me NationalLongitudtidSmeys ~S) pmgm mppfls mmy stidicsdesi~d

b ticIwe mdmstidtig of thelabormmket md methoh of&ta coUcctia~c

DismssionPapersserieskcovrates sme oftheresexchctig outoftheprom.

my ofthepperstithisserieskve beendefivwedasfid rqotismtissiond m

paflof an cxwmwd pat pro~am, wd.r wtich Bmti =. am&d &ou& a

competitive procms.me smiesistikndedtoctictiate tkefindkgstointmestdr=bm

witinmd oukidctheBwcau ofLaborShfitics.

P*ons titeratdk obmintiga mpy ofmy DiscretionPapw,otierNS wfis,

orgeneraltiomationabouttbcW pro= ad sme~ *odd conmt theBm=u of

bbor Stititi@,OfficeofEconoti.Reseach,Watigtom DC 2~124001, ord

(202)606-7405.

Mattialintispublication istithepublicdomti ad, titbappropriate tit,

my berqroducedtitioutpentission.

Opiniomad conclusions expreswdh thisdocmmt ze tioscoftkeauthor(s) ad

donotnecesstilyrep=nt m offlcidpositionoftheBumu ofL* Sbtistim the

U.S.De-at ofLabor.
The Evolving Structure of Female Work Activities:

Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey

of Mature Women, 1967-1989

Donald 0. Parsons

The Ohio State University

parsons.l@osu.edu

December 1994

TMs paperwas findedby tbeU.S.Depanment ofLabor,Bm=u ofLaborStatiadcsundersmallpurchase

order.The tiewseqreasedhereMe tioseoftheauthorsmd do not neces~y reflect the tiws of the

U.S.Depa~ent ofLabor,
tiecu tive Sma~

The market work behavior of adult wome~ in the. U“nited St”ates has

changed radically in the last several decades as. a greater and greater share

spend stistantial time in the labor market. Despite this large time reallocation, comparatively little study has been devoted to the structure of

the ,resulting work activities or to changes in that .strnctuxe .......In. this

study, data from the Mature Women, s Cohort of the National Longitudinal

Sumey is used to characterize the life cycle evolution of work structure

from an annul perspective. Work is partitioned into fom categories based

on two work dichotomies: full- or part-time weeks and full- or part-time

hours per week. Three ‘,part -time,, work possibilities exist in this

framework: i) part- time..weeks” -d full-time hours per week, i.i) full. time

weeks and part-time hours per week, and iii ) part- time weeks and hours per

week.

The analysis adopts a supply and demand framework Employers have

preferences for an employee, s weeks per year and hours per week Employer

demands for weeks per year are likely to be influenced by seasonal and

cyclical factors, while. hours per week are likely to be affected by produc -

tion and customer technologies High training costs are 1 ikely to induce

both greater weeks -d greater hours per week. Similarly the worker is

1 ikely to have preferences” over t“he total time she supplies to the fim md

how these are divided into weeks and hours per “eek. For women with small

children, the structure of the school year and of the school &y are both

likely to be important.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Mature Women provides a va.l~ble

data set fox tb tivestigation of recent =-s b the structure of female

work activity, including the growth of part-time work. It offers a ~rter
of a centu~ of detailed information on approximately 5000 female respondents 30 to 44 years of age in the first year (1967) , and provides an

i~ortant opportunity to e~lore” the d~amics of work choices from midlife

to the eve of retirement for the entire sample and into the retirement

period for a s=stantial s~set of the sample during the time of this great

transition. The study focuses” on the 1967 -19S9 period at the end of which

time the respondents were 52 to 66 years of age.

Major findings of the analysis include:

1) The most obvious trend in work-time stricture over the 1967-1989 period

for the Mature Women, s cohort is the life cycle shift from-no work to

full -“time (full-time weeks and full -time hems per week) and then back

again The percent of all respondents who work full-weeks and hours

rises from 27 percent in 1967 to 40 percent in 1977 before falling to

28 percent in 1989. Conversely the percent not working at all falls

from 48 percent in 1967 to 39 percent in 1982 before rising again to 49

percent in 1989. There is also a major shift o“ut of part:year/full -

week work and into full”-year/pare-week work between 1967 and 1972 that

persists persists throughout the sample period.

2) mong employed women, the most obvious phenom@na in this data are i )

the life cycle sensitivity of part-year work (the midlife shift from

part-year to full -Vear work and return) ; and ii) the secular increase

in full -year/part-week status, which dotiles between 1967 and 1977 (to

19 percent of all employed respondents)

3) Large and sustained differences <n work-time structure exist across

industries --”str”ongevidence that the employer, s preferences are imp or -

tant . Manufacturing, for example, Of ferS few Part-time ~~s jObs.

Ninety-three percent of all employees in that sector work full - time

hours , though a significant share, 2S percent work less th= forty

weeks a year. This patten is consistent with a great deal of specialized training -d a relatively institutional work stmcture that atiits

little diversity. Conversely in the wholesale and retail sector, 35

percent of all employees work less than 35 hours a week; in the professional sector 26 percent; and in personal seuices 47 percent.

4) Part -year work appears to be driven by seasonal and cyclical factors.

Industries such as a~iculture and manufacturing kve large numbers of

employed fe-le workers who USU1lY worked full hours but for less th=

forty weeks in the year. Agriculture, wklesale a“nd retail, personal

services , -d the entertainment industries have the greatest nufier of

,,casual’, jobs, those with part -year and part -week e~lopent. This no

doubt reflects strong seaso”nal factors. tiong the larger emplop=t

ii
5)

6)

7)

8)

sectors, personal Semites and to a lesser extent wholesale and retail

st-d out as especially likely to offer part-time hours but full weeks.

At the individual level, the polar states--no work and full-time work--

are quite stable over five year periods . Eight ypercent 5f the

nonworkers and two -thirds of the full -time workers were in the same

state five years later. Wong the various combinat ions of part -time

states, part -year or part -week, only the full -year/part -week state was

stable, with 40 percent of these found in the same state five years

later. The other categories, especially casual work (part-year ~

part-week) , are transitory states, at l=st fro”m““a““five year perspective Only ten percent of the casual workers in the first period were

casual workers five years later.

casual work (part -time weeks and hours) would appear to be a stepping

stone to more stable work commitments. ~ong casual workers in 1967,

fifty percent wer”e split more” “or less e~ally between full-year/partweek work and full -year/full -week work in 1972. About one-third were

not working. Conversely two- thirds of the respondents who were in

casual jobs in 1972 were out of the labor force five years earlier.

Few full-year workers return to casual, part-year and part-week, work.

Marital disruption increases Iaor market activity. It is natural .to

imagine that the withdrawal of the hush-d from the labor force would

have the same labor market effect on the spouse as a marital disruption

since the family income effect is the same in both d“asu-”-loss of husband, s ea=ings. Such is not the c=e. Not only is the rate of -try

into full-time work not increased with the departure of. the husband

from the work force, it shriti. The likelihood that a respondent who

is married with spouse present will be working full-time in 19.89 is cut

in half if the hush-d is not in the labor force. The–evidence is cons is tent with the hypothesis that this is due to greater home nursing

demnds on the woman.

Less work intensity in the pre-retirement years increases the early

retirement rate. The average work withtiawal rate of the various ‘parttime categories is twice that of full-time workers in the “early

retirement period. This is despite the Limited pension coverage among

part-time workers Although there are s.i~if icant year- to-year fluc -

tutions in pension coverage, especially in the smaller work status

categories, the general pattern is one in which the most casual

employees (P~/P~) have only one fourth the coverage of the full -time

workers (FYR/m) More interest ing, perhaps, the FYR/P~” workers have

coverage only modestly higher tha the PYR/P~ workers, 28 percent versus 2.2 percent. In contrast, the PYR/~ workers have coverage rates

t~t, while less than full-time workers, are dotile those of the other

PYR categories . Apparently a full work week is the crucial pension

eligibility factor.

iii
i. Int reduction

The market work behavior- of adult women in the United States has

ctiged radically in the last several decades as a greater and gr=ter share

spend some time in the iabor market. Despite this large time reallocation,

comparatively little study bas been devoted to the stwcture of the resuit -

ing work activities or in changes in that structure. ..Lrnportant exceptions

include the work of Hanoch (1980a, 1980b) and Blank (1988, 1989, 1990) on

part-time work. In most studies part-time work is defined as a work week

that is less than 35 hours.

1

The rationale for characterizing the work environment with this measure is rarely specified. Certainly it does not

correspond to the typical respondent, s planning horizon. Viewed from a

longer time perspective, perhaps a year, ,,part -time work,, could just as

easily involve full time hours for a limited nu~er of weeks, Mellor and

Parks (1988) In tlis paper I.use b“oth the hours and weeks dimensions of

labor force activity to characterize the work activity of mature women,

focusing on the long tem dwamics of these activities .

2

The Nat i ona.1 Long”i tudinal Sumey of Mature Women provides a rich data

set for the invest igat ion ‘of ret-t t=ends in the strut ture of fe“ma1 e work

activity, including the growth of part -time work.. It offers a ~arter of a

century of detailed information on approximately 5000 f“emale respondents 30

to...44 years of age in the first year (1967) , and provides an importat op -

portmity to e~lore the. dwamics of work choices from midlife to the eve of

retirement for the entire sample and into the retirement period for a s~-

stantial skset of the sample during the time of this great trasition. The
study focuses on the 1967-1989 period at the end of which time the respondents were 52 to 66 years of age.

.-

The analysis first describes the hours/weeks qeriences of the NLS

mture Women, s Cohort from a demand and supply perspective. The panel

aspect of the data is then exploited to describe the dynamics of the

hours/weeks work stmcture. How

3

over long intervals of time?

change with changes in family

family, marital disruption, or

husband? W&t ins ights into the

stale is the hours/weeks work structure

HOW does the composition of work activities

circumstances, e .g . the maturing of her

the change in the labor force status of her

crucial market

4

in the patterns of job transitions?

The paper proceeds in the following way.

reent~ process

In Section II

can be fo-d

I

brief outline of the economic forces tbt mold the hours/weeks

sion. I also provide descriptive statistics on observed work

present a

work deci -

hours and

weeks worked per year among the NLS respondents. These data provide the

tramework for the consideration of the structural (joint hours/weeks)

analysis that begins in Section 111. Mta chracteriztig various static

aspects of the evolution of work structure, I turn in Section IV to consideration of demand aspects of this structure, including industrial

differences in work status . In Section V I develop the dynamics of

hours/weeks work activity, “includtig ~ assessment’ of m jor f~mily cbnges

on transition probabilities, concluding in Section VI with some obsenations

on the change in work dynamics during the early retirement period and the

implications of””earlier tiork structure decisions on the avai”labili”ty of

retirement income.

2
II. Work Hours, work Weeks, and The Labor Market

A. A. Brief Theoretical Ove~.iew

Dewnd and supply forces tend to be chmeled ttiough the labor market

in a very special way. Jobs with specific attributes are set by the fim

and workers choose the job with the attributes that they most .zalue among

the jobs available to them. The job attributes offered by the tim may be

more or less rigidly set, depending on the advantages ..thg firm can extract

fro”m the attribute . If the tectiology. is flexib.le along dimensions important to the worker, the fim will tend to adjust its job dem~& in ways the

worker finds attractive . If the technology is not flexible, it will be

forced to pay higher wages to compensate the worker for unattractive sob

characteristics, =tonji and PaxSon (1989)

The fim, s demnd for lob characteristics su& as part-time/full - time,

defined either in hours per week or weeks per year, are set by the fim -d

ics teckological and product market circumstances. The need for specialized training will be a factor in both the hour”s and weeks decision, with

the fim t=Ying ta limit hiring and training costs by having” the worker put

in more time with the fire. Hours per week will be affected by the nature

of daily production in a g“oods “producing fim and by access to customers in

5

service producirig firms . Part -time ho.u.rsmy even be valued by the fim

in the second case despite the additional fixed costs of training, payroll

book-keeping, et.c. .Khe fim, s demand for weeks per year may be..detemined

by some of the. same forces --ceteris parib.us, high training jobs w“ill tend to

be full-year jobs--but is also likely to be strongly affected by seasonal

and cyclical variations in product demmd md in cooperating factors.

