Reply to Gendell and Jaffe

Both Gendell and Jaffe misinterpret the main thrust of the life-cycle squeeze article by asserting that the analysis falls into the old demographic pitfall of making improper inferences about changes over time on the basis of cross-sectional data-in this case, inferring changes in occupational earnings on the basis of 1959 earnings by age. In addition, Gendell has two additional and very extensive comments that have little to do with the analysis presented in the published paper. However, since these comments reveal some basic misconceptions as well as an unnecessarily negative approach to the study of an important research area, some discussion of these issues is also called for. Jaffe's and Gendell's criticisms of the presumed longitudinal inferences made on the basis of cross-sectional data are rather surprising since it should not even require a very careful reading of the article to find a discussion. of just this problem. Considerable pains were taken, furthermore, to point out that, longitudinal inferences aside, cross-sectional data on earnings can nevertheless provide valuable insights by comparing men at different stages of the life cycle at one point in time (Oppenheimer, 1974a, pp. 233, 241, 243). The article can stand on cross-sectional comparisons alone and need not attempt to make longitudinal inferences. Since Jaffe's and Gendell's emphasis on longitudinal inferences to the exclusion of other types of inferences may confuse the situation, some conceptual clarification of the issues involved is important. There are several relevant comparisons to be made in determining the "objective" economic position of families as well as in investigating the comparisons families might themselves be making in evaluating their "subjective" current economic position. One important comparison is that of the husband's present earnings with his earnings at an earlier point in the family cycle. If his earnings have declined over time, then this could be interpreted as a life-cycle squeeze, given that his economic responsibilities have remained the same or increased. This is the comparison that Jaffe and Gendell have chosen to focus on exclusively, and it is certainly true that earnings patterns by age are an imperfect indicator of this. However, there are other relevant comparisons as well-comparisons which can be legitimately made on the basis of crosssectional data. One is the comparison of earnings of men in the same occupational group (and hence presumably in roughly the same reference group in the sociological sense of the term [see Merton, 1957, Chapters 8 and 9]) but at different stages of the family cycle. For example, how often do men with adolescent children to provide for have the same earnings as other men in the same occupation but with only grade schoolers to support? The objective fact is that, if both men have similar earnings but different levels of economic responsibility, then their levels of living are likely to vary unless there is an additional source of income. The further inference is that, if these men share similar economic aspirations regarding life styles, then subjective feelings of relative economic deprivation may develop in the economically less favored family. This is another