Abstract
In this chapter, we apply the ProFamy extended cohort-component model to project U.S. households by race from 2000 to 2050. We address important questions such as: How may demographic changes alter the number and proportion of different types and sizes of households in future years? How may demographic changes affect the living arrangements of elderly persons? We also provide evidence of “family household momentum,” which is similar to the well-known phenomenon of population momentum.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We do not consider multiple or mixed races in this study. If a person reported his or her race as White or Black plus another race in the 2000 census, we consider him or her as White or Black only.
- 2.
Using the pooled survey data, we tried to estimate the race-age-specific o/e rates of marriage, union break, and fertility by parity for never-married and cohabiting, widowed and cohabiting, and divorced and cohabiting persons separately. But the results were not satisfactory due to problems of subsample sizes for minority groups that are too small. We thus combine relevant data and use the same race-age-specific o/e rates of marriage, union break, and fertility by parity for three different kinds of cohabiting people. The race-age-specific o/e rates of cohabitation union formation and fertility by parity for never-married, widowed, and divorced persons were estimated separately with general satisfaction.
- 3.
Low mortality may (1) reduce the U.S. average household size through increasing number of elderly households that are mostly small (one or two persons); and (2) increase the size of some households by increasing the survivorship of adults and children in these larger households. The effects of (2) may be smaller than those of (1) because a further decrease in adult and child mortality in the U.S. is limited, but the prolongation of elderly life span may have larger relative impact.
References
Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.
Arias, B. (2004). United States life table, 2002. In National vital statistics reports (Vol. 53(6)). Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics.
Ding, J. (2003). Analysis about the impact of changes in fertility pattern on fertility level for China between 1991~2000. Population Research, 27(02), 55–60 [in Chinese].
Ediev, D. (2007). On projecting the distribution of private households by size. Vienna Institute of Demography Working paper, 4/2007.
Freedman, V. A., Crimminis, E. M., Schoeni, R. F., Spillman, B. C., Aykan, H., Kramarow, E., et al. (2004). Resolving inconsistencies in trends in old-age disability: Report from a technical working group. Demography, 41(3), 417–441.
Gruenberg, E. M. (1977). The failures of success. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 55, 3–24.
Hughes, M. E., & Waite, L. J. (2002). Health and household context: Living arrangements and health in late middle age. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(1), 1–21.
Laidlaw, K., Wang, D., Coelho, C., & Power, M. (2010). Attitudes to ageing and expectations for filial piety across Chinese and British cultures: A pilot exploratory evaluation. Aging and mental health, 14(3), 283–292.
Murphy, M. (2004). Tracing very long-term kinship networks using SOCSIM. Demographic Research, 10(7), 171–196.
Rix, S. E., & Fisher, P. (1982). Retirement-age policy: An international perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.
Robinson, K. (2007). Trends in health status and health care use among older women (Aging trends, Vol. 7). Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics.
Shen, K. (2011). Comprehensive analyses of the living arrangement among Chinese elderly—its influential factors and the effects on well-being. Ph.D. dissertation, Peking University, Supervisor: Professor Yi Zeng. [in Chinese].
Shen, K., Yan, P., & Zeng, Y. (2013). The impact of co-residence with elderly parents on female labor force participation in China. Manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication.
Smith, S. K., Rayer, S., & Smith, E. A. (2008). Aging and disability: Implications for the housing industry and housing policy in the United States. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(3), 289–306.
Smith, S. K., Rayer, S., Smith, E. A., Wang, Z., & Zeng, Y. (2012). Population aging, disability and housing accessibility: Implications for sub-national areas in the United States. Housing Studies, 27(2), 252–266.
Spain, D. (1997). Societal trends: The aging baby boom and women’s increased independence. Report prepared for the US Department of Transportation, DTFH 61-97-P-00314.
U.N. (United Nations). (2013). World population prospects: The 2012 revision. New York: United Nations.
Willekens, F. J., Shah, I., Shah, J. M., & Ramachandran, P. (1982). Multistate analysis of marital status life tables: Theory and application. Population Studies, 36(1), 129–144.
