THE CHORE WARS Household Bargaining and Leisure Time

Transcription

1 THE CHORE WARS Household Bargaining and Leisure Time Leora Friedberg University of Virginia and NBER Anthony Webb Center for Retirement Research, Boston College

2 Motivation Can time use of spouses be explained by household bargaining? Is this why wives spend more time doing chores? Does this help explain popular concerns related to time use? The Overworked American The Second Shift Economic approach to studying household bargaining Distribution of income among family members affects household decisions spending on men s vs. women s clothing alcohol and tobacco children s health, education

3 Motivation Can time use of spouses be explained by household bargaining? Is this why wives spend more time doing chores? Does this help explain popular concerns related to time use? The Overworked American The Second Shift Economic approach to studying household bargaining Distribution of income among family members affects household decisions spending on men s vs. women s clothing alcohol and tobacco children s health, education

4 Contributions We extend earlier work on household bargaining in several ways Studies are limited to observable, assignable outcomes Studies are limited to observable, assignable resources But other empirical identification problems arise Wages affect time use in many ways

5 Contributions Studies are limited to observable, assignable outcomes

6 Contributions Studies are limited to observable, assignable outcomes Most consumption data is difficult to assign either consumption is shared by everyone or consumption is observed at household level Time use data from ATUS time spent on leisure, chores is easy to assign more interesting outcome than most others

7 Contributions Studies are limited to observable, assignable outcomes Most consumption data is difficult to assign either consumption is shared by everyone or consumption is observed at household level Time use data from ATUS time spent on leisure, chores is easy to assign more interesting outcome than most others

8 Contributions Studies are limited to observable, assignable resources

9 Contributions Studies are limited to observable, assignable resources Most income data is difficult to assign a few studies use variation in government transfers other use earnings, which depends on choice of hours Time use data from ATUS ATUS respondents are drawn from CPS households CPS reports hourly wages for both spouses

10 Contributions Studies are limited to observable, assignable resources Most income data is difficult to assign a few studies use variation in government transfers other use earnings, which depends on choice of hours Time use data from ATUS ATUS respondents are drawn from CPS households CPS reports hourly wages for both spouses

11 Contributions We extend earlier work in several ways Studies are limited to observable, assignable outcomes Studies are limited to observable, assignable resources But other empirical identification problems arise Wages affect time use in many ways

12 But other empirical identification problems arise Wages affect time use in many ways Contributions

13 Contributions But other empirical identification problems arise Wages affect time use in many ways Affect incentive to work in market (substitution effect) Affect incentive to purchase household services (income effect) Affect incentive to specialize ( gains from trade )

14 Impact of relative wages Main results We focus on two-worker families estimate extent to which higher-wage spouse consumes more leisure, does less housework on weekends while controlling for household income We compare results for various subsamples similar results for spouses in two full-time-worker families strongest results for childless couples

15 Impact of relative wages We focus on two-worker families Main results estimate extent to which higher-wage spouse consumes more leisure, does less housework on weekends while controlling for household income We compare results for various subsamples similar results for spouses in two full-time-worker families strongest results for childless couples

16 Impact of relative wages We focus on two-worker families Main results estimate extent to which higher-wage spouse consumes more leisure, does less housework on weekends while controlling for household income We compare results for various subsamples similar results for spouses in two full-time-worker families strongest results for childless couples

17 Main results Impact of relative wages Significantly affect women s time use in two-worker families wives with higher relative wages spend more time taking leisure minutes/weekend day, for 1 std deviation increase especially watching TV, relaxing, spending time with family wives with higher relative wages spend less time doing chores minutes/weekend day, for 1 std deviation increase especially cooking, cleaning Less effect on men s time use, except

18 Main results Impact of relative wages Significantly affect women s time use in two-worker families wives with higher relative wages spend more time taking leisure minutes/weekend day, for 1 std deviation increase especially watching TV, relaxing, spending time with family wives with higher relative wages spend less time doing chores minutes/weekend day, for 1 std deviation increase especially cooking, cleaning Less effect on men s time use, except

19 Main results Impact of relative wages Significantly affect women s time use in two-worker families wives with higher relative wages spend more time taking leisure minutes/weekend day, for 1 std deviation increase especially watching TV, relaxing, spending time with family wives with higher relative wages spend less time doing chores minutes/weekend day, for 1 std deviation increase especially cooking, cleaning Less effect on men s time use, except

20 Main results Impact of relative wages Significantly affect women s time use in two-worker families wives with higher relative wages spend more time taking leisure wives with higher relative wages spend less time doing chores Less effect on men s time use, except husbands with higher relative wages spend more time engaged in personal activities, working out more time fixing things in the house (!) less time with family (!)

