A STUDY
OF ~ERCOHORT
PATTERNS
M. ke
Center
for
Hill
C~GE
AND W~GS
and June
Dec~ber
‘S WOW
E. O‘ Neill
the Study of Business
Baruch College
F~AL
IN WO~
and Goverment
MPORT
1990
This Project was fmded
by the U.S. Depart~nt
of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Opfiions statd
in this docummt
Statistics
under Grant Number E-9-J-8-0092.
do not necessarily
represent
the official position or policy of the U.S.
Department
of Labor.
We gratefully
acknowledge
the excellent
data preparation
and programg
assistance
provided by Hengzhong Liu, Partha Deb, Chm-Yong
Y~g,
md
T. Jithendranath~.
Additional
fwding
for this res-rch
haa been
provided by The Rockefeller
Foundation.
A STUDY
OF INTERCOHORT
CHANGE IN WO~N
PATTERNS AND RAHNINGS
M. Anne
Center
for
Hill
and
June
E. O ‘Neill
the Study of Business
Baruch College
FINti
December
‘S WOW
and
@vernment
HSPORT
1990
This Pro ject was funded by the U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics
under Grant Number E-9-J-S-0092.
Opinions
stated in this document
do not necessarily
represent
the of fictil position or policy of the U.S.
Department
of Labor.
We gratefully
acknowledge
the excellent
data preparation
and programing
assistance
provided by Hengzhong
Liu, Partha Deb, Chun-Yong
Yang, and T. Jithendranathan.
Additioml
finding for this research has been
provided by The Rockefeller
Foundation.
TABLE
E=cUTI~
S~Y
I.
INTRODUCTION
II-
CHANGES IN LIFE-CYCLE
LASOR
SCHOOLING , AND FERTILITY
A.
B.
c.
DETERMINANTS
A.
IV.
FORCE
PATTERNS,
8
OF THE DURATION
OF WORX
AND
NON-WORR
8
9
13
13
19
26
26
35
SPELLS
Multiple Spell Hazard Rate Model
1M:thod610.gy
2.
Description
of the Data for the Multiple
Model
Empirical
Analysis
3.
DETE~INANTS
T~
LIFETI~
A.
B.
c.
v.
1
Background
Description
of the Data
Descriptive
Analysis
Work Participation
Cuulative
Years of Work Experience
;:
3.
Year= of Schooling
Changes in Marital Status and Fertility
4.
Sumary
D.
III.
OF CONTENTS
OF THE PROPORTION
A.
s.
Results
for the
Increase
EXPERIENCE-WAGE
Cohort/Age/Race
Specifti
Regressions
Using Pooled
~FERENCES
WO=D
36
3s
Spel 1
40
44
OVSR
56
Empirical
Accounting
Sumary
IS THE FEMALE
OF YEARs
36
in Lifetime
PROFILE
GROWING
Regressions
Data
Participation
56
63
6S
STEEPER?
70
70
73
78
APPENDIX
A
APPENDIX
B
After remaining virtually
constant during the post-World
War II yriod,
the ratio of women, s earnings to men, s incre=ed
sharply during the 1980, e,
rising from 59.7 percent in 1979 to 68.5 percent in 1989.
The failure of the
overall wage gap to narrow during the 1950-1980 period has been somettig
of a
The lsbor force patiicipation
of mmen
had escalated
over the entire
puzzle.
post World War II period, the women, s mov~ent
had blossomed,
and barriers to
women, s entry into many professions
and occ”pakions
appeared tO have eroded.
Yet, overall women, e relative earnings did not rise through the lg60S -d
1970s.
Explanations
for the app=ent
paradox have pointed out that during the
post War period of rapid increases in the proportion
of mmen
who work, the
experience
level =d
other work related attributes
of the average employed
women did not increase, as less experienced
women joined the ranks of the
employed.
The failure of the wage gap to narrow before 1980, therefore,
can
be partly explained by the failure of women, s lifettie work experience
to rise
as new l~or
force entrants lowered the work experience
of the average working
woman.
Quite the opposite phenomenon
may underlie the increase in women, s
Indeed, one explanation
for this recent
relative earnings
in the 1980s.
development
is that there has been an intercohort
increase in the continuity
of women, s labor force participation
resulting
in a greater accumulation
of
work experience.
The fact that the recent gains in women, s relative wages
have been larger mong
younger women suggests that intercohort
trends in human
capital acquisition
are important and that more recent cohorts of women have
gained relative to men in terms of market~le
skills.
Yet because women are heterogeneous
with respect to lif ethe
experience,
changes in accumulated
work experience
cannot be measured using stand-d
cross-sectional
data.
Longitudinal
or retrospective
data on life-cycle
experience
are crucial for studying issues related to women, s labor supply,
human capital formation,
and earnings.
This research utilizes data from the
three continuing
panels of the National Longitudinal
Surveys
(NLS ) -- the
mature women, the young women, and the youth cohort -- to measure accumulated
years of work experience
ad to exmine
changes in life-cycle
work patterns
acros5 successive
cohorts of women born between, 1923 =d
1964.
This study has investigated
how these successive
cohorts of women have
changed with respect to their accumulation
of work-related
skills, in terns of
level of schooling,
career orient at ion, and attatient
to the l~or
force.
We
consider how the nature of entry into and exit from the ldor
force chwged
across cohorts and how the reeponse of women, s labor force participation
decisions
to life-cycle
events (e.g. , marriage,
the bfith of a child, divorce)
Inter cohort changes in women, s returns to work e~erience,
may have changed.
schooling,
and other hman
capital investments
are also considered.
This
research has yielded important insights into the nature and determinants
of
the work patterns
and earnings of Werican
women.
Our comparison
of human capital and demographic
characteristics
across
these seven cohorts of women has illuminated
the dr-atic
changes in l~or
market experience
and its correlates.
Labor force participation,
whether
measured
at a point fi the
or over the lifettie has increased markedly
for
white women, with black women +periencing
slight increases or declinee.
For
working and nonworking
women chined,
the cuulative
ye=s
during which an
individual
has worked at least six mnths
has risen, although the average
level of e~erience
of employed women has groin more slowly or has actually
declined. While 5ome of this slomr grotih
cm be attrfiuted
to the lower
held by new. entrants and the rapid increase in the rider
levels of aperience
of new entrants
(as signal led by the rise in sufiey week participation
rates) ,
rising leve15. of schooling have. also diminished
the ..nher
of post-schooling
ye-s
within which women (at a fixed age) could have worked.
Along with rising levels of investment
in education,
these cohorts of
women have experienced
drmst ic demographic
changes.
A larger proportion
of
each cohort remains umarried
and mre
women conttiue to be ctildless.
Moreover,
the nutier of children ever born mong
these women has declfied
sharply, with mmen
in..the earlier cohorts bearing three to four children and
more recent cohorts giving birth to two to three children.
We have exmined
the deteminante
of work ~erience
using two mOdel B.
For the ~SY
and the ~S
young women, we were able to estimate the multiple
spell hazard rate model of work status transition.
Moreover,
we have
ex-ined,
for all cohorts, ordinary least s~=es
regressions
of the
propotiion
of possible years worked as of a given age.
Both the duration model and the lifethe
participation
model yield
strikingly
similar results - During the period 1967 to 1987, the length of
work spells and the proportion
of the lifet tie worked have increased.
These
chmgee
are strongly related to rising levels of schooling,
delayed
childbearing
and reductions
in fertility,
and transformations
in marri~e
patterns.
Results from the duration models imply that labor 5upply responses
are becoming
increasingly
sensitive_ to schooling and prior work e~erience
(especially
=ong
black women) . And for white women, much of the intercohort
change in lifetime participation
ap~ars
to result from drmatic
fertility
declines - Yet the esttiates
from pooled models for lifettie participation
variables,
indicate that, holding constant the effects of the independent
there remains a strong, etatietically
significant
effect of the passage of
time.
Even with identical ch=acteristics,
women from more recent cohotis are
of their time at work in the market.
spending a higher proportion
Finally, we have estimated wage models for these cohorts of women to
investigate
whether or not experience-wage
profiles have grow
steeper over
ttie.
Our .result5 provide evidence that work-related
investments
have
increased
from cohort to cohort mong
white women, although not necessarily
for all cohorts of black women.
And while we cannot detemine
from our
analysis the extent to which women or their employers
=e
responsible
for the
increased
levels of investment,
the fomer
pattern of flat age-earnings
-- the dead-end
job syndrome -- finally appears to have
profiles
for women
been uvercome,
which bodes well for future narrowing of the gender wage gap.
A ST~Y
OF INTERmHORT
WOmN ,S WORW PATTE~S
M. hne
ratio
rising
relative
and Goverment
women
has been
escalated
occupations
did not
rise
through
Explanations
War
period
experience
women
did
employed
not
gender
lifetime
gap
the
1989;
in a n~er
in wages
work
wage
post
The
World
eroded..
and
the
in 1989
(based
on the
16 ye-s
both
and over) .
by black
black
smaller
annual
As Fi~re
women
women
tha
1980,s,
1
and white
and men
began
the
gap between
labor
as less
the
1950-1980
participation
of women
the women, 5 movement
professions
and
women, e relative
have
pointed
in the proportion
related
attrtiutes
experienced
O, Neill,
into many
overall
paradox
increases
work
force
II period,
War
Yet,
during
earnings
1970s.
apparent
1985;
of studies
is the gender
experience
during
gap to narrow
to women, s entry
1960s
and other
II period,
sha~ly
gap between
of a puzzle.
for the
increase,
(Goldin,
demonstrated
overall
to have
War
1960s.
entire
of rapid
level
the post-world
experienced
the wage
the
and barriers
appeared
were
aged
ago and it has been
something
the
workers
gatis
since
of the
over
had blossomed,
ye--round
decade=
failure
during
to men, s increased
However,
and men
constant
in 1979 to 6B. 5 percent
wage
19S0s.
several
The
poet
earnings
of full-time
to narrow
period
5
59.7 percent
in the
white
virtually
of wmen,
indicates,
women
rwining
from
earnings
had
E. O, Neill
I~ODU~IOR
After
the
and June
for the Study of Business
Baruch College
Center
I.
Hill
CSANGE IN
ANO EARNINGS
women
Smith
that
of women
of the
joined
Ward,
a prhary
differential
(e.g., Mincer
~d
out that
and Polachek,
who work,
average
the
1974,
the
of the
It has been
underlying
mount
the
employed
ranks
1989) .
factor
in the
during
and
1978;
the
continuity
Corcoran
of
and
s
.—
Duncan,
1979) .
can be partly
rise
as new
working
The
failure
explained
I*or
relative
force
before
of women, 5 lifethe
failure
entrants
-the.opposite
earnings
development
lowered
is that
work
experience.
have
been
capital
gained
the work
The
Figure
successive
roughly
1980,
work
=perience
therefore,
experience
of the
correspond
to the panels
figure
shows
the
in the
life
cycle.
-e
to
av-age
birth
the
cohorts,
lower
are present.
between
ages
of the
cohort
percent
when
between
from
shape
force
of the
the
30 to 34 and 45 to 49born
they
1941-1945
reached
was
ages
out.
3
in human
of women
have
at ages
there
at all
have
between
labor
cohorts
at different
is that
activity
These
for
For each cohofi the
next
profiles
participation
National
rates
One
decline
Thus , the
45 to 49.
of
wages
trends
1961-65.
profiles
force
45 percent
force
study.
to the
cohort
cohort
accumulation
cohorts
in the
participation
of lsbor
However,
of this
rates
continuity
skills.
of labor
cohort
in the
intercohort
recent
included
stand
one
participation
levels
more
recent
in women, s relative
19.26-30 and
of women
focus
increase
that
patterns
Two observations
Second,
ref letting
suggests
in women”s
for this
in a greater
gains
and that
the
in lsbor
in participation
cycle.
children
which
change
resulttig
lifetime
increase
one explanation
of marketable
born
the
an intercohort
women
in terms
of women
underlie
the recent
important
2 illustrates
Surveys
25-29,
that
younger
to men
Longitudinal
earlier
fact
are
cohorts
rise
ha9 been
participation
mong
ac~isition
my
Indeed,
1980s.
there
force
larger
relative
phenomenon
in the
of women, s ldor
life
by the
gap to narrow
woman.
@ite
large
of the wage
ages
during
then
rise,
force
has been
stages
changed.
ages
a
of the
Wong
20 to 24 md
ages
when
young
part icularly
participation
25 to 29 but
rate
rose to 74
Figure
Cohort
PatiiciDation
2
Participation
Rates
Rate
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
20–24
25–29
30-34
35–39
40-44
45–49
50–54
55–59
60–64
Age
—
1926-30
+
~g31-35
+
1936-40
+
lg41–45
+
1946-50
+
Igsl-ss
&
lg56_60
+
1961-65
1,
,,
men
1941-45
ages
the profile
it is evident
45 to 49 could
years.
ages
dip
that
rises
the
recent
that
a l-ger
more
years
the
younger
which
cohorts,
The
largest
the
the
younger
that
intercohort
more
recent
cohorts
be
retrospective
data
the
recent
case
over
the
the
high
profiles
thirties
have
earlier
of
hint
accumulated
cohort#.
life-cycle,
or will
at “–
characteristic
of participation
mong
decline
in women, s relative
and decline
have
in their
adult
have much
flatter
levels
at
the
since
extent
to
co-ntinue to rise
to be seen.
gains
in human
of theti
is initially
emeriencing
The
force
systematically
capital
ac~isition
gained
relative
are
to men
wages
with
have
age,
suggests
important
in terns
been
and that
of
1.
constructed
are heterogeneous
was
participation
born
I*or
and thereafter,
high
eventually
remains
of women
It is important
cannot
theti
currently
than
will
women,
trends
skills.
with
cohort
in the
over much
cohorts.
yet to be obse~ed
life-cycle
fact that
earlier
of women
participation
=ong
markettile
cofiined
have
force
for the
of those
1951-55
to rise without
experience
cohorts
throughout
born
of the
proportion
of work
theti
proportion
profiles--- Their -l*or
or the steep rebound
as it does
worked continuously
cohotis
20 to 24 and continues
these
steeply,
a large
not have
By contrast,
flatter cohort
line
with
to recognize
from
tbe
respect
on life-cycle
that
changes
standard
in accumulated
crose-sectional
to lifet be
experience
1Femle-male
work
are
data.
work
experience
Because
women
experience,
longitudinal
crucial
studying
for
or
issues
hourly earnings ratios mong
white full-the
workers have
ages 25-34, from 69.4 to SO. 3
changes as follows, by age, from 1977 to 1988:
percent;
ages 35-44, from 56.2 to 66-9 percent; ages 45-54, from 54 to 62. S
(U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current
percent;
ages 55-64, 57. S to 60.8 percent.
Population
Survey, March Supplements
Public Use Tapes ) .
5
related
to women, e labor
research
utilizes
Longitudinal
cohort
data
-- to meaeure
in life-cycle
between
1923
and
work
have
with
fomat
continuing
years
patterns
we provide
ion,
panels
and earnings.
of the
of work
across
exwrience
successive
This
National
women, the young women,
changed
entq
detailed
schooling
and the
youth
and to -mine
of women
cohorts
into and
how
the responses
also
the
determinants
descriptive
attaiwent,
from
and consider
analyze
capital
born
1964.
patterns,
attactient
associated
work
report,
fertility
from the three
accumulated
changee
In this
human
(NLS ) -- the mature
Surveys
and
supply,
cohort
exit
from
labor
force
labor
force
factors compare
to theee
of lifettie
ltior
pa*icipation,
We esttiate
to cohort.
the
of how marital
analysis
force
the
for a given
across
and
factors
cohort
cohorts.
participation
We
and the
wages.
We
1.
addres5
How
have
accumulation
patterng
are the
for a given
include
market
3.
~estions:
of women
in schooling
changed?
levels
associated
and
with
and how do the responses
potentially
school ing, birth=,
influencing
changes
changed
with
In particul=,
skills?
participation
factors
cohort
Factors
cohort=?
force
broad
cohorts
of work-related
changes
What
following
successive
of labor
intercohort
2.
the
-d
have
life-cycle
what
have
been
the duration
etatus,
the
orientation?
and exit
to these
in marital
to their
hm
in career
entry
respect
from
factore
the
compare
of ltior
and
labor
force
changes
force
acrosa
spells
in labor
conditions.
How
investments
The
have
returns
to work
experience,
changed
between
successive
following
section
descrties
echooling
cohorts
the
6
data
and other
human
capital
of women?
in greater
detail
and
by
comparing
change=
marriage
the
and
across
fertility,
dete~inants
cohorts
in labor
provides
of these
a background
ch=ges.
estimation
of economic
describing
the xesults -for. a dynmic
repo*ing
the
results
worked.
The
extent
to which
capital
have
fifth
models
provides
the underlying
influenced
The third
of lifetime
of regressions
section
force
work
participation,
for our
and
work
fourth
model,
for the proportion
estimates
intercohort
wages.
7
empirical
of wage
chmges
analysis
sections
decisions,
spell
schooling,
with
and
of possible
models
focus
5ection
section
of
on the
thee
four
years
to asc=tain
in accwulation
of huan
the
A.
Background
In this
section
women ●s patterns
life
cycle.
derives
home
of labor
force
the
and
fmily,
our
fimework
a allocation
leisure. 2
The
extent
remuneration
from market
work
production.
The
therefore,
increase
theory,
effect
of rising
fmily
income
on the
dominance
of the
from
O, Neill,
other
1981,
countries
and the
It is unlikely
activity
rising
from the
wage
of women
decline
levels;
are
stability,
home
closely
and
in fertility
in contraceptives)
2
The
the
in Layard
have
with
difficult
been
work
in thi5
found
Cain,
in the
is that
8
would
substitution
of rising
goods) .
Evidence
in a nuder
U.S.
of
data
as well
1983;
1985) .3
as the
shift
story
l~or
must
of Mincer
to
participation
and marital
and
(for exmple,
of women’ # work
of response
force
cause
3See also Kil lingsworth
(19S3 ) for a comprehensive
results for female labor supply. .
work,
expected
1966; Hill,
in fertility
fertility
supply
effect
studies , using
to separate
extent
the
the
home
gro~h
produced
be a simple
cbangee
fra
income
has been
exogenoue
area
the
a change
Changes
on the
that
and Mincer,
it is not.
may
market
economic
1962;
would
intertwined
mong
wage”
provided
series
(e.g. , Mincer,
, but to a large
pioneering
effect
BO fundamental
it has proven
that
for home
to the market
and
“mhadow
dominaten
demand
sme
articlee
that
to the
predicts
eubetitution
and
s labor
de~nds
in
and over
wmen,
of market
work
changes
in ttie
time
wages
(and the
studies,
for ssalyzing
in the market
market
on leisure
croee-eectional
as data
relative
at a mment
of its mtiers
relative
women, s participation
on intercoho*
findings
patiicipation
.The ba5ic- economic
from
work,
we sumarize
ef feet.
due
Some
to developments
surely
be a decision
(1962) .
survey
of mpirical
joint ly detemined
the
divorce
rate
associated
is also
with
with
in the United
to bcrease
participation
(which
participation
may
(and concomitant
associated
with
fertility.
Our
Nat ional
women
Longitudinal
The NLS
were
first
telephone
recently
initially
Suneys
in 1967,
interviews
were
have
-- and
in 196S when
women
when
young
of NLSY
first
women,
women
conducted
they
interviewed
The NLS
3,720
nutiers
were
of the
6,282.
in 1979
panels
lsbor
force
force
mrital
in tipofi-t
-- schooling,
uni~e
instability
v=i~les
marital
panel
drawn
Market
that
status,
surveys.
are
and
The
from two panels
Experience
were
born
of the
(NLS ) -- the mature
of y“oung women
were
in the
ages
women,
born
3,346
original
This
ye=s
in the
1944-53
National
panel
were
remained
was born
the
and
years
initial
smple
(most
saple
in 1986.
by 1985.
in 1959
and
intemiewed
Of the
in the
to 1937
Personal
over
of age.
remined
5,159
1923
30 to 44.
at .re.Wlar Lntervds
14 to 24 years
at ages
provide
been
they
of 5, 0s3 mature ””wom”en,an estimated
Wong
inst *ility
l~or
to ristig
from the panel
The NLS young
in 19SS) .
maritil
(NLSY ) .
of mature
surveyed
cmponent
data.
of LabOr
of Youth
panel
; and
in
exogenous
However,
changes
on three
analysis
women
Survey
some
increase
income) .
participation
these
draatic
Data
for this
and the young
laws.
to marriage)
regarding
descrfies
have
in response
is based
The
of women, s rising
intercohort
analysis
Longitudinal
also may
in divorce
increase
exmine
of the
States
the gain
labor .force
Description
The data
reduces
uncertainty
section
pafiicipat ion.
as a result
in turn
We therefore
B.
force
1iberalization
likely
following
l~or
The
to 1965
smple
and was
14 to 21.
a superior
source
9
of data
fOr this
analysis
since
the
longitudinal
ex~rience,
earning5,
of mature
full
nature
women
se~ence
and
of the
and other
young
of annual
However,
through
complete
much
women
variables.
described
in detail
below.
observed
1968,
1973,
pivotal
years
con5e~ently
Moreover,
and
were
west
estimttig
s~ples
~tiining
into
these
groups
Women) .
The
detail
regarding
the panel
data
1977,
sumeys
demographic
and
these
surveys
include
characteristics
in the
such
detailed
(and
these
characteristics.
a complete
information
the
serie=
In the
schooling
for
for the mature
Wality
women,
of information
fertility,
young
available
women,
for
and marital
status
and ~SY
differ
years
of work
regarding
experience.
respondent
and
in thi5
19S2
retrospect ive components
as schooling,
initial
survey
~estionnaire
for the mature
were asked to report the ntier
during
which
they
had worked
of years
at least
10
be
and they
retrospect ive
to create
will
cohotis
during
interviews,
to
cohorts
~dicated
for the Young
in-person
age
1.
19S3
detailed
this
seven
As
a
fehility,
yields
1972,
using
ex~rience,
five-year
in Tale
as outlined
Wssible
for accomplishing
in 1967,
with
alia ), surveys
markedly
the
so that
avail~le.
it has been
on work
sumeys
variables.