Zeng, Y., Morgan, P., Wang, Z., Gu, D., & Yang, C. (2012b). A multistate life table analysis of union regimes in the United States– Trends and racial differentials, 1970–2002. Population Research and Policy Review, 31, 207–234.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: A Procedure to Adjust the o/e Rates of Marital/Cohabiting Union Status Transitions Based on the NSFH and NSFG Data to Be Consistent with the o/e Rates of Marital Status Transitions Based on the CPS, SIPP, NSFH, and NSFG Data
Although we perform adjustments for each of the race groups, men and women, respectively, we omit race and sex dimensions in the formulas for simplicity of presentation.
Let m4 ij (x) denote the o/e rate of transition from marital status i to marital status j between age x and x + 1 based on the CPS, SIPP, NSFH, and NSFG data, using a classic 4 marital status model (i,j = 1,2,3,4, represent never-married, married, widowed, and divorced, respectively, excluding cohabitation).
m* ij (x), observed and unadjusted age-specific o/e rates of transitions from marital/union status i to j (i,j = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, including cohabitation, see the definitions and flow chart in Fig. 2.2 of Chap. 2), based on NSFH and NSFG data;
m ij (x), the final adjusted age-specific o/e rates of transitions from marital/union status i to j (i,j = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, including cohabitation) based on pooled survey data and adjusted to be consistent with m4 ij (x);
P ij (x), age-specific probabilities of transitions from marital/union status i to j; m ij (x) can be analytically transferred into P ij (x) using the standard formula in multistate demography (see, e.g., Willekens et al. 1982; Schoen 1988; Preston et al. 2001).
l i (x), life table number of persons aged x with marital/union status i;
L i (x), number of person-years lived in marital/union status i between ages x and x + 1;
The goal of the adjustment is to make the average number of marriages (including first and re-marriages) (AM7) and average number of divorces (AD7) in the life time in the 7-status life table (including cohabitation) based on NSFH and NSFG data equal to the corresponding average numbers (AM4 and AD4) in the 4-status life table (excluding cohabitation) based on all of the data from CPS, SIPP, NSFH, and NSFG.
We use the m4 ij (x) to compute P4 ij (x), age-specific probabilities of marital status transitions based on CPS, SIPP, NSFH, and NSFG data, using the standard formula. Based on P4 ij (x), we construct a multi-state life table to get L4 i (x), using formulas (8.1) and (8.2). We then use m4 ij (x) and L4 i (x) to compute the AM4 and AD4 in the 4 marital status model based on CPS, SIPP, NSFH, and NSFG data.
We then employ the following two-step procedure to adjust the observed o/e rates of first marriage, divorce, and remarriages (m* 12 (x), m* 52 (x), m* 24 (x), m* 32 (x), m* 62 (x), m* 42 (x) and m* 72 (x)), but do not need to adjust the observed o/e rates of cohabitation union formation and dissolution (m* 15 (x), m* 36 (x), m* 47 (x), m* 51 (x), m* 63 (x), m* 74 (x)) based on NSFH and NSFG.
-
Step 1. Adjustment for the o/e rates of first marriage, remarriage, and divorce
-
We use the unadjusted survey-based m* ij (x) to compute P* ij (x), and we then use P* ij (x) to construct an initial multi-state life table and get the initial L* i (x) using formulas (8.1) and (8.2); we then use m* ij (x) and L* i (x) to compute the initial AM7* and AD7* in the 7 marital/union status model based on the NSFH and NSFG data.
$$ AM{ 7}^{*}=\frac{{\displaystyle \sum_{x=\partial}^{\omega}\left[{L^{*}}_i(x){m^{*}}_{i2}(x)\right]}}{100,000},\kern1em i=1,3,4,5,6,7 $$(8.3)$$ AD{ 7}^{*}=\frac{{\displaystyle \sum_{x=\alpha}^{\omega}\left[{L^{*}}_2(x){m^{*}}_{24}(x)\right]}}{100,000} $$(8.4) -
We use AM4/AM7*, AD4/AD7* as adjustment factors (not age-specific) to adjust the corresponding age-specific o/e rates of first marriage, remarriage, and divorce for not-cohabiting and cohabiting persons at ages x (x = α to ω).
