No abstract

No abstract

Using Current Population Survey data for 1967 and 1979, this paper compares the earnings of Vietnam veterans to those of Korean veterans (in both cases, relative to nonveterans) at similar points in their work lives-twelve to sixteen years after their discharge. In both 1967 and 1979, the unadjusted average annual earnings of veterans and nonveterans were similar. But an analysis that controls for such factors as education, age, race, and( marital status shows that Vietnam veterans were worse off than their nonveteran contemporaries in that their rate of return per year of education was much lower. By contrast, Korean veterans were economically indistinguishable from nonveterans.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. University of Wisconsin Press and The Board of Regents of the University of WisconsinSystem are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Human Resources. ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the relationship between AFDC benefits and a single mother's propensity to reside in a subfamily-i.e., within another family rather than in her own independent household. We find that some states pay lower benefits to mothers living in subfamilies. In those states, a single mother may forego a substantial amount of AFDC benefits if she chooses to reside in a subfamily rather than establish her own household. Using data from the 1984 Current Population Survey, we address the question of whether differences in AFDC benefits affect the probability that a mother will reside in a subfamily. We find that the lower benefits paid to subfamilies have discernible but small effects, and that the overall level of AFDC benefits has no effect.

The evolution of higher education from a privilege for the elite to an economic and social necessity for broad segments of the population has created financing challenges, along with new opportunities, for students and their families. Governments that were able to provide free or low-priced access to universities for the select few have found it necessary to charge rising levels of tuition, even as less-affluent citizens aspire to enroll. In a number of countries—including Canada, Chile, and England—students have taken to the streets to protest tuition policies. Students are less militant in the United States; but there, as elsewhere, rising college prices and stagnating incomes have led to the widespread perception that postsecondary education is “unaffordable” for more and more people.Yet, it is not obvious what “unaffordable” means. What price is relevant—the published price of postsecondary study, the price people actually pay, or the price people should be expected to pay? Efforts to increase educational opportunity can be hindered if policymakers do not have a clear idea of the meaning of an “affordable” or “unaffordable” education.