21 Main results Impact of relative wages Significantly affect women s time use in two-worker families wives with higher relative wages spend more time taking leisure wives with higher relative wages spend less time doing chores Less effect on men s time use, except husbands with higher relative wages spend more time engaged in personal activities, working out more time fixing things in the house (!) less time with family (!)

22 Main results Impact of relative wages Significantly affect women s time use in two-worker families wives with higher relative wages spend more time taking leisure wives with higher relative wages spend less time doing chores Less effect on men s time use, except husbands with higher relative wages spend more time engaged in personal activities, working out more time fixing things in the house (!) less time with family (!)

23 Outline 1. Introduction Motivation Contributions Main results 2. Theoretical considerations 3. Data 4. Empirical results 5. Conclusions

24 Outline 1. Introduction Motivation Contributions Main results 2. Theoretical considerations 3. Data 4. Empirical results 5. Conclusions

25 Theoretical considerations Model of individual time use Individual maximizes U(C, L, S 1,, S K ), subject to money budget time budget Y + w i H= p C C+ Σ k S ~ i T = H + k + L m S k service production S k = = k i i ω k S ~ k m p k S k Utility maximization with non-negativity constraints yields k is not consumed if otherwise k is purchased in market if or else k is produced at home if

26 Theoretical considerations Model of individual time use Individual maximizes U(C, L, S 1,, S K ), subject to money budget time budget Y + w i H= p C C+ Σ k S ~ i T = H + k + L m S k service production S k = = k i i ω k S ~ k m p k S k Utility maximization with non-negativity constraints yields i 1 ωk k is not consumed if U, < C i pk w U k i i w otherwise k is purchased in market if ωk p or else k is produced at home if i w p k ω i k k

27 Theoretical considerations Theoretical effects of wages Model of individual time use substitution effect of w i : w H L, income effect of w i : w L, C, S m i S ~ i S ~

28 Theoretical considerations Model of household time use without bargaining o Benchmark: spouse provides household services S k exogenously

29 Theoretical considerations Theoretical effects of wages Model of individual time use substitution effect of w i : w i i H L, S ~ income effect of w i : w i L, C, S m S ~ Benchmark model of household time use without bargaining substitution effect of w o : w o S o S i income effect of w o : w o S m S i i

30 Theoretical considerations Theoretical effects of wages Model of individual time use substitution effect of w i : w i i H L, S ~ income effect of w i : w i L, C, S m S ~ Benchmark model of household time use without bargaining substitution effect of w o : w o S o S ~ i income effect of w o : w o S m S ~ i i

31 Theoretical considerations Model of household time use without bargaining Benchmark: spouse provides household services exogenously o S k Efficient allocation within household specialization k is not consumed if otherwise k is purchased in market if or else k is produced at home by i if or else k is produced at home by o if

32 Theoretical considerations Model of household time use without bargaining Benchmark: spouse provides household services exogenously Efficient allocation within household specialization k is not consumed if otherwise k is purchased in market if or else k is produced at home by i if or else k is produced at home by o if o S k ( ) o k i k C o o k j j k k U U U w ω, w ω, p 1 + < k o o k k i i k p w ω, p w ω i k k i i o i k o k ω p w, w w ω ω o k k o o i o k i k ω p w, w w ω ω

33 Theoretical considerations Theoretical effects of wages Model of individual time use substitution effect of w i : w i i H L, S ~ income effect of w i : w i L, C, S m S ~ Benchmark model of household time use without bargaining substitution effect of w o : w o S o S ~ i income effect of w o : w o S m S ~ i Specialization model of household time use without bargaining substitution effects are accentuated i

34 Theoretical considerations Theoretical effects of wages Model of individual time use substitution effect of w i : w i i H L, S ~ income effect of w i : w i L, C, S m S ~ Benchmark model of household time use without bargaining substitution effect of w o : w o S o S ~ i income effect of w o : w o S m S ~ i Specialization model of household time use without bargaining substitution effects are accentuated i

35 Models of bargaining in marriage Theoretical considerations Nash bargaining equilibrium maximizes N = (U h -R h )*(U w -R w ) suppose U j = Y j for each spouse j exogenous household income is split so Y = Y h +Y w Y Chiappori sharing rule φ(r h, R w ) j j Y + R R = 2 j determines split of exogenous household income Y φ h, φ w φ j, not Y, determines income effect on individual demand φ j L, S T, S F