While
(inter
years
for these years often gleaned
can be cotiined
important
ions,
the
19706,
is not
are observed
greater
ions
in the
Women
taken
yield
West
on work
Unfortunately,
yeare
tir methodology
intervals,
NLS Mature
197S,
the.
obsemations
on all vari~les
we divide
over
at five-year
the
that
analysis,
cohorts
table,
skipping
for the missing
important
these
began
direct
vari~les.
the use of retrospective
and other
view
emits
related
obsenations
information
For thi5
survey
wmen
since
six months.
(in
1967),
cmpleting
For
subse~ent
Table
NLS
and
NLSY
Cohorts
by
Age,
Data
As
of
Age
15
to
19
20
25
to
to
30 to
Mature
Women
Survey
Young
1968
1973
29
19.73
1978
34
1967
39
1967
1972
40 to
45 to
50 to
*NLSY
44
1967
1972
1977
49
1972
1977
54
cohorts
6
1983
(4)
(1)
(2)
(1)
7
overlap.
11
NLSY
1979
(7)
1982
(6)
1987
(6)*
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
(1)
1977
1982
Cohort
(4)
(5)
1983
(2)
(3)
1982
and
(5)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
and
Women
(3)
1978
35 to
Year
Source
1968
24
1
Nmber
years,
we define
or more
(or at least
pertains
years
to more
worked
as years
and the
since
NLS
for which
survey
in 1978
years
women,
years
then,
were
we c-
years
to the prospective
available
the
detailed
1977
and
port ion of the
the
survey
used
to generate
retrospective
from the
question
of the
school
completion,
during
which
they
the
NLSY
available
provided
complete
to the
data
to include
annually
worked
coverage
were
for them
the
2.6 weeks.
12
not
nutier
for only
in the
the
1/3,
The
2/3,
computer
authors.
panel -
18 for tae
years
of years
Unfortunately,
a
by
(i.e. , 0,
from the
asked
on items
we estimate
two years..
si.nc.eage
a similar
information
worked
remaining
are available
the NLSY
at least
yeara
question
Unfortunately,
1973 to 1977
known
two missing
inf ormat ion
five-year
interval
past
the young
women,
in years
Since
failed
womenss
retrospective
details) .
The
are observed
we calculate
worked
women
the
of the
or not the
all emplo~ent
women
during
young
ly, for the mature
proportion
these
years
how many
to this
history
ion.
rosters
whether
defined
the mature
For
ion
and observed
measure,
The NLS
six months.
response
with
two
worked.
respondents
the
years
for both
skipped
26 weeks
worked,, west
This
ion asking
at least
of the three
fills
smple.
pest
of the NLS mature
Consequent
that
weeks
worked
,,
weeks
of experience.
and emplo~ent
during
if the
surveys
combined
job history
proportion
The women
metiers
for most
tenure
worked
or 1 ) and assigning
progrms
worked
by comparing
sample.
of years
evaluating
both
‘,past five years,, vest
as tenure
nutier
years
to obtain
information
(especially
retrospective
such
infer
weeks
respondent
sum of retrospective
a retrospective
respondent
the
can be constructed
However,
failed
included
work
The
completion,
women.
in which
of the pos8ible
the cumulative
the NLS
had the
as one
52 weeks) .
school
young
year.
half
than
yields
1970s
five
a “work
worked
since
we” can
A
older
since
age
18
construct
a
comparable
measure
to 19 in 1968
is not
fixed
(for whom
and many
increasingly
more
one other
1967
women
data
and
cohort,
to 6chool
of years
consistently
sub ject ive measure
age
=S
are reported) .
retun
80) , the measure
accurately
the more
for only
of years
since
acroas
worked
Because
at a later
worked
reported
young
women
the
the
age
year
left
(which
is
1S is likely
individuals
since
who were
leaving
and
15
school
to be
cohorts
than
school.
c. Descriptive Malysis
~
1. Wor
Participation in labor market
we begin by examining
which
are the
measure
rates
labor
percentage
market
age group,
and
given age group
and
19S3
rate
percent
1978
born
and
at each
were
survey
are making
specified. 4
time
these
Wong
age
years
week
level.
times
to 71.2 percent
the
of L*or
force
employed
and are
ages
since
and reaching
the
participation
mong
Thi B rate
ratea
white
rate
the
increased
shows
or unemployed
not
seeking
by
1978,
comparing
designated
age
the
in the
grown steadily
30 to 34,
to 61.4
a
of
in 196?,
we are
have
work) .
five-year
rates
30-34
women
week,
to
participation
the group
❑urvey
Statistics
part icipat ion rates
comparison
For exmple,
in 1967.
during
waye.
in several
participation
we compare
-- e.g.
women,
Bureau
are either
labor
an intercohort
white
ratea
force
who
When
at different
part icipants
further
labor
survey
year.
in different
of cohorts
years
over
-- we
by the
are out of the
2 illustrates
race
used
in the population
who
can be described
participation
The
act ivity.
to those
Table
force
traditionally
of women
(as oppo5ed
labor
activity
~rcent
44
in
in 19S3.
4
8y reading down the diagonal one can examine the change in labor force
For exmple,
the cohort ages 30participation
rates for a cohort as it ages.
34 in 1967 was 35-39 in 1972, 40-44 in 1977, and so on.
13
Table
Sumey
Week
2
Participation
Rates,
Sumey
1967
1968
1972
1973
Age
Weightad
Year
1987
1982
1983
1977
1978
1979
Black
15-19
32.6
20-24
61.9
44.7
65.4
60.1
66.1
64.0
63.2
25-29
67.2
75.2
30-34
62.3
35-39
69.2
61.8
40-44
67.8
61.9
69.5
66.0
64.9
67.8
63.9
63.8
45-49
76.7
50-54
NonBlack
15-19
37.7
20-24
58.7
55.2
73.2
65.8
56:1
25-29
67.2
67.6
61.4
71.2
30-34
44.0
35-39
47.6
53.7
40-44
51.0
56.1
62.2
57.1
61.2
67.3
58.4
59.4
45-49
73.2
50-54
Source:
N=
Sumeys
of Mature
Women,
Young
Women,
and Youth.
The picture
for black
women, s participation
rates
were
for the most part,
and were,
However,
women
during
this
actually. declined
early
women,s.
above
black
women, e at younger
black
women
is a factor.
between
This
measure
one week.
Our
estimate
since
leaving
respondent
being
enrolled
first
employed
in the
the
26 or more
with
survey
as the
weeks
increased,
but more
the
s Ignif i cant
turnover,
the
of years
life
Tables
group
at some
a full year.
which
We first
worked
the
of years
such
of women
wek
work
cycle.
nutier
3 and 4 present
for the
who
of years
during
by the total
of
within
survey
working
of the proprtion
nutier
and then
of women
the
well
no longer
reported
the
proportion
over
than
degree.
labor
the proportion
slowly
fertility
rates
to activity
force
rates
has been
higher
correspond=.
divided
in school.
for all women,
survey
to any
is participation
defined
women, s pa*icipation
25, participation
in terms
black
of white women.
the rates
(15 to 24) when
overestimate
participation
all white
syetemat ically,
In fact,
however,
full-the
measures
Mong
but will
school,
works
women
period,
women, a participation
above
can underestimate
here,
lifetime
At ages
is considerable
a year,
interest
ages
black
and then
white
of participation
rate
during
1970s
19706,
and white
If there
participation
point
black
the
above
period,
earliest
of 60 percent at agee 20 and OVer
considerably
white
differ
Since
In the
in exce5s
twenty-year
in the
differe.
mince
lifetime
who were
week.
women,
rises
week
the
proportion
corresponding
to those
part icipat ion rates
.15
of years
worked
in the
are ~ite
haa
survey
similar
increaaed
week
to the
rates.
lifettie
Tale
Propotiion
3
of Years Worked Since Leaving
All Women, Weighted
School,
or Since
Age
18,
.—._
Since
Leaving
Since
School
Age
18
—.—
1967
1968
1972
1973
1977
1978
1982
1983
1978
1987
—..
Age
Black
25-29
0.463
0.564
0.556
35-39
0.560
0.550
40-44
0.599
0.587
0.579
0.658
0.618
0.603
0.618
0.621
45-49
50-54
0.516
0.583
0.673
0.574
30-34
0.557
0.486
0.577
NonBlack
25-29
0.523
0.663
30-34
0.463
35-39
0.453
0.466
40-44
0.454
0.462
0.494
0..461
0.488
0.519
0.476
0.506
45-49
0.559
50-54
Source:
NLS
surveys
of Mature
0.621
0.568
women,
Young
Women,
and youth.
Table
Proportion
4
of Years Worked Since Leaving
Employed Women, Weighted
Since
1967
1968
Leaving
1972
1973
School,
or Since
School
1977
1978
Since
1982
1983
Age
Age
18
1978
1987
0.640
0.634
0.703
0.753
Age
Black
25-29
0.626
0.741
30-34
0.672
35-39
0.643
0.670
40-44
0.730
0.685
0.698
0.723
0.706
0.738.
0.748
0.711
45-49
0.718
50-54
0.732
0.704
NonBlack
25-29
0.699
0.822
30-34
0.645
35-39
0.610
0.612
40-44
0.594
0.600
0.638
.0.576
0.622
0.651
0.612
0.635
45-49
0.730
50-54
Source:
NLS
Suweys
of Mature
0.755
0.693
Women,
Young
Women,
and
Youth.
18,
meaaurea,
although
5
diverge somewhat in recent yeas=. For exmple,
they
survey week participation rate for white wmen
1967
and the lifetime rate for the s-e
lifetime
rate
56.8 percent
has
increased
for women
part icipation
rate
was
more
than
35 to. 39 years
old
73.2 percent.
Wong
participation rates have changed
in ways
falling
alight lY mong
groups
younger
groups.
Table
women
who
4 presents
were
homogeneous
labor
for all women.
group5,
the
who
weeks
or more)
ages
lifetime
during
employed
force
the
women
the rate
for employed
in 19a3,
black
completing
school,
years.
while
rates
increased
younger
ages,
and
working
woman
in the
the
mong
among
survey
increasing
same
late
exceed
are much
For
example,
1970s
black
be the
to have
and
the
ef feet
1980s
tiplies
possessed
age
that
working
(26
white
percent.
that
women
since
These
is largest
the
higher
rate
implying
years
women,
as thoee
as the
been
62.1
and early
sme
all race
wa8
This
of
skgroup
experience
for all women
women.
the
were perfectly
of all wseible
though
to
rate:
mong
current ly employed
75.5 percent
all white
week
for all women,
1 ikely
ri5ing
for the
work
Across
those
more
survey
rates
would
The
corresponding
slightly
prior
in
lifetime
If women
week.
had the
average
younger
to the
rate,
the
women,
stiilar
and
week
while
participation
women
are current ly working
in prior
survey
for the employed
30 to 34 in 1983 had worked
have
the
However, this is not the case.
rates
women
these
employed
so that
out of the
the older
35 to 39 was 47.6 pccent
group was then 45.3 percent.
slowly
the
at
average
levels
of
5
The lifetime part icipat ion rate for all women (employed and nonemployed ) would be e~ivalent
to the average. of the survey week part icipat ion
rates in each year over the cohort, e year5 since leaving school if the
lifetime rate were defined as the proportion
of years worked one week or more.
our estimate
is more restrictive
since it counts a year of work if 26 or more
weeks were worked during the year.
18
prior
work
experience
noteworthy
that
priOE
experience
work
thm
at ages
her
counterpart
40 and over
than
white
in the
black
women
working
although
last
1960s.
women
have
that
It ia
also
more
considerdly
difference
has been
n=rowing.
We consider
displayed
in T*les
Considering
more
than
black
half
proportion
since
women
at ages
of all possible
working
in 1967,
groups
of black
women,
of black
women
30 to 34 who
percent
Also,
during
Table
more
proportions
especially
never
2.
the proportion
the
s-e
that
consistent,
than
half
of women
-ulative
We turn
than
Years
there
some
u
has
proportions
appears
fallen
these
by
while
all) years
rose
although
-ong
to be greater
9.3 percent
no years
wortid
from
1977.
each
tiong
heterogeneity,
the
proportion
remained
in 1967
the
groups.
40 to 44 had worked
For exaple,
(but not
have
schooling,
women
worked,
respectively.
fell to 6.4 percent
from
the patterns
with
a rising
of all possible
who
among
share
working
have
never
among ‘younger black
worked
years
of years
stale,
to 11.4
6 iO percent
percent
to 8.1
period.
6 indicates
are reasonably
working
all years
ricing
completing
somewhat -
worked
women,
of all black
This
divers ity is increasing
in 1983.
since
all possible
school.
working
and white
years
and this
the proportion
of the proportion
40 and older,
13.3 percent
completing
the younger
the dist~ution
5 and 6 for black
of women
For ex-pie,
year
also
white
of Work
to consider
the
in these
proportion
years,
there
of
for white
and generally,
are higher
falling
to note
proportions
who
that ,
have
women.
E ~rience
effect
that
19
the
dr-tic
women
women at all ages
It is interesting
worked.
women,
proportions
increases
in labor
r,
Percent
Distribution
of Black
Since
1967
1968
Maving
1972
1973
Table
5
Women
by Proportion
School
1977
1978
of Years
Since
1982
1983
1978
Age
Worked
18
1987
Age
.
25-29
24.7
26.0
38.2
11.1
.01:.49
.50-.99
1
14.4
33.1
47.0
5.6
14.0
26.5
37.4
22.1
13.4
30.9
45.9
9.8
30-34
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
13.0
26.0
48.6
12.4
3:::
52.6
9.3
2::+
51.8
11.4
35-39
.01:.49
.50-.99
1
6.8
31.4
54.5
7.4
3:::
48.3
9.9
3.2
35.4
55.7
5.8
3::+
48.8
13.3
2.3
35.3
55.6
6.8
1.9
35.4
56.2
6.4
1.5
.32.5
58.4
7.7
1.2
32.5
59.1
7.2
1.9
32.0
61.2
4.9
0.7
31.3
60.0
8.0
2;:;
61.5
8.2
40-44
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
45-49
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
50-54
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
Source:
NW
Surveys
of Mature
Women,
Young
Women,
and Youth.
Table
Percent
Distribution
of Nonblack
Since
1967
1968
Women
Leaving
1972
1973
6
by Proportion
School
1977
1978
of Years
Since
Age
Worked
18
.
198’2
1983
1978
1987
2;:;
54.7
““1O-8
4.5
21.1
51.2
23.2
Age
25-29
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
17.5
.25.4
.40.0
17.1
6.0
22.0
41.3
30.6
30-34
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
5.2
52.7
31.8
-.10.3
1
6.9
33.6
46.5
13.0
2;::
56.6
12.3
35-39
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
5:::
30.6
9.6
3.0
53.0
37.2
6.8
.01:.49
.50-.99
1
52::
33.8
6.6
3.0
55”.3
35.9
5.8
1.4
51.1
40.7
6.8
5+::
37.5
3.8
1.5
53.0
41.0
4.6
46.7
47.1
5.8
5:::
40.7
3.6
4:::
47.2
3.7
4.5
35.8
51.2
8.5
40-44
45-49
0
.01-.49
.50-.99
1
~:’* :
‘
50-54
.01:.49
.50-.99
1
Source:
NLS
Surveys
of
Mature
Women,
Young
Women,
and
youth.
force
part icipat ion have
had on cumulative
years
Table 7
exprience.
of work
displays for all women the average emulative year5 since leaving school
during which the respondents
mong
all black
r-ained
steady
on average,
women,
the
through
11..2 years
however,
average
women
have
gained
of experience
on average,
T*le
week
and
8 restricts
haB changed.
bow
Levels
of work
women,
with
current ly employed
In 1982
declines
black
than
did
9 displays
Table
we calculate
the
for the NLSY
We also
present
average
yearO
data
for men
of experience
by one-tenth
of one year
fell
average
for the
experience
overall,
and
increased
although
for
between
employed
both
the
in most
in earlier
by a smaller
age
one year
high=
on
levels
white
mmen
employed
in the
wong
employed
women
clearly
exceed
mong
employed
been
modest
groups.
woman.
in the
group
overall
mong
population.
possess
since
fewer
women
years
women.
waen.
25 to 29, the
4.4 to 4.5,
woman
18, which
young
for the entire
For white women,
employed
age
of the NLS
black
from
for employed
22
women
ye-5.
~0n9
1983,
su~ey
The patterns
age groups
18 increased
average
-ount
A1l white
in 1983.
younger
years of experience
1978 and
for the
have
the youngest
black
mong
employed
changes
from the NLSY.
since
or
35 to 39 possesmed,
exhibit
experience
by some
women
cumulative
fallen
of roughly
wmen
who were
gains
reflect
women
either
9.7
increases
mong
experienced
similar
and only
experience
to women
experience
black
women
black
of cumulative
women
has
and race.
counterparts.
and experience
(or 1983) , employed
of experience
older
black
s-pie
levels
with
of work
by cohort
of experience
in 1967
And while
of their
or more
For exmple,
experience,
the
the popu lat ion average,
white
level
period.
years
that
considers
26 weeke
of experience
all gr0up5.
to exceed
average
this
=ong
has begun
worked
population
but
actually
average
and the
average
woman
Table
~ulative
7
Years of Eqerience
Since
All Womenr Weighted
Completion,
Year
Survey
1967
1968
School
1972
1973
1977*
197s
1979
Aqe
1982*
1983
Black
25-29
3.6
4.0
30-34
8.6
35-39
11.2
11.1
40-44
15.0
14.5
14.4
18.2
18.2
18.1
21.5
21.5
45-49
6.4
7.3
9.7
50-54
NonBlack
25-29
3.7
4.4
30-34
6.6
35-39
8.8
9.0
40-44
11.2
11.3
12.0
13.7
14.4
15.1
16-5
17.4
45-49
6.4
9.5
50-54
*Mature womenrs
metiod.
Source:
NE
years
Surveys
of e~erience
of Mature
7.7
calculated
Women,
Younq
usinq
Women
ratio
and Youth.
Tale
~ulative
8
Years of E~erience
Since
Employed Women, Weighted
Survey
1967
1968
S&OOl
Completion,
Year
ig82*
1983
1977*
1978
1979
1972
1973
Age
Black
4.9
25-29
5.1
9.3
8.1
30-34
10.2
35-39
12.6
13.2
40-44
18.1
16.6
17.1
21.7
20.6
21.9
25.8
24.4
45-49
11.7
50-54
NonBlack
4.7
25-29
5.2
8.2
9.3
30-34
9.2
35-39
11.9
11.9.
40-44
14.6
14.6
15.4
17.0
18.2
18.9
21.0
21.9
45-49
.11.5
50-54
*Mature women?s
method.
Source:
NM
years
Surveys
of
eqerience
of Mature
calculated
Women,
Young
using
Women,
ratio
and Youti.
Table
Cumulative
Years
9
of E~erience
Since
Age
18, by Employment
Status
(Weighted)
Women
Age
1978
1983
Men
1987
1987
Black
25-29
All
Employed
Out of the Labor
30-34
All
Employed
Out of the Labor
Force
4.4
5.7
2.2
4.5
5.5
2.6
5.8
6.2
4.0
5.9
6.5
4.5
6.9.
7.2
5.4
7.7
9.9
3.5
Force
NonBlack
25-29
All
Employed
Out of the
5.2
Labor
30-34
All
Employed
Out of the Labor
Source:
NM
Surveys
Force
::;
8.5
10.3
5.7
Force
of Mature
Women,
Young
Women,
and Youth.
This
employed
rising
comparison
women
rapidly
the population
undergone
indicates
and the
cumulative
of ~
some
women,
of these
(and as of a given
groups
of e~erience
clearly
slower -grotih,
Yet
these
of years
while
years
in some
apparent
the
Yeas
considerably
the
10 indicates,
during
achieved
as two
this
by black
years
for some
and white
groups.
ages.
1967-68
to 0.2 to 0.9 years
Table
at large,
4.
schooling
11 reports
with
in work
has
declined.
=perience
rising
lwels
fewer
years
changes
woman
for
schooling
since
of education
within
attained
which
in schooling
to
by
work at
attaiment.
of women, s schooling
Rising
women
levels
has
of educational
in all. age groups,
Perhaps
more
women
difference
among
notable
thm
schooling
has narrowed
the most
are, on average,
one-thtid
recent
attainment
to one-half
years
gains
overall
to white
from
of women
than
schooling
have
as large
grotih
women
1.0 to 1.5
for currently
educated
more
attaiment
with
the
groups
levels
better
increased
is
of
years in
35.
under
employed
in the population
attained
than
the
for all women.
Chanaes
Rising
expected
Table
The
Working
level
period-
similar
average
even
increased
~lovd
gains that black women have made relative
educational
women.
has
have
has been
of Schooltiq
As Table
been
average
and conse~ently,
any fixed age. We turn now to consider
3.
for the
cases
and currently
force participation
l~or
experience
declines
reflect
all women
of work
experience
and
age) my
of women,
that
between
in Marital
investments
to affect
12 exhibits
stat”=
and Fe*ility
in human
capital
(and be influenced
the proportion
ad
l~or
by) marital
of the
26
cohort
force
status
that
hs
attactient
-d
never
can be
fertility.
mrried
by given
Table
Years
of Schooling
10
Completed
Suwey
1967
1968
1972
1973
Age
by All
Women,
Weighted
Year
1982
1983
1977
1978
1979
1987
Black
15-19
9.95
20-24
11.37
25-29
9.56
12.35
11.65
11.57
12.72
12.15
30-34
10.27
35-39
10.29
10.54
40-44
9.77
10.44
11.12
10.13
10.91
11.07
10.52
10.72
45-49
11.67
50-54
12..38
11.69
NonBlack
15-19
10.48
20-24
12.46
25-29
9.70
12.53
12.63
12.76
13.10
13.11
13.27
30-34
11.79
35-39
11.60
12.08
40-44
11.17
11.88
12.20
11.37
12.05
12.32
11.53
12.16
45-49
12.99
50-54
Source:
NW
Su=eys
of Mature
13.21
Women,
Young
Women,
and
Youth.
