demography

The New York Times reports that the number of foreign-born workers is on the rise in the U.S.

Nearly one in six American workers is foreign-born, the highest proportion since the 1920s, according to a census analysis released Monday.

Because of government barriers to immigration, the share of foreign-born workers dipped from a 20th-century high of 21 percent in 1910 to barely 5 percent in 1970, but has been rising since then, to the current 16 percent.

In 2007, immigrants accounted for more than one in four workers in California (35 percent), New York (27 percent), New Jersey (26 percent) and Nevada (25 percent).

But that’s not all the Census Bureau found:

For the first time, the Census Bureau also compared immigrants by generation. Generally, income and other measures of achievement rose from one generation to the next, although educational attainment peaked with the second generation.

Monica Boyd, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto, said the second generation personified “the overachievement model, a tendency for very high achievement that seems to come as a result of immigrant parents’ instilling in these kids an enormous drive.” Professor Boyd added, “Many try to instill in their kids the phrase, ‘We did this all for you.’ ”

Among all immigrant families, median income rose from $50,867 in the first generation to $63,359 and $65,144 in the second and third, respectively. The only group to register any decrease was family households headed by single mothers; their income declined from the second generation to the third.

Similarly, the overall proportion of immigrant families living below the government’s official poverty level declined, from 16.5 percent to 14.5 to 11.5 among three generations. But among adult immigrants, the proportion who are poor grew again between the second and third generations.

However, while overall measures of income seem to be improving from one generation to the next (with some variation among sub-goups), those for overall educational achievement tell a different story:

While the proportion of high school graduates increased from one generation to the next, the share who had bachelor’s degrees or more higher education declined from the second to the third generations. The proportion with doctorates peaked with the first generation.

Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau’s immigration statistics staff, said the figures suggested substantial progress from the first generation to the second.

“This really shows that immigrants integrate over time the same way they always have,” Ms. Grieco said.

In terms of education, she said, “the third generation seems to be stopping at bachelor’s or master’s degrees.”

So, what do sociologists make of this decline in educational attainment between second and third generations?

Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College of the City University of New York, said, “If there is some evidence of third-generation decline, then this no doubt has a lot to do with persistent inequalities and disadvantages facing many of the second generation and their children.”

Professor Foner added that “the economic declines of the past few years no doubt play a role” and that “it could also be that second-generation parents, themselves born in the U.S., are less optimistic and push their children less hard than their own immigrant parents who came here and struggled so their children could succeed.”

The Sacramento Bee recently reported on a political battle unfolding over the 2010 Census that brings sociologists and demographers center stage.   The fight has begun over whether and how to count legal and illegal immigrants in the Census.

The context:  Senator David Vitter of Louisiana wants only legal citizens to be counted in the Census.  Steve Gándola, president and chief executive officer of the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, wants to count all Latinos in the 2010 census, including millions of noncitizens.  Meanwhile, Rev. Miguel Rivera, who heads the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, wants illegal Latino immigrants to boycott the Census as a way to show their displeasure with Congress’ refusal to overhaul national immigration laws.  His motto: “No legalization, no enumeration.”

A sociologist weighs in on the stakes at hand:

With the largest Latino population in the nation, California has a big stake in the debate.  The Golden State would lose five of its 53 House seats if noncitizens were not counted, according to a study by Andrew Beveridge, a professor of sociology at Queens College in New York.

Some historical context on the issue:

Citizenship has never been a requirement, dating back to the first census in 1790, when each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person, said Clara Rodriguez, a sociology professor and census expert at Fordham University in New York.  “Slaves were not citizens,” she said. “They did not become citizens until after the Civil War.”

Rodriguez sympatheizes with Rev. Rivera’s goals but thinks the effort is misguided: 

“I don’t think it’s a good idea,” Rodriguez said. “I think that they’re shooting themselves in the foot. I think if people are here, they should be counted. Whether they’re here in an undocumented fashion or not, you’re here. And most of these people have to work and pay taxes.”

Rodriguez said an organized boycott would just complicate the work of the federal officials who fret about undercounts every 10 years, when the census is conducted. In the past, she said, individuals have decided on their own whether or not to participate.

“The census has had a very hard time in the past getting people to cooperate, for a variety of reasons,” Rodriguez said.

