Table 2: Within-Family Income Response by MCS Sweep
|
SWEEP ONE |
______________Partner respondent______________ | |||
|
don’t |
not |
income |
Total | |
|
Main don’t |
26.6% |
27.4% |
45.9% |
100% |
|
Respondent know/refusal |
16.6% |
2.4% |
1.9% |
2.8% |
|
128 |
147 |
189 |
464 | |
|
not applicable |
3.9% |
42.7% |
53.4% |
100% |
|
46.2% |
71.0% |
42.5% |
51.5% | |
|
418 |
5135 |
4711 |
10264 | |
|
income |
3.5% |
18.0% |
78.5% |
100% |
|
response |
37.2% |
26.6% |
55.6% |
45.9% |
|
278 |
1685 |
5861 |
7824 | |
|
total |
4.3% |
31.0% |
64.7% |
100% |
|
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% | |
|
824 |
6967 |
10761 |
18552 | |
|
SWEEP TWO |
______________Partner respondent______________ | |||
|
don’t |
not |
income |
Total | |
|
Main don’t |
26.7% |
29.0% |
44.3% |
100% |
|
Respondent know/refusal |
13.3% |
4.4% |
3.1% |
4.3% |
|
163 |
200 |
251 |
614 | |
|
not applicable |
9.6% |
36.5% |
54.0% |
100% |
|
49.3% |
58.1% |
38.6% |
45.1% | |
|
728 |
2982 |
3480 |
7190 | |
|
income |
6.5% |
21.0% |
72.5% |
100% |
|
response |
37.4% |
37.5% |
58.3% |
50.6% |
|
473 |
1697 |
4924 |
7094 | |
|
total |
8.7% |
28.4% |
62.9% |
100% |
|
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% | |
|
1364 |
4879 |
8655 |
14898 | |
NOTES:
1. weighted percentages, unweighted observations
2. each cell contains: row %, column % and observations
2.2 Across Sweeps 1 and 2
Table 3 shows the relationship between each respondents’ response to income
questions in sweeps one and two. This has been restricted to those who are the
same respondent across the two sweeps. The first panel contains the within
individual income response across the sweeps of the MCS for the main respondent.
If the main respondent provided income data in sweep one they are most likely to
provide income data at sweep two (79.9%). If the main respondent was not
applicable in sweep one they are largely not applicable in sweep two (74.4%). This
group is mostly those who have not been in the labour market at each of the two
sweeps. The main respondent was more likely not to report their income in sweep
two (4.4%) than in sweep one (2.6%).
The second panel contains the within individual income respondent across sweeps of
the MCS for the partner respondent. If the partner responded to income at sweep
More intriguing information
1. Rent Dissipation in Chartered Recreational Fishing: Inside the Black Box2. INSTITUTIONS AND PRICE TRANSMISSION IN THE VIETNAMESE HOG MARKET
3. Models of Cognition: Neurological possibility does not indicate neurological plausibility.
4. The name is absent
5. An Estimated DSGE Model of the Indian Economy.
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
9. The name is absent
10. Government spending composition, technical change and wage inequality