Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

About a survey in United States

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
minimus - 25 May 2009 19:00 GMT
Dear (especially American) People,

I am going to carry out a questionnaire on American people. One of the most
important, and the one I am having difficulty to formulate, question is
stated below. My aim is to figure out the 'to be revealed' or 'revealed'
employment path of the respondent. The employment path consists of
employment statuses. By employment status I mean one of the following three
statuses: full time work, part time work, and full time retirement. Hence,
you might have followed the following employment path: You worked full time
most of the time of your life and then took a part time job for several
years before you retired fully. The questions below try to capture these
kind of patterns. Of course they are simplified as otherwise I cannot tackle
with too complicated patterns. Note that "employment history" applies only
to retired people as they have realized their working life. However, I also
would like to know the anticipated employment pattern of people who are
currently working full or part time. For this reason I first ask the
respondents if they are currently working full time, working part time,
retired, or partly retired. After I determine their current labor market
status, I ask the current question but different versions of wording apply
with respect to the indicated current labor market status.

In the questions below you will see capital letters such as  "F-P-P-R".
These will not appear in the question but it is just to demonstrate easily
the employment pattern I am trying to capture. For example F-P-P-R means you
work full time (F) and then part time for many years (P-P) and then you
retire (R). F-P-R means you work full time (F) and then part time for not
necessarily many years (P, that is one P) and then you retire (R). The set
of possible employment paths are the following:

F-F-F-R
F-F-P-R
F-P-P-R
F-P-F-R I am not considering this sequence as it is too complicated
P-P-P-R
P-P-F-R
P-F-F-R
P-F-P-R I am not considering this sequence as it is too complicated

After the question I plan to ask the respondents 'the degree the employment
pattern they choose is representative'. This will tell me how successful I
am in predicting their employment sequence.

What I would like you to do:
1. Please tell me if you can think of a better formulation of this question
that intends to capture labor market pattern of a person.
2. If you are rather fine with the formulation, please tell me what I might
be missing in this question.
3. Please watch my English. It should be understandable to the average
American.

QUESTION:

Many employees retire fully after working full time. Other employees go into
partial retirement where they work part time for several years before full
retirement.

1. If labor market status is: full time employee

Which of the following retirement paths are you more likely to have
realized? When answering this question please base your choice as much as
possible on your opportunities rather than on your preferences.

       1. After many years of full time work I will enter into full
retirement
       F-F-F-R

       2. After many/some years of full time work I will work part time for
many/some years and then I will enter into full retirement
       F-F-P-R or F-P-P-R

       3. After many/some years of part time work I am currently working
full time for many/some years before I enter into full retirement
       P-P-F-R or P-F-F-R

2. If labor market status is: part time employee.

Which of the following retirement paths are you more likely to have
realized? When answering this question please base your choice as much as
possible on your opportunities rather than on your preferences.

       1. After many years of part time work I will enter into full
retirement
       P-P-P-R

       2. After many/some years of part time work I will work full time for
many/some years and then I will enter into full retirement
       P-P-F-R or P-F-F-R

       3. After many/some years of full time work I am currently working
part time for many/some years before I enter into full retirement
       F-F-P-R or F-P-P-R

3. If labor market status is 5: full time retiree.

Which of the following retirement paths most closely represents the
retirement path you have realized?

       1. After many years of full time work I entered into full retirement
       F-F-F-R

       2. After many/some years of full time work I worked part time for
many/some years and then I entered into full retirement
       F-F-P-R or F-P-P-R

       3. After many years of part time work I entered into full retirement
       P-P-P-R

       4. After many/some years of part time work I worked full time for
many/some years and then I entered into full retirement
       P-P-F-R or P-F-F-R

4. If labor market status is: part time retiree.

Which of the following retirement paths are you more likely to have
realized? When answering this question please base your choice as much as
possible on your opportunities rather than on your preferences.

       1. After many years of full time work I entered into part time
retirement
       F-F-F-P

       2. After many years of part time work I entered into part time
retirement
       P-P-P-P

       3. After many/some years of full time work I worked part time for
many/some years and then I entered into part time retirement
       F-F-P-P or F-P-P-P

       4. After many/some years of part time work I worked full time for
many/some years and then I entered into part time retirement
       P-P-F-P or P-F-F-P
Don Phillipson - 25 May 2009 20:39 GMT
> I am going to carry out a questionnaire on American people. One of the most
> important, and the one I am having difficulty to formulate, question is
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> P-F-F-R
> P-F-P-R I am not considering this sequence as it is too complicated

Despite months of discussion so far, it is not yet clear whether
your focus is on:
(a)  Money earned after retirement from "regular" full-time employment,
(b)  Hours worked after retirement from "regular" full-time employment, or
(c)  Legal status (where regulations classify people as employed,
part-time, unemployed, retired, etc.)

