Working Paper

WP 13-7

Series
AUGUST 2013

How to Measure Underemployment?

David N. F. Bell and David G. Blanchflower
Abstract
One of the factors that may inhibit reductions in unemployment as the economy recovers is the extent to which existing workers would like to work more hours and employers may prefer to let them work longer hours before making new hires. This phenomenon suggests that the unemployment rate does not capture the full extent of excess capacity in the labor market. But how should it be measured? In this paper we argue that the United States does not have the necessary statistical tools to calibrate this form of underemployment. We describe an index that captures the joint effects of unemployment and underemployment and provides a more complete picture of labor market excess capacity. We show how this index can be implemented using British data and describe its evolution over the Great Recession. Comparisons of our index with unemployment rates suggest that unemployment rates understate differences in labor market excess capacity by age group and overstate differences by gender. We also show that being unable to work the hours that one desires has a negative effect on well-being. Finally, we recommend that the Current Population Survey conducted by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics might be extended to enable the construction of an equivalent US index. JEL codes: J01, J11, J21, J23, J38, J64 Keywords: underemployment, unemployment, excess capacity, labor market David N. F. Bell is professor of economics at the University of Stirling, Scotland. He is research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), University of Bonn, Germany, and a researcher at the ESRC Center for Population Change, University of Southampton, England. He is also a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He has written extensively on labor economics, with a particular focus on working time. His other contributions span the economics of social care, health economics, and the economics of constitutional change. He has made many contributions to the public debate on these issues both through the media and in an advisory capacity to government. David G. Blanchflower, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, has been the Bruce V. Rauner Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College since 2001. He was member of the Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England, from June 2006 to June 2009. He was made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in the Queens Birthday Honours List in June 2009 for services to the Monetary Policy Committee and economics. He is also research fellow and director of the Future of Labor Programme at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), University of Bonn, Germany; professor of economics (part-time) at the University of Stirling, Scotland; visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston; research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; economics editor for New Statesman; TV contributing editor for Bloomberg TV; and economics columnist for the Independent. His areas of research include unemployment, well-being, and wage macro policy. He has written extensively on wages,

1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-1903 Tel: (202) 328-9000 Fax: (202) 659-3225 www.piie.com

unemployment, especially youth unemployment, self-employment, credit constraints, and well-being. His book The Wage Curve (1994, MIT Press), coauthored with Andrew J. Oswald, was awarded Princeton Universitys Richard A. Lester Prize for the Outstanding Book in Industrial Relations and Labor Economics. He was named the Business Person of the Year by the Daily Telegraph in 2008.

Copyright 2013 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. All rights reserved. No part of this working paper may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the Institute. This publication has been subjected to a prepublication peer review intended to ensure analytical quality. The views expressed are those of the author. This publication is part of the overall program of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, as endorsed by its Board of Directors, but it does not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Board or of the Institute's staff or management. The Institute is an independent, private, nonprofit institution for rigorous, intellectually honest study and open discussion of international economic policy. Its work is made possible by financial support from a highly diverse group of philanthropic foundations, private corporations, and interested individuals, as well as by income on its capital fund. For a list of Institute supporters, please see www.piie.com/supporters.cfm.

INTRODUCTION Despite growth in employment, unemployment rates in the United States have been slow to fall over the last couple of years. The growth in nonfarm payrolls has averaged 191,000 a month over the last year, but the number of unemployed has fallen only by about 81,000 a month. This slow decline is in large part due to nonparticipants (so-called inactives) entering the labor force and taking up jobs. In other words, those who were not counted in the labor force (i.e., who had dropped out of the labor force) are the ones taking up jobs, not those actively looking for employment, thus slowing the rate of unemployment decline. The six measures of underutilization the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes called U-1 through U-6the unemployment rate is U-3have all been slow to move. Of interest is the fact that all six moved pretty closely together (see table 1). The bad news is that it will be especially hard to get the unemployment rate down, but the good news is that wage pressure is unlikely to rise anytime soon.1 The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is continuing to stimulate the economy through quantitative easing and low interest rates. It is, however, perfectly possible that unemployment rates will take much longer to get down to 7 percent or even 6.5 percent if nonparticipants continue taking jobs. The Fed has set criteria to slow stimulus by tapering asset purchases2 and raising interest rates.3 It is also possible that workers (i.e., those in the labor force) are hours constrained and when the recovery takes hold, rather than firms hiring new workers, especially unemployed workers, we will see an increase in existing workers average number of hours. According to latest data available, average weekly hours of all
1. Christopher Erceg and Andrew Levin (2013) argue that nonparticipants have been pushing down on wages. In a forthcoming paper David Blanchflower and Adam Posen provide supporting empirical work to suggest that is indeed the case. 2. In testimony before Congress on July 17, 2013, Chairman Ben Bernanke explained the path of tapering of asset purchases was dependent on improvements in the labor market, "If the incoming data were to be broadly consistent with these projections, we anticipated that it would be appropriate to begin to moderate the monthly pace of purchases later this year. And if the subsequent data continued to confirm this pattern of ongoing economic improvement and normalizing inflation, we expected to continue to reduce the pace of purchases in measured steps through the first half of next year, ending them around midyear. At that point, if the economy had evolved along the lines we anticipated, the recovery would have gained further momentum, unemployment would be in the vicinity of 7 percent, and inflation would be moving toward our 2 percent objective." See testimony at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/ bernanke20130717a.pdf. 3. In the minutes of its June 2013 meeting the FOMC said "in particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 0.5 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committees 2 percent longerrun goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. See the minutes of the FOMC meeting at www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/ fomcminutes20130619.pdf.

