The Class Ceiling in the United States: Class-Origin Pay Penalties in Higher Professional and Managerial Occupations

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Forces Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1093/sf/soae025
Daniel Laurison, Sam Friedman
{"title":"The Class Ceiling in the United States: Class-Origin Pay Penalties in Higher Professional and Managerial Occupations","authors":"Daniel Laurison, Sam Friedman","doi":"10.1093/sf/soae025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gender and racial pay penalties are well-known: women (of all races) and people of color (of all genders) earn less, on average, even when they gain access to occupations historically reserved for White men. Studies of social mobility show that people from working-class backgrounds in the US have also been excluded from top professional and managerial occupations. But do working-class-origin people who attain top US jobs face a class-origin pay penalty? Despite evidence of class-origin pay gaps in higher professional and managerial occupations elsewhere, we might expect that the central role of race and racism in US stratification processes, along with the relatively low salience of class identities, would render class origins irrelevant to earnings in exclusive occupations, at least within racial groups. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to link childhood class position to adult occupation and earnings, we describe the racial and class-origin composition of different high-status occupations and the earnings of people within them. We show that when people who are from working-class backgrounds are upwardly mobile into high-status occupations, they earn almost $20,000 per year less, on average, than individuals who are themselves from privileged backgrounds. The difference is partly explained by the upwardly mobile being less likely to have college degrees, but it remains substantial (around $11,700) even after accounting for education, race and other important predictors of earnings. The gap is largest among White people; there is a class-origin penalty in top US occupations that is distinct from the racial pay gap.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soae025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gender and racial pay penalties are well-known: women (of all races) and people of color (of all genders) earn less, on average, even when they gain access to occupations historically reserved for White men. Studies of social mobility show that people from working-class backgrounds in the US have also been excluded from top professional and managerial occupations. But do working-class-origin people who attain top US jobs face a class-origin pay penalty? Despite evidence of class-origin pay gaps in higher professional and managerial occupations elsewhere, we might expect that the central role of race and racism in US stratification processes, along with the relatively low salience of class identities, would render class origins irrelevant to earnings in exclusive occupations, at least within racial groups. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to link childhood class position to adult occupation and earnings, we describe the racial and class-origin composition of different high-status occupations and the earnings of people within them. We show that when people who are from working-class backgrounds are upwardly mobile into high-status occupations, they earn almost $20,000 per year less, on average, than individuals who are themselves from privileged backgrounds. The difference is partly explained by the upwardly mobile being less likely to have college degrees, but it remains substantial (around $11,700) even after accounting for education, race and other important predictors of earnings. The gap is largest among White people; there is a class-origin penalty in top US occupations that is distinct from the racial pay gap.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国的阶级天花板:高级专业和管理职业的阶级薪酬惩罚
性别和种族薪酬惩罚是众所周知的:女性(所有种族)和有色人种(所有性别)的平均收入较低,即使她们获得了历史上专属于白人男性的职业。对社会流动性的研究表明,美国工人阶级出身的人也被排除在顶级专业和管理职业之外。但是,获得美国顶尖工作的工人阶级出身的人是否会面临阶级出身的薪酬惩罚呢?尽管有证据表明,在其他地方的高级专业和管理职业中存在阶级出身的薪酬差距,但我们可能会认为,种族和种族主义在美国分层过程中的核心作用,以及相对较低的阶级身份显著性,会使阶级出身与专属职业的收入无关,至少在种族群体内部是如此。我们利用《收入动态面板研究》(Panel Study of Income Dynamics)将童年时期的阶级地位与成年后的职业和收入联系起来,描述了不同高地位职业的种族和阶级出身构成以及这些职业中人们的收入情况。我们的研究表明,当工人阶级出身的人向上流动进入高地位职业时,他们的年收入平均比出身优越的人少将近 2 万美元。造成这种差距的部分原因是上进阶层拥有大学学位的可能性较低,但即使考虑到教育、种族和其他重要的收入预测因素,这种差距仍然很大(约 11,700 美元)。这种差距在白人中最大;在美国的顶级职业中,存在着不同于种族薪酬差距的阶级出身惩罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Forces
Social Forces SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
期刊最新文献
Intergenerational family life courses and wealth accumulation in Norway Why do partners often prefer the same political parties? Evidence from couples in Germany Pay talk in contemporary workplaces Families of austerity: benefit cutbacks and family stress in the UK The promise and limits of inclusive public policy: federal safety net clinics and immigrant access to health care in the U.S.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1