3
The worker is 1 ikely to have preferences over the hours per week and

the.-weeks per year tht characterize a ,,job,, Ceteris paribus, she will accept. a lower wage for jobs that mesh well with child care demands in the

household. In a ~ily framework that me-s she will prefer jobs that offer

hours during the school day. In a weekly frame, she will prefer jobs that

de~nd her time only during the school year. Child care demands introduce

an i~ortant life. cycle aspect into the woman, s hours and weeks choices As

the woman ages, child are demands fall , which should induce not. only more

work but a greater demand for. full-time jobs Negative economic events in

the household, most prominently marital disruption and husband! s disability

also may alter “the type of job the respondents demand.

B. Work Hours per Week and Work Weeks Per Year: Recent Trends

The calendar year. is a macural plaming horizon, even in the fiauscr.ial

world , and it is natural to imagine that the household might determine annual hours , not si”mply weeks” per year or hours per week.

6

hdeed hours and

weeks become two parts of a plaming vector in the awual fratiewo”rk “adopted

here Nonetheless it will be useful to look at important aspects of these

two dimensions of work acti~. ity separately. aefore doing sa b.owever, a

description of the data, the MS Mature women, s Cohort is b order.

The Data. As noted above, the ~S Mature Women, s cohort is a panel survey

that began with approximately 5, 000 women between the. ages of 30 and 44 at

the time of the ftist tite~iew in 1967. These women have been reinter.

viewed every year or two through 199.2, although data was available only

through the 1989 =uHey at the time the bulk of the empirical work was undertaken for this study. In order to highlight long tem processes, the

analysis focuses on fiv”e year tr%niitions over the t“&nty: two year per~~d

4
1967-1989, neglecting shorter tem fluctuations in emlo~ent status. .In

part icular the study estimates work status transitions over the years 1967-

1972-1977-1982-1987-1989 . Extended face- to- face inteviews were conducted

with respondents in eati of these years.

All statistics in this paper “are weighted by ~S population weights. to

correct for the initial sampling design, including an oversampling of

blacks, and for differential attrition (co~ar~le wweighted statistics can

be fomd in the relevant statistical summaries that accomp-y this report)

The frequencies reported in tbe various tab~es are normalized to the

original population fre~encies to give some idea of the nufier of observations underpinning the table data. Because of rounding error. in the

co~utations, the fre~encies within a table will not necessarily sum to the

total , although they should be close. The addition of entries across tables

will not sum to. the totil and need n“ot even be close. For example in the

weighted transition matrices, the sum of the reported nu~er Of blacks and

whites who exit a work state is not the total number exiting that state,

even after adjusting for the small riutier of other races in the survey, because the weighted frewencies in the black and white tables are normalized

by the raw nufiers of blacks ad whites in the suney, not the weighted numbers Tbe statistics by race add to the total. frequencies after the raw

nutiers of blacks -d whites are appropriately weighted.

Work Hours Der Week. In Table 1 I report the distribution of work hours per

week for respondents at five year inve~als for” 1967””to 1987 arid in 1989.

The hours pattern in 1967 is similar to those in later ”years. In 1967 relatively few respondents work less than a twenty hour week--lo percent in

1967--perhaps because of the fi”xed costs of work activities. Somewhat more,

15 percent, worked 20 to 34 hours, with three ~arters working 35 hours or

5
more. The work hours distribution ch=ged little over the 22 years of the

sample. Between 1972 and 1987, the fraction working full-time varied between 72 to 73 perCent. Only in 1989, as the oldest. respondents reached

traditional retirement ages, does the fraction working full”-t”ime fall t.o 68

percent.

The distribution of hours for employed respondents were remzktily

similar for whites and blacks. In 1967 75. percent of e~loyed white respon.

dents workd 35 or more hours per week, 15 percent worked 20 to 34 hours per

week, and 10 percent.. worked less than 20 hours . FOr black women the pe.rcencages are 72 “p”ercent, 16 percent, and 12 percent ... By the end of the

perioa (1989) the corresponding statistics for whites were 73 percent, 19

percent, and 8 percent; for blacks 74 percent, 17 percent, and 10 percent.

In many ways Lhe mo-st remarkable feature of these statistics is the

similarity in work hours, given the large difference in family structme

and total family income between the two groups .

Blank has reported that work hours activities ar-e Wi-te. stale over

short periods, Blank (19S9) The ~S data indicates that is the case over

long pe-rio-ds as well In Table 2, r report the work hours transition

matrices for the five ymr intend 1967-1972 in total

and race.. Matrices for other periods are similar.

include:

and hy age VOUp ings

Importtit .deftiti~s

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

Age =2 cohort metiers who were 35-39 in 1967

Age =3 Cohort metiers who were 40-44 in 1967

Race = 1 Race white

Race = 2 Race black

Race = 3 Other races

6
The transition matrix for the full sample reveais that 88 percenc of fulltime employed workers (working 35 or more hours a week) in 1967 who were

employed in 1972 were working full-time then a-s well. hong those working

20 to 34 hours per week in the first. year, almost 60 pe”rcent were working

full -time five years later, but 32 percent continued to work 20-34 hours per

week. .Wong those on especially short hours (1-19) , 33 percent concinued to

work 1-19 hours, 25 percent were workxg 20-34 hems, and 42 percat were

working ful 1- time. Clearly there is a gr.~t deal of hours persistence even

over a period as long as five years.

Weeks Worked. The second dimension of work activity examined here is the

number of weeks worked in a year or more genera lly””the percent of weeks

worked in the intesiew frame. The first ~S survey collected weeks worked

in the year prior to the inteniew =d so has a standard 52 week framework

for each individual. stise~ent su~eys mllected data on the weeks worked

since the last survey and weeks since the last su~ey, which varies across

the suneys on average, because some suneys were one year apart , others

longer, and by individual, depending on when they were intemiewe& in each

ro=d. To provide a stan&rd format ““for each year, the percent of” weeks

worked was computed as the nu~er of weeks worked divided by the nutier of

weeks in the survey time frame

The distribution of weeks worked for the sumey years 1967, 1972, 1977,

1982, 1987, and 1989 =e reported in Table 3. The well -tiom hi-polarity of

weeks worked is evident in all years--more than 80 percent of all respondents either did not work at all or worked more than three quarter of all

weeks The remaining 15 to 20 percent of the sample is almost wifotily

spread over the three intermediate categories --1- 25%, 26- 5.0%, and 51- 75% .

There is also the expected life cycle pattern of increasing full: time work

7

.—

-.
and decreasing part-time work in the earlier years (thro”ugh 1982) as the

women return to the labor fo”rce as their ch”ildren Mture arid =@ire l“ess

child care Cd then withdraw again as they pproach or reach traditional

retirement ages. Working some but less than 76 percent of all weeks appears

to shrink over most of the sample period, although more strongly in the

first time intervals”. This observation is consisterit with the argument that

part-time “weeks are a response to child rearing respo”niibil ities”.

There is a

black females in

stantially more

remarkable convergence of weeks worked between white and

the sample, Table 4. In 1967 black ‘women “were working sti -

than their white comte~arts. Forty-nine percent of black

women, but only 35 percent ..ofwhite women worked more than three -~arters of

the weeks available By 1989, the percentages were 40 percent and 41 percent Eor blacks md white respectively. In 1967 46 percent of whites but

only 27 gercent of blacks did” not work at all. By 1989” “the-percentages were

44 percent for white and 47 percent for blacks This convergence. of work

activity has occurred despite the persistence of large differences in education levels -d average family income of the two groups

There appears to be a great deal of change in work week intensity over

long periods of time The distribution of cumulative weeks worked over the

period 1967-1989 is much less bipolar than are the individual year distribu -

tions, Table 5. The emulative weeks worked measure is derived from the

total weeks worked and the total weeks in the s=pie frame for the six surveys 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, and Igeg, Only 1.4 percent of the sa~le

report e d no weeks worked over this period; only 27 percent worked more than

eighty percent of available weeks The remaining sample metiers are more or

less e~ally distributed over the intementig categories ““

8
Work week mobility can be measured more dire?t>y. usin9” fiYe -Year .tran -

sition matrices. Focusing again on the 1967 -197.2 transitions, the fra.ction

of weeks worked in 1972 is strongly, but imperfectly correlated with 1967

work rates, Tale 6. The percentage not working in 19?2 fell from 63.3 percent of those not working in 1967 to 29.9 percent among those who worked

less than 25 percent of all weeks, and to 27.7 percent, 19.6 percent, and

10.9 percent as the 1967 work week commitment increases . Conversely. the

percent working full-time in 1972 K4-SeS frOm ~2 Percent tO 77 PeTcent .Over

the same range of 1967 categories. The transition matrices Zor blacks and

whites are also Wite similai. “.Again. see Table 6.

111. The Evolving structure of Female Work Time

Annual hours have both a week and an hours per week component and the

brief analyses of tine preceding s,ection make it clear that the two need not

7

proceed in lock step. Much useful stnctural information would be lost if

we simply adopted an amual hours measure of work activity. We consider instead a four-way classification of jobs:

Pm/ Pm = part -year and part-week work;

Pm/ FWK = part -year and full-week;

F=/ PWK = ful 1 -year and part-week; md

F~ /FWK = full-year and fu”ll-“week;

where:

part -week = work week of less than 35 hours; and

part -year = weeks worked since last s-ey that is less ~than

76.9 percent (40/52) of all weeks avail~le.
The decision to treat full year work as forty or more weeks per year is

somewhat arbitrary but is designed.. to include as full -tifie work”e”rs those who

~Y have ~paid sumer vacations, e. g. teache~s,

Before turning to the analysis of the NLS Mature Women Panel, it will

be useful to review population trends .in work structwe in this period.

Mellor. and Park (1988}” compile such information over the 19.66-1986 period

us ing March CPS amual work experience &ta. They use as their def init ion

of ,,part-y-r’, work a work week of less ttin 50 weeks, so the ““magnitudes of

the work structure measures are not strictly comparable. to those reported

here for the NLS- panel, but the trends should be comparable.

WORK STA~S OF ~LO~ WOR~RS , WOMEN

PYR/PWK PYS/F~ ~/~wK ~/FWK

1967 19.5 % 28.4 % 9.9 % 42.1 %.. 100. R %

1972 20.5 26.6 10.3 42.5 .100.0 %

1977 .21.8 2s.0 11..1. 42.1. . 100.0 %

1982 20.3 20.8 12.9 -45.9 100.0 %

1986 19.0 18.8 12.7 49.5 100.1

Source: Mellor ad Parks (1988, Table 1)

Summarizing these results, there hs been a trend toward full-year, fullweek jobs, especially since 198”2; there has been a large decline in partyear, full-week jobs ; there has been a modest upward drift in full-year,

part-week jobs; and no trend of note h the prevalence of part-year, part.

week jobs To the extent the NLS panel trends differ from these in a

stistantial way, the disparity is most probably due to life cycle effects .

10
The structure of female work-time, including nonworkers, is =eported at

each of the five year interval survey dates in Table 7. The most obvious

trend in work-time structure over the 1967-1989 period for the Mature

Women, s cohort is the shift from no work to full -time work and then back

again. The percent of all respo”ridents who work full-time rises f=Om 27 percent in 1967 to 40 percent in 1977 before falling to 28 percent” in” 1989.

Conversely the percent not working at all falls from 48 percent in 1967 to

39 percent in 1982 before rising again to 49 percent in 1989. C1.-rly there

are strong life cycle effects here. There is also a tijor Sriift.ouc of

part-year/full-week work and into ftill-yeai/part -week work betwee~ 1967 and

1972. This shift toward full-year/part-week work persists throughout the

sample period.

Table 7 reveals the high correlation of part-year and pare-.week work.

Of those who work part-year in 1967, 36 percent (6.9% /19.2%) also work

part-week. Of respondents who worked full-year in- 1967, only 17 percent

worked part-week. In 1972 the likelihood of part-week work was higher for

both year categories, but was again approximately twice as 9r4at fOr the

part-year workers--46 percent versus 24 percent.