“Some people don’t want to be bothered. Some people don’t want government interference. Some people don’t want to fill out all those forms. They don’t think the government should know all that. And some people don’t want the government to know that they’re here.”

A recent New York Times article reported on some of the data that is known about gay and lesbian parenthood and how children of same-sex parents turn out. 

The Williams Institute at UCLA finds that approximately 115,772 American same-sex couples have children.  

Summarizing the state of the field:

Until relatively recently, we didn’t know much about the children of same-sex couples. The earliest studies, dating to the 1970s, were based on small samples and could include only families who stepped forward to be counted. But about 20 years ago, the Census Bureau added a category for unwed partners, which included many gay partners, providing more demographic data. Not every gay couple that is married, or aspiring to marry, has children, but an increasing number do: approximately 1 in 5 male same-sex couples and 1 in 3 female same-sex couples are raising children, up from 1 in 20 male couples and 1 in 5 female couples in 1990.

Concerning child outcomes:

“These children do just fine,” says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary.

In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay.

Gender plays a key role in the differences that are known between children of heterosexual and sexual minority parents:

More enlightening than the similarities, however, are the differences, the most striking of which is that these children tend to be less conventional and more flexible when it comes to gender roles and assumptions than those raised in more traditional families.

There are data that show, for instance, that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to aspire to professions that are traditionally considered male, like doctors or lawyers — 52 percent in one study said that was their goal, compared with 21 percent of daughters of heterosexual mothers, who are still more likely to say they want to be nurses or teachers when they grow up. (The same study found that 95 percent of boys from both types of families choose the more masculine jobs.) Girls raised by lesbians are also more likely to engage in “roughhousing” and to play with “male-gendered-type toys” than girls raised by straight mothers. And adult children of gay parents appear more likely than the average adult to work in the fields of social justice and to have more gay friends in their social mix.

Same-sex couples, it seems, are less likely to impose certain gender-based expectations on their children, says M. V. Lee Badgett, director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author of “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage.” Studies of lesbian parents have found that they “are more feminist parents,” she says, “more open to girls playing with trucks and boys playing with dolls,” with fewer worries about conforming to perceived norms.

They are also, by definition, less likely to impose gender-based expectations on themselves. “Same-sex parents tend to be more equal in parenting,” Goldberg says, while noting that no generalization can apply to all parents of any sexual orientation. On the whole, though, lesbian mothers (there’s little data here on gay dads) tend not to divide chores and responsibilities according to gender-based roles, Goldberg says, “because you have taken gender out the equation. There’s much more fluidity than in many heterosexual relationships.”

In a recent article discussing the arrest of a local official in a prostitution sting, The San Gabriel Valley Tribune called upon sociologists to explain why men visit prostitutes:

Some men are excited by the illicit risky behavior of prostitution; others like the consumer-oriented and simple transaction of meeting sexual needs through purchase; others say they have difficulties getting involved in traditional relationships; and still others are looking for a different kind of sex than they can normally find, according to a study conducted by sociologist Martin Monto for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Janet Lever, a sociologist at California State-LA, weighed in an alternative opinion:

“It’s not about the sex act. It’s really about creating variety. They usually do the same acts as they do with their wife or partner. Secondarily it’s about getting more sex,” Lever said.  Two-thirds of men wish they were getting more sex with their partner, while one-third of women do, Lever said. And prostitution provides an outlet for more sex that many men perceive as safer and less complicated than having an affair.

Commenting on high profile busts such as those of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Lever added:

“It certainly seems like these guys show a great deal of arrogance… and they have a lot more at stake than the average joe schmoe, which shows they are either delusional that they won’t get caught or they are truly driven for this act.   Joe schmoe does it too, and he may be sacrificing his marriage, but not his career.”

The author adds some demographics to the story:  The 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (led by sociologists Edward Laumann and John Gagnon) found that 16 % of men report ever visiting a prostitute, with .6 % of men visiting a prostitute each year.

The recently released 2008 American Community Survey (from the U.S. Census Bureau) finds about 4 million “multigenerational” American households, reports the Houston Chronicle. This trend seems to be enjoying renewed popularity, sociologists note:

While the number of multigenerational households has remained steady since the 2000 Census, sociologists and demographers say they expect to see an increase. Immigration and out-of-wedlock childbearing generally spur high rates of multigenerational households in certain geographical areas, and they will continue to be factors, experts said.