Unless you can afford to pay respondents to understand and answer your
questionnaire, it seems in your interest to frame questions they will
find more interesting than other possible uses of their time, (e.g. reading
the funny papers, staring at the fire etc.)

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

minimus - 25 May 2009 22:23 GMT
> Despite months of discussion so far, it is not yet clear whether your
> focus is on:
> (a)  Money earned after retirement from "regular" full-time employment,
> (b)  Hours worked after retirement from "regular" full-time employment, or
> (c)  Legal status (where regulations classify people as employed,
> part-time, unemployed, retired, etc.)

As I mentioned: My aim is to figure out the 'to be revealed' or 'revealed'
employment path of the respondent. The employment path consists of
employment statuses. By employment status I mean one of the following three
statuses: full time work, part time work, and full time retirement. This
might have been sufficient to evaluate this question I think.

> Unless you can afford to pay respondents to understand and answer your
> questionnaire, it seems in your interest to frame questions they will
> find more interesting than other possible uses of their time, (e.g.
> reading
> the funny papers, staring at the fire etc.)

They are paid and the usual response rate is 70%. That is, out of every 100
people 70 percent answer these kind of questions.

Given these information I would appreciate if you or maybe other people can
express their view on the question. At least just try to answer the question
as if you were the respondent. And tell me if it rather was a logical
question.
Mark Brader - 25 May 2009 22:49 GMT
> As I mentioned: My aim is to figure out the 'to be revealed' or 'revealed'
> employment path of the respondent.

I have no idea of what you mean by "'to be revealed' or 'revealed'".
Signature

Mark Brader   |  "I always pass on good advice.  It's the only thing
Toronto       |   to do with it.  It is never any use to oneself."
msb@vex.net   |       -- Lord Goring  (Oscar Wilde: An Ideal Husband)

minimus - 26 May 2009 09:02 GMT
>> As I mentioned: My aim is to figure out the 'to be revealed' or
>> 'revealed'
>> employment path of the respondent.
>
> I have no idea of what you mean by "'to be revealed' or 'revealed'".

To be revealed: People who are currently employed did not realize their
employment history yet. For example if you are currently a full time worker,
you may still work part time in future and then retire fully. Hence there is
an anticipated labor market trajectory you will realize. There is a
trajectory that will be revealed. that is to be yet revealed.
Revealed: Retired people have already realized their labor market
trajectory. Hence for them employment path is revealed.
I hope this makes it clear.

At least please try to answer the question and tell me the ambiguity you
have encountered in evaluating the question.
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 26 May 2009 17:44 GMT
>> I am going to carry out a questionnaire on American people....
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> find more interesting than other possible uses of their time, (e.g.
> reading the funny papers, staring at the fire etc.)

How true. The amount he pays will need to be commensurate with the
amount of boredom needed to get through the task. Yesterday I received
a phone call from England, followed by an email today, from someone who
offered me 15 euros to answer some market research questions. As I
wasn't in the least interested in what they were selling I decided that
there were better ways of earning 15 euros.

Signature

athel

Rambler III - 25 May 2009 23:22 GMT
> Dear (especially American) People,
>
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
> many/some years and then I entered into part time retirement
>        P-P-F-P or P-F-F-P

Define "part time work."

What about "part time work" when a student [S]?
I worked only 39 hours when 48 hours was a normal workweek. Is that "part
time work"?
Is each "F" a different employer?
What about periods of unemployment [U]?
What about a second job, "part time work" while being fully employed?

My career path could be:

S
SP [Various types of work]
P   [39-hour week when 48 hours was a normal  workweek]
F   [Joined military]
U  [Discharged]
P  [39-hour week again]
F  [Rejoined military]
FP
FP
FP
F
R
RP
RF
RFP
RFP
RF
R
RP
R

Would each enlistment or change of duty station be regarded as a different
"F"?

What of an individual who works two or three "F" or "P" salaried jobs while
being self-employed [SE] at the same time?

F P P SE?
Don Phillipson - 26 May 2009 00:02 GMT
> Define "part time work."
>
> What about "part time work" when a student [S]?
>  I worked only 39 hours when 48 hours was a normal workweek. Is that "part
> time work"?