The data f=om Table 7 can be recomputed to provide estimtes of the

stmcture of work activity for working respondents, pemitting a comparison

with Mellor and Parks, population” fi-g”ures:

11
—

WORK sTA~S OF =LOYED WOR~RS , ~S ~~E WOMEN

PYR/Pm PR/ FWK FYR/PWK m/FwK

1967 13.2 % .23.6 % 10.7 % 52.5 % .100.0 %

1972 7.6 8.9 20.3 63;3. 100.1

1977 7.2 6.6 19.0 67.2 100.0

1.9s2 8.8 8.4 17.8 65.0 100.0

1987 9.0 11.2 18.7 61.1 100.0

1989 12.2 14.3 19.2. 54.2 99.0

All statistics are weighted.

Source.: Table 7

Among the most obvious phenomena in this data are i) the life cycle s~-

sitivity of part-year work (the midlife shift from part-year to full-year

work and retun) ; and ii) the increase in fdl-year/pait-week status, which

doubles between 1967 and 1977. (to 19 percent of all employed respondents) .

This cohort of employed female respondents were much more likely to hold

jobs tkt offer rew”lar emplovent at part-time hours in the later years of

the survey.

IV. The Industrial Determinants of’ the Time Structure of Jobs

In this section I examine the demand side of the &rket, looking it the

industrial correlates of the work-time structure of jobs . As discussed in

Section II, ‘employers are not necessarily indifferent to the “~rk time of

their workers. Both the weeks worked in the year and the hours worked in

the week are jointly detemined by the employer, s md worker, s preferences.

To the extent the employer has rigid work time requirements that. deviate

12
from the worker, s preferences, perhaps because of laqe hirtig and training - -

costs or of special attributes of the. production process or customer base,

she presumably compensates the worker. The work time stricture will reflect

the employer, s preferences in this case. In situations in which tbe

employer can cheaply accommodate the worker, s preferences, work time will

instead reflect those preferences

Large differences in work- time structure across industries is strong

evidence that the employer, s preferences -e important, a15h0ugh indus t ria 1 ...

patterns could emerge as the aggregation of different” sk+ll (-d l~or

supply) mixes . In Tables 8 through 10, I report the structure of work

across one-digit industries for 1967, 1“977, and 1989. Clearly there are

major differences in work-time structure across industries. Manufacturing, .

for exampie, offers few part-week jobs. Ninety-three percent of all

employees in that sector..work full-time hours, though a. significant share,

28 percen”t work less th= forty weeks a year. Still. sixty-six pe>-cent work

full-hours and full weeks. This patten is consistent with a great deal of

specialized training and a relatively institutional work stmcture that admits little diversity. Conversely in the wholesale an”d retail sector, 35

percent of all employees work less thm 35 hours a week; in the professional

sector 26 percent; and in personal se fiices 47 percent.

Part.-year work appears to be driven by seasonal and cyclical factors.

Industries such as agriculture and manufacturing have large numbers of

employed female”” workers who usually worked full hours but for less tti

forty weeks in the year. Agricdture, wholesale and retail, personal serv -

ices , and the entertainment industries &ve the greatest ntier of

jobs, those with part-year and part-week emplopent. This no dotit

strong seasonal factors. Among the larger employment sectirs,

13

,,casual,,

reflects

personal
senices and to a lesser extent wholesale and retail st=d out as especially

likely to offer part-time hours but full weeks.

Below I sumamrtze some key statistics in three tidutries that employ

large numbers of mature women, namely manufacturing, wholesale and retail,

and professional semices

Pm/ Pm

~FAC~ING :

1967 3.1 %

19?7 2.5 %

1989 4.9

~OLESALE ~ RETAIL:

1967 19.1 %

1977 11.1 %

1989 17.9

PROFESS IONW :

1967 16.3 %

1977 7.8 %

1989 10.4

All stieistics are weighted.

WORK STA~S

Pn/FWK

27.5 %

9.1 %

25.1

22.0 %

5.6%

9.3

24.8 %

5.4 %

13.9

Fm/Pwx

3.? %

3.9 %

5.5

16. U %

29.5 %

29.7

9.7 %

21.5 %

19.8

65..7 % 100.0 %

54.5 % 100.0 %

64.4 99.9

42:S % 99.9 %

53.7 % 99.9 %

43.2 100.1

49.2 % 100.0 %

65.3 % 100.0 %

.55..9. 100.0

Over the D6.7 -19 S.9..period the relative emplo~ent share of manufacturing has

fallen, while those of wholesale and retail and professional services, especially professional services , have increased sharply. Reviewing these

statistics , one is struck by the life cycle volatility of part -year work:

the shift out of part-time work in midlife is. quite large. The aggregate

shift into full-year/part-week work (~/PW) noted earlier is not evident

14
in all industries. Indeed

changed very little between

sector and the professional

Pn/FWK to F~/P~. Indeed

week work status comes from

v. Individual D~amics

The fact that there are

does not mean that the ~S

.n manufacturing, the work-time distribution

:967 and 1989. In both the wholesale ant retail

xector, however, there were large shifts from

~uch of the overall shift toward full -year [pa”xt-

:hese two sectors.

pronowced differences in industrial ..work hours

respondents muld not chage their work commitments, but rather that they probably had tO change jobs, if nOt eMPl O,yerS,

to do so. How stable are the work-time choices of these mature women?

Perhaps even more important from a policy perspective is the behavior of new

entrants

part -time

they move

to the job market. Must new entrants enter the market through

work , gradully working their way into full-time positions, or do

directly into full-years and weeks jobs? Of .SPeCial interest here

is the importance of the hours/weeks distinction in job evolution.

Seniority rules almost insure that new entrants will work less weeks in a

year; even if they wanted to work full-time, they often can not. Rours are

a quite different matter. Blank (1989) presents evidence that suggests

workers do not use part-week work as a stepping stone t.o full time hours .

we will take up the two issues in turn.

Five year work status transition matrices are reported in Tables 11-14

for 1967-19.72, 1972-1977, 1977-1982, and 19 S2-1989 respective~y. The work

status transition tables are reported in total, by age and race . Recall

again that i) Age=l ,2,3 denotes women 30-34, 35-39, and 40-44 in 196?

15
respectively) and ii) Race=l denotes whites, Race=2 blacks. The large num -

ber of parameters in these tables appears somewhat damting at first, so it

might be. useful to. focus on some key ones. For example the retention rates

within each job status categov, essentially the diagonal of the transition

matrix, provide a measure of the stability of each work status category.

These are:

Work Status:

NONE TO NON2

P~/PWK TO P~/PWK

P~/FWK TO P~/FWK

~/PWK TO F~/PWK

Five

1967-72.

68.8 %

4.7

12.2

32.5

75.9

Y=r Work Status Retention Rates

1972-77 1977-.82 1982-”S7 Am

77.2 % 80.5 % 89.6 % 79.0 %

17.5 15.0 10.4 1.1.9

6.2 12.8 15..7 11.7

38..7 41.9 43...&.. “39.1

F~/FWK TO F~/FWK 77.2. 77.3 66.1 74.1

All statistics are. weighted.

Work Status Stabilitv. Clearly the polar states, no work and f.dll-time

work, are quite stable. over fti{e year. peiiods. Eighty ?ercent of the nonworkers and two-thirds of the full-time workers were in the same state five

years later. hong the various cotiinations of part-time states, pait-year

or part-week, only the full-year/part-week state was stable, with 40 percent

of these to be found in the same state five years later. The other

categories, especially casual work (part-year - part-week) , a“re transitory

states , at least from a five year perspective. Only ten percent of the

casual workers in the first period were casual workers five years later.

Where did the part-time workers go? The transition parameters are

relatively stable across years and it may be safe to focus on one of them,

16
say 1967-1972, Table 11. hong casual workers in 1967, about one- third were

out of the. labor force.. bother fift”y ”-percent were split more or less

equally between full -year/part -week work and full -year/ full -weeR work. In

that sense casual work would appear to be a stepping stone to more stable

work cotitments.. Certainly few of the full -year workers ~,return’,.to casul

labor, defined as part- y-r and part-week work. Two-thirds of the respondents who were in casual jobs in 1972 were out of the labor force five years

earlier (101/168)

Job Entrv. Given the importance of the entry process, it will be useful to

consider the mechanism more carefully. How do those out of the market

return? Is it directly into full-time ““employment or are they likely to

secure part -year or part-weeks work first? One way to isolate””the ent~ ef-”

fe.ct is to compare the work-time stmcture of new entrants with the worktime structure of” all em~loyed workers The work-time distribution for all

employed respondents can be calculated by dropping the no work -te90g in

Table 7 and renotiing the remaining entries. These are xeported above but

report ed for convenience of comparison in “Table 15, Panel A. Similar work

status breakdoms for new entrants, those who were not employed five years

before, can be constructed from the appropriate entries in Tale 11-14.

These are reported in Table 15, Panel B. The distributions are quite different. Of those with a job in 1967, almost two- thirds were employed in

fUll -tlfie (weeks” and hours) work, while only 40 percent of new entrants were

in such jobs. About one- third of all new entrants end up in full -year/part -

week jobs, with the remainder to be fomd primarily in casual jobs. Cle-ly

entrants do not take a random draw of j ohs, but enter disproportionately

through part -time work, especially full year/part week jobs.

17
What can be. presumed to be aging effects are also evident in the new

entrant table. New entrants have a decliting likelihood Of full -time work

as they age, with the percent entering full-time work steadily declining

from 40 percent to 30 percent. .This could be because the respondents want

less intense work as they age or because they have trotile securtig intense

ones.

Although I have to this point. stressed -the stability of” work-time

1

status--for full-time work and no work and .to a lesser extent fullyear/part -week work-- ttit should not dis~ise the stistmtial turnover that

does occur between work-time categories . Between 1967 and 1972, for ex.

ample , more than 30 percent of the respondents who were. out of the labor

force in .1967 were working ti some type of ..job in 1972, about .12 perce=t in

full-time jobs, Table 11. Of those in full-time work in 1967, almost one

~arter were either in jobs limited in weeks or hours or not employed at all

in 1972.

In the re-inder of this section, I will consider several factors that

may induce change in work status. Plausible hypotheses are easy to

enumerate. Some are related to predictable life cycle phenomenon, e g the

maturation of the children, freeing family time. that would otherwise be .asorbed in child care, and the withdrawal from the labor fortie at traditional

retirement ages. Others--most obviously marital dismption “or the .ons.et.of

a disability that limits the husband, s work opportunities- -are. random

events , against which the respondent is often mderinsmed. Ml may alter

the respondents, work-time patterns I consider three of these in this section and the- .fourth, the retiremmt process, in the next

Maturinq Children. For most of the .xespondents , who were. age 30 to 44 in

196.7, child care. responsibilities decline consist entl~ and predict~ly
throughout the life of the panel and it is reasonable to conj ectuxe that

these women on average return to the labor force as ““the de.man.ds on their

time at home stiiti. The &ta on work- time structure by age of youngest

child in 1967, Table 16, strongly conf ims this conjecture. Fox respondents

with children under two years of age, ?2 percent were out of che labor

fo”rce. Of the remainder, seventy percent were involved in part-time work of

some type, with P~/~ the most popular option. Only 9 per~nt were in

full-time (weeks and hours) work. By way af contrast, only 27 percenc of

respondents with .no children were out of the l~or force and more than hal f

were working full-time. Full-time work systematically increases as age of

youngest child increases Almost 30 percent of the respondents with

children 6 to 18 years of age were working full-time, a three-fold increase

over respondents with the yomgest child less than 2..

Marital DisnPtion. Marital disruptions often impos”e m~or financial losses

on respondents, which in”tum are likely to stimulate greater labor force

activity. The impact of marital disruption on changes in work activity between 1967 and 1.989 are reported in Table 17. In this table, marital state

is described by a zero-one dichotomous variable MSP e~al to one 25 the

respondent reports being married with spouse present, zero otherwise. In

Panel A of this table, the 1967-1989” work Status transition matrix is ~omputed in total. and for the four possible marital transitions--married in

1967 and 1989 (MSP67/MSP89) ; mauied in 1967 but not in 1989 (MSPS7/NMSP89) ;

not married in 1967 ad mrried in 1989 (NMSP67/MSP89). ; and unmarried in

both years (~SP67/~SP89)

There is strong evidence. that marital “disruption does increase labor

market entry. In 1989, 23 percent of those whose marriages were intact were

in full-time work: of those with disrupted marriages 37 percent were i~

19
full-time work. This

emplopent independent

riages :

By Work

Work Status :

NONS

P~/PWK

P~/FWK

Fm/PwK

F~/FWK

TOT=

pattern is evident for the entv

of. init id work state.,for- stale

The Rate of Entg into Full-Time

rates into f~- Lime

and disrupted marWork in 1989

Status b 1967 and by Marital Status Transition 67-89

MS P/MSP MSP/NMSP

17.9 % 34.0 %

30.4 47. s

29.6 ‘“ 37..9.

