This study uses nationally representative panel survey data for Australia to identify the role played by mismatches between hours actually worked and working time preferences in contributing to reported levels of job and life satisfaction. Three main conclusions emerge. First, it is not the number of hours worked that matters for subjective well-being, but working time mismatch. Second, overemployment is a more serious problem than is underemployment. Third, while the magnitude of the impact of overemployment may seem small in absolute terms, relative to other variables, such as disability, the effect is quite large. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009.

It is widely assumed that non‐standard employment arrangements, and especially casual employment, involve employment conditions that are inferior to more traditional employment arrangements. This paper uses data from the first wave of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examine this issue. These data suggest that workers do not necessarily see non‐standard employment as undesirable. First, workers on fixed‐term contracts are more satisfied with their jobs than other workers. Second, the lower levels of job satisfaction among casual employees are restricted to those working full‐time and even then the size of the effect is only marked among male employees.

In May 2004, the Australian government announced a ''Baby Bonus'' policy, paying women an initial A$3,000 per new child. We use household panel data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (N = 14,932) and a simultaneous equations approach to analyze the effects of this bonus on fertility intentions and ultimately births. The results indicate that opportunity costs influence intentions and births in predictable ways. Fertility intentions rose after the announcement of the Baby Bonus, and the birth rate is estimated to have risen modestly as a result. The marginal cost to the government for an additional birth is estimated to be at least A$126,000.

Background: Gender differences in the relationship between parent drinking and adolescent drinking are poorly understood. As parental alcohol use is a primary early exposure to alcohol for adolescents, it is important to understand how consequences may differ for adolescent males and females. Objectives: The aim of this paper was to examine gender differences in the relationship between mother's and father's heavy episodic drinking, and its combination, and adolescent drinking. Methods: The sample included 2,800 14-15 year olds (48.9% female) living in two-parent households from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. The adolescent outcome measure was having had an alcoholic drink in the past year. Mothers and fathers self-reported their frequency of heavy episodic drinking. Covariates included parents' education, smoking, non-English-speaking background, and symptoms of psychological distress. Logistic regression was used to examine the hypotheses. Results: After adjustment for covariates, both mothers' and fathers' heavy episodic drinking significantly increased the likelihood of adolescent drinking. Moreover, fathers' heavy drinking was more strongly related to adolescent drinking for girls. However, there were no gender differences in the relationship between mothers' drinking and adolescent drinking, and the combination of mothers' and fathers' drinking was not more risky than heavy drinking in either parent alone. Conclusions: Parent heavy episodic drinking is a risk factor for adolescent drinking, after controlling for potential confounding variables. Results suggest that girls may be especially vulnerable to parent heavy drinking in early adolescence. This variation should be considered in the design and evaluation of family-based interventions to prevent adolescent drinking.

No abstract