employees in June 2013 were 34.5, higher than in June 2012 (34.4), June 2011 (34.3), June 2010 (34.1), or June 2009 (33.8) and only marginally below its prerecession level of 34.6 hours in June 2008. So what explains rising hours and rising employment but slowly falling unemployment? In this paper we report on some remarkable data from the United Kingdom, which suggest that there has been a marked increase in the number of workers who are hours constrained and consequently unable to provide the hours they would like to work. This increase has occurred even though average hours have risen. To our knowledge, the data to perform this exercise are not available in the United States, in particular in the Current Population Survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate. In the United Kingdom the unemployment rate is calculated from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) from the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS), which contains questions on whether an individual would like to work more or fewer hours at the going wage, and if so how many more or fewer hours they would like to work. That is, we can determine if workers believe they are hours constrained, how much of a problem that is, and whether it has increased during the recession. It turns out that it has and by a lot. In addition, we have evidence that the underemployed in the United Kingdom are especially unhappy data to examine levels of well-being among hours-constrained workers are also unavailable in the United States. We have no evidence for the United States to determine whether workers are underemployed, or overemployed, in terms of the number of hours they would like to work compared with the hours offered by their employer. We find that in the United Kingdom, over time, the total number of hours of (mostly older) workers who say they would like fewer hours, has fallen, but the number of hours of those saying they would like more hours has risen rapidly. Currently the underemployment rate in the United Kingdom is equivalent to adding approximately 1.9 percentage points to the unemployment rate. Based on average hours it is equivalent to 625,000 additional jobs.4 Underemployment is especially high among young workers, whereas older workers would, on average, like to work fewer hours. This suggests that there is potential for mutually beneficial exchange of hours between older and younger workers. Older workers who are part-time want to stay part-time or retire. Youngsters face a double whammy: They cant get a job and if they do, they cant get enough hours. This potentially has big implications for policy, because it implies that there is more labor slack in the economy than perhaps has been realized. The potential for workers (insiders) to take advantage of the recovery by increasing hours rather than creating new jobs, at the expense of the unemployed (outsiders), seems marked. For once the United States can learn from the United Kingdom!
4. Based on single month data (X01: Labour Force Survey Single Month Estimates, www.ons.gov.uk). UK employment in May 2013 was 29,573,937 with an employment to population rate of 58.1 percent compared with 29,481,885 in January 2008 (60.3 percent). Unemployment was 2,557,511 (8 percent) in May 2013 compared with 1,599,113 (5.1 percent) in January 2008.

THE BELL-BLANCHFLOWER UNDEREMPLOYMENT INDEX In a recent paper (Bell and Blanchflower 2013) we reported on a new way of calculating the amount of slack in the UK economy. We construct an underemployment index, which combines measures of excess capacity on the intensive (hours) and extensive (jobs) margins of the labor market. Our measure is more general than the unemployment rate because it is affected by the willingness of current workers to supply additional hoursunderemployment. It is also different from an underemployment rate calculated by the ONS because it counts the number of hours workers say they want to workwhether more or lessat going rates of pay. The ONS simply counts the number of workers who say they want more hours. For any given unemployment rate, a higher underemployment index implies that reductions in unemployment will be more difficult to achieve because existing workers are seeking more hoursthere is excess capacity in the internal labor market. If the underemployment index is high relative to the unemployment rate and there is an upturn in demand, cost-minimizing producers will offer existing workers longer hours, thus avoiding recruitment costs and the costs of uncertainty associated with new hires. The unemployment rate will not fall so rapidly in a recovery when the underemployment index is relatively high. We define our underemployment index in hours rather than people space and calculate it from individual data provided in the quarterly LFS.5 Data are available from 1996 on hours preferences for those who want more hours, but sufficient data to estimate the index are available only from 2001Q2. Like the unemployment rate, the underemployment index is expressed as a percentage. It can be thought of as measuring the ratio of net unemployed hours to total available hours assuming that the hours preferences of the employed at current wages are met. It implicitly assumes that the employed who do not express a wish to change their hours are content and that the unemployed would prefer to work on average the same number of hours as the employed.6 We begin by transforming the unemployment rate into a measure based on hours. Equation 1 incorporates hours of work into the definition of the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate implicitly allocates equal hours to the employed and the unemployed. We set these hours at h , average hours worked by employed workers. The term involving the product of average hours worked and employment is by definition equal to the sum of all hours worked in the economy.

U U E

Uh Uh  Eh

Uh Uh  hi
i

(1)

5. The data are available for download at http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/series/?sn=2000026. 6. We also estimated weekly hours regressions among the employed using the LFS. We used these estimates to predict hours for the unemployed. The predicted hours were not significantly different from mean hours among the employed. Hence we opted for the simpler formulation using mean hours among the employed.

The next step is to add the intensive margin of the labor market. Preferences over hours are not realized for all workers: Some say they want more hours, others would prefer fewer hours. We include these stated preferences in our index, taking them at face value. The sum of preferred additional hours is
 ,where the index k is defined over all workers who wish more hours. Similarly, aggregate given by h k k  O ,where the index j is defined over all workers who wish h preferred reduction in hours is given by
U

fewer hours. We assume that transactions costs prevent exchange of working time between these groups. The net effect of these desired changes in hours is then added to the numerator of equation 1 to complete the underemployment index, uBB, which is given in equation 2.

