Poverty DyamicsAmong MatureWomen:

Evidencefrom the NationalLongitudinal

Surveys 1967-1989

Donald O. Parsons

The Ohio State Universi~

parsons.l@osu.edu

Jmuq 1995

~s paperwm tided by theU.S.Dep-at ofLahr, Bweau ofLaborStatiadcsmolarstil pmchase

order.The viewsewressadhereae thox &the authorsaad do notnec=stilyreflectthetiem ofthe

U.S.Dq_ent ofhhr.

. . . ..-.
&ecu tive sma~

Massive trasfer program, especially the social secu=ity retirement

program and the related SUPP 1 emental security into= system, kve s~ly

reduced the poverty levels of aged Americans. In 1959 the poverty rate

among persons 65+ was 5?% greater than that of all persons in the U.S.

(35.2% versus 22.4%) . Thirty years later [1989) the rate was less than the

population average (12. 4% versus 14.2%) The incidence of poverty is not

eqal across the agtig population, however. Citing a House Select Aqing

subcommittee report, a sdcomittee metier reported, ‘tWomen are 70 perc~t

more Mely to spend their retirement in poverty than men. “ (CQlumhus

Disuatch, September 25, 1992) It is natual to ask how these wom~ C= be

helped. At the same time, the huge ewenditmes rewired to secure the cwrent reduction in poverty raises a second Westion of whether it is possible

to achieve the same goal more cheaply.

TO confront either of these policy issues, it is i~orcant to how the

orighs of poverty among retirement age women. Without an mderstanding of

the processes tkt lead to poverty among the aged, policy plmers muse rely

on increased tirecr caah Lrnsfers to the aged, perhaps through an expanded

SS1 program, as the otiy poverty tool. “Is aged poverty pri=rily m extension of a life long condition or is .it tie result of negative wealth shocks

later in life such as a divorce or a husb=d, s dis~ility or death? The

first possibility is a basic redistribution ~estion and is unlikely to be

resolved outside a broader aqeement on the appropriate distribution of income. The second is a social insurance problem and is potentially

resolvable with changes in the desire of the cmrent social insm~ce system.
The Nat ional Longitudinal Su~ey of Mature Women provides a rich &ta

set for e~lortig this issue. Offering a Tarter of a century of detailed

information on approtimtely 5000 femle respondents 30 to 44 years of age

in the first year (1967) , the NLS panel provides a valuable opportunity to

ewlore family income dmatics from midlife to tie eve of retirement for

retire sqle h into the retirement period for a stist=tial stiset of

sample. The analysis focuses on the 1967-1989 period at which time

respondents were 52 to 66 years of age.

Major findings of the ~lysis include:

the

the

the

1) Over much of this time, poverty dynamics are quite stable.

Specifically an income model with a permaent coqonent =d a white

noise component “fits” the &ta rather well . This structure has the

implication that the ent~ into -d exit from poverty are independat

of the intemwing time inte~al. The exit rate from poverty, for example , will be the same over twenty years as over five. The exit md

entry rates are especially st~le over time intervals exceeding five

years. poverty entv ?nd retention rates do appear to ti~=ge with age,

however, increasing si~ifi~tly as respondents approach retirement

age.

2) The overall level of poverty persistence is high. Three quarters of

all aged females in poverty come from families with low incomes (less

than twice the poverty threshold) in midlife. Forty pert-t come from

families that were in poverty themselves at midlife. The aged poor

problem is much more tb a social insurance problem. Most also had

low incomes in midlife.

3) The persistence of poverty was especially high for black women Two -

thirds of aged poor black women were also poor two decades before.

Ninety percent of the aged black poor kd low incomes (less than twice

the poverty threshold) two decades before.

4) Despite the large fraction or aged poor who were poor in midlife , the

social insurance problem is not inconsequential. Approximately one

Warcer of the poor in 19S 9 had family incomes that were more than

twice the poverty level in 1967. The majority of these e~er+enced a

marital disnption. Most intact families t~t reported a ~tas trophic

de c 1 ine in income reported the l~or force with&awal of the hush=d.

%parently private. ad p~lic insur-ce mechanisms failed to protect

women in these situati~ns from major declines in economic status

ii
5) In the retched mother-daughter sa~le, the daughters were much better

off economically. They were only half as likely to be h poverty at

the sae age as their mothers. Pzalleltig the lives of their mothers,

however, poor daughters were primarily draw from families that were

themselves poor. =most one half the poor daughters had poor mothers,

almost 80 percent had low income mothers (less tti twice the poverty

ttieshold] .

iii
I. Introduction

Massive transfer programs, especially the social security retirement

program and the related supplemental security income sys t em, have sharp lY

reduced the poverty levels of aged Americans . In 1959 the poverty rate

among persons 65+ was 57% greater than that

(35.2% versus 22.4%)

1

Thirty years later

of all persons in the U. S .

(1989) the rate was less than

2

the population average (12.4% versus 14.2%) The incidence of poverty is

not e~al across the agtig population, however. Citing a House Select Agtig

sbcomittee report, a sticomittee metier reported, Z,WOme D are 70 percent

more likely to spend their retirement in poverty than men. 1, (Colufius

Disuatch, Septefier 25, 1992) It is natural to ask how these women can be

helped. At the same time, the huge e~enditures rewired to see-e the current reduction in poverty raises a second ~estion of

to achieve the same goal more cheaply.

To confront either of these policy issues , it i.s

whether it is possible

importut to know “the

o r igins 0 f poverty among retirement age women. Without an wderstmding of

the processes that lead to poverty among the aged, policy plmers mut rely

on increased direct “cash transfers to the aged, perhaps through an eqmded

SS1 program, as the only poverty tool. Even tha the fidirect consequences

of increased SS1 benefit. levels on recipient hehvior earlier in the life

cycle (cncial to moral tizard Westions) are ~ow~le without an understanding of the underlying socio -economic processes Is aged poverty

primrily an extension of a life long condition or is it the result of negative weal th shocks later h 1if e such as a divorce or a nub-d, s dis~ility

or death? The first possibility is a basic redistribution question and is

1
unlike lY to be resolved outside a broader agreem-t on the appropriate dis -

tribution of income.

potentially resolv~le

surmce system.

The second is a social insurance problem and is

with ctiqes in the desi~ of the. current social inThe Nat ional Longitudinal Suney of Mature Women provides a rich data

set for ~loring this issue. Offering a ~arter of a century of detailed

inf ormat ion on approximately 5000 female respondents 30 to 44 years of age

in the first year (1967) , the ~S pmel provi~s a

plore family income”””dwamics- from midlife to the

entire sawle -d into the retirement period fox a

sample. The analyses to follow will foas on the

time the respond=ts were 52 to 66 years of age.

rich opportunity to exeve of retirement for the

s~stantial s–dset of the

1967-1989 period at which

Beyond the value of this information for the design of program to

reduce aged poverty, the =alysis contributes to the general discussion of

the persistence of poverty, an issue much in dispute. Ducm (1984) , for

example, stresses the large flows of individuals into and out of poverry

over a ten year period. As he sumarizes his findings, “Only a Ii ctle over

one-half of the itiitiduals living in poverty in one year are found to be

poor in the next, and considerably less than one-half of tnose who ~-

.perience poverty remain persistently poor over many years. ,, [author, s

italics] (p .3) Conversely Bane and Ellwood (1986) are stnck by the high

levels of poverty persistence, especially among individuals who remain in

poverty for more than a year of two. As they cone lude their study, ,SWe

fomd that most of those who ever become poor

poverty.

time will

At the same time, the ~jority of

have very long spells of poverty

will tive only a short stay in

people who are poor at a given

before they escape. “ (P .21)

2
Wowing the proportion of each Of these types in the. poverty populatiofi

would be helpful to poliq pl=ers fOr the same reasOn that a understanding of the or ig ins o f aged female poverty is iqortant --appropriate e PO1 icy

measures are likely to be wite different for the occasionally poor and for

the persistently poor. The Dmca study and the B-e and Ellwood study both

rely on the PSID; &ta from the NLS should provide important independent

evidence of the persistence of poverty.

Reflecting the objective Of anal YZin9 tr..ulY 10n9 term POvert Y

processes , ones t~t might stretch from midlife to ret+rernent, the...analysis

focuses on five year transitions over the twenty-two year period 1967- 19S 9,

neglecting shorter tem fluctuations in income status. In particular the

study measures poverty tr-sitions over the years 1967-1972-1977-19 S2 -19s 7-

19s9. zxtended face-to-face inte~iews were conducted with respondents in

each of these years . The average poverty experience of the NLS Mature

Women, s cohort , weighted to adjust for the oversawling of blacks b the

origi=l research design and for differential attrition in later years,

reflects aggregate poverty trends rather well, Table 1, Panel A. In “the

Mature Women, s cohors, the poverty rate declines from 13. 9% in 1966 to a low

of 8. 7% in 1981 before increasing to 13. 6% in 19S6 (family income info--

tion in the NLS Mature Women, s Suney

preceding the sumey) . The mtional

11.8 % in 1976 before increasing agati

similar for whites and blacks with

blacks.

was collected for the calendar year

average declines from 14. 7% ti 1966 to

tO .14.2% in 19S1. The patterns are

the rate Aout thee times greater for

The sharper decline-. and recovev of poverty rates in the NLS th- in

the natio-1 cross sectional data presumbly reflects life cycle phenomena.

3
In particular within surveys, age trends reveal tbt respondent families

moved disproportionately out of poverty at younger ages and disproportionately into p“overty at later ages, Table 1, panel B- The respondent

families initially ewerienced growth in the respondents, own earnings as

they returned to the labor force--children matured and rewired less home

care. Moreover respondents e~erienced grotih in om and husbads, earnings

as a result of accumulated experience. Of fsetttig this trend =d of increasing importance over time was the growing frequency of marital

dis solut ion and in time, the declining health and l~or force participation

of the respondent and spouse. The impact of lost ea=ings, especially those

of the husband, becomes the dominant process as the respondents reached

retirement age and average family income declined.

The 1 i f e cycle pattern suggests tbt negative i.ncOme shOcks during the

lives of these respondents explain a portion of late life poverty

status To qantify the masitude of this effect, however, we must look at

individual records over time. In the next section I report on estimates of

poverty tr=sition mtrices over five, ten, fifteen, and twenty year intervals. I consider, among other issues, i) the implications of poverty

transit ions of vawing I>hs for the stochastic stnceme of the. .~derlying family income process, and ii) the st~ility of poverty tr~sitions over

the life cycle.

I then tum in Section 111 to the issue of special concern here, the

origi= of poverty among older women. we the aged poor primarily life-long

poor or are they the victims of adverse events later in life? TO answer

this question, I e~loit the

1989. Poverty persistence is

full twenty- two years of &ta betwe- 1967 ad

strikingly high in the demographic group in

4
ques?ion, part icularly among blacks respondents. To cite just one result,

aPPrczimtely forty percent of the total sample in the last years of this

surv*7 (1989) were also in poverty in the first year of the suney 22 years

before: ‘-of thse respondents who were not poor in 1967, many had incomes

suf f icien~ly close to the poverty line that little e~lmation is rewired

for C?.eir gentle slide into poverty. Redesig of social i=urmce programs

would not help the ~ jority of the aged poor in a Stistmt ial way.

:l~ne of these facts indicate that negative income shocks p lay no ro l“e

in ck~ poverty process ; as noted above, the evidence is ~ite to the contrary, It is ““natural to ask what the major uninsured risks are that lead

women in economically well situated families in midlife into poverty as they

grow c lder . Past studies suggest tbt marital disnption and loss of husband, s incOme within marriage ~e i~ort~t in +laining movements into ~d

Out Ot poverty. To what extent do these twin threats precede entry into

poverc.f? In Section ~, I first review the d~amics of mrital dismption

and of the h~sb~d, s l~or force “ith&a”al . I then e~lore the fKportance

0 f thes ~ faciors in accowting for major declines in family economic status

over the 1967-1989 period.

