me NationaI Lon~ti&d Smeys ~S) pro- wppofis may studies desi~ed

to tier-e udmtitig of the labor m~ket md metiods of && confection ~e

DismssionPapEmsties ticovoraks someof the rwwh cotig out of the progm.

Mmy of tie pprs h MS sties bve be- defiv=ed as final rqofls cdssioned =

pti of m extiawti gmt progm, mdm wM* Smts ze amded tioush a

competitive prwew. ~e wries is titmded to ckculate tie fmdtigs to kter=ted readm

titi ad outside the Bueau of Labor Satistiw.

Persons titi-kd h obtiining a copy of my Discussion Papm, otier NLS repotis,

or gmeml Momtion about the NLS pro~a md weys should contit tie Bweau of

bbor Stitistim. OffIce of Econotic R=mch, W%ti@n, DC 20212-0001, ~ cdl

(202) 606-7405.

Matid h this publication is h tie pubfic domti ad, tith appropriate credh,

mY be reproduced titiout pdssion.

Opinions md concl.sios eqressed h tis doqmt ~e tiose of tie author(s) md

1

* not nmestily rqresmt m Offlcid position of tie Bumu of Labor StititiG 01 the

U.S. Dep~ent of bbor.
Assessing School to Work Tmnsifions in the United States

Mchael R. Pergamh

U.S. Bureau pf Labor Statistics

2 Massachusetts Ave. ~, Suite 4945

Washington, DC 20212-0001

USA

Phone (202) 606-7386

FM: (202) 606-6425

htemet pergarnim@bls.gov

Jme 1995

Prepared for presentation atthe Siena Goup meetirrgon Social Motitorirrg and Social

Exclusiom The Case of tie You@ Oslo, Norway, Jue 8-9,’1995. The tiews expressed are

those of the authorand do not reflect the policies of BLS or the tiews of otier BLS stfi

members.

The transitionfrom school to work is very smooti for some youth ad less smwth for o“fiers.

tiy &ctora Wuence the transitionsuch as tie level of education, the qu~lty of schooling,

ktelligence, oppotities, and family back~omrd. ~ls paper addresses several measurement

issues related to the assessment of tie school-t-work transition. To illustratethese issues,

severrd existing tidings horn the Natioti Lorrgitudind Sumey of Youth ~S~ are

discussed Each fidng relates to dtemative measurw or methods employed to assess the

school-to-work transitionin the U.S. Conclusions are drawn regardng the data necess~ to

support the assessment of the school-to-work trmition, includtig a new srrmeybeginning in

the Utited States which attempts to meet these requirements.
Assessing School to Work Transitions in the United States

Michael R. Perganrit

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The tisnsition from schml to work is ve~ smooth for some youth and less smooth for

others. Many fatiors Wuence tie trmitimr such as the level of educatio~ the qutihy of

schooling intelligence opportunities, and fsrnfly backgromd. This paper addresses several

messuement issues related to the assessment of the schwl-to-work transition. To illrrsmate

these issues, several etisting fidmgs from the NationrdLongimdirrd Sumey of Youth ~S~

are discussed. Each fiding relates to dtemative messrrresor methods employed to assess the

sshml-to-work transition in the U.S. Wherever possible, the fidings are compared for high

schml dropouts and high school gradmtes. 1

The first se~on of the paper describes the ~SY. The middle section presents the

messnrement issues and ascompsnyirrg analyses. Specific issues e-ined ticlude whether to

measure outcomes by yew out of schml or by age, luoking specifidly at weeks worked ad

weeks memployd, when to measure the begkrning of the career, looking at how much youth

work while in school; the pitfalls in using the current measwes available in prospective data

‘ Smmal of the stidies usd in tis paw ticlu&d r~aks for those who attmded some wIIege and allege

@tiks. Th= fmb~ are not repnd hem to Mow the discwsion to the ~ou~ of most mnc~ to plicy

W-.
mllwtion, and issues regarding defining a successful transition The M s-ion of the paper

discusses the data necessary to support the types of ~ys= presented in the eadier sections

md for assessing the schml-ti-work transition. A new dataset being started in the U.S. is

described which attemptsto meet the needs suggested in this paper.

I. The Nafiond Lmrgitudind Survey of Youth @LS~

All anrdysesdiscussed in this paper use da= from the Natioti bngitudind Suey of

Youth ~SY), spomored by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The NLSY is a longitudinal

dataset of young pmple who were 14-22 years old when first interviewed in 1979. me

original sample of 12,686 included oversamples of blacks, Mspanics, ecmrmnicdly

disadvantaged whites, md youth in the military. The military oversimple was dismndsmed

tier 1984 and the emnotidly disadmtaged white oversimple was discontinued tier 1990,

Ieating 9,964 of the orititi sample still eligible for intefieting.z The smey h bean

conducted anndly in person through 1994.3 Beginning in 1994, the survey frequency was

reduced to biennial. The NLSY is renowned for its phenomenal response rate. h 1994, the

sfieentb year of tittie~, over 89”A of the original sample (who are still eligible) were

htefiewed.

Data collectd horn NLSY respondents are used primarily for the understanding of labor

marketbehatior. ~formatimt on jobs and their characteristicsas well as unemplo~ent spells

is coupled with other variables believed to influence or be tiuenced by labor mket behatior.

These include education, training, household compositio~ -age, fertifity, herdth,income

and assets. The NLSY datasethas been used extensively for a tide tiety of studies and has

>hcludes a smH na~ of d==sd r=mden=.

3The bnticw was tinducti ti-~rson k ill y=m but 1987, whm it was fiel&d by tclephme.

2
b~me the premier dataset in the United States for the study of Iabor marketbekavior. Mong

with its tigb response rates, the ~SY is known for itsbreadth of information.

11.M-urement Issues and Analyses

Several measmement issues arise in assessing tie school-to-work transition. The issues

take different fo- ticluding the unit of measurement, the detitions of outcomes, the natore

of tie data collection, etc. Each section below will address a different memurement issue,

mkrg etisting analyses to demonstrate the impli~tions for mdysis. Some tentative conclwimra

are drawn to tiorm about the needs for data collection.

A. By Year out of School or By Age?: Weeks Worked and Weeks Unemployed

As youths enter the labor force, tkey search for jobs and ofien incm some time of

unemployment. Successful transitionstill lead to acquisition of work e~erience. Those who

have trouble making the transitionwill acquire less work e~erience md stier more and

longer spells of onemploynrerrt. Two ways of measuring the tiqnisition of work eWerience

omr time can be considered. We cm measure from the time the youth leavm school, captwing

weeh worked e=h year out of schml. Or we m Ieok at youtk at given ages md measwe

work eWerience obtained by each age.

my policy mkers have a notion thatby a certain age, individuals have completed their

transitionfrorn%chml and setied into tie labor market. Yet it is not clear at what %e that

might be. k general, measuring transitionby age is desirable primarily as a long-term concept.

Pmple leave schml at different ages md thus have different e~rrsures to the labor market.

Dropouts leave schml before graduates. Even graduates maybe different ages if they began

3
ssbool at different ages. For short-term mrdyais we wmdd wmt to measure by year ow of

schcol to put weryone in the same tie frame and the same exposure to tie labor market. YW

out of school becomes less mearrin~ti the longer one is out of schml. For longer term arxdysis

w may wmt to be able to measure by age. Consider WO measures: weeks worked and weeks

of reemployment.

Weeh Worhd

One measme of a successti trarrsitionfrom school to work is the total work experience

~uired as captured by weeks employed. Table 1 presents tie percentage of weeks employed

in the first four years out of school for high school dro~uts and high school gradmtes. ~

expect~ high school graduates work more weeka &an high schuol dropouts. Over the four

year perio~ graduates work more than 52 weeks, a full year, more tian dropouts. For both

mdea and femdea, and for dl rdethnicities, high schml graduates work more weeka than

high school dropouts. For males, the difference amounts to nearly 40 more weeks worked by

graduates, approximately 10 weeks per yw. The difference for females is even greater at

nearly 66 wwks.

Males work more weeks thanfemales for -h race and education group. Women are

more likely to leave the Iabor force to beer md raise ctildren. figh schwl girls who become

pregnant may drop out of high school which might partially explain the substantialdifference

beti=n female dropouts ad ~aduates.

There are substantialdifferences by racdetbnici~. Whkes work the most weeka,

followed by Wspanics, then blacks for each sex ad educstimrrdstatus (except thatwfite ad

Wsptic graaustes work about the same number of weeks).

4
Eone ermmirresweeksworked withii esch year of this four yea period, one fids very

tittlevariadon wross tie years for the various educationd/setirace grOups.4 The patternof

work set in the first year is maintained for several yews. It is irrterestiogto see if the early

patternsare sustained for a longer term. For longer term dysis, we may -t to measure at

some age. Table 2 shows the mearrand medim years of work eWerierrce achieved by age 30.

By age 30, high schml dropouts have worked, on averag~ 6.8 of the possible 12 years,

or 56.70/. of the available time. Mgb schml graduates have worked on average, 8.7 of the

possible 12 years, or 72.5% of the time. The difference between dropouts and ~admtes

appears to have converged somewhat, but the pattern remti the same.5 The distributions for

the two groups are very different. Nearly hdf of dl high school graduates have worked

essentirdlythe whole time, compared withjust over a quarter of high scbtil &opouts.

Conversely, nearly twice as many dropouts as graduatm have worked less than hdf of the

time. The impact is to pull the mean for high school dropouts down from the median by more

thm the reduction for graduates.

The distributions differ greatly by sex, particdarly be~een the education groups. Mde

dropouts have worked 8.8 years compared with 4.7 for female dropouts. Mde grtiuates have

worked 9.6 years compmed tith 7.8 for female graduates. As can be seem the difference

across edumtimr groups within each sex is greater for women. k fact over 600/. of dl women

dropouts have worked less than hdf of the time and ordy 3.1Y. have worked nearly theentire

time. The numbers for women graduates are 29.3 YOand 36. I “A respectively. For men, the

‘ For a more completesetof tableswhichshowwe~s workd aswellasotbcrvsriablesy=r byyearforach of

thefist foury=rs, s= Pergtit (1992),

5kr the pretim analysis, tiditidmls were followed upon Ieating schml and could not have retumd ti tie nw

four years. Edwational attiticn= in this amlysis ~ defied as of the age of 30, allowkrg for pple to have

rcturnd to schcol at some time.

5
medim nearly converge. The larger mrmber of dropouts who have worked less thanhsdfthe

time palls the mean amy from the median more tha for grad~tes.

k this analysis, dl weeks worked are cmrntedsince age 18 regardess of school

enrollment. This is not eqtitient to the pretious table which crmrrtsweeks ordy tier Ieatig

school. Thus measwes by age are confowded by arnmmtof exposure to the labor market.

One admtage, fimr~ of measwes by age is the tilli~ to obseme if dropouts start out

bebin~ but eventidly tich up tith graduates, mrting the same number of weeka in ayear at

a given age.

Vemrrand Weiss (1993) examined years of work experience at each age beween 18 and

27. Their findings indicate thatnot only do the cumulative differences persist, but dropmrts do

not catch up tith graduates atthe margin. h other words, it is not the case that dropouts have

fewer weeks worked in early years, but similar weeks worked in lateryears. Between heir

26th and 27th birthdays, dropouts worked an average of 21.7 weeks while graduates worked

46.1 weeks. Women accmmt for most of the difference, but even mrde dropouts worked

approximately 10 weeks less thm mde graduates in thatyear.

Unemplo~ent

Those not employed may experience unemployment or choos~ not to be in the labor

force. The latteris more common for women than men, and particularly for women dropouts.

Table 3 presents the percentage of weeks reemployed in the first four years out of school.

Mgh school dropouts spent 13.2% of the weeks rrnemployed compared tith ordy 7.4% for

high school gradutes. The differences by sex and education stares are striking. Mde hiti

6
school dropouts spent more fharrtice as many weeks rrnemployed as ~aduat~ (16.4°/0versus

8.0%). fip difference between tie arrdfemale graduates is stil (8.0% vefius 6.8%).

For #l racdefhnicifies, high schml graduates spent less time onemployd tharr&d their

dropout mnnterparfs. Within mcerefhnicities, blacks had the highest rates of memplo~ent

for either sex or educatimrd atirrmmt. h fact, black female hgh schml ~aduates spent more

time kr one~ployment fhm did tife or Hispanic dropouts.

Ag+ we cm ask if these patterns persist over time and use the age concept. Table 4,

based on Vemn md Weiss (1993), shows thatby age 27 high schwl dropmr~ have had arr

average of ~.2 separate spells of mremploymenf while tigh schml graduates have had ody 4.5.

The differ~lce is bigger for men tbm for women. Mde high school dropouts had hti 7.o

separate spklls compared tifh 4.7 for mde graduates. The comparable rmmbers for females

are 5.3 sod ,4.3, respectively. Blacks have tie most reemployment spells wifi either

education group.

The same sorts of patterns exist for the number of weeks reemployed. By age 27, hi~

schoolgraduates have e~erienced 52.3 weeks of mremploynrerrt,about 10O/.of the available

time. Wgh school graduafm have been mremployed ody 34.7 weks, 6.7°A of fhe time. The

same relationship holds be~een the sex= tittin each of the educationrd groups, tith the

difference biggar.f~r males. Blacks spent more weeks mretrrployedthan eitier whites or

Mspanim.

7

B. When Does tie Career Begin?: Working While in School

To&@ about the transitionfrom sch~l to work requires t~ng a broad view. ti faq

the ~ifimr info the work for= begins before leaving sch~l. Mmy youths work wtile in
secnnd~ schml. Some of tiese jobs protide skills snd trainkrguseti h developing a cweer.

Besides these skills (or even in their sbsence), these jobs teach young people shout the world of

work. They learn that mtitsining ajob reqrsirmshmvisrgup at a particrdsrtime, sta@g nntil

a psrdcrdm dine, snd working continuously in be~een Developing this knowledge is critical

to actietig success in the Isbor msrket. Youth mmt dso Iesrnhow to find ajob whatjobs

etist snd wherq what we the requirements of &fferent jobs; how to sesrch snd wbt methods

of sesrcb we weti; etc.

Tsble 5 presents tsbrdations from a paper byRuhm(1994) on”fie mnmrntof

employment by high school jmriom snd seniors (11tb and 12tbgrades). K we look ordy atthe

week previous to the srsrveydste for ~SY respondents, a concept thatmatches the Cment

Population S-ey6, we fid thst about 42% of jrmiors md hdf of dl seniors were working.

