h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/2158244017697158
SAGE Open
Janua y-Ma ch 2017: 1 –14
© The Au ho (s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/2158244017697158
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
C ea i e Commons CC BY: This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 3.0 License
(h p://www.c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/) which pe mi s any use, ep oduc ion and dis ibu ion o
he wo k wi hou u he pe mission p o ided he o iginal wo k is a ibu ed as speci ied on he SAGE and Open Access pages
(h ps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-a -sage).
A icle
In oduc ion
De ining gene a ions and explo ing hei di e ences is a sub-
jec o much cu en deba e ha in ol es bo h poli ical and
economic in e es s. In he employmen con ex , one a ea o
special in e es has been he ecen gene a ional shi , which
has seen he a i al in he wo kplace o he i s digi al na i es,
“na i e speake s” o he digi al language (Ab ams & on
F ank, 2014; Howe & S auss, 2000; Ng, Lyons, & Schwei ze ,
2012; Tapsco , 1998; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999).
Finland p esen s an in e es ing case in his con ex as he
popula ion he e is aging mo e apidly han in o he Wes e n
coun ies (Laine & Mai äli, 2010; The O ganisa ion o
Economic Co-Ope a ion and De elopmen [OECD], 2016a).
By he 2010s, baby boome s ha e exi ed he labou ma ke .
In Finland, he baby boom gene a ion comp ises hose who
we e bo n in 1945 o 1950, while in he Uni ed Kingdom and
he Uni ed S a es, o ins ance, pos -wa e ili y a es
emained ele a ed in o he 1960s (Ka is o, 2007). The e a e
s ill people in Finnish wo kplaces who we e bo n in he
1950s, bu o he mos pa , he popula ion o wo king age
consis s o younge and ela i ely small coho s.
The ocus in his a icle is on Gene a ion Y o he
Millennials who we e bo n in o a e he 1980s and who
en e ed he labou ma ke in he 2000s. They a e highe edu-
ca ed han ea lie gene a ions, highly compe en use s o
in o ma ion and communica ion echnologies (ICTs), and
accus omed o he wo ld o social media (Deal, Al man, &
Rogelbe g, 2010; He sha e & Eps ein, 2010; Kowske,
Rasch, & Wiley, 2010). We compa e he Millennials wi h he
ollowing olde gene a ions: he Wel a e S a e Gene a ion
and Gene a ion X, he young adul s o he 1980s and 1990s.
These h ee gene a ions s a ed hei employmen ca ee s
in e y di e en economic clima es. The young adul s who
joined he Finnish labou ma ke in he 1980s comple ed
hei occupa ional aining a a ime when he expansion o
he wel a e s a e was a i s heigh and he job ma ke was
excep ionally s ong (Pyö iä, Melin, & Blom, 2005). This
end was hal ed by he 1990s ecession, and young people’s
u u e p ospec s we e e ec i ely hampe ed by mass unem-
ploymen . In he ea ly 2000s, no malcy was es o ed in he
labou ma ke , bu he e was no e u n o he excep ionally
high employmen a es o he 1980s (Pyö iä & Ojala, 2016).
So does Gene a ion Y, he Millennials who a e now en e -
ing he labou ma ke , di e om he gene a ions ha wen
be o e? The e ha e been some qui e a - e ched in e p e a-
ions o he dis inc i eness o his gene a ion. Fo ins ance,
i has been sugges ed ha young people do no alue adi-
ional wage employmen o he same ex en as hei pa en s
(Cogin, 2012; Mye s & Sadaghiani, 2010). The Millennials
gene a ion, i is a gued, expec s o be able o wo k unde a
new managemen cul u e, o con ibu e o inno a ion a he
697158SGOXXX10.1177/2158244017697158Pyö iä e al.
esea ch-a icle2017
1Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland
Co esponding Au ho :
Pasi Pyö iä, Facul y o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e
33014, Finland.
Email: [email p o ec ed]
The Millennial Gene a ion: A New B eed
o Labou ?
Pasi Pyö iä1, Sa u Ojala1, Tiina Saa i1, and Ka i-Ma ia Jä inen1
Abs ac
This a icle pu s o he es he no ion ha younge gene a ions, mos no ably he Millennials, alue wo k less han olde
gene a ions do. The analysis, deploying a linea p obabili y model, is based on S a is ics Finland’s Quali y o Wo k Li e
Su eys, 1984 o 2013. Focusing on labou ma ke en an s aged 15 o 29, we add ess wo main hemes: he alue gi en o
wo k, leisu e and amily li e, and wo k commi men . Rega dless o age, he alue gi en o wo k has emained consis en ly high
o he pas h ee decades. A he same ime, leisu e and amily li e ha e gained inc easing impo ance, no only among he
Millennials bu also among olde gene a ions. The Millennials a e mo e p epa ed o change o a di e en occupa ional ield
han olde employees, bu his is no a new endency, and he e o e he gene a ional gap emains una ec ed. The e idence
does no suppo he a gumen ha he Millennials a e less wo k-o ien ed han olde gene a ions.
Keywo ds
Gene a ion Y, Millennials, wo k a i udes, wo k commi men , wo k o ien a ion, wo k alues
2 SAGE Open
wo kplace le el, and o econcile wo k and leisu e in no el
ways (Chou, 2012; Twenge & Campbell, 2012).
Fu he mo e, i is said he Millennials a ach mo e alue o
amily li e and o leisu e han hey do o wage employmen
(Twenge, Campbell, Ho man, & Lance, 2010). I is hough
ha hey a e less commi ed han olde wage ea ne s o one
single employe , and ha hey place mo e alue on oppo uni-
ies o pe sonal g ow h and de elopmen han on li elong
employmen (B oadb idge, Maxwell, & Ogden, 2007). The
Millennials a e keen o shape and in luence he cul u e, p ac-
ices, and managemen o hei cu en wo kplace and o ind a
job wi h social ele ance (Te jesen, Vinnicombe, & F eeman,
2007; Twenge, 2010).
Inso a as hese cha ac e iza ions a e accu a e, i is clea
ha wo k o ganiza ions and managemen a e going o ha e o
make changes, bo h in s a ec ui men and in o he a eas
(Cos anza, Badge , F ase , Se e , & Gade, 2012). As mo e
and mo e wo kplaces ace he challenge o in eg a ing he
newes wo king gene a ion wi h olde colleagues, he wo k
en i onmen may encoun e p oduc i i y challenges i changes
a e no made o accommoda e employees wi h di e en a i-
udes and expec a ions (S ewa , Oli e , C a ens, & Oishi,
2017). In he u u e, he mos compe en and skilled s a will
wan o wo k o companies ha emb ace co po a e social
esponsibili y a he han adi ional owne -d i en hinking
(McGlone, Spain, & McGlone, 2011). In hese kinds o com-
panies, employees will ha e he bes oppo uni ies o g ow and
de elop hemsel es, o ealize hemsel es in hei own e ms
wi hin an inspi ing wo kplace communi y, and o build up a
pe sonal expe ience o a good and meaning ul job.
Howe e , we do no ye know whe he he alues o he
Millennials eally a e as di e en as has been sugges ed.
Rep esen a i e su eys wi h ex ensi e da a se s on he wo k
o ien a ion o his gene a ion a e s ill sca ce (Giancola, 2006;
Macky, Ga dne , & Fo sy h, 2008). In pa icula , i is ha d o
ind s udies ha compa e he Millennials wi h young people
o he 1980s and 1990s and ha con ol o age and ime-
pe iod e ec s (Kowske e al., 2010; K ahn & Galambos,
2014; Pa y & U win, 2011). Ou a icle is in ended o ill
his gap in he esea ch li e a u e. We ha e a unique and com-
p ehensi e da a se spanning h ee ull decades.
Using da a collec ed by S a is ics Finland in 1984 o 2013,
ou aim is o ind ou how labou ma ke en an s aged 15 o
29 and bo n a di e en imes di e om each o he . Ou
main ocus is on how hese people alue wage employmen
and o he a eas o li e, ha is, amily and leisu e, as well as
on hei eadiness o change jobs. D awing on he adi ion o
sociological gene a ion esea ch, we ask whe he i is possi-
ble o iden i y age g oup di e ences in a i udes o wage
employmen o e he pas h ee decades.
De ining he Gene a ions
The concep o gene a ion has wo basic meanings.
Gene a ion may e e ei he o a amilial gene a ion o o a
social gene a ion, ha is, a coho o people bo n in he same
da e ange. Howe e , a coho does no cons i u e a gene a-
ion by i ue o i s age alone, o he han in a s a is ical sense.
In he sociological use o he concep , a gene a ion is hough
o consis o a s a um who a e bo n wi hin a limi ed ime
ange and who sha e no only he same da e o bi h bu also
simila sociocul u al expe iences (Edmunds & Tu ne , 2002;
Eye man & Tu ne , 1998).
In his amous essay The P oblem o Gene a ions,
Ge man sociologis o science Ka l Mannheim (1952) iden-
i ies h ee s ages o gene a ion o ma ion. The i s p em-
ise o he o ma ion o a gene a ion is membe ship o he
same age g oup, bu ha alone is no enough. In addi ion,
he e mus exis some social and cul u al ac o ha mos
people in he age g oup sha e in common. Mannheim says
ha you h is a pa icula ly s a egic ime o he de elop-
men o gene a ional consciousness. He also ealized ha
he key expe ience sha ed by a ce ain coho a once uni es
and di ides gene a ions. Fo ins ance, he 1990s ecession
di ided Finland’s Gene a ion X you hs who had been bo n
wo decades ea lie in o wo g oups, he su i o s and he
ma ginalized (Kalela, Kiande , Ki iku u, Loikkanen, &
Simpu a, 2001).
In he hi d s age o gene a ion o ma ion, people om a
ce ain age coho a e d awn oge he o pu sue a common
goal o way o li e. The gene a ion is mobilized. Fo ins ance,
young people in he 1960s we e b ough oge he by s uden
adicalism and le -wing ac i ism (Kolbe, 2008). Howe e ,
Mannheim’s mobilized gene a ion is a p oblema ic concep
o pu poses o analysing he age g oups in ocus he e. As a
esul o he ecession, Gene a ion X did no go o he ba i-
cades in p o es agains mass unemploymen and public sec-
o cu backs, e en hough he economic c isis became a key
expe ience o hem. The Wel a e S a e Gene a ion had no
eal eason o be adicalized, ei he .
The Millennials gene a ion is e en ha de o de ine in
Mannheim’s e ms. New social mo emen s such as en i on-
men al and animal wel a e g oups, an i-economic globaliza-
ion g oups and he p eca ia mo emen , o ins ance, ha e all
p o ed o be oo agmen ed and oo ma ginal o be able o
mobilize oday’s you h, o e en o p o ide hem a common
poin o expe ience. Young people in oday’s Finland can be
desc ibed as a cul u ally “a omised” gene a ion (Salasuo &
Poikolainen, 2016).