28.3 29.4

29.1 40.8

23.0 36.8

A1l statistics are weighted.

SO~CE: Table 17

Not ofiy are_.~espondents who were zot working in 1967 more. lfl~ely to he

full-time workers in 19S9, those who were already working full- time were ten

percentage points more likely to stay employed full-time (41 percent vers=

29. percent) The. reverse holds for exit from the ltior force. Respondents

in stable marriages were slightly more ltiely to be engaged- in part-time

work of one t~e or another than were those in dismpted marriages.

Labor Force Withdrawal of the Husband. It is mtural to imagine that the

withdrawal of the husband from the labor force would have the same. labor

market effect on the spouse as a ~rital disruption since the major ec=omic

effect is the same in both cases--loss of husbmd, s earnings . Such is not

the case, however, Table 17. The behavioral difference between dismpted

20
marriages and

we construct

of ent~ into

stable ones with a nonworking husb~d becomes Wite clear if

data comparable to. that immediately above, describing the raEe

full-time work by work status :

The

BY

Work Status 67:

NO~

Pm/PwK

P~/FWK

F~/PWK

~/F~

TOT&

Rate. of Ent~ into Full-Time Work in 1989

Work Status in 1967 and by Transitions

in Hush-d, s Work Status, 1967-89

LFPH/LFPH LFPH/NLFPH

23.6 % 10.7 *

42.0 15.9

46. s 17.0

30.7 .2.8.0..

39.8 20..6-

30.2 15.3

All statistics are weighted.

SO~CE: Table 17

Not only is the rate of @ntry intO full-time *O”rk nOt increased, it

stiitis The likelihood that a respondent will be working full -tire-ein 1989

is cut in half. if she is mamied. but the husband i* nOt in the l*Or fOrce -

This my partly result from complementarities in leisure between wives

and husbands. If Lhe husband withdraws voluntarily (retires) ,.the wife maY

retire as well. A l=ge Xutier of labor force withdrawals at this age are

not volutaw, however, but are due to the Qnset of a disability. W&t this

suggests is the importance of wife nursing activities. When the husband is

forced to withdraw from the labor force for reasons of poor health, the wife

may find that the demands on her home time increase more dramatically than

do the demands for her work time, Parsons (1977) The work differentials

between married respondents whose husbands are in the labor farce and those

21

—.
who ar’e not differ “b”y age in a Way chat 1S at lea St co=isi~t wi”th the

nursing hypothesis At the yomger ages, when the hwband, s withdrawal is

most likely to..he health related, the differentials are. greatest. Mong

those 30 to 34 years of age in 1967 (52-56 in 1989) , for etimple, the

likelihood of” S marriea”’ woman being in full-time work is 39 percent among

respondents whose husbands were in the l~or force in” both 1967 and 19S9 ;

among those whose husbads dropped out of the labor fo~ce between 1967 and

1989, only 30 percent were in full-time work in 1989. For chose 35-39 in

1967 (57-61”” In 1989), the comparable statistics are 27 percent and 17 percent, but for those 40-44 (62-66 in 19S9) 12 p“ercent and 8 percent

respectively, for a differential of only 4 percent.

Vii. work Stricture and the Retiremwt Mechanism

Retirement Behavior. It is not clear a priori how work structure in flu~ces

retirement rates. On the one hand, one could conjecture that part-time

workers are less comitted to th@ labor force and therefore. are more likely

to withdraw as they reach traditional retirement ages. On the ocher hand,

one could imagine that part-time workers might ftid it easier to continue

working into the retirem=t years. The five-year transition matrices for

the 1982 to 1987 intierval provide evidence on this question. The full

tables are reported above in Ttile 14. Below I summarize the probability

that the respondent will not be working in 1987 as a fwction of work status

in 1982, in totiI and by the three age brackets, 50-54, 5“5-59j aid “6O -“64 in

1987:

22
Age 87:

Work Status 82

NONB

Pn /PWK

Pn/FWK

FYR/PWK

m/FwK

ALL

Percent of Respondents Not Working in 1987

BY Prior Work Status (19S2) and A9e in 1987

50-54 55-59 60-64 TOT=

85.1 % 84.4 % 96.2 % 89.6””%

31.1 % 59.8 % 51.4 46.9

20.1 24.4 67.1 38.5

14.6 19.9 34.3 22.6

7.? 17.1 3.0.4.. 17.9

33.8 46.1 64.3 48.8

All statistics are weighted.

The evidence supports the conjecture that less wOrk intensitY ia-&he Pre -

retirement years increases the early retirement rat.:. The average work

withdrawal rate of the various part-time categories is twice that of the

full-time workers . AI though the levels of not working are higher in each

catego~ thn earlier transitions --by the “age of 60 almost no femle respondents were working who were not working five year previously--the basic

structure of nonwork rates acro”ss-work status categories is not much different than that reported for earlier transition matrices.

Pens ion Coveraqe. pens ion coverage i.s closely but not perfectly 1i~@Q. with

a more financially comfortable retirement and more loosely with early

retirement. aut pension coverage is not wifom across work environments .

For example, i t is well -hen that pensio”n coverage is mch lower in parttime work situations, where part-time is defined in the usual manner of

part -week work. But what of coverage across types of pa”rt-time work?

23
Begiming in 1977, a sumary ~estion on the variety of f~+nge benefits

available. to the WOrker was asked periodically of metiers of the NLS Mature

Women, s Cohort. .Fortmately the fringe benefit ~estion was asked in more

or less identical “fore in each of the five year intervals following 1977.

The question asks the respondent to identify from a

benefits her employer makes available to her. For all

one possibility is a “rettiement progr-. 40 rn 1969 the

flashcard the fringe

years except 19.8.9,

response possibility

was changed to a ,1retirement pension program. ,, Detailed. .ififomation on own

pens ion coverage, including standard CYS pension coverage ~estion.s .of the

form ‘ZDOeS your e~loyer or union have a pension plan other than Social

Security or Railroad Ret ir.ement benefits ? ‘nwas collected for this cohort for

the first time in 1979. ) A co~arison of the responses to the “retirement

program,, response to a standard CPS pension coverage WestiOn in the first.

five year intenal year in which both ~estions were asked (1982) indicates

a strong correspondence= of the two questions Of the respondents who

answered YES .to the CPS coverage ~estion, all but 7 percent. identified a’

~,retirement plan,, as one of the fringe benefits their employer offered. of

the respondents who answered NO to the CPS quest i on, only 8 percent identified a ,,retirement plan,’ as one of the fringe benefits their employer

offered. See Tale 18.

Tables 19 through 22 present pension coverage by work status for the

sumey years 1977, 1982. 1987, and 19S9. The da- for 19.S2 through 1989 include some not -employed respondents (the fringe benefit Testions are not

limited to those currently working) , but a more st~~rd measure of pens ion

coverage

important

can be computed by dropping this group from the t~ulations . h

regularity of pension coverage by work structure emerges :

24
Pension Coverage of Empioy&d Respondetics

Work Status: 19.77 19s2 1987 1989 Am

PYR/PWK 17;9 % 20.8 % 27..4 % 18.1 % 21.5 %

P~/FWK 44.8 39.8 60.0 60.2 51.2

F~/ PWK 41.2 25.7 20.9 25.6 28.4

~/FWK 73..0 72.6. 69.0 68.6 “.. 70.8

All statistics are weighted.

Al though tke are year-to-year fluct~t ions h pension coverage, especially

in the smaller categories, the general pattern that emerges is one in which

the most casual e~loyees (P~/PWK) have ody one fourth the coverage of the

full-time workers (Fm/FWK) More inteXe6tk9, Pertips, the ~/PWK %.orkers

have coverage only modestly higher than the P~/PWK workers, 2s percemt versus 22 percent. In contrast, the P~/FWK workers have coverage rates ttit,

while less than full-time workers, are double those”. of &he other PYR

categories . Apparently a full work week is the cncial pension eligibility

factor. Of couse pension coverage is ~ite disttict from pension receipt .

A worker may leave the firm before her pension is vested. M-y if no~ most

of the pare-year workers will have job separations t~t m~e them ineligible

for pension payouts even though they are ,,covered,,by a plan. In fact, of

those respondents who were out of the labor force h 1989, only 60 percent

reported receipt of pension income in 1989, .Table 2:3. Of COUSe workers may

be eligible for futwe pafients, but not present ~nes , becau=e ~anv pIanS

have age restrictions for payout. Pasion receipt in 1989 rises to 72 percent for the oldest third of the samp”le, those who would be 62-66 years of

age and eligible for pension payouts urider most” plans Nonetheless low

coverage rate for those who work a full -weeks but not fall-hours is a source

of concern, particularly given its growing incidence.

25
VI. Conclwion

The National .Longitudinal Survey” of Mature. Women provides a valuable

dsta set for the tivestigation of recent trends b the s t ruc ture of ..fsale

work activity, including the growth of part-time work.

.

It offers a ~arter

of a centuv of detailed information on approximately 5000 female respondents 30 to 44 years of “age in the first year (1967) , and provides an

important opp.ortwity to e~lore the dwamics of work choices from midlife

to the eve of retirement for the entire sample and into the retirement

period for a stist=tial sdset of the saqle during the time of this great

transit ion..

Major findiig< of fie -alys is include:

1) The most obvious trend in work-time struct=e over the 1967-1989 period

for the Mature W“omen,s cohort is the life cycle sh~”ft from no work to

full -time (full -titie weeks and full-time hours ““perweek) ad then back

again. The percent of all respondents who work full -weeks and hours

rises from 27 percent h 1967 to 40 percent b 19-i7.b&fore falling to

28 percent b 1989. Conversely the percent not working at all falls

from 48 percent in 1967 to 39 percent b 1982 before rising again to 49

percent b 1989;” There. is also a -jor shift out of part, -year/fullweek work and into. ftil-year/part -week wo”rk between B67 an~ 1972 tht

persists persists tfioughout the sample period.

2) Among employed women, the most obvious phenome- in this data are i)

the life cycle sensitivity of part-year work (the midlife shift from

part -year to full -“year work and re.tu-) ; and ii) the secular ticrease

in full-year/part-week status, which dodles between 1967 ad 1977 (to

19 percent of ail employed respondents)

3) Large and sustained differences in work-time sLructure exist across

industries --strong evidence tbt the employer, s pref erenc.es are import-t . Manufacturing, for..example, offers few part -tim”e hours jobs .

Ninety-three percent of all employees in tht sector work full-time

hours, though a significant share, 28 percent work less than forty

weeks a year. This pattern is consist-t with a great da of specialized traintig ~.d a relatively institutional work stmct~e that atiits

little–diversity. Conversely .in the wholesale ad retail sector, 35

percent of all employees work less than 35 hours a week; in the professional sector 26 percent; and in personal senices 47 percent.

26

.
4) Part-year work appears to be driven by seasonal and cyclical factors .

Industries such as agriculture and manufacturing kve large nuders of

employed female workers who usually worked full hews but for less than

forty weeks in the year. Agriculture, wholesale and re=il, personal

services, and the entertainment industries have the gr=test number o f

,,caaual,f .jobs, those with part-year and part-week e~lo~ent. This no

dotit reflects strong seasonal factors . Among the larger emp”lo-pent

sectors, personal senices ad to a lesser extent wholesale and retiil

stand out as especially likely to offer part-time hours but full weeks.

