1. University of California, Los Angeles and NBER
Caregiving and Work: The Relationship between Labor Market Attachment and Parental Caregiving
Sean Fahle
SUNY Buffalo
and
Kathleen McGarry
University of California, Los Angeles and NBER
We are grateful to the Sloan Foundation and to the SSA through a grant to the University of Michigan for funding

2. Importance of Informal Care

3. SOURCE: Arno, Levine and Memmott, Health Affairs, 2002.

4. SOURCE: Arno, Levine and Memmott, Health Affairs, 2002.

7. Cost of Caregiving Depends on who caregivers are
Drawn from those with full-time career jobs / higher opportunity cost of time?
Drawn from those with weaker attachment to the labor force?
Depends on long-term effects
Can caregivers return to employment?
Do they suffer permanent decline in earnings?
Are there long-term financial consequences?

8. Caregivers are Primarily Female
70% of child caregivers are daughters
85% of child-in-law caregivers are daughters-in-law

9. Outcomes for Caregivers
Concerns about labor supply
Change in labor force participation
Decline in earnings growth
Effect on retiree benefits: Pensions, health insurance
Concerns about own health
Increase in stress and depression
Increase in incidence of high blood pressure
Worse self-reported health
Little change in doctor diagnosed conditions

10. Data Sample restrictions: 1,557 women or 15,570 person years of data
Original HRS cohort
Observed from 1992 to 2010
Women only
Living parents or parents-in-law in wave 1
Not providing care when first observed
1,557 women or 15,570 person years of data

11. Question
Did you (or your husband / wife / partner) spend a total of 100 or more hours (since the previous wave / in the last two years) helping your (parents / mother / father) with basic personal activities like dressing, eating, and bathing?”
Follow up questions allow us to identify who helped, who was helped, and the number of hours.

12. Labor Force Attachment
Three approaches
Control for past behavior
Tenure on longest job and experience, measured at first interview
Use Social Security earnings records
Quarters of coverage ages 25-44
Average quarterly earnings ages 25-44
Expected PIA
Fixed effect models

13. Probability of Providing Care by Wave

14. Probability of Ever Providing Care by Wave

16. Hours of Care: Unconditional and Conditional
10 hours a week for two year

17. Cumulative Hours: Unconditional and Conditional

19. Selected Summary Statistics
Ever Care
No Care
Age
51.9
52.4
Non-white
0.18
0.14
Schooling
12.8
12.5
Working full time
0.51
0.47
Earnings if >0
33,370
30,025
Experience
23.5
21.6
Tenure on longest job
11.9
Covered quarters 25-44 38 34
Avg quarterly earnings
5,110
4,800
Expected PIA
1,620
1,510

20. Selected Summary Statistics
Ever Care
(723)
No Care
(834)
Risk:
Number of living parents
1.32
1.23
Number of living in-laws
0.69
0.52
Number of siblings
2.80
3.08
Number of sisters
1.39
1.65

21. Regression Analysis of Caregiving
Examine Prob(care) as a function of:
Standard demographic and economic variables + initial experience, tenure on the longest job
Significant coefficients include:
Experience in 1992 (+)
Number of Sisters (-)
Parental age (+)

22. Regression Analysis of Caregiving
Examine Prob(care) as a function of:
Standard demographic and economic variables + initial experience, tenure on the longest job
Significant coefficients include:
Experience in 1992 (+)
10 yrs of experience = 2 ppt increase / 20%
Number of Sisters (-)
Each sister = 10 ppt decline
Parental age (+)

23. Regression Analysis of Caregiving
Examine Prob(care) as a function of:
Standard demographic and economic variables + initial experience, tenure on the longest job
+ covered quarters, avg quarterly earnings
Significant coefficients include:
Tenure on the longest job (+)
Number of sisters (-), sisters-in-law (-)
Parent age (+)
Note: Social Security variables not significant

24. Regression Analysis of Caregiving
No evidence of negative selection into caregiving with respect to labor market experience
Positive related to tenure / experience
Caregiving depends in large part on need
Older parents
Fewer substitute caregivers

25. Regression Analysis Caregiving
Separately for parents and parents-in-law
For Parental Caregiving
Experience (+)
Sisters (-)
Parental age (+)
For Parent-in-law Caregiving
Parent-in-law age (+)
Weak evidence that husband’s earnings and household’s financial status matter

26. Observed Changes in Work & Caregiving
Time T-1 / Time T
Working full-time
Working part-time
Not working
Percent
72%
11%
17%
Change hours
-1.87
-15.18
-41.09
Change earnings
3,522
1,438
-34,122
15%
53%
32%
9.17
-1.61
-20.87
2,072
1,106
-14,735 3% 8%
89%
46.88
16.84
4,919
6,853

27. Observed Changes in Work & Caregiving
Time T-1 / Time T
Working full-time
Working part-time
Not working
Caregivers
Percent
72%
11%
17%
Change hours
-1.87
-15.18
-41.09
Change earnings
3,522
1,438
-34,122
Non-caregivers
74%
12%
14%
-0.03
-15.42
-42.15
1,136
-5,807
-33,754

28. Observed Changes in Work & Caregiving
Time T-1 / Time T
Working full-time
Working part-time
Not working
Caregivers
Percent
15%
53%
32%
Change hours
9.17
-1.61
-20.87
Change earnings
2,072
1,106
-14,735
Non-caregivers 15 61
24%
Change in hours
14.27
-0.64
-18.95
1,547
-1221
-11, 56
, 9

29. Regression Analysis of Working
Prob (working) = function of caregiving
+ Standard demographic and economic variables and initial experience, tenure on the longest job
+ Social Security variables
Prob (working) in fixed effects
Can’t identify effect of non-varying factors (e.g. sisters, prior experience, schooling…)

30. Regression Analysis Working
Results of standard variables are as expected:
Age (-)
Schooling (+)
Experience / tenure (+)
Married (-)
Poor health (-)
Social Security measures not significant

31. Regression Analysis of Working
Results of standard variables are as expected:
Age (-)
Schooling (+)
Experience / tenure (+)
Married (-)
Poor health (-)
Social Security measures not significant
Caregiving measures
Negative and significant effects on employment
Negative (not significant) effects on earnings
Mixed effects on conditional earnings

32. Regression Analysis of Working: Hours
Dependent Variable
OLS
Inc. Soc Sec
Fixed Effects
Working
Caregiving
-0.046**
-0.061***
-0.29*
Hours worked
1.669**
-1.90**
-1.71***
Hours worked > 0
-0.164
0.31
-1.290**

33. Regression Analysis of Work: Earnings
Dependent Variable
OLS
Inc. Soc Sec
Fixed Effects
Annual Earnings
Caregiving
-0.90
-1.23
-1.26
Annual Earnings > 0
1.07
1.28
-0.27
Tenure / Experience positive and significant predictors

34. Long term outcomes Depends on long-term effects
Can caregivers return to employment?
Do they suffer permanent decline in earnings?
Are there long-term financial consequences?

35. Long term effects of Caregiving
Means
Non-Caregivers
Caregivers
1992
Change
2010 – 1992
Net Wealth
344,399
163,450
360,242
133,276
HH Income
78,304
-21,721
83,847
-24,826
Earnings > 0
30,720
-18,499
34,030
-26,080*
Work 0/1
0.67
-0.44
0.71
-0.47
Work Full-time
0.47
-0.37
0.51
-0.44**
Work Part-time
0.2
-0.07
-0.03
Hrs worked > 0
35.83
-10.67
37.27
-11.79

36. Regression Analysis of Working 2010
Prob (working) = function of caregiving
+ Standard demographic and economic variables and initial experience, tenure on the longest job
+ Social Security variables

37. Regression Analysis of Working 2010
Dependent Variable
OLS
Inc. Soc Sec
Any Work 2010
Ever provided care
-0.025
-0.24
Annual Earnings ($1000)
-4.57**
-4.61**
Annual Earnings 2010 if > 0 ($1000)
-12.47**
-11.50**

38. Conclusions
Caregivers are not drawn from those with weak attachment to the labor force
Greater experience, tenure, earnings
More schooling
Caregiving has a negative effect on work
Negative on employment and hours
Caregiving has long-term consequences
Less likely to be working years later
Lower earnings

39. What the Future Holds Declines in fertility More women working
“Protective Effect” of Sisters
More women working
Greater opportunity cost
Aggregate cost of lost wages could increase
Changes in disease specific mortality
Greater demand for care

42. Thank You

43. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/mortality-rates-united-states/

44. Probability of Caregiving
Examine P(care) as a function of:
Demographic and economic variables
Age, race, schooling, marital status, hhwealth, number of siblings, parents, spousal income, spousal employment
+ Initial experience, tenure on the longest job

45. Long term effects Non-Caregivers Caregivers 1992 2010 Change
Net Wealth
344,399
507,849
163,450
360,242
493,518
133,276
HH Income
78,304
56,583
-21,721
83,847
59,021
-24,826
Earnings > 0
30,720
34,521
-18,499
34,030
22,914
-26,080*
Work 0/1
0.67
0.23
-0.44
0.71
0.24
-0.47
Work Full-time
0.47
0.1
-0.37
0.51
0.08
-0.44**
Work Part-time
0.2
0.13
-0.07
0.17
-0.03
Hrs worked > 0
35.83
27.28
-10.67
37.27
27.5
-11.79

46. Selected Summary Statistics
All
Ever Care
No Care
Age
52.3
51.9
52.4
Non-white
0.16
0.18
0.14
Schooling
12.6
12.8
12.5
Working full time
0.49
0.51
0.47
Earnings if >0
31,631
33,370
30,025
Experience
22.5
23.5
21.6
Tenure on longest job
12.3
11.9
Covered quarters 25-44 36 38 34
Avg quarterly earnings
4,940
5,110
4,800
Expected PIA
1,560
1,620
1,510

47. Selected Summary Statistics
All
(1,557)
Ever Care
(723)
No Care
(834)
Risk:
Number of living parents
1.27
1.32
1.23
Number of living in-laws
0.60
0.69
0.52
Number of siblings
2.95
2.80
3.08
Number of sisters
1.53
1.39
1.65

48. Changes in Work and Caregiving
Time T-1 / Time T
Working full-time
Working part-time
Not working
Percent
72%
11%
17%
Change hours
-1.87
-15.18
-41.09
Change earnings
3,522
1,438
-34,122
15%
53%
32%
9.17
-1.61
-20.87
2,072
1,106
-14,735 3% 8%
89%
46.88
16.84
4,919
6,853

49. Changes in Work Caregiving
Time T-1 / Time T
Working full-time
Working part-time
Not working
Percent
74%
12%
14%
Change hours
-0.03
-15.42
-42.15
Change earnings
1,136
-5,807
-33,754 15 61
24%
Change in hours
14.27
-0.64
-18.95
1,547
-1221
-11,956 3% 6%
91%
42.46
17.60
0.00
16,718
5,792