In con as o Mannheim, many p esen -day schola s do
no conside mobiliza ion o be cen al o he de elopmen o
in agene a ional and in e gene a ional di isions (F ance &
Robe s, 2015; Wyn & Woodman, 2006). A discu si ely
sha ed wo ld o expe iences su ices o uni e and o di ide
gene a ions and a once o explain gene a ional di e ences
(Aboim & Vasconcelos, 2014; Kuppe schmid , 2000).
Indeed, mos s udies de ine gene a ion as a g oup whose
membe s sha e a common expe ience and an awa eness o
he dis inc i eness o hei own age coho is-à- is o he s
(Cos anza e al., 2012; Pa y & U win, 2011).
Pyö iä e al. 3
We ha e he e chosen o ollow he pos -Mannheimian in e -
p e a ion. As well as compa ing Millennials wi h olde gene a-
ions, we also explo e he sha ed wo ld o expe iences o hose
coho s bo n since he ea ly 1980s. Ou analysis is ocused on
wo k o ien a ion, ha is, on indi idual alues and a i udes
ela ed o wage employmen , bu we also conside he ai s and
cha ac e is ics o he Millennial gene a ion mo e widely.
The concep o wo k o ien a ion was o iginally es ab-
lished by B i ish sociologis John Gold ho pe, Lockwood,
Bechho e , and Pla (1968) in hei classical s udy The
A luen Wo ke . Wo k o ien a ion e lec s he meaning o
wo k o he ajec o y o he indi idual’s li e cou se mo e
b oadly. A dis inc ion is ypically made be ween h ee ypes
o wo k o ien a ion: an employee wi h an ins umen al o ien-
a ion o wo k ega ds wo k p ima ily as a sou ce o income,
an employee wi h a bu eauc a ic o ien a ion is commi ed o
ca ee de elopmen , and an employee wi h a solida i y o ien-
a ion iden i ies wi h he wo kplace communi y.
The e a e o he heo ies o wo k o ien a ion (see, o
example, Tu unen, 2011), bu Gold ho pe’s b oad iew is in
line wi h gene a ion esea ch. I is use ul o compa e a i-
udes o wo k wi h o he impo an li e alues, in ou case
amily and leisu e (see also Alkula, 1990). The alue a ached
o di e en sphe es o li e is no a ze o-sum game, bu hose
sphe es cons i u e a mu ually complemen a y ne wo k ha
s uc u es he indi idual’s li e ajec o y.
Resea ch Ques ions and Da a
Ou analysis is di ided in o wo main hemes: (a) he alue
a ibu ed o wage employmen , home and amily li e, and lei-
su e; and (b) eadiness o change jobs in ei he he same o di -
e en occupa ional ield. We wan o ind ou how young labou
ma ke en an s ha e di e ed in hese espec s o e he pas
h ee decades ( he su ey i ems a e de ailed in Appendix A).
The analysis is based on pooled da a om S a is ics
Finland’s Quali y o Wo k Li e Su eys collec ed in 1984,
1990, 1997, 2003, 2008, and 2013. These a e ex ensi e
c oss-sec ional s udies wi h a e y high esponse a e (68%-
89%), in ol ing be ween 3,000 and 5,000 people and co e -
ing he en i e wage and sala y ea ning popula ion esiding in
Finland. The su eys ha e been conduc ed in he o m o
pe sonal ace- o- ace in e iews, las ing on a e age a li le
o e an hou (Leh o & Su ela, 2009; Su ela & Leh o, 2014).
C oss-sec ional s udies o en explain a i udes o wo k by
e e ence o age a he han gene a ion (Cennamo & Ga dne ,
2008; Wong, Ga dine , Lang, & Coulon, 2008). He e, by
con as , we wan o compa e he a i udes o people ep e-
sen ing di e en gene a ions when hey we e he same age in
he ea ly s ages o hei employmen ca ee s. A each c oss-
sec ional poin , we ocus on examining wage ea ne s aged 15
o 29 and compa e hem wi h all olde age g oups (30-64).
The esea ch li e a u e has no unambiguous de ini ion o
young wage ea ne s (Eu o ound, 2013). We jus i y ou
choice o age limi s he e based on Finnish employees’ high
le el o educa ion. In pa icula , he a e age age o uni e si y
g adua ion in Finland—a ound 26 o 28 yea s—is highe
han in o he Eu opean coun ies.
Because o he c oss-sec ional ime poin s he e is some
o e lap in he da es o he gene a ions in ocus, bu in iew o
he limi a ions o he da a se hese da es a e qui e closely in
line wi h hose used in he ea lie esea ch li e a u e. I is impo -
an o bea in mind ha he e is no consensus abou how gen-
e a ions a e de ined. Gene a ion X is usually de ined as
comp ising people bo n in he la e 1960s and 1970s, and he
Millennials as hose bo n la e . Howe and S auss (1997, 2000),
o ins ance, de ine he Millennials gene a ion as comp ising
hose bo n in 1982 o 2004 (c . Smola & Su on, 2002).