For hose jmriors who worked, they averaged 1S.S hours of work per week, for setiors it w=

18.7 hours.

Messrrrementbssed on the smey week leads to sn mderestimate of the percentage of

bi@ school students who work while in school. Using the event histories of the ~SY shows

more work done by tigb school stidents. The percenmge of stidents who worked at SOYtime

(at Ie=t one week) dtig the academic yesr is 63.9% forjrmiors srrd72.6% for setiors,.over

wenty percentage points higher thsrrfound lmfing ata one-week reference perid.’ The

percentage of weeks of the scademic yesr that stidents were employed -41 .SOAfor jmdors

snd S1.SO/.for seniors. fis match- well titb the skgle week reassure.

6me Cmt Population S- (CPS) is tie mmtbfy Iahr form smey in rbe U.S. usd to mlculate the

wplopmt rate. .Wle tie CPS is do= in one week of =ch month, tie ~SY is con fictd ovm aI1w-h of

smal months. Rti retches ody tie concepfofprtious sww w*L but not the same w=k as the CPS.

7Rti defmca tie a=dmic y=r as rhe months of Wtok, Nom&, Febw~, Wrch, April, and my, He

dms not wmt D_br and JanWry h ord~ to m~swe worki~ while h schcol, not cotioudd w,iti holi&y

jobs. Nor daas he count Saptmker or Jme to amid the ovarlap with -w jobs.

8
Those employed during the schml year work a significant number of hours. For those

working durkrg the week previous to tie smey date, juniors worked an average of 15.5 hours

while seniors worked an average of 18.7 hours. The mmpsrable numbers using the event

histofi= are 18.6 hours for juniors and 23.5 hems for seniors. Again we fid higher estimates

from the event histories. h this ue, ~ssibly neither set of estimates is correst. The survey

week estimates are affected by trmsitow changes in work hews which may not be typical. W

the noise in the estimates is random, hen the estimate would be unbiased. However, it may be

thatYOUWShours vw in partimda ways. For example, YOUWShours may be generrdly

steady at one Ievd, but occasiomdly dropping for famfly or schml cofllcts: h this case,

transitory changes would bi= the wtimate downward. On the other hand, the event histories

do not pickup fluctuations of hours. They =k about usual bmrrsworked, imputing tis due

over the duration of the job. The sofis of drops in hours worked dmcribed above would not be

picked w at dl. 8

h summary, a substantialpercentage of high sch~l students h= some employment

during the schml year. When they work, they work at levels of hours associated with normal

part-time employment. We cmot distinguish *en th=e hours are being worked We w

assume that many of tie hours being worked are on weekends; however, a substmtid amount

must be worked during the school week. Of course, students dso have summer jobs, which

dso provide them with knowledge of the world of work. Ruhm (1994) addresses summer jobs

separately, but I do not discuss them here.

Light (1994) mnsiders four detitions of Werr tie career be~m. These definitions

include (1) age 16, (2) the first time m inditidti leaves schml, (3) the point at wtich an

8A rady rni@t csptie changes ti hews worked OV= rhe We of a job, Howwer, this is not typimlly done,

ptirily due to r=all problems.

9
,individud first becomes “perrnsnenflfl employe& defined as three consecutive 52-week

periods during which an individti works at least 26 weeks and averages at least 30 hours per

week, and (4) the last observed efit from schml. Table 6 shows the ma number of til-time

work weeka acmumdated between each dtemative career stardng date. Thee figures

demonstrate thattie choice of when to begin mauring the career hiwy tiuences the

measures discussed above. A considerable amount of work tmk place between the different

stardng dates. For emple, if one chooses the lasttime observed lmving sch~l instead of the

first time observed leaving schml, one misses over two years of work for white men for both

education groups. The impact is similar for whke women. Because minoritiw ham less work

e~erience in general, the“differentdefinitions ham less impact on the estimateafor these

groups.

C Prospectiveversus Retrospectivti The Pitfalls of Poirrt-in-TimeRleasrrres

K we wishto usea cmss-sectiomd survey to protide indimtors of successti trrmsitions,

there is a problem with using the point-in-tirni rness-wes they protide. This problem etista if a

lon~tudind survey is to be used prospectively, fiat is, as each wave of dataae rel-ed. The

dyaes in tils paper are primarilybased on rrsingmany y-s of datato e~ne the tmnsitimr

retrospectively. Unfortrmately, retrospective information is not feasible for generating

indicators on a timely basis. Retrospective information can mdy tell us wkat happened in the

PSSLbut c-et indicate the current direction of the labor market. Wwe wish to me

longitutid data prospectively, then we mustbe aware of the pitfalls. Here, the ~SY (and

other datasets) can be informative to show the areas of bias. Consider the case of meastig

job tenure.

10
Job Tenure

Past research k found thatatage 30, a substatid percentage of workers has been at

their currentjob for a very short time, implying thatthey have not found a long-te~ stable

job.g The imphcatimris questionable and demonstrate the pitidl of using a current measure.

Panel A of Table 7 presents dataon the number of years spent on the currentjob for working

irrdtiduds on their30tb birthday. On average, workers have been at their currentjobs for 3.8

yeas at their 30th b~rthday. The median is less, at2.7 yews. The lower mediarrefists because

of the substantial @rtion of inditiduds, 42.70A, who have been at theirjobs for two years or

less. It is ttis obsewatimr, that over twmfiftbs of dl 30 year olds were on the first two yws of

ajob, thatlead to the notion that many 30 yea olds had not found sttiy jobs.

Time spent on the currentjob is a misleadkrg measure of whether inditidds settle into a

particular career. There is a fair amount of job turnover, even by the age of 30, reflaing

OPPO*ties and career ~varrcement. T~s is fie same problem identified earlier fi”the

measure of number of jobs held. An skernative measure to consider is the longest job ever

held by the age of 30. This figure protides a better picture of setiing into a career than curreot

tenwe because itinco~rat= tiormation over dl ages ratherthan at a sin~e age. Pmel B of

Table 7 shows the time spent on the Irmgwtjob between an inditidtis 18tb and 30th

birthdays.

tiditiduds average 5 years in the job thatthey held the longest over these ages. Urdike

the distribution for currentjob tenure, there is not as much bunching atthe lower end of the

distribution. Althmr@ the mediarris below the mean, h is noteworthy thatthere is substantial

9SccOstcrman (1992).
density at the upper end of the distribution Over 40% of dl inditidtis hsd b- on ajob tbst

l~ted more tbsn 5 y-s.

Men differ Iitie in time spent on the Imrgestjob by education stitis. For wome~ high

school dropouts average mdy 2.5 yem a the longest job, which is hdf ss long as womm

gra&ates. Mtbougb tiese wtimates me created mdy for those worhg at age 30, msny of

thwe women may kve spent more time out of tie labor force srsdhd less eWoswe to tie

OPPOtiw tOhave a long-term job. 1°

D. Defining Succ-s

Messtig week worked snd weeks reemployed is key to protiding tie dsta necessmy

to determine successti trarrsitkmsinto tie lsbnr msrket. me major issue is to defie sumem.