This point has been discussed before, at some length.
IIRR the consensus was that, because respondents would
be American, part-time work should be that defined by law
(if any) or else the threshhold in hours which denies the
employee other benefits, e.g. health insurance or a pension plan.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

minimus - 26 May 2009 09:16 GMT
> Define "part time work."

Ok I will take this into account. Thanks

> What about "part time work" when a student [S]?

I do not consider students. The sample is based only on employees and
retired people. But yes you are right otherwise.

> I worked only 39 hours when 48 hours was a normal workweek. Is that "part
> time work"?

Good point. I consider 35 hours and more full time work. This is the
definition of US Department of Labor.

> Is each "F" a different employer?

Good point. I do not consider employer change in this question. I will
mention this in the beginning of the question. Great advice, thanks.

> What about periods of unemployment [U]?

Good point. I missed this. I will think about it. Maybe I will mention it in
the beginning of the question. On the other hand, I ask the respondents to
choose the path that is "closest" to their own path. Hence this controls for
this possibility a bit. but you are right I have to be careful here.

> What about a second job, "part time work" while being fully employed?

I missed this point. I will think about it.

> My career path could be:

> S
> SP [Various types of work]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> P  [39-hour week again]
> F  [Rejoined military]

These are too complicated. I cannot consider every possibility. therefore I
need to simplify it a bit. But in principle you are rigjht.

> FP
> FP
> FP
> F
> R

I consider these in the question so I don’t have a problem with here I
think.

> RP
> RF
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> RP
> R

You have a point here. These are called reverse flows. You retire and then
reenter. I do not consider this yet. I am thinking on it.

> Would each enlistment or change of duty station be regarded as a
different "F"?

No. full time definition is based only on labor supply, i.e. the number of
hours worked. But you have a point here.

> What of an individual who works two or three "F" or "P" salaried jobs
> while being self-employed [SE] at the same time? F P P SE?

This is again too complicated. Such a person should choose the path F
because he is working more than 35 hours a week. But this is a good point.
It indicates that I have to make the question more clear.

Rambler, your advice is very helpful. I will work on it and I will
definitely makes changes to the question. If you feel, please reply my
reply.
Thank you!!!
Hatunen - 26 May 2009 17:18 GMT
>> Define "part time work."
>
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>reply.
>Thank you!!!

It doesn't seem that you have thought this through very well...

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

minimus - 27 May 2009 11:55 GMT
> It doesn't seem that you have thought this through very well...

Well that is why I asked it here. The feedback given here already tells me
how far I am.

the good thing is that I will first ask this question to a pilot sample. I
can then understand to what extent my question misses career paths.
R H Draney - 26 May 2009 19:01 GMT
minimus filted:

>> What about "part time work" when a student [S]?
>
>I do not consider students. The sample is based only on employees and
>retired people. But yes you are right otherwise.

You also don't consider employees or retired people who may have been working
students at some time in the past, which eliminates a considerable portion of
your sample....

The design your survey seems to be following resembles some of those I take
online (I'm one of those unemployed people you exclude in another portion of
your reply to Rambler): first they ask how much you think you'd like a product
(like it very much, like it somewhat, neither like nor dislike it, dislike it
somewhat, or dislike it very much)...then they ask how many you will buy the
next time you shop (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, more than 6)...if you've already told them
you expect to dislike the product very much, surely "zero" should be an option
for the follow-up question....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

minimus - 27 May 2009 11:54 GMT
> minimus filted:

> You also don't consider employees or retired people who may have been
> working
> students at some time in the past, which eliminates a considerable portion
> of
> your sample....

Thanks. I will consider working students and I will thin on other
possibilities.

Career paths can be very diverse and I cannot take into account all
possibilities. It is just impossible. On the other hand the career path
option I provide should not over simplified. It is a matter of finding the
right balance. And it is not easy.

> The design your survey seems to be following resembles some of those I
> take
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> option
> for the follow-up question....r

I don’t really see the resemblance here. I do not ask how much do they like
the product, I ask them how much the described product is close to the
product they like. And if it is not close, in the second question I provide
them the opportunity to indicate that it was close or it was not close.
minimus - 27 May 2009 12:21 GMT
> minimus filted:

> You also don't consider employees or retired people who may have been
> working
> students at some time in the past, which eliminates a considerable portion
> of
> your sample....

This is also not very relevant for what I doing. Period of studying is
limited to young ages and after that you either work full or part time.
On the other hand, working student means part time work and it is in one the
option I provide.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.