Getting Stuck or Moving out: An Examination of Precarious Employment Trajectories of Young Adults in the United States

Background and Purpose: Young people in the United States currently face an unemployment rate that is double or even triple that of older workers: the unemployment rate for 25 to 54-year-olds is currently about 4.2 percent, whereas for 20 to 24-year-olds, it is 8.4 percent, and for 16 to 19 year-olds, it is 15.7 percent. When young people do find work, there is a high likelihood of being underemployed or in precarious jobs, meaning jobs that are “uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker” (Kalleberg, 2009, p.2).  

For some young people, these patterns of employment continue over time. Holzer & Lalonde (1999), for example, found job characteristics, such as a person’s wages and industry, to be an important determinant of future job security. In addition, researchers have suggested that there may be a link between the availability of decent work opportunities and crime and violence throughout a person’s life course. Understanding the drivers of these varying employment trajectories will be critical for designing effective interventions to help young people enter stable and promising jobs.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine who enters precarious employment during young adulthood, and who moves out or remains stuck six years later. It is expected that the findings will help to fill the current gap in social work scholarship on the role of employment during the transition to adulthood, particularly within the current economic and social context.

Methods: The study utilized National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) data, a nationally representative dataset. First, latent class analysis was used to develop a precarious employment variable using four dimensions of precarious work: job duration, wages, and the availability of employer-provided benefits such as health insurance, and to identify various precarious employment trajectories. Next, logistic and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess which individual, educational, and family factors predicted entering precarious employment in Wave 3 (when respondents were between the ages of 18 and 26), and the predictors of improving, staying the same, or getting worse six years later, at Wave 4.  

Results: Preliminary results suggest that individual factors such as gender, age, and previous employment experience, as well as family factors, such as the father’s educational level, and educational attainment are significant predictors of entering precarious employment at Wave 3. Somewhat surprisingly, it appears that the predictors of exiting precarious employment at Wave 4 somewhat differ from the predictors of entering it at Wave 3, suggesting that, to be effective, future employment-based program interventions may need to take into account the age and previous work experience of program participants.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings contribute new knowledge on an under-researched aspect of youth employment in the United States.  By examining precarious employment trajectories during young adulthood, it is expected that this study will provide new insight into a period that is often instrumental in setting the stage for a person’s future economic and social well-being.