Uh  u BB

h
k

U k

h
j i

O j

(2)

Uh 

h
i

If the desired increase in hours equals the desired reduction in hours, then uBB simply reproduces the unemployment rate: Excess capacity in the labor market is only influenced by the extensive margin. But uBB will differ from the unemployment rate if there is excess supply (or excess demand) on the internal labor market. The underemployment index could therefore be greater, or less, than the unemployment rate. It would be lower than the unemployment rate when reductions in aggregate desired hours exceed increases in aggregate desired hours. This measure presents a more complete picture of excess demand or excess supply in the labor market as a whole than does the unemployment rate. It may also offer advantages over the unemployment rate as a means of calibrating the output gap. The index is not affected by desired increases and reductions as long as they are equal in size. Thus, it does not capture the extent of mismatch in the internal labor market. Mismatch would be high when large numbers of workers wishing to increase their hours coexist in the labor market with large numbers wishing to reduce their hours. The sum of desired increases and reductions in hours, which is given by U  h h O k j , is a possible indicator of such mismatch. Our underemployment index is relatively easy to
k j

calculate from successive waves of the LFS microdata. We add the desired additional hours of those who say they want to work more hours. Similarly, we sum the desired reductions in hours for those who claim they would like to work fewer hours. We also use the LFS to estimate employment, unemployment, and average hours of work. All of these statistics are converted to national aggregates using weights supplied with the LFS. We include the employed, self-employed, family workers, and those on government schemes when calculating total employment and average working hours. Together these calculations provide all five of the components necessary to calculate our underemployment index, which is uBB in equation 2. We also seasonally adjust the data using the X-13ARIMA-SEATS seasonal adjustment method. This is an enhanced version of the X-11 Variant of the Census Method II seasonal adjustment

program (Shiskin, Young, and Musgrave 1967). As we show below, the seasonally adjusted estimates are little different from the unadjusted estimates we reported in our earlier paper. Quarterly seasonal effects are relatively small. Following the practice of the ONS, claims of underemployment among those aged between 16 and 18 and working 40 or more hours and those aged over 18 and working 48 hours or more are disregarded.7 Similarly, those aged between 16 and 18 and working 15 or fewer hours and those aged over 18 and working 20 hours or less were disregarded. EMPIRICAL RESULTS Table 2 reports quarterly estimates from 2001Q2 to 2013Q1 of our UK underemployment index both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted. We report the official ONS seasonally adjusted estimate of the unemployment rate along with our own estimate from the microdata to ensure comparability. The two unemployment series are very close and any differences are likely to arise primarily from small variations in the seasonal adjustment procedures used. It is clear that underemployment has risen sharply since 2008 especially.8 The new seasonally adjusted estimate of underemployment of 9.8 percent for 2013Q1 is unchanged from the seasonally adjusted estimate in the previous quarter, even though the unadjusted estimate rose slightly from 9.6 to 9.8 percent.9 This reflects the fact that prior to the early 2000s, the demands for reduced hours exceeded those for increased hours. Since then the balance has changed, first turning positive in 2006Q2 as the unemployment rate started to riseit was 5.3 percent in 2006Q1 and rose to 5.6 percent in 2006Q2. It first hit 10 million hours in the second quarter of 2009. In 2013Q1 approximately 55 percent of the net additional desired hours was due to full-timers. Figure 1 plots both the underemployment and unemployment rates calculated from our data; the widening gap between the series is apparent. It is also clear that the underemployment rate was below the unemployment rate through the beginning of 2006. Figure 2 plots all five of the series in table 2. It shows how closely the underemployment series move together as well as how close the three unemployment series are. There is little difference between the raw and seasonally adjusted underemployment series. The same is true of the various unemployment rates. Figure 3 plots the difference in percentage points

7. Office of National Statistics, People in Work Wanting More Hours Increases by 1 Million Since 2008, November 28, 2012, www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_289024.pdf. 8. The Office of National Statistics, the United Kingdoms equivalent of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, has also noted that underemployment has risen sharply; indeed they calculate that the number of workers wanting more hours stood at 3.05 million in AprilJune 2012. The ONS defines underemployment levels and rates based on the number of workers. See www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/underemployed-workers-in-the-uk/2012/sty-underemployed-workers-in-the-uk.html. 9. We also report seasonally unadjusted differences in parentheses.

between the underemployment and unemployment series separately for both the seasonally adjusted and unadjusted series, which has clearly risen over time. So the amount of labor market slack in the UK economy remains large. Large numbers of workers want to increase their hours and are willing to do so without any increase in their hourly wage rate. Of course, some workers would like to work fewer hours. As described previously, we take account of this in our underemployment measure. Table 3 reports the total number of hours that workers would like to work split between those who say they want more hours and those who say they want fewer. Figure 4 plots aggregate increases and reductions in desired hours. The gap has risen sharply since 2008. Total hours of those wanting more hours rose from 41.7 million in 2012Q4 to 42.1 million in 2013Q1. Total hours of those who want fewer hours fell slightly from 22.6 million to 22.2 million. Thus, the net quantity of additional hours required was 19.9 million, up from 19.1 million in the previous quarter. Assuming average weekly hours of 32.0, as reported in the latest ONS data release from July 2013 for MarchMay 2013, this amounts to approximately 625,000 additional jobs, up from 600,000 jobs a quarter earlier, based on average hours of 31.9 from December 2012February 2013.10 No sign of recovery here. Note in table 3 that we have data on the number of desired additional hours from 1996Q2 but data on the desired reductions in hours are not available until 2001Q2; all that is reported are the number of people who are in this category. Hence our underemployment index starts in 2001Q2. Figure 5 plots the aggregate increases in desired hours starting in 1996. It is notable that the number of additional hours desired at an unemployment rate of around 8 percent in 1996 was around 30 million hours compared with around 42 million hours in 2013 for a slightly lower unemployment rate. This suggests a changing balance between the internal and external labor markets in the United Kingdom such that, for a given unemployment rate, there are now more workers who wish to increase their hours. Hour constraints do not augur well for consumption: Why would the consumer spend if their income is constrained and savings can only last for so long? Of particular concern is that this underemployment especially impacts the young. It seems that they face a double whammy: They have especially high unemployment rates, but if they are employed, they have far fewer hours than they would like.11 Table 4 presents unemployment rates and estimates of the underemployment index for four age groupsages 1624, 2549, 5064, and 65 and over. Seasonally adjusted underemployment rates are shown in figure 6. In 2013Q1, the gap between the underemployment rate (29.8 percent) and the unemployment rate (21 percent) was 8.8 percent for those aged less than 25. The size of this gap drops
10. Office of National Statistics, Labor Market Statistics, July 2013, table 7, www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_315111.pdf. 11. For analysis of the problem of youth unemployment in the United Kingdom, see Bell and Blanchflower (2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b).