36 Models of bargaining in marriage Theoretical considerations Nash bargaining equilibrium maximizes N = (U h -R h )*(U w -R w ) suppose U j = Y j for each spouse j exogenous household income is split so Y = Y h +Y w Y Chiappori sharing rule φ(r h, R w ) j j Y + R R = 2 j determines split of exogenous household income Y φ h, φ w φ j, not Y, determines income effect on individual demand φ j L, S T, S F

37 Theoretical considerations Identifying effect of threat points on time use Previous studies some can attribute non-labor income to a spouse some study impact of each spouse s earnings but: choice of hours isn t separable from other time use We can measure each spouse s wage Nash model we will include own and spouse s wage, household income

38 Theoretical considerations Identifying effect of threat points on time use Previous studies some can attribute non-labor income to a spouse some study impact of each spouse s earnings but: choice of hours isn t separable from other time use We can measure each spouse s wage Nash model we will include own and spouse s wage, household income

39 Theoretical considerations Identifying effect of threat points on time use But wages may induce income, substitution effects too we control for household income (though not non-labor income), estimate effect of wage share (instead of wages) we focus on weekends, when substitution effects are minimal But wages may induce specialization effects too we focus on weekends, when specialization may be less likely we focus on some subsamples exhibiting less specialization both spouses work full-time childless couples

40 Theoretical considerations Identifying effect of threat points on time use But wages may induce income, substitution effects too we control for household income (though not non-labor income), estimate effect of wage share (instead of wages) we focus on weekends, when substitution effects are minimal But wages may induce specialization effects too we focus on weekends, when specialization may be less likely we focus on some subsamples exhibiting less specialization both spouses work full-time childless couples

41 Theoretical considerations Identifying effect of threat points on time use What about non-workers? we focus on two-worker couples don t know relevant wage for non-workers work decision may have arisen in earlier stage of bargaining Is weekday, weekend time use separable? again, we focus on subsample in which both spouses work full-time

42 Outline 1. Introduction Motivation Contributions Main results 2. Theoretical considerations 3. Data 4. Empirical results 5. Conclusions

43 American Time Use Survey ATUS was first conducted in 2003 Data one randomly-selected respondent from randomly-selected civilian non-institutionalized households that completed 8th rotation group of CPS 2-5 months earlier matched to CPS data 57% response rate among those contacted sample of 20,720 Telephone survey covering previous day s activities includes information on where, with whom activities took place some new labor force, demographic data for household members

44 American Time Use Survey ATUS was first conducted in 2003 Data one randomly-selected respondent from randomly-selected civilian non-institutionalized households that completed 8th rotation group of CPS 2-5 months earlier matched to CPS data 57% response rate among those contacted sample of 20,720 Telephone survey covering previous day s activities includes information on where, with whom activities took place some new labor force, demographic data for household members

45 Data Sample selection 1. married non-cohabiting respondents 9, eliminated households with: other adults, subfamilies, ATUS household member not recorded in CPS, ATUS respondent recorded as unmarried in CPS 8, eliminated households with respondent or spouse reported as disabled in ATUS or CPS 8, couldn t account for >30 minutes of day s activities 7, both spouses work 3, non-zero hourly wage for both spouses 2, interviewed on weekend day or holiday 1, men, 749 women

46 Data Men (n=685) Women (n=749) Mean (std dev) self spouse self spouse hourly wage (11.60) (10.60) (11.20) (12.35) household inc [mode] $75,000-99,999 $75,000-99,999 hourly wage (own + spouse s wage) (0.139) (0.139)

47 Data Men (n=685) Women (n=749) Mean (std dev) self spouse self spouse hourly wage (11.60) (10.60) (11.20) (12.35) household inc [mode] $75,000-99,999 $75,000-99,999 hourly wage (own + spouse s wage) (0.139) (0.139) any kids age < any kids age ed: didn t finish HS HS diploma some college bachelor s degree post-graduate race: white black other nonwhite hispanic age 42.6 (10.1) 40.5 (9.8) 40.4 (10.0) 42.2 (10.1)

48 Classifying activities Classification of activities Official BLS reports: 12 categories of time use We focus on 4 broad categories, then many specific activities leisure L household services (i.e., chores) S hours H emergencies E