5) At the individual level, the polar states--no work and full-time work--

are quite stable over five year periods. Eighty percent of the

nonworkers and two-thirds of the full - time workers were in the same

state five years later. Among the various cofiinations .of part- time

stites, part-year or part-week, only the full -year/part -week state was

stable, with 40 percent of these found in the same state five years

later. The other categories, especially casual work (part-year AND

part-week) , are transitov states, at least from a five year perspective. Only ten percent of the =SU1 workers in the first period were

casual workers five years later.

6) Casual work (part-time weeks and hours) would appear to be a stepping

stone to more stable work commitments. tiong casual workers in 1967,

fifty percent were split more or less eWaIly between ful”l-year/part -

week work and full :year/full-week work in 1972. .~out one-third were

not working. conversely two-thirds of the respondents. whO were in

casual jobs in 1972 were out of the labor force ”””fiveyears earlier.

7ew full -year workers retu~ to casual, part-year and park-week, work.

7) Marital disruption increases labor market activity. It .is mtural to

imagine tbt the withdrawal of the husband from the labor force would

have the same l~or market effect on the” Spo”u-seas a mrital dismption

since the family inmme effect is the same in both cases--loss of hus -

band, s earnings. Such is not the case. Not only is the rate of ent~

into full-time work not increased with the departure of the husband

from the work force, it shriks. The likelihood that a respondent who

is mrried with spouse present will be working full-time in 1989 is cut

in klf if the husband is not in the labor force. The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that this is due to greater home nursing

demands on the woma.

8) Less work intensity in the pre -retirement years increases the early

retirement rate. The average work withtiawal rate of the various parttime categories is twice that of full-time wOfkers in the earl Y

retirement period. This is despite the limited pension coverage among

part- time workers. mthough there are si~ificant .Y.ear-tO-Year fluctuations in pension coverage, especially in the smaller work status

categories , the general pattern is one in which the most casual

employees (PW/PW) have only one fourth the coverage Of the full-time

workers (-/~) . More interest ing, perbps, the _/P~ workers have

coTerage only modestly higher tti the P~/Pm workers, 28 percent, versus 22 percent. . In contras”t, the P~/~ workers have coverage rates

that, while less than full-time workers, are do~le those of the other

27
P= categories. Apparently

eligibility factor.

a full work week is the crucial pension

28
Altonj i, Joseph G. and Cristina

Constraints, and Hours -Wage

(April 1988) : 254-276.

B1*, Rebecca M. !,~lmu~~aneou~

Work among Female Household

1988) :177-204.

REFEWCES

H. Paxson, ,,~abor SUPply preferences, HOurs

Trade-offs. ,,JOUTnal of Labor Economics 6

Modeltiq the supply of Weeks and .Hours of

Heads ,, Journal of Labor EcQnQmics 6 (April

,,The Role of Part -Time work in Women, s Labor Market Choices

Over Time. ~,MA Proceedings (May 1989) : 295-299.

,!UnderSt~ding part-Time Work,,, Research in Labor ECOnOmics

11 (1990) : 137-158

Hanoch, Giora ,,HOUrS and Weeks in the Theory of Labor SUPPIY. “ in James

P. Smith, ed. , Female Labor SUPDIV. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton

University Press, 19ao. (19aoa)

,,A MUltivariate Model of Labor Supp I”y: Methodology and

Estimation. ‘, in James P Smith, ed. , Female Labor SuDDly. ?.rinceton,

N.J. : Princeton University Press , 1980. (1980b)

Mellor, Earl F . and William Parks II, ‘lAYear, s Work: Labor Force Activity

from a Different Perspective ‘, Monthlv Labor Review 111 (september

19aa) : 13-la

Parsons, Donald O. ‘fHealth, Family

Economic Review 67, Septetier

Stmctur S, and

1977, 703-712.

Labor Supply, ‘rAmerican

29
The Distribution of Work Hours, the ~S Mature Wamen, s Cohort

1967-1989

Hours per Week

1-19 20-34 35+ TOT=

1967 9.8% 15.4% 74.8% 100.0%

(2756)

1972 .10.7 17.1 72.2 100.0

[2447)

2977 8.7 18.1 73.3 100.1

(2045)

1982 8.0 19.0 73.1 100.1

(1966)

1987 -- 9.3 18.8 72 ..0 100.1

(1473)

1989 11.9 19.9 68..3 100.0

!14421

All data are weighted

30
1967-1989

Rate of Ent~ into Full-Time Weekly .Work Hours

By Initial Work Hours for Workers Employed in Both Years,

Time Internals of Five -d Twenty-two, 1967-1989

WORK HO~S IN INITIAL Ym

FRON : 1-19 20-34 35+

1967-1972

1972-1977

1977-1982

1982-1987

AVESAGE

sOnCE: Parsons

~y- WO = =SITIONS

52.1% 70.1% 74.1%

FI~ Y= TRANSITIONS

42.1% 57.8% 88.2%

25.2 52.6 91.0

35.5* 48.9 91.5

21.4% 32.0 89.5

31. o% 47. 8% 90. 0%

(1994, “Work Hours” )

All data are weighted.

31
TASLE 3

The Percent of Weeks Worked,

The WS Mature Women, s Cohort, 1967-1989

Percent of Weeks Workad

o%

1967 J44.0%

1972 37.2

1977 35.1

1982 36.2

1987 43.4

1989 44.5

All data are weighted.

1-25%

6.5%

5.1

3.s

3.0”

3.2

5.1

26-50%

6.6%

3.6

3.3

.3.4

3.3

5.2

51-75%

6.5%

6.3

5.1

S.o

4.5

4.0

76-100% Total

“36.3% 99.9%

(5077)

47.9 100.1

(4315)

S2.6 99.9

(3747)

52.4 100.0

(338s)

4s. s 100.1

(1473)

41.2 100.0

(2952)

32
Age

1

2

3

w

1

2

3

NI

Age

1

2

3

R=

1

2

3

T~= 4

Weeks Worked in 1967 and 1989, By Age and Race

o%

N Pu

712 44.2

678 41.6

690 37.5

1855 45.9

367 27.9

3a 41.4

o%

N Pa

2235 44.0

748 47.2

762 45.2

727 40.2

z- 46.0

~48 27.2

30 45.7

1-25% 28-=% 51-?5%

NPd NPd NM

352 8.9 372 7.3 348 6.8

121 7.5 135 8.4 116 7.2

1~ 8.7 119 7.3 115 7.1

122 8.6 118 8,4 115 6.3

233 8.6 = 8.4 a8 6.3

IM 7.5 137 9.9 IW 7.8

9 10.3 8 6.S $0 11.5

1-25% 26-=%

N Pd N Pd

= 6.5 m 8.6

114 7.2 126 a.o

104 6.2 104 6.2

111 6.1 108 5.9

2a9 6.5 280 6.3

35 8.5 51 9.5

5 7.a 5 7.0

76-loo%

NPd

528 32.8

806 37.3

m m.2

51-75% 76-1~%

N Pti N Pd

331 6.5 1845 S.3

107 6.8 437 x.a

116 8.9 ml =.6

108 6.0 757 4~.a

284 6.4 I*1 34.9

40 7.4 285 49.3

7 10.9 19 2a.7

WI

N

%77

1s12

1825

1840

-

l=

87

Al

N

=77

191

1888

1808

4473

537

a6

33
Unwighmd

Ml

Age

1

2

3

R1

2

3

NI

1

2

3

Ra1

2

3

1346 45.7

267 29.4

431 44.8

630 62.3

m 44.6

379 46.9

16 43.2

1312 44.5

266 27.0

434 44.2

~ 60.6

1162 44.2

137 46.8

13 43.6

T=LE 4 (cent inued)

1-25% 26-50%

NWN~

146 S.o 157 5.3

43 4.4 * 5.7

w 5.2 W 5.2

53 5.2 51 5.0

111 5.2 119 5.6

32 4.1 36 4.7

3 8.1 2 5.4

51-75%

N Pa

llQ 4.0

44 4.5

w 4.2

35 3.5

87 4.1

30 3.9

2 5.4

-b Wtied OnPermnt),1989

1-25% 26-50% 51-75%

N PuNPti NPti

149 5.1 154 5.2 119 4.0

42 4.3 55 5.7 45 4.7

52 5.3 51 5.2 39 3.9

s 5.5 46 4.8 35 3.4

136 5.2 141 5.4 104 4.0

12 4.2 12 4.2 13 4.4

1 3.0 1 2.0 2 5.0

34

76-100%

N Pa

1181 40.0

547 %.0

332 40.7

242 23.9

869 40.6

m 36.5

14 37.8

76-lW%

N Pti

1217 41.2

m 57.3

406 41.5

256 25.6

1065 41.3

118 a.3

14 46.5

963

1o11

2139

775

37

Ml

N

2952

962

964

1005

2626
T== S

Cumulative Weeks Worked, 196? -1989, By Age and Racea

UnwlghMd

NI

we

1

2

3

R=

1

2

3

Wtgb@d

Au

Age

1

2

3

R1

2

3

0%

NM

w 13,4

81 10.2

103 t26

146 17.1

262 14.5

64 10.2

4 125

w 13.s

6a 11.0

113 f13.4

I& i7.o

318 14.4

22 9.4

4 15.8

1 -2W

NW

345 14

90 11.3

120 14.6

135 45.8

22a 125

115 18.3

4 125

317 129

76 9.7

119 14.2

123 14.4

275 124

40 17.1

2 9.9

21-

NM

320 13

m 112

* 121

132 q5.4

237 13.1

76 124

5 15.6

m i25

64 10.8

96 11.7

728 44.8

277 12.5

28 121

3 12.9

. ..-

81*

NW

3n 15.3

151 19

131 16

9a 112

263 15.6

68 142

6 16.a

367 15.7

149 f9.1

1% 16.1

103 121

349 15.6

35 14.9

3 129

81-1-

NW

= 27.1

a 3.3

239 a.1

165 19.3

462 Z.5

198 31.3

10 31.3

662 26.8

m 33.2

m 26.5

~a5 19.3

577 26.1

76 326

B 3?.6

NI

N

2468

793

627

32

2468

780

83?

al

2211

232

25

a The ratio of reported weeks worked in 1967, 1972, 1977, 1g82, 1987. ~

Ige g to the ntier of total weeks covered in these SU-eYs.
TABLE 6

Weeks worked Transitions, 1967-1972

Wightid

Wks Wrked

(in Percent),1387

0%

f-25%

26-50%

51.75%

76-100%

NI

Age=l

o%

1-25%

26-50%

57-75%

76 -100%

NI

Ag0%

1-25%

26-50%

51-7s%

76-100 ‘k

NI

Age4

o%

t-25%

26-W%

51-7s%

76 -100%

N/

%Ce%

o%

1-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-1~%

NI

Race+

o%

1-25%

25-50%

5? -75%

76 -100%

Atl

o%

N Pti

1224 63.3

73 29,9

n 27.7

B 19.6

171 10.9

~604 37.2

386 59.0

2e W.3

25 24.4

2a 28.5

52 12.4

518 38.0

364 60.8

25 28.6

24 28.0

12 13.3

B 11.3

m 36.1

454 70.2

26 30.7

28 30.9

16 10.9

63 9.7

97 37.5

9%7 =.1

57 m.5

49 26.3

s 19.3

119 11.1

1179 36.1

201 65.2

21 27.4

42 37.7

la 21.5

61 10.5

343 29.6

1-26%

N112 S8

3i fl.7

16 5.7

16 6.9

44 Z8

219 5.1

4a 7.4

12 124

4 3.9

5 5.1

9 21

n S.7

43 6.9

9 10.6

4 4.a

7 a.i

; ?2

19 3.0

10 124

8 a.7

4 4.3

27 4.1

66 44

8j 5.6

21 11.4

10 5.1

12 6.3

w 2a

134 5.0

24 7.7

11 14.7

0 7.2

3 3.9

la 3.2

65 5.6

26-50%

NW

63 3.2

20 7.5

12 42

14 5.3

* 2.0

la 3.6

32 4.9

9 $.8

6 5.7

2 2.0

17 4.0

M 4.7

1? 26

3 3.4

3 3.1

5 6.2

?6 3.2

43 3.1

14 2.2

9 10.5

3 3.6

? 7.9

13 2.0

47 3.0

47 3.2

13 7.1

7 3.5

11 5.a

30 2.a

la 3.5

11 3.4

2 2.9

5 4.5

3 3.0

19 3.3

40 3.4

51-75%

N Pd

la 5.6

15 5.5

25 e.1

25 9.3

W 6.2

271 6.3

m 7.?