progressively with age. For those aged 2549 it is 2.1 percent. The gap becomes negative for those over the age of 50 because in aggregate the desired reduction in hours exceeds the desired increase in hours for this age group. This may reflect a desire to retire or to move from full- to part-time employment. In our data those aged between 50 and 64 had an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent and an underemployment rate of 3.8 percent in 2013Q1. Those above state retirement age (65 plus) had an unemployment rate of 2.1 percent and an underemployment rate of 2.1 percent, indicating, among all the age groups, this group expressed the strongest desire to reduce their working hours. So older workers have more hours than they want and younger workers have fewer hours than they want. The underemployment rates show that the wide differences that exist between age-specific unemployment rates are amplified when one takes into account desired increases or reductions in hours worked. The reverse is true for gender-specific unemployment and underemployment. Figure 7 shows seasonally adjusted unemployment and underemployment rates for males and females. For the period 2001 to 2013, UK unemployment rates for females have been consistently lower than those for men. However, the underemployment rate for females increased more strongly than that for males from the start of the recession and surpassed it in 2011. Though women may be more likely than men to find some employment, they are more likely to express a desire to increase their hours because women are more likely to be employed part-time. Calibrating excess capacity in the labor market using an underemployment index rather than focusing on the unemployment rate shows that levels of excess capacity are roughly balanced across the gendersa finding that is clearly at odds with a simple comparison of unemployment rates. As we showed earlier, the large increase in underemployment coincided with the increase in unemployment at the beginning of the recession in 2008. The underemployment index rose from 0.69 in 2008Q3 to 1.49 by 2009Q3 as real wages fell, as seen in table 5, which plots nominal and real wage growth using data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) along with the annual consumer price index.12 Nominal median hourly and weekly wage growth is obtained by deducting the consumer price index from the wage growth. It is clear there has been a sharp decline in real wages at the same time as unemployment has risen, even though average number of hours has in fact risen. Average hours for full-timers were 36.9 in December 2007February 2008 compared with 36.7 in MarchMay 2011 and 37.5 in MarchMay 2013. For part-timers average hours were 15.5 in December 2007February 2008 compared with 15.5 in MarchMay 2011 and 15.9 in MarchMay 2013. While economists have typically made inferences about utility based on the revealed preference paradigm, a more recent literature attempts to calibrate utility directly using survey responses to questions on subjective
12. The ASHE is an annual firm-level panel survey of wages covering a random sample of 1 percent of all National Insurance numbers, which are the UK equivalent of Social Security numbers.

well-being or happiness. These typically ask questions such as Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? (Life), where 0 is not at all satisfied and 10 is completely satisfied. This question is asked in the United Kingdoms individual-level Annual Population Survey (APS) for 201112.13 Using the same 10-point scale respondents to the APS are also asked (1) whether the things you do in your life are worthwhile (Worthwhile); (2) how happy did you feel yesterday? (Happy); and (3) how anxious did you feel yesterday? (Anxious). There is consistent evidence that subjective well-being is related to age, marital status, gender, health, and employment status, inter alia. In relation to employment status, the unemployed have lower levels of life satisfaction than the employed, controlling for other characteristics (Blanchflower et al. 2013). Given our previous analysis, we might hypothesize that underemployment and overemployment also have negative effects on life satisfaction. Past literature does suggest a negative relationshipe.g., Dooley, Prause, and Ham-Rowbottom (2000), Dooley (2003), and Friedland and Price (2003). However, these studies do not use large-scale datasets that include direct responses to questions about the extent of underemployment or overemployment. Unfortunately the APS does not jointly capture data on overemployment and subjective well-being. But it does have some data on underemployment. Hence it is possible to compare the effects of unemployment and underemployment on well-being. Average values for the happiness, life satisfaction, life is worthwhile, and anxiety measures for different types of employment status are shown in table 6. Data are drawn from the APS in 2011 and 2012 and weighted using the well-being weight constructed by ONS. Respondents are categorized as employees, self-employed, unemployed, and out of the labor force (retired and not retired). The employed and self-employed are subdivided by full-time, part-time, and whether they wish to move from part-time to full-time. Amongst the employed, the highest levels of happiness and life satisfaction are found amongst those working part-time who do not want a full-time job (part-time did not want full-time).14 In contrast, part-timers who want a full-time job (part-time wants full-time) have lower levels of satisfaction than either part-timers who did not want a full-time job or full-time employees. This group also performed badly on mental health scores including anxiety. Next we run two sets of regressions where we model responses to APS questions on happiness, life satisfaction, anxiety, and the life is worthwhile questions. The equations are estimated using ordinary least squares with the dependent variables in each case drawn from a 10-point scale. The sample for the

13. Office of National Statistics, Measuring What Matters, www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/wellbeing/index.html. 14. The UK government in its monthly labor market data release reports the number of part-timers who want full-time jobs and number of part-timers who do not. The latest estimates for MarchMay 2013 are 1,446,000 and 5,167,000 respectively, from 1,259,000 and 5,251,000, respectively, two years earlier in MarchMay 2011. See table 3 in Labor Market Statistics, July 2013, www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_315111.pdf.