49 Classification of activities ATUS code Description Our classification ATUS classification 01 except personal care L 0105 personal care E personal care emergencies 02 except household activities S household activities ****04 household & personal mail, messages, L telephone calls, mail, 03 caring for & helping household members S caring for & helping household members 04 caring for & helping non-household members S caring for & helping non-hh members 05 except working & work-related activities H working & work ****03 socializing, eating, sports L as part of job related activities

50 Classification of activities ATUS code Description Our classification ATUS classification 06 except... educational activities H or L **03** **04** education for degree H **03** **04** education for personal interest L 07 consumer purchases S 08 except... professional & personal S care services 0805 personal care services L 09 household services S 10 except... government services & S civic obligations **03** using police & fire E services engaging in civic obligations & participation educational activities purchasing goods & services E organizational, civic, & religious activities

51 Classification of activities ATUS code Description Our classification ATUS classification 11 eating & drinking L eating & drinking 12 socializing, relaxing, leisure L leisure & sports 13 sports, exercise, recreation L 14 religious, spiritual activities L organizational, civic, & 15 volunteer activities L religious activities 16 except... phone calls S telephone calls, mail, & ****02 phone calls w/ family, L friends 17 traveling assigned to associated activities 50 data codes 50 other activities, n.e.c.

52 Summary of time use Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time working 538 (211) 108 (215) 411 (233) 84 (189) Time in leisure 760 (176) 1059 (229) 793 (171) 1023 (218) Time on chores 140 (143) 272 (200) 234 (178) 331 (201) Time in emergencies 2 (24) 2 (15) 2 (9) 2 (15) N

53 Summary of time use (work) Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time working 538 (211) 108 (215) 411 (233) 84 (189) Main job 482 (194) 89 (196) 369 (215) 68 (169) Other job 9 (52) 10 (66) 6 (46) 8 (54) Job search 0.5 (8) 0.4 (6) 0.2 (5) 0 Work-related travel, driving 42 (41) 7 (20) 29 (33) 5 (16) Other 5 (37) 2 (27) 7 (45) 4 (37)

54 Summary of time use (leisure) Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time in leisure 760 (176) 1059 (229) 793 (171) 1023 (218) Personal care 487 (103) 569 (122) 526 (104) 600 (123) sleep 446 (100) 533 (120) 468 (99) 549 (119) other 41 (43) 35 (41) 58 (51) 51 (49) Eating & drinking 69 (45) 86 (69) 71 (64) 85 (71) Sports, exercise, rec 15 (49) 40 (112) 13 (39) 21 (70) participating 12 (44) 33 (102) 11 (35) 15 (55) watching 2 (22) 7 (43) 2 (17) 5 (43) Religious & spiritual 3 (18) 22 (62) 3 (20) 25 (65) Volunteering 7 (46) 10 (59) 9 (43) 11 (48)...

55 Summary of time use (leisure) Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time in leisure 760 (176) 1059 (229) 793 (171) 1023 (218)... Misc. leisure 179 (130) 331 (193) 168 (137) 280 (177) mail, ,phn w/fam,frds 4 (13) 3 (16) 7 (22) 7 (29) soc lize, time w/fam 20 (50) 49 (99) 29 (59) 59 (99) attending social events 2 (14) 18 (69) 2 (19) 13 (53) relaxing & leisure 147 (123) 232 (174) 118 (114) 174 (147) relax, think, smoke 14 (38) 14 (48) 13 (50) 10 (37) watching TV 106 (107) 176 (156) 84 (92) 130 (129) games, computer use 11 (38) 16 (53) 7 (28) 9 (34) reading, writing 13 (34) 22 (55) 13 (32) 23 (51) other 2 (15) 4 (29) 2 (18) 2 (20) go out for arts & ent. 2 (17) 12 (51) 5 (30) 11 (54) other 5 (15) 16 (33) 7 (20) 16 (36) Other 2 (19) 1 (12) 3 (18) 2 (23)

56 Summary of time use (chores) Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time on chores 140 (143) 272 (200) 234 (178) 331 (201) Women s chores 31 (53) 57 (86) 83 (89) 143 (139) cleaning 9 (32) 25 (63) 38 (65) 78 (111) food preparation 16 (29) 23 (42) 38 (42) 52 (65) household org, other 4 (19) 7 (27) 5 (21) 10 (50) Men s chores 21 (67) 85 (138) 10 (38) 26 (71) fixing things inside 4 (28) 19 (77) 3 (18) 8 (45) fixing things outside 5 (29) 21 (79) 1 (12) 4 (27) lawn & garden 8 (36) 34 (83) 5 (29) 12 (47) cars, tools, appliances 4 (29) 12 (44) 1 (7) 1 (10) Household finances 2 (10) 3 (30) 3 (18) 2 (13)...

