Table 4.
Correlates of Working Poverty among Older Workers: Results of Logistic Regression Analysis (N=3,416)
| Variable | Odds Ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | Statistical Significancea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Domain | |||
| Age | 0.99 | (0.93, 1.06) | |
| Female | 0.95 | (0.57, 1.58) | |
| White | 0.56 | (0.36, 0.87) | P < .01 |
| Educational attainment | 0.86 | (0.80, 0.92) | P < .001 |
| Marital Status | |||
| Married | ref. | ref. | |
| Separated/divorced | 1.90 | (1.10, 3.27) | P < .05 |
| Widowed | 2.89 | (1.55, 5.39) | P < .001 |
| Never married | 3.95 | (1.81, 8.62) | P < .001 |
| Economic/Financial Domain | |||
| Net worth b | 0.83 | (0.68, 0.99) | P < .05 |
| Employment Domain | |||
| Annual work weeks | 0.99 | (0.94, 1.03) | |
| Tenure < 2 years | 1.46 | (0.91, 2.35) | |
| Part-time employment | 1.95 | (1.18, 3.23) | P < .01 |
| Employer-covered health insurance | 0.41 | (0.26, 0.64) | P < .001 |
| Occupation | |||
| Managerial | 0.49 | (0.16, 1.53 ) | |
| Professional | 1.34 | (0.61, 2.95) | |
| Sales | 0.51 | (0.18, 1.43) | |
| Clerical/administrative | 0.68 | (0.31, 1.51) | |
| Health/personal service | 1.57 | (0.82, 3.00) | |
| Mechanics/construction/production | 1.21 | (0.55, 2.69) | |
| Farming/armed forces | 0.48 | (0.10, 2.44) | |
| Services | 1.14 | (0.53, 2.45) | |
| Operators | ref. | ref. | |
| Health Domain | |||
| Self-rated health | |||
| Excellent | ref. | Ref. | |
| Very good | 0.85 | (0.43, 1.64) | |
| Good | 1.27 | (0.67, 2.41) | |
| Fair/poor | 1.27 | (0.61, 2.66) | |
| Mental health CESD score | 1.06 | (0.97, 1.17) | |
| Health care expenses c | 1.00 | (0.99, 1.00) | |
a
Notes. Unless otherwise noted, variable is not significant at 5% level of significance.
b
This variable was rescaled by 100,000.
c
Net worth represents non-housing wealth and is rescaled by $100.