Tables 2 to 4 present the regressions performed for the cohorts of men and women, comparing the likelihood of being fully employed to each of the underutilised states. A person’s age has a significant impact on their labour force status. Regardless of gender, a person aged 15 to 24 years old is more likely to have their available labour underutilised than being fully employed, compared to persons aged 25 to 54, with men having more substantial odds than women for each of the underutilisation states. Further, older workers, from 55 to 64 years and over 65 years of age, are more likely to be marginally attached to the labour force than those in the reference age group, regardless of gender, again with men having more substantial odds. However, the other significant impacts favour full employment to underutilisation. Women between 55 and 64 years are more likely to be fully employed than underemployed or unemployed than those in the reference age group. Meanwhile, men and women over 65 years are more likely to be fully employed than unemployed.
A person with a long-term health condition is significantly more likely to have their available labour underutilised rather than be fully employed, regardless of gender. Command of the English language affects a woman’s ability to be fully employed more than a man. A woman born in a non-English speaking country is more likely to be underemployed, unemployed or marginally attached to the labour force than fully employed, compared to women born in English speaking countries. However, for men, being born in a non-English speaking country only significantly increases their likelihood of being underemployed rather than fully employed; it does not significantly affect the possibility of being unemployed or marginally attached instead of fully employed.
Education level also has a gender bias on a person’s ability to be fully employed. Men with a post-school qualification are more likely to be fully employed than in a state of labour underutilisation compared to men without a post-school qualification. However, women with a post-school qualification only increase their chances of being fully employed rather than marginally attached to the labour force, but it has no impact on their ability to be fully employed instead of underemployed or unemployed. On the other hand, a tertiary education significantly improves both cohorts’ likelihood to be fully employed rather than underutilised, with this increasing a woman’s odds much more than a man’s across the board.
A person’s gender significantly impacts their ability to be fully employed if they are in a couple relationship with children. It seems the traditional roles of men and women remain strong. Men in these relationships are more likely to be fully employed than underutilised, compared to single men, but women in these relationships are more likely to be underemployed or marginally attached to the labour force than fully employed, compared to single women. Interestingly, women in these relationships are more likely to be fully employed than unemployed compared to single women. This reflects those traditional relationships where men are the primary income earners, and women work part-time or not at all. The fact that women in these relationships are more likely to be underemployed than fully employed reflects their willingness to take part-time jobs, perhaps to fulfil their home and caring duties outside this paid employment. Similarly, the fact that women in these relationships are more likely to be marginally attached to the labour force than fully employed, yet fully employed rather than unemployed, also reflects these women’s situation. Women in these relationships who do not have paid employment are generally supported financially and have things to fill in their time, so they do not need to look for work actively yet would take on work if available.
There is no gender bias for single parents, with both men and women more likely to be underemployed or marginally attached to the labour force than fully employed, compared to single people. There is no significant relationship between being fully employed and unemployed for single parents. Similarly, there is no gender bias for people in couple relationships without children. In these relationships, both men and women are more likely to be fully employed than underutilised, with men having a more substantial likelihood across the board.
Women are generally more influenced by their parents’ employment situation when they were children than men. Women whose parents were not in paid employment when they were 14 are more likely to have their available labour underutilised than those with at least one parent in paid work. However, there is only a significant relationship for men in the same situation in being unemployed rather than fully employed.
The strength of a person’s social capital and networks positively influences them being fully employed rather than underemployed, unemployed or marginally attached to the labour force. This is the case for both men and women, with women having slightly stronger odds of full employment given their social capital.
The local labour market a man lives in has a more substantial influence on their chances of being fully employed than a woman. The higher a region’s unemployment rate, the more opportunity a man has of being underemployed or unemployed, while there is a much slighter chance of women being underemployed only. A region’s unemployment rate has no impact on whether a man or woman is marginally attached to the labour force rather than fully employed.
The macroeconomic effects of the Global Financial Crisis hit men harder relative to women in terms of their ability to find and maintain full employment. As the first effects were felt nationally in late 2008, men had lower unemployment and underemployment rates than women. Still, these advantages were eroded mainly in terms of unemployment, and the gap narrowed in terms of underemployment. The same was true of HILDA respondents, with fully employed men as a proportion of those in or wanting work (including marginally attached men) falling from 87 per cent in 2008 to 81 per cent in 2015, while for women, it fell from 78 per cent to 74 per cent. Further, the groups of men and women alternated in which cohort had a higher unemployment rate in the ensuing years. The underemployment rate among respondents rose by three percentage points for men, over the eight years, compared to two for women.
