Appendix Table 6:

Effects of employment-to-population ratio on informal caregiving and care receipt

		Type of care		Source of care
	Any care (1)	ADLs (2)	IADLs (3)	Children (4)	Spouse (5)
Outcome: caregiving among 40+
Employment-to-population ratio	−0.0055**	−0.0015	−0.0051	N/A	N/A
	(0.0023)	(0.0012)	(0.0021)
Observations	105741	105741	105741
Mean dependent variable	0.134	0.039	0.106
Outcome: care receipt among 60–69
Employment-to-population ratio	0.0031	0.0032	0.0023	0.0025	0.0025
	(0.0021)	(0.0014)	(0.0018)	(0.0013)	(0.0018)
Observations	52530	52530	52530	52435	52530
Mean dependent variable	0.089	0.043	0.064	0.039	0.054
Outcome: care receipt among 70+
Employment-to-population ratio	−0.0014	−0.0008	−0.0038	−0.0044	−0.0014
	(0.0030)	(0.0015)	(0.0027)	(0.0016)	(0.0025)
Observations	62850	62850	62850	62778	62850
Mean dependent variable	0.182	0.079	0.142	0.103	0.077

Note: Each cell reports the coefficient on the state annual employment-to-population ratio from a separate linear probability model. The first panel uses data from the ATUS sample, while the second and third panels use data from the HRS sample. All specifications control for a quadratic in age, gender, education, marital status, race and ethnicity, share of the state population aged 18–64 and aged 65 and over, state log expenditures on total Medicaid and Medicaid HCBS services for the older population and population with physical disabilities, as well as state, year, and linear time trends by state. HRS regressions additionally control for number of children a respondent has. The ATUS regressions additionally control for family size and are weighted using individual-level weights. Standard errors, clustered by state, are in parentheses.

^*p < 0.10,

^**p < 0.05,

^***p < 0.01