A ou ime poin s, young people in 2013 belong o he
Millennials gene a ion ( hose bo n in 1984-1998), and young
people in he 1997 da a se belong o Gene a ion X (bo n in
1968-1982). The young people included in he 1984 da a se
a e desc ibed as he Wel a e S a e Gene a ion; hey we e bo n
in 1955 o 1969. Du ing his pe iod, Finland became u ban-
ized, he business and indus y s uc u e was mode nized, and
Finland de eloped in o a ully- ledged No dic wel a e s a e
(Pyö iä e al., 2005).
Al hough ou decision o ocus on he age g oup 15 o 29 is
in line wi h he age bands used in ea lie esea ch, his dema -
ca ion is no wi hou i s p oblems. All he coho s in ou da a se
do no cons i u e a gene a ion. The young people in he 1990,
2003, and 2008 da a se s all in he middle g ound be ween he
gene a ional ca ego ies ou lined abo e. Fu he mo e, i is no e-
wo hy ha he gene a ional consciousness o he younges
esponden s in ou ma e ial is s ill in he p ocess o de eloping,
and hei wo k o ien a ion may e lec a mo e gene al unde -
s anding o he meaning o wo k a he han hei own pe sonal
expe iences om he wo ld o wo k. Howe e , young people
aged 15 a e o icially o wo king age, and ou da a se ep e-
sen s comp ehensi ely e en he e y younges wage ea ne s
(Leh o & Su ela, 2009; Su ela & Leh o, 2014).
In nume ical e ms, hough, ou da a se includes only ew
people om he younges age g oup. This is because he
sample was collec ed among wage ea ne s, and mos younge
people a e s ill s udying. The 1984 da a se comp ises 1,324
wage ea ne s aged 15 o 29 (29% o all esponden s). A la e
c oss-sec ional ime poin s he igu es a e lowe , e lec ing
he apid aging o he popula ion: 1,048 in 1990 (26%), 594
in 1997 (20%), 778 in 2003 (19%), 814 in 2008 (19%), and
744 in 2013 (15%). In each yea , women and men a e equally
ep esen ed among he wage ea ne s aged 15 o 29.
Me hod
The ollowing empi ical in es iga ion is based on linea eg es-
sion analysis. We use a linea p obabili y model (LPM), ha is,
a basic gene al linea model (GLM) wi h bina y dependen a i-
ables. In he con ex o ou inqui y, his o e s conside able
ad an ages o e logis ic eg ession, he me hod mos ypically
used in he social sciences.
4 SAGE Open
In logis ic eg ession, he odds a ios a e no easy o unde -
s and in ui i ely, and hey a e o en mis aken o p obabili ies,
which hey a e no . LPMs, in con as , allow o he assessmen
o he possibili y o an e en (on a scale om 0 o 1, he mean
es ima es p ac ically e e o sha es as pe cen ages). They can
also be used o compa e esul s ac oss g oups, samples, and
ime poin s (Mood, 2010), making he me hod pa icula ly sui -
able o he p esen analysis. Acco ding o Helle ik (2009), he
iola ion o he linea i y assump ion be ween independen and
dependen a iables can, whe e necessa y, be o e come by
dicho omizing independen a iables. The po en ial iola ion
o homoscedas ici y assump ion wi h linea models does no
seem o be o p ac ical impo ance because he basic es s used
wi h hese kinds o models a e obus (Helle ik, 2009).
Fu he mo e, LPMs enable mo e in ui i e analysis o wi hin-
g oup di e ences (he e ca ied ou wi h F es s, pos hoc es s,
and by analysing he means wi hin g oups when s a is ically
signi ican di e ences a e ound).
The indi idual ac o s con olled o in ou empi ical model
a e age g oup ( hose aged 15-29 and olde ), gende , and le el o
educa ion (basic, seconda y, and highe ). Family s a us (pa ne -
ship and child en unde 18) is aken in o accoun in he analyses
conce ning he alue a ached o di e en a eas o li e ( amily
s a us shows li le co ela ion wi h in en ions o change jobs).
Since ou ocus is on younge people, we also adjus o whe he
o no he esponden is s udying while wo king in gain ul
employmen . Fu he mo e, we conside whe he he esponden
has only ecen ly en e ed he labou ma ke , and adjus o he
numbe o yea s in gain ul employmen (newcome s 0-2 yea s).
We desc ibe he esponden ’s labou ma ke posi ion by ak-
ing in o accoun he ype o employmen con ac ( empo a y
con ac ), pe cei ed h ea s o he secu i y o employmen (one
o mo e o he ollowing: h ea o layo , dismissal o unem-
ploymen ), pe cei ed oppo uni ies o employmen in he open
labou ma ke , a spell o unemploymen du ing he p eceding
5-yea pe iod, and income le el (classi ied annually in o income
e iles). Fu he mo e, we conside whe he he job is a ied o
mono onous. We also con ol o he c oss-sec ional ime poin .
We a e awa e o he di icul y o in e ing, in a c oss-sec-
ional con ex , whe he he phenomenon in ocus is explained
by age, coho , o ime-pe iod e ec s (K ahn & Galambos,
2014; Yang & Land, 2008). The e o e, in Tables 1 and 2, we
examine how each age g oup di e s om olde esponden s
as an in e ac ion be ween age and ime poin . Fu he mo e,
we examine he in e ac ions o age and educa ional le el,
gende , simul aneous s udying and wo king, and ecen en y
in o he labou ma ke (0-2 yea s). No only age and ime
poin bu also age and educa ion as well as age and gende ,
p oduced no ewo hy in e ac ions, and he e o e hey we e
included in he inal model. To es ablish he impac o he
ime poin , we s udied he abo e h ee in e ac ions wi h pos
hoc es s (Appendix B).
