David raises good points about moonlighting and average HH size....
1. "Moonlighting" data is collected for the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part
of the Current Population Survey. I recall an article in the BLS journal "Monthly
Labor Review" from several years ago, and it is available online at:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/03/art1abs.htm
Also, some interesting time use articles in the current edition of the Monthly Labor
Review, at:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/mlrhome.htm
In a nutshell, moonlighting rates (multiple job holding rates) have fluctuated both
upwards and downwards since they began collecting the data in 1970. It looks like
they're fairly stable in the early 1990s, at about 6.2 to 6.4 percent of employed
persons with more than one job.
I still think it's very plausible that this moonlighting rate increased between
1996-2000 in response to our economic boom and a slow growth in our labor force. And I
would definitely agree that understanding the multiple job holding is important in
reconciling job growth with labor force growth.
By the way, the census journey-to-work is basically about the principal or main (or is it
"usual") job reported by the census respondent, not all jobs that a respondent
may have. So, workers at place of work ARE NOT an estimate of total employment, but are
LOWER than "true" total employment because of a) weekly absenteeism; and b)
moonlighting jobs held by 6.0 percent or so of workers.
Moonlighting data can also be extracted from HH travel surveys by examining the extent of
multiple locations for work activities, if not by collecting data such as a simple tally
of the number of paid jobs held by each person in the household.
2. Yes, average household size in the US declined from 2.63 p/hh in 1990 to 2.59 p/hh in
2000. What I'm suspecting, looking at population age 16+, age 16-64, and age 65+, and
civilian employed by sex, is that the MALE labor force participation rates ARE LEVELLING
OFF, if NOT LOWER, for selected age cohorts. This is a guess based on the growth in
female civilian employed (14.4%) which is faster than the growth in male civilian employed
(10.2%).
Chuck
>> David Abrams <dabrams(a)mrgcog.org>
07/08/02 03:27PM >>>
>We are
thinking that there may be a major increase in persons working two jobs.
If
this is more widespread than Albuquerque it could have considerable
consequences. To my knowledge there is not data collected on workers
working multiple wage jobs.
>A question for Chuck Purvis: Did you control for
the change in household
size when you compared the workers to households ratios for
1990 and 2000.