7 7.1

8 7.a

11 ?21

31 7.3

107 7.8

33 5.2

6 6.7

8 a.8

10 fl.7

25 5.1

az 5.9

25 3.a

2 2.6

10 ~o.a

4 4.3

42 6.5

m 5.3

64 5.8

10 5.3

17 9.2

la 9.6

69 6.4

1% 6.4

7 21

7 a.8

10 9.0

7 a.o

30 5.1

59 5.1

76-lm%

N Pd

426 22.1

420 45.4

149 53.3

161 59.9

t~7 n.~

2065 47.0

~m 21. f

40 41.5

59 56.3

47 52.3

313 74.2

597 43.8

165 24.5

44 50.6

4a 55.3

= 60.7

366 7a.7

887 49.6

134 20.7

3a 43.7

42 46.1

61 =.7

B n.7

7W 49a

324 223

66 45a

lM *.e

111 m.1

a25 76.e

162 47.0

67 21.6

35 46.3

46 41.5

53 83.6

@ 77.8

652 56.3

Atl

N

1934

265

279

m

7%

43%2

654

9a

101

m

421

1363

632

87

66

a7

493

1364

647

a3

93

92

552

1565

1454

IM

166

163

1073

3090

309

n

110

u

579

1153

36
NO=

1967 47.7%

1972 40.4

1977 40.5

1982 39.4

1987 49.1

1989*+ 49.0

All ~ta are we-ighted

TASLE 7

The Time Stmcture of Work Activities,

The ~S Wture Women, s Cohort, 1967 -19S9

WOM STA~S

Pm/Pm Pm/m

6.9% 12.3%

4.5 5.3

4.3 3.9

5.3 5.1

4.6 5,7

6.2 7.3

m/Pm m/m

5.6% 27.4%

12.1 37.7

11.3 40.0

10. s 39.3

9.5 31.1

9.8 27.6

TOTZ

99.9%

(4697)

100.0

(3960)

100.0

(3282)

100.0

(3137)

100.0

(2799)

99.9

(2698)

37
lndust~

[n 1967

PYR/PW PYR/F~ FYR/P~

N Pd N Pd N Pd

AGRIC

MIN

CONS

mu

Tc&Pu

W6R

FINAN

BUS&

PSER

ENTER

PROF

PU6A

J m D

28 40.0 28 40.0 3 4.3

2 33.3 1 16.7

i 8.3 2 16.7 4 33.3

20 3.4 170 28.9 22 3.7

10 13.3 9 12.0 3 4.0

a7 17.5 116 23.3 73 14.7

5 5.1 12 122 10 102

9 20.0 12 26.7 6 13.3

79 19.7 57 f42 123 30.7

8 26.7 11 36.7 3 10.0

95 142 la9 25.3 5a a.r

7 5.6 2a 222 11 a.r

349 13.3 616 23.5 317 12,1

‘1’mLE 8

Work Status by Indilstry, 1967

Woti Status In 1967

FYR/F~

N P&

11 15.7

3 50.0

5 41,7

3n 64.0

53 70.7

222 44.6

71 72.5

18 40.0

142 35.4

a 26.7

345 51.7

aO 63.5

1335 51.0

All

N

70

6

12

589

?5

498

98

45

401

30

667

126

2617

PYR/P~

N Pd

15 31.6

i 9.;

20 3.t

13 14.8

107 t9.1

5 4.0

a 15.5

51 21.8

9 22.9

111 16,3

6 5.1

346 132

PYR/FW

N Pd

21 45a

3 U.o

3 16.2

181 27.5

11 11.9

122 22.0

15 12.a

14 m.o

35 15.1

Is 36.9

169 24.8

2S 23.7

617 23.6

2 4.0

0 4.0

5 32,7

25 3.7

4 4,6

a9 16.0

10 8,5

7 14.0

66 25.1

4 11.1

66 9.7

11 9.1

262 Io.a

FYR/F~

N Pd

9 la,6

3 52.0

6 40.0

432 65.7

62 66.7

23a 42a

87 74.7

23 44.5

65 3s.0

10 27.1

335 492

77 622

1372 52.4

NI

N

46

r

14

657

w

557

117

52

232

36

662

124

2617
lndus~

In 1977

AGM

WIN

CONS

mu

T-PU

W6R

nNAN

BUS&

PSER

ENTER

PROF

PUSA

u

PYR/P~

N Pd

8 36.4

z Io.i

8 22

2 3.1

29 10.4

2 1.8

3 6.4

26 10.8

4+ e,i

6 5.0

127 6.6

PYR/F~

N Pd

3 13.6

3 15.0

34 9.4

2 3.1

16 5,7

3 2.5

7 14.9

10 5.4

1 12.5

43 6.1

6 5.0

128 6.6

TDLE 9

Work Status by Industry, 1977

Wo~ Status in 1977

FYR/P~

N P&

5 22.7

i 21.{

13 3.6

8 12.5

79 28.3

22 18.0

12 25.5

68 47.6

1 12.5

134 19.0

6 7,4

375 19.4

QYR/FWK

N Pa

6 27.3

2100.0

10 52.6

W6 64.9

52 81.3

155 55.6

95 77.9

25 532

67 362

6 75.0

460 682

1W 62.6

1~ 67.5

All PYR/Pm

N N Pd

22 5 2s.0

2

19 i Io.i

363 9 2.5

54 3 3,a

279 34 11.1

122 3 1.8

47 3 6.6

165 19 16.6

a

704 55 7.6

121 6 4,7

1936 139 72

I

,,

PYR/F~

N P&

2 9.7

i 17.i

35 9.1

3 3.8

17 5.6

4 3.0

6 17.1

7 6.1

0 2.6

36 5,4

8 6.4

126 6.5

3 la.3

i 23.i

15 3.s

10 13.7

91 n.5

26 19.6

11 23.1

43 39.1

1 15.4

1= 21.5

10 82

366 19.0

o 43.0

21 W.o

II 48a

323 M.5

55 7a.6

166 53.7

106 75.6

26 53.0

42 37.9

6 82.1

457 65.3

100 60,7

1303 67.3

Ni

N

18

2

23

382

70

309

142

49

110

8

700

123

1936
lndust~

In 1989

AGRIC

MIN

CONS

MANU

TC&PU

W&R

FINAN

* BUS&

0 PSER

ENTER

PROF

PUSA

ALL

PYR/P~

N Ps3

6 35.3

i 12.5

8 4.3

2 5.3

37 19,6

9 9.8

13 22,8

28 20,1

5 41,7

64 10,6

6 8.6

171 12.7

UnwbW

PYR/F~ FYR/PWR

N Pti N Pd

5 29.4 4 23.5

1 25.0

1 12.5 i 12.5

46 24.5 10 5.3

9 23.7 5 132

19 10.1 50 26.5

8 a.7 la 19.6

a 14.0 11 19.3

16 11.5 55 39.6

1 a.3 4 33.3

70 13.7 99 19.4

7 7.5 9 9.7

191 14.2 266 19.7

T~LE 10

work status by IndUstrY, 1989

Wow Status in 1989

FYR/FWS

N Pd

2 11.a

3 75.0

5 62,5

124 66.0

22 57.9

83 43.9

57 62.0

25 43.9

40 2a.6

2 16.7

26a %.4

69 742

720 53.4

All

N

17

4

a

lea

3a

la9

92

57

139

12

511

93

1346

PYR/P~

N Pd

4 22.6

i 14,3

10 4.9

3 7,1

36 17.9

9 8.8

14 25.0

21 21.7

6 40.6

53 10.4

10 9.7

I* t2.3

PYR/F~

N Pd

6 *,5

1 30.3

0 2.9

51 26.1

9 22.7

18 9.3

6 7.9

8 14.3

13 13.6

I a.9

71 13.9

6 6.1

192 14.3

FYR/PWR

N Pd

4 27,0

i 12.9

11 5.5

7 17.4

59 29.7

22 21.1

11 19.5

30 31.5

5 39.6

101 19.a

a 8.8

260 10.3

FYR/Fws

N P&

2 13.9

3 69.7

r 70.0

136 64.4

20 52.8

W 432

66 822

23 412

32 332

1 10.9

2a5 55.9

75 75.6

730 542

16

4

9

202

3a

lW

106

57

S5

t4

510

69

1346
T}3LE 11

Work S-tus Trmsitions, 1967-1972

_

Nme

N Pd

1221 *.8

85 35.2

108 25.1

42 19.0

89 8.a

1544 42.1

38a m.1

2a 30.2

43 m.7

14 22.4

2a 10.0

m 43.1

333 67.0

32 38.4

28 20.2

15 21.3

29 9.2

486 41.5

450 73.2

25 37.3

2S 24.7

13 14.5

32 7.7

55a 41.7

917 88.5

60 35.9

72 24.4

29 20.0

61 6.8

113 42.2

198 71.5

27 35.1

45 30.0

18 16.2

34 9.2

322 32.7

By Age and Race

WO* Sbms, 1972

PYmm

N P&

101 5.7

11 4.7

18 4.2

19 a.s

19 1.9

16s 4.6

m 8.6

7 7.1

3 2.4

4 6.2

7 2.5

71 6.1

31 5.3

3 4.0

2 1.4

5 7.1

3 1.0

44 3.7

20 3.2

2 2.6

13 a.5

10 11.3

9 2.2

54 4.0

79 5.9

5 3.1

13 4.5

13 9.1

12 1.a

122 4.6

10 3.4

9 12.4

4 2.9

7 6.4

10 z.a

41 4.1

w~

N Pti

61 3.6

12 5.0

52 12.2

4 2.0

61 6.0

191 5.2

24 4.1

6 6.0

15 11.2

3 4.2

19 6.a

67 5.8

17 3.0

2 z.a

19 13.7

2 2.6

la 5.a

m 5.0

20 3.2

4 6.6

18 11.7

0 0.0

24 5.?