What’s pushing the trend now is the recession and baby boomers. With layoffs and furloughs, people are moving back in with their parents or other family members to save money. Also, many baby boomers are taking care of their elderly parents as the cost of long-term care soars. Baby boomers themselves are growing old, too. Their children will be preparing to take care of them, experts said.

“People are going back to living the way they did in the beginning of the 20th century,” said Ray Eve, head of the sociology department at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Eve said economics was a driving factor then, just like it is now.

This illustrates how the idea of “family” shifts over time:

Society has had a long fascination with the idea of the traditional family — father, mother and children — but the reality is it has never really existed, said Holly Heard, a sociology professor at Rice University.

People often have lived with extended family members, and they do more so now than 20 years ago, Heard said.

For the early part of the 20th century to the 1950s, multigenerational households were fairly common. After World War II, people became more affluent, and family members moved out because they could afford to live on their own. A shift began to occur in the 1980s, when the recession hit, sociologists said.

Despite the day-to-day challenges that may come with three or more generations sharing one home, sociologists note benefits, as well:

Studies show some physical and psychological benefits for multiple generations living together, sociologists said.

People who live with relatives tend to have better health and are less suicidal. Children are also less likely to be delinquent because they have additional family members to nurture and take care of them, they said.

Explore more housing data from the American Community Survey.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports this week on a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts regarding census preparations in a number of large US cities.

The study compared Philadelphia’s census preparation efforts with those of five larger cities – New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix – and five cities similar to Philadelphia and its history with the census: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit and Atlanta.

Although the census is done by the federal government, ensuring the local count is complete and accurate has become a municipal self-promotion campaign.

“Census preparation really matters,” said [Thomas] Ginsberg, [the project manager of Pew’s Philadelphia Research Initiative,] and the census has become a hard sell.

Why is it a ‘hard sell?’

Immigrants, especially those here illegally, are suspicious of the count despite the promise of anonymity. They fear the count could lead to discovery and deportation of them or relatives.

Anti-government campaigns involving the Obama Administration’s proposal for universal health insurance coverage also appear to be affecting the census.

And the economic recession has dramatically reduced local tax revenue, meaning there is much less to spend on municipal census promotion efforts.

And the sociological commentary…

“Nobody is expecting a good census in 2010. I’m not optimistic,” said Joseph J. Salvo, New York City’s population division chief and a sociologist, quoted in the Pew study.

Salvo, who advises and critiques the Census Bureau, noted that “since the last census we had 9/11, privacy issues, trust of government issues. And there’s been no public declaration that we’re going to suspend immigration raids like in 2000.”

Read more.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week on new research suggesting that for some highly developed countries, there has been a documented rise in fertility. This trend is surprising after decades of declining births to women in developed countries.

The Post reports:

Now, however, new research has produced the first glimmer of hope that economic prosperity may not be linked to an inexorable decline in fertility. The new analysis has found that in many countries, once a nation achieves an especially high level of development, women appear to start having more babies again.

“This is something like a light at the end of the tunnel for some of these countries whose populations were on the path to decline,” said Hans-Peter Kohler, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania who helped conduct the research. “We project a more optimistic future where fertility will go up, which reduces fears of rapid population decline and rapid aging.”

“…There was a consensus that as countries develop, become richer and provide more education, that fertility would know only one trend — and that trend was downward,” Kohler said. “This raises a broad range of concerns. Systems such as pension systems would not be sustainable. A rapid decline in the labor force could result in an economic decline and a loss of competitiveness and perhaps a loss of innovation.”

About the study itself…

To explore whether economic development is necessarily linked to falling fertility, Kohler and his colleagues examined fertility trends between 1975 and 2005 in 37 of the most developed countries. They used a measure developed by the United Nations known as the human development index (HDI), which combines income data with other measures of advancement, such as longevity and education levels.

Fertility rates did tend to decline as a nation’s HDI rose, the analysis showed. But for 18 of 26 countries that crossed a certain threshold of development — an HDI of at least .9 — their fertility rates began to rise again.