57 Summary of time use (chores) Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time on chores 140 (143) 272 (200) 234 (178) 331 (201)... Caring for h hold members 45 (79) 46 (93) 77 (98) 62 (100) children 41 (79) 42 (92) 71 (98) 55 (99) general 30 (69) 37 (83) 51 (75) 48 (88) educational 4 (17) 2 (14) 6 (21) 2 (12) driving 6 (16) 3 (16) 12 (24) 4 (16) other 1 (9) 1 (14) 2 (17) 2 (20) pets 4 (13) 4 (17) 4 (14) 7 (24) caring for other adults 1 (9) 0.1 (3) 1 (14) 0.4 (5)...

58 Summary of time use (chores) Men Women Average minutes/day Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Total time Time on chores 140 (143) 272 (200) 234 (178) 331 (201)... Caring for non-hh members 9 (39) 12 (50) 13 (54) 17 (60) children 2 (15) 3 (21) 5 (33) 5 (31) other adults 8 (37) 9 (46) 8 (43) 12 (51) helping 4 (26) 6 (38) 2 (16) 5 (35) driving 3 (17) 2 (13) 3 (17) 4 (19) caring, other 1 (10) 1 (17) 3 (30) 2 (21) pets 4 (13) 4 (17) 4 (14) 7 (24) Shopping 30 (58) 64 (96) 47 (72) 78 (97) goods 23 (48) 60 (94) 36 (63) 74 (95) household services 1 (10) 1 (15) 2 (12) 1 (10) other 5 (26) 3 (18) 9 (30) 3 (17) Other 2 (24) 4 (23) 2 (11) 3 (24)

59 Outline 1. Introduction Motivation Contributions Main results 2. Theoretical considerations 3. Data 4. Estimation 5. Conclusions

60 Estimation OLS regressions Left-hand side variable: time use time spent per weekend day in an activity activities: leisure, chores, specific categories of each Right-hand side variables: spouses wages, additional controls household income children, education level, race, age, season Sample respondents in households with two working spouses, wage data separate regressions for men, women

61 Estimation OLS regressions Left-hand side variable: time use time spent per weekend day in an activity activities: leisure, chores, specific categories of each Right-hand side variables: spouses wages, additional controls household income children, education level, race, age, season Sample respondents in households with two working spouses, wage data separate regressions for men, women

62 Estimation OLS regressions Left-hand side variable: time use time spent per weekend day in an activity activities: leisure, chores, specific categories of each Right-hand side variables: spouses wages, additional controls household income children, education level, race, age, season Sample respondents in households with two working spouses, wage data separate regressions for men, women

63 Estimation Exploratory estimates Alternate specifications of wages, household income Results LHS variable: total minutes of leisure per weekend day sample: women not sensitive to specification of wage, household income higher relative wages raise women s leisure time significantly, substantially

64 Results: Alternate specifications of wages Sample: Women Dependent variable: Minutes of leisure per day on weekends, holidays (1) (2) (3) (4) hourly wage 2.99 (0.73) spouse s hourly wage (0.74) own hourly wage (57.8) (58.1) (58.3) (own + spouse s wage) HH income dummies? yes yes no no [p-value on joint F test] [0.0749] [0.1706] residual household inc (0.495) - residual household inc (0.019) - R N

65 Estimation Exploratory estimates Alternate specifications of wages, household income Results LHS variable: total minutes of leisure per weekend day sample: women not sensitive to specification of wage, household income higher relative wages raise women s leisure time significantly, substantially

66 Estimation Exploratory estimates Alternate specifications of wages, household income Results LHS variable: total minutes of leisure per weekend day sample: women not sensitive to specification of wage, household income we ll focus on specification (2) higher relative wages raise women s leisure time significantly, substantially one standard deviation increase in women s wage leisure time/weekend day by 18.3 minutes

67 Estimation Main estimates Specification (2): control for wage share, household income dummies Results LHS variables: total minutes of leisure, chores per weekend day samples: women, men higher relative wages significantly raise women s leisure time, reduce women s chores time wages have little effect on men s overall time use

68 Results: Main specification Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Men Women Leisure Chores Leisure Chores own wage/total wages (74.1) 7.7 (63.4) (57.8) (56.9) HH inc [p-value] [0.0000] [0.0000] [0.1706] [0.0000] R N

