Response to “Diverging Destinies Revisited”

This morning I’m scheduled to deliver remarks at the Annual Symposium on Family Issues at Penn State, in response to a new paper by Sara McLanahan and Wade Jacobsen titled, “Diverging Destinies Revisited.” Their paper is a followup to McLanahan’s 2003 Population Association of American presidential address. They haven’t released the new paper to the public yet, but the basic argument hasn’t changed. They also asked me not to circulate my comments until the talk, so I’ve scheduled this to self-post at the time of the event.

I don’t know quite what I’ll say, but I think I’ll show the slides below, plus a few on gender inequality generally (click on any to enlarge):


2 thoughts on “Response to “Diverging Destinies Revisited”

  1. At the risk of sounding like a broken LP needle (even that phrase suggests an old man):

    1. Being single is bad for both women and men, as seen in the national poverty estimates.

    2. The analyses need decomposition by race and economic status. The increasing composition of the population by minority has a primary, direct influence on marriage/single parents. One of the two minority components, is driven by immigration.

    3. Globalization, through both, outsourcing of labor, and exit of capital, has a significant impact on SES of the US population, and directly impacts marriage, and hence, inequality

    4. Immigration has a significant impact on the job prospects of both, college degree holders. Job losses means less choice and chance of marriage.

    Without a consideration of the economic impact (via globalization and immigration) it is not clear what is the use of the conclusions drawn.


Comments welcome (may be moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s