Recently tkere h= been a perception that mmy ymmg people in the U. S me not mtig

smooth trrorsitimrs into the lhor m=ket, meting from one ded md job to moth= for seversf

11 TMs perception is b=ed on tie fact thti the number of jobs held by YOu~ is ~~ in

ye=.

the first few yesrs fier leating schml.

Yet the economics hteratme teaties us thatit is qrriteeWected fiat youth wodd engage

fi “job shOpp~g,” see~g a match for their interestsmd skills.‘z Meting from one short term

job to mother cmdd merely reflect productive job sesrch md in no wy reflect a difficrdt

&=itimr. S~s shodd not be defined by the number of jobs held but by the time itt~es to

fid “steady employment. But how does one define “stead~ emplo~ent? We comider

,

‘07he mw mbcr ofymrs of wtik e~imm at age 30 are 4.7 for womm tipws ad 7.8 for womm

~dmtcr.

“ See, for exmple, Comission On tie Stills of the Ameria Worktmce (1990), Osteman and Iamoti (1993),

and General AmmtingOffIw(1993)

12s= JO~~Ori (I g78), McCall (1990), and JOvanO~c (1979).

12
tidings from reswch thathas featied different detitions, beginning whh tie measme of the

nrmrberof jobs held.

Number ofJobs Held

For any mrmber of weeks worked, a yomg person may hold one or many jobs. Young

pmple typically change jobs frequently as they seek the job thatbest matches their shlls and

interests.13 A large nmnber of jobs could reflect this job shopping =titity or it could indicate a

dificult transition into the labor market. Table 8 shows tbe number of jobs held from the 18th

to 3Othbirthdays. Hi@ schml dropouts and gaduatm have the same mean and medan

nrrsnberof jobs by tie time they are 30, with fairly similar distributions. However, the patterns

are different for men and women. Mde dropouts have held more jobs tharrgraduates, 8 versus

to 7.2. Female dropouts, on the other hand, have held fewer jobs thao female gradutes, 5.5

versrrs6.4. The relatimrs~ps of the medians are similar to those of the merms.

Time Until Finding “Steody” Employment

Corrntingthe nrrmberofjobs does not tell us how successful youths have been at

entering tie labor force. Hoti, et. d. (1995) examine how long ittakes to enter fall-time

employment for ymmg meq which they define as holdlng one or more jobs for 50 weeks out

of a consecutive 52 week period and averaging at least 35 hours per week of work during tis

period Table 9 reproduces their results by rwe (they did not examine separate education

nS=BafleI(1980), Hall (1982), and Topel and wad (1’92)

13
grows). Blacks lag whites arrdMsparrics in obtibrg fall-time employrrrmt. Over htiof

-h group had obtied til-time employrrrentby age 24.

~emmmdKamly(1994) aa~ how long does it tie to fid ajob lasting a given

durati~ specifically one, two, ad thrm yesra? This detition is stricter tha Ho% et.rd.ti

thatit reqtires errrpIo~ent titb a single employer (md longer wnw~). It is less strict in that

it does not have m hmrrsrequirement md cm include part-time jobs. tike Hem, et.d., their

restits are for men mdy. Table 10 reproduces their fmdmgs by age.14

Most yomg people everrtily forrrrdajob lasting at Imt one year.. Hdf of the high

school dropouts feud ajob lasttig at leasttiree y=s by Sromd age 27 while hdf of the

graduatesfo~d ajob lsstirrgat Iesst thre yws by arowd age 25. kterestirr~y, hi~ schml

dropouts leave schml earlier tharrgradmtes md have more exposure to tie l~r market. & a

resrdtthey had more time b ~erience jobs lssting one, two, or three ye=s. Yet ti~ effect

wre off qrric~y. Since most smdentagraduate from tigb schml atage 18, age 21 is the

earliestMgh schml graduates could have ajob IsStingthrm yesrs. However a higher

pmwntage of high schml graduates &an dropouts have had ajob lastingat leastthree y=s by

age 22. By age 29, 60.8Y. of high schml dropouts have fomd ajob lasting three years or more

while 75.70/. of high sch~l grsduates have.

tight adMcGarry(1993) exmine the issue yet arrotkerway. ~ey look at whether job

trmsitions for ymrng men evenmdly lead to longer-duration jobs during tie first eight yeas of

a career. They define a career as the time since Ieating school. Table 11 is baaed on a table

from their paper. They Imk atjob durations for each job held categorized by tie n~ber of

jobs held. The first colurrmof Table 11 shows thst of time holding ordy one job in tie first

14
eight years of heir -eers, the meanjob duration is 8.9 years.15 kdviduds who change jobs

twice move from ajob fiat lasts 3.3 yeas to one fiat lasts 6.3 years. Ltiking down any

column of Table 8, we fid a ftirly consistent patternof increasing mean dwationa. As we

move along the cohmms we observe workers holding progressively a series ofjobs lasting

short durations, fiequerrdy one year or less. However, even those who held 10jobs even~y

moved kto ajob lastirrg2.85 years.1s

Several important distinctions appear in the different measures of success. One key

difference is whether success is defied as working steadily irrthe labor mket, regardess of

the number of employers, or working steadily for a single empIoyer. A second distinction is

how long the job or employment spell must last to be considered “steady.” A third distinction

is whether the job(s) mustbe Ml-time or if part-time is acceptable. Otier distinctions are

possible; it falls upon the data providers to devise datasets that can suppofi a variety of

definitions.

15

Wages and Other Measures of QuaIi~

Up to ti point, I have discussd measures of successMly meting tito the work force.

Counting weeks worked or job tenure does not capture dl the dimensions of ajob. &e the

jobs obtained “goo& jobs? The most obtious measure of job quality is the w~e rate. It is a

well-established fact tit higher wages are associated with higher levels of education. T&. is

generally true for startingwages and for wage groti.

‘5Lisht ad MGany mrmt all jobs kld dti~ tbc first eisbt y- of the career, but follow mch of tbmc jobs

unrfl it ends, whch may& orrtii& of tie eisht y=r @cd.

‘6Some of the fast jobs held may b -orcd -use they we~ k pro~=s at tie date of tbe last titticw.
U&t SndMcOarry (1993) e- e the relationshipbetween job mobility and wages for

ymmg men dorirrgthe first eight years of their career. Table 12 is baaed on dreir tidings. The

figs show thatthose who held fewer jobs bad higher startingwages and higher wage

growth. One m~ be careM in interpretingthese findings. We cannot distinguish whether the

workers who have had few jobs have invested injob-specific skills or whether they simply

fmmd “good jobs. On the other hand, it does appear thatjob mobifity may been kdicator of

difficrdty in making atisnsitimrinto a high qurdityjob. 17

Other mesarrresof compensation include “fringe” benefits such as health inaomrrce,

pensions, and leave (notably vacation and sick leave). While one might associate better jobs as

those offering more of these benefits, it is not clear thatthe absence of them implies a ‘“ba&

job, partictimly for a ymmg person. Yrmng people are generrdlyheddty and do not place high

tiue on health tirrrance, nor do they tiue a pension plan paying returns severrd demdes

away. Thus we might obsewe ymmg people choosing jobs that do not offer these benefits.

htesd they may trade off for a higher wage or some rmnpecmriarybenefit such as tie rrbili~ to

acqrdre ~sferable skills.

III. Proviting the Data for Assessing School-to-Work Transitions

~at is Needed

Several issues have been raised in the pretimrs section regarding dataend detitimts

necessmy for sssessi~g the schonl-t-work trarrsitimr.The charge of the statistid sgenw is

not to defie succms, but to protide the datanecessary for a variety of possible de6nitions.

‘7me policy impli=tions are not cl=r. Res=rch by titi and MaCmdy (1992) indcatcs tit psflicipation in the

Iakr mrkcr is the key @ forme SU-S. More wwks workd MIly in the w=, re~rdess of tie wage. fiphm

&ttm outcomes later.

16
titicient recearch bas been undertakento date so tist there is no commmdy accepted

de~tion of success. Nor is there a clear set of fidicatora. It therefore Mls upon the ststistid

agency to protide tie most detied and fletible dataf-ible. Considering the discussion

above, we a identi~ key elements of the necessary data set.

1. tin~”tudirrol &la. Several ~es of measures are neede~ in psrdmdar cnrmdative messnres

(e.g., weeks worked) and dnratimrmeasures (e.g. job tenure, time until fiding ajob).

Wpeated cross-section smeys carrordy protide current measures thatwere shown to be

bmdeqnste. Cross-section sumeys may protide measures other than discussed here which may

be uaefrd in monitofig tie state of youth so they should not be ruled out completely.

=wever, it is quite clear thatassessing the school-t~work transitionrequires Iongitudind

data Lmrgitudirrd dataare better for stu~es of transitionsand durations md for cresting

crrrmdativem-rrr=.

2. Begin with a yorrrrgsample. k the NLSY, we begin tith inditidrrds 14-22 years old.

Marry”youthsin the upper age groups had lefi school several yeas before. It - not possible

to observe the transition. It is important not to begin tie sample tith age groups above the

normrd transition ages. To measure the transitionproperly, one shordd begbr titb dl sample

members in ages before the transitionso that dl trarrsitionscan be observed. This requirbe~tirrg an entire sample at very young ages.

Starting tith a yrmrsgsample addresses two additimrd gods. Ftit, as we saw there is

considerable work being mrdertskenby youth in high school. We need considerably more

research to understand the role of these e~eriences in leading to a successful transitioninto tie

labor market Beginning with ayoung sample will A1OWns to folly obseme this amount of

work. It wordd dso be useful to mpture other actititim thatteach the same type of mmmon

17
job-related knowledge such ss irregtdsrjobs held by young people ss well ss chores performed

in the borne.

Second, we need more information sbnut youth while they me in school including wbst

sorts of skills they sre acquiring in school snd how these skills trdste into Isbor msrket

su~as. We know there is a positive returnto education, but we do not know wbst elements

of tbst edrmstionmstter most. More dettils me needed nbout wbct is actily Iesrned h

school.

3. Ztiitiual based Ata. Most Imrgitidimd surveys tend to be household bssed. Due to cost

snd prsdicdlty, one person in the household is designated to respond for dl other members in

the household. This prow response results in measurement error which cm be substantialif

the respondent hsa pmr information sbmrttie activities of the other household members. Psst

resemch hsa sho~ thst pwents sre not good at reporting about their ctidren’s work smdjob

sesrch nctivhies.1* The youth must be designated specifically m the ssmple respondent md

fo~owed over time. To obtti family background information, a sepsrate intetiew shmdd be

-ducted with the psrent to obttirr tiorrnatimr thatis probsbly not well reported by the youth.

4. Event Histoties. The beat way to collect Momtion tbst cm yield estimates of cunndative

and durstimtm-ures is in event bisto~ format. Using this method, beginrdng and ending

dates sre co~ected for a tiety of spells such ss job beginning snd ending &tea, schml

enrollment beginning and ending dates, etc. Event histories reduce the sesrn effect problem

that em when litilrrg up intetiem from two points in time.19

~ S= Frmn andMedotT(19S2)md Tanw,et.al.(1992).

.

AS- tisk attbeptit ofantittim. Theeffectisto findmore~sitiom ~g amss tie - k

titi tie int~m *cd.

18
Dating events can be difficrdt for respondents. Some dates are more stient than others;

mme dates sre remembered with more accrrracybecause they are related to other events. To

prevent diffidt recall the reference period shordd be kept as shrt as cost considerations

perndt. Mso, memo~ aids such as cskmdars can be employed to help link eventa in the mind

of the respmderrt

By collecdng event histories, fie point when a transitionis made can be observd md

rid to other even@. k assessing the school-to-work transition, we obviomly need to

observe times of school enrollment and work actitity. We might dso want to know periods of

job trakdng family formation (marri~e arrdbirths of children), and other events tit affect

labor marketbehavior.

5..Research Agenda. Athough not an element of the data set itselfl a resemch agenda sbmdd.

be mnsidered an integral part of the data provider’s mission to inform policy makers witi the

information needed for ass-sing the sch~l-to-work transition. Such research issues shodd

ticlude tie role of school-protided skills in setting a successful transitio~ the relatiotip of

work in school to successti transitions,the role of -Iy post-school work e~eriences in later

success, the mnmmt of job change associated with choice versus necessity, the effect of

schooling intemuptiorrs,the choice to re-enroll in schml fier time in the labor msrke~ etc.

b psrticrdar, the research must address the relationship between the retrospective

fidings which reveal eventual outcomes with measures produced prospectively which are wed

for social motitorkrg. Wltbrmta cl= rrnderstandirrgof these reIatimrsbips,current messw~

are subject to mnsiderable rnisinte~retation.

19

The Response in lhe US.
As we approach the 21st cerltury,the labor marketfor youth has -d dmrnaticdly

since what etisted in the early 1980s, captored by the ~SY. At tie U.S. Bureau of Labor

Stadatics, we are beginning a new survey of youth, NLSY96. ~s smey sbrdlbegin h 1996,

collecdrrg information from a sample of 12,000 adolescents ages 1%17. m Esserstidly our

intentionis to meet the need described above to starttitb ayoung sample. Idedly, the age

range shordd be chosen so that dl youths are observd before they tie any transitioninto the

Mm force. me older youth will rnosdy be observed before the tmrrsitionfrom school has

occurr~ but not entirely. Nor will we observe their early, pre-trarrsitimreqeriencea.

However, for the younger pm of the sample, we til collect data of the sort outlined above,

capturing work and other e~eriencas before the trwitimr. k tils me, the needs of arragency

thatproduces labor market statistics were bdmced against the needs of collecting early dat~

producing the selected We rarrge.

h the first year, a sukantid interview till be conducted tith the YOUWSparentto

collect fsmily backgrmmd mrdfistory of the youth (e.g. residence history and scbmltig

history). We will mtintain the event history format used in the NLSY and e~snd it to areas

we had not preciously collected using thatformat, Several ar- of investigation sM1 be

qmded based on our knowledge of holes in the literature. Having m active research agend~

promoted both within the agenq and in tie research commmrity, we have discovered what we

do not know. ~s survey, in partictiar, will attemptto gather more tiormatimr thanpretimrs

surveys on what skills are obtained in schwl. It will dso focus on the eWeriences h esrly

adolescace that predate labor marhetativities, but contribute to bumarrdevelopment which

Muencea eventual economic mstmmea. ~s sumey, I befieve, holds signifi=t promise for

20S~ifically, hey till k 12-17asof Jarlmry1,1996,some will hw tfied 18by &e the tiey we

titiwd.