66 4.9

47 3.5

9 5.3

35 12.1

3 2.2

43 6.2

138 5.2

7 2.4

3 4.1

12 a. 1

1 1.3

la 4.a

41 4.2

w~

N Pti

170 9.6

61 26.3

Z 7.6

73 32.5

73 7.3

409 11.1

67 11.4

29 31.2

10 6.9

22 33.6

29 10.2

155 13.3

52 9.0

14 16.5

13 9.7

22 31.4

23 7.3

123 10.5

52 8.4

19 2a.9

9 6.0

29 32.7

22 5.4

132 9.a

132 9.8

43 25.4

23 7.9

45 30.7

51 7.4

m 11.1

19 7.0

19 24.3

a 5.5

48 42a

27 7.2

119 12.1

w~

N Pd

ZI 12.5

72 29a

218 51.0

85 37.0

762 75.9

1= 37.0

s 9.a

23 25.6

68 4a.a

21 33.4

197 70.4

=7 31.6

a9 15.6

32 38.3

75 55.0

27 37.6

237 76.7

480 39.3

73 11.9

17 24.6

76 49.1

37 41.5

32a 79.0

~ 39.6

164 123

51 m.3

1= 51.1

s 38.0

524 75.9

944 zs.a

43 15.6

la 24.1

al 53.4

3a 33.4

2= 76.0

481 46.9

NI

N

1774

241

42a

224

1003

%71

%7

92

122

a

279

llW

572

83

136

71

1171

615

67

155

a9

415

1340

1338

294

145

690

2635

41
T~~ 12

Work Status Tr~sitions, 1972-1977

Nme

NW

935 7.2

31 25.4

41 26.9

m 19.6

119 10.5

1191 40.4

266 69.1

9 15.9

15 2s.4

16 13.5

26 8.5

331 %.9

m 60.6

6 18.3

6 16.1

17 16.4

39 10.2

375 39.8

%2 81.3

~7 45.8

20 40.6

33 28.8

54 12.3

466 44.8

M9 77.2

23 25.8

30 27.5

45 18.7

83 10.7

870 41.2

2m 79.5

7 25.4

? 23.2

27 27.5

36 9.3

277 34.9

By Age md Race

WO* s*tis, 19n

N Pd

47 3.8

22 17.5

3 1.8

27 8.7

18 1.6

116 3.9

22 5.6

12 21.7

0 0.0

9 8.~

8 26

51 5.5

14 %7

7 20.4

1 2.9

8 8.0

4 1.1

34 3.6

11 2.4

3 8.7

1 2.9

10 8.3

6 1.5

31 2.9

37 4.1

16 17.8

2 1.9

20 8.2

13 1.7

88 4.2

3 1.0

1 2.4

0 0.0

7 7.5

6 1.4

18 2.0

PY~

N Pti

S4 28

5 L8

Q 6.2

11 3.2

* 4.4

lm 3.7

15 3.9

0 0.0

5 7.2

4 3.8

17 5.s

41 4.4

12 3.1

2 5.0

1 1.2

3 2.9

14 3.7

31 3.3

7 1.5

3 8.1

5 9.4

3 2.6

18 4.2

36 3.3

25 2.7

3 3.7

7 6.1

6 3.2

32 4.1

74 3.5

8 3.3

1 4.8

3 9.9

3 3.2

25 6.5

41 5.2

w~

N pa

88 7.3

~ 24.0

6 4.1

130 36.7

71 6.3

325 11.0

S4 8.9

12 22.9

3 5.3

51 43.5

16 5.3

116 12.7

29 7.7

7 23.0

1 3.4

39 37.6

25 6.5

102 10.9

24 5.5

11 26.7

1 2.9

40 35.0

29 6.7

lM 9.8

64 7.2

22 24.1

4 4.0

95 39.8

49 6.2

a 11.1

17 6.8

9 33.7

2 5.6

m 30.9

24 6.3

82 10.4

w~

N Pa

107 8.9

35 28.7

92 61.0

102 W.4

871 77.2

lzm 41.0

48 12.5

21 39.6

41 =.0

36 31.1

235 78.1

362 41.5

19 4.9

11 33.3

30 76.5

37 35.1

304 78.5

~ 42.4

41 9.3

3 8.7

21 44.2

29 25.2

331 75.4

426 39.2

78 8.8

26 28.6

67 60.5

72 30.0

m 77.4

348 40.1

24 9.4

9 33.7

19 61.2

m 31.0

296 76.5

376 47.6

Al

N

1210

123

151

335

1129

2948

35

54

84

116

301

920

360

32

39

104

37

942

446

3

43

115

439

1086

892

90

111

239

782

2114

252

27

31

w

367

794

42
T~~ 13

wOrk Status Tr=siti Ons, 1977 -19s2

N{

N

858

27

19

37

96

Iw

212

6

7

9

22

257

283

13

6

14

23

339

372

8

6

14

52

62

615

18

12

27

67

739

236

7

10

9

34

297

By Age and Race

me

Pti

80.5

24.6

17.9

121

8.8

36.7

71.6

12.1

17.0

7.9

6.2

29.8

80.5

39.1

18.7

14.2

6.5

23.7

86.4

28.9

17.9

14.9

13.5

46.5

79.8

23.2

16.8

12.4

6.7

36.8

86.9

30.4

23.1

121

10.0

39.1

wok Sbtis, 1982

PYWM

NW

56 5.4

17 15.0

5 4.3

26 8.6

24 2.1

129 4.8

22 7.6

9 18.2

3 7.2

8 7.2

4 1.2

47 5.5

26 7.5

3 9.1

0 0.9

9 8.7

9 2.6

46 5.5

9 2.1

4 16.5

2 4.2

9 10.1

10 2.6

34 3.5

43 5.6

11 14,3

2 2.7

18 8.6

16 2.1

91 4.8

6 2.8

3 12.1

6 12.7

8 10.0

8 2.4

32 4.2

PY~

N P&

16 1,5

4 3.7

14 12.8

21 6.9

n 0.9

131 4.8

12 4.1

3 5.4

8 17.8

11 10.1

27 ?.6

61 7.1

2 0.4

1 4.1

1 2.0

4 3.7

22 6.2

m 3.4

2 0.6

0 0.0

6 16.8

6 6.7

27 6.9

41 4.3

12 1.6

3 4.1

10 14.4

16 7.6

52 6.7

94 4.9

1 0.4

0 0.0

2 5.4

2 2.1

25 7.3

30 4.0

w~

NW

M 6.1

27 24.8

7 6.4

127 41.9

64 4.8

260 70.3

20 6.8

17 33.0

2 5.7

40 S.8

21 5.7

Im 11.6

22 6.2

6 16.8

2 6.1

47 *.9

10 2.7

66 9.8

24 5.6

5 19.9

3 7.3

4 43.4

24 6.0

% 9;6

43 6.2

20 24.9

5 7.0

66 41.3

39 5.0

189 10.4

16 5.7

7 30.7

1 3.2

41 al

14 4.0

76 10.3

w~

N Pd

70 6.5

s 31.9

62 68.7

92 =.5

658 7.3

1119 41.3

28 9.6

16 31.3

22 =3

44 39.0

287 79.3

3= 46.0

19 5.4

10 30.6

22 72.2

20 26.5

296 82.0

373 42.6

23 5.4

9 34.6

f9 =.6

23 24.9

277 71.0

m 26.0

53 6.8

26 33.4

42 59.1

65 3.2

599 n.5

784 41.1

77 4.1

6 26.8

25 =.6

19 23.8

261 76.3

322 42.4

1076

110

lffi

1112

27W

51

42

112

%1

661

351

34

30

lm

361

875

431

26

35

92

973

771

79

71

214

m

1%7

43
T=LE 14

wOrk stat- Tr~sitiOns, 1982-1987

Nme

N Pd

883 a9.6

62 46.9

49 38.5

m 22.6

783 i7.9

1241 46.8

204 85.1

1? 31.1

11 20.1

14 14.6

2a 7.7

274 33.6

273 M.4

~ 59.6

6 24.4

19 19.9

59 47.1

387 4a. f

w 96.2

15 51.4

32 67.1

m =.3

94 30.4

575 64.3

614 a9.2

4a 49.0

37 40.6

43 21.7

130 la.2

a70 48.7

2W 92.0

11 34.2

7 23.4

24 30.6

48 16.4

31 4s.7

By Age and R+c?

WO* Sams, 1987

PYmw

N Pd

22 2.2

14 10.4

11 a.9

3a 13.5

26 2.5

111 4.4

4 i .9

lo f17.a

6 9.a

12 12.2

5 1.4

36 4.5

12 3.7

3 s.a

2 6.6

16 16.6

10 2.9

42 5.0

5 1.3

2 5.a

4 9.1

10 11.3

11 3.5

32 3.6

15 2.2

10 10.4

9 9.6

2a J4. I

17 2.4

79 4.4

8 2.9

4 11.5

1 2.6

6 a.2

12 4.1

31 4.3

PY~

N Pd

15 1.5

4 3.3

20 *5.7

7 2.5

98 9.6

145 5.7

3 1.3

3 5.6

11 Ia.a

3 3.0

34 9.4

a 6.6

11 3.5

1 2.8

6 24.4

1 1.5

31 a.a

51 6.1

0 0.1

0 0.0

3 7.2

3 2.9

34 lo.a

40 4.4

11 1.6

3 3.6

14 15.7

5 2.5

69 9.6

lm 5.a

2 o.a

o 0.0

3 11.0

1 1.a

30 10.0

37 5.1

m~

N Pd

34 3.5

32 24.4

7 5.a

121 43.4

39 3.a

234 9.2

14 5.7

13 24.2

4 7.6

45 45a

15 4.0

90 11.2

11 3.3

11 22.5

0 1.3

m 40.a

a 2.2

68 a. 1

10 2.5

a 2a.3

3 6.2

m 43a

f? 5.4

76 a.5

26 3.7

22 23.3

5 5.9

a5 43.0

25 3.4

163 9.1

5 ~.a

13 33.7

2 7.0

36 46.4

la 6.1

75 10.4

31 3.2

20 15.0

40 31.2

50 Ia.o

674 ffi. 1

a15 32.0

15 6.1

11 21.2

25 43.6

24 24.4

2al 77,5

355 43.9

i? 5.1

5 9.0

11 43.2

20 21.2

240 69.0

292 3.7

0 0.0

4 14.6

5 10.4

7 7.a

155 49.9

171 19.1

23 3.3

13 13.7

26 2a.2

37 la.6

473 =.3

571 32.0

7 2.6

5 15.6

17 S.1

10 13.0

la7 63.4

227 3~.5

NI

N

965

132

i2a

279

1019

2544

239

53

%

98

362

ao9

323

29

47

a7

311

a94

689

94

91

198

713

17%

283

33

31

79

2%

7m
1972

1977

1982

19s7

TAE~ 15

The Distribution of Work Activities

Conditional on work Status Five Years Earlier

The ~S Matme Worn=,s Cohort, 196?- 1987

Pmel A

Work Status Distribution In T, Total

Pn/Pws Pn/Fww m/Pws =/=

7.6 8.9 20.3 63.3

7.2 6.6 19.0 67.2

8.s 8.4 17.8 65. o

9.0 11.2 18.7 61.1

P-cl B

Work Status Distritition In T

Conditional h Not Betig E~loyed Five Years Earlier

m/Pm Pm/m -/Pm mlm

L972 18.2 * 11.1 % 30. s % 40.0 *

1977 16.9 12.2 32.0 38.9

1982 27.6 7.6 31.3 33.4

1987 21.4 14.7 33.5 30.3

til &ta are weighted.

SO~CES: Pmel A, Tale 7; P~el B, Tables 11-14.

100.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

TOT=

100.1 4

100.0

99.9

99.9

45
Age of

Youngest

Child, 1987

0-2

3-5

6-18

19+

Nme

Al

Aged

o-2

3-5

6-18

19+

Nme

NI

Age=2

o-2

3-5

6-18

19 +

Nme

Ml

Age=3

o-2

3-5

6-18

19+

Nme

WI

bee+

o-2

3-5

6-18

19+

NAl

hce~

o-2

3-5

6-18

19+

NAI

T~LE 16

Work Stitus by Age of YoWgest Child, 1967

None

N Pa

578 71.8

* 86.2

683 4f.1

4~ 2?.2

148 a.6

2217 49.0

311 69.4

266 81.2

169 =.8

26 19.3

780 51.7

190 73.3

182 88.1

378 42.6

5 19.6

34 22.9

728 50.1

79 77.8

732 72.5

392 42.8

3? 29.0

88 32.2

729 45.4

424 75.6

425 =.5

888 43.4

30 29.2

105 26.9

1852 51.4

112 46.3

83 35.4

117 220

10 16.0

38 23.0

368 29.0

By ~e ad Race

Wm Smtis, 18s7

w~

N Pd

53 6.5

57 6.5

176 8.2

10 6.6

26 4.7

322 7.1

33 7.3

32 7.7

51 10.8

4 3.2

120 8.2

18 6.8

18 6.5

59 7.9

0 1.3

7 4.7

102 7.0

2 2.4

8 4.1

68 7.1

10 7.8

15 5.4

100 6.2

34 6.1

38 6.2

126 8.2

6 6.3

17 4,4

~ 6.9

22 9.1

25 10.8

39 7.3

5 9.1

11 7.1

104 6.4

PY~

N Pu

85 10.6

91 10.4

294 13.7

23 15.4

M 11.8

= 12.3

52 17.7

50 12.0

74 15.7

12 9.2

188 12.8

23 8.9

26 9.5

w 13.1

5 22.8

22 14.7

174 12.0

11 10.6

15 8.4

122 13.2

18 14.1

31 11.4

197 12.3

52 9.2

59 9.6

210 13.6

i? 16.4

46 11.5

w 11.9

46 18.6

37 15.6

76 14.2

6 9.9

25 15.7

180 15.3

46

w~

N20 2.5

31 3.6

1= 7.7

12 7.9

29 5.2

257 5.7

16 3.5

14 3.4

31 6.5

0 i8.2

10 7.1

70 4.8

3 1.2

11 4.2

68 7.5

4 17.1

5 3.5

80 5.5

2 1.7

6 3.1

77 8.4

8 6.1

15 5.3

107 6.6

10 1.8

16 2.6

113 7.3

6 6.3

17 4.3

1s3 5. i

19 7.7

29 12.2

57 10.7

10 16.0

2i 13.4

136 11.0

N Pa

89 8.6

125 14.3

829 29.3

84 429

287 51.7

1174 25.9

36 8.~

& 15.7

147 31. ~

1 81.8

82 61.2

332 22.6

25 9.8

38 13.8

2~5 28.8

9 39.2

80 54.2

~ 25.3

8 7.6

22 fl.9

2= 28.7

64 43.0

125 45.6

474 B.5

40 7.2

61 13.1

425 27.6

43 41.8

m 53.0

797 24.8

48 19.3

61 26.9

245 46.8

29 49.0

84 40.7

447 38.3

NI

N

8K

872

2147

l=

555

448

416

471

2

la

1470

259

275

747

23

148

1453

102

183

922

126

274

561

619

102

393

3216

247

235

535

80

157

1234
m

—

—

—

—

*—

—

—

—

.