Table
Years
of Schooling
11
Completed
Sumey
1967
1968
1972
1973
Age
by Employed
Women,
Weighted
Year
1987
1982
-.83
1977
1978
1979
Black
15-19
10.42
20-24
1X. 89.
10.70
12.11
25-29
12.81
11.92
13.21
12.72
12.41
12.99
30-34
10.18
35-39
10.89
11.08
40-44
10.38
11.12
11.62
10.57
11.60
11.51
11.27
11.38
45-49
50-54
12.38
NonBlack
15-19
.m..34
20-24
12.64
10.25
12.88
12.71
13.31
25-29
13..42
13.54
13.30
=.54
30-34
11.83
35-39
11.57
12.22
40-44
11.28
11.99
12.50
11.60
12.42
U.68
11.96
12.46
45-49
50-54
Source:
NM
SuNeys
of Mature
13.53
Women,
Young
Womenr
and Youth.
Table
Propotiion
12
of Cohoti
Survey
1967”
1968
Never
Married,
Weighted
Year
1972
1973
Age
1977
1978
1979
1982
1983
1987
Black
15-19
0.92
20-24
0.51
25-29
.0.98
0.5’7
0.77
0.39
0.25
0.53
30-34
0.12
35-39
0.04
0.09
40-44
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.09
0.05
0.02
45-49
0.21
0.29
0.18
50-54
NonBlack
15-19
0.94
20-24
0.45
25-29
0.95
0.44
0.59
0.12
0.18
‘0.28
30-34
0.05
35-39
0.05
0.04
40-44
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
45-49
0.08
0.07
50-54
Source:
N=
Surveys
of Mature
0.11
Women,
Young
Women,
and Youth.
ages.
At all
marriage
ages
rates.
In 1967,
age 30 to 34.
While
never
proportion
from
hong
remained
percent
no children
ever
than
at a given
reductions
declines
in children
35 to 39, women
women
women
born
are
had borne
given
children
than
(data
has
narrowed
women
during
in 1983.
women,
this
25 to 29 and
by
2a percent
black
40, the proportion
period,
the
period,
from
e. g.,
12 percent
15 and
nuder
4.6 children
for them
to almost
period,
of children
recent ly, as women
with
30
ever
These
women.
For
only
2.6
4 children
working
borne
children
women
in Table
are
also
risen,
who
have
or reduced
of chiltien
data
40.
indicate
Average
ex~le,
by ages
in 1983.
in 1967,
have
Black
and only
borne
fewer
However,
16) .
by working
have
in
women
nutiers
than
are depicted
14.7
of women
younger
yet
in 1967,
have
the
respectively.
black
13.
childbearing
16 illustrate
mong
in Tale
working
propotiion
delayed
who
declines
proportions
for women
birth
no children
And while
in the
women,
thie
as illustrated
these
either
of women
Comparable
women.
increase
highest
Throughout
women
mong
sharply
in 1983.
fertility
2 in 1983.
the
And
35 to 39 had
ages
Tables
to about
between
in 1973,
this
women
An
14.
30 to 34 had already
difference
married
under
by white
in total
average
m~ried
never
black
and employed
in 1967
had never
(to 11 percent)
to be childless,
or both.
striking
women
declining
doubled
in 19a7.
age can signal
to al 1 women
experienced
30 to 34.
experienced
average
have
than
even more
mong
by these
in Table
fertility,
born
rose
of black
had no children
1 ikely
age
mmen
of white
has more
rose during
also
7.5 percent
as illustrated
total
married
and white
were
5 percent
as of. this
women
childless
40, white
25 to 29 had
to 53 percent
mong
childbearing
more
never
black
only
only
of women
25 percent
than
proportion
married
who
to 29 percent
While
This
12 percent
remained
younger
women
increased
and all
their
work
Table
Percentage
of Women
witi
13
No Children
Weighted
By
Age
and
Race,
All
Women,
. ..
Sumey
1967
1968
1972
1973
Age
Year
1977
1978
1979
1987
1982
1983
Black
20-24
0.433
25-29
0.210
0.504
0.303
0.204
30-34
0.058
0.160
35-39
0.075”
0.053
40-44
0.182
0.064
0.053
0.175
0.064
0.059
0.179
0.064
45-49
0.134
0.147
50-54
NonBlack
20-24
0.701
25-29
0.327
0.737
0.429
0.201
0.483
30-34
0.116
35=39
0.102
0.093.
40-44
0.117
0.094
0.092
0.114
0.093
0..086
0.114
0.090
45-49
0.156
50-54
Source:
NLS
Suweys
of
Mature
0.267
Women,
Young
Womenr
and Youti.
Tale
Percentage
of Employed
14
Women
wifi
NO Children,
Sumey
1967
1968
1972
‘1973
Age
Weighted
Year
1982
1983
1977
1978
1979
1987
Black
20-24
0.446
25-29
0.277
0.646
0.280
0.163
30-34
0.078
35-39
0.087
0.075
40-44
0.222.
0.083
0.058
0.179
0.086
‘0.077
0.225
0.083
45-49
0.189
0.384
0.144
50-54
NonBlack
20-24
0.824
25-29
0.539
0.847
0.614
0.610
0.320
0.379
30-34
0.241
35-39
0.179
0.139
40-44
0.178
0.129
0.125
0.142
0.109
0.094
0.134
0.102
45-49
50-54
Source:
N=
Sumeys
of Mature
0.209
Women,
Young
Womenr
and You#.
Tale
N~er
of Children
15
Ever Born,
Weighted
By Age
Survey
1967
1968
1972
1973
Age
and Race,
All
~omen,
Year
1977
1978
1979
1982
1983
1987
Black
20-24
0.998
25-29
2.318
0.766
1.672
1.369
30-34
3.990
35-39
4.637
4.302
40-44
3.279
4.798
4.276
3.313
4.736
4.439
3.243
4.927
45-49
2.490
50-54
2.076
2.602
NonBlack
20-24
0.423
25-29
1.269
0.370
1.017
0.928
30-34
2.753
35-39
2.928
2.990
40-44
2.933
3.036
3.050
2.962
3.043
3.087
2.967
3.069
45-49
1.791
50-54
Source:
N=
Sumeys
.
of Mature
1.543
2.003
Women,
Young
Women,
and Youth.
Tale
Ntier
16
of Children Ever Born, By Age
~ployed
Women, Weighted
Suwey
1967
1968
1’972
1973
Age
and Race.
Year
“’-”-1987
“1982
1983
1977
1978
1979
Black
20-24
0.863
25-29
1.690
0.500
1...085
1.292
2.227
1.725
30-34
3.342
35-39
4.205
3.832
40-44
2.604
4.239
3.792
2.860
4.024
3.863
2.680
4.343
45-49
50-54
2.464
NonBlack
20-24
0.240
25-29
0.791
0.208
0.625
0.625
1.379
1.171
30-34
2.188
35-39
2.449
2.558
40-44
2.421
2.718
2.769
2.646
2.899
2.879
2..673
2.950
45-49
50-54
Source:
NM
Suweys
of Mature
1.760
Women,
Young
Women,
and Youti.
.
participation.
D.
S~
Our comparison
these
seven
market
cohorts
experience
measured
white
working
individual
level
with
and
nonworking
has worked
declined.
mile
rising
yeare
levels
Along
women
have
each
cohort
Moreover,
sharply,
more
women
women
illuminated
some
cotiined,
of this
held
women
slower
with
women
rising
experienced
remains
have
also
(at a fixed
levels
unmarried
nuder
of children
ever
with
women
in the
earlier
and the
in survey
cohorts
giving
birth
changes.
continue
mong
to two to three
35
these
bearing
an
or has
actually
to the
lower
nu@er
in the
ratea ),
of post-schooling
worked.
in education,
women
For
average
participation
nutier
for
which
the
increase
week
have
could
whether
during
S1OW1Y
rapid
age)
cohorts
in labor
markedly
although
more
the
born
years
rieen,
acros6
or declines.
increases
diminished
and more
increased
can be attributed
demographic
the
recent
ha6
of investment
draatic
has
cumulative
grotih
rise
changes
-force participation,
has grown
by new entranta
characteri@tic5
drmatic
slight
the
sti months
(as signal led by the
which
the
- L*or
experiencing
of employed
of schooling
within
and daographic
over the lifetime
or
at least
of experience
of new entrants
has
in ttie
black
of experience
levels
of women
capital
and-its correlates.
at a point
women,
of human
these
A larger
cohorts
proportion
of
of
to be childless.
women
three
children.
to
has declined
four
children
and
III. DE~NANTS
DDWATION OF WOX
OF =
We have obeerved drmatic
schooling, along with e~ally
attactient,
whether
experience.
demographic
section
changes
we estimate,
rate model
of exits
re~irements
the
given
These
age.
from work
results
labor
Women
spel 1 model
second
of
behavior.
In thi5
a multiple
spell
hazard
the
the data available
approach
of the
in Section
influences
Unfortunately,
outstripped
of the proportion
are described
supply
spells.
in our
in work
eort out the
and the NLSY,
and non-work
However,
determinants
Multiple S~ll
Young
dcreases.
part icipat ion or lif et be
to help
on women, s life-cycle
Women, s smple.
all cohorts
A.
two methodologies
of the multiple
the Mature
by contemporaneous
for NLS
SPEUS
changes in fertility, marital status, and
striking inter cohort
measured
..-We emplay
AND NON-WO=
from
we esttiate
lifetime
IV which
worked
for
as
of a
follows.
Haz=d Rate Model
This research builds on recent work using longitudinal data to analyze
labor supply behavior and the impl icat ions of labor force patterns
wage
the
gap.
6
Notable
duration
women
early
of the
from two
different
of young
force
is Donohue
(1987)
His
periods,
results
behavior
uses NLS data to esttiate
job for smples
1968-1971
indicate
of young
who
and
that
women
of young
1979 -19S2,
for the more
appears
men
and
reflecting
recent
virtually
cohoti
identical
the
to that
men.
Donohue
their
them
first post-schooling
four-year
cohorts.
labor
mong
for the
first
reports
jobs
that
in the
at considerably
early
higher
6See also work on dynaic
ltior
and Flinn and Hectian
(19S2, 19S3 ) .
period,
rates
supply,
36
young
than
women
do young
e.g. , Hechan
appear
men.
to leave
However,
and MaCurdy
in
(1980)
the
later ~riod,
the early l~or
force behavior for young women appears
Especially, the distribution by job
vifiually identical to that of young men.
tenure
and occupation,
differ
little
associated
the
with
narrowing
wage
rises
increasing
The
by gender.
female-male
1968-1971
and the
closing
the wage
ratio
of
the
high
by
1979-82.
in behavior
derives
of his haz-d
estimate=
gap. - For
for white
to 89 percent
similarity
behavioral
school
Smple,
both
Donohue
graduates
Donohue
of 77
hypothesizes
from
model
tenure gap” appars
“first-job
his
rate
repofis
that
~rcent
for
that
greater l~or
the
force
attactient of young women as well as from increases in the age at marriage and
birth.
first
Other
the
NLS
analyze
recent
panel
etudies
of Young
the process
that
Women
by which
or to exit
the
~PlOwent
due tO Pregnancy
tbe
category,
latter
Meitzen
(1986)
labor
uses
(EOPP ) Employers,
femle
witting
include
recently
Meitzen
reports
for men
and
duration
the
likelihood
separates
separates
voluntary
EOPP
with
tenure
forcing
data,
2.5
which
of Witting
(1988)
for transitions
into
uses
to
unemployed
out
of
and
mong
exitw.
Progrma
of male
and
were
collected
March-May
years
of tenure
in the
a job declines
his model
relationship
uses
Pilot
model
However,
for women.
reasons
involuntary
Opportunities
or fewer
a monotonic
Blank
fOr other
from
who
to become
transitions
a continuous-time
possibility
with
made
force
(1984)
modelling
emploment
labor
the Emplowent
The
of Witting.
model
leave
women
to estimate
women
the
parameter,
risks
time work.
that
increases
one
competing
hired
young
from
behavior.
are Felmlee
and continuous-the
and transitiOne
further
Survey
be noted
(1968-1973)
She
force.
data
should
PSID
data
between
with
and out of both
fire.
tenure
includes
tentie
to estimate
full-time
only
and
a
and
She finds age, nutier of children, race, and education to be
37
1980
part-
~o*ant
the
determinants
tiportance
a dynmic
of treating
~ong
l~or
force
cross-section
women
This
force movements.
female
A sfigle
model.
the heterogeneity
1.
of l&or
in their
research
decisions
illustrate~
within
of data
can yield
life-cycle
patternn
the
little
context
insight
of
into
of work.
wthodolo~
tir theoretical model follows
especially
1983) .7
that
These
of Hecban
models
and MaCurdy
generalize
not working
defined
rate
and W
of substitution
(t) -W,
d (t) = 1.
is working.
consecutive
Given
event
“age
that
Let
supply,
(1982,
force
we define
and leisure
rate.
lsbor
and HecMan
of l~or
Suppose
goods
Wr (t)
if the woman
I (t) be an index
as
is
function
(t).
years
the
history
determinants
chooses
to work
If I (t) < 0, she chooses
of our model
a woman
between
and Flinn
models
manner -
(t ) as her market
If I (t) z O_ then. the womn
object
(1980)
on dynmic
by: a
I (t) =W
dumy
by others
one-period
part icipat ion in a straight fomard
the marginal
work
is to explain
Similarly
variation
we would
in the market
not to work
in the
nuder
1ike to explain
and we set
and d
a work
(t) = O.
The
of consecutive
the variation
years
in
not working.
dynmic
nature
information
of exit
rates
of female
we use
l~or
continuous
from work
supply
time
and entry
and the
methods
rates
availability
to model
into work.
of
the
EstMtion
of
7
See Killingsworth
(1983) , Killingsworth
and Hechan
(1986) , and MaCurdy
(1985) for reviews of dynmic
models and empirical results and Bee Hechn
and
Singer (1986) for a brief outlke
of a stiilar dyn-ic
labor supply model.
8
This index is analogous to the one-period
decision rule comon
labor force participation
models of HeChan
(1974, 1977) , and Cogan
=ong
others.
38
to the
(1977) ,
transition rate (or hazard rate) models has become widespread
with
applications
(Lancaster,
&
1987;
Hotz,
1979;
~nken
Fli-
model
conditional
include
measured,
not yet
censored
obeerved.
information
on all
density
force
and
conditional
at time
(out of) the
epella,
likelihood
force
probability
labor
the
(kdernon
1984;
~
Hechan,
spells
ttie
in the
end of the
makee
work
md
at year
lsbor
full
which
The NLS
ltior force is
force
use
non+ork
for all women,
t,
for t years.
force
the
esttiation
and censored
the
instantaneous
t to be
unconditional
f“ (t ), where
unconditional
probability
of exiting
up to that
transition
and divorce
and McCulloch
for which
for which
ttie
rate
from
FM(t)
survivor
the
-- called
h“ (t”) = fw (tW) / ( l-FM
The
(Nman
(entrance)
l-FW (t ) the
pa*icipation
marriage
unemplopent
SP1l
is
of the
spells.
tiplies
We use
multiple
women.
If we define
labor
h
exit
for completed
labor
including
welfare receipt (O,Neill et al., 1987).
epells,
MaxMum
both
for sae
been
events
1983),
fertility
on the
completed
information
spells
and
focuses
both
and
1981,
1985)
on having
of econmic
and Hec*n,
et al.
and Walker,
~r
data
to a variety
in economics
prob~ility
the
is
corresponding
prob~ility,
l~or
force
the
hazard
of exiting
at the
rate
then
the
emulative
tbe
t given
-- is given
by:
(t”) ) .
non-work
hm
can be defined
spell,
e.g. , is then:
to work
in an analogoue
manner.
The
expected
m
duration
of a wrk
t
J exp (- j hw (u.) du ) dt
o
0
In order
to study
the
determinants
39
of the
hazard
rates
acrose
individual
women
w
have
model.
be~n
with
(See Yi, ~.
a general
(1987),
Singer
(1986) , and also Alison
hazard
for the
be written
transit ion out
functional
Flinn
ad
fom
Hechan
and
6
specified
the
term
= 1
Xj2 = 2.
allow
for the
reeults
2.
measures
the
unobserved
specified
from those
results
include
force
with
those
the
cohofis
with
experience
who were
ages
Women
for this
are
obsemations
of women
between
followed
the ages
Longitudinal
from
actually
who were
20 to .24 in 1968
analysis.
from
has
no heterogeneity
1968
the period
changed
of Young
1975,
1979 through
40
the
while
1986.
Xj,
to
estimated
controls.
Model
by comparing
the
ages
and 20 to 24 in 1973.
through
with
force behavior of recent
between
For compar~ility,
the
has
corrections,
Women
We
also
Eight-year
and Youth
15 to 19 year
tbe NLS Youth
The
the
of 15 and
of 15 and 19 in 1979.
Sumeys
Our model
distribution
however,
no heterogeneity
for models
its determinants)
from the National
base
i can
and the-varying
to be ~adratic,
a non-par-etric
heterogeneity,
with
fixed
heterogeneity.
11
(and
both
ef feet of duration
of unobserved
little
that
We analyze the extent to which the l~or
labor
conditional
Ljk
Dec”i~
~
cohorts
of the
and
E y jk (tfj - 1)/ kjk + Cij 0}
k=l
individual
We initially
we present
+
variables
capturing
effects
differed
therefore
fom
Hechn
of work state j (= w, nw) for individual
yjo + Zi P j
are explanatory
Z
variables
and
1983),
spell
as:
hij (tij I Z, O)=exp{
the
(1982,
The general
(1984) . )
2
where
of the multiple
19 in 1968
consider
s-pies
fom
old
early
the
data
NLS Young
include
20 to 24 year
old
groups
from the ~S
through
Young
a wman
objective
followed
is to explain
is wrking
consecutive
supply
and the
methode
from
non-work
avail tiility
1968 through
1975
from
and
1973
‘
NLS
data
and gensored
the
spells
analysia
of event
spells,
and
censored
nutier
of consecutive
spell)
nature
as -11
w
from work
use
ye~s
as
of female
information
of exits
those
as being
right-censored.
year.
data
are measured
for. at least
work
in years;
tbe year
makes
ltior
continuous
spelle
as well
duration
labor
full
as
multiple
their
of the
for
the
some
swple
if an individual
reports
is defined
that
year
as a non-work
is not
information
non-work
year,
iw
information
and
of a given
work
spell
We use
spells
leave
of which
force
use
spells.
eventually
for them;
the
of the
and non-work
who
six months
Otherwise
end
implies
persons
treated
lengths
years
the
epells,
estimation
which
three
8pell
history
for which
at least
be employed
dynmic.
cmpleted
likelihood
for all women,
includes
both
observe
Spell
in the
of a work
.-Given the
determinants
include
Maximum
ob5emed.
on all
variation
spells.
both for completed
work
from
is, the duration
not. working.
to model
The
h-n,
(that
years
the
The
are
19S0.
Our
yet
Women
9
women.
if we
spells
herself
i5 counted
spell
are
year.
to
aa a
10
9
See Yi, ~.
(19S7 ), Flinn and Hectian
(1982, 19S3 ), and Hectian and
Singer (1986) for description
of the multiple--pen
hazard rate model md
estimation.
10
The NLS Young Waen, s Smple
began skipping yeara in the late 1970s
However,
through
a full seaence
of annual observations
is not available.
use of retrospective
Vest ions, it is Pgsible
to fill in important
Given the nature of the retrospective
infomt
ion for the missing years.
qeetiona,
we define a work year aa one in which the respondent
worked at
least six months to link the retrospective
and prospective
data.
Unfortunately
this definition
cotiines together the etates “unemplo~ent“out of the labor force” a5 ‘non-work. ”
41
so
the
and
which
The
explanatory
are
fixed
progresses.
for a given
Fixed
of schooling,
variables,
school
spell
capture
and
variables
married
birth;
who
birth;
no children
spell
year,
e~al
included
duration
who
mrried,
no births,
20 to 24, the
are the
The
but
nutier
reference
and its s~are.
spell.
residential
the
11
fertility
Time-varying
is enrolled
group.
than
than
in
which
marital
year
variables
older
SP1l
and ye~s
status
composition.
to married,
younger
of children
fertflity
age,
dumies
in a spell
those
a5 the
in household
not married
children
both
of dichotomous
changes
umarried
status.
with
to one. if the wman
and vectors
remain
vary
of the
to capture
to not
17, include
of experience,
two the-varying
for marital
for the women
also
variable
Women
categoq
subse~ent
have
at the beginning
are married
to married.
reference
and,
varisbles,
which
of years
and SMSA residence,
Southern
fertility
These
the
in Table
and those
consist
each measured
a dmy
during
spell
vari&les
variables. include
described
and
define
the
include
first
six present;
sfi.
The model
12
Women
includes
13
11
Experience
is measured as years since echooltig wcapleted
20 to 24 year olds and as years since age 18 for the 15 to 19 year
for the
olds.
12
For the 15 to 19 year olds, there was so little variation
in the ntier
of chiltien older than 6 that the multiple
spell models were not esth~le
when they included that varitile.
local
13Missing Su=ey
years ruled out including
l&or
market as an additional
explanatory
42
the unemplo~ent
vari~le.
rate
in the
Table
V~IABLE
DeDendent
Work
spells:
lanatory
Fixed
FOR WORK
AND
NON-WORK
SPELL
MODEL
Variables
Non-work
spells:
Em
DEFINITIONS
17
Consecutive
years in which
least six months
consecutive
years in which
work at least six months
respondent
worked
respondent
did not
at
Variables
at beginning
of spell:
EXPERIENCE
equals cumulative
years of work
experience
AGE
GRADE highest level of schooling
completed
Time-varying:
ENROLLED equals one if enrolled in school during
spell year
SO~H
equals one if residing
in Southern
state
CITY CENTER equals one if in SMSA central
city
MAR TO NOT W
equals one if marital dissolution
occurs during spell year
NOT MAR TO M
equals one if respondent
marries
during spell year
W
TO.NAR equale on if respondent
remains married
during spell year
BIRTH:NO KIDS equals one if respondent
has a first
birth during a spell year
BIRTH:KIDS
equals one if respondent
has a second
or higher order birth during a spell year
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6 equals one if respondent
has
children under age six, but no births during
a spell year
ALL KIDS GT6 equals the number of children
older
than six if all children are over 6 in a
spell year
SCHOOL CHILD equals one if youngest
child reaches
age 6 in a spell year
Given
separately
variables
mrk
non-work
in spell
potential
For
higher
except
the
The
more recent
Turning
entire
18 describes
the mean
from
length
3.3 to 4.1
of women,
experience
and these
spell
ye~s
longer
lengths
is also
non-work
splls
duration
for “hem
censored
dso
(of a
spells
with mean
olds,
work
for black
work
Cen50red
group.
striking
of censored
to 4.9 years
3.9
20 to 24 year
and completed
the most
duration
of completed
recent
group
olds,
are esttiated
the’dependent
censored
of
15 to, 19 year
and from
for Non-black
age group,
Tale
models
rising
they
work
have
spells
increased
mong
than
the
cohort.
