Advertisement

Timing, togetherness and time windfalls

  • Daniel S. Hamermesh
Part of the Population Economics book series (POPULATION)

Abstract

With appropriate data the analysis of time use, labor supply and leisure can move beyond the standard questions of wage and income elasticities of hours supplied. I present four examples: 1) American data from 1973 through 1997 show that the amount of evening and night work in the U.S. has decreased. 2) The same data demonstrate that workers whose relative earnings increase experience a relative diminution of the burden of work at unpleasant times. 3) U.S. data for the 1970s and 1990s demonstrate that spouses’ work schedules are more synchronized than would occur randomly; synchrony among working spouses diminished after the 1970s; and the full-income elasticity of demand for it was higher among wives than among husbands in the 1970s but equal in the 1990s. 4) Dutch time-budget data for 1990 show that the overwhelming majority of the windfall hour that occurred when standard time resumed was used for extra sleep.

Keywords

Labor Market Labor Supply Wage Inequality Market Work Night Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker G (1965) A Theory of the Allocation of Time.Economic Journal75(3):493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman E, Bound J, Machin S (1998) Implications of Skill-Biased Technological Change: International Evidence.Quarterly Journal of Economics113(4):1245–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BiddleJHamermesh D (1990) Sleep and the Allocation of Time.Journal of Political Economy98(5):922–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boskin M, Dulberger E, Gordon R, Griliches Z, Jorgenson D (1998) Consumer Prices, the Con-sumer Price Index, and the Cost of Living.Journal of Economic Perspectives12(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gronau R, Hamermesh D (2001) TheDemand for Variety: A Household Production Perspective. National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper No. 8509, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamermesh D (1984) Life Cycle Effects on Consumption and Retirement.Journal of Labor Economics2(3):353–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamermesh D (1996)Workdays Workhours and Work Schedules: Evidence for the United States and Germany.The W.E. Upjohn Institute, Kalamazoo, MIGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamermesh D (l999a) The Timing of Work Over Time.Economic Journal109(1):37–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamermesh D (1999b) Changing Inequality in Markets for Workplace Amenities.Quarterly Journal of Economics114(4):1085–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holtz-Eakin D, Joulfaian D, Rosen H (1993) The Carnegie Conjecture: Some Empirical Evidence.Quarterly Journal of Economics108(2):413–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Imbens G, Rubin D, Sacerdote B (1999) Estimating the Effects of Unearned Income on Labor Supply, Earnings, Savings, and Consumption: Evidence from a Survey of Lottery Players. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 7001, MarchGoogle Scholar
  12. Inchauste G (1997)Education Labor Supply and Household Expenditures in Bolivia.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of TexasGoogle Scholar
  13. Juhn C, Murphy KM, Topel R (1991) Why Has the Natural Rate of Unemployment Increased over Time?Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2:75–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Juhn C, Murphy KM, Pierce B (1993) Wage inequality and the rise in returns to skill.Journal of Political Economy101(3):410–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Killingsworth M, Heckman J (1986) Female Labor Supply: A Survey. In: Ashenfelter O, Layard R (eds)Handbook of Labor Economics.North-Holland, Amsterdam, 103–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kostiuk P (1990) Compensating Differentials for Shift Work.Journal of Political Economy98(5):1054–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larson R, Richards M (1994)Divergent Realities: The Emotional Lives of Mothers Fathers and Adolescents.Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Leamer E (1996) Wage Inequality from International Competition and Technological Change: Theory and Country Experience.American Economic Review86(2):309–314Google Scholar
  19. Lundberg S, Pollak R, Wales T (1997) Do Husbands and Wives Pool their Resources? Evidence from the U.K. Child Benefit.Journal of Human Resources32(3):463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mellor E (1986) Shift Work and Flexible Time: How Prevalent Are They?Monthly Labor Review109(11):14–21Google Scholar
  21. Pereira PT, Martins PS (2000) Does Education Reduce Wage Inequality: Evidence from Fifteen European Countries. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Working Paper No. 120, Bonn, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Pencavel J (1986) Labor Supply of Men: A Survey. In: Ashenfelter O, Layard R (eds)Handbook of Labor Economics.North-Holland, Amsterdam, 3–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets.Journal of Political Economy82(1):34–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stafford F (1986) Forestalling the Demise of Empirical Economics: The Role of Microdata in Labor Economics Research. In: Ashenfelter O, Layard R (eds)Handbook of Labor Economics.North-Holland, Amsterdam, 387–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomas D (1994) Like Father, Like Son: Like Mother, Like Daughter: Parental Resources and Child Height.Journal of Human Resources29(1):950–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woodbury S, Hamermesh D (1992) Taxes, Fringe Benefits and Faculty.Review of Economics and Statistics84(2):287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel S. Hamermesh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations