new characteristics of inequalities in the information society and ...

ISSN: 2247-6172;
ISSN-L: 2247-6172
Review of Applied Socio- Economic Research
(Volume 5, Issue 1/ 2013 ), pp. 96
URL: http://www.reaser.eu
e-mail: editors@reaser.eu
Using the same dataset and the same procedure also for SWLS and for HDI 2005, the following aspects
can be noticed.
The percentage of those who feel very satisfied or satisfied with working conditions in their main paid
job is the best predictor also for SWLS, explaining 61% of this indicator variability (fig. 2). The next most
correlated predictors with SWLS are: job involves working to tight deadlines at least a quarter of the time
(%) and the percentage of those who agree they are well paid for the work they do. The first two variables
could predict the SWLS in a proportion of 73.8%, while all the three together explain 79.1% of the variance
in SWLS.
Fig. 1: Quality of work indicators as predictors of EIU Quality of Life Index.
Fig. 2: Quality of work indicators as predictors of Satisfaction With Life Scale.
The percentage of those who feel very satisfied or satisfied with working conditions in their main paid
job remains the best predictor also for HDI 2005, accounting for 61.9% of its total variance (fig. 3). A second
model could be constructed including a new variable: the percentage of those who once or several times a
month use to work in the evening, for at least 2 hours between 6.00 pm and 10.00 pm. The new model could
predict HDI 2005 in a proportion of almost 80%.
According to the sign of corresponding regression coefficients, working at night or in the weekend, as
well as the perceived insecurity of job would negatively affect the value of the EIU quality of life index.