The backg ound a iables in he model do no co ela e oo
s ongly wi h one ano he , and he e o e he e a e no mul icol-
linea i y p oblems caused by excessi ely high co ela ions
(Appendix C). Only age and “newcome ” s a us co ela ed a
he le el o 0.4, which is somewha high, bu no a ba ie o
keeping bo h a iables in he model. Chi-squa e signi icance
alues we e se as ollows: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.
Resul s
Young Adul s’ Wo k O ien a ion
Gene a ions a e mos commonly e e ed o in he con ex o
poli ical deba es whe e di e en age g oups a e pi ed agains
one ano he . Mo e o en han no , i is young people who
come ou as he unde dogs. No only in Finland
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1984*** 1990*** 1997 2003 20082013
30+ y s. 15–29 y s.
Figu e 1. Value a ached o gain ul employmen ( e y impo an ) in 1984-2013 (%).
Pyö iä e al. 5
Table 1. Value A ached o Gain ul Employmen , Family, and Leisu e in 1984-2013.
Conside s he ollowing aspec s o li e e y impo an
Gain ul employmen Family Leisu e
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig.
G and mean .502 (.011) (= es ima ed 50%) .820 (.007) (= es ima ed 82%) .383 (.010) (= es ima ed 38%)
Age
15-29 yea s Ns .837 (.008) 25.798(1)*** .409 (.011) 35.289(1)***
30-64 yea s .801 (.008) .351 (.011)
Time poin
1984 .512 (.013) 9.839(5)*** .728 (.009) 111.446(5)*** .287 (.012) 84.771(5)***
1990 .449 (.014) .752 (.009) .311 (.013)
1997 .534 (.014) .814 (.010) .339 (.014)
2003 .501 (.014) .898 (.010) .387 (.013)
2008 .485 (.014) .859 (.010) .473 (.013)
2013 .527 (.014) .864 (.010) .482 (.013)
Pos hoca1990, 2008 < 1984, 1997, 2003,
2013
1984 < 1990 < 1997 < 2003,
2008, 2013
1984 < 1990, 1997 < 2003 <
2008, 2013
In e ac ion e m Age × Yea 3.317(5)**b2.523(5)*bns
In e ac ion e m Age × Educa ion 6.011(2)**bns ns
In e ac ion e m Age × Gende 12.829(1)***b19.254(1)***bns
Educa ion
Basic .526 (.012) 6.426(2)** ns .353 (.012) 8.092(2)***
Seconda y .500 (.011) .384 (.010)
Highe .478 (.014) .402 (.013)
Pos hocaBasic > Seconda y > High Basic < Seconda y < High
Gende
Woman .490 (.011) 7.904(1)** .872 (.008) 363.416(1)*** .359 (.011) 29.845(1)***
Man .513 (.012) .767 (.008) .401 (.011)
Spouse
Yes .474 (.011) 52.074(1)*** .914 (.008) 1,352.706(1)*** .359 (.011) 35.089(1)***
No .529 (.011) .724 (.008) .401 (.011)
Child en
Yes Ns .873 (.008) 509.369(1)*** .325 (.011) 276.190(1)***
No .766 (.007) .435 (.010)
Employed du ing s udies
Yes .456 (.016) 32.550(1)*** ns .413 (.016) 20.092(1)***
No .547 (.009) .346 (.009)
Yea s employed
0-2 yea s .460 (.016) 23.492(1)*** ns ns
3– yea s .542 (.010)
Type o employmen
Tempo a y .487 (.012) 7.966(1)** ns ns
Pe manen .516 (.011)
Th ea s
1-3 h ea s ns ns .372 (.010) 4.720(1)*
No h ea s .388 (.010)
Has been unemployed
Yes .512 (.012) 6.022(1)* ns .368 (.011) 8.692(1)**
No .491 (.011) .392 (.010)
Employabili y
Poo ns ns ns
Good
(con inued)

6 SAGE Open
Table 2. Readiness o Change Jobs in he Same o a Di e en Occupa ional Field in 1984-2013.
Would change jobs o he same pay o:
The same/a di e en ield The same ield A di e en ield
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig.
G and mean .583 (.011) (= es ima ed 58%) .223 (.009) (= es ima ed 22%) .360 (.009) (= es ima ed 36%)
Age
15-29 yea s .610 (.012) 28.705(1)*** ns .388 (.010) 31.395(1)***
30-64 yea s .554 (.012) .336 (.010)
Time poin
1984 .587 (.013) 10.627(5)*** .239 (.011) 6.724(5)*** .349 (011) 6.051(5)***
1990 .636 (.014) .241 (.011) .395 (.012)
1997 .586 (.014) .239 (.012) .348 (.013)
2003 .537 (.014) .196 (.012) .340 (.012)
2008 .572 (.014) .209 (.012) .363 (.012)
2013 .575 (.014) .199 (.012) .376 (.013)
Pos hoca1990 > 1997, 2008, 2013 > 2003
1984 < 1990
1984, 2003, 2013 < 1990, 1997 2003 < 1984, 2008 < 1990, 2013
1997 < 1990, 2013
In e ac ion e m Age × Yea ns ns 2.243(5)*b
In e ac ion e m Age × Educa ion 16.370(2)***bns 17.750(2)***b
In e ac ion e m Age × Gende 11.573(1)***bns 4.170(1)*b
Educa ion
Basic .565 (.012) 3.561(2)* .186 (.010) 20.183(2)*** .379 (.011) 9.481(2)***
Seconda y .592 (.011) .219 (.009) .373 (.010)
Highe .590 (.014) .257 (.012) .333 (.012)
Pos hocaBasic < Seconda y < High Basic < Seconda y < High Basic < Seconda y < High
Gende
Woman .600 (.011) 19.126(1)*** .196 (.010) 54.527(1)*** ns
Man .564 (.012) .245 (.009)
Spouse
Yes .567 (.011) 15.408(1)*** ns .345 (.010) 23.560(1)***
No .597 (.012) .378 (.010)
Conside s he ollowing aspec s o li e e y impo an
Gain ul employmen Family Leisu e
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig.