10

first set of regressions is drawn from all adults, while the second set is restricted to employees. Results are shown in tables 7 and 8. Both sets of equations contain a large number of common controls that are listed at the bottom of the tables. We focus on the coefficients relating to labor market status and to the desired working time of respondents. One striking feature in table 7 is that the coefficients on happiness, life satisfaction, anxiety,15 and life is worthwhile tend to have the same sign and all are either significant or not significant, at the 5 percent level. Two exceptions are the coefficient on government training scheme in the happiness equation and the coefficient on the number of hours of unpaid overtime in the life satisfaction equation. These coefficients are not significant at the 5 percent level, whereas the equivalent coefficients in the other equations are significant. Table 7 implies that, compared with a part-time employee who does not want full-time work, those on government training schemes score worse. Differences between employees and family workers are not significant. But for the unemployed, especially those who have been out of work for more than 12 months, there is a very significant drop in life satisfaction. The data in the APS support this widely replicated finding. Full-time workers have lower life satisfaction measures than part-timers who are content with the length of their working time. However, part-timers who want to work full-time have significantly lower levels of life satisfaction than part-timers who are content with their hours. The coefficients on this indicator of underemployment suggest that part-time workers who are hoursconstrained have lower levels of well-being than those who are content with their working time. The sizes of the coefficients vary between 33 and 64 percent of the coefficients on being unemployed for less than 12 months, implying that underemployment is less damaging to life satisfaction than unemployment but nevertheless does cause a significant reduction. In addition to the part-time wants full-time variable, we include a further variable, which indicates whether an employee wants more hours, irrespective of their full-time/part-time status. This has a significant, but much smaller, negative effect on life satisfaction, implying that the part-time wants full-time variable captures most of the negative effect of underemployment on life satisfaction. We do capture one indicator of overemploymentthe number of hours of unpaid overtime that an employee believes that he/she is working. This is different from the question asked in the LFS and used in our previous analysis about whether a worker wishes to reduce their working time. The coefficients are all negative, though, as mentioned earlier, the coefficient on life satisfaction is not significant. This is tentative evidence in support of the argument that overemployment also has a negative effect on well-being.
15. We use not anxious in tables 7 and 8 as our dependent variable to maintain comparability with the definitions of the dependent variables in our other equations.

11

The results in table 8 focus on employees only. Again there are four equations, seeking to explain the 10-point scale responses to questions on happiness, life satisfaction, anxiety, and life is worthwhile. The excluded category is part-time employees who do not wish to work full-time. Full-timers score significantly lower on measures of well-being than do part-time workers. Again, those working part-time, but who want to work full-time, experience significantly lower levels of well-being than do those who are content with working part-time. The restriction of the sample to those who are currently working does not change the direction or significance of the coefficients measuring differences in levels of well-being between different categories of employees. Similarly, conditional on the part-time wants full-time dummy, the dummy on wanting more hours is also negative and significant. These coefficients are smaller than their equivalents on the part-time-wants-full-time dummy. Again, these results support the hypothesis that the well-being of the underemployed is lower than that of workers who are satisfied with their hours. Similarly the significantly negative coefficients on the hours of unpaid overtime variable suggest a negative well-being effect from overemployment. Because the sample is limited to employees, we are also able to include an earnings variable. In all cases the coefficients are positive and significant. So money raises happiness (Blanchflower and Oswald 2004a, 2004b), and the underemployed are especially unhappy. Underemployment in the United Kingdom has risen sharply since the start of the recession and shows no sign of declining soon. It appears that underemployment lowers well-being. The question is what to do about it, especially given it is hitting the young relatively harder. CONCLUSION Our argument in this paper is that it is possible to construct a comprehensive measure of excess capacity in the labor marketan underemployment indexwhich encompasses both its intensive and extensive margins. This has three main advantages. First, for macro analysis, the underemployment index is a broader measure of excess capacity than the unemployment rate. We have demonstrated that the United Kingdom has experienced wide variation in the underemployment index at broadly similar unemployment rates. In these circumstances, the argument that upward pressure on wage costs depends solely on the extensive margin of the labor market is perhaps rather strong. At a minimum, the underemployment index provides a testable alternative to the use of the unemployment rate in macro relationships. Second, the underemployment index reveals subtle differences in levels of excess capacity that are not apparent from a simple comparison of unemployment rates. Unemployment rates are generally used as the main statistical measure of excess labor capacity. Comparisons with their underemployment equivalents show that unemployment rates underestimate the real differences in excess labor capacity between age groups but overestimate differences between genders. Third, we have shown that underemployment and overemployment have negative effects on well-being. In relation to the labor market, the well-being