The study of these long term income processes suggests a co~arison

with ~ntergener=~ional r=~sitions in family economic status . The intergenerational 1 inka~e of economic status i* &lmost surelj 100ser tti that

between the same individ~l at two points in time, but how much so remains

an impqrtant empirical question. A valuable feature of the MS is the

ability tO match = si~ifibmt stiset of the mature women respondents with

their ,Iaughters b the Yomg Women, s Sumey. me timing of the two suneys

pe~lts a more Or leSS P=eciSe age match between the mO=herS in the firSt

5
survey year (1967) and the daughters in. a much later stiey (1988) . This

&ta pemits the measurement of intergenerational mobility for these motherdaughter pairs and therefore a comparison of intergenerational processes

with long internal life qcle processes

some concluding remrks.

in Section V. Section VI offers

II. Female Poverty D~mics over Long Intenals

How likely is it that a mture woman who is not in poverty will be h

poverty five years later, ten years, fif teen or twenty? HOW likely is it

that a mature woman in poverty will remin so over these same time intervals? The National Longitudinal Survey of Mature Women permits us to

develop an answer to those questions. The study measures poverty tr-sitions over intenals of various lengths contained within the survey years

1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and 1989. These matrices provide importmt insights into the stochastic stmcture of the processes that generate family

income In this section I consider i) the impli=tions of poverty tr=si -

tions of varying lengths for the stochastic structure of the underlying

family income process, and ii) the stability of poverty transitions over the

part of the life c~le covered hy the suney, essentially the period from

midlife to retirement.

Movements into and out of poverty are a function of changes 1) in

family income and 2) in the location of the poverty line. We are especially

interested in the fomer. Although the official poverty line has been essentially unchanged in real tem since its inception, a variety of mimr

chmges hve ac-ulated over time. To mximize miformity of the poverty

6
definition across years, the 1988 def titi”on of POVertY, adjusted for inf lation, was used in all years. The inflation adjustment is based on CPI-U-X1.

=1 t~les in this paper are weighted by ~S pOPulatiOn weights to COrrect for the initiaL sawling desip, including ~ oversampling of blacks,

and for differential attrition. The f re~enc$es reported in the various

t~les are nomalized to the origiml population frequencies tD give some

idea of the nutier of obsemations mdeqiming the t~le &ta. Because of

romding error in the cowutat ions, the fremencies within a t~l e w i 11 not

necessarily sum to” the “total, although they should be close. The addition

of entries across t+les will not SUM to the total and need noc even be

close. For example, in the weighted transition matrices, the sum of the

report ed rider of blacks ad whites who exit poverty is not the t o t al num -

ber exiting poverty, even after adjusting for the small riutier of other

races in the suney, because the weighted fremencies in the black ad white

tables are normalized by the raw nutiers of each group in the swey, not

the weighted nutiers. The statistics by race add to the total frequencies

after the raw nutiers for both groups are appropriately weighted.

Because respondents with incomes in the vicinity of the poverty

threshold are most likely to enter and leave poverty than are” those mare

removed, it ,tiillbe useful to partition families into three mutually exclusive and exhaust ive categories from time to time. The =tegories are:

POOR , = POOR, md NOT POOR. Occasionally I will disc-s a two way clas -

sification, POOR and OTHER (NEAR POOR OR NOT POOR) . The categories are

defined as follows :

7
PoOR

N2AR POOR

NOT POOR

Respondents in families with incomes at or below the official

poverty ttieshold;

Respoti-ts in families with incomes between one -d two times

the poverty ctiestild; ad

Respondents in families with income more tti two times the

pov~rty threshold.

Other definitions used h the tales to follow include:

Age =1 Cohort metiers who were 30-34 k 1967

Age =2 Cohort metiers who were 35-39 ti 1967

Age =3 Cohort me~ers who were 40-44 in 1967-

Race = 1 Race. white

Race = 2 Race black

Race = 3 Other races

The 1967-1989 su~eys pemit a n~er of five-year transitions to be

estimated, fOUr in faCt [67-72, 72-77, 77-a2, 82-a71 , as well as thee tenyear tr=sitions [67-77, ?2-a2, 77-87] , two fifteen-year traditions [67-S2,

72-a7] , and one twenty-year tr=sition [67-a71 ~nsider the probability

that a respondent who is not in poverty in the first survey will be in

poverty in a later sumey and also the prob~ility .t~t the POOR respondent

will be poor in the later svey as well: these statistics are tabulated in

Table 2 for intervals of varying length from the full trasition matrices

(the cowlete tr-sition mtrices can be fowd in the appendix) The entry

rate into poverty of respondents who were not poor in the initial period

averages 5. 5% over five year intenal --a little OV- five percent of the NOT

POOR find themselves POOR five years later. Conversely approximately fifty

percent (47% ) of the POOR find themselves still poor after five years.

The story changes little as the obse~ation intewal l~gth~s. over

ten year intenals, the entw rate into poverty is 6. 5% and the retention

rate for those already in poverty is 38%. tier fifteen year inte~als the

8
figures are respectively 7% and 3 6% , over twent Y years 8% and 35%.

Apparently there is. a great deal of st~ility in poverty status, especially

among NOT POOR respondents, mmy of whom have incomes that are not c 10S e to

the poverty threshold and would require extraordi-~ income de.cities to

push tito poverty. Even for those who start in poverty, there is a great

deal of stability. More than one third of the tidividuals in poverty in

1967 were in pOverty twenty years later.

The relationship between the stocbstic stmcture of family income -d

movements into and out of poverty is a close one. Because of the stability

of the poverty threshold, the stochastic stnctue of family income will

detemine the stnctme of tr-sition rates, both average levels of entry

and exit and relationships between transition rates ..of.differing length,

Lillar”d and Willis (197S) . Consider for -ample an income process with a

very simple stmctw.e--tico.me is the sum of 1) a pem=ent co~onent =d 2)

a white..noise component. The permanent component is presumably based on

relatively stable family characteristics, such as presence or absences of

husbad, and on relatively st~le individual cbracterfitics such as educa -

tion, intellei.gence, and region of residence [Neither these nor ~riad

wobse~ed productivity factors =e Wwletely stale, but they may be approximately sol .

Lillard ad Willis, for exawle, ftid t~t earnings correlations over

five to six year intenals are relatively weli fitted by such a stockstic

income stmcture ..(1978, Fi~re 1) . In such a model, the transition matrix

wi~l be identical across intenals of any length; whether two years apart or

ten, the lifi between years will be &iven only by the distributions of the

transit ory e 1 ement and the pe-ent co~onent [although. at the practi-1

level the ,,pem-ent’! co~onent might shrink as the int-val lengthens] .

9
Lillard and Willis do find evidence for a mOr,e cOmplex, autoregressive

processes across ==1 eanings &ta, which implies that shocks to annual

income do not dissipate cowletely from one year to the next. The i~act of

these short tem processes, however, is limited in our analysis of earning

inte~als of five years -d longer.

The progression of tr=sition rates frm five yeirs to ten to fifteen

ad twenty are broadly consist-t with m wderlying pewent component md

“bite noise decoqosition of income. There is otiy a. modest ugward &ift in

ent~ rates with the length of the intenening time inte~al. The chmge in

the ent~ rate into poverty over five year internals is 5. 5%, over ten 6. 5%,

over fifteen 7. O% -d over twwty 8.1%. The same c= be said for the ret~-

tion rate in poverty (or conversely the exit rate from poverty) . The share

of the original population of poor that remains poor ‘is 47% over five years,

30% over ten. After ten years, additional intenals have no e f f ect on the

percentage of the first year poor who remin in poverty in the last period.

The shv increases in poverty rates across age categories in the 1987

Survey -- from 10% among respondents 50 to 54 years of age to 15% among thse

60 to 64 (T&le 1, Pmel B) suggest that the trmsition process may not be

stable late in the life cycle. The suggestion is correct; as the following

t~le indicates, the rate of ent~ into poverty and of ret-tion in poverty

increases as the respondent reaches traditional retirem~t ages:

10
=TES OF:

-Y 1~0 PO~RTY RET-ION IN POmTY

TOTZ 9.2% 35. 9%

AGE 52-56 in 1989 6.9% 33 .5%

AGE 57-61 in 1989 8.o% 34.2%

AGE 62-66 in 1989 12.8% 40.1%

-t~ rates into poverty over the interval 1967-1989 almost double, from

6.9% to 12.8%, as we move from the yowgest age group to the oldest--52-56

md 62-66 in 1989. The rate of retention in poverty also increases , tbough

more modestly--from 33. 5% to 40.1%. A similar life cycle patten is evident

in the transition parameters reported earlier in Table 2. For the sa~le as

a whole, five year entq r“ates into poverty increase from 4. 9% in 1967-1972

to 7.4% in 19 S2-1987, with all of the increase coming in the last period,

1982-1987. The same pattern is evident in the ten-year transitions, as the

entq rate into poverty almost dotiles as the cohort ages, fram 4 .9 percent

to 9.3%. The full trmsition matrix from which these estimates are derived

is reported in Tdle 3.

Overall the estimates are consistent with the belief t~t poverty trmsitions are reasonably well characterized by a set of fixed transition

parameters from midlife to. the eve of retirement. Over much of the period,

five year poverty trmsitions are also broadly consistent with a simple long

term income process , with income as the sw of a pemment component and a

whise noise element. AS the respondents enter the retirement period, the

parameters shift; the entry rate into poverty and the retention rate in

poverty increase.

III The Persistence of Poverty among Matme Women

11
In this section we return to the issue Of the antecedents of aged

femle poverty, focusing our disassion on poverty trmsitions “over the full

period 1967 to 1989, Table 3. The transition parameters reveal that, for

some at least, aged poverty begins in midlife. Of those who heqa the suvey period h poverty, 36% remined in pOVertY twenty-two years later (only

13 percent of the population in total is in poverty at the time of the 1989

suney ) . The persistence is especially strong for blacks. timost one-half

(48%) of the blacks in poverty in 1967 were also in poverty I“n 1989. For

whites the mrresponding fi~e is 29%. Of the total sampie that was poor

in 1967 57% were either POOR or NEAR POOR in 1989. hong poor blacks in

1967 76% w=e either poor or near poor. By the age of 30-44, the great

ma jority of low income black women were locked into a lifeti”me of 10WT income.

To answer the question of whether the aged poor are draw primrily

from the

need to

fraction

long tem poor or =e the product of negative late-life shocks , we

look backwards rather than forwards . Of the poor in 1989, wbt

was also poor in 1967? Refomulatinq the data in this way, it is

possible to conclude that a large fract ion of the aged poor were in poverty

much earlier in the life cycle. For the total sample, 41 percenc (87 of

211) of the poor in 1989” were also poor in 1967, Table 3. The persistence

is especially strong among blacks, with 66 percent (111/ 167) or two- thirds

of the poor in 1989 also poor in 1967. 2ven among whites goverEy persistence was far from negligible--thirty percent (35 / 115 ) of the poor in 1989

were poor in 1967.

The bulk of the remininq

were near poor in 1967 In

poor in 1989 were drawn from

total three ~rters (160/211)

families that

of the poor in

12
1989 were dram from families wi”th 1967 income less than twice the poverty

threshold. mong blacks 89 percent (149/”167) or almost 9 out of 10 of the

poor in 1989 were in low income (POOR or NEAR POOR) families 22 years

before. For whites the fi~re is 71%” (82/115):

Poverty among the aged is more than simply a failure of soc”Lal insurance programs. The greater share of all .ag.:d poor “femles “were poor

decades before they were-aged. From a policy perspective--this suggests that

policy alternatives

will tive to confront

about the aged poor

poor.

IV.

are

Sources of Large

to large transfer pa~ents (SOCial Security ad SSI)

the sttiborn problem of life long poverty--concern

WOU1 d seem seem to rewire conce~ about the. not-aged

, Late-Life Declines in Economic Status

One need not work tird to develop plausible theories of why women who

poor at midlife are also poor as they approach retirement age. The

stability of the .eaming power of individual family members and of family “’

structure over the life cycle “is suffici=t. But. what of the 25 percent of

the 19S9 poor who were not poor (ttit is, were neither POOR nor NEAR POOR)

in 1967? For these respondents , private and social insurance have apparently faile@ ad it would be valuable to know what negative economic

shocks e~lain the large” declines in family income.