$$ m^{\prime}_{12}(x)={m^{*}}_{12}(x) AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.5)$$ m^{\prime}_{52}(x)={m^{*}}_{52}(x)\ AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.6)$$ m^{\prime}_{32}(x)={m^{*}}_{32}(x)\ AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.7)$$ m^{\prime}_{62}(x)={m^{*}}_{62}(x)\ AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.8)$$ m^{\prime}_{42}(x)={m^{*}}_{42}(x)\ AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.9)$$ m^{\prime}_{7 2}(x)={m^{*}}_{7 2}(x)\ AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.10)$$ m^{\prime}_{24}(x)={m^{*}}_{24}(x)\ AM 4/ AM{ 7}^{*} $$(8.11)
-
Step 2. Check whether the goal of the adjustment is achieved
-
We use the first adjusted m’ ij (x) to compute the first adjusted P’ ij (x), and use m’ ij (x) to replace m* ij (x) in the formulas (8.3) and (8.4) to get the first adjusted AM7’ and AD7’. If the absolute values of the relative difference between AM7’ and AM4 and between AD7’ and AD4 are all less than a selected criterion (e.g., 0.5 %), we have completed Step 2 and have the final estimates of the o/e rates (m ij (x)). Otherwise, we will have to use the first adjusted AM7’ and AD7’ to replace AM7* and AD7* in formulas (8.5), 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10 and (8.11) to repeat the iterative procedures described in Step 1 and Step 2 until the selected criterion is achieved.
Appendix 2: Comparisons of Summary Measures of Marital Status Life Tables (Excluding Cohabitation) Between Our Estimates Based on the Pooled Survey Data and Schoen’s Estimates Based on Vital Statistics, All Races Combined
Data set | Schoen | Surveys | Abs. Diff | % Diff |
---|---|---|---|---|
Period | 1995 | 1990s | ||
Women | ||||
Lifetime proportion of first marriage | 0.887 | 0.878 | −0.009 | −1.0 |
Lifetime proportion of divorce | 0.425 | 0.430 | 0.005 | 1.2 |
Lifetime proportion of remarriage of widows | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.001 | 2.1 |
Lifetime proportion of remarriage of divorcees | 0.687 | 0.619 | −0.068 | −9.9 |
Men | ||||
Lifetime proportion of first marriage | 0.831 | 0.841 | 0.01 | 1.2 |
Lifetime proportion of divorce | 0.437 | 0.392 | −0.045 | −10.3 |
Lifetime proportion of remarriage of widows | 0.123 | 0.132 | 0.009 | 7.3 |
Lifetime proportion of remarriage of divorcee | 0.781 | 0.723 | −0.058 | −7.4 |
Appendix 3: Major Parameters of Medium Forecasts, Smaller and Larger Family Household Scenarios
White and non-Hispanic | Black and non-Hispanic | Hispanic | Asian and other non-Hispanic | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | 2025 | 2050 | 2000 | 2025 | 2050 | 2000 | 2025 | 2050 | 2000 | 2025 | 2050 | |
Medium mortality | ||||||||||||
Male e 0 | 74.9 | 77.8 | 81.1 | 68.7 | 73.6 | 78.5 | 77.4 | 80.0 | 83.0 | 79.7 | 81.9 | 84.6 |
Female e 0 | 80.3 | 83.6 | 86.4 | 75.4 | 80.5 | 84.6 | 83.8 | 86.1 | 88.4 | 85.9 | 87.6 | 89.7 |
Low mortality | ||||||||||||
Male e 0 | 74.9 | 79.2 | 83.5 | 68.8 | 75.3 | 81.3 | 77.4 | 81.5 | 85.5 | 79.7 | 83.4 | 86.9 |
Female e 0 | 80.3 | 84.5 | 88.0 | 75.5 | 81.7 | 86.5 | 83.9 | 87.1 | 90.0 | 86.0 | 88.6 | 91.2 |
High mortality | ||||||||||||
Male e 0 | 74.8 | 76.9 | 79.5 | 68.5 | 72.4 | 76.6 | 77.2 | 79.0 | 81.4 | 79.6 | 81.0 | 83.0 |
