Skphen J. Trejo
15.
Jm= J. Hwhm
S@phen V. Cmemn
Pew Z. Schmhet
tige
me De@tinm@
md Consquenc=
Swtm md Private Swtor Ttirdrrg
16.
Pticipation in bw-Wage
Youg Men
17.
Retirement in a Ftily Context: A Sticti
for Husbmds md Wiva
18.
Trmsitions tim Schml to Work A Smey of
Rm-h
Ustig the National hngimdind
Smeys
19.
CMsmpher J. Rub
m.
21.
22.
Mgb SchWl E~lo~enL
hvs~ent
bkr
of Wbfic
Muk@
M&l
Consumption or
~omd
TtiNng
A Review of Msting
Some New Evi&nm
Jacob AJex JGemm
by
Dam md