El reflejo vestíbulo-ocular

As shown in Table A25, the total number of employed workers increases from 13.71 to 17.37 million between the first and fourth waves. Table A26 also highlights the number of workers who are employed in two consecutive waves. The results reveal that about 8.59 million individuals are employed in both waves 1 and 2, whereas the number of workers who are

consecutively employed in waves 2 and 3 as well as waves 3 and 4 are about 9.62 million and 9.86 million respectively. Moreover, 4.29 million workers are employed in all four waves.

Next, the number as well as the percentage of overeducated workers across all four waves are presented in Figure 6.1. It shows that the number of overeducated workers ranges from 1.18 million in wave 1 to 1.63 million in wave 4. The overeducated constitute about 8.6 to 10.4 percent of the total number of employed workers. The number and percentage of overeducated workers recorded in the QLFS are more than the ones captured in NIDS in 2008 and 2010 as shown in Table A27. For example, in 2008, while the number and the percentage of overeducated workers are 1.66 million and 11.25 percent respectively in the QLFS, the NIDS data report 1.18 million overeducated workers, representing 8.64 percent. However, in 2012 and 2014, NIDS records a higher number and percentage of overeducated workers than the QLFS. For instance, the percentage of overeducated workers in 2014 is 9.38 in NIDS and 7.58 in the QLFS.

Figure 6.1: Number and percentage of overeducated workers

Figures 6.2 and 6.3 present the number and percentage of income-related underemployed workers based on the two definitions discussed in Chapter Two. First, Figure 6.2 shows that workers who earn less than 125% of the poverty threshold represent between 11.8 to 15.0 percent of the total employed. In absolute terms, such workers are between 1.77 million and 2.37

million. These numbers are higher than what was captured in the QLFS as can be seen in Table A27. For instance, in 2014, the number of overeducated workers in NIDS is 0.93 million more than the number that is captured in the QLFS. In Figure 6.3, the number of income-related underemployed workers ranges from 2.30 million and 2.67 million, which represent between 13.9 and 17.8 percent of the total number of employed workers.

Figure 6.2: Number and percentage of income-related underemployed workers (Earnings less than 125% of poverty threshold)

Figure 6.3: Number and percentage of income-related underemployed workers (Earnings less than 20% of previous income)

Both the number and percentage of workers defined as income-related underemployed, because they earn than 20% less than their income in the previous, are higher than those defined as underemployed based on the poverty threshold. It must be emphasised that some of these workers may be high-income individuals and therefore may not be captured as income-related underemployed based on the poverty threshold.

Tables A28 and A29 detail the relationship between per capita income decile and income-related underemployment, based on the poverty threshold and previous earnings respectively, in quintiles. Table A28 depicts that a greater proportion of workers who earn less than 125 percent of the poverty threshold are in the lower half of the income distribution. For example, about 72 percent and 76 percent of individuals defined as income-related underemployed, based on the poverty threshold approach, in 2008 and 2014 respectively are found at the bottom half of the income distribution. On the other hand, Table A29 shows that most individuals who are defined as income-related underemployed, using the previous earnings approach, are in the richest 50 percent of the income distribution. As Table A29 reveals, over 55 percent of income-related underemployed workers, based on the previous earnings approach, are in the top half of the income distribution. It can, therefore, be said that the two approaches may have captured different groups of income-based underemployed workers.

As portrayed in Tables A30 and A31, being in the bottom-end of the income distribution increases the probability of falling into income-related underemployment. As expected, Table A30 shows that between 69 to 87 percent of those in the poorest decile are classified as income- related underemployed based on the poverty threshold method across all four waves. The percentage of income-related underemployed individuals decreases significantly as we move towards the higher-end of the income distribution, with only 0.2 to two percent of those in the top 10 percent being classified as income-related underemployed. Table A31 presents a similar picture, although the percentage of income-related underemployed individuals in the top half of the income distribution is relatively higher under the previous income method. For instance, between 15 to 26 percent of those in the richest 10 percent are underemployed according to the previous income method across all three periods.

Furthermore, less than 25 percent of workers who are defined as underemployed based on the previous income approach are also classified as underemployed according to the poverty threshold approach as shown in Table A32. The table also reveals that over 75 percent of individuals who are classified as underemployed based on the previous earnings approach are not underemployed according to the poverty threshold approach. Alternatively, about four percent of workers who are underemployed based on the poverty threshold approach are not underemployed based on the previous income approach. These results once again imply that the two approaches may have captured different groups of income-related underemployed workers.