Emily Greenman

Double Jeopardy? The Interaction of Gender and Race on Earnings in the United States

There are sizeable earnings differentials by gender and race in the U.S. labor market, with women earning less than men and most racial/ethnic minority groups earning less than whites. It has been proposed in the previous literature that the effects of gender and race on earnings are additive, so that minority women suffer the full disadvantage of each status. We test this proposition for a broad range of minority groups in the United States. We find that women of all minority groups suffer a smaller gender penalty than white women (relative to same-race men). Exploring the potential role of racial variation in gender role specialization in producing such differentials, we find some empirical evidence suggesting that white families specialize more than families of most other races.

The social context of assimilation: testing implications of segmented assimilation theory.

Segmented assimilation theory has been a popular explanation for the diverse experiences of assimilation among new waves of immigrants and their children. While the theory has been interpreted in many different ways, we emphasize its implications for the important role of social context: both processes and consequences of assimilation should depend on the local social context in which immigrants are embedded. We derive empirically falsifiable hypotheses about the interaction effects between social context and assimilation on immigrant childrens well-being. We then test the hypotheses using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Our empirical analyses yield two main findings. First, for immigrant adolescents living in non-poverty neighborhoods, we find assimilation to be positively associated with educational achievement and psychological well-being but also positively associated with at-risk behavior. Second, there is little empirical evidence supporting our hypotheses derived from segmented assimilation theory. We interpret these results to mean that future research would be more fruitful focusing on differential processes of assimilation rather than differential consequences of assimilation.

Legal status and educational transitions for mexican and central american immigrant youth.

This study uses the Survey of Income and Program Participation to infer the legal status of Mexican and Central American immigrant youth and to investigate its relationship with educational attainment. We assess differences by legal status in high school graduation and college enrollment, decompose differences in college enrollment into the probability of high school graduation and the probability of high school graduates’ enrollment in college and estimate the contributions of personal and family background characteristics to such differences. Results show that undocumented students are less likely than documented students to both graduate from high school and enroll in college, and differences in college enrollment cannot be explained by family background characteristics. We conclude that legal status is a critical axis of stratification for Latinos.

EDUCATIONAL ATTITUDES, SCHOOL PEER CONTEXT, AND THE “IMMIGRANT PARADOX” IN EDUCATION

Previous research has been unable to explain declines in educational outcomes across immigrant generations. This study uses data on Mexican and Asian-origin youth from Add Health to test educational attitudes and behaviors as mechanisms linking immigrant generation to four educational outcomes. First, it assesses whether generational changes in attitudes and behaviors correspond to generational differences in educational outcomes. Second, it tests whether generational changes in immigrant childrens attitudes depend on the school peer context in which they acculturate. Findings show that educational attitudes and behaviors do decline across immigrant generations, but that these changes in attitudes account for little of the generational variation in educational outcomes. The relationship between immigrant generation and attitudes is strongest in schools with more negative peer cultures.

ASSIMILATION CHOICES AMONG IMMIGRANT FAMILIES: DOES SCHOOL CONTEXT MATTER?

This article explores the relationship between social context, measured in terms of school characteristics, and the assimilation of immigrant adolescents. First, it develops a measure of assimilation based on comparing immigrant adolescents to native peers within the same school. Second, it investigates whether immigrant adolescents’ degree of assimilation varies systematically according to school socioeconomic status (SES). Third, it explores the role of parental and adolescent behavior in creating such variation. Results show that both Asian and Hispanic immigrant youth are less assimilated to native youths’ substance use and delinquency patterns in lower-SES schools. This association can be explained by parenting behaviors and adolescent friendship choices for Asian youth, but not Hispanic youth.

The Occupational Cost of Being Illegal in the United States: Legal Status, Job Hazards, and Compensating Differentials.

Considerable research and pervasive cultural narratives suggest that undocumented immigrant workers are concentrated in the most dangerous, hazardous, and otherwise unappealing jobs in U.S. labor markets. Yet, owing largely to data limitations, little empirical work has addressed this topic. Using data from the 2004 and 2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we impute legal status for Mexican and Central American immigrants and link their occupations to Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) data on occupational fatalities and occupational hazard data from the U.S. Department of Labor to explore racial and legal status differentials on several specific measures of occupational risk. Results indicate that undocumented workers face heightened exposure to numerous dimensions of occupational hazard – including higher levels of physical strain, exposure to heights, and repetitive motions – but are less exposed than native workers to some of the potentially most dangerous environments. We also show that undocumented workers are rewarded less for employment in hazardous settings, receiving low or no compensating differential for working in jobs with high fatality, toxic materials, or exposure to heights. Overall, this study suggests that legal status plays an important role in determining exposure to job hazard and in structuring the wage returns to risky work.