20
undmx * * fir a SU-SM transitionhorn schml to workmd into

sdti-..fmdy w a deti sums!

21
References

Bartel, Ann P., “Earning Growth on the Job and Between Jobs,” &onomjc I~iry 18,

(January 1980): 123-137.

Commission on the Skills of the American Work60rce, Americak Choice: High Stilts or

LW Wages, National Center on Education and the Economy, Rochester, NY, (1990).

Free~, Richard B., and James L. Medoff, “Why Does the Rate of Youth Labor For=

Activity Differ Across Surveys?” in Richard B. Freeman and Datid A. Wise @ds.) me

Youth tibor Mm&t Problem: Its Nature, Causes, and Consequences, University of

Chicago Press, Chicago ~, (1982): 74-104.

General Accounting Office, “Transition From School to Work States are Developing

New Strategies to Prepare Students for Jobs,” Report to Congressional Requesters,

Washington D. C., (September 1993).

Gritz, M., and T. MaCurdy, “Participation in Low-Wage Labor Markets by Young Men”

Unpubhshed Manuscript, Sttiord University, (September 1992).

Hall, Robert, “The Importance of Lifetime Jobs in the U.S. Economy,” Ameri-

&onornic Revim 72, (September 1982): 716-724.

Hot% V. Josep~ L1xin Xu, Marta TiendA and Avener Ahhuv, “The Returns to Early

Work Experience in the Transition from School to Work for Young Men in the U. S.: An

Arrdysis of the 1980s,” Unpublished Manuscript, University of Chimgo, (January 1995)

Johnsoz Wlfiarn R., “A Theory of Job Shopping,” Quarterly Journal of =onornics 92,

may 1978): 261-277.

Jovanovic, Boyq “Job Matching and the TheoV of Turnover,” Jmmal of Political

Economy 87, (October 1979): 972-990.

Klerman, Jamb Aex, and Lynn A. Karoly, “Young Men and the transition to stable

employment,” Monthly &bor Revia, U.S. Department of bbor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, (August 1993): 31-48.

LighL Audrey, “Measuring Labor Market Experience: When Does the Career Begin?”

Unpublished Marrustipt, The Ohio State University, @ecember 1994)

Light, Audrey and Kattieen McGarry, “Job Patterns and the Wages of Young Men,”

Unpubhshed Manuscript, @rch 1993)

McCall, Brian P., “Occupationrd Matching: A Test of Sorts,” Journal of Political

Economy 98, (1990): 45-69

22
Ostemn, Pard, “Is There a Problem with the Youth Labor Market and If So, How

Should We Fix It?” Unpublished Manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

(1992)

Osterrnarr, Paul and Maria Iamroti, “Youth Apprenticeships and School-to-Work

Transitions Current Knowledge and Legislative Strategy,” Working Paper No. 14,

Natioml Center on the Education Qutity of the Workforce, Philadelphia (1993),

Perganri~ Michael, “Some Recent Governmental uses of the Natioml Longitud@ Survey

~S~ in R. G. Gregory and T. Ktiel @ds) Youth in the Eighties, Centre for Economic

Poficy Research AustrAan Nationrd University (1992): 19-54.

Ruhq Christopher J., “IS High School Employment Consumption or Investment?”

Greensboro, NC: University of North Carohna at Greensboro rnimeo, February 1994.

Tanur, J. M., Jung-Kyu Lee, and He&Choon Shin, “Reports of Youths’ Job Searches in

the CPS,” Bureau of the Census Annual Research Conference, (1992): 317-352.

Topel, Robert H., and Michael P. Ward, “Job Mobility and the Careers of Young Men,”

Quarter@ Journal of Econoizics 99, way 1992): 439-479.

Veum, Jonathn R., and hdrea B. Weiss. “Education and the work histories of young

adults, ” Monthly bbor Revia, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

(April 1993): 11-20.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Work and Family: Turning Thirty

-- Job Mobility and Labor Market Attachment, ” Washin@on, D. C., Report 862,

@ecember 1993).

23

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,’’Work and Family Jobs Held and

Weeks Worked by Young Adrdts,” Washington, D. C., Report 827, (August 1992).
TaMe 1: Percent of Weeks @ent Employed In the Rmt Four Years After

Leaving School for l&19 Year Olds Mo Left School BeWeen

1977-1981 by Race, Sex, and H[gh School Completion.

I Percent of Weeks

m

i. S. Graduate 7?.9 84.3 71,9

Hispanic 77.1 85.6 67,5

Black &.1 75.9 57.3

White 79.6 85.3 74.2

Source National Longltudnal Wrvey of Youth; Tabulated by the Center

for Human Resource Research at the Ohio State Unlvenl~ for the

Wreau of Labr Statlst[=.

TaMe 2 Years of Work Experience from 18th to 3~ Birthdays.

Characteristic

Dstibutlon in Vears On percmt)

Mean Median M 7-8 9-1o 11-12

Tatal

Mgh school dropouts 6.a 7.3” 37.9 16.1 19.2 26a

High school graduates a.7 9.9 m.5 11.3 19.7 4s,5

Male

High school dropouts a.a 10.6 17.4 14.a 19.7 48.1

High school graduates 9.6 10.7 11.9 ?.2 m.3 @.6

Female

High school dropwts 4.7 4.6 &.6 17.6 la.7 3.1

High school graduates 7.a a,6. 29.3 15.5 19.1 %.1

Wrce National Langlfudlnal Wwey of Youm

From .Work and Famliy Turning Thirty – Job Mobilify and Labor Market Aftachmenr

U.S. Depatient of Labor, aureau of Labar Statlsti~

Repoti a62, December 1993

24
Tale 3 Percent of Weeks Spent Unemployed in the Hti Four Yearn After

Leaving Schml for 1619 Year Olds Who Left khool Betieen

1977-1981 by Race, Sex, and High Schml Completion.

L

H.S. Dropo@

Hispanic

Black

Whtie

H. S Graduate

H&panlc

Block

Wtite

Percent of Weeks

Total

13.2

12.3

1a.4

12.0

7.4

5.7

13.1

6.7

Inemploy

Male

16.4

16.5

19.5

15.5

a.o

6.6

12.6

7.5

d

Female

10.1

7.2

17.2

a.a

6.a

4.7

13.6

6.0

25

Source N@onal Longitudinal Survey of Youth; Tabulated by the Center

for Human Resoume Research at the Ohio State University for the

Bureau of Labor Statlstim.
Awra@ Numkr of Unempbwti Spek ati .Weeh Unempby4 Sme ~ 18, by Wotir’s ~, Edwatimal

Affaln%nt, =x, ati raa or Hswnc origin, Januaw, 1,1978- W.

I Whte I 1.8

1

J4.2._ _24J_

21.0 30,6

11.3 15,8

16.5 23,4

16,7 24.5

17.7 26,,5

jj.J._ _l?:6-

11.9 17,5

10.3 14,1

9.7 13.8

18,5 26.1

14.8 21.2

Ntional Lomittinal %wey of Yotih

-3_O&6_

38.9

20,0

29.6

32.0

,33.3

_2].o_

22,2

17.7

17.5

32,5

~

4.1

5.3

4.4

5,0

,.:..:

- ?s.