69 Results: Main specification Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Men Women Leisure Chores Leisure Chores own wage/total wages (74.1) 7.7 (63.4) (57.8) (56.9) HH inc [p-value] [0.0000] [0.0000] [0.1706] [0.0000] R N

70 Results: Main specification Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Men Women Leisure Chores Leisure Chores own wage/total wages (74.1) 7.7 (63.4) (57.8) (56.9) HH inc [p-value] [0.0000] [0.0000] [0.1706] [0.0000] has kids age < (23.0) 77.6 (19.3) (19.4) 88.5 (18.5) has kids age (18.7) 50.3 (15.8) (16.3) 39.5 (15.1) R N

71 Results: Main specification Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Men Women Leisure Chores Leisure Chores own wage/total wages (74.1) 7.7 (63.4) (57.8) (56.9) HH inc [p-value] [0.0000] [0.0000] [0.1706] [0.0000] has kids age < (23.0) 77.6 (19.3) (19.4) 88.5 (18.5) has kids age (18.7) 50.3 (15.8) (16.3) 39.5 (15.1) self: no high sch dipl 98.8 (51.7) (40.5) 25.8 (57.7) (59.7) some college -4.1 (25.3) 6.2 (22.8) 20.3 (21.7) -3.4 (19.2) bachelor s degree 0.1 (29.3) 1.4 (25.9) (29.7) 8.5 (23.9) post-graduate 21.2 (34.5) (30.7) (35.0) 2.7 (30.0) spouse: no high sch dipl (47.9) -8.1 (39.7) (45.2) 1.4 (37.7) some college (26.0) -2.7 (22.7) (21.6) 39.0 (19.4) bachelor s degree (30.2) 21.3 (27.7) (26.1) -7.3 (21.3) post-graduate (37.8) 37.5 (31.9) 12.0 (35.0) (30.5) self: black 93.6 (30.1) (26.9) 34.0 (46.2) (40.9) other nonwhite 12.1 (48.0) (39.4) (40.6) 25.6 (39.8) self: hispanic -9.3 (34.2) 3.6 (28.1) 13.2 (28.4) 11.1 (26.0) self: age -3.0 (2.0) 3.1 (1.7) 1.8 (2.0) -1.8 (1.9) spouse: age 2.2 (2.0) -1.7 (1.8) -2.2 (1.9) 1.8 (1.8)

72 Estimation Main estimates Specification (2): control for wage share, household income dummies Results LHS variables: total minutes of leisure, chores per weekend day samples: women, men higher relative wages significantly raise women s leisure time, reduce women s chores time one standard deviation increase in women s wage leisure time/weekend day by 18.3 minutes chores time/weekend day by 14.5 minutes wages have little effect on men s overall time use

73 Additional estimates: effects on specific activities Same specification, samples Estimation LHS variables: minutes spent per weekend day on specific activities on specific types of leisure, chores with various family members limit focus to coefficient on wage share Results higher relative wages for women have significant effects for specific types of time use higher relative wages for men have significant effects for specific types of time use

74 Results: Estimated effects on specific activities Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) Time in emergencies -2.5 (3.6) -6.2 (5.8) N

75 Results: Estimated effects on specific activities (leisure) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Personal care -1.4 (38.1) (32.6) sleep (35.9) (30.8) other 31.4 (13.1) 2.7 (14.0) Eating & drinking -7.7 (19.4) -6.3 (18.4) Sports, exercise, & recreation 23.0 (36.0) -8.6 (18.7) participating 37.9 (33.3) (14.9) watching (12.8) 4.0 (11.5) Religious & spiritual (23.0) 1.7 (16.5) Volunteering 8.5 (17.4) 15.4 (15.2)

76 Results: Estimated effects on specific activities (leisure) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Miscellaneous leisure (61.0) (47.6) mail, , phone w/ fam, friends -0.7 (7.2) 3.2 (7.2) socialize,spend time w/ fam,friends 27.0 (30.4) 25.3 (28.4) attending social events 3.6 (19.9) 3.2 (13.4) relaxing & leisure (49.7) 94.8 (38.2) relaxing, thinking, smoking 2.1 (12.0) 27.6 (14.0) watching TV -5.3 (43.9) 73.6 (35.0) games, computer use -0.7 (17.9) -0.0 (9.1) reading, writing (20.0) -2.5 (13.6) going out for arts & entertainment 4.1 (15.5) 30.6 (20.7)