Tables
of spells
recent
by race,
duration
rising
the
olds
14
is that
for the more
20 to 24 year
younger
the
women
olds,
differ
and mean
one year,
for the more
6 months,
shortened does
15 to 19 year
lengthened
women.
characteristic
year
may
Comparing
for non-black
by one-half
about
the nutier
by about
eight)
behavior
and black
spelk.
increases
women.
force
for non-black
difference
have
labor
by including
and
epells
that
19 and 20 provide
by their
to Table
eight-year
19 year
old
percent
to 24.0
duration,
first
19, the proportion
period
non-black
of eight-years
somewhat
has
women,
percent.
duration
then
for all age
proportion
increases
regarding
all censored
of
Tbe proportion
also
detail
for censored,
increased
this
more
more
modestly
spelSs
and race
than
over
distrtiution
for completed
work
of censored
the
time
that
groups.
doubles
non-work
spells.
For
from
15
to
9.8
spells
for each
last the
that
are
age ad
74
To adjust for the oversampling
of Hispanics
in the NLS-Y, we dr~
a
random smple
of all Hispanic women such that osaple
proportion
corresponds
with the age and sex specific population
proportion
as reported
the 1980 Census.
44
in
Table
Kean ~ration
and Ntier
18
of Censored and Completed
Race, and Time Period
Spells, by Age Cohort,
Work Spells
Non-Work
Spells
Age and Race
Censored
Censored
Completed
Completed
1968-75
1979-86
1968-75
1979-86
1968-75
1979-86
3.89
591
4.94
1582
1.81
636
2.29
1273
3.58
357
4.18
696
1.99
886
2.14
1866
3.27
230
4.08
563
1.42
251
1.92
480
4.44
165
5.15
356
2.23
389
2.60
823
1968-75
1973-80
1968-75
1973-80
1968-75
1973-80
1968-75
1973-80
Non-Black
4.85
676
5.35
569
2.16
S46
2.25
634
4.72
493
4.37
329
2.02
900
1.86
611
Black
4.41
244
5.04
254
1.90
301
1.87
245
4.54
147
4,95
121
2.10
362
1.99
288
1968-75
1979-86
15-19 to 23-27
Non-Black
Black
20-24 to 28-32
Source:
NU
Suweys
of Nature
Women,
Youg
Wonen, and youth.
MK SP2LLS
W-W
20.24
TO2S2-32
15-19
To23-27
Bl#k
Um-niuk
196s-n
1 Ycor
2 Yurs
b Yars
3 YNm
6 Years
1*-73
1973-W
173
34
0.109
0.235
*
M
0.151
0.127
56
196s-73
lW-75
19n-m
170
a
39
70
37
0.107
O.lw
O.lfi
‘O.1O4
0.063
76
O.la
0.16
167
26
0.113
‘s8
0.103
44
o. tm
O.~
106
52
-.60
18
0.121
0. lm
0.074
55
153
18
40
40
2s
26
‘0.097
0.07s
0.071
0.039
0.049
0.115
5s
O.wo
13
51
0.037
O.m
9
0.091
60
0.039
0.142
0.293
676
1s
0.117
360
0.2W
46
19s
27
O.lM
lW
0.303
21
0. lM
l=
0.267
lW-73
1979-U
196s-73
43
39
93
0.261
0.166
0.193
M
30
12
32
57
0.119
0.073
0.090
0.t16
34
67
9
0.093
0.096
0.055
27
‘%
0.106
52
O.0~
lb
41
0.039
13
9.
0.035
49.
O.om
0.039
22
0.M7
Mm-Slwk
O.lM
0.076
O.m
20-24 TO =32
Black
1979-s6
23
24
O.ow
0.093
0.O56
a Y**rs
19m-&
0.179
33
7 Ywrs
WW-73
Um-Bl~k
Slffik
33
110
177
52
72
10”
126
m
Q.lu 0.112 0.313 0.1s3 O.lu 0.132 0.213 0.130
13
11
87
49
23
a
39
Iw
0.037
0.155
0.W5
O.m
O.M
0.116
Owl
O.ow
114
0.193
3 Ymrs
1979-s6
Nm-Blmk
WELLS
15-19 TO 23-27
29
14
O.ms
7
O.w
37
O.lw
18
0;051
17”
42
O.m
49
O.ow
O.w
12
0.034
7
35
0.071
9
40
O.ml
3s
BIUk
1973-M
196s-73
1973-W
33
43
0.161 0.293
f4
58
0.17b
36.
O.~
O.lw
O.w
10
35.
s
O.lM ‘“0.034
3
32
0.097 0.020
17 ‘ 11
0.032 0.073
23
11
22
0.1s2
8
0.066
12
O.ow
14
0.116
13
0.107
3
0.023
6
26
20
11
0.046
0.043
m
O.ow
47
74
179
67
162
137
73
47
43
0.418
0.193
0.331
0.207
0.237
0.406
0.435
0.27s
0.222
0.320
0.353
569
244
234
357
&
O.w
0.042
0.M2
O.m
0.077
0.07b
0.073
0.030
Total
B-r
d
591
15s3
230
5a
6%
163
493
121
*11*
_..
smrm:
NLS W-
of Mtura
W,
V-
W,
d
Ymth.
‘“”
Ttile
Wtir
d
P~rtim
of qletd
Wrk
~K
d
20
Mm-Wrk
Xlls,
196s-73
411
550
0.565
0.431
146
0.201
3M
0.240
l~th
M~-WK
20-24 TO 2S-32
Blak
1979-s6
SP1l
SPELLS
15-19 TO 23-27
Nm-Black
W
lW-E
1979-66
lW
0.701
50
0.185
72
167
17
0.099
0.131
0.063
Blink
Mm-BIMk
lW.E
240
0.500
13s
O.m
49
0.102
1973-60
3W
0.4s2
323
0.5W
1965-75
Nm-Black
1973.s0
196s-73
172
156
447
0.571
0.637
0.435
235
55
116
93
0.147
0.123
0.124
0.141
0.106
0.W5
.66
73
0.W3
O.m
87
0.137
0.150
24
16
22
93
0.090
0.092
50
O.ow
17
42
1
9
2s
0.023
0.033
0.004
0.019
0.034
n8
12n
0
271
n
0.046
30
0.W7
8
0.027
5
O.mo
e
0.0s0
129
O.w
52
0.044
43
O.WY
m
30
52
0.W3
49
67
42
17
0.047
0.020
32
0.W3
17
12
13
0.019
0.020
0.036
8
4
26
65
15
0.027
0.016
0.023
0.035
0.034
9
12
2
5
6
2s
10
0.011
0.019
0.007
0.020
0.006
0.015
0.023
634
301
245
35
0.U3
34
0.118
24
0.W6
0.0s1
5
W8
0.0s0
171
0.135
0.010
4s0
33
0.115
O.ow
103
0.033
O.wo
69
0.191
150
0.102
63
33
69
0.113
73
0.099
0.0=
172
0.618
0.169
0.127
1973-W
194
451
O.lm
196s-73
0.536
0.241
62
4
39s
0.653
221
0.073
0.003
U7
0.%1
0.21s
151
25
f4
337
0.4W
1973-M
29
0.032
0.029
166
0.419
1%-73
0.11s
8
5
523
0.471
1979-66
50
0.166
45
0.030
0.018
lw-n
Black
90
131
63
19n-M
Nm-Blwk
0.142
0.103
0.M9
Black
193
34
24
20-24 TO 2S-32
0.233
0.074
0.033
WELLS
15-19 TO 23-27
12
0.042
29
O.m
13
13
0.014
0.021
O.m
611
w
12
0.042
3
13
0.045
6.
0.021
m
race group except
duration
of such
Tale
spells.
cohort
Tables
black
include
21 and
mong
anticipate
Cons idering
prior
recent
experience
cohort,
cohort.
Yeare
changes
little
the
of
15
We
spells,
with
use
a
support
but
the e5t hates
for unobserved
women
of the multiple
becomes
change
longer
negative
risk
@adratLc
recent
a work
indicated
for the
for the more
the
length
group.
Being
duration
both
Southern
among
do not
the
we do control,
16
a work
significant
spell,
the
effeet
for the more
effect for the earlier
of the work
enrolled
residence
the more
rate
for non-
here
given
ice for which
of leaving
hazard
period,
reported
However,
(but positive)
spell.
duration
little
result=
end highly
increases
work
The
declines
5pell
smple
in our estimates.
an insignificant
schooling
The
ch=acterist
the estimated
leaving
15
of the
heterogeneity.
in peasured
no drmatic
first
one year
❑lightly
rise5
and non-work
or two years.
one
end within
recent
spell;
in school
its ef feet
increases
is significantly
cohort
of women.
specification.
Likelihood
ratio tests
Weibull ~nd GWpe&z
spec~ications
in
Early reSUlts based on a non-par~etric
point5
only
work
olds.
indicated
that we could reject
favor of the ~adrat ic model.
16
laat
that
respectively.
for the more
of
spelle
15 to 19 at the beginning
women,
having
likelihood
associated
work
for completed
distributions
22 present
ages
for black
heterogeneity
of
these
of 15 to 19 ..year olds,
correct ions
we would
declined) .
of 20 to 24 year
for women
and
also
of completed
of completed
group
models
spells
majority
The
recent
recent
non-black 20 to 24 years old5 (for whom the mean
20 describee
proportion
more
the
change
mixture distribution
with tm
in any of the estimated
parmeters.
48
Work
Table 21
and’Non-Work
Spell Hazard Rate
Non-Black
Woman 15 to 19
1968-75
(N=948)
Estimate
1979-86
(N=2278)
Standard
-- —.-—-.
Estimate
work
to Non-Work
-8.3268
8.4791
-0.0516
-15.3758
0.3720
0.0175
-0.0740
-0.9052
0.2513
0.1568
0.3624
0.2834
0.0555
0.7682
-0.3554
Non-Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERIENCE/10 O
AGE/ 100
G~DEj100
ENROLLED
SOUTH
CITY CENT%
NAR TO NOT NOT ~
TO M
NARTONAR
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTE:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
DURATION
DURATSON2
NEGATIVE
LOG LIKELIHOOD
-11.2336
6.1230
9.5546
9.7537
-0.3902
-0.0506
-0.0312
-1.9333
-0.5086
-1.0006
-0.5537
-0.6542
-0.5827
1.5103
-0.4699
-134.8135
Standard
-– —----—
Urror
Error
INTERCEPT
EXPERIENCE/10 O
AGE/100
GRADE/ 100
ENROLLED
SOUTH
CITY CENTER
~
TO NOT NAR
NOT &
TO NAR
NARTONAR
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
D~TION
DURATION2
Model,
1.4674
5.8769
2.6851
1.7290
0.1062
0.0921
0.0985
0.5032
0.1538
0.1389
0.2458
0.4571
0.1680
0.1543
0.0538
to Work
1.3500
4.2746
3.0993
2.5012
0.0900
0.0712
0.0757
0.6141
0.1366
0.1214
0.1828
0.3056
0.1375
0.1297
0.0474
Transition
-4.2873
-16.5922
3.9815
-14.6974
0.3517
-0.1145
-0.1153
0.2950
0.1598
0.1959
0.7427
0.2513
0.50710.5119
-0.2019
0.5609
4.9633
2.3382
2.0032
0.0751
0.0623
0.0904
0.2104
0.1232
0.0930
0.1514
0.2172
0.0966
0.0718
0.0206
Transition
-5.2180
9.1165
-2.9470
14.2659
0.3409
-0.0253
-0.1067
-0.2234
-0.3170
-0.2807
-0.5056
-0.1536
-0.5185
0.9241
-0.2717
0.5313
3.5678
2.3064
1.8995
0.0679
0.0495
0.0720
0.2170
0.1298
0.0788
0.1314
0.1334
0.0782
0.0605
0.0184
510.4882
Work
Table 22
and Non-Work Spell Hazard Rate
Black Women 15 to 19
1968-75
(N=395]
1973-80
(N=929)
Standard
Estimate
Estimate
Error
Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERIENCE/10 O
AGE/100
GRADE/100
ENROLLED
somH
CITY CENTER
NAR TO NOT ~
NOT TO ~
MTO~
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
D~TION
D~TION2
to Non-WoEK
-40.2922
-1.9012
-1.8386
-9.9666
0.2314
-0.0822
-0.0360
-0.1759
0.2840
.-0.2460
0.4410
0.0807
-0.1908
2.2082
-1.2719
Non-Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERIENCE/1 00
AGE/100
GRADEj100
ENROLLED
SO~H
CITY CENTER
~
TO NOT ~
NOT M
TO MAR
=TOM
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
D~TION
D~TION2
NEGATIVE
LOG LIKELIHOOD
-10.1327
2.9780
16.2712
9.8664
0.2737
0.0879
~ 0.0045
-1.0006
-0.0861
-0.2089
-0.0690
-0.8459
0.0062
“1.1128
-0.3365
-72.5013
Model,
4.1753
9.4739
3:9983
2.3804
0.1861
0.1362
0.1361
0.5318
0.2712
0.2143
0.3127
0.3641
0.1682
0.3531
0.1419
to Work
1.6148
7.4784
4.1344
3.2069
0.1457
0.1122
0.1063
0.5567
0.2272
0.1571
0.2111
0.3065
0.1416
0.1867
0.0613
Standard
Error
Transition
-7.5730
-12.4535
3.5270
-22.5093
0.2288
-0.2486
0.1086
-0.4685
-0.0451
-0.5832
0.2411
0.2203
0.2968
0.8635
-0.3625
1.1368
7.4253
3.0831
2.6122
0.1180
0.0934
0.0982
0.4940
0.2486
0.2099
0.2591
0.3005
0.1177
0.1322
0.0407
Transition
-4.2102
10.0282
-1.2155
28.1962
0.4745
0.1712
-0.1036
0.3123
0.1825
“-0.0009
-0.2239
-0.0520
-0.5802
0.7181
-0.1647
242.7594
0.6631
5.7408
3.5189
3.1888
0.0944
0.0740
0.0808
0.3423
0.2123
0.1404
0,1695
0.1754
0.0909
0.0846
0.0228
wong
the
a statistically
spell. hong
OPPOSite
raise
the
for black
a mr+tal
birth
The
to her
❑pel 1.
women.
Thie
Bearing
effect
under
age
increases
the probability
after
roughly
one month
in a work
epell
This
raises
supports
otherwise
the probability
the
two
time
the
ef feet
Being
non-work
of non-work
significance
time
to the
on the
periods,
The
increases
and this
consequence
experience
increases
is especially
of school
and
markedly
true
enrollment
51
Finally,
becomes
within
a
and
between
increase
in the
while
SKSA
SP1l
The
in
South
of a non-work
is not
significantly
risk
The
as we compare
appeara
no
children
difference
schooling.
for black
has
participation
length
of a non-work
cohort.
to
spells.
the
women,
one
weakens
working
experience
residing
effect to reduce
the
likely
but
spell.
work
with
woman,
is a drmatic
work
a wrk
increases
the presence
notable
spells,
of black
while
has
is to
is more
of duration
there
of their
for the earlier
effects
effect
women,
and
women,
a work
The most
work.
group
with
yet
to continued
at the beginning
only
child
cumulative
for non-work
significant
spells
of these
returns
duration
estimates
older
that
for black
for the more recent
significant.
spell
intuition
is that,
of schooling
only
reduces
our
year
for white
work,
the
women
spell
of ending
spell,
of leaving
a statistically
exerts
spell
periods
women
married
to a childless
order
on leaving
umeaaured
reduces
Turning
effect
little
or higher
significant
negative.
a work
changes
a second
of remaining
Relative
during
statistically
six
for white
(statistically),
spell- for white
women.
child
matters
effect
a work
for black
first
married
relative
OS exiting
spell
dissolution
effeet, reducing the probability of =iting
by race.
of a work
end the work
only
the NLSY, only remaining
likelihood
gives
cohort,
significant
ef feCts
duration
who
earlier
of leaving
stren@h
acroes
the
a
and
two
women.
to change
over time for
whit e women.
lengthens
-ong
a non-work
and for both
The
tipact
getting
married
women.
But
weakly
work
cohort.
spell
spell.
both
has
remain
Tite
insignificant
results
Women.
for the more
recent
group;
the more
hong
black
southern
recent
women,
the
doubles. for the more
insignificant.
The
marital
a non-wrk
for the
this
change
reduces
a non-
of leaving
mSY
the
cohort.
olds,
eight-years
smple
in marital
spell.
during
20 to 24 year
last
For
for the more
birth
include
status
of non-work.
year.
apart ), the results
a change
residence
order
women
for white
in magnitude
only
data
28 to 32 in the
five years
a spell
for the
These
of
mong
group
of a mutial
on the. likelihood
6 matters
effect
spell
becomes
the
being
effect
does
of leaving
or higher
The
as well .“ Also,
recent
separating,
entry
effect
of ending
a first
under
women
the
likelihood
are
women
length
spells;
(which
similar.
of black
women,
from the NLS Young
periods
enrollment
of white
single,
market
somewhat
of children
women
labor
dec~ine
groups
time
the
spells
effects
23 and 24 present
two
cohort
the likelihood
Tales
with
school
for the more
to remaining
inhibit
an insignificant
The presence
observations,
the
married
reduces
For black
year
Relative
ef feet on non-work
these
holds
on the non-work
the earlier
reduce=
women,
opposite
women,
women.
ttie.
childbearing
white
recent
mong
of white
the
status
Btaying
significant
group
hong
and
only
dissolution
each
of black
over
coho*
while
of marital
diminished
any
earlier
spell,
groups
appears
bear
the
with
of
Comparing
for white
women
sta.tu.sbecomes
holds
true
the duration
for the
black
of a non-work
group.
ef feet of experience
recent
group
effect
of
work
spell
and, the ef feet of a first
birth
experience
52
to increase
to reduce
the
length
of non-
Work
Table 23
and Non-Work
Spell Hazard Rate
Non-Black
Women 20 to 24
Model,
1968-75
(N=1169)
Estimate
Standard
Error
Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERI~CE/
100
AGE/100
GRADE/100
ENROLLED
SOUTH
CITY CENTER
~
TO NOT M
NOT NAR TO ~
NARTO~
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
ALL KIDS GT6
DURATION
DURATION2
-5.0761
1.4867
1.3657
-9.1898
0.3206
-0.1109
0.0016
-0.5848
0.4510
0.1938
0.5058
0.1874
0.0861
-0.5954
0.6067
-0.2384
NEGATIVE
LOG LIKEL~OOD
-9.3619
4.4442
9.3705
10.1085
0.0168
0.0651
-0.0441
-0.3720
-0.5492
-0.9068
-0.5725
-0.3349
-0.5124
-0.7700
1.0734
-0.3443
Estimate
to Non-work
Non-Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERI~CE/100
AGE/ 100
GRADE/100
ENROLLED
SOUTH
CITY CENTER
NAN TO NOT NAR
NOT =
TO ~
NARTO~
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
ALL KIDS GT6
D~TION
DURATION2
,1973-80
(N=898)
0.8059
2.2240
2.1236
2.0267
0.1553
0.0783
0.0772
0.3500
0.1370
0.0986
0.1925.
0.2169
0.1011
0.2937
0.1016
0.0302
to Work
0.7644
1.7529
“1.8850
1.7183
0.1363
0.0686
0.0713
0.3137
0.1747
0.1066
0.1464
0.1508
0.0964
0.3295
0.,0974
0.0292
294.8949
Standard
Error
Transition
-4.6136
-3.6704
4.7135
-6.6097
0.3883
-0.1037
0.0560
-0.0196
0.0835
0.2707
0.6653
0.1449
0.1767
-0.5478
0.3916
-0.1659
0.7383
3.7134
2.1328
2.6660
0.1807
0.0941
0.0946
0.2564
0.1840
0.1236
0.1.9.50
0.2763
0.1180
0.2777
0.1123
0.0321
Transition
-5.4088
2.4494
1.4885
7.3322
-0.0417
0.2705
-0.0315
-0.4660
-0.3492
-0.9010
-0.9995
-0.2108
-0.8198
-0.6486
0.8917
-0.2835
266.2973
0.8066
3.0362
2.0226
1.9973
0.2008
0.0826
0.0969
0.2598
0.2106
0.1224
0.2065
0.1705
0.1057
0.2371
0.1138
0.0338
Work
Table 24
and Non-Work Spell Hazard Rate
Black Women 20 to 24
1968-75
(N=391)
1973-ao
(N=375)
... ...
Estimate
Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERIENCE/: 00
AGE/100
GRADE/100
ENROLLED
SO~H
CITY CENTER
~
TO NOT
AR
NOT MAR TO MAR
-6.6746
6.9445
-12.2650
0.3792
-o.202a
-o.la9a
-1. 145a
-0.5909
-0.1743
0.6581
0.3560
-0.1120
-0.3061
o.aoo9
-o.323a
LT6
Non-Work
INTERCEPT
EXPERIENCE/100
AGE/100
GRADE/100
ENROLLED
SOWH
CITY CENTBR
MAR-TO NOT =
NOT NAR TO MAR
MAR ToNAR
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
LT6
ALL KIDS GT6
D=TION
D~TION2
NEGATI~
Non-Work
-7.9106
-Tom
BIRTH:NO KIDS
BIRTH:KIDS
NO BIRTH:KIDS
ALL KIDS GT6
D~TION
D~TION2
to
Standard
Error
LOG LIKELIHOOD
to Work
-a.33a3
13..743a
9.1704
17.7011
o.ola2
0.4146
-o.la43
-o.aa21
0.1095
-0.3702
-o.laa6
-0.1872
-0.4291
-0.6170
0.9538
-o.275a
Model,
.
