Archive: Feb 2025

A father and his three children wearing surfing wetsuits, running on a beach. Photo by Kampus Production under Pexels license.

Gendered work and family patterns among couples in the financial elite may be contributing to our widening socioeconomic divide. The unexpected recent growth in traditional arrangements, in which men work while women stay at home, offers clues as to why. That’s according to new research by Dr. Jill Yavorsky and her colleagues. 

The researchers analyzed longitudinal survey data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, which measures trends in household finances and labor dynamics across 108,854 different-gender, married households. By capturing both income and wealth over three decades, this data provides more nuance into the different sub-group dynamics among the most wealthy. 

The financial elite consist of three groups: the top 1% “super-rich”; the top 10% “rich”; and the top 20% “upper-middle-class”. These categories are based on both income and net worth. In addition to a “traditional” division of labor, the authors identify a “neo-traditional” division of labor if the husband works full-time and the wife works part-time. In a “dual-earner” household, both partners work full- or part-time.

The authors find that super-rich couples were more likely to engage in traditional divisions of labor, in which female partners oversee the home and domestic duties while the male partner works. Examining net worth, measured as all assets minus debts, revealed a larger gap between super-rich (53%) and rich couples’ (27%) traditional household arrangements. Looking at both wealth and income is critical to understanding the intergenerational transmission of status hierarchies. 

IDespite women’s increased workforce participation and the rise of dual-earner households across the bottom 99% over the last three decades, the prevalence of traditional labor arrangements among the top 1% remains unchanged. Understanding why these arrangements remain so common among the super-rich could provide a clearer picture of the cultural dimensions of wealth inequality. Moreover, trends in elite family formation, including the growth in family size and the moral prestige of being a “good parent,” may make traditional labor arrangements the logical choice for families in the top 1%.[the growth in family size and the moral prestige of being a “good parent,” may make traditional labor arrangements the logical choice for families in the top 1%. In contrast, pressures to maintain status may lead both partners in rich or upper-middle-class couples into full-time employment. 

By tracing the gender dynamics at the top, this research helps us make sense of the recent developments in gender norms, including the “tradwife” movement. Considered against the backdrop of widening socioeconomic inequality and reversals in reproductive rights, these findings show the enduring cultural influence of the super-rich.

A woman holding a white box saying “Donate” on it, by Liza Summer is licensed under Pexels License.

Gun violence remains a critical public health crisis, causing measurable and immeasurable loss to families and communities across the United States. The economic toll of this violence on families is also staggering, with an estimated $557 billion spent annually on everything from funeral and medical costs to criminal justice processes and psychological support. 

When support from employers, insurance companies, and victim compensation programs falls short, many families turn to crowdfunding to help cope with their losses. But what shapes the financial requests families make—and the support they receive—after gun violence?

A recent study by Catherine Burgess and Jennifer Carlson examined this question by analyzing 535 GoFundMe campaigns created for women and girls killed by gun violence in California and Florida between 2016 and 2018. Their findings reveal how race and gender play key roles in how victims are portrayed in fundraising campaigns and the financial support their loved ones receive.

Their research shows that crowdfunding pages for white women and girls often portrayed them as innocent victims deserving of public sympathy and financial support. These campaigns emphasized their moral character—such as being a good mother or loving daughter—and often highlighted gun violence as their cause of death. For white victims who were mothers, their GoFundMe pages asserted their moral worth as protective and selfless, intensifying the tragedy of their loss. One page read, “[Her children] are her whole wide world, & she was also their world.”

In contrast, crowdfunding pages for Black and Latinx women and girls often focused on the immediate needs of their families, such as funeral expenses, rather than portraying them as victims deserving of public grief. Campaigns for women of color rarely mentioned gun violence and instead framed their deaths as private tragedies: “We are asking family and friends to support us in this hard time because her family doesn’t have the funds to provide her a proper farewell.” Caregiving roles were also central to the narratives of women of color. However, rather than evoking public grief, they underscored the personal hardships their families faced. GoFundMe pages for women of color were also more likely to highlight the victim’s resiliency, recognizing their strength in overcoming adversity.

In addition to the differences in framing, there were also disparities in fundraising success. On average, campaigns for white women and girls in the sample raised six times more money than those for Black women and girls and three times more than those for Latinx women and girls.white women and girls in the sample raised six times more money than those for Black women and girls and three times more than those for Latinx women and girls. White victims were also more likely to have campaigns that supported charitable memorial funds or gun violence prevention efforts. 

It is sobering that over 535 women and girls were killed by gun violence in just two states over two years, highlighting its devastating toll on U.S. women and girls. In the midst of this violence, Burgess and Carlson’s research reveals that inequality persists even in moments of charity. The same biases found in traditional support systems also exist in crowdfunding appeals, highlighting the racial and gender disparities in society.

Speech is not just about what we hear. Listeners make judgments about how they think people will talk using visual cues to make assumptions about a person’s age, gender identity, socioeconomic status, etc., However, it’s not yet clear in what ways this affects how listeners hear.

Ethan Kutlu created an experiment to examine how people’s implicit racial and linguistic biases impact their perception of accentedness, or how accented people believe a speaker is. First, participants were shown a picture of either a white woman or a South Asian woman. Then, audio of a sentence read by either an Indian English or American English speaker was played. Sentences from the same lists were read by both speakers. Importantly, this experiment was conducted in a racial-match and mismatch fashion. Thus, at some points, participants would see a South Asian woman and hear an Indian American accent (e.g. racial match) but at other points, they would see a white woman and hear an Indian American accent (racial mismatch). This way, the researchers were able to isolate the effect of race perceived through sight and race perceived through sound (seeing race vs. hearing race). Finally, participants were asked to judge whether the speaker had an accent. (All participants identified as native speakers of American English.)

This experiment determined that the images that were shown did, in fact, affect judgments of the level of accentedness. When listeners were shown a South Asian image before hearing the audio, they were more likely to rate the speaker as “accented.” This occurred when speakers heard either Indian English or American English. Participants were also significantly faster at rating speech accentedness when shown a South Asian image regardless of the audio played.

Overall, this research suggests that race impacts not just how we see and judge individuals but even how we hear them. Such a finding adds yet another twist to our understanding of the mechanisms by which discrimination impacts education, housing, finances, and more in contemporary American society.

Someone having their finger printed, being pressed down by another hand. Image by cottonbro studio under Pexels license.

A background check can make or break someone’s future. Every day, people are denied jobs, housing, and educational opportunities because of “failing a background check.”  These checks are often completed by for-profit private companies, are under- or unregulated, and have a reputation for being inaccurate – but how inaccurate are they?

Researchers Sarah Lageson and Robert Stewart conducted background checks on 101 individuals with criminal records in New Jersey, comparing official state records with a private company’s background check. They then verified the accuracy of the results with the individuals themselves. Of their sample for these background checks, they found that 92% had a “false-negative” error92% had a “false-negative” error (meaning the person was not flagged as having a criminal conviction, when they in-fact did) and 50% had a “false-positive” error (meaning the person was incorrectly flagged as having a criminal conviction, when but they actually did not). 

Long story short, errors in background checks subject people and their families to undue financial, social, and emotional harm – all due to a private company’s poor algorithm and negligence. However, with greater privacy protection and regulation of criminal history information in the public sector, the authors argue that reliance on inaccurate private sector background checks may begin to shift.