3.9

3,7

3.6

4.9

4.6..

;j:;~~.~~;

,,

-~6L2

45,8

44.2

M,6

39.6

39.9

_~3:?

26,4

21,1

20.7

38.8

~

4.7 5.0

‘:; ‘:1

5.1

5.9 6.0 6.0

5.6 6.2 6,4

6.0 6.4.. 6.6

<L4-- --4.5- -g-.

4.6 4.6

4.2 I4.3 I4.3

4.1 4.2 4.2

g>?

54.1

30.6

40.6

49.9

49.2

~~g

32.4

25.8

25,0

49.1

g

gg.q

56.6

34.1

42.2

57.7

55.4

~g.~

M.z

27,6

26.6

52.6

~

.%4.

61.5

37.8

45.4

61.3

61.3,

~~.~.

36.3

29.1

28.1

55.2

~

From Jondhan R. Veum ati Andra 8. Web. .Educatbn ati tk work hlforbs of young adults.

MOMHLY LA~R NIEW, APIi, 1W3

U.S. Bxmnt of Lahr, Wreau of Lakr 3tatl#&

5.3

6.1

6,4

6.6

-i*.

4.7

4.3

4.2

b.1

5.7

~fi;j~:~~j

-5~3.

62.6

41.9

44,9

73.7

63.3

_%2.

38.2

31.2

30,2

54.8

~

26
Table 5 Frequency and Amount of High School Employment.

. .,.,----- ,- ..,___ --

Zm@oyment status in week prior to survey date

Percent working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3% ~.8%

Avg. hours/week $employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 hrs 18.9 hrs

Academic year employment (from work hstory)

Percent employed at least 1 week. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.% 73.4%

Percent ofweeks employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.6% 52.3%

Avg. hous/week $employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 hrs 23.5 hrs

Note Academic year employment stotus calculated for 26 week periods covering

the months of October, November, February, March, APfiI, and May of the

relevant survey years.

Source National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

From:” Christopher J. Ruhm, “High School Employment Consumpflon or Investment

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Discussion Paper, Repoti NH4-19

27

.,,
TabSe 6

Note

Note

Source:

Mean Nwber of Full-Tree Work Week Accumulated BeWeen AternaWe Career Sfatig

Dates (SD).

r

White Men

Nonwhite Men

White Women

Nonwtite Women

Ighest Grad~

Anended at

Second SD

511

12

&11

12

8-11

12

8-11

12

SD16 SD16 SD16 3D1 ml

to SD1 to SDP to SDL to SDP to SDL

I

26.3 =.0 44.4 39.7 123.0

40.8 69.3 5a.6 45.3 167,a

la.2 m.a 27.4 49.4 64.2

31.4 61.5 45.3 40.3 104.2

19.1 W.1 34a 45a 142.3

31.5 m.3 47.4 39.1 142.0

11.2 51.9 20.4 44.5 45.2

19,4 57.4 37.0 42.5 135.1

Full-time work week are cumulatie hours worked dtided by 40. Meam are computed

for individuals for whom the tio stating dates are defined and unequal.

3D16 = Career starb at age 16.

SDl = Career ~a~ when first oberved [eating school.

SDP = Career stark when first obtain a permanent job.

SDL = Career stark when Imt obsewed leaving school.

National Longitidnal Suwey of Youti

From: ~drey tight, “Measuring Labor Market Expeflenc& When does the

the Career aegin?. (1W4)

28
Table Z Job Tenure by Age 30.

Note

Source

-

Years swnf on longestpb heMf

Panel B

Total..

High school dropouts

High school graduates

Male

High school dropouts

High school graduates

Female

High school dropouts

Hi h school raduates

m 18thto:

5.0

3.9

5.3

5,2

5.b

2,5

5,0

h bitiday

4,4

3,1

4,b

4,5

4,7

2,2

4,3

29

5.4 I 9.b

18.6 13.3

6.0 10,9

L

8.4 a.a

4.1 7.4

29,7 1a,4

7,9 14.b L

13,8 1b.O

13,1 12.9

14,1 12,9

13.5 14.1

15.1 14,4

12.7 ll,b

13,2 10,7

13.6

12.4

11.5

9.2

12,4

1b{O

105 -

10,7

9.4

a.b

13,9

a.3

4.4

a.a

30.9

20.3

36.3

32.i

38.3

7:2

34.3

The 1-2 year catego~ implies that an indMdual spent more than 1 year and Iew than or equal to 2 years on

the current job, The other categories are defined similarly,

.“ These totals are for all educational attainment groups, including those with some college and college graduates,

National Langltudlnal Suwey of Vout~

,,

From: ‘Work and Fami,~ Turning Thifi -- Job Mobil~ and”Labor Market Attachmen~

US. Depatiment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statitics

Report ab2, December 1W3
Table8 Nuti of Job Hdd tom 18fh to 30th Blfidaw.

Dlsfributlm in y-n On @ rcent)

Ckrackflstic Man Medhn w 44 74 10 or mre

Totil

High $chml dromub 6.8 6.0 24.7 31.1 20.0 242

High schml gra~d= 6.8 6.0 23.8 31.3 24.4 m.5

Men

High schaal drowuh 8,0 7.0 16.7 31.0 172 35.1

High schml graddes 7.2 6.0 22d 28.7 23.8 25.1

WOma

High schml drowub 5.5 5.0 33.5 31.4 232 11.9

H[gh schml g raduates 6,4 6.0 252 34.0 24.9 15.9

Wurce Mtional Longltidlnal Suwey of Youth

From ‘Work and Family Tumlng ~lm – Job Mobtiify and Latir Market Aftachmenr

U.S. De~~ent of Labor, ~r=u of La&r StatistiG

ReWrt 862, Wetier 1993

30
Table 9 Percent Who have Alrea@ Achieved First Fulk~me Work Spell by a Paficular Age: For Young Men, age 13-16 In 1978.

Age

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Hlspanlcs 1.76 4.s 8.61 14,87 23.87 33.66 45.21 M.19 64.77 71.39 75,95 79.%

Blacks 1.m 1,38 3.14 7,53 13.M 20.45 ~.87 40.78 MISS 59.08 62,93 68.m

WNtes 1.66 3.95 7,19 14.23 22.85 31.94 41,82 52.57 63.87 74#m 79.% 83.m

Source Ndonal Longtiudinal Suwey of Yotih

From Hoti et al,, “The Retprns to Eaw Work Expeflence In the Transfbn from School to Wok for Young Men in tie

U.S.: h Ana~sk of the 198W (1995)

,,

31
Table 10

Source

Percent of Men Ever in a Job Since L-ins School, by khookleavlna

Group, Duration of Job, and Age. -

School - leaving

group

and age

Igh School

Dropouh

16 . . . . . .

17 . . . . . .

18 . . . . . .

19 . . . . . .

20 . . . . . .

21 . . . . . .

22. .,...

23. .,..,

24 . . . . . .

25 . . . . . .

26 . . . . . .

27 . . . . . .

28 . . . . . .

29 . . . . . .

::!!;::!: :,.,: :, .:!:..;,,:,:,fi,:w ;::;!lr:,~,:!

,.,.,,

Igh School

Graduates

16 . . . . . .

17 . . . . . .

18 . . . . . .

19 . . . . . .