.
Estimate
Standard
Error
Transition
1.6290
3.5059
3.1014
2.69a5
o.2a59
0.1429
o.126a
0.5352
0.3291
o.146a
0.2910
0.2563
0.1707
0.2941
o.la63
o.05ao
-5.9315
-12.3340
4.1276
-10.6435
-0.2963
0.0364
0.0927
o.063a
0.3032
-o.33a4
0.1473
0.2252
0.0114
-0.3501
o.3a5a
-0.2102.
1.3226
6.a219
2.6a50
2.a484
0.3493
0.1415
0.1475
o.33a3
0.2574
0.1962
o.4,15a
0.3041
0.1614
o.3oa6
o.la53
0.0547
-4.7726
5.0175
0.7193
16.la15
“0.2a49
o.31a2
-o.121a
-0.3746
-0.1311
-o.26al
-o.023a
-0.6477
-0.2914
-0.7222
0.5663
-o.la31
1.12aa
4.9211
2.9236
3.a195
0.2932
0.1317
0.1356
0.3294
o.2aa6
0.1547
0.3377
o.2a05
0.1436
o.2a40
0.1652
0.0476
Transition
1.3457
2.5975
3.03ao
2.706a
0.2335
o.129a
0.1176
0.4167
.0.2352
o.13al
0.2710
0.2061
0.1566
0,.3347
o.154a
0.0470
-10.9549
85.5035
spells declines in magnitude and becomee
work
second
more
or higher
recent
What
force
group
do these
white
work
of labor
spells
market
the more
Yet
the
mixed.
cohorts
have
risen
exits
recent
to being
nealy
dramatically
one year
capital
schooling
alone,
both
the
of a
Theme
eight)
effects
to demographic
are waker
ef fecte
mong
of
work
of childbearing
etronger
black
variablea
deter
the more
for both
level
appear
especially,
of
the
duration
marital states generally
supply
t tie.
the
in ltior
length
in particular
increase
swll.
effects
labor
over
all
the
(of a potential
variables,
in responees
single,
differences
v=i~le
of 15 to 19 year old women,
and these
Yet,
effect
ltior
intercohort
dependent
a non-work
differences
spells;
of women.
and
from
group
deters
us *out
the
The human
experience
Relative
changed
has
women.
intercohort
non-work
inform
Considering
and haaten
for
significantly
The
women.
results
spells
and black
birth
of black
transitions?
censored
from
order
insignificant.
wmen.
appear
exits
recent
appear
not
17
170ne topic that remains for the future is the Ptential
endogeneity
of
some explanatory
variables
(measure5 of fertility
in particular) . A recent
paper by Oleen and Farkas (1989) outlinee one methodological
approach to
treat ing endogenous
variables
within a hazard rate model.
55
to
IV.
DE~MIWAWTS
In this
proportion
youngest
model
cohorts.
described
marriage
we sumarize
education
data
which
are
analysis
stringent
of the
where
t indicates
within
m
are known
using
mnse~ently,
including
does
annual
the
model
the mature
history,
not
data,
data
and we
c=
perfom
women.
models
age
of the determinants
group,
of
the
a:
t’,
the
survey
and acroBs
to be strongly
They
ages ).
it is likely
extent
than
duration
the
fertility
and rather
for a given
worked
year-
Since
age groups.
associated
(measured
schooling
to be positively
(Mincer,
cohorts
to which
are allowed
Parmeters
We
focu5
with
to va~
over
ttie
on a few key variables
women, s l&or
force
are as follows:
completed
participation
the
lifettie
duration
exmine
approach
lifetime
~
and between
seek-to
This
for the
18 for the
of the
factors.
regression
age group
participation.
wage
and
for all cohorts
Pta =Ot’xt’+u
stated
cohorts
we
of the
age
from that
in that
behavior.
than
LI~T~
Results
We estimate
the
past
for all of the
~irical
proportion
variables;
=
or since
differs
experience
0=
of an analysis
school,
chapter
and other
sumarize
less
here
work
W=D
results
leaving
-in the -preceding
time-dependent
re~irements
which
since
lifetime
OF ~
the
The perspective
patterns,
employs
PROPORTION
worked
between
inco~orate
A.
section
of years
relationship
this
OF =
1962 ) .
The
due to changes
wages
rise
with
as of the
is positively
associated
strength
in the
the
correlated
with
return
cohort
with
cumulative
of the effect
schooling)
56
ye=
may
to education
reached
the
expected
work
Vaq
over
(and,
and to offsetting
the
hence,
income
in
~tal
status
the mma
had
the
market
l~or
careers
were
never
im meaeured
married
often
less
next.
likely
of never-married
narrowed
the
the
pafiicular
to this
of which
is relative
(and
part icipat ion
South,
is,
and this
increasing
South.
would
omitted
However,
in the
participation
mong
non-married
Complete
years
since
six months
with
results
school
are presented
in Appendix
if
in
sought
that
the
from
ever
relation
one
between
cohort
a develo~ent
which
with
children
to
the
proportion
has
by marital status.
In fact
creates
of four
of dichotomous
one,
-- none,
two,
or more
e
or three
likely
husbands
rates
in the
reduce
in the
South
lower
direction
welfare
relatively
cmpared
are
wage
force
aze also
Moreover,
year
relative
labor
opposite
encouraging
stated
and this
incomes
-- each
children.
in the
would
in the
-- that
pa~ents
higher
to the
~e
work
North,
earnings.
for the
(or since
who
in the
wage
thereby
mmen
a career
the
lower
pulling
low potential
regression
leaving
South
one
has become much more
It
by a series
women, s participation.
lower
those
born
group
ef feet)
ewals
group.
and ~
sou
substantially
particularly
ever
past
women
weaken
women
are captured
be a factor
married
increase
rotates have
substitution
in the
is the
for this
for w
Southern
included.
would
responsibilities
of children
variables
statue
chiltien,
which
In the
1990) .
to non-married
to the
ye=.
and we expect
borne
in home
in ferti litv
of ntiers
Control
have
disincentives
measures
difference
who
varisble
conse~ently
(Goldin,
effect
of welfare
Differences
also
to marry
difference
work
marriage;
and marital
women
availability
stated
-women to work
participation
Contributing
as of the
precluded
commonplace .f
or.married
lifettie
by a dichotomous
determinants
age
1S ) in which
A.
Table
57
of
the
a woman
25 swarizes
proprtion
worked
the
of
at least
effects
of
Table 25
EffWtS of Schw( im nd Maritnl StntW m the Prvrt im
of Yenrs Mrk&
Sime LenVim Schm(, w Age EM Year
1967
196s
1972
““”
1973
1977
1978
wa2
1983
SchmLiw
0.0006
0.0153
0.0087
0.0112
O.om
0.0212
0.0162
O.owb
0.0182
0.0111
0.0217
-0.0007
O.owl
0.0044
0.0204
0.0124
Never Marrid
0.0472
0.13s3
0.14W
0.2W
0.0049
0.04W
o.lm5
O.lsm
0.2213
-0.oln
0.0s37
0.1346
0.1745
0.0438
0.0463
0.W26
--.
-U,,u”z-,,g
..a ---,
m,,=
.,-. &.,
--1 :--
A.-L
coefficients
co~=iaon
ages
years
---—--,
&&w&.
*AWL,
-s
-----w.
-”
X=-A
..--,.
w“.
-
-a
a=-,
The tale
@et of regressions.
full
of schooling
35 to 39 in 1967,
a one-year
increase
was
from the
and the results
the. effect
in 1967
-k-.1-
-“.,
“kAAAa
..&
’’’-’--
the
A.,g
enables a
of effects for different cohorts reaching a given age r~nge in
different
shows
dram
.*.-*”-.*..”
-
of 0.0061
0.0217
and
and
sh-
separately
lifet~e
For white
in schooling
an increase
was
For ex-pie,
for. cohorts
women
associated
of years
statistically
by race.
participation
1983.
in the proportion
it was
In general,
on
1972,
increase
=e
worked;
in the
with
but
it
reaching
35-39
age
group
a nonsignificant
in 1983
the
effect
significant.
is associated with an increase in
in echooling
The strength of this effect increases
the proportion of yeara spent working.
over time, particularly in the late 1970s and early 19805 and it is somewhat
stronger
for blacks -
The
increase
(across cohorts ) and within
effect
age6
c-
be seen
1982.
The
rather
than
1980s
by cohort
lifettie
fifth
ages
The
In general,
effect
never
married
is sharply
group
age
The within-cohort
-- for exmple,
45 to 49 in 1977
in the
on the
the
hong
40 to 44 in 1967
a given
strongly
return
the
and
50 to
related
to
cohort
54 in
to temporal
echooling
in the
of the pattern.
proportion
relation
i6 positive
to cohort.
within
as it ages.
to be more
increase
status
occurs
diagonal
then
explanation
participation
among
cohort
the
seems
effects.
of martial
cohort
higher
pronounced
time
and by race.
from
don
time
40 to 44 in 1972,
a possible
effect
work
-- those
over
cohort
provides
The
weaker
change
a given
by reading
35 to 39 in 1967 was
over
w-en
-- the promrtion
women
reduced,
between
initially
white
of years
but
remining
becaes
in the
oldest
of yeare
capared
to married
however,
and becomes
59
worked
differs
single
and
considertily
cohort
worked
women.
ex-ined
is about
one-
This
insignificant
mong
the youngest
cohoti
hong
black
relationship
marrying
of white
women
recently.
never
reduces
married
1987
mothers
helps
(Appendix
has
been
explain
The
the
children
born
of fertility
fifties
force
the
lower
worked.
These
the difference
to having
women
borne
is that
children
women,
the proportion
both
part icipation
likely
woman
and the
once women
to be of school
that
fertility
esttiated
weakly
women,
having
signific=t
women
h
1978
to become
and this
factor
likely
there
by cohort
effects
worked.
of,
women,
nutier
negative
white
their
late
bearing
of
effect
women
(or older)
for white
than
fort ies and
the
and black
effect
the most
of increasing
during
effect5
especially
when
60
bearing
consistent
this
on
of year5
in Append&
parity
has weaker
women
on the proportion
for exaple,
considerably
generally
reach
age
the
The
-ong
from the TAbles
Overall,
effect
greater
that
is an intensif icat ion of labor
of fertility
the effects
no chil&en.
A shows
is completed.
between
of black
ad
black
in Appendix
of years
races,
suggesttig
strengthens
cohort
for single
part icipat ion is stronger
are
negative
oldest
black
participation
are calculated
childbearing
mong
repofied
effects
the
the ef feet of n-er
is statistically
tendency
strong
26 and 27 sumarize
the
and
results
part icipat ion after
respectively,
the
significant
pattern.
hong
children
no statistically
although
mong
increased
lifetime
somewhat,
Tables
more
The
observed
women.
when
dtiinishes
A) .
beara
for 25 to 29. year-old
participation
on lifetime
black
positive
However,
set of regression
dtiinishes
status
experience,
particularly
chiltien
mong
work
weakly
negative. mre
and
marital
to lif ettie
is generally
women.
one
the
considering
child
pattern
from three
period.
A by taking
for white
to four
Relative
lifetime
the
relative
or
to white
work
ef feet
of the
.:.
.: ,
...’””.....’”’,:,.
,.
Table 26
Estimtd
Effmts
of”Relatiw
,..,
>.;
... .,
,.
.::
.,
.:..:
..
.
.
.
..
::.:.
,.
,,
N-rs
of tiildrm .m Pr@rtim
(Ntilack w).
of YenFs Wrk
.:
.
,.
!,’.’.
.. . ..
., .’..
sime
Le4vim
Sitie A@
Schwl
18.
“.’”. ‘
..
,.
.;
..
.,.,
,: ..’
.:
.’.,
..:
....
1%7
lW
1977
197a
19n
1972
1973
Age
lW
19s3
lW
197s
lp7
!:
““““
,.
:,
25-~
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 to h+
.0.1123
-0.lw
-0.lwl
-0.1173
-0.14%
-0.lm
-o.03&
-0.lw
-0.ml
-0.1625
-0.0948
-0.0024
-0.lti .
-0.1579
.O.14W
-0.1Z03
‘.
: ‘..
,,
I
3&34
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 to 4+
-0.1145
-0.1602
-0.wza
-0.w
35-39
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 to 4+
-0.1210
-0.1587
-0.0314
-0.0624
-0.15M
-0.lw
-0.0900
-0.wll
-0.W7
-0.1512
-0.1266
-0.1115
,“
.:,.
!
-0.0796
-o.14n
-0.1185
-0.0727
-0.1174
-0.0963
-0.072Z
-0.1167
,,,
40-44
Otol
lt02
, 2t03
3 to 4+
-0.1427
-o.073a
-0.M90
-0.0434
45-49
Otol.
ltoz
2t03
3 to 4+
-0.1717
-0.wa
-0.0573
-0.0622
-0.0727
-0.1422
-0.0972
-0.0777
-0.0933
-0.07a7
-0.0564
-0.0522
-0.1703
-0.0793
-o.052a
-0.0543
-0.0423
-0.1145
-0.0921
-0.0942
-0.W9
-0.w
-0.0453
-0.0320
-0.1331
-0.W7.
-0.M30
-0.0336
50-54
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 to 4+
*Oiffermes
ht~
rqr=sim
coefficimts,
:.. .
frm
,,
,,
‘
,
Tables 25-30.
TabLe 27
Estimtd
Effects of Relative Ntirs
of Chi ldrm
(Biack””-)
m
Pr~rtim
$ime Leavim Sohml
1%7
1968
1972
1973
1977
1978
1979
0.0202
-0.0424
-0.1244
-0.0511
-0.1278
-0.1477
-Owl
-0.ml
Am
25-29
Otol
ltoz
2t03
3 tok+
Slme Age 18
19U
1983
1984
30-34
Otol
ltoz
2t03
3 t04+
0.0480
-o.ln7
-0.!042
-0.W02
-0.1034
-0.0094
-o.140d
-0.0595
-0.0331
-0.0660
-0.1340
-0.0444
35-39
Otol
ltoz
2t03
3 toh+
-0.0451
-0.0369
-0.1389
-0.0467
-0.0145
-0.0502
-0.0381
-0.1476
-0.0803
0.0157
-0.0948
-0.0953
40-44
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 to4+
-0.0567
-0.W7
-0.w
-0.0162
-0.0281
-0.0677
-0.W29
-0.m
-0.0831
-0.0200
-0.0270
-0.18%
-0.0581
-0.0423
-0.0873
-0.OIB
-0.W02
-0.0417
-0.owo
-0.1021
-0.1167
0.0583
-0.0201
-0.1854
-0.04M
-0.02U
-0.1055
-0.0321
-0.0749
-0.0341
-0.0442
-0.lw
45-49
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 t04+
50-54
Otol
lt02
2t03
3 t04+
*Differmes
btwm
rqr-sim
cwfficlmt~,
of Years Wrk
frm
Tablm
1978
1987
-0.0638
-0.1113
-0.0707
-0.14W
-0.0770
-0.0879
-0.1142
-0.05’05
25-30.
first
(and sometties
the
participant ion of the
Finally,
women
the
hong
black
a larger
effect
relative
mong
whites
South
husbands
the
must
a disincentive
in the
and
who
women
live
hae
women.
force
to offsetting
are
typically
lower
benefits in the South would
in the
North.
The
on welfare
mong
black
women
is consistent
worked
produce
than
women
AB noted,
welf=e
of
white
blacks
of black
effects.
extent
have
wong
lower
greater
hong
significant.
participation
ticome
ttie.
significant.
is statistically.
North
over
on lifetbe
statistically
South
on
increased
residence
in the
the
ltior
mf feet
and white
and not
versus
higher
negative
black
the effect
South
relatively
than
and reliance
-d
be attributable
incomes
between
those
the
of southern
negligible
of yems
wage=
Yet
by black
effect
considerably
however,
proportion
borne
the
is typically
women,
child.
child
that
differs
Since
the
ffist
we note
pa fiicipation
second)
lower
less
dissolution
marital
their greater
with
exposure to the effects of differences in potential welfare benefit5.
B.
Accounting for the Increase in Lifetti
P&icipation
A natural ~estion tO ask is the extent to which
of
children
exained
borne,
can explain
address
this
decomposing
the
components
values
~estion
estimated
Pt=Bt
in Table
the
of the
in marital
trend
changes
in predicted
and
participation
and
work
Smarizes
of changee
variables
statue
in lifetbe
2S which
effect
independent
structure
superscript
the upward
intercohort
measuring
of the
in schooling,
Ut *
for
changes
model
in the
other
e~erience.
results
lifetime
year,
factors
We
first
by
into
in the mean
due to variations
(suppressing
ntier
participation
due to differences
the earlieat
63
in the
these
):
Xt+
changes
the
in
in the
age group
of
PW1
smple
= Bt+l Xt+l + Ut+l , for the
latest
year,
then
at the
means:
Pt+,- Pt = Bt (Xt+l-Xi) + .(Bt+l
-.Bt) xt + (Bt+l- Bt) (x~+l-
The
first
second
tem
tem
represents
represents
corresponds
the
variables
The
younger
effect
Wong
than
in the
younger
mong
women,
offset
across
the
reference
effect5
within
of the
lower
5omewhat
on cohort
Tables
effects
5mple
and the
are presented
changes
the
first
in fertility
independent
hong
model
is positive,
with
independent
from
actually
fertility
these
mean5,
final
(and
the
tem
regarding
all
fertility
cohort
overall
mong
change
vari~les,
starkly
lower
much
fertility
~solute
due
of
rates.
and
tiplied
reduction5
increases
women
appears
with
coefficients
suggest
white
in
in
reductions.
in lifethe
age group
participation,
and reesttiate
results.
to be e~al
age group,
women,
&aatic
(and concomitant
these
variables
white
of the
in the esttiated
five-year
For each
been most
much
resulting
29 and 30 display
group.
of the
differences
sme
periods.
have
groups,
changes
participation
participation)
models.
results
levels
in the means
although
To focus
these
average
black
of the
women
in the
in the parmeters
focus sing on the
participant ion,
time
The
in participation
40 and
of changes
structure
due to changes
alone.
increases
to changes
chages
to variations
interaction.
and second
coefficients)
the
xt)
with
dumies
64
the
These
within
earliest
one exception,
tiplying
a five
models
we pool
the
regression
constrain
a five-ye=
cohofi
each
over
the
age group
is taken
of the
to 15 percent
as the
cohoti
higher
Table
Decomposition
Age
of Changes
25 to 29:
1973-78
Nonblack To al
2
Fertility
Black Total
Fertility
30 to 34:
1967-83
Nonblack
Total
Fertility
Black Total
Fertility
35 to 39:
1967-83
Nonblack
Total
Fertility
Black Total
Fertility
40 to 44:
1967-77
No&lack
Total
Fertility
Black Total
Fertility
45 to 49:
1972-82
Nonblack
Total
Fertility
Black Total
Fertility
50 to 54:
1977-82
Nonblack
Total
Fertility
Black Total
Fertility
a
:
d
Bt (Xt+l
(Bt+, - @t
(P 1 - @t)
Fe~tility
in Lifetime
Overall
Change
Group
28
Due to
Means”
Participation
Due to
Coefficientsb
Interactione
0.1143
0.0347
0.0352
0.0596
0.0711
0.0200
0.0080
0.1134
0.0425
0.0226
0.0481
0.0837
0.0228
0.0071
0.1559
0.1392
0.1116
0.0189
0.0338
-0.0022
0.0105
0.0472
0.0908
0.0876
-0.0810
-0.0268
0.0374
-0.0136
0.1165
0.0600
0.0468
0.0218
0.0603
0.0347
0.0094
0.0375
0.0547
0.0446
-0.0962
-0.0095
0.0790
0.0024
0.0462
0.0013
-0.0063
0.0408
0.0566
0.0041
-0.0041
-0.0406
-0.0334
-0.0125
-0.0074
0.0109
0.0002
-0.0390
0.0586
0.0050
-0.0084
0.0482
0.0706
0.0054
-0.0036
0.0013
-0.0133
-0.0269
0.0143
0.0261
0.0003
0.0021
0.0272
0.0062
-0.0047
0.0250
0.0334
-0.0040
-0.0015
-0.0008
-0.0195
-0.0266
0.0323
0.0375
-0.0136
-0.0117
Xt)
)Xt
(Xt+
re~u~ts
all variables
-
Xt)
a~~~e
except
~eana
numbers
and ocefficients
of children.
remain
constant
for
Tnble 29
Detemlmnts
of Prwrtim
of Y@OfS Wrkd
Sime
Leavlw
Stiml
MDK SLACK ~EM
VARIAOLE
Aes25t029
PflRMETER
ESTIMTE
; yM::Ep
A-30
t034
P]RMETER
I
I-STAT ESTIMTE
T-STAT ESTINATE
IMTERcEPT
A03
SCH~lNe
mTH
HEVER MRRIEO
NO CHILDREU
05E CHILD
TW CHILDREN
TNREE CHILDREN
COHmTl
COHOAT2
mHoRT3
COHORT4
mHMT5
0.01s3
0.0030
00156
-0.011,
0:0285
0.1430
0.6770
5 36~
-0.8s70
1:4390
-0.0M2
0.0039
00158
-0.0077
0:0333
-0.0350
1.OWO
::;%
O.w
0.0223
.
.
.
‘J:M8
3.0150
0.6160
.
.
.
l:j?n
0.1985
0.0845
.
.
!%%T
11.1190
4..
Adjwt4. R-SWre
Sq[e
Size
0.2640
2446
0.5914
Oeptimt Mean
O.hn
7.;280
-0.;W
O.olm
-;3%
1:5920
;
-0.6770
1.2300
0.3119
2877
0.5526
39
Aes40t044
PRRMETER
T-STAT ESTIMTE
A es 45 to 49
A s50t054
PflRMETER
PfiAHETER
T-STAT ESTIMTE
T-STAT EsTIWTE
T.STAT
0.2190
-0.0021
0.0144
0.0069
0.1221
0.404S
0.2897
0.1648
0.8S15
1.4980
-o.53m
6.32oo
0.5910
4.1940
17.95W
14.3040
10.7330
5.1670
0.2038
0.0000
0.0105
0.0101
0.1629
0.3640
0.2273
0.1325
0.~605
1.2 0
0.01
Y 0
4.4T2o
0.81s0
4.7320
16.0350
10.W3D
S.871O
3.~
0.148
0.000
0.0131
0.0165
0.1750
0.3232
0.2141
0.1295
0.$58
1
0.71w3
0.2540
5.3S10
1.2810
4.71M
13.4940
10.0430
8.2640
4.1250
0.;170
0.0M7
.
:
1.2330
2.7330
.
0.0176
0.0462
.
1.3130
3.31S0
.
0.0253
0.0334
.
1.83a
3.6250
.
0.2704
2408
0.4981
.-
●
0.1903
19T2
0.4832
:.~~
0.3918
-0.00U
0.0156
0.0192
0.2037
0.2M
0.15%
0.M78
0.W3D
*
0.02s2
.
.
1.4250
-0.&O
5.1410
1.18
4.11E
9.W40
6.0570
4.4500
2.j270
1.5570
.
.
0.1535
127s
0.4900
BLACK WEN
VARIASLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
SCHMLINO
SWTH
MEVERMRRIEO
10 CNILOREN
05E CHILO
TW CHILOREN
~~~r$NILOREN
Aes25t029
P~RMETER
ESTIM!E
‘“.ml
- .3!%
~.~~i$
!.~~o
0:036S
1:3440
-0.0594 -2.2550
0.3135
~2~j
8:;2!$ 3:?550
1.1540
0.0459
.
-, . ..mHmT4
COMORT5
Aw30t034
P~RAMETER
T-STAT ESTIMTE
O.’m
‘1.!F7
0.0292
0:0570
-0.0412
~.;~9
.
0:205;
O.w
-.
;
2.6550
-0.D6W
-0.0S57
Aw35t039
PflMHETER
T-STAT ESTIMATE
‘!*YA
I.l$W
8.05W
0:0229
2:8970
0.W85
-1.61W3 -0.0449
S.3:;~
~.;~3~
%3210
2.367a
:-
0.2115
1010
0.5447
-2.kO
-3.3588
# ~m:;Ep44
A=45t049
I
PfRWETER
T-STAT EST[MTE
T-STAT ESTIMTE
l:%!!
5.75W
4.3100
-1.2180
6:~;0
0.6962
-8:ttti
-;:S1$!
0.0105
2.8550 -0.0W8
A s50t054
P~MWTER
T-STAT ESTIMTE
T.STAT
0.12M
O.OZTZ
~.;~jj
5.2620
0.5S60
$.%
0.0767
0.12%
0.0456
0.2529
1.s650
-1.2610
4.4500
3.5430
0.9W0
6.6270
o.awz
-0.0117
O.OIM
0.1125
0.W17
0.2481
1.MO
-1.24h
4.51M
3.90W
~.~~
0:1~3
0.1844
.
~.8398
3.33W
0:1552
O.p%
4:7850
2.:m
::!::!
o.p36
2:8;:8
2.@o
t:lztl
0.$843
i:;w
l:ym
-0.;115
-0.0437
-
-0.;2W
-1.6340
-
-0.6188
-0.0106
-
-0.fioo
-0.3830
-
0.~040
0.01%
0.;610
0.6920
0.02S0
-
0.8740
-
0.1678
0 .51E
0.1351
760
0.5773
.-.
.
.
.
0.1636
o,l~g
o.5@
0.5855
.
.
there
time.
remins
a stro”ng, statistically
si~ificant
effect
of the passage
of
Even with identical characteristics, women from more recent cohorts are
spending a higher proportion of their ttie at work h
69
the
wrket.
v.
IS This
experience
ha5
~
=SSIEN~-WAGE
P~F=
report
has exmined
intercohort
mong
increased
-men,
s
between
wrk
We have
wmen.
from
cohort
GR~NG
fouti
to cohort.
wages
5kills
and years
either
subjects
with
increase
in the
of work
on-the-job
a etronger
effect
ch=ges
that
Here
work experience. has increased..
the
we
ex~rience.
pay-off)
of experience
in emulated
Wantity
in~ire
We do this
were
the
~ality
the
more
courses
ex~ct
to see an
from
cohort
of women
one
in
in
we would
on wages
of
relation
investing
more
of mrk
experience
by est hating
(e.g. by taking
then
years
of work
whether
If waen
or in school
market
STSS~?
to the
next.
To
work
investigate
experience
by cohort,
displayed
results
We
descrfie
A.
white
in Appendix
specific
5umarize
the
Coho*
and black
B, Table5
the results
Sw
Cific
regressions
women.
groups
of
in the
estimated
these
relation
a 5erLes
The
B-1 through
of regression
lAqelRace
change
we have
cohort/race
results
In the
intercohort
and earnings
for both
for
first
the
full
at the point
using
data
years
each
t~le
pooling
a given
regressions
the
is
presents
of reaching
specific
of
of log wage e~titions,
set of e~ations
B-6 where
cohort
between
the
age.
and then
different
cohofis.
Re q ressignm
shown
in Appendix
B experience
is defined
as years
worked six months or more since completing school. An alternative
specification also includes the nutier of wars
tbe
respondent
survey
years
explanatory
SMSA
one
was ~
except
child,
for
variables
residence,
and
working.
two
for
1967,
include
and three
variable
which
age, years
dumy
children,
This
for
all
not be measured.
of schooling,
measuring
70
is included
it could
variables
each
in the past five during which
measuring
ef feets
southern
fertility:
relative
cohorts
and
Additional
residence,
no children,
to three
or more
children
ever
tiong
white
significant
-d
women,
years
positive
the model
during
five,
ex~rience
mong
effect
of schooling
Southern
mong
black
this
white
women.
women.
However,
SMSA
residents
surprisingly,
and are often
not
tO OPerate
Section
IV, the nutier
work
with
providing
selected,
support
these
is
not working
collinear
with
is less
total
consistent
and these
ever
work
menities,
wages
the presence
factors
harder
would
and often
of work
is
an
menities
there
are ~ite
tiport-t
of children
children
compatible
contribute
lead to a positive
As shon
correlate
the
may
with
costs
be commensurately
they
variable
constant,
may well
for
earnings.
are employer
of children
because
insignif ic~t
experience.
with
significmt
particularly
effect
is held
Women
would
higher
on wages
experience
extent
wages,
The main
born
and other
to the
may work
of children
on years
statistically
dmpens
significantly
is ~ivalent.
hours
ad
despite
or they
chiltien
Once
flexfile
with
work
of children
on wages
responsibilities
who
ye-s
e~erience
is small
significant.
effects
experience.
care
women
statistically
of experience
years
includee
is generally
effect
the effects
through
of children
situations
of work
residence
receive
statistically
aPPears
effect
where
is becomes. highly
The effect
have
generally
typically
tbst
and posit ive for all women.
lifetime
follows.
experience
specification
ages.
a=
women.
The esttiated
Not
-e
In instances
a-variable
at younger
black
of work
effects.
not 5ignificat
the past
our results
In brief
born.
in
of
expected
seek
their
child
associated
However ,
lower.
be positively
to their
relationship
f-ily,
s
between
and wages.
The
and within
coefficient
on ye=s
an age group
as done
of experience
in Tale
71
can be compared
31 utilizing
the
across
results
of
cohort5
Table
Estimated
Wage
E~erience
Age
1967
1968
Effects
Since
31
of Years
kaving
1972
1973
1977
1978
0.0082
1.026
0.0165
of E~erience
School
Since
1982
1983
1978
Age
18
1987
Black
25-29
1.918
0.0138
2.049
30-34
0.0005
0.074
35-39
0.0025
0.533
-0.0033
-0.451
40-44
0.0151
3.188
0.0007
0.151
-0.0142
-2.159
0.0048
0.975
0.0016
0.346
-0.0032
-0.478
0.0083
1.463
-0.0014
-0.324
45-49
50-54
0.0202
2.019
0.0522
6.041
0.0348
5.365
0.0413
6.788
0.0351
5.058
0.0352
5.844
NonBlack
25-29
0.0161
2.386
0.0326
5.088
0.0230
4.867
30-34
0.0230
4.502
35-39
0.0172
4.782
0.0184
4.244
40-44
0.0119
3.900
0.0189
5.436
0.0228
5.108
45-49
0.0151
5.477
0.0200
5.466
0.0244
5.530
50-54
Sumaq
0.0388
9.101
0.0140
4.173
of regression
0.0337
6.025
coefficients
0.0205
6.022
and t-statistics
from Appendix
B Tables.
regression
five.
models
We ffid
systmat
that
ically
-aple,
the
that
do not
mong
white
in size and
estimated
include
women,
-ong
returns
black
ef feet
to experience
in magnitude
B.
ages
of the
returns
these
l~or
force
to e~erience
significance
for women ages
over
this
effects
are ~ite
for white
statistically
women
in the
past
Foz
period.
from
-vari~le
the
significant,
eme
in the
increase
35 to 39 increases
30 to 34 and 35 to 39 in 1983,
are positive,
to those
out
0.017
in
for black
esttiated
and
compar~le
year.
~
The
recent
comparison
cohorts
additional
However,
of work
cohort
(and hence
on the
more
across
first
AU
force.
model,
for the
the
earliest
one
relevant
The results
cohort
expressed
and
for that
of these
dumy
observed
is attributable
the
titercohort
and does
in constant
not
ficlude
COnSumer
Each
interacted
cohort
that
years
Index
five-year
an
to some other
in the
across
These
deflated
Price
into
cohort
pooled
B tables
more
generations.
change
age groups.
dollars,
are cotiined
returns
cohorts
models
hcludes
out
only
of the
by the
is considered
l~or
U.S.
(cPI-U-Xl ) .
age groups.
with
focus
experience
relative
For
D-y
are
to the
age group.
pooled
itself
a model
in the Appendix
variables.
from
for earlier
for specific
for the
pay
that
was t~e
experimental
cohorts
cohort
as explanato~
the
used
Statistics
included
women
groups)
31 5uggests
of higher
we have estimated
of experience
=e
than
the ef feet
precisely
in Table
in terns
To estimate
effect.
level
of Ltior
variables
that
shown
more
experience
survey
wages
pooled
gaining
specification
emulative
this
been
it is possible
to experience
Bureau
of coefficients
have
year
unspecified
the
women
the
statistical
1967 to 0.039. in -1983. - tid while
women,
years
models
is negative
73
are show
in each
in Table
case,
32.
hong
and usually
white
become8
Table 32
The Effects of Ex~rieme
ad
Other Factors m
Log Uagts
NoR BLACK ~EN
A es 25 to 29
PARkETER
ESTI~TE
0.50W
0.0175
0.0153
0.0591
-0.0W6
0.1022
0.1156
I:!%
2.4010
2.ltio
2.6590
10.s930
-4.2140
4.5500
2.6710
:::%
.
.
i
-0.1ss0
.
.
;
-3.2940
.
.
::
0.0159
Adjmt&. R-Square
SaW[e Size
Oeptient
Mean
T-STAT
2.1520
o.j~
A es 30 to 34
PAR~ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
0.5S44 2.4!70
g:~f~
0.07ss
-0.0555
0.1W4
0,0779
0.0785
0.0315
:.j;]:
17:6410
-2.6120
7.6520
2.2630
2.1990
0.98W
1.294o
-0.0130
0.0146
0.0740
-0.1180
0.1547
0.0427
4.1430
-1.5760
3.7290
15.36W
-4.8E0
6.1660
1.1690
-::yti
-!:~H8
●
-Ok
.;.:
-0.0182
0.:045
0.0128
- 31?0
- .5290
-0.;253
-0.3223
-
-1.7410
-4.S070
:,
0.:950
1.s420
:
0.0056
0.0232
-
1.;290
4.5650
-
0.3W1
1376
1.W63
1.9%
A es 35 to 39
PAR~METER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
A ES 40 to 44
PARflMETER
EST1~TE
T-STAT
1.1257
:~:~
3.6250
;/:#
Am45t049
P&ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
1.7004
:~:~
4.1150
;~jfl
A=50t054
P~ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
1.5028
-~:~fl
2.4W0
;~:~
0:WT9
o:21a
!::~$
f::g!
0:1133
0.0508
0.0326
o.g4n
4:4s90
1.3560
0.8070
l,poo
-::#1:
-1:~%
8:p7
!:#!
-0.~36
-0.2003
-
-1.3370
-3.0240
;
-0.1374
-0.1154
-1.6390
-1.5W
-o.om7
-
-0.wo
-
;
;
;
;
0.:039
0.0073
-
0.97s0
1.7m
-
O.ml
0,0040
.
.
0.0040
.
.
0.W20
.
.
0:1248
0.0134
4:6910
0.3130
1.0470
0.%10
.
.
O.mj$
0.2916
0 .2gf
0.2794
1.%18
1.9Z;
1.9465
1.9601
578
BLACK ~EN
A es 25 to 29
VARIASLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCHWLIHG
WTH
SXSA
NO CHTLOREM
WE CHILO
TW CH1 LOREN
COHWT1
COHORT2
COHORT3
canoRT4
WHmT5
COHORT 1*EXPERIENCE
CGMORT2*EXPERIENCE
COHORT3*EXPERIENCE
COKORT4*EXPERIENCE
COWRT5*EXPERIENCE
Adjmtd
R-mare
sawle Size
Oeptimt
nean
Note:
PAR~ETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
0.S976
0.0057
0.0095
0.0590
-0.2540
0.0870
0.0695
0.028s
0.0730
.
.
2.8360
0.5000
1.2740
8.S360
.8.0400
2.43W
1.5350
0.6670
1.6900
.
.
-0.:110
.
.
:O.owl
:
-0.1780
.
.
O.ho
A es 30 to 34
PARhETER
ESTI~TE
T-STAT
1.1683
-0.00s7
-0.oom
0.07W
-0.2345,
o.lm3’
-0.01311
-0.0348
0.0137:
.
.
:-0.0508
-0.2103
3.3070
-0.79s0
-0.1350
11.7330
-7.4690
5.1730
-0.2940
-0.S490
O.wo
-0.;690
-2.25010
A eS 35 to 39
PAR~METER
ESTIMATE
0.3::;
0.4241
1.7925
l.&Y
2.;460
3.7380
$ &::Eo
I
ESTIMTE
49
A es 50 to 54
PAR~ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
T-STAT
T-STAT
0.9403
-0.0131
0.0056
0.1016
-0.2651
0.1769
.0.0117
0.03%
-0.W5
.
1.Ww
-0.9M0
1.1690
14.W30
-6.2120
3.9290
-0.1s20
0.6730
-1.W
.
0.1517
0.0068
0.0119
O.OM
-0.2S97
0,1930
0.0759
-0.0329
0.1517
0.24W
0.4810
2.7260
13.1010
-5.26W
4.1970
1.1920
-0.53~
Z.plo
-0;1315
0.0172
0.0038
0.W52
-0.2915
0.1707
-0.0W8
-0.0S27
0.0012
-0.lMO
1.1490
O.WW
13.0610
-6.0450
3.4600
-0.1370
-1.29~
0.9210
2.8659
-0.0428
0.0089
0.0804
-0.=7
0.1853
0.0326
0.0010
0.:509
3.0130
-2.SS O
2.000
r
10.0s70
-3.M20
2.w5o
0.4060
1.0370
o.~40
●
☛
0.2601
-0.2342
.
2.3550
-2.2530
.
0.;029
0.4240
2.60u
3.1140
0.2633
0.0474
.
1.W50
0.%50
.
0.19W
-
1.2270
-
-1.;90
-1.890
:t:
-0.:002
-0.0E7
-o.h20
:;;
-0.7700
-0.0079
-1.2W0
.-
.
.
.
.
0.4874
397
1.6764
0.4995
, 7gJ
●
0.;181
0.0333
A es 40 to 44
PARiMETER
ESTIXATE
-0.:080
-1.014
0.0282 3.5320
0.5W3
437
1.7045
●
T-STAT
:
-0.0111
-0.0134
;;e years in tilch each cohort reach~ a es 25 to 29 is as fo[lws:
- 1952,
.C2- 1957,C3 - 1960,S4 - 19%, C5 - 1978.
A stariti,
catesthectiortuhlch is the refereme gr~ in the swcif ic rwressim.
0.4444
1.7if:
more negative mong
higher
order
(i.e., more
that, all else e~al, more recent cohorts
of ~men
although not all of these cohort effects
Moreover,
grows
to
the
larger,
indicating
investments
for white
for cohort
cohoti
differentials
likely
to be
the.
Results
accord
with
in the
based
men
3imilar
black
tomen 40 to 44,
Although
those
gaina
this
experience
earlier
to 0.0302
return
significant
when
is ~sitive,
earn
on earnings
5ince
age
and
higher
returns
For exmple,
increases
5 in 19S3.
to experience
cohorts
levels,
significmt.
for cohoh
the
wage
counterparts.
of experience
defined
at low=
recent- cohotis
esthated
younger
in returns
with
than
returns
hold5
by 1983,
40, these
to experience
❑tart ing wages
pattern
in 1967,
their
❑tati
statistically
with
This hplies
coho*s.
are
are
fra
The
larger and more
farther
18, displayed
apart
in
in Table
33
findings.
black
cohorts,
effect
on experience
imply
recent
than
4 in 1978 by 0.0159
statistically
this
interacted
capital
25 to 29, the
0.0153
=e
that -women in more
in human
women
@ong
of cohort
effect
recent)
black
the return
(when
as mong
(all else
to ex~rience
for
effects
white
e-al)
est hated
to experience
women.
are Bigher
at -
35 to 39 in
women
significant)
Yet,
for
for more
levels.
1972
compared
differential
become5
with
posit ive.
These
increased
for
results
from
all cohorts
entrants
may
provide
cohort
evidence
to cohort
of black
mong
work
white
by hman
capital
their
1962
c=eers,
).
Since
training
an increase
is more
in on-the-job
75
lower
lfiely
effect
which
from
mong
paid
when
have
not necessarily
suggests
wages
to occur
training
investments
although
cohort
theog
job training would be funded in part through
(Becker,
related
women,
The negative
women.
be explained
that
l~or
that
force
On-the-
to the trainee
workers
one generation
begin
to the
Table
Dete&inants
NON
BLACK
of Log Wages
Years
of E~erience
Since
Age
18
WO~N
Ages 25 to 29
PARAMETER
ESTI~TE
T-STAT
VARIABLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCHOOLING
SO~H
SHSA
NO CHILDREN
ONE CHILD
TWO CHILDREN
COHORT5
COHORT6
COHORT5*EXPERI ENCE
COHORT6*EXPERIENCE
0.4701
0.0075
0.0339
0.0617
-0.0343
0.1350
0.1413
0.0969
0.0667
*
-0.0662
*
0.0101
Adjusted
R-S~are
Sample Size
Dependent
Mean
BLACK
33
2.2860
0.9860
4.8570
13.4790
-1.7650
6.2620
2.8950
1.9820
1.3600
*
-1.2150
*
1.2520
0.2239
1953
1.9165
WOMEN
Ages 25 to 29
P~TER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
VARIABLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCHOOLING
Som
SNSA
NO CHILDREN
ONE CHILD
TWO CHILDREN
COHORT5
COHORT6
COHORT5*EXPERIENCE
COHORT6*EXPERI ENCE
0.8008
0.0057
0.0200
0.0648
-0.1343
0.0968
-0.0523
-0.0575
-0.0785
*
-0.2601
*
0.0344
Adjusted
R-S~are
Sample Size
Dependent
Mean
*Designates
the cohort
2.4930
0.4820
1.9510
9.2740
-4.4520
2.5840
-1.0220
-1.1770
-1.5660
*
-3.5820
*
2.8690
0.2542
720
1.7941
that
is the
reference
group
for the regression.
next would
entrants
with
be expected
mong
more
experience
to generate
recent
reflects
a greater
cohorts.
The
the return
reduction
s~se~ent
to the
in wages
steeper
greater
level
for new
rise
in earnings
of invest fient in work
skills.
Of course,. we cannot
women
or their
For ex~ple,
levels.
entry
employers
willing
is more
to
less prejudiced,
and
that
increased
would
feedback
employers
earnings
of women.
because
labor
the
effects
force
that
of experience
dead-end
job syndrome
well
future
for
they
narrowing
however,
of women either
exhibited
of training
choices
botb
that
of flat
-- finally
the
are responding
sides
of the gender
77
for
choice
of occupations
may
have
become
they
because
average
Stice
estimated
to the
profiles
been
woman,
a factor
is 50 much
of
increase
recent
for women
overcome,
in earnings.
become
in turnover
there
for more
where
more
have
and the behavior
contrfiuted
gap
in investment
by applying
women.
to have
to which
change
by the
age-earnings
appears
extent
to the reduction
of women
we have
the
increase
or through
Mployers,
the risk
old pattern
for the
initiated
progrms
attachent
labor
probtile
is
The
force
reduced
between
it
traintig
have
in the traintig
or
have
may
commonplace.
invest
from this analysis
are responsible
women
into management
training
detiemine
in
cohorts
-- the
which
bodes
Allison, Paul D. “Event Hi6t0ry Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event
Data.” Sage University Papsr Series on Quantitative Applications in the
SOcial Science@, 07-046. ‘BeverlyHills: Sage Publications, 19B4.
Anderson,
K.H., Hill, M.A.., and Sutler,
JOurna
Hazard Model of Marriage Ttiing, ” ~
(1987) !223-234.
Sarnes, Willim
of Human
Ben-Porath,
~,
“Labor
Yoram,
Blank, Rebecca,
“The ROle
Over Time, ” ~erican
~,
C
Resources
9 (Fall
in Malaysia:
nmic5
A
26
1974) :439-451.