.

—

—

—

—

u

-

urn

TABLE 17

Work Status Traditions , 1967-1989

By tirital Status and Husb=d, s Activity

— u

a

47
TABLE 1S

comparison of pension coverage ResPOnses in 1982

By Age ad RaCe

Fringe Benefit Question

Y=

N Pa

a 232

n 7.Q

33-

750 a3

243 ml

24 6.5

13 542

230 429

lW 34.7

a 7.8

16 X7

233 a4

lm mo

B Q.Q

7 =.6

231 44.8

421 ~.6

9 7.8

16 621

497 40.7

210 m.s

21 8.8

14 =.3

245 50.0

M

NW

46 8.8

815 %1

21 36.8

m %.7

18 6.0

343 =.5

11 45.8

3R 57.1

11 5.3

m=

6 27.3

325 57.6

17 8,0

’264 W.1

4 36.4

235 =.2

24 5.4

633 m.z

11 37.9

723 %.3

21 9.1

214 91.1

10 41.7

245 50.0

334

22

w

212

11

516

445

746

1220

231

235

24

48
TABLE 19

Pension Coveraqe bv work status b 1977

By Age nd Race

k PN Pd

Au

N

1 al

le 1s.4

6=

w M.6

644 mB

low 322 139 5.s

375 a? 3n m.7

537 fm.o

2 7.;

1s 44.1

34 36.8

m n.7

m 32.4

1s ai

10 57.e

m m.1

1a m.1

2m 27.4

14 4“ s.;

1 Im.o

s Ima

4222

11 ZD

4

0

?

49
T~LE 20

Pension cov~age by Work Status in 1982

By Age ad Race

%S’lm,o

s SD

n 33.7

7 5.4

10 23

m 37.7

m4 Imo

24 =.1

n s.?

4Q

lm9

m4

Q

23

24 51.; 47

so
TAELE 21

Pension Coverage by Work Status in 1987

By Age and Race

P,

N

Im m.7 02

179

=.6

1s.7

5m

n5

m m.o

12 27.7

1s 323

e 8.2

3 0.8

m 37.7

a M.f

18 36.7

12

16

as

m2

=2

36.8

m3

62

4,7

m.4

3

e

4

0.4

1S.4

102

?38

672

m,4

=.0

02

17.7

ma S75

=

113

136

ma

1s7

376

=4

5.4

15

m2

m mB

12 3.4

1 02

7 37

12

7

n.7

9.1

672

Iffi 24B 770

m ?m.o

5 Im.o 3

2

15

Q

o

Q e

51
T~LE 22

Pension Coverage by Work Status ti 1989

By Age =d Race

$

N N “w

73W

m

0.%

10.7

370

m.1

43

3s

62

m

56.8

ms

420

328

9.4

7.0

75.8

M

7.4

mo

m

34.4

24.7

4 4.e

10 4.0

mz e S3

102

m a5

s 6S

m -5

43 ma

16 15.4

3 0.4

e.e

95

7.4

53.s

10.0

ms m,4

24 43.8

47 81,9

6 10 !21

74 9 7.3

m 7m 74.e

mo 4 0.4

s 47.4

z 15.7

132 m.1

157 S.1

3= !95

7

lZ 14

lQ m S3

15 7.7

24 45

llm =2

m5 1 03

m 5.0

11 ZO

6 70.0

87 24.6

14 19.s

1

2

2

02

5.e

3.e

a.1

W9

as

3m W.5

15 a.1

37 ?42

3 4.9

e 25

a S.O

le fm.o 1s

t

2

3

11

33

3 m.o

2

7

Q 17 53.6

52
T~~ 23

Pension Coverage in 1982 ad Pension Receipt in 1989

bong Those Out of the L&or Force in 19S 9, BY Age -d Race

AU

Croee TabuktiOn of %nelon Coverage In 1832 ●nd @aiPt In 1989 (M of the tibor FoKe in 1989)

Peneion Re=i@ In 1339

Pension Covemge

in 3832

Em@oy&o Pe_m

Em@oyWetim

Not ~@Oy*

M:*

Em@oy*o Pe*a

Em@oy*Pefim

Not Em@oy4

NI

Age@

Emtioyed-No Pe-m

Em@oyed-Pe@m

Not Em@oyed

NI

Age=3

Em@oyti-No Petim

Em@oyed-Petion

Not Em@oyed

NI

Wee+

Em@oyed-No Petion

Em@oyed-Petion

Not Em@oyed

NI

Race=2

Em@oyti*o Pe~m

Em#oyed-Petim

Not Em@oyti

NI

ticed

Em@oyMo Pe~on

Em@oy~eti~

Not Em@oyed

NI

M

N Pd

186 89.0

110 41.8

857 80.4

f253 81.3

54 93.2

30 ~.8

=1 =3

315 =.2

s 83.7

37 45.1

315 W4

407 83.9

77 85.6

43 31.2

411 m.9

531 74.0

119 33.8

79 39.3

677 89.3

875 60. f

a 91.7

3i 51.?

- 89.5

362 64.8

1 lW.O

15 M.2

16 80.0

Unwlgh-d

Ye

N Pa

21 10.1

153 662

114 10.6

m 18.7

1 1.8

13 30.2

0 a8

23 0.8

7 11.3

45 54.9

23 7.8

76 f6.1

13 i4.4

% 88.8

79 18.1

187 26.0

15 11.2

122 m.7

81 10.7

218 20.0

8 8.3

29 43.3

31 10.5

w 15.4

2 100.0

2 11.8

4 20.0

207

1071

1541

s

43

240

338

480

7i8

134

201

753

1093

72

60

286

423

1

2

17

20

k

N Pti

1- 86.5

112 39.5

948 80.0

1- ~.8

52 ~.8

32 68.5

228 95.8

3f2 92.2

48 88.4

38 U.5

319 92s

m 83.0

70 ms

42 27.8

401 828

5*3 71.4

117 87.9

79 B.9

874 89.1

870 ~.8

60 92.6

s 46.2

252 88.5

343 81.4

2 100.0

1: 8f. i

16 79.4

Wighmd

Ye

N Pa

22 11.5

172 m.s

718 71.0

311 20.2

2 3.2

15 31.5

10 4.2

26 7.8

6 11.6

49 =.5

24 7.1

79 16.4

14 16.5

103 72.2

83 17.2

Z= 28.6

16 12.1

124 61.1

82 10.9

223 20.4

5 7.4

42 B.8

33 11.5

30 18.6

; 100.0

3 18.9

4 m.e

NI

N

191

284

Im

1541

E4

46

236

=

54

68

343

436

34

lW

484

718

133

204

757

Im

85

78

236

423

2

1

18

20

53
1. H-och (19BOa, b) ~d BIX (198S) are -ceptions. These studies e~lore

both the hours md weeks dimnsions of the work decision. Both conclude

tht the two dim=sions hve ~ite distinct detehnats.

2. x B1- (1990) recently remrked, ‘There is Vev little research on the

dynamics of Part-time wOrk over a worker’s lifetime. “ Blank (1990,

p.142) .

3. Blank (1989) reports that hours per week are Wite sttile over relatively short time tite=als, e.g. a year.

~ . BI~ concludes, ,SPreliti~~ currtit wrk indicates tht part-time work

among adult women is only rarely used as a stepping s’tone between noneTloy -

ment and full -time eqlom-t, but is bstead used as = alternative either

to full -time emlov-t or to none.vlop~t, Blti (1990, P-142) .

5. Blank characterizes the results of tm e~loyer su=eys as revealing

that ‘,the primw reason f i- hire part-time workers is to resolve s ched -

uling proble=. Fim with high weekly -d &ily vari-tie b workload were

most 1ikely to ewloy part-time workers. n Bld (1990, p.143)

6. Blank (1988 ) presents evid-ce of the “sititaeity” of the hous md

weeks decisions.

7. See also -och (19e Oa, b) ad B1- (1988j

54
01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

National Longitudinal Su~eys ~S)

Discussion Paper Series

m

M1chaeI R. Pergak

Nomm M. Bradbm

M~ti R.Frtiel

Regtidd P. B*er

Mich=l R. Pergmit

Saul Schwm

Robeti Hutchens

George Jtibson

A. Coh Cmeron

R. M~k Gtiti

Tbomw MaCwdy

Heq S. Fmber

Frd L. Mom

Paula B&er

Au&ey.Light

Mmuefi@ Ureta

LEa M. L~ch

Evmgelos M. Faltis

H. Efimbetb Pete=

he Hill

Jme E. ONeill

hleen Leibowiti

Jzob Alex Kemm

Lirda Waite

Lee A. Lillmd

Joseph G. Altonji

Them= A. Dw

m

How the Federal Govement Uses Data from

the National Longimdmal Sweys

A Compakion of Computer-Assisted Pemond

htewiews (CAPI) with Paper-red Pencil kterviews (PAP~ h the N~iond Longimdmal Smey

of Youth

Dynmic Models of the Jo&t Detemrnation of

Labor Supply md Fmily Smcmre

The effects of Unemploymat Compensation

on the Unaplopent of Youth

Evaluating Competig Theories of Worker

Mobifi~

Evaluation of the 1989 Ctild-cae Supplemmt

in the National Longitidmal Smey of Youth

Gender Differences h the Quit Behavior of

Young Workm

The tipact of Rlvate Sector Tratiig on bce

md Gender Wage Differentials md the Caeer

Patterns of Young Workem

Responses of Female LAor Supply ad Femifi~

to the Demo~aphic Cycle

A Study of Intercohofi Chmge b Women’s

Work Patims md Etigs

Womm’s Emplo~ent Dmtig Pre~mcy

ad Followtig Bbth

Work Experience, Job Tenure, Job Sepzation,

md Wage Groti

FmiIy Backgromd md Labor Muk& Outcom~
14

15

16

17

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

George J. Boijas

Stephen G. Bronm

Stephen J. Trejo

Jmes J. Hectim

Stephen V. ~eron

Peter Z. Schochet

R Mmk Griti

Thomas MaCudy

Alm L. Gus~~

Thomas L. Stei~eier

Au&ey L]ght

Ctiitopher J. Rti

Mwk Lowenstek

Jmes Spletier

Jacob Alex Klemm

Jacob Mex Klemm

&leen Leibowiti

Stephen G. Bronmi

C~ol Moore

Donald O. Pasom

Self-Seletiion md Internal Mi~tion k the

United States

The Detemhmts md Consequencesof Wbhc

Sectormd Rivate Seaor Trtitig

Pticipation in Low-Wage Labor MwkeK by

Young Men

Retuement h a Fmily Context A Stic-1 Model

for Husbmds md Wives

Trmsitions tiom”School to Work A Smey of

Reseach Ustig the National Longitndtial Smeys

High School Emplowent Conswption or

kvestient

Infomal Tratitig A Retiew of Existing Dam ad

Some New Evidence

Chmactetig Leave for Matemi~ Modelhg the

NLSY Dati

Employment Contkuity Among New Mothem

Incentive Pay, Infomation,”md Emtigs Evidence,

&om tie National Longitidmal Smey of Youth

The Evolving SWc~is of Female Work Activities

Evidence from the National Longitidmal Smeys of

Matie Women SWey, 1967-1989