To Work More or Not to Work More

Difficult Choices, Complex Decisions for Low-Wage Parents

Bibliographic Data

ID12455060
AuthorsRandy Albelda (0000-0002-4091-9551, University of Massachusetts Boston, corresponding author), Jennifer Shea (0000-0002-3791-6819), Jennifer L Shea (0000-0002-6586-2061, University of San Francisco)
Year2010
Volume14
Issue3
Pages245-265
Publication date2010-07-21
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Poverty (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1087-5549 • E-ISSN: 1540-7608
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10875549.2010.494937
OpenAlexW2093665425
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited13

Employment promotion has dominated antipoverty policies in the United States over the last several decades. Increased employment, especially in low-wage jobs, has not generated economic stability for many parents and has brought to light uneasy tensions between increased earnings, less time with children, and reduced public supports that families face in moving up the economic ladder. We use data collected from 22 focus groups conducted with low- and moderate-income parents from four states and the District of Columbia to explore the ways in which parents make decisions about increasing hours of employment. KEYWORDS: low-wage employmentanti-poverty politics"cliff effects"work and familychild care Notes 1. These focus groups were conducted as part of a larger research project examining the ways low- and moderate income families combine employment and government work supports (see bridgingthegaps.org). 2. For reference, in 2005 dollars, median income—income at the 50th percentile—in the 1993 to 1995 period was $17,266 and in 2001 to 2003 was $20,270 (CitationMeyer & Sullivan, 2008, pp. 2226–2227). The poverty income threshold for a family of three in 2005 was just under $16,000. 3. When established in the 1930s, public housing was intended for working families. However, by the 1970s and the creation of the Section 8 voucher program, housing assistance programs were targeted toward very low-income families (CitationStoloff, 2004). 4. We use family budgets developed by the Economic Policy Institute and enhanced by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. These do not include expenses for eating out, entertainment, debt repayment, or savings for retirement or children's college education. For more information see CitationBoushey (2007, pp. 15–16) and CitationAlbelda and Boushey (2007, pp. 7–8). 5. The project involved partners in nine states (Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Washington, D.C.) and leveraged funding from several sources, including the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Meyer Foundation, the Moriah Foundation, and the Stoneman Family Foundation. 6. The partner in Illinois was unable to conduct focus groups for both income levels. In addition, not all of the focus group participants in Illinois were heads of household with at least one child younger than age 18 living in the home. 7. The audiotape for the Rocky Mount, NC, focus group was inaudible and could not be transcribed. The only data coded for that group were the facilitator's notes

Demographic economics · Earnings · Economic growth · Economics · Government (linguistics · Labour economics · Living wage · Minimum wage · Political science · Poverty · Voucher · Wage · Work (physics · Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics · Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies · Work-Family Balance Challenges · Finance