77 Results: Estimated effects on specific activities (chores) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) Women s chores (28.2) (38.6) cleaning (19.4) (30.1) food preparation -6.2 (13.6) (18.8) household organization, other -0.3 (6.3) (14.7) Men s chores 51.3 (39.9) (17.9) fixing things inside 52.9 (21.8) (11.2) fixing things outside (22.4) (7.1) lawn & garden 22.3 (24.0) -1.3 (12.3) cars, tools, appliances -2.6 (12.7) 0.9 (2.9) Household finances 28.0 (27.3) -2.6 (4.2)

78 Results: Estimated effects on specific activities (chores) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) Caring for household members (24.8) 10.4 (24.1) children (24.3) 12.3 (23.4) general (22.0) 17.8 (21.0) educational -3.5 (4.9) -0.4 (4.0) driving 1.9 (4.5) -2.4 (4.2) pets 1.2 (4.2) -2.0 (5.4) other adults 0.5 (0.4) 0.1 (1.3)

79 Results: Estimated effects on specific activities (chores) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends, holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) Caring for non-household members 3.9 (14.6) 16.0 (16.3) children 2.6 (7.7) -2.4 (9.9) other adults 1.3 (12.7) 18.4 (13.3) caring 4.7 (4.1) 1.4 (5.2) helping -0.0 (10.8) 8.7 (9.2) driving -3.5 (3.2) 5.6 (4.6) Shopping (30.5) -8.8 (25.9) for goods (29.4) -8.6 (25.6) for household services 1.7 (4.0) 4.1 (2.6) for other services 5.0 (9.9) -4.3 (4.2)

80 Results: Estimated effects on time spent with people Dependent variable: Minutes spent with per weekend, holiday day Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time spent with family members (82.8) (65.4) household (82.1) (69.5) non-household 8.7 (30.6) 24.8 (28.1) spouse (84.1) (72.9) spouse only, no one else 15.8 (57.4) (54.1) any kids (70.8) 31.6 (61.9) own household kids (66.8) 21.8 (59.2) providing 2 ary care to own kids < age (71.3) (65.9) friends (35.4) -3.6 (31.4)

81 Estimation Additional estimates: effects on specific activities Same specification, samples Results LHS variables: minutes spent per weekend day on specific activities on specific types of leisure, chores with various family members limit focus to coefficient on wage share higher relative wages for women have significant effects for specific types of time use higher relative wages for men have significant effects for specific types of time use

82 Estimation Additional estimates: effects on specific activities Same specification, samples Results LHS variables: minutes spent per weekend day on specific activities higher relative wages for women significantly (or almost) raise time spent with family, relaxing, watching TV reduce time spent cleaning, cooking higher relative wages for men significantly (or almost) raise time spent on personal activities, working out, fixing things in house reduce time spent with family

83 Estimation Additional estimates: robustness checks Same specification, LHS variables alternate sample: weekdays bargaining or specialization? alternate sample: both spouses work full-time bargaining or specialization or non-separability? Results weekday sample higher relative wages don t raise women s weekday leisure both spouses work full-time similar time use patterns, bigger effects for some activities

84 Results: Robustness check (weekends vs. weekdays) Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N

85 Results: Robustness check (weekends vs. weekdays) Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekdays Time working 65.1 (64.9) (65.9) Time in leisure 0.5 (55.9) (47.3) Time on chores (39.7) (49.1) N

86 Estimation Additional estimates: robustness checks Same specification, LHS variables alternate sample: weekdays bargaining or specialization? alternate sample: both spouses work full-time bargaining or specialization or non-separability? Results weekday sample higher relative wages don t raise women s weekday leisure both spouses work full-time similar time use patterns, bigger effects for some activities

87 Estimation Additional estimates: robustness checks Same specification, LHS variables alternate sample: weekdays bargaining or specialization? alternate sample: both spouses work full-time bargaining or specialization or non-separability? Results weekday sample higher relative wages don t raise women s weekday leisure both spouses work full-time similar time use patterns, bigger effects for some activities

88 Results: Robustness check (working vs. full-time sample) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N

89 Results: Robustness check (working vs. full-time sample) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N Sample: both spouses work full-time Time working 17.4 (91.3) (66.7) Time in leisure (96.0) (80.7) Time on chores 24.5 (84.9) (74.7) N