Force Participation
Rates and the
S1 (May-June 1973)!697-704.
of Part-Time
Cain, Glen, ~
Married Women
work
the
in Women, s Labor
e. Chicago:
Supply
of L&or,
”
Market Choices
May 19B9
University
of Chicago
1966.
Center for Human Resource Research.
Longitudinal
Survevs of Labor Market
Human Resource Research,
1987.
Cogan, J.
Esttiation
~.
y~
Experience.
he National
CO IUtiUS , Ohio : Center
“Married Women, s Labor Supply:
A Comparison
of Alternative
Procedures, ” in J. P. Smith ed. , Female Labor SUDRIV:
Theorv
Princeton,
N. J. : Princeton University
Press, 19S0.
Corcoran,
Mary and Duncan, Greg,
Earnings Differences
Between the
14 (Winter 1979) :3-2o.
“Work
Races
Ehrenberg,
R. and R. Oaxaca,
Unemplopent,
and Subsewent
Willim
E. , ‘Career
5 (April
for
and
History, Labor Force Attacbent,
and
and Sexes, W ~
Jou nal o
Remo rces
Donohue,
John J. , “The Changing Relative
Workers, “ unpublished
paper, Northwestern
Bar Foundation,
Septtier,
1987.
Even,
Lab
~e,
“Age at Marriage
F. and Jones, Ethel B., ‘Difference in Male and Female
Quitting, w Journal
Press,
J. S.,
Hazard RateS of Young Male
University
School of Law,
1976, “Unemplo~ent
Wage Gain, ” m~
Interruptions
Following
1987) :255-277.
and Finale
herican
Insurance,
Duration of
c Rev ew 66:734-766.
Childbirth,
“ g~
and the MaleFerber, Marianne
A. and Spaeth, Joe L. , ‘Work Characteristic
Female Earnings
Gap, ” Merican
Econmic
Review 74 (May 1984) :260-64.
Analysis
Felmlee, Diane H. , “A Dyn-ic
Demoqrauhy
21 (May 1984) :171-183.
Flinn, C. and J. Hechan,
Advances
in Econometric
of Women vs Emplo~ent
“Mode18 for the Analysis
(1982) 1:35-95.
78
Exits, ”
of Labor Force Dynmics,
”
,.
New Methods for halyzing
structural
Flinn, C. J. -d
J. J. Hechan,
of Labor Force DPmics,
” Journal of Econometrics
(1982) 18:115-168
the ~alysis
223.
of Labor
Multiepisode
Advanc
~s
e
model
Force
, “Err at m
Dynmigs,
ad. Addendenum
to Volme
One: Models for
in Econometrics
(1983) 2:219“ Advances
, “The L“ikelfiood Function
in Molds for the Analysis of L*or
(1983) 2:225-231.
for the Multistate
Force Dyn-ics,
”
Goldin, Claudia,
“Life Cycle Lsbor Force Participation
Historical
Evidence -d
Implications,’- ~
7(1):20-47
~n.
, ~HistQrv
New York:
Hechan,
J. J- “Shadow
(1974) :679-694.
Models
of Married
-
Women:
ics (1989)
of
Oxford
Prices,
University
Market
Wages
HecMan,
J. J. and T. MaCurdy “A Life Cycle
Review of Econorni~
(1980) 47:47-74.
Press,
1990.
and Labor
Model
Supply, : Econometrics
of Female
L*or
Supply, “
Hectian, J. J. and B. Singer, “Econometric
Analysis of Longitudinal, “ in Z.
Grilliches
and M. D. Intrilligator
1 ed. 7, Handbook of Econometrics,
Volme
III. 1690-1763.
~sterdm:
Elsevier Science Publishers
BV, 1986.
Hechan,
J. J. and Willis, R. J. , ‘-A Beta-Logistic
Model for the Analy5is
of
Se~ent ial Labor Force P-t icipat ion by Married Women .,,Journal of Political
Economv 85 (February 1977) : 27-58.
Differences
in Women, s Labor
Hill, M. Anne, “InterCohort
~erican
EconomiG Review (1990) 80 (2) :2S9-292.
Market
Transit ions,”
Hill, M. Anne and June E. O, Neill, “A Dyn-ic
Model of Women, s Work, ”
presented
at the Population
Association
of %erica, s mnual
meetings
in
Bait tiore, Md. , March 1989.
Kiefer, Nicholas M., “Economic Duration Data
Economic Literature
(198B) 26(2) :646-679.
Kil lingsworth,
1983.
Mark
R. Labor
Su DP 1v .
and Hazard
Cambridae:
and J. J. Hechan,
“FeMale
Ashenf elter and Richard Layard, eds. ~,
103-204.
~sterdm:
North-Holland,
1986.
Cmbridae
Lsbor
MaCurdy, Thomas E., “Interpret ing Empirical Models
Intertemporal
Frmework
with Uncertainty, ” in J-es
79
Functions,
” Journal
University
Press,
Supply, ‘r in Orley
Volue
of Labor Supply in an
J. Hechan
and Burton
1,
of
Singer,
cd=. , ~r
Chzidge
University
Presm,
a
1985.
~
111-155. Ctiridgmt
~,
Mincer,
~ournal
Jacob and Sol-on
Polachek,
‘Fmily
Inves~ent6
in Hwan
of POli kical EcQnom y 82 (March/April
1974) : S76-S108.
(Winter
, “Woman Vm Earnings
197S) :118-33.
Mincer, J.,
Restoration
Raexmined,
and Ofek, H. “Interrupted
of Euman Capital. - ~
n gournal
Capital, -
of Hma n Resources 13
Work Careers: Depreciation
and
of Euman Resour cc=, (1982) 17(1) :3-24.
Models of the Labor Force
Nak~ra,
Alice and Nakmura,
Manao, “Dynmic
Behavior of Married Wmen
Which Can Be Enttiated
Using Ltifted kounta
of Past
Information, n Journal of Econ met W
27, (1985) :273-298.
Neman,
J.L.
Births, W E~
and C.C.
O’Neill, June,
Segregation. m
Olmen,
Models
~
F
“A
McCulloch,
52
Hazard
Rate
Approach
“The Determinants
and Wage
Working Paper.
Wanhlngton,
Effects of Occupational
D. C. : Urban Inetitute,
CoVariates
Randall J. and @orge
Farkas, “ Endogenous
Childbirth
on Schooling,
and the Effect of Adolescent
24 (1) (Winter 1989) :39-53.
O, Neill, June, “A Time
Serlee
Analysia of Women, s Labor
@er ican Economic Review 71 (May 1981): 76-80.
O, Neill,
Journal
to the
Tune,
“The Trend
of Labor Ec onomics
Timing
of
(1984) :939-962.
1983.
in Duration
- ~
Journa
Force
Participation,
in the Male-Female
Waae GaD in the united
3 (January 19S5 Suppi~en~
):S91-S116.
Staten. .
O, Neill, June, Douglas
Spells, N T
eview 0
~
1987) :241-248.
A. Wolf
and Laurie J. Bassi, “The Duration
of Welfare
at is
s, Vol. LXIX, No. 2, (May
men,
Live@.
Lexington,
John
D.,
Workina
~:
Lexington
Sooks,
”
1986.
Sandell,
Steven H. and Shapiro, David, “Work Expectation,
Hman
Capital
Accumulation,
and the Wages of Young Women, - Journ al of Human Re50urces
(Sumer
1980).
Smith,
Force,
James P. and Ward, Michael P. , “Times-series
‘Journal of Labor Ee onomics 3 (January 1985
Yi, Xei-Mu, Bo Honore,
Te5t
0
~~
University
of Chicago,
and Jamea
Growth in the Female
Supplement) :S59-S90.
Walker,
TM: A P
ram
11 Mode
Multi-
1987.
80
fo
q.
e Est
Chicago:
Labor
ation
The
a
APPENDIX
A
Table A-1
Determinants of Pr~rtim
HW
of Years hrkd,
Ages 25-29
BLACK WEN
Since LeaVim
VARIABLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
scMmt InG
WTH
NEVER NARRIED
NO CHILOREN
WE CNILD
TW CNILDREN
THREE CHILOREW
Adjustti R-Sqmre
Swle
Size
De@ent
Nean
1973
PARANETER
EST[~TE
T-STAT
0.4020 2.0020
-0.0030-O.42OO
0.0006 0.1380
-0.0020
0.0472
0.3547
0.25%
0.0971
0.0024
-0.0970
1.3826
8.0060
6.1310
::%
0.1537
1204
0.5245
Schml
Sime
1978
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
T-STAT
-0.29& -1.81w
0.0072 1.3160
0.0295
-0.0230
0.0049
0.5290
0.3793
0.1948
0.1384
8.49M
-1.429o
0.2180
9.0330
6.5310
3.35W
2.255o
0.3673
1241
0.6563
Age 18
1978
PARMETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
-0.0150
0.0080
0.0014
-0.0482
-0.0347
0.5076
0.3953
0.2264
0.1173
1987
PARANETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
40.091
1.446
0.405
-2.957
-1.529
8.567
6.719
3.853
1.879
-0.4553
O.olw
0.0126
-0.0104
-0.066s
-3.515
4.297
3.917
-0.769
-4.228
o,5m3
0.4263
0.2W
0.1203
13.737
10.56s
6.656
2.%
0.2W
1812
0.6356
0.2227
1193
0.5736
BLACK ~EN
Since Leavi~
VARIABLE
19n
PARMETER
EST1mTE
T-STAT
IWTERCEPT
AGE
SCHWLI WG
WTH
NEVER NARRIEO
WO CWILOREN
DNE CHILO
TW CWILOREN
THREE CHILOREW
-0.lw’
0.0069
0.0244
-0.00M
-0.03W’
0.1977
0.2179
0.1755
0.0311
Adjustd R-~re
Swle
Size
D%mt
Hean
0.W73
395
0.4425
-0.3740
0.5270
3.1310
-0.1770
-0.8300
3.1140
3.7450
3.2110
0.9210
schwl
1978
PARAMETER
ESTrWTE
T-STAT
-1.3637 -4.4M0
0.0483
4.5400
0.0310
5.6040
0.0534
1.8no
-0.0617 -1.WO
0.4278
7.0450
0.3000
5.5430
0.1523
2.82oo
0.0661
1.13m
0.2622
492
0.5561
Sime
1978
PARMEIER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
-1.0417
0.038s
O.OIM
0.0217
-0.0392
0.3M7
0.3229
0.2116
0.1409
0.1965
458
0.4776
.3.6W
3.945
3.618
0.812
-1.370
6.971
6.482
4.264
2.627
Age 18
1987
PARAMETER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
-0.5480
0.0085
0.048s
0.0639
-0.W25
0.3293
0.2526
0.1647
0.0505
0.2458
653
0.5042
-2.270
0.966
7.692
2.790
-3.%1
5.814
4.549
2.921
0.822
T*le
DetemiMt8
w
of Prmrtim
of Year6 Vork4
A-2
Sime
Leavim
S~Wl,
Ag-
30 to 34
BLA2S Wn
vAAIABLE
IHTERCEPT
AGE
SCH~IHG
WTH
HEVER MRIEO
so cHILDREN
WE CHILD
TW CHILOREN
THREE CHILOREH
R-Xre
Adjutd
Smle
Six@
o-t
km
VARIASLE
INTERCEPT
A=
SC~lNG
MTk
NEVER MRRIEG
NO CNILOSEH
WE CHILD
TW CHIWREN
Adjwtti R-Wre
s~le
Size
O-t
Mean
1%7
PAAANETER
ESTl~TE
T-STAT
-0.0538
0.0055
0.0148
0.0173
0.1171
0.454s
0.3403
0.1001
0.0s63
-0.2330
0.7s40
3.5m
0.8140
2.=0
11.6270
8.7630
6.7G7D
3.2720
0.2761
0.3241
0.1944
0.0902
0.1101
262
0.5161
0.2%1
-0.0M9
0.0212
.O.w
0.049
0.4507
0.3001
0.1519
0.0611
1 .45m
-1.lW
5.93n
-0.0200
ll:M
8.*
4.8620
1.mo
O.w
0.3W
747
0.4627
1%7
PAWETER
ESTlMTE
1978
PAMIER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
2.93~
4.~8G
Z.qm
1.5900
0.3418
357
0.5447
-1.3s50
2.34m
3.2910
-1.W
-o.@
11.6440
9.s3n
6.33W
2.7260
0.6181
1978
PA~ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
0.1345
-0.010s
0.04%
0.0650
-0.0504
0.313
0.2093
0.2001
0.03%
-o.m7
0.0137
0.0111
-0.0318
-0.0178
0.4720
O.m
0.2381
0.1115
0.2656
w
1142
0.5549
T-STAT
19s3
PAMIER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
o.3m
-0.qm
8.3320
2.0410
-1.lqlo
S.m
4.om
4.4290
1.3690
1903
PARA2GE1ER
EsTIWTE
T-STAT
-1.1932
0.03T9
0.0317
0.0351
-o.G4q3
o.2m
0.2452
0.17G5
0.0444
0.2276
o.5n
-3.3640
3.5150
5.W
1.2030
.1.4510
4.6430
5.24~
4.G530
o.qlM
Table A-4
Detemimnts
VARIASLE
INTERSEPT
AGE
SCM~LIMG
Smn
MEWR HARRIEO
MO CHILDREN
ONE CHILD
TW CHILOREH
THREE CH1LOREN
Adjustd R-S~re
s~le
Size
De-t
Mean
VARIAELE
of Pr~rtim
of Vears Wrkd
Sime
Leavim
SchmL,
AW
40 to 44
1%7
PARNETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
1972
PA~ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
1977
PARWETER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
1.a540
0.5212
-0.0064 -0.9730
2.269Q
0.0083
-0.0073 -0.3620
2.9710
O.lw
a.9310
0.3289
5.0220
0.1s62
4.4690
0.lf24
0.0434, 1.6310
o.15a3
0.01021
0.0QS7
0.0079
0.1499
0.3871
0.2154
0.1194
0.0622
0.5310
0.3060
2.0220
0.3570
2.5020
9.1540
5.7070
4.54ao
2.35ao
-0.1265 -o.41m
0.00M
0.9420
0.0162, 3.633Q
0.0299
1.3aw
2.4150
0.1385
o.3am
9.m30
0.3172
7.9zaQ
0.1730
6.7360
0.0777
Z.mo
Q.21OO
701
0.4609
0.1711
a59
0.4442
1967
PARANETER
ESTl~TE
T-STAT
INTERCEPT
k=
SC~LIMG
SWTH
NEVER MARRIEO
NO CHILOREN
ONE CHILO
TW CHILOREN
THREE CHILOREN
1.1734
-0.olu
0.0044
0.1201
0.0926
O.zzm
0.1693
0.0026
0.0162
AdJmt4
R-SWre
$~le
Size
O@nt
Mean
0.0921
3Q9
0.6017
2.1330
-1.4310
0.7630
3.1180
1.2100
4.1650
3.2040
1.4730
0.2550
0.2762
634
0.4927
1972
PARNETER
ESTIMATE
T-STAT
0.3903
-0.0034
O.OIW
0.W16
-0.OW
0.2693
0.2412
0.1~5
O.W,
0.6650
-0.2490
2.55W
2.2~
-0.0620
3.4?40
3.2400
3.160’0
1.2a50
o.lzal
253
0.5482
1977
PARMETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
0.6033
-0.00s9
0.0133
o.a571
-0.0100
0.31%
0.2365
0.2165
0.1893
0.2042
196
o.5m
1.0260
-0.U70
1.W
3.a240
-0.2510
3.2130
3.0270
3.7s70
3.2610
Table A-5
Dctemiwts
VARIMLE
1MTERCEPT
AGE
SC~LING
WTH
NEVER WRIEO
NO CHILDREN
WE CHILD
TW CHILDREU
THREECHILOREN
Adjwtd
R-Xre
Sqle
size
D-t
Mean
of PWrtim
of Years Mrkd
1972
PARAMETER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
0.4354
-0.0043
0.0112
o.m29
0.2M
0.2~6
0.1872
O.lM
0.0522
1.3500
-0.6410
2.9130
O.lw
3.2230
7.5570
5.U20
4.2440
1.9300
Sime
LeaVim
Schml,
1977
PAMETER
ESTI~TE
T-STAT
0.2355
Q.0007
O.OM
0.0118
o.15n
0.35b9
O.lsaa
0.1071
o.m43
0.6950
O.m
2.2430
0.5300
2.3470
8.3~
4.8720
3.9030
2.0110
45 to 49
1982
PAWIER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
-0.2705
0.Oou
0.0204
0.0340
0.1346
0.3431
0.300s
O.lm
0.M2
-0.7230
1.055’0
4.27S0
1.4230
1.9770
7.4s40
6.W
b.32m
3.2420
0.2465
537
0.5164
0.1%6
650
0.4s66
0.1562
773
o.45n
Agm
BLACK WEN
1972
VARIASLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
WHWLING
SWTti
NEVER MRRIEO
NO cHILOREN
ONE CHILO
TW CNILOREN
TNREE CNILOREN
Adjwtd
R-S~re
5wle
Size
O-t,
Mean
PAMETER
ESTl~TE
T-STAT
1.0005
-0.0153
0.0131
0.1457
0.1247
0.2074
0.1493
0.1070
0.01%
1.6150
-1.1820
2.lW
3.SSW
1.5160
3.W20
2.8760
1.8550
0.3140
0.1251
2n
o.58m
1977
PAMETER
ESTI~TE
T-STAT
0.4W
-0.W
0.01S6
0.0711
Owl
o.3m
0.23M’
O.lwl
0.1021
0.1796
232
0.5674
O.w
-0.2650
2.9~
1.8130
0.3440
4.3350
3.3W
3.5s20
1.n30
0.s464
-0.0146
0.0203
o.193a
1.1490
-0.93s0
2.5210
4.13w
-0.002b
-0.M50
2.9a50
1.6370
3.1790
z.asm
0.26S9
0.1472
0.2055
0.1G34
0.2119
159
0.5W
Tabte A-6
Detemlmnts
of Prwrtim
VARIABLE
INTEREPT
AGE
SCHmLING
WtH
NEWR WRRIED
MD CHILDREN
WE CHILD
TW CNILOREN
TNREE CNILDREN
Adjmtd
R-Square
sa~~e Size
DeF&nt
Mean
of Years tirkd
1977
PARAMETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
0.5587
-0.0074
0.0182
0!D2M
0.2213
0.2502
1.5370
-1.0760
0.1633
4.9910
Own
0.0320
3.7230
1.9110
Sime
Leavim
Stiml,
Ages 50 to54
lW
PARMETER
EST1~lE
T-STAT
4.64?0
0.9760
3.3370
6.7170
0.15M,
0.1385
552
0.5057
0.4%
SLACK WEN
VARIABLE
1977
PARMETER
EsTINATE
T-STAT
INTESCEPT
AGE
SCNmLIMG
WTN
HEVER WRRIED
NO CHILOREN
ONE CHILO
TN CNILOREN
THREE CNILOREN
1.2024
-0.0104
0.0167
0.1292
0.0U5
0.2130
0.1664
0.1376
0.0321
Adjustd R-mCe
Swle
Size
Oe-t
Hean
o.13n
244
0.5859
1.7160
-1.3890
2.~30
3.23W
0.8750
3.8500
3.0890
2.2760
0.5140
O.lw
2.2300
0.2208
200
0.5850
Table s-1
Detemimnts
Years Simc
of Log Uages, Ages Z5-29
Age 18
MN BLACK WIEM
1978 (a)
PARMETER
ESTIMATE
VMIANLE
IMTERCEPT
Au
EXPERIENCE
SC~LING
MTN
SUSA
NO CHILDREN
WE CHILD
TW CHILDREM
YmS
~
lM PAST FIVE
Adjustd R-~re
s~le
Size
O*timt
Hean
T-STAT
2.414
1.Om
5.3b5
8.363
-1.428
0.M7
O.oqlo
0.0348
0.0494
-0.0390
0.1324
0.0221
-0.0058
-0.03s9
4.5a7
0.330
-0.0s6
-0.561
Adjustd R-~re
Swle
Size
o-t
mean
0.s83
0.732
6.7B
10.W4
-q.346
4.4W
3.117
2.3~
1.892
T-sTAT
0.6648
0.01s6
0.0176
0.0470
-o.04n
0.1331
0.0137
-0.0084
-0.0327
-0.0413
2.339
1.656
1.a98
7.9o2
-1.573
4.63o
0.2M
-0.124’
-0.474
-2.603
1987 (b)
PAR~ETER
ESTIWTE
T-sTAT
0.1197
0.0224
o.o13a
0.0691
-0.0393
o.q342
o.qm
o.q34q
o.lq47
-0.0555
0.2305
0.2219
b94
q.9667
125b
f .9097
b94
0.2U3
125b
q.9667
1.9097
0.437
2.000
f.327
10.M2
-1.503
4.4s8
2 .b59
2.029
q.750
-3.245
,,,
1976 (a)
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
scnmLIMG
WTH
WSA
NO CHILOREN
ONE CHILO
TW CHILDREN
YEANS ~
IM PAST FIVE
0.2407
0.0073
0.0413
0.0710
-0.0353
0.132s
0.2069
o.q569
0.1263
T-STAT
1978 (b)
PARAMETER
EsTINATE
0.2154
sLAcK WEN
VARIABLE
19s7 (a)
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
PAR~ETER
EsTINATE
1.2542
-0.0033
0.0202
0.04a7
-0.2112
0.oa30
0.077s
o.03q3
0.0289
O.2S43
276
1.m
T-STAT
2.7q9
-0.195
2.019
-;:~8
q.6T3
q.om
0.401
0.424
q987 (a)
PA~ETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
0.252S
0.0125
0.0522
0.0781
-o. qoq9
0.0820
-o. qN7
-0.llm
-o.q527
0.2466
445
1 .m7
0.591
0.794
6.041
7.112
-2.503
1.5q3
-1.843
-1.7qo
-2.q71
q9TS (b)
PAWETER
EsTINATE
T-STAT
1.2543
-0.0024
o.oq73
o.04a7
-o.2q20
0.W7
o.073a
O.om
0.0281
-0.OW
0.2819
276
1.8626
2.715
-o.13a
1.lb7
5.736
-4.a17
1.6s4
q.044
0.455
0.411
-0.2b9
1987 (b)
PARMETER
ESTIWTE
T-aTAT
0.1656
0.0245
0.0250
0.0778
-o.q137
0.0260
-0.1454
-0.12s4
-0.1576
-0.0493
0.2513
445
1.m7
0.3s6
1.454
1.511
7.wa
-2.7F1
1.592
-2.038
-1.sbq
-2.245
-1.930
Table 8-2
DetGmimts
Years Sfme
NW
Wges,
Ages 23-~
Schml
SLACK wEM
19n
VARIASLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCHmLIUG
WTH
WSA
NO CNIUREN
WE CHILD
TW CNILDREN
YEARS M
IN PAST FtVS
Mjwtd
s~le
o-t
sUCX
Leavim
of LW
R-Wre
Size
Mean
PAWETER
EST INATE
0.5502
0.0202
0.0161
0.0515
-0.1537
0.0626
0.1784
0.11s1
O.m
(8)
T-STAT
1.654
1.651
2.3M
5.b78
.4.525
1.691
2.917
1.922
0.14s
197s (a)
PARMETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
0.4279
0.0158
0.M26
D.0615
-0.&27
O.lm
0.0472
0.0189
-0.0362
1.5M
1.b59
S.m
9.0s1
-1.5M
4.495
0.713
0.281
-0.52s
Owl
0.0215
-0.W55
0.0457
-0.lw
0.M57
o.m50
0.0556
-0.w
-0.0974
T-STAT
2.735
1.s37,
-0.T7b
-::E
1.854
0.900:
0.9M
.0.047
-7.070
197s (b)
PARMETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
0.5111
0.0212
0.0177
0.05n
-0.0447
0.13W
0.0294
0 .0W5
-0.0313
-0.0411
t.s63
1.946
2.174
7.453
-1.646
4.550
0.445
0.127
-0.b55
-2.930
0.2198
714
1.9700
0.2570
545
1.%54
0.2114
71b
1.mo
0.1s91
5b5
Y.9654
19T3 (b)
PAR~ETER
ESTIXAYE
~EN
VARIABLE
IHTERCEPT
m
EXPERIENm
SCti~tNG
WTH
2PC2A
NO CNILDREN
ONS CNILD
W
CHIWREN
YEARS WT IN PASY FIVE
19n (a)
PARANETER
T-STAT
EsTIMYE
0.6s1s
0.0129
0.00s2
0.D6W
-0.3035
0.1153
0.0200
0.0436
0.1079
1.3W
0.765
1.026
6.297
-5.944
1.952
0.305
0.634
1.752
19T8 (a)
PAWETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
1.1502
-0.0013
0.0165
0.05U
-0.2144
0.0713
0.1107
0.fi60
0.06s9
2.67S
-0.079
1.918
-;:F7
1.4ss
1.650
0.913
0.W7
1973 (b)
PAWETER
EST[MTE
1.0120
0.0110
-0.0083
0.0577
-0.3102
0.1231
-0.0100
0.0171
0.0775
-o.on7
T-STAT
2.131
0.679
-0.971
5.285
-6.3o7
2.163
-0.157
0.257
1.2%
-3.974
197s (b)
PAWETER
ESTIXATE
T-STAT
1.2028
-0.0006
0.0115
0.0517
-0.2150
0.072s
0.1010
0.0500
0.M7
-0.0150
0.2798
0.4421
0.27s8
1.8E
1.Jfi
1.8E
2.765
-0.037
;:29
-5.118’
1.500
1.47s
0.009
0.944
-0.7s0
Table B-3
Determimnts
MM
of Log Wages, Ag=
30-34
BLACK MEW
VARIABLE
1967 (a)
PARAMETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
1.50s8
INTERCEPT
-0.0271
AGE
0.0230
EXPERIENCE
0.0745
sC~LING
-0.1296
WTH
wSA
0.1808
NO CHILDREW
0.0396
oWE CNILD
0.0210
TW CHILDREN
0.0446
YEARS ~T [W PAST FIVE
AdJust4 R-Svre
Samle Size
Oewtient Mean
3.006
-1.801
4.502
8.709
-2.955
3.841
O.ao
0.?87
0.7s5
o.3a33
239
1.0370
1970 (a)
PARAMETER
T-STAT
EsTIWTE
0.0902
0.01s4
0.0230
0,0767
-0.0826
0.1391
0.0954
0.1253
0.0478
0.243
1.559
4.M7
10.247
-2.47S
4.077
f.720
2.251
0.%9
1983 (a)
PARAWETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
o .4a9a
-0.0007
0.0337
0.07s8
-0.0009
0.1906
0.0920
0.0759
0.0342
1.272
-0.059
6.025
11.100
-0.026
5.234
1.463
1.139
0.562
1~
PARAMETER
EST INATE
0.3289
0.0229
0.0070
0.0652
-0,0944
0.1401
0.0474
o.m7
0.0363
-0.0691
(b)
T-STAT
0.W7
1.975
1.242
8.W
-2.M5
6.192
0.859
1.002
0.730
-4.%7
1985 (b)
PA~ETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
0.5128
0.00%
O.ola
0.0703
-0.M74
0.1879
0.0484
0.0395
0.0161
-0.w
0.2049
0.2967
0.3142
0.3103
2.0::
2.0::
2 .OL?