I should note that, although these ,,insurance failures-{ are a

reason~ly large share .of the Poor in 1989, *out 25%, they are a relatively

small shre of the NOT PO~ in

POOR . Put differently, the

1967. There are

transition from

]ust MY more NOT POOR th=

NOT POOR (income more than

13

1*685 - 95 -2
dotile the poverty level) to POOR is rare, even over an interval spanning

more than two decades. In the total sa~le, Only 5.i% of the 1967 NOT PmR

were POOR in 19S 9, although again race differences were pronounced. Five

percent (5. 1%) of whites and 16.2% of blacks e~erienced a fall b ticome

status this large, passtig over the titemediate NEAR POOR category. FOr

this cohort, rather fimly entrenched h traditional family stmctures, two

possible sources of negative income shocks come immediately t“o mind: L )

marital disruption, that is divorce or death of the hush-d; -d 2) the

withdrawal of the husb~d from the. l~or force . Both of these phenomenon

are Comon in the Mature Women, s cobrt.

Certainly the marital status of respondents shifted adversely from a

family income standpoint over this period. In T&le 4, I report the dis -

tribution .of respondents across mrital states in 1967 and 19S 9. In 1967,

84 percent of the sample reported their marital status as married with

spouse present. By 1989 that statistic had tiopped to _.68..percent. The percent who reported themselves as widowed increased from 3 percent to 19

percent, che stire. divorced from 5 percent. to 11 perc&t. Both white “and

black respondents e~erienced these adverse trends, although the decline was

larger, both in percentages and percentage points, for blacks. tiong blacks

the percenc m~ied wit”h spouse present fell from 64 percent to 43 percent,

among whites from 84 percent to 70 percent By 1989, 26 percent of all

black respondents report themselves as widowed. Both the widowed ad the

divorced ~eri~ced a dismption in a long Eer”ti economic partnership and

are economically vtilnerable, s o these activities surely precede-d some of

these mjor declines” & emnomic status.

14
The female need not separate from her husbmd to suffer a catastrophic

decline in family income; the onset of a dis~ltig condition”” in the. spouse

would also do it. For respondents who are ma=ied witi spouse present in

both 1967 ad 1989, the hush-d, s l~or force statuses in 1967: and 1989 are

reported in Ttile 5. The sta&rd CPS su~ey week activity @estions neces -

sag for the “construction of” the” usual labor force statu”s variable are

available only in 1989. So a dmy was constricted for. 1967 =d 1989; the

duw is e~al to one if the husband worked 40 or more we~s in the previous

year, zero otherwise. A comparison of this measure with the stndard CPS

suney week measure of labor force status is reported in Table 6.. As a

categorical device, the weeks worked measure is Wite ~L<rn,~larto the st--

dard labor force measure, especially for those WOWING.. ,.,Only 4 percent .of

those who reported working 40 or more weeks in 19 E8,{t.he..pr:vi0us year) ,

reported that they were out of the labor force in 1989. Of those who worked

1 ess than 40 weeks in 19s 8, 12 percent reported

force k the suney weeg.

The decline in l~or force activity of the

that they were in the labor

hush-d is stistmtial over

the 1967-1989 period ad provides an alternative path from a financially

comfortable life to one of poverty. In 1967 only 6 percent of respondents

who were mrried with spouse present reported t~t their husbands were working less than 40 weeks a year . By 1989 that figure” had””incrZased to 44

percent. Of course the iwact of the husband, s labor force withdrawal on

family”” f in.antes is a function of the ue~ectetiess of the withdrawal. A

plmed retirement will typically not. have the same econotic conse~ences as

15
the early onset of a disabling condition. xow much this meti~ism contributes to catastrophic declines in family incomes is

~estion.

Eow many of the large family incorn% status declines

an empirical

can these two

processes --marital dis~ption and husband, s l~or force with~awal --e-lain?

To awwer tbt ~estion, 1967-19.89 poverty transition matrices were constructed separately by marital status trmsitions ad, for those married

spouse present in both years, by transitions in husband, s labor force

status . The results are reported in Table 7. Apparently the vast majority

of” lirge-dec”line cases are explained by these two processes . “0,.fthe 51

respondents who e~erienced a tr-sition from NOT POOR to POOR between 1967

and 1989, 3.3 e~erienced a change .in marital status from tirried with spouse

3

present to another category. Another” eleven “(11) rewined

spouse present over the period but e~erienced = adverse shift

band, s work status . In total 86 percent (41 of 51) of all

accomted for b this way. The conclusion is wafii~tius. The

mmied with

i-n––the hus -

tises cm be

descent ftim

a comfortable economic “circumstance in 1967 to poverty in 1989 is largely

the result of tiital disnpt ion or a” chage in the spouse, s work status md

inadequate insurance against these economically adverse events. Indeed

there are few ~ses which are not preceded by one of these two sources of

income shock. The majority of the remaining large decline cases are to b“e

fomd among women who were not married with spouse present “in either 1967 or

1989. The n~ative economic consewences of. marital disnption my have ocarred prior to the initial su~ey year.

The path from poverty in 1967 to being comf ort~ly out of poverty (NOT

POOR) in 1989 is not similarly well defined. Forty-four percent of the

16
respondents who were poor in 1967 had by 1989 r=ched fatily incomes tht

were at least twice the poverty ttieshold, Tale 7. Reversals of the town

paths into poverty described above, 1) not married-with- spouse-present to

mamied- with-spouse-present md 2 ) husbti not working to husband working,

are likely to have limited impact because Of the relatiV% .raritY Of each.

Less tti one in five (18 of 105 or 17%) invOlve a Ck9e in =rital status

from all categories OE not married with. spOuse present tO married with

spouse present. Even fewer, 4 percent (4/1 05 ) , involve a husbad reentering

the labor force between 1967 -d 1989. The socio-economic factors eqlaining the. great =j ority of the large successes must, be sought elsewhere.

IV. The Intergenerational ~rends

Economic status appears to be extremely st~le among women in the age

int e xvals covered by the National Longitudi.Ml Su=ey of Matug? W?men, aP -

proxi-tely 30 to 65 years of age. The sa~le desi~ of the” ~S permits an

additional econorn”ic mobility comparison, an intergenerational one”. The

original NLS had four’ cohorts : young men and women, mature women, and

preretiremenr aged men. To economize on su=eying costs, whenever poss~le

respondents for the different cohorts were draw from the same family. - a

consequence, it is possible to construct a sample composed of mothkr -

daughter pairs, pemitting construction of intergenerational t.rans>tio?

matrices in the same way that we have constmcted life cycle tr~sition

mtrices [the tr-sition matrices are weighted by the 1967 Mature Women

population *“eights] . In particular it is possible to co~are the economic

17
statm 6f the Mature Women in 1967 when they were 30 to 44 years of age with

the poverty status of the Yowg Worn= h 1988 wh- they were 34 to 44 years

of age. The age pairing cm be made more -act by limiting the analysis to

Mature Women 34 to 44 years of age in 1967. We i~ose that restriction in

the following malysis.

In this matched sample, the economic status of the daughters is signific=tly better th- tht of their mothers at the same point in the 1 if e

cycle, T*le 8. In the -tched sa~le of 695 mother -hughter pairs, 19 percent of the mthers but ofi y 8 percent of the &ughters were in poverty at

age 34-44. Forty-s even (47) percent of the mothers but only 24 percent of

the &ughters tid family_ incomes less tb two times the poverty threshold.

The poverty gains are especially pronomced for blacks. The poverty rate

fell fram 63 percent to 24 percent across the generations for blacks, from

14 percent to 6 percent foE whites.

The large intergenerational shift in poverty rates across the generat ion guar=tees tkt the inte~enerational trasition rates, the chage in

economic status from the mother to the daughter, will be more ‘-posit ive,,

than the mother, s long tem ow trmsition rates. The mother-daughter in.

tergenerational tr-sition Wtrices are reported in T&le 9. Eve~ economic

class contributed to the reduction b poverty across the generations. Of

the POOR mothers in 196”7, 35 perc~t were k poverty in 1989, but the same

was true of only 1S percent of their daughters (in 19S8 to be precise) .

-ng ~ POOR mothers in 1967, 13 percent were POOR in 19S9, but the same

was

the

true of only 9 percent of their daughters. The fall into poverty from

relatively advantaged NOT POOR class is rare for either mother or

18
daughter; 6 percent of the mothers ad only 3 percent of the daughters suf -

fered a declfie of this ma~itude.

Looked at from $ differat perspective, the intergenerational record on

the origins of poverty does not look so very different from the long term

..

record of th”e mother” HerseIf. pres-t pov=ty status .is dependent on past

poverty status, across gener?tioqs. as well “as. acrg~s”.1.>fe. . ID P“art%cu>%r.

the percentage. of daughters in poverty who came from poverty .fa@lies. is

large. =most one

were themselves in

poverty came from

half (24 of 54) the &ughters .in pove,rty” had mothers who

@ovaty Four out of five (42 o“f 54) of th”e &ughters in

families which were either POOR” or =AR POOR. These

statistics do notdiff”er.. signific=tly from those for the origins of aged

poor mothers. tithough the daughters are better off than the .mothers, the

long term antecedent of .poye”rty” is a “familiar One, -melY POvertY in the

past.

v. Conclusion

The National ““Longitudinal “SUNeY of mture Women offers a wide rage of

ins ights into the long tem poverty dparnics of feml.es betw~eq ..theages of

30 =d 66 years: “

1) over much of this time, the poverty d~amics are quite stable.

specifically an income mode I. with a permanent component and a white

noise component ‘mfi”ts” the data rather well. This stmctme has the

i~liCatiOn “tht the entw into ad exit from poverty are independent

of the intem-tig time int=al. The ex:.t rate from poverty, for exa~le, will be the same over twenty years as over five . The data

suggests a process not mlike this is in operation. Especially after

the first five year” tite~al, the exit and entv rates are Wite st~le

across greater time intervals . Poverty entw =d retmtion rates &

appear to c~ge with age, however, increasing significantly”” as the

respondent approaches r.etirem=t age.

19
2)

3)

4)

5)

The overall level of poverty persistence is high. Three quarters of

all aged females in poverty come from families with low incomes (less

t~ twice the poverty tfieshold) in midlife. Forty percent” come from

families that were in poverty themselves at miflife. The aged poor

problem is much more tti a socw fisurance problem. Most also had

low &comes “in”midlife.

fie persistmce of poverty was. especially high fOr black women. Twothirds of. the aged poor were also poor two de-des h the past. Ninety

percent of the aged black poor had low incomes (less than twice the

poverty threshold) two decades .befo.re..

Despite the brge fraction of aged poor who were poor in midlife, the

social insurance problem is not inconsequenti.a.l. APPrOtiately one

~ar.ter ..of.“the_poor in 1989 &d family incomes” ttit were ar least twice

the poverty level in 1967. The m jor.ity of these e~eri-ced a mrital

disnption. Most intact fatiilies that reported a catastrophe c decline

in income reported the labor force withdrawal of the husband.

Apparently Pfivate .-d P*lic insur=ce mechanisms ftiled to protect

these women from - jor decities h emnomic status.

In the matched mother-daughter sa~le, the &ughters were much better

off economically. They were only half as likely to be in poverty at

the same age as their mothers. Paralleling the lives of their mothers,

however, poor daughters were pri-rily draw from fatilies that were

the~elves poor. timost one tilf the pOOr&ughters had poor mothers ,

almost 80 percent had low income mothers (less tti twice the poverty

ttieshold) .