Job con en
Mono onous .487 (.012) 11.456(1)*** ns ns
Va ied .516 (.011)
Wage le el
Lowes e ile .470 (.011) 29.557(2)*** ns .362 (.010) 7.426(2)***
Middle e ile .492 (.012) .381 (.011)
Highes e ile .542 (.013) .397 (.012)
Pos hocaLow < Middle < High Low < High
Adjus ed R2.019 .141 .057
Model F(d ) Sig. 17.930(28)*** 143.931(28)*** 53.377(28)***
N24.353 24.353 24.353
No e. Linea p obabili y model wi h ANOVA mean es ima es. Fo dummy a iables, he pos hoc esul s a e he same han F es esul s.
aPos hoc compa isons (Sidak adjus men s) shown when s a is ically signi ican wi hin g oups a p alue le el ≤ .05.
bSee Appendix B o u he analysis.
Table 1. (con inued)
(con inued)
Pyö iä e al. 7
Table 2. (con inued)
Would change jobs o he same pay o:
The same/a di e en ield The same ield A di e en ield
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(d ) Sig.
Child en
Yes .607 (.012) 52.000(1)*** ns .385 (.010) 56.557(1)***
No .557 (.011) .339 (.009)
Employed du ing s udies
Yes ns ns ns
No
Yea s employed
0-2 yea s ns ns ns
3– yea s
Type o employmen
Tempo a y .564 (.012) 11.990(1)*** .246 (.010) 36.331(1)*** .318 (.011) 91.312(1)***
Pe manen .600 (.011) .195 (.009) .406 (.010)
Th ea s
1-3 h ea s .646 (.012) 269.650(1)*** .252 (.010) 96.271(1)*** .394 (.010) 90.080(1)***
No h ea s .518 (.011) .189 (.009) .329 (.010)
Has been unemployed
Yes ns ns ns
No
Employabili y
Poo .573 (.012) 6.470(1)* .184 (.010) 141.521(1)*** .389 (.011) 67.429(1)***
Good .592 (.010) .257 (.009) .335 (.009)
Job con en
Mono onous .679 (.012) 532.785(1)*** .205 (.010) 18.908(1)*** .474 (.011) 916.061(1)***
Va ied .485 (.011) .236 (.009) .250 (.009)
Wage le el
Lowes e ile .548 (.011) 21.397(2)*** .199 (.009) 13.407(2)*** .349 (.010) 4.147(2)*
Middle e ile .594 (.012) .225 (.010) .370 (.010)
Highes e ile .604 (.013) .238 (.010) .366 (.011)
Pos hocaLow < High Low < Middle < High Low < Middle < High
Adjus ed R2.047 .027 .059
Model F(d ) Sig. 44.136(28)*** 25.317(28)*** 55.941(28)***
N24.353 24.353 24.353
No e. Linea p obabili y model wi h ANOVA mean es ima es. Fo dummy a iables, he pos hoc esul s a e he same han F es esul s.
aPos hoc compa isons (Sidak adjus men s) shown when s a is ically signi ican wi hin g oups a p alue le el ≤ .05.
bSee Appendix B o u he analysis.
bu h oughou Eu ope and es o he wo ld he e is g owing
conce n abou you h unemploymen , he leng h o ime ha
young people spend s udying, and young people’s a i udes o
wo k (Eu o ound, 2013; F ance, 2016; Hel e & E ans, 2013;
Ng, Lyons, & Schwei ze , 2017).
In eali y, young people in Finland, including s uden s,
a e an impo an pa o he labou o ce, and hey ha e
impo an skills and he igh kind o a i ude. One dis inc-
i e ea u e o he Finnish educa ion sys em is ha many
s uden s gain aluable wo k expe ience while hey a e s ill
s udying. E en hough young people in Finland comple e
hei educa ion (and highe educa ion in pa icula ) a a la e
age han young people in Eu ope on a e age, hey quickly
se le in o a ca ee pa h ha ma ches hei skills and quali i-
ca ions (Ki inen & Nu mi, 2014).
Ou esul s show he e a e no g ounds o conce n o e
young people’s wo k o ien a ion: I is no g owing weake .
Du ing he pe iods unde s udy, he app ecia ion o gain ul
employmen has emained cons an e en among young people,
al hough hey ha e consis en ly a ached sligh ly less alue o
wo k han olde people. O e hal o he age g oup 15 o 29
alued wo k as a e y impo an a ea o li e a e e y ime poin
in ou da a se , excep o 1990, which saw a empo a y dip in
he alue a ached o gain ul employmen (Figu e 1).
In 1990, he economy was s ill bene i ing om s ong
cyclical ends and a clima e o op imism, bu in 1991 o
8 SAGE Open
1993 he economy collapsed and he coun y d i ed in o
mass unemploymen . I seems ha he gene al end in he
app ecia ion o gain ul employmen closely ollows he
cyclical mo emen s o he economy. When he imes a e
good, he alue a ached o employmen alls, and ice
e sa. This is con i med by he model p esen ed in Table
1. The pos hoc es shows ha bo h ime poin s ha ep-
esen he zeni h o economic up u n—1990 and 2008—
ha e s a is ically signi ican ly lowe ed le els o alue
gi en o gain ul employmen in compa ison o all o he
ime poin s.
When in e p e ing he esul s, i is impo an o obse e
ha young people aged 15 o 29 and olde age g oups di e
s a is ically signi ican ly in hei app ecia ion o gain ul
employmen only in 1984 and 1990, bu no in la e yea s
(Figu e 1). In he model p esen ed in Table 1, no di ec e ec
o age was ound. The gene a ional di e ence ha was is-
ible in Figu e 1 is con i med only o 1990, when in e ac-
ions a e examined be ween age g oup and ime poin
(Appendix B). In o he wo ds, i can be said ha in he
1980s, he Wel a e S a e Gene a ion a ached somewha less
alue o employmen han olde age g oups, bu in he case
o Gene a ions X and Y, he di e ence is no s a is ically
signi ican . The e idence, he e o e, does no suppo he
sugges ions ha young people’s wo k o ien a ion is g owing
weake .
I is somewha su p ising ha a highe educa ion does no
p edic a high app ecia ion o wo k, bu on he con a y he
associa ion ends o weaken (Table 1). Those wi h a basic edu-
ca ion a ach mo e alue o gain ul employmen han hose
wi h a highe educa ion (see also S am, Ve bakel, & De G aa ,
2013). This ies in wi h he ising o e all le el o educa ion. In
he 2013 da a se , 46% o he esponden s had a e ia y deg ee,
compa ed wi h jus 13% in 1984. In Finland, educa ional
achie emen is no longe as signi ican a ac o as i used o be.
Al hough educa ion con inues o p o ide p o ec ion agains
labou ma ke isks (Koe selman & Uusi alo, 2014; Pyö iä &
Ojala, 2016), unemploymen has inc eased among he highe
educa ed, oo, which p obably explains ou esul .
The in e ac ion be ween age and educa ion is signi ican in
he model shown in Table 1. The mo e de ailed analysis in
Appendix B e eals an in e es ing ea u e abou he di e en ia-
ion o young people’s wo k o ien a ion by educa ional le el.
Tha is, young people aged 15 o 29 wi h a basic educa ion alue
employmen less han olde age g oups wi h he same le el o
educa ion. Among young people wi h a e ia y deg ee, he si u-
a ion is he exac opposi e. They alue gain ul employmen mo e
han olde people wi h a e ia y deg ee (Figu e 2). We assume
ha an e o gi en o s udying o a highe deg ee a a young age
is e lec ed in his inding: Highe educa ed labou ma ke new-
come s a e keen o s a hei ca ee s.
Acco ding o Table 1, men alue wo k mo e han women do.
He e, howe e , we ind an in e es ing in e ac ion e ec con-
ce ning age. Whe eas younge men alue employmen less han
olde male employees, he qui e opposi e holds o younge
women: Olde emale employees espec wo k less han hei
younge colleagues. A he same ime, be ween young men and
women, he gende di e ence does no exis (Figu e 3).
Table 1 also shows ha he e is a s a is ically highly sig-
ni ican di e ence be ween a high le el o ea nings and a
high app ecia ion o employmen : The highe he wages, he
mo e people alue hei wo k. Simul aneous employmen
and s udying and a sho expe ience o gain ul employmen
(less han 2 yea s), on he o he hand, educe he alue
a ached o employmen . People no li ing in a pa ne ship
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
BasicSeconda y Highe
30+ y s. 15–29 y s.
Figu e 2. Es ima ed sha e o employees aluing gain ul employmen
as “ e y impo an ” (scale 0 = less, 1 = e y impo an ).
No e. Illus a ion o he pos hoc es inding on Age × Educa ion (Table 1;
Appendix B).
30+ y s. 15–29 y s.
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Ma
nW
oman
Figu e 3. Es ima ed sha e o employees aluing gain ul
employmen as “ e y impo an ” (scale 0 = less, 1 = e y impo an ).
No e. Illus a ion o he pos hoc es inding on Gende × Educa ion
(Table 1; Appendix B).
Pyö iä e al. 9
alue wo k mo e, bu i makes no di e ence whe he o no
he esponden has child en.
Wo k O ien a ion in Rela ion o Family and
Leisu e
Nex , we mo e on o examine he app ecia ion o employmen
in ela ion o he impo ance a ached o amily and leisu e.
Al hough we a e p ima ily in e es ed in a i udes o wo k, he
inclusion o amily and leisu e in he same model allows us o
analyze a eas o li e ha complemen wo k o ien a ion. This
choice is in line wi h Gold ho pe’s heo y. Gold ho pe e al.
(1968) unde s ood ha he de elopmen o wo k o ien a ion is
associa ed wi h he indi idual’s social and cul u al backg ound
and wi h he alues adop ed in ha con ex .