12

literature has tended to focus on unemployment. This finding adds a new dimension to this literature. Clearly our finding is consistent with standard labor supply theory, but this demonstration of the wellbeing effects of hours disequilibrium perhaps shifts the policy focus towards trying to understand how the hours of those in work might be adjusted to enhance well-being. Like the United Kingdom, the United States has a highly flexible labor market, with a fluid boundary between its intensive and extensive margins. As the nature of work changes, the unemployment rate will become an increasingly unreliable metric for excess capacity in the labor market. Unfortunately the data necessary to compile an equivalent underemployment index in the United States are not available. It would make sense for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to experiment with additional questions in the Current Population Survey that would allow the construction of our underemployment index. REFERENCES
Bell, David N. F., and David G. Blanchflower. 2010a. Recession and Unemployment in the OECD. CESifo Forum, Issue 1 (March). Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/cesifo.pdf. Bell, David N. F., and David G. Blanchflower. 2010b. UK Unemployment in the Great Recession. National Institute Economic Review 214 (October): R3R25. Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/ Bell-Blanchflower.pdf. Bell, David N. F., and David G. Blanchflower. 2011a. Young People and the Great Recession. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 27: 24167. Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/Oxf%20Rev%20Econ%20 Policy-2011-Bell-241-67.pdf. Bell, David N. F., and David G. Blanchflower. 2011b. Youth Unemployment in Europe and the United States. Nordic Economic Policy Review, no. 1: 1138. Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/ YouthEmpTNpages.pdf. Bell, David N. F., and David G. Blanchflower. 2013. Underemployment in the UK Revisited. National Institute Economic Review 224 (May): F1F15. Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/ bell&blanchflower2013.pdf. Blanchflower, David G., and A. J. Oswald. 2004a. Well-Being over Time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics 88, nos. 7-8 (July): 135986. Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/jpube.pdf. Blanchflower, David G., and A. J. Oswald. 2004b. Money, Sex and Happiness: An Empirical Study. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 106, no. 3: 393415. Available at www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/ papers/02_sjoe002.pdf. Blanchflower, David G., David N. F. Bell, A. Montagnoli, and M. Moro. 2013. The Effects of Macroeconomic Shocks on Well-Being. Paper presented at Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference on Fulfilling the Full Employment Mandate, Monetary Policy and the Labor Market, April 1213. Available at www.bos.frb.org/ employment2013/papers/Blanchflower_Session5.pdf. Dooley, D. 2003. Unemployment, Underemployment, and Mental Health: Conceptualizing Employment Status as a Continuum. American Journal of Community Psychology 32, no. 1: 920. Available at www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/14570431.

13

Dooley, D., J. Prause, and K. A. Ham-Rowbottom. 2000. Underemployment and Depression: Longitudinal Relationships. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41, no. 4 (December): 42136. Available at https:// webfiles.uci.edu/psbstaff/1-25-10%20Colloquium-SE%20Perspectives%20on%20Psych%20Research/ Depression.pdf. Erceg, C. J., and A. T. Levin. 2013. Labor Force Participation and Monetary Policy in the Wake of the Great Recession. Paper presented at Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference on Fulfilling the Full Employment Mandate, Monetary Policy and the Labor Market, April 1213. Available at www.bos.frb.org/ employment2013/papers/Erceg_Levin_Session1.pdf. Friedland, D. S., and R. H. Price. 2003. Underemployment: Consequences for the Health and Well-Being of Workers. American Journal of Community Psychology 32, no. 1: 3345. Available at www.isr.umich.edu/src/seh/ mprc/PDFs/Friedland2003.pdf. Shiskin, J., A. H. Young, and J. C. Musgrave. 1967. The X-11 Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjustment Program. Technical Paper no. 15. US Department of Commerce and US Census Bureau. Available at www.census.gov/ts/papers/ShiskinYoungMusgrave1967.pdf.

14

Table 1

Annual alternative measures of labor underutilization in the United States, unadjusted, 200713 (percent)
2007 2008 2.1 3.1 5.8 6.1 2009 4.7 5.9 9.3 9.7 2010 5.7 6 9.6 10.3 2011 5.3 5.3 8.9 9.5 2012 4.5 4.4 8.1 8.6 2013 (June) 4 3.9 7.6 8.2

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate) U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

1.5 2.3 4.6 4.9

5.5

6.8

10.5

11.1

10.4

9.5

9.1

8.3

10.5

16.2

16.7

15.9

14.7

14.3

Note: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market-related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. February 2013 estimate is seasonally adjusted. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation, June 2013, www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.

15

Table 2

UK unemployment and underemployment rates, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, 2001Q22013Q1 (percent)
Unemployment rate (percent unadjusted) 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.6 5.0 5.2 4.8 5.3 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.2 6.3 7.2 7.8 8.2 7.7 ONS Unemployment unemployment rate rate (percent seasonally (percent seasonally adjusted) adjusted) 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.9 6.4 7.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 6.0 6.5 7.2 7.9 8.0 7.9 Underemployment rate (percent unadjusted) 4.6 5.2 4.7 5.0 4.7 5.4 4.6 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.8 5.3 5.8 5.1 5.5 5.5 6.8 7.1 8.2 9.1 9.7 8.9 Underemployment rate (percent seasonally adjusted) 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.6 5.1 5.3 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.7 6.5 7.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.1
(continues on next page)

Year

Quarter Q2

2001

Q3 Q4 Q1

2002

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2003

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2004

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2005

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2006

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2007

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2008

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2009

Q2 Q3 Q4

16

Table 2

UK unemployment and underemployment rates, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, 2001Q22013Q1 (percent) (continued)
Unemployment rate (percent unadjusted) 8.1 7.8 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.0 8.1 7.7 7.9 ONS Unemployment unemployment rate rate (percent seasonally (percent seasonally adjusted) adjusted) 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.9 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.9 8.1 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.0 Underemployment rate (percent unadjusted) 9.5 9.0 9.8 9.4 9.2 9.5 10.4 10.1 10.0 9.8 10.0 9.6 9.8 Underemployment rate (percent seasonally adjusted) 9.5 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.8 9.8

Year

Quarter Q1

2010

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2011

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2012

Q2 Q3 Q4

2013

Q1

Source: UK Office of National Statistics (ONS); authors' calculations.

17

Figure 1

Excess capacity in the UK labor market, seasonally adjusted, 2001Q22013Q1

unemployment /underemployment rate (percent)

11

Unemployment (seasonally adjusted)

Underemployment (seasonally adjusted)

10

18
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2001

2002

Source: UK Office of National Statistics, Labour Force Survey; authors' calculations.

