Posts
Perceived financial condition (PFC), was constructed via measuring frequency of response to each of five choices: 1) in over your head; 2) tough to make ends meet; 3) occasionally have some difficulty making ends meet; 4) able to make ends meet without much difficulty; and 5) very comfortable and secure. Categories one and two were collapsed into a single “adverse” PFC tier. Categories four and five were collapsed into a single “best” PFC tier.
Tables 1 and 2 show the variables that have the most beneficial and adverse effects, respectively. Table 3 provides increments for savings, unsecured debt, and monthly gross income. Table 4 presents the base case. The base case is essentially what everything else is compared to. I omitted several significant military variables from Tables 1 and 2 they are outside the profile of my typical reader.
Table 1. Summary of Significant Variables Ranked by Level of Beneficial Partial Effect on PFC (<0.1>1999 DoD Survey of Active Duty Personnel).
| Single Model Variables (% Lower Likelihood of Being in Worst PFC Tier, Relative Base Case) | Married Model Variables (% Lower Likelihood of Being in Worst PFC Tier, Relative Base Case) |
| Satisfied w/ Occupation (6.0) | Hispanic (7.4) |
| Black (4.1) | Spouse Employed (7.1) |
| Some College (3.7) | Savings (4.6 per one unit increase) |
| Savings (3.6 per one unit increase) | Thirties (3.6) |
| Other Race (3.4) | Satisfied w/ Occupation (3.5) |
| Hispanic (3.4) | Income (1.6 per one unit increase) |
| Female (2.5) | - |
| Income (0.8 per one unit increase) | - |
Table 2. Summary of Significant Variables Ranked by Level of Adverse Partial Effect on PFC (<0.1>1999 DoD Survey of Active Duty Personnel).
| Single Model Variables (% Higher Likelihood of Being in Worst PFC Tier, Relative to Base Case) | Married Model Variables (% Higher Likelihood of Being in Worst PFC Tier, Relative to Base Case) |
| Thirties Age Bracket (7.1) | Married w/ Dependents (8.7) |
| Twenties Age Bracket (7.1) | Dissatisfied w/ Occupation (7.6) |
| Single w/ Dependents (4.6) | Own Primary Residence (3.2) |
| Unsecured Debt (2.4 per one unit increase) | Unsecured Debt (2.6 per one unit increase) |
Principal differences between the “single” and “married” models included the effect of age and education. Single personnel in their thirties had a 7.1 percent higher likelihood of being in an adverse PFC tier. In contrast, Married personnel in their thirties had a 3.6 percent lower likelihood of being in an adverse PFC tier. Education was only significant in the single model.
There were many similarities between the married and single models. Single and married personnel who were satisfied with their occupation were 6.0 percent and 3.5 percent less likely to be in an adverse PFC tier, respectively. Single personnel of Hispanic, black, or other non-white race/ethnicity were between 3.4 percent and 4.1 percent less likely than whites to be in an adverse PFC tier. Married Hispanics were 7.4 percent less likely than whites to be in an adverse PFC tier. Finally, the pecuniary variables of savings, income and debt affected PFC similarly in the married and single models.
Table 3. Pecuniary variable tiers
| Income | Household total gross income: (a) $1-$2,000; (b) $2,001-$3,000; (c) $3,001-$4,000; (d) $4,001-$5,000; (e) $5,001-$6,000; (f) $6,001 and up |
| Savings | Net household savings: (a) $0 - $5,000; (b) $5,001-$10,000 (c) $10,001-$20,000; (d) $20,001-$50,000 (e) $50,001 and up |
| Unsecured_Debt | Total unsecured debt (a) None - $5,000; (b) $5,001-$10,000 (c) $10,001-$20,000; (d) $20,001 and up |
Table 4. Base Case (Married and Single Model Variables Combined)
| “Base Case” | Base case was: (a) White (b) E7 to E9 (c) Male (d) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (e) High School Graduate (f) (g) Over 39 years old (h) Owns primary residence (I) No dependents (j) No time away from homeport (k) $2,000 or less gross monthly income (l) $5,000 or less in savings (m) $5,000 or less in unsecured debt |
No comments:
Post a Comment