The mos signi ican gene a ional di e ence s ems om he
emphasis placed by young people on amily and leisu e, e en
hough he mos signi ican backg ound ac o o ha ing a am-
ily is aken in o accoun . I is wo h no ing, howe e , ha om
1984 o 2013, he alue a ached o amily and o leisu e has
inc eased among all wage ea ne s ( he pos hoc esul s p e-
sen ed in Table 1 poin o almos linea inc ease up o 2003
conce ning amily, and up o 2008 conce ning leisu e). A mod-
es in e ac ion e ec be ween age and ime poin shows ha in
ecen yea s (2003, 2008, and 2013, see Appendix B) young
people a ach mo e alue o amily in compa ison o olde gen-
e a ions. The in e ac ion e m on gende shows ha young
women in pa icula alue hei amily highly (age di e ence is
no ound among men, howe e , see Appendix B).
The esul s desc ibed abo e e lec a mo e gene al change
in alues ha p obably ha e o do wi h inc easing o e all
weal h and a luence. We ha e wi nessed a g owing end
owa d pos -ma e ialis ic alues in a luen economies
(Ingleha , 1997, 2008). This is con i med by he obse a ion
ha people wi h a highe educa ion and wi h he highes
incomes end o a ach mo e alue o leisu e (see pos hoc
esul s o educa ion and wage le el, Table 1). In Gold ho pe
e al.’s (1968) e ms, wo k no longe has he same ins umen-
al alue ha i did be o e, a leas o people who ha e he
mos esou ces o in es in hei leisu e.
Un o una ely, we we e unable o inco po a e in ou
model an indica o desc ibing job sa is ac ion, because he
da a se is no ully compa able in his espec (in 1990 job
sa is ac ion was inqui ed in a sligh ly di e en way han in
o he yea s). We can, howe e , obse e on he basis o ou
da a and ea lie esea ch ha job sa is ac ion does ma e o
wage ea ne s o all ages (see also Kowske e al., 2010;
Wes e man & Yamamu a, 2007). I people a e no sa is ied
wi h hei job, hen bo h hei wo k o ien a ion and he alue
hey a ach o he amily will decline. The mos c ucial ac o
is how wo k and amily a e econciled. E en hough i is di -
icul o es ablish a po en ial causa i e link, low job sa is ac-
ion and a pessimis ic u u e ou look p obably e lec
ad e sely on he indi idual’s amily li e. I , on he o he
hand, people a e doing well a wo k, hey a e mo e likely o
enjoy a good amily li e as well (Hakanen, Pee e s, &
Pe honiemi, 2011; Ylikännö, 2010).
All in all, he app ecia ion o wage employmen has emained
qui e s able o e he pas h ee decades. A he same ime, bo h
amily and especially leisu e ha e gained signi ican ly in impo -
ance. Family and leisu e a e mos impo an o all o young
people, bu his has no unde mined he alue a ached o gain ul
employmen . This can be in e p e ed by sugges ing ha young
people a e keen o ha e bo h di e si y and balance in hei li es.
Readiness o Change Jobs
Nex , we mo e on o he ques ion o wo k commi men om
he poin o iew o eadiness o change jobs, assuming ha
he esponden would be able o change jobs o he same pay.
Acco ding o Table 2, young people a e keene o change jobs
han olde age g oups, namely, o di e en occupa ional
ields, e en when s udying and limi ed wo k expe ience (less
han 2 yea s) a e adjus ed o . This esul e lec s young peo-
ple’s li e si ua ion. You h has always been a s age o li e cha -
ac e ized by ansi ion and sea ch o di ec ion (Hel e &
E ans, 2013). Young people need o ind hei place in he
labou ma ke , weigh educa ional op ions, and y ou hei
wings in di e en occupa ions.
I is use ul o look a he in e ac ions mo e closely o ind
ou wha hey e eal abou he eadiness o change jobs.
Fi s , he e a e s a is ically signi ican in e ac ions o age
and educa ional le el ha ocus on aims a changing jobs o
a di e en occupa ional ield (Table 2; Appendix B). Young
people aged 15 o 29 wi h a basic and seconda y educa ion
a e mo e likely o con empla e changing jobs han olde age
g oups. Among he e ia y educa ed, he e is no co espond-
ing s a is ically signi ican age g oup di e ence.
Second, he e is a gende and age di e en ia ion on o e all
aims a changing jobs, and on aims a changing o a di e en
ield. The in e ac ion e ec poin s o young women who a e
mo e p epa ed o change jobs as compa ed o women aged 30
o mo e (Appendix B). Among men, he age gap is lowe .
Thi d, he e is a mino in e ac ion e ec ha di e en ia es
be ween age and ime poin among young employees
(Appendix B). I seems ha ep esen a i es o he Wel a e S a e
Gene a ion and Gene a ion X, a ages 15 o 29, we e mo e will-
ing han olde wage ea ne s o change jobs o a di e en occu-
pa ional ield. Su p isingly, we ound no con i ma ion o ou
assump ions ha Gene a ion Y is willing o change jobs, e en
hough young people oday a e showing g ea e indi iduali y
han be o e in hei ansi ions om educa ion o he labou
ma ke , and e en hough hey a e be e placed han be o e o
make independen choices and e en o ge employe s o com-
pe e o hei se ices o secu e a be e con ac and o pledge
hei commi men . On he con a y, he esul s seem o indica e
ha he Millennials a e highly commi ed o he wo kplace,
once hey ha e ound hei own ield.
Conce ning o he measu es ha a e adjus ed o , eadiness
o change jobs is mos s ongly p edic ed by he na u e o he
job, ha is, job mono ony and h ea s o employmen secu i y