Figure 2

Unemployment and underemployment, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, 2001Q22013Q1

percent

11

10

Unemployment (unadjusted) Unemployment (seasonally adjusted) ONS unemployment (seasonally adjusted) Underemployment (unadjusted) Underemployment (seasonally adjusted)

19
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2001

2002

Source: UK Office of National Statistics (ONS); authors calculations.

Figure 3

Difference between underemployment and unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, 2001Q22013Q1

percent

Difference (unadjusted) Difference (seasonally adjusted)

20
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

0.0

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2001

2002

Source: UK Office of National Statistics, Labour Force Survey; authors calculations.

Table 3

Aggregate increases and reductions in desired hours, seasonally adjusted, 1996Q22013Q1 (million hours per week)
Desired increase in hours 31.4 33.1 33.9 32.9 32.3 31.1 30.5 30.1 30.2 29.5 29.6 29.1 27.8 27.7 25.8 25.9 26.0 25.9 24.8 24.0 22.8 22.6 22.7 22.3 23.1 23.1 22.4 23.0 23.2 22.9 22.9 22.7 22.6 22.3 22.1 Desired reduction in hours n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 25.6 25.3 25.1 25.7 25.8 25.6 25.7 25.6 26.0 27.0 27.2 25.7 26.8 25.6 24.9
(continues on next page)

Year

Quarter Q2

1996

Q3 Q4 Q1

1997

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

1998

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

1999

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2000

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2001

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2002

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2003

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2004

Q2 Q3 Q4

21

Table 3

Aggregate increases and reductions in desired hours, seasonally adjusted, 1996Q22013Q1 (million hours per week) (continued)
Desired increase in hours 22.0 23.3 22.7 23.5 24.4 24.6 25.1 25.6 25.5 25.8 26.2 26.8 26.6 26.2 28.3 29.7 31.7 34.8 34.5 34.6 36.2 36.2 38.0 38.0 37.8 38.3 38.5 40.0 40.2 41.2 39.9 41.7 42.1 Desired reduction in hours 25.5 23.6 24.0 24.5 24.6 23.9 24.0 23.8 23.6 24.9 25.2 25.8 24.4 23.6 22.7 21.3 21.6 21.2 21.6 22.2 22.7 23.4 22.7 21.9 23.2 21.5 21.7 21.8 22.6 22.4 22.8 22.6 22.2

Year

Quarter Q1

2005

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2006

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2007

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2008

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2009

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2010

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2011

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2012

Q2 Q3 Q4

2013

Q1

n.a. = Data on desired reduction in hours are not available until 2001Q2. Source: UK Office of National Statistics, Labor Force Survey.

22

Figure 4

Aggregate increases and reductions in desired hours, seasonally adjusted, 2001Q22013Q1

millions of hours per week

45

Aggregate increases in desired hours

Aggregate reductions in desired hours

40

35

23
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

30

25

20

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2002

Source: UK Office of National Statistics, Labour Force Survey; authors calculations.

Figure 5

Desired additional hours and unemployment rate, 1996Q22013Q1

unemployment rate (percent) 9

weekly additional hours demanded (millions , seasonally adjusted)

45

40

35 5

24
Desired increase in hours (left axis) ONS unemployment rate (right axis) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

30 3

25 1

20

Q2Q3Q4 Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1

1996

1997

Source: UK Office of National Statistics (ONS), Labour Force Survey; authors calculations.

Table 4
Age 1624 Unemployment 11.9 11.9 12 12.6 12.4 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.8 12.5 12.5 12 12.1 12.2 12.4 12.7 12.3 12.7 12.8 14.2 13.7 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.6 4.4 4.3 4 4 3.9 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.1 3.5 3.8 4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.5 3 3.5 3.1 3.5 3 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.2 3.7 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 3.3 3.8 0.1 3.3 4 0.3 3.3 3.7 0.5 3.6 4 0.7 3.5 4 1 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 3 3 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.8 4.3 1.1 3.5 3.7 4.1 1.1 3.2 3.7 4.2 0.6 3.2 3.7 4.2 0.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 0.8 3.2 3.8 4.2 0.5 3.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 1 1.8 1 0.6 0.3 0.7 0 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.9 1.2 Underemployment Unemployment Underemployment Unemployment Underemployment Age 2549 Age 50-64

Underemployment and unemployment rates by age, seasonally adjusted, 2001Q22013Q1 (percent)

Age 65 plus Unemployment 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.4 2.8 2.9 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.3 2 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.2 2.9 1.7
(continues on next page)

Year 15.8 15.8 16.6 16.4 16.1 16.7 16.5 17.2 17 16.9 16.2 16.7 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.3 17.3 17.6 18.6 18.3 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.6 19.3 19.5 19.4

Quarter

Underemployment

Q2

2001

Q3

Q4

Q1

2002

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2003

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

25

2004

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2005

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2006

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2007

Q2

Q3

Q4

Table 4
Age 1624 Unemployment 14 13.8 14.4 15.5 16.7 18.1 19.5 19.7 19.5 20 19.6 19 20.4 20 20.6 22 22.4 22.1 21.7 20.8 21 8.1 8.3 8 8.1 8.1 8.4 8.3 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.2 8.1 6.3 7.5 6.1 7.9 6.3 7.9 6.3 7.7 6.3 7.9 6.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.8 7.5 6.3 3.7 7.6 6.3 3.5 7.6 6.3 3.5 6.6 5.5 2.8 3.9 4.3 4.7 4.7 5 4.8 5 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 5 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.7 4.9 2.2 3.4 5 4.4 1.4 3 4.3 4 0.6 3 4.1 3.9 0.4 3 Underemployment Unemployment Underemployment Unemployment Age 2549 Age 50-64