2.2:
1.344
0.778
2.273
9.442
-0.211
5.211
0.761
0.6M
0.265
-3.479
8LACK WEM
VARIAaLE
1%7
PARMETER
ESTIWTE
1.2114
INTERCEPT
-0.0127
AGE
0.0005
EXPERIENCE
0.0791
SC~LIMG
-0.32%
WTH
WSA
o.lova
-0.2133
ND CHILDREN
ONE CHILD
o.ola5
0.0913
TW CHILOREN
YEARS WT IM PAaT FIVE
Adjmtd
R-Xre
s~le
Size
Owtimt
Hean
0.4615
113
1.5169
(a)
T-aTAT
1.5a3
-0.530
0.074
5.a52
-4.343
1.3b9
-1.m
0.196
0.950
197a (~)
PARMETER
T-STAT
ESTIMATE
0.W7
o.om7
o.o13a
0.W17
-0.3096
o.la34
-0.0022
0.0084
0.0032
0.3724
204
1.0918
1.406
0.485
2.049
5.872
-5.7b3
3.m
-0.034
0.110
0.052
1903 (n)
PARMETER
ESTIMATE
T-STAT
1.2342
-OIO21O
0J0351
O ;9736
-0.1410
0.2237
0.0255
-0.0626
0.0214
0.3739
249
1.9200
2.2b7,
-1.223’
5.058
8.345
-3.W7
3.W
o.34a
-1.064
0.373
1978 (b)
PARANETER
ESTIWATE T-STAT
0.9393
0.0144
-0.0011
0.0514
-o.31a2
o.la71
-0.0343
.O.OM
0.0057
-0.0740
0.3991
204
1.8918
1.bT3
o.ala
-0.141
4.762
-6.o45
3.221
-0.526
-0.120
19s3 (b)
PAMMETER
ESTIWTE
T-STAT
1.122a
-0.0095
0.0213
O.ow
-0.134s
0.2356
0.0076
-0.0811
0.0160
-0.0780
0,3935
249
1.9200
-::E
2.5b5
7.343
-3.005
4.162
O.lM
-1,393
-kK
Tab[e
Detemimnts
VARIABLE
IHTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCH~lNG
~TH
%SA
fflCHILOREM
ME CHILD
TW CH1 LDREM
Y~RS WT IN THE PAST FIVE
Ad]wtti R-~rO
s~ie
Size
D-t
nem
1%7 (a)
PARAXETER
ESTIWIE
T-STAT
2.1%
-0.625
4.W
9.210
-1.5n
2.269
-0.0232-0.3s6
-0.0499-0.69S
-0.02U -0.639
1,1103
-0.00G3
O.oln
0.06s3
-0.w
0.0965
1972 (a)
PARWETER
ESTIMTE
0.%50
-0.0M2
0.01%
0.0672
T-STAT
1.739
-0.204
4.244
7.563
-;.g
-o.07m
0.1421
0.05% 0:877
0.W9S 0.969
-0.0337-0.w
0.30s2
263
1.US1
0.2763
1%7 (a)
PMMETER
ESTIKATE
1972 (a)
PARMETER
ESTIMTE
B-4
of Lw
19S3 (a)
PAMETER
ESTl~TE
1.0G67
-0.01s4
O.om
o.0P3
-0.1617
O.lm
0.0637
0.0247
0.0272
UaW,
AEe 35-39
T-STAT
2.246
-1 .3s7
9.101
10.15s,
<4.241
4.M2
::%
0.591
o.3@
565
2.02m
1.nT7
1972 (b)
PARMETER
EsTlmTE T-STAT
0.0634
O.om
-0.0329
-0.0114
0.929
0.9s3
-0.672
-0.656
19S3 (b)
PAMETER
ESTINATE T-STAT
1.2735
-0.0150
0.0240
0.0713
-0.155b
0.1929
0.0734
0.03s2
0.U31
-0.0715
0.2749
0.3249
1 .mm7
2.0270
2.b56
-1.149
4.554
8.979
-4.135
5.046
::%
0.%5
-4.W
5b5
SLACK ~EN
VARIABLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCWWL ING
=TH
SHSA
MO CNILDREN
WE CNILO
TW CHILOREM
YEASS WT IN PAST FIK
Adjwtd
R-~rc
s~le
Size
oat
Mean
0,9418
-0.0119
0.0025
0.0979
-0.3772
0.1623
0.1%9
-0.0675
o.m3
0.5527
13s
1.4559
l-STAT
1.lM
-0.564
0.533
S.S37
-5.419
2.145
1.739
-0.571
1.069
T-STAT
0.7013
-0.W9
-o.om3
0.1215
-o.2m
0.1s17
.::E
-0.1062
-o:m7
0.613
-0.418
0.W2
-0.wm
0.4s49
113
1.7498
-0.451
-;:
19s3 (a)
PA~ETER
ESTIMTE
1.7197
-0.0331
0.0352
0.M19
-0.1935
O.lla
-0.0635
0.0239
-0.1761
0.4228
1s3
1.W15
T-STAT
2.431 ~
-1.7s2
5.W
7.377
-3.247
1.7M,
-0.m
0.318
-2.6s9
1972 (b)
PARAN3TER
ESTINATE T-STAT
1.1126
-0.0052
-0.0W2
O.lw
-0.3241
0.1337
-0.1439
0.1144
-o.02n
.o.m7
0.5115
113
1.749s
0.940
-0.164
-1.236
b.394
-3.319
1.403
.0.979
0.s72
-0.243
.2.5W
19G3 (b)
PARMETER
ESTIMTE T-STAT
1.7759
-0.0289
0,0267
0.0757
-0.2132
0.1349
-0.0777
0.0191
-0.15T2T
-0.E09
0.4314
1s5
1.M15
2.52S
-1.554
3.561
6.592
-3.551
2.on
.0.904
o.a7
-2.402
-1.914
Tab[e 8-5
Determinants of Lw
VARIABLE
1%7 (a)
1972 (a)
PARAWETER
EST~WTE
PAR~ETER
ESTIMATE
-0.0517
INTERCEPT
0.0307
AGE
0.0119
EXPERIENCE
O.M,
SCHmLIWG
-0.0814
~TH
0.1147,
SMSA
0.1279
kO CHILDREM
-0.0035
WE CHILD
0.1240
1~ CNILDREN
YEARS ml IN PAST FIVE
T-STAT
-0.876
2.285
3.900
8.727
-1.s58
2.577
2.116
-0.058
2.552
3.647
-2.198
5.436
7.37b
-1.654’
2.644
0.024
1.365
0.616
0.2575
53b
1.9589
0.3231
329
1.8152
Adjustd R-S~are
5qLe
Size
Mean
Oe-t
2.1714
-0.0303
0.0189
0.0610
-0.0708
0.1119
0.0017
0.1W8
0.0279
T-STAT
Wages, Aws
40-44
1977 (a)
PARAHETER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
3.W1
-2.222
3.497
z.0327
-0.0355
0.0228
0.0005
.0.0911
0.1125
0.0049
0.0s37
-0.0080
b.M9
-1.782
2.707
0.429
1.5W
0.567
-3.393
0.3134
235
1.97s0
7977 (b)
PAWETER
EST~WTE
1.93s6
-0.02s7
0.0144
0.0747
-0.0743
0.1498
o.04az
0,0891
0.Ooa
-0.om
0.2807
336
0.3453
1.9389
1 .9%
T-STAT
z.72a
-1 .M9
2.895
7.137
-1.4n”
z.a77
0.655
1.015
0.035
-3.470
BLACK ~EN
1967 (a)
PAR*ETER
ESTIWTE
VARIASLE
tNTEkCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SC~LING
SWTH
SMSA
MO CHILOREN
NE CNILD
TW CNlLDREN
YEARS WI IM PAST I:Ivz
0.7106
-0.Ol?b
0.0151
0.W70
-0.2783
0.1303
0.M78
-0.0250
R-Xre
0.5141
152
1.4533
Adjmtd
se~le Size
De~tient
Mean
T-STAT
0.700
-0.490
3.1s8
9.50s
-3.629
1.653
0.731
-0.na
2.96s
1972 (a)
PARAMETER
ESTIWTE
0.2012
0.0140
0.W07
o.0s74
-0.3346
0.2537
0.2011
-0.1811
0.0825
0.5104
136
1.7127
T-STAT
0.205
0.614
0.151
7.985
-4.547
3.439
1.E2
-1.370
0.970
1977 (a)
PARAMETER
ESTIMATE
-1.8349
0.D704
-0.0f42
0.0702
-0.05W
0.3330
-0.1349
0.071?
O.MI1
0.44W
1.88::
T-STAT
-1.451
2.338
-2.159
4.644
-0.624
3.677
-0.912
0.518
0.593
1972 (b)
PARMETER
ESTIMTE
0.2041
0.0138
0.000a
0.0875
-0.3350
0.2539
0.2014
-o.lalo
0.W6
0.0015
0.5065
13b
1.7127
T-STAT
O.ZM
0.597
0.157
7.no
-4.51b
3.425
1.746
-1.372
0.%
0.053
1977 (b)
P~ETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
.1.9695
0.0722
-0.0136
0.0728
-0.0479
0.3427
-0.1s47
0.0646
0.03!1
O.ozu
-1.53a
2.3W
-2.061
4.6~’
-0.491
3.735’
-0.ws
0.468 ;
0.491
o.n8
0.4453
1.d
lsb(eB-6
Detemimnts
VARIABLE
lNIERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SC~ING
SWTH
w%
NO CHILOREN
mE CHILO
7W CNILOREN
YEARS @T IN PAST FIVE
Adjwtd
R-~re
S~le
Size
O-t
Hean
1972 (a)
PAMTER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
0.9644
-0.0041
0.0151
0.0731
-0.M14
o.m%
0.0702
0.0212
0.0325
1.534
-0.3W
5.477
9.533
-1.918
1.431
l.om
0.360
0.694
1977 (a)
PAMETER
ESTIUTE
T-STAT
2.4M
-1.426
S.&
1.7s03
-0.0217
0.0200
0.0634
-0.0705
0.133s
-::%
2.856
0.12b5
0.0485
0.0425
1.67f
0.614
0.031
0.3264
0.3152
T.9&7
z.o~:
19U (a)
PAWTER
ESIIMTE
2.~26
-0.0549
0.0244
0.0d76
-0.0331
0. lUO
-0.1614
-0.ww
O.w
of La
T-STAT
3.239
-2.mb
5.530
7.521
-0.59T
3.173
-t.73b
-0.929
0.672
O.zmo
261
1.W38
Ua$-,
Ages 45-49
1~
(b)
PARAMETER
ESTl~TE T-STAT
1.2359
-0.oul
O.olm
0.0702
-0.GOS4
0.0631
O.w
0.0125
0.0407
-0.053s
1.9s2
-0.b70
3.693
8.097
-2.114
1.5W
1.393
0.216
O.ml
-3.523
0.3473
1977 (b)
PAWETER
ESTINATE
1.7942
-0.020s
O.olm
0,0618
-o.oml
0.1364
0.1318
0.0532
0.0426
-0.m
T-STAT
2.bS2
-T.36s
4.m
6.743
.1.497
2.911
1.7M’
0.673
0.U3
-1.247
0.31M
250
2.0259
1.9;;
lW
(b)
PAWETER
ESTIMTE
3.0.’?:
-0.osm
0.0177
O.mo
-0.0314
0.19T4
-0.1226
-o.m%
o.m5f
-0.0055
T-STAT
3.4s5
-2.m,
::2
-o.5n:
3.4m
-1.346
-0.618
0.s44
-3.279
0.3001
261
1.993s
8LACK WEN
VARIABLE
INTERSEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
SCH~ING
SWTH
SMBA
NO CHILDREN
HE CNILO
Tm CNILOREN
YEARS WT IN PAST FIW
Adjmtsd
R-*PG
s@le
size
D-t
neon
1972 (a)
PMETER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
o.7m3
-0.0021
0.004s
0.W64
-0.3126
0.1652
-0.=
-o.om9
0.0719
0.453s
137
1.69=
~ 5s4
d.oT3
0.973
8.627
-3.530
1.769
-0.407
-0.M9
O.aba
1977 (a)
PAWETER
EST IMTE T-STAT
o.ooa3
).1167
;.u016
1045
~~m29
0.1302
-0.00;
-0.010>
O.OWb
O.mol
109
1.S27b
0.0W3
0.744
::%
-5.002
-::E
.0.082
0.115
1W2 (a)
PMETER
ESTIUTE
-0.5373
-::W
O.moa
-0.2153
0.2007
0.0652
-0.0397
-0.1622
0.W2
a5
1.9101
T-STAT
1972 (b)
PWETER
ESTIWTE T-STAT
-0.339
1.016
.0.!%
k.
-i:ob,
1.927
0.413
.0..-,
0.4251
0.0007
O.oom
O.lobo
-0.3120
0.1716
-0.0557
-0.0s23
-1.35.
0.0738
0.W4
0.45W
137
1.b93S
0.321
0.024
l.m
8.579
-3.544
1.s46
-0.473
-0.877
O.w
1.5M
1977 (b)
PA~ETER
ESTINATE
T-STAT
0.07s4
0.0163
0.0005
0.1022
-0.3850
0.1372
0.0012
0.0094
0.0217
-0.0170
0.5970
1.4%
0.071
0.722
O.lw
8.b53”
-5.002
1.069
0.011
0.069
0.2M
-o.4m
19S2 (b)
PAWTER
EST[UTE
-0.0619
o.04m
-0.0114
0.0772
-0.2327
0.2265
0.0340
-o.m87
.O.19W
-0.30M
0.4406
53
1.9101
T-STAT
-0.571
1.444
-1.445
4.4m
-2.337
2.276
0.226
-0.361
-1.69s3
-2.9m
TabLe B-7
Determinants of Log Hag=,
Ages 50-54
1982 (a)
PARANETER
ESTINATE
1977 (b)
PARMETER
ESTIMTE
T-STAT
1982 (b)
PAMETER
EsT[wTE
1.9873
-0.0247
0.0124
0.0809
-0.0410
0.W60
0.0315
0.0240
0.0128
-0.0372
2.2n
-1.4m
3.4M
9.002
-0.7571
1.s92
0.431
0.320
0.210
-1.269
2.287s
-0.0322
0.0158
0.0710
0.04=
0.2175
0.1033
0.0306
-0.0141
-0. 07b7
NON BLACK ~EH
VARIABLE
INTERCEPT
AGE
EXPERIENCE
scNmLIMG
SWTN
*SA
NO CNILDSEN
OWE CHILO
TW CNILDREN
YEAAS WT IN PAST FIW
AdJmt4
R-S~are
S8~[e Size
oe~timt
Mean
VARIABLE
IMTERCEPT
AGE
ExPERIENCE
SCNWLI WG
SWTH
SMSA
HO CHILOREN
ONE CHILO
Tw CNILOREN
YEARS WT IW PAST FIVE
Adlust*, R-aware
sn~le Size
O@nt
Mean
1977 (a)
PARAMETER
ESTINATE
1.8%9
-0.0240
0.0140
O.wo
-0.0413
0.0%1
0.01%
0.0173
0.0103
T-STAT
2.179
-1.445
4.173
9.159”
-0.762
1.891
0.269
0.234
O.la
2.7a74
-0.0416
0.0083
o.oa42
-0.2028
0.1%9
-0.0227
-o.04a7
o.04ti
O.OIM
-0.0207
2.257
-1.815
6.022
6.250
1.07a
3.910
0.791
0.178
-0.346
0.2795
246
1.9852
0.3408
257
2.0273
1977 (a)
PARAHETER
ESTINATE
2.07S5
-0,0313
0.0205
0.0742
O.obol
0.2062
O.oal
T-STAT
T-STAT
1.916
-1.522
f.463
7.M
-2.la7
1.92a
-0.1%
-0.46s
o.41a
1982 (a)
PARANETER
ESTI~TE
2.a134
-0.0335
-0.0014
0.0732
-0.3381
0.1172
0.1333
0.3489
0.0943
0.4504
0.5015
1.A?
101
1.7532
T-STAT
2.254
-1.424
-0.324’
6.231
.4.lob
1.477
1.129
2.63
1.106
l-STAT
2.510
-1.893
4.2W
6.o31
0.876
4.16s
1.203
0.327
-0.23s’
-2.75s
0.3424
257
2.0275
0.2W1
1977 (b)
PARANETER
ESTIWTE
1982 (b)
PAR~TER
ESTl~TE
T-STAT
2.6M
-0.02ss
-0.0057
0.0715
-0.3271
0.1453
o.12al
O.m
0.1025
-0.11%
-1.276
-1.322’
6.345
-4.143
1.a9a
1.132
2.935
1.253
-3.035
1.9:$
T-STAT
2.7757
-0.0414
0.0084
0.0843
-0.2031
0.1844
-0.0222
-0.0406
-1.500
1.443
7.562
-2.176
1.906
-0.189
0.0471
0.002s
0.419
O.obo
0.4449
1oa
1.7849
l.ml
-0.4b5
0.3423
101
1.7332
2.25b