20 . . . . . .

21 . . . . . .

22 . . . . . .

23 . . . . . .

24 . . . . . .

25 . . . . . .

26 . ... . . .

27 . . . . . .

28 . . . . . .

29 . . . . . .

30 . . . . . .

Duration of longest job mer held

1 year 2 Vears 3 vears

0.0

2.1

11.9

27.5

49.0

63.2

72.2

77.4

81.9

a6.4

90.0

91,a

93.7

93a

;.,:.:,:.:: {,: ; : ~:,,.y,

0.0

0.0

0.1

14.2

47.3

67.4

77.1

84.9

90.5

943

95.9

9a,2

98.6

9a.6

W.2

0.0

0.0

1.2

5.7

13.7

28.6

39.1

46.6

54.1

61.4

&.2

70.3

73.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

7.3

27.4

41.a

53.4

&.7

70.9

77.4

a3.4

87.1

a9.o

91.7

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

From: Jacob Alex Klerman and Lynn A. Karoly,

0.0

0.0

0.0

o.a

2.a

7.5

1a.4

26.0

32.4

40.1

47.1

52.7

~.a

60.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

5.2

19.7

30.5

41.3

49.9

57.0

63.6

70.1

75.7

79.5

Young men and the transition to ~able employmen~

MONTHLY MBOR REVl~, August 1993

U.S. Depatiment of Labor, 8ureau of Labor Statistics

32
Table 11: Mean Duratlan of Each Job Held During First Eight Years of Career,

J* Numbs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

a

9

1234567a 910

8.~ 3,~ 1.73 1,6C 1,13 1,01 O,M 0,76 O.M O.W

6,2a 2.32 1,79 1,21 1,~ 0,77 0,77 0.51 O.~

5.W 2,W 1,32 l,M O.W O,@ 0.67 0.4S

4.15 1.W 1.S3 O.W 0.9a O.~ 0.67

3,a7 1,46 1,27 o,a7 0.70 0.74

3.03 1,21 0,73 o.al O,N

3,3s 1,m 0.94 O,a

3.s4 l.m 0,s6

3,24 O,M

10 2.M

source National Lonoltudlnal Survev of Youth

From: Audr;y Ught and Ka\hleen McGarry, ‘Job Change Patterns and the Wages of

Young Men’ (1993)

Table 12 Wage Changs Duflng First Eight Years of Career,

m, Change in In(wage) O.W 0.42 O,* 0,37 0,3S 0,37

Note Inlflal md final wages are oberved at apWoximate~,5 and ,8 years of potential

eWefience, Wages are natural logarithms of CP1-deflatedaverage hourly values eWrexed

In 1982 dollars.

Somce National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

From: Audrey Light and Kathleen McGarry, ‘Job Change Patterns and the Wages of

Young Men’ (1993)

33
9242

9243

92-04

92-05

9246

9247

9208

9249

92-1o

92-11

92-12

92-13

National Longitudinal Suweys (NLS)

DlscrrssionPaper Series

-

Mcbsel R Persait

No- M. Bradbm

_ R. Frtiel

ReginaldP. Baker

MichselR Pergait

SardSchwati

Rokfi Hutchens

GeorgeJ*bson

A. Crdin~eron

R Msrk Griti

Them ~tidy

Hew S. Ftier

FrsrrkL. Mon

Pati B&er

Arr&eyLight

Wnueliti Ureta

LisaM. Lynch

Evagelos M, Fdaris

H. Elimb~ Petem

be Wll

Jue E. ONeiIl

&l&n Leibotiti

Jacob Afex ~emm

Ltida Wsik

h A, Lillwd

Joseph G. Mtonji

Tho~ A. DW

m

HowtheFedmalGove-ent UsesDati from

theNatioti Longimdind SrrwW

A Comptision of Computer-AasistdPetional

Intefiews (CAP~ tith Paper-redPencilInterviews@APD intie Natioti LongitadimlSmq

of Youth

Dyrrtic Modelsof theJointDeterfimtimr of

bbr SupplyandFtily Stmtie

Theeffectsof UnemplO~ent Compensation

on theUnemplO~ent of Youth

EvafmtingCompetingTheoriesof Worker

Mobility

Etimtion of the19S9Cbild+we Supplaent

in theNatirrndLongimdinalSwey of Youth

Gsnd= DMerencesin theQrdtBehatimof

YomrgWorkers

The Impatiof PrivateSectorTtirdng on Rsw

ad GenderWageDHerentidsad the Cmer

Patternsof Yomg Workers

R~onses of Fetie LaborSupplymd Feflity

to theDemo~apfricCycle

A Studyof IrrtexohofiChmrgein Women’s

WorkPatternsmd titings

Women’sEmploymentDting Pre~w

ad Folloting Biti

Work E~erience, Job Tenrrre, Job SepMatio%

md Wage Groti

Fatily Backgoud md Labor Mwket Outcomes
92-14

92-15

93-16

94-17

94-18

94-19

95-20

95-21

95-22

95-23

95.-24

95-25

95-26

95-27

95-28

96-29

Geor& J. BO~aS

Stephen G. Bmnm

Stephen J. Trejo

SeF-Selectionsnd Inteti ~~ation in the

united Stitw

Jaes J. He&an

Stephen V. ~eron

Peter Z. Schochet

TheDetefius md Comequencwof Wblic

Se~or md PrivateSetiorTrtining

P*ci~tion in Low-Wage LAor ~kes by

Yomg Men

Nan L. Gus~m

Thomas L. Stetieier

Rtiremeit in a Fafily ConteW. A Stitird Modd

for Hwbmds and Wives

Autiy Light Trmitiom fiQm School to Work A Suwq of

Resezch Using the National Longiti&nd SWqs

Ctipher J. Rti

~k Lowmstein

Jmes Spletir

Stephen G. Bronm

tiol Moore

Donald O. Pmom

Dodd 0, Parsons

Au* Light

hwa Brmden

R Mwk Griti

Michel R. Per@t

moms .hm

Douglas Hoi@-Etin

High School Emplo~ent Comption or

kv-ent

Itioml Tmifing: ‘A Rtiew of Efisting Data md

Some Nmv Etidenw

Ctictetilng Leavefor Mnteti~ Modehg the

NLSY Dati

Emplo~ent ContinuiQ hong Nm Mothers

Incenfie Pay, Itiomation, md Etings Etidence

from the National Longititil Smq of Youth

The Evolting Stmctires of Femle Wok Activities

Etidence from the Natioml Longimdind SuN~s of

MatiE Women Suwq, 1967-1989

.PmeQ Dyn~a bong Mme Women Etidmce

from the Natioti Longimdind SW~s, 1967-1989

Teckologid Chmge and the SkiU Acquisition of

Yomg Workers

Mgh School Employment

The Effect of titetiew Length on Attition in the

Nationsf Longimditi Swq of Youth

Capitil M*et Constints, %entsJ Weafth and the

Trasition to seK-Ernploymat mong Men and

Women
96-30 J= GO~a The IntergenemtionalEffecmof Fatherlesmesson

Niti Mm Mumtiona3Attinment md En@-lwel Wages

96-31 Jmti v- Traiting, Wag=, md theH- Capiti Model

96-32 M-R. Per@tit AssessingSchoolto WorkTrmsitiom in tie Utited

sat=