Hopefully the -alpis demowtrates the v.a.lue.of extending the cu~ent study

to 1992 and beyond. The 1967-1989 evidence suggests that the transition

from work to retirement has a major impact on the rate of ent~ into ad

exit from poverty. The work/retirement trmsition is also i~ortmt beta-e

the period fOllowing appears to be one of uusual st~ility, McGar~ (1992)

Social security is a large fraction of total family income in retirement”,

especially among low income families, and it has been ~ite stable in real

terns over the last several decades. Unfortwately at the time of the 1989

survey, the respondents were only 52 to 66 years of age, so tbt o~y the

oldest third have reached traditional retirement ages (although a larger

share o f married respondmts have husbm- of tht age, given m~iage cus -

tom in the U.S.). By the time of the 1992 smey, the respond~ts were 5s

20
to 69 years of age, so ttit all. would have reached the..age of e=ly retirement, ad the mj ority ..would have reached traditional ret irern_e.nt_ages

21
B-e, Mary Jo, and David T. Ellwood, ,fS~iPPing Into -d Out ‘of Poverty: The

D~amics of Spells, “ Jou~al of Human Resources 21 (Winter >986) : 1- ___

23.

Dmc~, Greg, Years of POVertV, Years of Plenty: The Chanqinq Economic

FQrtnes of ~erican Workers and Families. - tibor, MI: ~iversity

of Michigm, 1984.

Lilliard, Lee A. and Robert J. Willis, s,DYnamic .Aspect S Of Ea?nin9s

Mobility, ,’Economecrica, 46 (Septetiex 1.978): 985-1012-

McGarq, Kathleen. Measurement Error, Povertv Transitions and PrQqram

Participation: A Studv of Povertv Wonu the Elderly. Ph.D. dissertation, SW StOUy Brook, Auwst 1992.

22
~b

1966

1971

1976

19B1

1986

1988**

1967

1.972

1977

1982

1987

TABLE 1

Poverty Rates, National -d ~S Mature Women, s C6hort

1966-1988a

P-L A

NATIO~ TOT= ~ NLs mTuRs Wom

Total White Black Total White Black

14.7% 12.2% 41.8% 13.9% 10.1% 43 .2%.

12.5. 9.9 30.9 10.9 -7.5 .36.9

11.8 9.1 31.1 8.9 6.5. 28.4

14.0 11.1 34.2 0 ..7 :6..2 31.0 —

13.6 11.0 31.1 .12.6 9.7. 37.1

13.0 10.1 31.3 13.6 ‘1O.9 3.6.1

AGE

o-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 SO-54 55-59 6Q-64 “

15.7* 13.7% 12.7%

12.4% 10.4% 10.2%

9.4% 7.0% 10.2%

8.0% 7.7* 10.4*

.10 .2% 12.4% 15.0%

Parsons (1994, ,’Poverty status,, )

the tiS Mature Women is for the year precedfig the

SO~CES: National : Statistical Abstract of the Unites States, (various

years ) ; ~ Matwe Women:

a =1 &ta are wtighted.

b

Income in fo~tion for

sumey. Ages in P=el E are as of s=ey &te.

23
TAS~ 2

Rates of -t W into Poverty -d Retent iOU in Poverty at

Time InteHals of Five, Ten, Fifte- =d ~=ty Years, 1967-1989=

mms or:

~Y =0 Pomm ~ION 2N P~~

(out of Poverty in (In Poverty in

1967-1972

1972-1977

1977-1982

1982-1987

dV~GE

1967-1377

1972-1382

1977-1387

AVF&GE

1967-1982

1972 -1?87

A=GE

1967-1907

Initial Year)

FIVE = WSITIONS

4.9%. ,.

4.6%

5.0%

?.4%

5.5*

T~ = ~SITZONS

4.9%

5.4%

9.3%

6.5*

.

FI~ _ ~SITIONS

5.3%

8.8%

7.0*

~ _ ~SITIONS

8.1%

Initial Year)

44.9*

39.3%

51.2%

52.4%

47. 0%

33.3%

38.7%

41.5%

37. 8+

29.9%

41.5%

35. 7%

34.6%

~-m - =SITIONS

1967-1989 9.2% 35.9%

SO~CE: parsons (1994, ‘rPoverty S2atw -i)

a N1 data are weighted.

24
T~LE 3

Poverty Tr=sitions, 1967-19S9, BY Age =d Race

Unweightid

Nat Pmr N=r Pwr All

F!.qww Pa Fcq_ Pd Fmmw M F,-

557

251

123

1

182

115

60

357

2

198

81

3a

318

3

177

55

24

256

1

495

194

67

2

52

52

=

158

74.7

55.5

31.8

58,7

83.1

66.9

39

65.5

76.6

54.4

30.7

60.2

84.4

42

22.6

m

7s.4

63.6

52.3

66.6

60.5

%.5

21.3

33.3

145 19.4

111 24.6

97 25.1

353 22.3

25 11.4

33 19.2

30 19.5

aa 16.I

41 16.3

42 2a.2

36 2a.3

119 22.5

79 28.7

X 27.5

31 29.2

146 2a.5

120 18.5

66 21.9

21 16.4

209 *9.2

24 27.9

41 30.4

74 29.1

139 29.3

44 5.9

93 19.9

167 43.2

301 19

12 5.5

24. 14

54 41.6

Im ia.3

13 5.2

26 17.4

52 40S

91 17.2

19 6.a

40 30.5

51 48.1

110 21.5

33 5.1

48 15.5

40 31.3

?27 11.1

10 11.6

42 31.1

lza 49.6

I 7a 37.5

746

=7

1585

219

172

154

%

252

149

127

528

275

131

106

512

646

310

128

1066

as

13s

2%

475

25

577 75.8

277 6~.4

105 43.1

1M9 66.8

225 83.6

133 72.8

49 52.9

406 74.6

243 79.4

m 62.0

32 41.1

365 69.1

207 w. 1

55 44.3

z 34.0

2aa 56.2

~ 76.8

1% 63.4

64 53a

766 70.4

63 59.5

61 44.0

56 24.2

laO 37.6

185 1a.5

107 22.5

51 20.9

315 19.9

31 11.3

32 17.6

13 13.5

?5 13.8

46 15.0

36 24.8

!9 24.7

101 19.1

87 .27,6

33 26.6

18 25.5

139. 27.1

119 18.1

= 21.5

21 17.3

20s 19,0

26 24.3

39 28.3

64 27.7

729 27.1

51 S.7

73 16.1

a7 3s.9

211 13.3

14 S.1

I 7 s.a

31 33.5

~ 11.4

47 S.5.

19 13.1

26 34.2

82 11.8

20 6.4

x 29.1

2a 40.4

86 16.7

34 5.1

47 15.1

36 29.1

115 10.6

?7 16.2

33 27.6

111 46.1

167 35.1

892

4s2

243

1585

269

183

93

545

m

145

77

52a

314

125

72

512

659

306

119

1067

lffi

139

m

47s
T~LE 4

Marl Cal Status in 1967 md 19S9, BY Age =d Race

Maribl Stitis in 1967

W3dMed Dvorced Sep-ted Nwer Mti&

N Pti N Pet N P& N P*

145 2.9 262 5.0 285 5.6 2m 5.?

21 1.3 7S 4.8 lW 6.2 125 7.8

48 3.0 m 4.9 95 5.8 83 5.1

76 4.1 % 5.2 w 4.9 82 4.5

61 1.7 15S 4.4 72 2.0 174 4.8

83 6.0 8s 6.4 211 152 112 8.1

1 12 5 5.8 2 2.3 4 4.6

Mafil Stitis in 1967

WdMed ~vorced Sepmtid Never Married

N P& NPti N Pet N Pet

103 2.0 234 4.6 173 3.4 260 5.1

14 0.9 74 4.7 62 3.9 9a 6.2

35 2.1 65 3.9 5s 3.5 91 5,4

53 29 * 5.3 53 29 71 3.9

73 1.6 19? 4.4 89 20 217 4,8

29 54 35 8.5 82 15.1 41 7.6

0 0.0 3 3.9 3 3.9 3 3.9

Mari6zl S&tis in 19S9

All

N

MSP

Unweigh-d N Pet

MSA

N P&

46 0.9

15 0.9

12 0.7

1Q. 1.0

20 0.s

16 1.2

2 2.3

M*

N Pd

41 0.s

14 0.9

10 0.6

<? 1.0

34 0.7

7 1.3

1 0.8

MSA

N P&

9 0.3

3 0.3

3 0.3

3 0.3

8 0.4

1 0,1

0 0.0

M3A

N P&

11 0.4

4 0.4

4 0.4

3 0.3

10 0.4

1 0.3

0 0.0

All

Age

1

4064 80.0 5062

1273 79.0

1310 80.5

1481 80.3

2

3

Race

1

2

3

1844

3112 86.3

879 S3.2

73 83.9

36s6

13s0

87

MSP

N Pd

All

N

All

Age

1

2

3

Race

4271 S4.0

1320 63.5

1430 m.6

1522 84.0

1581

1812

4477

541

65

3868 86.4

247 84.1

57 S?.5

2

3

Sepamted Nw= Married

N Pet N Pd

104 3.4 126 4.1

~ 4.8 54 5.2

43 4.3 25 35

11 1.0 37 3.5

26 1.2 70 3.1

77 9.4 64 6.6

1 2.8 2 5.1

Al!

N

-

MSP

N P&

All 1927 62.3 569 19.0 m 10.9

IW 9.6

181 16.1

m 29.1

1% 14.5

67 S.7

101 9.6

680 65.6

649 85.0

5ss 56.5

996

lm

2

3

214 9.6

118 14.4

6 15.4

22s7

817

38

1576 70.5

328 40.2

2s 59.0

343 15.3

239 29.3

7 1s.0

2

3

Matil S-as in 1989

Wdwed Dlwed se~~ Nww ~d

N P& NPti NPti N Pd

505 16.3 322 10.4 62 2.0 1= 3.4

72 7.2 .140 13.8 29 2.9 37 3.7

l= 14.7 SS 8.2 26 2.8 35 3.4

2S2 26.7 * 9.3 6 0.8 32 3.1

421 15.3 267 9.7 32 1.2 85 3.1

79 25.7 ~ 16.1 28 9.1 1s 5.9

5 14.6 6 17.5 1 3.9 1 1.9

26

All

N

MSP

W.ighti N P&

2088 67.5

Age

1

2

734 72.*

?22 70.8

3 6s3 W.o

hce

1

2

3

lm 70.4

i 32 42.9

20 62.1
I T=LE 5

ALL

Age

1

2

3

Race

1

2

3

Husband, s Labor Force Status in 1967 and 1989,

By Age and Race

Husband’s Lsbor Force S&tus in 1967

Unwighted Mtghted

Not Woting Wotiw All Not WorkW Working

N Pst N Pet N N Pet N Pcr

269 7.39 33?+ 92.6 3M0 218 6.0 Mzz 94.0

77 6.67 1077 93.3 Ilw 60 5.3 1080 94.7

70 5.98 1100 94 1170 58 4.8 1160 95.2

122 9.27 1194 90.7 1316 101 7.9 1182 92.1

167 5.96 26W 94 2801 182 5.5 3128 94.5

95 12.2 687. 87.9 782 32 11.3 255 88.7

7 12.3 50 87.7 57 4 10.2 39 89a

ALL

Age

1

2

3

Race

1

2

3

Husband’s Labor Force Status in 1989

Unweigl!ted Wsigllted

NoI Worting Worting All Not Worting Working

N Pet N Pet N N Pet N Pet

a31 46,4 960 53.6 1791 79a 44.5 993 55.5

184 2a 473 72 657 172 26.4 480 73.6

26a 45 32a 55 596 260 42.3 354 57.7

379 70.5 159 29.6 53a 366 69.6 160 30.4

655 44.1 a29 55.9 14a4 730 4,xa 937 56.2

166 5a 120 42 2a6 61 56.6 47 43.4

10 47.6 11 52.4. 21 6 39.6 10 60,4

All

N

3640

1140

Izla

~2a3

3310

2a7

43

All

N

1791

651

614

528

1667

I oa

16

27
TMLE 6

Husband’s Work Status by Weeks Worked ~d Survey Week Activity, 1969,

By Age and Race

Activi~ Most of Suwey Nek

The Number of Not Wotina

Weks Worked 40+ N Pci

Not Woting

Worting

All

Age=l

Not Worting

WOrting

All

Age=2

Not Woting

Worting

Al I

Age=3

Not Woting

wOrtdnQ

All

Race=l

Not Worting

WOrting

All

Race=2

Nol Woting

WOrting

All

725 88.1

34 3.62

759 43.1

132 ?1.7

9 1.91

141 21.6

239 90.2

21 6.65

260 44.8

354 94.7

4 2.63

358 66.1

567 87.5

30 3.69

597 40.9

150 W.9

4 3.48

154 55

Wting

N Pa

98 11.9

904 96.4

1~2 56.9

52 28.3

461 98.1

513 78.4

26 9.81

295 93.4

321 55.3

20 5.35

148 97.4

168 .31.9

81 12.5

783 96.3

864 59.1

15 9.W

111 %.5

126 45

NI

N

823

9ss

1761

Iw

470

654

265

316

581

374

152

526

648

6i3

1461

165

115

280

Not Woting

N Pet

691 87.7

36 3.7

727 41.3

124 .71.8

10 2.2

135 20.6

220 88.4

20 5.9

239 41.2

349 94.8

5 .3.4

355 67.5

561 87.4

30 3.6

591 40.4

149 91.9

6 5.5

155 55.4

Worting

N Pc!