90 Results: Robustness check (working vs. full-time sample) Men Women Sample: both spouses work Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Personal care other 31.4 (13.1) 2.7 (14.0) Sports, exercise, & rec participating 37.9 (33.3) (14.9) Miscellaneous leisure (61.0) (47.6) relaxing & leisure (49.7) 94.8 (38.2) relaxing, thinking, smoking 2.1 (12.0) 27.6 (14.0) watching TV -5.3 (43.9) 73.6 (35.0) Sample: both spouses work full-time Time in leisure (96.0) (80.7) Personal care other 36.4 (16.1) 14.7 (17.4) Sports, exercise, & rec participating 85.1 (56.2) (25.7) Miscellaneous leisure 1.8 (81.1) (64.6) relaxing & leisure (65.6) 89.1 (56.9) relaxing, thinking, smoking 14.6 (13.7) 57.7 (22.6) watching TV (64.1) 62.6 (55.2)

91 Results: Robustness check (working vs. full-time sample) Men Women Sample: both spouses work Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) Women s chores (28.2) (38.6) cleaning (19.4) (30.1) food preparation -6.2 (13.6) (18.8) Men s chores 51.3 (39.9) (17.9) fixing things inside 52.9 (21.8) (11.2) Caring for hh memb - kids - general (22.0) 17.8 (21.0) Sample: both spouses work full-time Time on chores 24.5 (84.9) (74.7) Women s chores 39.1 (38.9) (52.9) cleaning 16.0 (27.3) (37.9) food preparation 11.2 (19.2) (27.7) Men s chores 40.2 (57.5) (22.9) fixing things inside 87.8 (35.3) -6.8 (14.8) Caring for hh memb - kids - general (27.2) 32.6 (29.8)

92 Results: Robustness check (working vs. full-time sample) Men Women Sample: both spouses work Total time spent with family members household (82.1) (69.5) with spouse (84.1) (72.9) with any kids (70.8) 31.6 (61.9) with own household kids (66.8) 21.8 (59.2) provide 2 ndary ch care to own kids < (71.3) (65.9) Sample: both spouses work full-time Total time spent with family members household (108.8) (95.2) with spouse (114.0) (103.1) with any kids (87.4) 59.0 (81.1) with own household kids (83.0) 53.1 (77.1) provide 2 ndary ch care to own kids < (93.3) (85.4)

93 Results: Robustness check (control for weekly hours) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N

94 Results: Robustness check (control for weekly hours) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N Add controls for each spouses usual weekly hours Time working (73.0) (53.0) Time in leisure (76.8) (61.1) Time on chores 49.0 (64.2) (59.9) N

95 Estimation Additional estimates: robustness checks Same specification, LHS variables alternate sample: weekday sample bargaining or specialization? alternate sample: both spouses work full-time bargaining or specialization or non-separability? Results weekday sample higher relative wages don t raise women s weekday leisure both spouses work full-time similar time use patterns, bigger effects for some activities

96 Estimation Additional estimates: robustness checks Same specification, LHS variables split the sample: by presence, age of children heterogeneity in bargaining effects? Results separate estimation by presence, age of children strongest overall effects of bargaining on wives without children many of the results for specific activities persist for respondents with children

97 Results: Robustness check (split by family structure) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N

98 Results: Robustness check (split by family structure) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N Sample: Has children age < 6 Time working 85.2 (145.4) (108.1) Time in leisure 54.3 (129.2) (88.8) Time on chores (116.3) (111.2) N

99 Results: Robustness check (split by family structure) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N Sample: No children age < 6, has children 6 Time working (122.5) (108.0) Time in leisure (141.9) (139.5) Time on chores 71.4 (116.5) (110.8) N

100 Results: Robustness check (split by family structure) Dependent variable: Minutes of per day on weekends and holidays Coefficient on own hourly wage/(own + spouse s hourly wage) Men Women Time working 14.9 (68.8) (50.8) Time in leisure (74.1) (57.8) Time on chores 7.7 (63.4) (56.9) N Sample: No children Time working 86.5 (104.4) (73.9) Time in leisure (118.8) (85.2) Time on chores 19.4 (98.6) (80.3) N

101 Estimation Additional estimates: robustness checks Same specification, LHS variables split the sample: by presence, age of children heterogeneity in bargaining effects? Results separate estimation by presence, age of children strongest overall effects of bargaining on wives without children many of the results for specific activities persist for respondents with children

102 Outline 1. Introduction Motivation Contributions Main results 2. Theoretical considerations 3. Data 4. Empirical results 5. Conclusions

103 Further research Bargaining and labor supply decisions Impact of exogenous variation in bargaining power on time use Cross-state variation divorce, property, child custody laws welfare benefits for single parents child support enforcement