Female e 0 | 80.2 | 82.6 | 84.8 | 75.3 | 79.3 | 82.7 | 83.8 | 85.1 | 86.8 | 85.8 | 86.6 | 88.0 |
Medium fertility | ||||||||||||
TFR-all births | 1.84 | 2.03 | 2.04 | 2.08 | 2.12 | 2.11 | 2.97 | 2.68 | 2.56 | 2.26 | 2.18 | 2.16 |
TFR(1)-1st birth | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.91 |
TFR(2)-2nd birth | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.69 |
TFR(3)-3rd birth | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.35 |
TFR(4)-4th birth | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
TFR(5)-5+ birth | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Low fertility | ||||||||||||
TFR-all births | 1.82 | 1.73 | 1.67 | 2.06 | 1.80 | 1.73 | 2.96 | 2.28 | 2.09 | 2.23 | 1.86 | 1.76 |
TFR(1)-1st birth | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.74 |
TFR(2)-2nd birth | 0.65 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.89 | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.57 |
TFR(3)-3rd birth | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.29 |
TFR(4)-4th birth | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
TFR(5)-5+ birth | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
High fertility | ||||||||||||
TFR-all births | 1.86 | 2.33 | 2.42 | 2.10 | 2.44 | 2.50 | 2.99 | 3.08 | 3.03 | 2.28 | 2.51 | 2.56 |
TFR(1)-1st birth | 0.81 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
TFR(2)-2nd birth | 0.67 | 0.84 | 0.90 | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.89 |
TFR(3)-3rd birth | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.45 |
TFR(4)-4th birth | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.17 |
TFR(5)-5+ birth | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
Medium marriage/union formation and dissolution | ||||||||||||
General marriage rate | 0.0704 | 0.0704 | 0.0704 | 0.0362 | 0.0362 | 0.0362 | 0.0593 | 0.0593 | 0.0593 | 0.0676 | 0.0676 | 0.0676 |
General divorce rate | 0.0292 | 0.0292 | 0.0292 | 0.0308 | 0.0308 | 0.0308 | 0.0184 | 0.0184 | 0.0184 | 0.0214 | 0.0214 | 0.0214 |
General cohabiting rate | 0.1094 | 0.1094 | 0.1094 | 0.0775 | 0.0775 | 0.0775 | 0.0996 | 0.0996 | 0.0996 | 0.1187 | 0.1187 | 0.1187 |
General union break rate | 0.2992 | 0.2992 | 0.2992 | 0.3612 | 0.3612 | 0.3612 | 0.2013 | 0.2013 | 0.2013 | 0.3341 | 0.3341 | 0.3341 |
Male mean age first mar. | 27.59 | 28.45 | 28.45 | 29.99 | 30.57 | 30.57 | 27.38 | 28.14 | 28.14 | 30.54 | 31.12 | 31.12 |
Female mean age first mar. | 25.45 | 26.16 | 26.16 | 28.57 | 29.18 | 29.18 | 25.83 | 26.68 | 26.68 | 28.25 | 28.92 | 28.92 |
Mean age at births | 27.56 | 28.07 | 28.07 | 25.74 | 26.19 | 26.19 | 26.88 | 27.61 | 27.61 | 28.77 | 29.22 | 29.22 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zeng, Y., Land, K.C., Gu, D., Wang, Z. (2014). U.S. Family Household Momentum and Dynamics: Projections at the National Level. In: Household and Living Arrangement Projections. The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis, vol 36. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8906-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8906-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8905-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8906-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)