97 12.3

937 96.3

10X 58.7

49 28.2

.470 97.8

519 79.4

29 11.6

313 94.1

342 58.8

19 5.2

152 S.6

177 32.6

81 12.6

790 96.4

870 59.6

13 8.7

112 94.5

125 44.6

All

N

788

973

7761

173

481

654

249

332

581

369

157

526

642

819

1461

162

118

280

28
.--”._..

TmLE 7

?Overty Trmsitions, 1967-1989

By Marital Status and Husband, s Activity

POve~ in IUW

Unweighed

POv* NotPoor Near Pmr All

inT*S7 F,-v Pti .Fr.-q Pti F,q.- Pti F,mWeightid

Not P-r Near Pwr All

tilkd Pd .-lkti Pe -,ltid Pd .,m,l.m

F,w- F,.q_ F,w_ F,m”mv

tti P* 557

t* P* 251

Pw 123

M 931

MSP67mSPC#

w Pw 390

t-P* 185

P- 54

. 6W

MSP671NMSPE9

,,d Pw 102

,,.” P* 45

Pw 23

74.7

55.5

31.8

58.7

14s 19.4

i11 24.6

97 25.1

353 22.3

44 5.9

90 19.9

167 43.2

301 19.0

746

4S2

3a7

iS8S

488

248

130

S66

180

126

91

397

17

14

so

61

61

64

676 75.9

277 61,2

!0s 43.5

1ffi865.8

lM 18.4 a 5.7 891

452

242

158s

533

248

102 22.5

~ 20.8

316 20.0

~4 16.3

86 35.7

210 13.3

79.9

66.5

41.s

70.3

84 17.2

49 19.8

34 26.2

167 19.3

14 2,s

% 13.7

42 3Z3

90 10.4

433 81.3

in 71.4

87 16.3

43 17.3

18 21.2

148 17.1

13 2.4

28 11.3

21 25.0

62 7.2

46 53.8

856 75.8

129 57.9

47 39.3

19 34,8

195 49.1

76 71.9

11 75.1

1s 75.1

45 73.9

80 S5.S

35 52.0

2S 27.8

143 54.7

85

866

222

121

54

56.7

35.7

2s>

42.8

70.6

78,6

5s.7

65.6

52 28.9

39 31.0

20 Zo

111 28.0

26 14.4

42 33.3

48 52.8

118 29.2

80 27.1

37 30.9

lt 19.7

108 2?,3

33 15.0

38 29.8

24 45.S

94 23.6 397

4 23.5

3 21.4

8 26.7

15 24.6

1 5.9 8. 26.2

4 24.9

0 ..1.9

0 0.0

3 11.4

3 5.1

23

15

24

61

94

5 1S.7

6 9.8

3 13.5

Ml ;0 13 21.0

NMSP07,NM~p*9

Me P* S3.

N.., PM, 30

“m 29

AI! 112

S6.9

46.9

21.3

42.9

5 8.2

20 31.3

3 4.9

14 21,9

72 52.9

89 34.1

8 8.4

21 31,2

23 23:0

62 19.8

6 6.1

11 18,8

49 49.2

W 25,4

87

35 25.7

80 23.0

T38 lW

261

533

248

261

488

248

84 17.2

49 19.3

34 28.2

167 19.3

14 2.9

34 13.7

42 323

90 10.4

433 81.3

177 71.4

46 63.8

666 75.8

87 16.3

43 t7.3

1s 21.2

148 17,?

13 2.4

28 11.3

21 25.o

62 7.2

130 85

866

223

115

866

2s3

116

HLFP67=I,HLFPaS=t

w Pm 209 93.7

N,,, P- 104 W.4

Pw 36 67.3

14 6.3

9 7.8

11 21.2

34 8.7

0 0.0

2 1.7

6 11.5

a 2.1

220 942

10S 92.4

31 77.S

359 92.0

189 70.6

5s 47.4

a 31.0

250 61.7

14 5.8

7 S.8

5 11,5

25.._6.4

0 0.0

2 1.8

52 4 10.7

6 1.6

40

NI 348 89.2

~LFP67=IIHLFPss=0

N&Pw 166 68.9

N.., ,*, 50 43.9

Pw 12 24.0

N 228 55.3

HLFp@7=oiHLFP09*I

NM- 6 88.?

N.” P- 5 62S

P- 5 a3.3

M 16 69a

HLFP67.oIHLFPsg=o

390

241

114

50

405

9

a

a

380

64 26.6

35 30.7

15 So.o

114 za.z

11 4.6

29 25.4

23 46.0

63 1S.6

8a 25.2

33 30.0

9 35.0

110 27.2

11 4.1

25 27

9 34.0

45 11.2

?71

26

4W

11

7

5

23

1 11.1 2 22.2

2 Z.O

1 16.7

6 65.9

6 87.4

4 77.4

17 74.6

2 13.7

0 4.a

0 0.0

2 82

2 20.4

i 7.a

t 22.6

1 12.5

0 0.o2 8.? 5 21.7 23 4 17.2

NM* -9 -m.o

N.., Pm 6 54a

Pw 2 9.1

M 17 35.4

5 333

4 35.4

8 36.4

17 35.4

1 6.7

1 9.1

12 54.6

14 29.2

is

11

22

4a

13 62.2

7 57.6

2 11.0

22 45.2

7 26.2

4 31.6

5 33.6

.1s U.2

o 1.6

1 10.8

8 SS.4

10 20.7

20

13

15

4a

29

,
Tale 8

The Economic S-tus of NLS Mothers k 1967 and

ML ~T_S (695)

Income Status Mothers 196?

Not Poor 53.0%

Xear Poor 27.9

Poor 19.1

~ITS (462)

Not Poor 58.2%

Near Poor 28.1

Poor 13.6

BMCK (22.4)

Not Poor. 8.5%

Near Poor 29.0

Poor 62.9

SO~CE: Parsons (1994, ,,Poverty Status 0,)

Weighted Sample sizes h Parentheses.

their Daughters in 1988.

Daughters 1988

75.9%

16.3

7.8

79,3%

14.9

5.8

47.6%

28.4

24.0 ~

30
Poverty

N-r PPw

NI

Age - *

N& Pmr

N= Pwr

Pm,

N{

Age = 2

Not Pwr

Nem PW

Poor

Al

Ag. E 3

Not Pwr

Near Pmr

Pwr

Al

Race = 1

Not P-r

Near Pwr

Pmr

Al

Rse = 2

Not Pwr

New Pw

Pwr

NI

Trasitians Between Mothers (1967) -d Daughters. (196s )

NotPmr

N Pti

245 85.1

lW 72.8

102 45.7

4S1 69.2

14 82.4

3 42.9

4 33.3

2? S8.3

97 m.s

65 70.7

50 46.7

212 67,3

124 86.5

66 ~.7

48 46.2

248 72.1

223 84.8

102 76.7

40 60.6

365 79

T6 84.2

32 =8

60 39

108 48.2

New Pw

N Pa

32 11.s

28 15.2

63 30.5

129 18.6

3 ~7.7

2 za~

5 4i.7

10 2?.8

i4 12.1

Is !6.3

22 293

61 19,4

16 10.3

11 12.9

31 26.8

50 76.9

30 11.4

21 15.8

i7 25.8

m 14.7

3 15.8

7 t3.7

S1 33.1

61 27.2

Pw

NW

10 3.47

22 12

53 23.8

66 12.2

2 28.6

3 25

5 13.9

5 4.31

?2 13

26 23.4

42 13.3

s 3.22

8 9.41

= 24

38 11.1

10 3.8

10 7.62

9 13.6

S 6.26

72 23.5

43 27.9

56 24.6

All

N

2a8

264

Z3

695

17

7

12

36

Ila

92

107

316

155

6s

Iw

344

263

133

66

462

19

Sf

7*

224

● Nti Pw

N P&

313 as.o

Iu 74,4

71 53.0

528 76.9

20 az4

1 al

1 19.6

23 63.1

f27 03.9

76 74.9

32 =.3

23S 74a

166 862

66 7K3

37 56.3

269 7a.t

229 84.9

W 76.2

39 61.7

366 79.3

Ie a4.1

39 60.6

S2 =.a

107 4?.6

N.m P&

NW

43 11.6

32 1a.3

39 29.1

113 16.3

4 17.6

2 =.6

4 =3

10 2a.3

Ta 12.0

16 16.0

la 28.3

62 1s.5

21 10.7

13 1s.5

la 27.7

52 1s.0

32 11.7

21 76.5

16 2S.5

69 14,9

3 16.9

9 14.4

54 36.S

* 2a.4

PN Pti

12 3.3

1s 9.3

24 17.9

54 7.a

Q 0,0

2 39.3

i 7a.i

3 8.6

6 4.1

9 9.0

12 19.4

27 a.7

6 3.1

7 a.2

11 16.6

24 a.9

9 3.4

?0 7.3

a 12.s

27 6.8

0 0.0

16 26.o

37 26.6

34 24.0

All

N

36a

194

133

25

5

6

36

151

102

62

375

+63

86

65

344

19

65

141

224

31
L pers~n (Unrelated Individual waler 65)

2 persons (HOusehOlder ~der 65)

3 Persons

4 Persons

5 Persas

6 Persons

7 Persons

8 PerSo=

9 Persons or More

$6,155

7,9S8

9,436

12,092

14,305

16,149

18,248

20,279

24,133

souce: ~Stati tical Wstra nited States 199 , p .43o

Pael B

CP1-U-X1 1966-1992

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

19.?6

1977

1978

1.979

1980

1981

19s2

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

3S.2

36.3

37.7

.39.4

41.3

..43.1

44.4

47.2

51.9

56.2

59.4

63.2.

67.5

74.0

82.3

90.1

95.6

99.6

103.9

107.6

109-6

113.6

118.3

124.0

130.7

136.2

140.3

32
FOO~O~S

1. ~ the United States 19s5, Tale 76x.

2. statistical =stract of the United States 1993, Tale 73g

3. Recall t-t these are fictional respondmts. me data are weighted to

adjust for” avers~~li?g .~n the orig~l saWlin9 desi~ -d” for .di.fferent ial

attrition, so the XUbrs & not rePekSent specific respondents.