“This basically shattered this notion that as countries develop, fertility would only decline,” Kohler said. “Quite to the contrary, in the very advanced societies, fertility may go up as countries get richer and more educated.”

Read more.

USA Today reports on new numbers released from the National Center for Health Statistics, indicating that 2007 set an all-time record for births in the United States, with some interesting changes in the motherhood landscape.

The USA’s banner year for babies in 2007 set a record of 4.31 million — and was driven in large part by growing numbers of unmarried adult women giving birth, new government data show. Childbearing by unmarried women reached “historic levels,” the report says, to an estimated 1.7 million, or 40% of all births. There were increases in the birth rate and the proportion of births as well as an increase in the number. Teen moms accounted for 23%. The report, based on preliminary data, was released Wednesday by the National Center for Health Statistics.

Since 2002, all measures of childbearing by unmarried women have been “climbing steeply,” says Stephanie Ventura, a demographer who worked on the government report, which is based on birth certificates. The report found 60% of women 20-24 who had babies in 2007 were unmarried, up from 51.6% in 2002. Among ages 25-29, 32.2% of births were to unmarried women, vs. 25% in 2002. For ages 15-19, almost 86% were unmarried, compared with 80% in ’02.

But what about the number of births we can expect during the recession? Call in the sociologist!

Evidence from the Depression and past recessions has shown that numbers of births fall in hard economic times.

But University of Chicago economist and sociologist Gary Becker says that may not hold true anymore, with greater numbers of women in the labor force. Women laid off from their jobs might see unemployment as the time to have a child, he says: “Births might go up during recession.”

Read more.

Earlier this week an article in the New York Times reported on new findings that New York City is becoming increasingly diverse… according to recent Census data. The Times reports that “since 2000, the number of young children living in parts of Lower Manhattan has nearly doubled. The poverty rate declined in all but one New York City neighborhood… A majority of Bronx residents are Hispanic. And the number of white people living in Harlem more than tripled, helping to drive up median household income there by nearly 20 percent — the fourth-highest jump in the city.”

These latest findings are the result of new detailed demographic data for smaller areas (district) and the combination of three years of surveys. This work on trends related to race, ethnicity, and education constitutes some of the clearest statistical evidence available. 

The sociologist weighs in…

The latest results [on housing costs, discussed in the article] represent a three-year rolling count by the American Community Survey, a continuing profile of the country compiled by the Census Bureau, from 2005 to 2007.

“It was taken on the eve of a downturn,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College, who analyzed the results for The New York Times. “There’s been a shift in the cities, but can it sustain itself? The increase in children in Manhattan, for example, is fueled by the fact that the parents have a lot of money. But that is tied to the financial industry, directly or indirectly.”

Read more.

See the changes mapped by the Times.

A new study suggests that link between obesity in parents and children is the result of both social and genetic factors. This important study, first reported by Reuters, gives equal weight to family lifestyle and genes in determining teenagers’ weight.

“What we do as a family — our family lifestyles — matters for weight. Lifestyles aren’t just about individual behaviors,” study author Dr. Molly A. Martin, Pennsylvania State University in University Park told Reuters Health. The study is the first to demonstrate that the connection between parents and children’s weight is social as well as genetic.

“We had a gut sense that this was known or true, but in the research literature it actually had not been proven,” added Martin, a sociologist who studies families, social inequalities, and adolescent health. Instead, she said, scientists studying behavior and genetics have focused solely on the roles of genes and environment, without trying to separate out the effects of a family’s behavior.

The study was also picked up by US News & World Report, which reported:

Adolescents tended to be heavier in families that frequently missed meals or spent several hours a day in front of the TV or video games, researchers report in a special issue of the American Journal of Sociology.

“My study finds that weight runs in families, but it’s not just because of genetics. What we do together, how we spend our time together, what we eat and how we organize ourselves as family matters,” said study author Molly Martin, an assistant professor of sociology and demography at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

The methods…

For the new study, Martin included data from more than 2,500 pairs of twins, siblings or half-siblings. She examined numerous factors that could contribute to a teen’s weight status, such as parental obesity, socioeconomic status, parental education levels, birth weight, activity levels and more.

Two factors that emerged as separate from a family’s genetic influence were whether or not families missed meals, and the amount of time they spent watching TV or playing video games.

Read more from Reuters.
Read more from US News & World Report.