This reflection of the national situation is also evident in the impact the different years had on the ability of men and women to be fully employed relative to underemployed. With only one exception, through the seven years following 2008, men were more likely to be underemployed than fully employed, while this was only true in two years for women. Further, men were significantly more likely to be marginally attached to the Labour force than fully employed in all but two of the ensuing years after 2008. Whereas in no years was this significant for women. With regard to unemployment, women showed a slight tendency to be unemployed rather than fully employed in 3 of the years after 2008, while men only showed this once.
Table 2
Regression Analysis Results. Likelihood of Being Underemployed Compared to Being Fully Employed
| Men | Women |
Intercept | -4.917 *** | -3.235 *** |
Age 15 to 24 | 2.043 *** | 1.073 *** |
Age 55 to 64 | 0.175 | -0.181 * |
Age 65 plus | -0.096 | -0.350 |
Poor health | 0.702 *** | 0.301 *** |
Born in a non-English speaking country | 0.738 *** | 0.410 *** |
Highest education-post secondary | -0.555 *** | -0.084 |
Highest education- tertiary | -0.507 *** | -0.671 *** |
Person in couple household with children | -0.255 ** | 0.470 *** |
Person in single parent household | 0.625 *** | 0.727 *** |
Person in couple household without children | -0.384 *** | -0.208 ** |
Parent unemployment | 0.334 | 0.689 *** |
Previous unemployment | 2.140 | 1.594 |
Social capital | -0.050 *** | -0.071 *** |
Regional unemployment rate | 10.17 *** | 4.207 * |
2009 | 0.294 * | 0.067 |
2010 | 0.131 | 0.077 |
2011 | 0.336 ** | 0.241 ** |
2012 | 0.248 * | 0.065 |
2013 | 0.494 *** | 0.067 |
2014 | 0.492 *** | 0.329 *** |
2015 | 0.471 *** | 0.147 |
(Source: HILDA Survey, DoE Small Area Labour Markets, authors’ calculations)
Note
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 3
Regression Analysis Results. Likelihood of Being Unemployed Compared to Being Fully Employed
| Men | Women |
Intercept | -5.019 *** | -4.638 *** |
Age 15 to 24 | 1.458 *** | 1.346 *** |
Age 55 to 64 | -0.160 | -0.467 *** |
Age 65 plus | -1.671 *** | -1.457 *** |
Poor health | 0.459 *** | 0.430 *** |
Born in a non-English speaking country | 0.163 | 0.348 ** |
Highest education-post secondary | -0.410 *** | 0.079 |
Highest education- tertiary | -0.297 ** | -0.679 *** |
Person in couple household with children | -0.462 *** | -0.382 *** |
Person in single parent household | 0.144 | 0.212 |
Person in couple household without children | -0.470 *** | -0.282 * |
Parent unemployment | 0.853 *** | 0.746 *** |
Previous unemployment | 20.076 | 19.231 |
Social capital | -0.081 *** | -0.091 *** |
Regional unemployment rate | 12.96 *** | 1.534 |
2009 | 0.105 | 0.088 |
2010 | 0.140 | 0.326 * |
2011 | 0.156 | 0.166 |
2012 | 0.408 ** | 0.177 |
2013 | 0.252 | 0.308 * |
2014 | 0.153 | 0.249 |
2015 | 0.220 | 0.380 * |
(Source: HILDA Survey, DoE Small Area Labour Markets, authors’ calculations) |
Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 |
Table 4
Regression Analysis Results. Likelihood of Being Marginally Attached Compared to Being Fully Employed
| Men | Women |
Intercept | -5.000 *** | -4.248 *** |
Age 15 to 24 | 1.594 *** | 0.850 *** |
Age 55 to 64 | 0.763 *** | 0.484 *** |
Age 65 plus | 1.799 *** | 1.274 *** |
Poor health | 0.980 *** | 0.716 *** |
Born in a non-English speaking country | 0.014 | 0.333 ** |
Highest education-post secondary | -0.482 *** | -0.367 *** |
Highest education- tertiary | -0.599 *** | -0.730 *** |
Person in couple household with children | -0.230 * | 0.421 *** |
Person in single parent household | 0.519 ** | 0.611 *** |
Person in couple household without children | -0.502 *** | -0.218 * |
Parent unemployment | 0.350 | 0.611 ** |
Previous unemployment | 21.124 | 20.353 |
Social capital | -0.069 *** | -0.074 *** |
Regional unemployment rate | 1.195 | -1.460 |
2009 | 0.281 | 0.063 |
2010 | 0.420 * | 0.178 |
2011 | 0.449 ** | 0.227 |
2012 | 0.583 *** | 0.163 |
2013 | 0.732 *** | 0.200 |
2014 | 0.387 * | 0.167 |
2015 | 0.191 | 0.005 |
(Source: HILDA Survey, DoE Small Area Labour Markets, authors’ calculations) |
Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 |