33
0w
1

2

3

All

Me

1

2

3

Race

1

2

3

All

i

3

R1

2

3

PoW in 1667

Un~hti W~hN

N@ P- New Pm All N&P- NW Pm All

F—WF— WF— ~F— N- w N— - N— M N-l&

F— Fw_ Fw- F,_

2025 49.9 1146 28.3 866 21.8 _ 2365 56.3 1128 27.8 % 13.9 4056

582 45.2 406 31.2 310 23.6 1311 97 %5 410 31.8 203 15.7 lm

629 47.9 365 26.3 26a =7 1312 779 57.3 393 29.0 187 !3.7 1359

804 s,+ = 24.6 277 16.3 1433 904 64.5 320 =8 178 12.7 ?403

1706 60.7 763 20.2 315 11.2 2818 2215 62.4 977 2?.5 m 10.1 =

280 24 334 28.6 553 47.4 1167 1= 27.0 1s 26.7 165 &z 450

37 =.7 19 26 77 233 73 28 50.0 16 26.6 12 21.4 57

F—

178! 59.8 678 =8 519 77.4 2976 Zmz

448 53.6 219 26.1 170 203 836 m3

W7 613 217 21.9 167 16.6 631 727

m 63.7 242 21.1 iaz ~s.a 1149 8~9

Is z 402 19.4 170 6.2 Zon 197a

246 20.6 267 31.3 340 33.9 a53 110

m 62.5 9 ~0.a 9 *8.6 46 24

1593 66.5

340 66.5

511 66.7

532 64.5

13m 7a.i

242 3.2

32 ae.s

459 19.3 339 14.2 2=1

f52 18.7 120 14.a 812

145 19.5 w ti.a 744

163 19.6 131 15.9 a25

247 14.7 119 7.1 1675

203 31.2 218 32.6 666

3 6.1 2 5.4 37

68.9 602

61.9 ~

70.9 191

72.2 2m

73.5 464

33.3 96

66.7 6

F202 325

25.6 101

18.6 107

17.6 116

la.9 197

29.7 122

16.7 6

10.9 2676

125 ai3

10.5 1024

102 1135

7.5 2-

36.9 331

16.7 36

W=shW

Nd Pwr N- Pm All

N- m N- -N—WNF— F— F— F—

1796 76.5 371 15.6 212 8.9 2361

610 75.5 121 15.0 76 9.4 607

mz 77.4 121 15.6 s 7.0 776

566 73.7 ~26 16.2 81 10.2 ~

1= ~.6 283 14.0 136 6.5 2066

110 4Z2 .. ...76 =.4 74 26.4 26o

26 64.6 2 7.7 2 7.7 31

35
All

Age

1

2

3

Race

1

2

3

All

Me

1

2

3

hce

1

2

3

All

4,

1

2

3

-

1

2

3

Umhti

Nd P= Nw Pm All

FvrnFm_B F—WF—

17W 66.5 446 17.5 3m 14 2566

609 71.3 ~37 16 108 12.6 854

m 70 139 16.6 1~ 13.2 627

a 64.3 173 19.5 143 16.2 a85

1464 80.4 Zm 12.9 122 6.7 1821

2~ S.8 211 29.6 235 =.3 706

33 84.6 3 7.7 3 7.7 m

Wa@hM

N& - N- Pm All

N— W N— Pa N— Pa N—

F— F— F— F—

1976 77.1 364 14.2 = a.7 -

670 S02 98 11.7 67 a.o a34

660 76.4 721 7%9 67 7,7 aa7

ml 73.0 144 16.6 W 10.4 8ffi

1843 al.z 287 126 141 62 Z2m

105 40.5 74 26.7 80 ~.? 259

26 a3.3 3 a~ 3 83 3T

Pm in 1637

un~m WmbhM

Nd P- N- Pm ml N~ Pm N- Pw All

F—F=F—w F— wF- - P* N- PU N— - NF— F— F— F—

12- 61.2 421 20.6 373 18.2 2046 1444 70.5 346 16.9 258 12.6 Z=

476 68.5 lW 15.4 112 16.1 = 537 76.4 78 11.4 70 70.2 m4

416 62.2 129 19.3 124 ia.5 = a 77.7 111 15.9 86 ?2.4 ~

3= 52.9 185 27 137 20 684 412 61.3 1W 23.8 Im 74.9 672

1056 73.5 231 16.1 la 10.4 1437 l= 74.9 278 15.4 176 9.7 lalo

178 w.4 Iaa 31.a 221 37.8 565 72 3.0 68 =2

20 76.9

w 36a 217

4 15.4 2 7.7 26 18 ala 2 9.1 2 9.1 23

PO~ in 1989

1111 59.2 ~ 21.3 s 19.5 1876

418 a8.3 97 j5.4 115 183 ~

379 61.2 134 21.6 ~06 17.7 619

3%4 m.1 169 27 144 23 =7

911 w.a 242 la.5 152 11.6 1S

781 ~2 ~53 28.7 21? m.? 545

19 n.1 5 192 2 7.7 2a

12al 67.3 366 19.1 = 13.6 1874

1T- 70.8 = !8.3 180 10.9 1=1

77 3.0 53 E9 73 36.7 2=

15 S7 6 25.0 2 8.3 z

36
567 74.7

257 55.s

123 31.8

93* 56.7

%

Iaz 83.7

7?5 66.9

m36

=7 65.5

2

196 ~.6

al 54.4

39 30.7

3ia w.2

3

Tn 64.4

55 42

24 22.6

Zwm

1

496 76.4

194 63.6

67 %3

?S 66.6

2

52 W5

62 335

54 21.3

166 33.3

145 19.4

111 24.6

97 25.1

353 =3

25 11,4

33 19.2

m 19.s

aa 16.1

41 16.3

42 28.2

36 28.3

119 22.5

79 28.7

36 27.S

31 26.2

146 za.s

120 18S

66 21.s

21 16.4

206 192

24 27.9

41 m.4

74 26.1

136 26.3

4 5.9

80 19.9

167 ~

301 19

12 5.s

24 14

64 41,6

lW 18.3

13 5.2

26 17.4

62 40.s

91 17.2

19 6,9

40 30.s

51 46.1

110 21.5

33 5.1

46 15.5

40 31.3

121 11.1

10 11.6

42 31.1

126 46.6

775 37.5

746

462

%7

1665

219

172

154

546

m

146

127

275

131

lW

512

646

310

128

1066

86

135

254

475

677 75.8

2~ 61.4

103 43.1

1= 66.8

225 63.6

1= ~8

46 G9

4W 74.6

243 76.4

60 QO

32 41.1

s 69.1

207 ~. 1

s 44.3

25 34.0

2W %2

= 76.8

1w =.4

64 53.6

755 70.4

63 *.5

61 44.0

= 24.2

160 37a

1= Ia.s

101 =5

51 20.9

315 19.9

31 11.3

= 17.6

13 13.5

75 13.a

46 15.0

36 24.6

19 24.7

101 19.1

87 27.6

33 26.6

18 255

136 27.1

119 Ia.1

96 21.5

21 77.3

2m 19.0

26 243

39 28.3

64 27.7

129 27.1

51 5.7

73 16.1

a7 35.9

211 13.3

14 5.1

!7 9.6

31 33.5

62 il.4

17 5.5

19 13.1

26 ~.2

= If.a

20 6.4

36 29.1

29 40.4

86 16.7

M 5.1

47 15.1

s W.1

115 10.6

17 162

36 27.6

111 43.1

167 35.1

892

462

243

1565

269

163

63

545

m

145

n

526

314

125

72

512

s

m

119

Im

?39

230

475

37
P-in 1972

Unwbhti

N&P- Nm PM All

‘—~F—~F— P*F—

1021 88.7

380 Si. +

72 12

1473 58.9

1

232 86.9

125 49.8

28 13.1

363 53.4

2

337 a9.4

I= 55.4

23 11

4% 59.6

3

452 a7.a

777 46.1

23 121

-z 62.4

1

a79 a9,4

3m 565

51 23.7

7236 72.1

2

121 n.f

63 31.a

78 4.8

207 2a

101 8.7

263 36.7

197 as

591 23.2

2a 10.5

64 37.5

59 29.6

Ial 252

27 7.2

92 =.9

75 =.9

134 m

46 a.9

97 36.9

63 33.2

2= 21.7

78 7.9

177

82 42:

341 19.9

22 14.4

103 46.1

lW 27.9

231 312

37 3.2

m 10.8

32a 5

446 17.8

7 26

32 12.7

114 S.3

153 21.3

13 3.4

19 7.6

111 S. I

143 17.1

17 >3

2a 11.9

104 9.7

Im 15.8

26 2.6

= 7.5

72 33.5

137 a

10 65

41 19.2

251 67.3

mz 40.8

11s6

743

568

2mo

267

2s1

166

717

m

248

2m

515

243

190

646

663

518

215

1716

153

214

373

740

7210 aa.a

425 56.9

70 17.9

17m 662

276 86a

144 54.3

22 18.9

445 al

401 89.1

1s1 59.2

23 17.5

575 83.8

530 a9.6

126 57.1

26 19.6

634 72.1

aaa 89.3

W7 58.9

* 24.3

1254 73.1

140 76.4

77 34.2

f7 5.0

234 31.6

115 8.4

25a 34.4

145 372

518 20.7

35 11.0

84 35.4

49 37.2

176 24.8

34 7.6

66 33.7

51 36.6

171 20.5

48 ?.9

7a 34.5

45 %.1

169 17.a

62 8.2

159 32.8

64 42.6

333 19.4

26 +4.7

102 4s.4

m 27.9

221 =.9

3 z.a

6s a.7

1n 44.9

276 11.1

722

27 10.3

60 46.9

64 13.1

15 3.3

18 7.2

5 428

86 10.7

IS 26

19 a.4

61 46.4

96 10.1

26 2.6

33 7.4

6s 33.0

129 7.s

10 5.9

46 20.4

za 67.4

264 Z.4

26s

13?

777

4m

=

?29

w

562

236

131

946

lm7

S13

167

1716

176

m

m

m

38
889 60.2

206 a

41 12.9

1136 66.2

1

243 93s

79 S.e

17 15.6

33a 663

2

3m 91

m 48.5

14 14.7

332 =.2

3

347 87.2

66 45.8

10 6.8

41? =.4

1

766 91.3

la 565

z 23.4

936 79.2

2

1m 822

m 329

18 8.2

176 34.8

66 6.9

146 SB

120 37.9

337 19.6

8 3.1

42 =.6

41 37.6

91 !7.8

20 6

63 40.8

37 33.9

110 19.6

40 10.2

64 37.5

42 37.2

136 21

=9

75 26.8

46 48.9

171 14.4

47 132

74 46.6

72 32.9

163 322

26 2.9

= 14.2

156 46.2

244 14.2

9 3.s

21 14.6

S1 46.6

81 15.9

10 3

14 10.8

44 46.3

66 12.1

10 2.6

24 16.7

61 54

% 14.7

23 27

27 10.7

26 27.7

76 6.4

6 4.7

32 20.3

126 =.9

167 33

666

317

?719

260

142

106

511

m

l=

85

m

361

144

113

646

836

262

64

1166

126

166

219

s

39

Wxhti

N&P= NW Pm All

—WN— WN— ~N—

F- F— F— FIm 91.5

217 56.1

36 18.0

l= 76.o

262 86.8

66 =3

12 18.6

393 76.9

~ W.8

66 67.6

13 23.7

432 77.3

408 893

61 51.9

10 14.3

460 74.1

781 91.7

1~ 61.4

23 25.7

664 80.5

132 86.4

% 36.4

18 8.7

204 40.3

70 6.1

113 30.4

81 42.0

26a 15.5

6 1.8

s 25.1

29 43.4

69 13.6

24 al

41 34.8

24 44.3

a8 15.8

41 9.1

36 32.0

26 3.3

106 16.7

51 6.0

70 26.5

40 46.9

161 13.6

16 103

67 44.4

72 35.6

la 30.6

28 24 1152

43 11.5 373

76 36.3 193

146 8.5 1719

7 2.3 %

16 11.6 341

25 %.0 66

4a 9.5 5t2

~2 32 366

9 7.6 116

71 320 54

39 6.9 ~

8 1.7 e

19 16.0 117

34 46.4 73

m 9.2 646

20 2.4 652

25 10.1 26

25 26.4 66

70 5.9 1lG

532132

26 192 1*

114 ~.8 204

147 26.1 s
PO- in i 982

1~ 88.3

119 36.7

35 15.1

1160 66.4

1

366 82.4

4 40.7

14 16.5

424 72

2

329 88.7

m 36.5

9 15

376 70.3

37 33

12 13.8

2

119

44

13

176

63

90.8

44.4

293

80.4

72.6

28.6

8.4

37.2

96 8.6

1s 47.7

% 24.1

289 ~7.1

20 5.1

42 %.9

22 25.9

M 14.3

31 8.4

44 423

10 ?6.7

85 15.9

47 12.6

46 43.7

24 27.6

120 21

m 6.9

66 38.1

21 26

153 728

31 18.9

66 44.2

s Z6

134 28.3

35 31

70 21.6

141 60.8

246 14.5

10 2.5

22 20.4

46 67.6

8* 13.8

11 3

22 212

41 63.3

74 13.8

14 3.8

26 232

51 =.6

91 1s.9

21 2.2

28 16.6

32 42.7

81 6.8

14 8.5

42 27.3

107 w

163 34,5

371

Iw

m

636

3Z

112

67

571

a

lW

75

1164

1-

154

1s

473

Nd W

N- W

F—

1166 W.4

112 42.3

a 20.7

1%7 772

426 64.7

42 46.6

9 19.0

461 81.6

372 80.4

37 43.4

7 20.0

417 .76.0

365 65.8

m 3.4

11 20.4

406 715

876 91.2

75 46.7

19 28.1

971 81.4

1= 74.6

46 37.4

9 6.8

193 40.8

I

92 7.1

107 40.4

= 2a.o

237 14.0

75 3.4

31 363

15 m.a

61 10.4

m 7.3

34 40.3

8 21.4

72 13.5

47 11.1

40 43.5

17 X3

Iffi ia.4

64 6.7

66 3s

21 31.6

1= 72.6

26 15.5

~ 41.6

34 24.2

125 26.5

z 25

46 17.3

?1 57.2

148 8.a

9 1.9

13 15.1

26 512

47 a.o

10 2.3

14 16.4

22 =.6

45 as

13 3.1

19 21.1

25 47.3

= 10.1

20 2.1

24 14.5

27 40.4

72 6.0

*a 9.a

41 n.o

66 =.9

Is Z7

1262

264

139

1663

454

86

49

=9

412

85

37

635

425

62

63

571

661

166

s

1183

lm

152

Is

473

40
Pow In* 667

m 8Z5

92 30.6

26 11.5

1021 =9

1

m 89.1

w n7

8 11.4

=1 70.5

2

282 B3

36 37.1

11 1s.1

m =.9

3

25a 74.4

26 22.6

7 8.3

291 53.3

1

766 86.1

57 37.3

14 18.9

857 7s.3

2

m 36.8

35 24.1

*2 7.9

137 30.4

132 121

126 42.9

mm

~ 20.3

27 %8

35 36.3

19 27.1

8% 74.6

42 11.9

37 33.1

19 26

86 18.8

63 18.2

57 46.6

30 35.7

1~ 27.5

91 9.8

64 4+.8

24 32.4

176 15.6

40 26.1

62 42a

44 26s

746 Z4

60 5.5

60 26.6

l= m.6

273 16.6

16 4

24 27

43 61.4

83 15

18 5.1

24 247

43 56.9

a5 IU

26 7.5

32 27a

47 56

105 19.2

37 4

32 20.9

35 46.6

lffi 9.1

23 15

4a =.1

68 63.2

167 37.1

301

227

1623

366

a9

70

352

97

73

522

347

115

64

%

624

153

74

1151

153

I 070 a5.7

64 35.4

23 16.5

1175 72.4

415 91.4

23 36.s

a 18.7

446 ao.3

34a 86.6

34 42.%

6 19.S

366 74.5

m T.9

26 26.4

6 11.3

340 =3

a13 =9

S 37a

15 21.3

863 76.7

97 56.1

44 26s

10 72

150 33.4

122 9.a

101 4Z

44 3t.a

266 16.4

23 5.0

25 41.7

9 27

57 103

39 9.7

28 35.1

13 =3

79 152

61 15.4

47 463

21 402

12a 23.7

86 92

61 41.7

=..31.1

1= 14.7

36 =6

59 =.5

44 =1

140 31.0

W 4.6

54 24

71 51.a

laz 11.2

16 3.5

12 19.4

24 66.7

52 9.4

14 3.5

1a Z. I

22 51.2

54 10.3

26 6.6

25 Z.3

26 46.5

76 14.0

36 3.8

30 20.5

B 47.5

s a.6

32 19.4

45 305

83 60.7

1W 35.6

124a

236

136

1623

453

m

42

555

396

m

43

521

s

97

63

w

s

146

70

1151

167

146

137

450

41
671 al.4

75 28.6

m 11.7

776 57.8

1

272 87.2

21 333

10 12

303 66.2

2

234 82.4

22 2a.9

9 ~o.a

2= 59a

3

165 72.4

32 26

11 122

2~ 47.2

1

= a3.a

52 36.6

16 16.2

~ 66.6

2

?9 67.3

22 7a.6

14 8.9

112 289

121 14.7

ila 443

61 23.8

263222

27 a.7

m 4?.8

16 16.3

73 15.9

43 1s.1

33 43.4

25 =.1

101 22a

51 22.4

s 43.1

20 222

124 23.1

= 13.6

~ 423

24 24.2

178 19.1

22 195

S 46.6

37 a.a

114 26.4

32 3.a

71 27.f

163 64.5

266 20

13 4.2

12 19

57 66.7

a2 17.9

7 25

21 27.6

46s

77 37.4

12 53

33 =.9

W 66.6

106 24.7

17 2.4

30 21.1

56 ~.a

106 11.3

15 133

41 34.7

1s 67.5

152 44a

a24

2Q

1342

312

63

83

264

76

83

443

22a

123

%

441

666

142

66

637

t %3

IIa

Is

386

763 83.0

75 34a

27 15.7

864 66.6

=4 a9.6

20 423

7 152

362 7a.a

275 64.7

23 =.4

7 122

% -.7

164 72.1

33 31.1

12 ~a.3

236 =.0

* 64.1

52 37.6

15 162

861 7&5

a? W. I

24 22?

19 13.3

130 33.6

132 f3.a

91 422

42 24.4

2= 19s

23 8.0

20 423

10 21.0

s 1=

43 132

27 4~.7

77 31.7

87 19.6

m Z3

45 429

14 20.3

119 27.0

s 13.4

= 41.6

22 24.2

774 38.6

24 la~

48 U.6

36 24.7

106 28.%

31 32

a 23.0

Ioz 59a

f83 13.6

9 24

7 15.4

31 63.8

47 10s

7 20

1s 22a

31 %1

52 11.7

15 5.6

27 2s.1

41 61.4

64 19.0

~a =

a 20A

= =.6

102 10.9

22 16.6

=332

m 620

146 363

s

216

170

1342

m

4a

4a

w

325

84

%

443

269

106

67

441

?=

140

63

=7

13

Im

146

333

42
673 ai.3

2a5 sa.s

1ta 27.3

1076 61.6

1

231 88.2

131 73.2

m 33.1

415 68.1

2

216 82.4

66 593

41 26.5

~ 61

3

226 74.3

5840

24 20.5

m 54.4

1

= 83.5

226 56.1

65 45.8

%1 74.2

2

56 629

51 38.3

49 17.2

1S =.a

lffi 12.8

115 23.7

133 =.8

354 20.3

17 &5

2a 15.6

46 23a

91 15.1

29 11.1

41 25.3

41 26.5

111 192

m la.7

46 31.7

46 363

152 26.9

a3 1?.4

75 27.7

35 24.6

163 ls.a

21 23.6

3a 28a

23 34.4

T57 31

46 5.9

66 77.7

lal 41.a

31a 18.1

14 5.3

20 112

61 33.1

65 15.a

77 a.5

26 15.4

73 47.1

115 19.9

la s.a

4+ 2a.3

47 40.2

106 78.7

37 5.f

42 122

42 26.6

121 10

12 13.5

44 32.1

136 46.4

194 36.3

626

466

432

1746

262

176

160

601

263

I=

1s

m

14

117

s

72a

345

142

1215

66

133

285

w

824 a3.7

314 W.5

103 =.6

1241 7J,I

282 8a.o

146 60.2

44 45.4

476 79.2

267 84.2

107 64.0

36 333

411 70.9

274 7.7

= 43.9

22 2as

= 62.7

= 63.9

22a a7.4

64 =.0

ala 75.6

63 64.2

55 3.1

4a qa.q

167 32a

112 113

108 222

72 26a

263 16.7

la 6.1

23 127

23 23.3

s 10.9

32 102

40 23.9

22 23.5

64 16.3

56 1s.7

45 33.5

27 35.6

la 23.3

al 10.9

73 21.5

~ 23.6

la6 15.3

la 18.7

41 26.0

89 =.1

146 292

S 5.6

65 13.3

63 34.6

213 122

16 4.a

13 7.1

31 313

59 9.9

la 5.a

20 12.1

36 33.3

74 Iza

22 62

31 26

26 34a

m 14.0

36 5.2

38 11.1

34 26.4

111 a.1

17 f7.1

45 31.9

?31 46A

192 373

437

267

1746

317

185

68

601

318

167

64

576

m

135

75

w

74a

336

12a

1215

*

141

266

507

43
910 86.6

414 m

133 27.5

1457 6a

1

278 89.4

173 77.2

54 30.2

w 70.7

2

m 88.!

1% 66.7

43 27.6

464 69.3

3

326 a3.1

103 55.1

36 24.3

466=

1

877 88.7

319 74

n 46.7

~207 80.3

2

80 ~

85 =.9

B 16.6

218 36.2

96 9.3

129 21.2

162 35

W6 ~8.2

21 6.8

X 16.1

69 32.4

115 16.1

32 9.3

41 20.7

52 332

125 17.9

45 11,4

52 27.8

52 =.1

?46 20.4

738

61 78,8

44 27.8

186 132

23 19.8

47 =.1

Iia 36.9

lea 31.2

43 4.1

66 10.8

188 36.9

297 fz9

12 3.9

15 6.7

67 37.4

% 13.2

9 2.6

19 9.6

61 36.1

89 12.8

22 5.6

32 17.1

w 40.5

114 15.6

30 3.3

31 ?.2

37 23.4

* 6.5

13 11.2

= 21

146 46.6

197 32.7

6W

463

2143

311

224

179

714

344

Is

155

W6

396

187

146

731

914

431

156

1=

116

167

320

603

Nd Pm

N— -

F—

1066 87.9

446 72.5

114 =.7

1= 76.8

m 90.4

1= 81.6

46 43.3

= 80.5

359 88.6

14a 73.4

= 39.5

544 77s

W3 852

104 *.2

31 =6

527 n.1

827 a8.7

320 75.0

71 46.5

1217 81.0

87 67.6

m 51.5

s 18.s

2W 39.1

107 8.7

IT I Ia.1

62 31.4

3~1 14.5

24 6.3

w !2?

26 27.3

81 11.3

37 9.1

36 17.6

29 za

?02 14.6

47 102

46 27.1

34 35.7

726 T7.5

~ a.z

75 77.6

4$ 28.4

192 728

29 20.2

41 =6

115 =.1

~az 30.I

43 3.5

58 9.4

aa 26s

166 a.7

12 33

15 m

3t 29.3

56 az

922

+a 9.0

25 27.9

G 73

27 4.a

24 13.a

= 3~.a

76 10.4

28 3.~

32 7.4

32 Z%

63 62

16 l=

47 263

123 420

186 =.9

1236

als

294

2<43

371

233

107

714

406

W2

m

W6

46?

i 75

64

731

632

427

l=

la

126

132

263

W4
154

56

866

1

166

67

21

26?

2

Zla

%

77

291

3

238

31

18

286

1

m

121

2

7!