Underemployment and unemployment rates by age, seasonally adjusted, 2001Q22013Q1 (percent) (continued)
Age 65 plus Underemployment 1 1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 2.1 Unemployment 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.6 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.2 3 2.9 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.1

Year 19.1 19.4 20.9 22.2 24.2 26.2 26.7 26.1 27.2 26.7 26.9 28.2 28.1 28.5 29.9 30.2 30.1 30.2 29.2 29.5 29.8

Quarter

Underemployment

Q1

2008

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2009

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2010

Q2

26

Q3

Q4

Q1

2011

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

2012

Q2

Q3

Q4

2013

Q1

Source: UK Office of National Statistics; authors' calculations.

Figure 6 Underemployment by age group, seasonally adjusted, 2001Q22013Q1

percent

27
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2001

2002

Source: UK Office of National Statistics, Labour Force Survey; authors calculations.

Figure 7

Underemployment and unemployment by gender, seasonally adjusted, 2001Q22013Q1

percent

12

Female unemployment Female underemployment Male unemployment Male underemployment

10

28
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2001

2002

Source: UK Office of National Statistics, Labour Force Survey; authors calculations.

Table 5

Median weekly and hourly wage growth rates using Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings and consumer price index, 19982012
Nominal Real Hourly 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.5 3.1 2 3.6 1 1.7 0.8 0.8 1.5 2.1 3.4 1.4 Weekly 2.9 1.9 3.1 3.5 2.7 1.9 3.4 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.3 1.2 4.1 1.3 Consumer price index 1.6 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 3.6 2.2 3.3 4.5 2.8

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hourly 4.3 4.1 3.6 4.7 4.4 3.4 4.9 3.1 4 3.1 4.4 3.7 1.2 1.1 1.4

Weekly 4.5 3.2 3.9 4.7 4 3.3 4.7 2.9 3.5 3.2 4.7 1.9 2.1 0.4 1.5

Source: UK Office of National Statistics.

Table 6 Well-being scores

Employment status Employee Part-time did not want full-time Part-time wants full-time Full-time Self-employed Part-time did not want full-time Part-time wants full-time Full-time Unemployed Out of labor force, not retired Out of labor force, retired Happiness 7.3 7.5 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.7 6.9 7.4 6.7 6.7 7.7 Life satisfaction 7.5 7.7 6.9 7.5 7.5 7.8 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.8 Anxious 3.1 3 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.7 2.8 Worthwhile 7.8 8 7.4 7.7 7.9 8.2 7.5 7.8 6.9 7.3 7.9

Note: Data are weighted by well-being weight. Average scores reported on a scale of 1 to 10; see text. Source: Annual Population Survey, April 2011April 2012.

29

Table 7 Well-being equations, 201112

Variable Government training scheme Family worker Unemployed <12 months Unemployed >=12 months Full-time Part-time wants full-time Wants more hours Number of hours unpaid overtime Constant Happy .1230 (0.85) .2059 (1.90) .5577 (15.46) .6940 (14.95) .1306 (7.17) .3587 (9.38) .0612 (2.37) .0068 (4.36) 7.061 Life satisfaction .7986 (6.67) .0297 (0.33) 1.0559 (35.35) 1.2345 (32.12) .1110 (7.36) .5446 (17.20) .1574 (7.36) .0015 (1.18) 7.295 Not anxious .5737 (3.02) .0453 (0.32) .6042 (12.78) .4915 (8.07) .1373 (5.75) .2024 (4.04) .1723 (5.09) .0189 (9.23) 3.370 Worthwhile .4397 (3.83) .1119 (1.30) .7169 (25.04) .9094 (24.66) .1099 (7.61) .3473 (11.44) .0537 (2.62) .0032 (2.63) 7.525

Adjusted R2 N
DDA = UK Disability Discrimination Act

0.07 165,227

0.126 165,278

0.042 164,974

0.092 164,570

Notes: All equations also include controls for gender, year, age (7), region (10), ethnicity (12), marital status (5), out of the labor force (20) and highest qualifications (78), DDA disabled, DDA disabled and work-limiting disability. Excluded categories are ages 4554; North East; white; employee, part-time does not want full-time, and not disabled. T-statistics are in parentheses. Source: Annual Population Survey, April 2011April 2012.

Table 8 Well-being equations for employees, 201112

Variable Full-time Part-time wants full-time Wants more hours Number of hours unpaid overtime Log weekly earnings Constant Happy .2221 (8.76) .3827 (9.08) .0738 (2.66) .0101 (5.78) .0410 (2.20) 7.603 Life satisfaction .3179 (15.97) .5998 (18.13) .1461 (6.70) .0046 (3.42) .1355 (9.29) 7.374 Not anxious .1751 (5.10) .1182 (2.07) .19145 (5.08) .02128 (8.97) .07158 (2.84) 3.521 Worthwhile .2731 (14.79) .3975 (12.93) .0620 (3.06) .0003 (0.25) .0717 (5.29) 8.026

Adjusted R2 N
DDA = UK Disability Discrimination Act

0.021 65,855

0.051 65,851

0.019 65,809

0.046 65,753

Notes: all equations also include controls for gender, year, tenure, age (7), region (10), ethnicity (12), industry (8), size of farm (6), occupation (8), DDA disabled, DDA disabled and work-limiting disability. Excluded categories are ages 4554; North East; white; employee, part-time does not want full-time, and not disabled. T-statistics in parentheses Source: Annual Population Survey, April 2011April 2012.

30