Do immigrants squeeze natives out of bad schedules? Evidence from Italy

Table 2 Nonstandard working hours, immigrants and natives

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
	I	N	I‐N	I‐N	I‐N	I‐N
Evening	0.23	0.199	0.029***	0.014***	0.028***	0.030***
			(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Observations	35,983	684,530	720,513	720,513	720,513	720,513
Night	0.136	0.109	0.027***	0.014***	0.021***	0.024***
			(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.001)	(0.001)
Observations	35,983	684,530	720,513	720,513	720,513	720,513
Sunday	0.208	0.188	0.020***	0.002	0.020***	0.024***
			(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Observations	35,983	684,530	720,513	720,513	720,513	720,513
Non‐Standard Hours	0.317	0.278	0.039***	0.018***	0.033***	0.036***
			(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.002)	(0.003)
Observations	35,983	684,530	720,513	720,513	720,513	720,513
Standard errors in parentheses
* p<0.01, p<0.05, * p<0.1

Notes: The sample is restricted to working age population (15‐64) employed at time of the interview. All the estimates are weighted using the weights provided in the LFS. In columns 1 and 2 I report summary statistics for immigrants and natives. In column 3 I report the unconditional mean‐difference among the two‐groups considered. In column 4 I add standard socio‐demographic controls ( 5 year‐interval age dummies, gender, education dummies (middle school diploma and below, high school diploma, some college and above) family size, family type, number of people in household under 9 years old, between 10 and 18 and older than 65 ). In Column 5 I add sector and occupational dummies. Finally in column 6 I add province fixed effects. Standard errors are in parenthesis. Source: Italian Labor Force Survey, 2006‐2008.