31

25

127

76.3

45.7

19.8

59.8

88.1

~6

20.6

66

76.6

=.9

17.3

60.4

73.~

25.8

2~.7

54,3

81.2

57.1

34.9

72.2

66.7

25.6

%2.8

29.9

114 f3.8

106 31.5

96 3.6

315 21.8

77 7.5

24 24

30 29.4

71 16.3

a 13.9

26 26.4

36 36.8

l= 21.8

% 18

63 442

27 =6

139 26.2

62 13

55 25.9

24 28.9

171 17.1

21 19.4

e m.5

77 36.2

141 33.2

57 6.9

77 Z8

1~ 46.6

266 18.4

10 4.4

16 15

51 w

n ~7.7

18 6.6

25 =7

43 43.9

aa 77a

29 8.9

S30

36 45.8

103 19.4

41 5.a

36 t7

m 36.1

107 10.7

16 14.8

41 33.9

100 51

157 36.s

827

m

2a3

1447

226

107

la

435

274

110

66

462

327

120

83

5W

706

2?2

63

lW1

106

121

166

426

763 81.0

166 542

46 2a.3

-7 66.9

240 89.9

76 70.2

17 27.3

332 7a.3

2al af.4

61 56.2

14 25.0

W6 w.a

262 74.5

32 32.8

14 27.3

a 62.1

566 8~.8

121 66.5

27 34a

734 73.4

76 62.0

37 m.7

26 14.3

136 32.6

126 13.0

a7 2a.o

s 32.2

266 18.5

17 6.4

19 17.3

ia 26a

52 11.9

42 132

2S 24.4

z 37.5

60 ia.6

66 17.5

42 43.0

t7 =3

126 23.7

92 129

53 25.6

24 30.a

168 16.8

23 38.8

46 40.0

67 36.2

137 322

58 6.0

s f7.a

71 41.5

182 12.6

10 3.7

13 12.5

2a 46.0

51 71.a

T7 5.4

77 16.4

22 37.s

% 11.6

w 8.0

24 24.2

21 40.4

75 44.2

36 5.3

~ 15.6

27 34.6

96 9.8

23 192

3 26.3

91 46.5

1= SZ

667

310

771

1447

267

106

60

435

321

lW

56

462

376

63

S2

531

716

207

7a

lm

122

119

164

426

45
833 87.S

335 65.7

106 22.s

1326 ffi.S

1

263 88.4

146 66s

33 22.5

45266

2

272 w.?

129 =3

35 =6

436 W.7

3

263 W.9

110 56.8

35 22.7

433 64.1

1

722 a8.5

%7 72.4

64 =.8

1093 7a

2

w at.a

n 46.2

41 132

m 352

71 7.5

753 26.1

170 35.6

364 19.6

22 7.3

4623

s 34.3

126 la.a

f8 6

47 24.9

64 41.3

126 20

31 9

57 31

~ 31.2

136 19.9

S7

w 221

52 323

207 14.8

73 11.8

% 35.3

116 37.3

164 31.9

4 4.6

4a az

200 41.8

262 14.5

13 4.3

la a.s

73 43.2

104 152

10 3.3

13 6.9

s Z6.q

7a 123

21 6.1

77 9.2

71 al

lm 16

37 4.5

19 4.5

4526

Tol 7.2

7 6.4

29 18.6

154 46.5

Iw 329

646

w

476

2012

x

213

166

66s

300

169

644

345

164

1%

m

a16

424

161

1401

110

136

311

m

m 66.4

425 71.5

s 31.8

Is 75.0

316 a9z

170 752

32 30.7

518 75.6

323 W3

141 723

2a 31.0

463 76.6

361 =.7

112 36.6

s 329

497 7za

741 w

= 73.8

62 423

7111 76.3

772 azs

64 =.0

33 1=

230 36.9

aO 7.2

135 =7

l= 36.1

320 15.9

26 6.9

44 19.4

34 32.7

103 15.0

23 6.3

43222

37 40.a

l= 16.0

23 az

47 27.9

33322

113 16.6

m 72

91 2i.a

4a 327

166 14.1

13 9.4

54322

lm =7

176 =.5

m 4.5

34 s.a

39 33.1

163 9.1

14 3.9

12 55

s 36.7

64 9.4

72 3.4

10 5.0

26 262

4a 7.4

25 a.2

12 a.a

36 34.9

72 10.6

3a 4.5

18 4.4

36 25.0

62 6.6

10 7.7

= 17.a

131 46.0

171 26.7

46
642 a7.5

217 53.S

74 21.8

1233 67.7

~

m aa

91 66.9

28 23.7

375 a3.a

2

327 89.7

67 532

27 24.8

421 69.9

3

ma 85.7

5a 41.3

19 i?

437 -.6

1

830 a9.7

1s =5

36 36.7

I024 ao.a

2

93 70.5

53 36.6

37 15.2

163 34.9

64 8.7

121 29.9

105 31

320 17.6

23 7.9

28 20.6

36 3.1

80 16.5

30 8.2

40 31.7

2a 23.7

66 16.3

41 e.a

s 37.1

33 33.9

132 19.a

67 7.2

S 26.1

2a m. I

160 126

26 19.7

5 36.9

77 31.7

1% 302

41 3.8

67 16.5

1m 47.2

266 ~4.7

12 4.1

%7 125

51 432

aO 14.7

10 27

i9 15.1

54 49.5

83 13.8

19 4.5

31 21.7

55 49.1

I= 15.a

2a 3

26 10.4

29 31.2

a3 6.6

13 9.a

41 27.5

12a 53.1

la3 34s

1077

4m

33a

1821

294

136

116

646

w

12s

lW

mz

41a

143

112

674

625

24a

s

1267

.1=

14

243

524

Nti -

N~ *

F—

1120 a93

224 m.o

% 29.2

Im 76.s

310 902

aa 73.3

21 30.6

42a 76.7

362 m.7

70 a.!

20 31.5

472 76.4

427 a7.6

67 46.9

15 23.9

496 74.1

640 90.0

I= 63a

33 3.2

103I al.4

3* I 72.9

63 =.6

3a 17.0

2m 36.7

95 7.5

Im 26a

62 32.1

257 14.1

21 a.o

22 162

21 30.9

63 11.6

29 6.9

34 29.5

la 27.8

a~ 73.5

44 9.1

44 Z6.i

24 33.0

113 16.7

87 7.2

~ 25.5

29 =.a

1= 12.5

29 17.2

52 =.5

70 31.0

f4a 282

40 3.2

49 13.2

75 36.7

l= 9.0

13 3.8

14 10.5

26 =.2

53 9.7

10 2.4

12 10.4

26 40.7

4a a.f

16 3.3

22 la.o

24 36.0

62 9.2

27 2.a

27 10.7

24 27.9

n a.1

15 10.0

41 a.o

1~7 QO

1n 33.0

12s

373

163

la21

344

135

67

M

421

tla

a5

602

423

,/

47
PO veq in 1

724 79.8

92 33.8

34 16.6

Em 61S

1

287 87.S

% 38.5

18 24

m 68.6

2

232 81.?

3636

7 11.1

274 &.4

3

211 m.s

22 24.2

9 13.4

242 52.6

1

644 83.6

65 45.5

19 31.1

728 ?4.?

2

66 S.3

2? 20.9

Is 10.5

110 27.8

113 12.5

101 36.s

?t 34.6

2= 20.6

23 7.2

33 %.3

23 %.7

79 162

32 11.3

3t 33.7

21 33.3

64 19.1

56 19.2

37 40.7

27 40.3

122 26.5

80 10.4

50s

21 34.4

151 15.5

31 25.2

m 38.8

%s

131 332

667

70 7.7

61 29.6

Im 46.8

251 18.7

77 5.3

23 25.3

34 45.3

74 152

20 7

26 263

35 65.6

81 ~a.s

n 10.9

32 =2

31 46.3

96 20.9

466

28 19.6

21 34,4

* 9.a

24 la.5

52 40.3

76 %.5

1% 3

m7

274

2M

1386

321

91

?5

467

264

%

63

436

m2

91

a7

m

770

143

61

974

123

126

la

3m

W~hti

Nti W NW Pwr All

N—-— WN— =N—

F— F— F— F875 a3z

9? 41.5

29 25.6

695 71.7

S m.a

3 46.7

15 34.4

336 79.1

276 64.4

35 6.8

6 2a.2

mm

256 73.8

z 30.4

7 20.5

286 62.7

666 64.5

G 47.9

1a 33.3

747 7a.7

74 56,5

27 20,4

1? 13.1

~la 26s

lm 10.4

76 S.8

37 as

227 16.4

21 5.8

26 3S2

12 26.7

56 12.1

32 9.a

23 31.0

I 7 33.8

67 753

W 16.1

m 41.1

15 41.0

101 ZO

~ 9.6

46 %.7

17 31.5

142 14.6

3 22.4

47 35.7

47 X6

124 31.5

67 6.3

~ =6

47 41.5

165 11.9

13 3.4

13 Ian

17 38s

43 8.8

19 5.7

17 z

16 4.1

52 11.8

33 10.1

21 26.5

14 36.s

M 15.3

45 5.7

22 16.4

19 S2

65 0.7

30 Z1

58 43.8

a %.3

153 S.7

1051

220

114

1=7

3M

73

44

467

m

75

34

439

=1

73

26

w

133

53

674

134

la

130

395

48
01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

National Longitudinal Suneys (~S)

Discussion Paper Series

m

MichaelR Pergmit

Nomm M. Bradbum

M~in R.F~el

Regfiald P. B&er

Michael R. Pergmit

Saul Schwtiz

Mbefl Hutchens

George Jtibson

A. Coti Cmeron

R. Mmk Griti

Thorn= MaCwdy

Hew S. Faber

Frd L. Mott

Paula B&er

Au&ey Light

Mmuelita Ureta

LisaM. Lynch

Evagelos M. Faltis

H. Eli=betbPetms

Ame Hifl

Jme E. ONeill

&leen Leibowiti

Jacob Alex Klemm

Lkda Waite

Lee A. Lfflad

Joseph G. Altonji

Thomas A. DD

~

How the Federal Govement Uses Data horn

the National Longimdfial Sumeys

A Comptision of Computer-Assisted Pemonal

htemiews (CAPI)””withPaper-ad Pencil hterviews @API) h tie National Longitidtial Sumey

ofYouth

Dynaic Modck of the Joht Detemtiation of

Labor Supply md Fmily Stictie

The effecti of Unemploflent Compensation

on the Unemployment of Youth

Evaluattig Compethg Theories of Worker

Mobility

Evaluation of the 1989 Child-cme Supplement

h the National LongiWdinal Sumey of Yo”tb

Gender Differences k the Quit Behavior of

Yomg Workers

The hpact of Private Sector Tag on Race

ad Gender Wage Differential md the Caeer

Patternsof Young Workers

Responses of FemaIe Labor Supply ad Fefiility

to the Demographic Cycle

A Stidy of Intercohoti Chmge h Women’s

Work Patternsmd Emtigs

Women’s Employment Durkg Pre~nmcy

ad Followtig Bti

Work Experience, Job Tenure, Job Sepwation,

md Wage Growth

Fmily Backgound md Labor Mmket Outcomes
14

15

16

17

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

D.

24.

25.

George J. Borjw

Stephen G. Bronms

Stephen J.Trejo

SeM-Selection md InternalMi~tioi k the

United Staks

Jmes J. Hectim

StephenV. Cmeron

PeterZ.Schochet

The Detemtims md Consequent= of Wblic

Sector md Private Sector Tmfihg

R. Mak Gtiti

Thomm MaCmdy

P~icipation ti Low-Wage Labor Makes by

Yowg Men

Alm L. Gus~an

Thomas L. Stetieier

Retkementh a Fmily ContexC A Stic~al Mdel

for Husbmds md Wives

Au&ey Light Tmsitions from School to Work A Smey of

Reseach Uskg the National Longimdmal Smeys

Ctil_opherJ.Ruh High School Emplowenb Consumption or

hv=ment

Mmk Lowenskh

Jmes Spletzer

hfomal Tmhtig A Review of Existig Data md

Some New Evidence

Jacob Alex Klemm Ch-cterifig Leave for Mateti@ Modehg the

NLSY Data

Jacob Alex Klemm

kleen Leibowitz

Emplo~ent Continui& kong New Mothem

Stephen G. Bronms

tiol Moore

kcentive Pay, Information, md Eaings Evidmce

from the National Longimdhal Suwey of Youth

Donald O. Pmons me Evolvhg S~tis of Female Work Activities

Evidence from the National Longi~dinal Sweys of

Matie Women SWey, 1967-1989

Donald O. Pasons Pove@ D~aics bong Maine Women Evidence

~om the National Longitidmal Suweys, 1967-1989

U.S. ~— PW~lNG WF1@: 1995 - l@-685