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. Types of Tax Concessions for Promoting Investment in Free Economic and Trade Areas2. Does Market Concentration Promote or Reduce New Product Introductions? Evidence from US Food Industry
3. Placentophagia in Nonpregnant Nulliparous Mice: A Genetic Investigation1
4. El impacto espacial de las economías de aglomeración y su efecto sobre la estructura urbana.El caso de la industria en Barcelona, 1986-1996
5. Rent Dissipation in Chartered Recreational Fishing: Inside the Black Box
6. The Provisions on Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. From Aurora Borealis to Carpathians. Searching the Road to Regional and Rural Development
10. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers