Poverty hurts the boys the most: Inequality at the intersection of class and gender

Richard Reeves and Sarah Nzau, "Poverty hurts the boys the most: Inequality at the intersection of class and gender," Brookings Institution, June 14, 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/research/poverty-hurts-the-boys-the-most-inequality-at-the-intersection-of-class-and-gender/

Poverty hurts the boys the most: Inequality at the intersection of class and gender

One of the cognitive curses of the human mind is the tendency to chop everything into two: black and white, rich and poor, men and women, North and South, and so on. By instinct, we tend to lump people together into clear and distinct categories, preferably just two. The world seems simpler that way.

But of course, the world is not simple. People are not sorted into neat boxes. One unfortunate consequence of this binary worldview is what public health expert and “factfulness” advocate Hans Rosling calls the “gap instinct…to divide all kinds of things into two distinct and often conflicting groups with an imagined gap in-between (e.g., rich vs poor countries).”

In the real world, the distributions of two different groups on most measures almost always overlap, rather than having a clear gap between them. So, while the median man is 5 inches taller than the median woman, not all men are taller than all women. Therefore, it is often a mistake to look at one kind of inequality in isolation from another. For example, we cannot look at gender gaps in isolation from inequalities by race and class.

This is the central insight offered by the intersectionality framework pioneered by Kimberlé Crenshaw. The position of individuals in society should be examined considering a range of intersecting identities and distributions. As we wrote in a previous analysis of the unique disadvantages faced by Black men, breaking the cycle of their intergenerational disadvantage requires a deeper understanding of the gendering of their race—and the racialization of their gender.

POOR BOYS = STRUGGLING MEN

In this paper we focus on the intersection of class and gender, and how being raised in families on different rungs of the income ladder influences the outcomes of girls and boys. Our principal finding is that boys raised in low-income families do worse, in terms of adult outcomes, than girls raised in low-income families. Most strikingly, boys raised in families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution are less likely than girls either to be employed or to move up the income ladder once they become adults.

With bottom quintile boys struggling, the danger is of knock-on effects for the next generation. As Autor and Melanie Wasserman warn in another paper, Wayward Sons: “A vicious cycle may ensue, with the poor economic prospects of less-educated males creating differentially large disadvantages for their sons, thus potentially reinforcing the development of the gender gap in the next generation.”

It is particularly important to examine the intersection of class and gender inequalities because the distributions have been moving in opposite directions in recent decades. Gender inequality has been reducing while income inequality has been widening. It hardly needs adding that of course there remain many areas where much more progress is required to close gaps between men and women—not least in terms of political representation, where I have called for the introduction of gender quotas in line with many other nations.

But as The Economist magazine correctly points out, “the fact that the highest rungs have male feet all over them is scant comfort for the men at the bottom.” This is one reason why we have launched a new project on Boys and Men here at Brookings, in order to examine the challenges facing many boys and men, in the context of progress toward gender equality, and potential policies and norms to promote greater male flourishing and agency. We are paying particular attention to Black boys and men, and boys and men from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Boys seem particularly most strongly influenced by the family environment, as well as by school quality or neighborhood poverty. These findings are consistent with research showing the particularly sharp impact of poverty and disadvantage for boys, which also has implications for race equity—since Black boys are much more likely to be raised in lower income or socially disadvantaged households.

BOTTOM QUINTILE BOYS: GENDER GAPS DIFFER AT VARIOUS POINTS OF THE PARENT INCOME DISTRIBUTION

Here we draw on data from Opportunity Insights to examine gender gaps in early adulthood for children raised by parents on different rungs of the household income ladder, specifically rates of:

College degree attainment (BA) by age 25
Employment at age 30
Incarceration at age 30
Marriage at age 32
Upward mobility from bottom quintile by the mid-thirties age range.

For clarity of presentation, we show these outcomes by gender for those from families in the bottom, middle and top quintiles. (The trends are the same for the missing two quintiles, and the full data is available on the Opportunity Insights page). On all five measures, girls from the bottom quintile outperform boys from the bottom quintile. In other words, class and gender intersect. Policymakers should take note.

Boys less likely to be BAs, especially if raised poor

It is well known that college attendance and completion is much higher among women than men, and at least in terms of enrollment the gap. College enrollment for male students in fall 2020 dropped by 5.1%, according to National Student Clearinghouse figures, several times more than the fall for female students (0.7%). There is also a very steep class gradient in college completion. Figure 1 highlight both of these inequalities, showing the share of those raised in the bottom, middle and top income quintiles get a four-year college degree by the age of 25.

Boys raised poor less likely than girls to be in paid work as adults

While girls and women are now significantly outperforming boys and men at every stage of the education system, men are still generally more likely than women to be in paid employment as adults. With one exception: boys from the bottom quintile. Figure 2 shows employment rates at age 30 by family income background and gender:

Incarceration is a poor boy story

There has been a substantial rise in the male incarceration rate during the last three decades—especially among Black men—and almost no increase in incarceration rates among women. There is a large gender gap in incarceration rates. But again, as well as race and gender, it is important to look at class. Incarceration is most common among boys raised in low-income families. Figure 3 shows that boys with parents in the bottom quintile of the parent household income distribution are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than low-income girls, but 22 times as likely to be incarcerated as boys with parents in the top quintile. (Note that these figures are for the proportion of the cohort in prison on a specific day - April 1st, 2010, when they were between 27 and 32 years of age). There is in fact essentially no gender gap for the top quintile, since the incarceration rate is close to zero in any case:

There is a class gradient in marriage rates, with children from different backgrounds having different odds of ending up married as adults. Children from low-income families are less likely to be married than those raised in high-income families. However, male children from low-income families are the least likely of all to be married at age 32, including by comparison to girls raised in low-income families. Figure 4 shows that the marriage rate for boys raised in families in the bottom quintile is 29%, compared to 33% for girls raised in the same quintile.

Boys raised poor less likely than girls to escape poverty

Reducing intergenerational poverty is a key policy goal, that has animated much of our own work here in the Center on Children and Families. The question of who moves up and down the income ladder is an important one for judging the fairness and openness of our society. Again, using Opportunity Insights data, in Figure 5 we show the proportion of those raised in families in the three income quintiles (bottom, middle, and top) and who end up in the bottom quintile as adults. Importantly the measure here is individual income, not household income. Men raised in the bottom quintile (29%) are slightly more likely to remain stuck in that quintile as adults than women (26%). Less Horatio Alger, more Harriet Alger:

Tries to run, but he don't get far…. Using Chetty’s data Richard Reeves and Sarah Nzau find that growing up in poverty has a disproportionate impact on men versus women in terms of college attainment, employment, mobility and marriage and incarceration rates"... Our principal finding is that boys raised in low-income families do worse, in terms of adult outcomes, than girls raised in low-income families. Most strikingly, boys raised in families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution are less likely than girls either to be employed or to move up the income ladder once they become adults..."

Conclusions, "…Many American policy analysts point to Denmark as a model welfare state with low levels of income inequality and high levels of income mobility across generations. It has in place many social policies now advocated for adoption in the U.S. Despite generous Danish social policies, family influence on important child outcomes in Denmark is about as strong as it is in the United States.More advantaged families are better able to access, utilize, and influence universally available programs. Purposive sorting by levels of family advantage create neighborhood effects. Powerful forces not easily mitigated by Danish-style welfare state programs operate in both countries…."

Note the increased spending had no impact on mobility btw cohorts in Denmark“….Fig. 4b shows cognitive test score ranks for the all males born in 1958 and 1988 in Denmark by their parents’ income percentiles,22 along with cognitive test score ranks across parents’ income percentiles for children from the CNLSY data. The figure illustrates two points: First, no striking differences appear when comparing the association between children’s test scores and parents’ income percentiles in Denmark and the U.S. Second, the association between children’s cognitive test scores and parents’ income is strikingly similar for Danish cohorts born 30 years apart. Although the 1988 cohort is born after the rapid welfare state expansion previously described and the 1958 cohort is born just before the expansion took off, the associations between test scores and parents’ resources are practically identical. Family influence retains its tight grip….”

First, “…. Intergenerational educational mobility is about the same in both countries for the most recent cohorts. Transmission of skills across generations is equally strong in both countries, despite stark differences in income inequality and offered public services….”
Second“….The traditional literature on the intergenerational transmission of economic status compares snapshots of lifetime incomes of parents and children. This approach gives only a limited picture of the transmission of lifetime well-being across generations. Using Danish register data on lifecycle income, we find that intergenerational elasticities of income (IGE) of lifetime well-being are much higher than those estimated using incomes measured over a small window of ages. Accounting for uncertainty and credit market restrictions increases estimated dependence across generations. Well-being is much more tightly linked across generations in Denmark than conventional snapshot measures of lifetime income indicate….”

Third, “….We expand the analysis of family influence beyond the traditional analysis of IGEs of income to include choices of neighborhood, peers, and schools as parental investments in their children. We present compelling evidence of purposive sorting by parents in making neighborhood choices. Our evidence calls into question the assumptions underlying the recent neighborhood influence literature - that timing of residential choice is random with respect to the lifetime gains for children….”
The key evidence, "...Despite the generosity of the Danish welfare state and equality in access for all citizens, substantial inequality of child outcomes remains across social and economic classes. Figure 1 documents these gaps and compares them to their U.S. counterparts. Children of college-educated women do substantially better than children of secondary school dropouts on many dimensions in both countries...."

Their core findings:

Despite interventionist Danish social policy family influence on child outcomes in Denmark is ~ as strong as it is in the United States. Inequality of child outcomes remains across economic classes, for example children of college educated women do better in both Demark and the US. Their bottomline, "...However,if equal Danish provision of services does not eliminate inequality in many important life outcomes, the origins of inequality and social immobility lie elsewhere..."

In terms of mobility by test scores, I don’t think I have that for the US, but let me confirm that, this new Heckman implicitly does in demonstrates the limited utility of social policy to change mobility outcomes for children by their parents education attainment (which on some level is a proxy for skill).

The numbers are from his "Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective (Data Set)"

30% of poor white boys ended up as poor adults. 48% of black boys did.

23% of poor white boys ended up as lower middle class adults. 28% of black boys did.

21% of poor white boys ended up as middle class adults. 15% of black boys did.

17% of poor white boys ended up as upper middle class adults,, 6% of black boys did.

9% of poor white boys ended up as rich adults, 2% of black boys did.