TABLE 4-2: Cross sectional comparisons of low income incidence for Retired
Individuals by Age Cohort
Year |
Male |
Female | |||||||
Age cohort |
Age cohort | ||||||||
<1920 |
1920-1930 |
1930-1940 |
>1940 |
<1920 |
1920-1930 |
1930-1940 |
>1940 | ||
1994 |
46,1% |
32,8% |
20,4% |
31,1% |
38,9% |
31,1% |
15,3% |
20,8% | |
1995 |
52,5% |
36,7% |
24,3% |
24,3% |
45,9% |
34,4% |
28,9% |
23,1% | |
JZ |
1996 |
47,3% |
37,8% |
22,2% |
13,8% |
43,1% |
34,9% |
28,5% |
13,5% |
^co |
1997 |
45,3% |
38,0% |
18,9% |
14,1% |
41,8% |
38,3% |
24,5% |
8,7% |
φ |
1998 |
40,7% |
32,4% |
24,4% |
8,8% |
42,1% |
37,9% |
29,3% |
16,1% |
о |
1999 |
41,1% |
41,9% |
23,1% |
11,1% |
41,3% |
38,7% |
30,5% |
8,2% |
2000 |
51,6% |
39,6% |
24,7% |
16,1% |
34,1% |
42,3% |
28,7% |
14,2% | |
2001 |
55,7% |
41,2% |
28,8% |
14,5% |
42,2% |
42,1% |
33,6% |
15,1% | |
1994 |
62,3% |
53,7% |
44,6% |
40,7% |
54,9% |
49,0% |
38,1% |
40,8% | |
1995 |
64,1% |
49,3% |
36,5% |
39,6% |
62,9% |
50,6% |
41,3% |
33,8% | |
"Е |
1996 |
59,3% |
55,4% |
35,9% |
21,2% |
56,9% |
52,6% |
43,5% |
24,5% |
jyj |
1997 |
61,4% |
55,0% |
37,2% |
22,8% |
55,0% |
55,6% |
42,4% |
25,7% |
Ф |
1998 |
59,5% |
50,7% |
35,7% |
17,7% |
58,9% |
56,6% |
44,3% |
27,8% |
О |
1999 |
69,8% |
55,9% |
34,1% |
27,2% |
53,5% |
55,7% |
41,5% |
27,6% |
2000 |
63,9% |
55,7% |
40,5% |
31,7% |
56,7% |
55,5% |
44,3% |
25,2% | |
2001 |
63,0% |
57,7% |
43,1% |
31,2% |
61,5% |
54,3% |
46,0% |
24,5% | |
1994 |
47,6% |
40,2% |
24,1% |
35,3% |
40,6% |
35,8% |
21,2% |
23,9% | |
1995 |
53,4% |
37,7% |
24,3% |
24,5% |
46,6% |
35,8% |
30,9% |
23,1% | |
⊂ |
1996 |
48,5% |
40,3% |
24,4% |
15,3% |
44,9% |
36,4% |
30,6% |
15,0% |
Ф |
1997 |
45,3% |
38,6% |
19,0% |
14,1% |
41,8% |
38,8% |
24,7% |
8,7% |
C 4o |
1998 |
41,5% |
33,9% |
26,9% |
8,8% |
42,2% |
39,3% |
31,2% |
16,8% |
О |
1999 |
39,4% |
38,4% |
22,1% |
10,8% |
40,4% |
35,3% |
29,1% |
6,1% |
2000 |
48,4% |
38,8% |
24,4% |
15,3% |
34,0% |
39,6% |
28,1% |
13,0% | |
2001 |
40,2% |
37,8% |
23,6% |
11,5% |
34,3% |
39,2% |
28,5% |
12,5% | |
1994 |
57,6% |
49,7% |
36,7% |
35,3% |
46,7% |
44,5% |
31,7% |
32,8% | |
⊂ |
1995 |
54,0% |
39,3% |
25,7% |
26,9% |
48,9% |
38,8% |
32,7% |
23,5% |
^φ |
1996 |
47,4% |
39,1% |
22,3% |
13,8% |
43,4% |
36,0% |
29,5% |
15,0% |
E |
1997 |
44,2% |
36,3% |
18,9% |
12,7% |
41,2% |
36,2% |
24,0% |
7,7% |
о |
1998 |
39,0% |
28,5% |
23,4% |
7,5% |
41,6% |
35,5% |
28,2% |
16,0% |
sp |
1999 |
33,6% |
29,2% |
19,0% |
8,8% |
36,2% |
27,2% |
22,7% |
5,2% |
СО |
2000 |
32,5% |
22,8% |
15,4% |
7,6% |
29,0% |
22,8% |
14,2% |
4,9% |
2001 |
33,2% |
24,0% |
14,6% |
7,9% |
24,6% |
21,4% |
14,3% |
6,3% |
Source: Authors computations based on ECHP.
29
More intriguing information
1. Improvements in medical care and technology and reductions in traffic-related fatalities in Great Britain2. The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources
3. The name is absent
4. HOW WILL PRODUCTION, MARKETING, AND CONSUMPTION BE COORDINATED? FROM A FARM ORGANIZATION VIEWPOINT
5. The Effects of Reforming the Chinese Dual-Track Price System
6. The name is absent
7. The Role of Trait Emotional Intelligence (El) in the Workplace.
8. Does adult education at upper secondary level influence annual wage earnings?
9. Input-Output Analysis, Linear Programming and Modified Multipliers
10. ISO 9000 -- A MARKETING TOOL FOR U.S. AGRIBUSINESS