Trouble paying the Mistress?

Having trouble paying your mistress? Well, apparently you are not alone. Interesting post in the Wall Street Journal detailing a new survey showing that 80 percent of multimillionaires with mistresses plan on cutting back on gifts and allowances. Who knew there was such a survey! I would love to see exact wording of the "mistress question". Follow link below for full post.

Rich Cut Back on Payments to Mistresses

How is Race defined? Why does it Matter?

Listen to this great piece from Radiolab about the various ways that Race is defined and what it means.

Find the show here: Race

Excerpt from the show:

The U.S. Census defines five races, and an "other" category. When the human genome was first fully mapped in 2000, Bill Clinton, Craig Venter, and Francis Collins took the stage and pronounced that "The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis."

Great words spoken with great intentions. But what does that mean and where does it leave us? It doesn't seem to have wiped out our evolving conversation about race.

Child Care Constraints Among America's Families

 A paper I presented at the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting is now posted on the web. 

In general, I found that mothers who used nonrelative child care were more likely to experience child care problems that interfered with work. Whereas mothers who used organized child were less likely to report child care problems. 

You can access the paper here:

Child Care Constraints Among America's Families

Detailed tables here

What's in a name?

I often read the New York Times weddings and celebration section. One thing that I like to look for is how many new brides decide to keep their maiden names. It's usually about half and most mention that the bride is keeping her name for professional reasons.

A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal questions what it means for women to change their names. The author, Joann Lublin talks about her decision not to change her name when she got married 30 years ago when it was seen as radical not to change one's name. Ms. Lublin explains that while happy with her decision she never imagined the difficulty and confusion it would cause in business and social situations.

While we as a society may be more tolerate and supportive of the decisions brides make regarding their names, it is much more common for women to take on their husband's names. Using the 2004 American Community Survey, Gooding and Kreider show that only 6 percent of native women had "non-conventional" surnames (hyphenated, two surnames, kept surname after marriage). Not surprisingly, women with higher education were more likely to have non-conventional surnames. Women with doctorates were about 10 times more likely to have non-conventional surnames.

However, even if a woman keeps her maiden name, that name most likely belonged to her father. I guess the only solution for brides who truly want to break with the male surname norm is to create an entirely new name. Something to think about!

International Data Base

The International Data Base (Census Bureau) is a wonderful interactive tool to get basic demographic data on countries and areas of the world with a population of 5,000 or more. I've used this tool to teach students about world population trends. The database also provides population pyramids, which are great way to illustrate fertility trends.

The Census recently updated the IDB. Press release below.

*********************************************************************************
Global Births Increasing Even as Fertility Rates Decline

Although fertility rates continue to fall worldwide, the annual number of births is still rising and projected to peak at 137 million in 2013. World population as of July 1, 2008, was estimated to be 6.7 billion.

These and other demographic trends throughout the world are available from the Census Bureau’s online International Data Base.

The worldwide rise in births is related not just to fertility rates but also to the number of women in their peak childbearing ages (20-39). In developing countries, women on average currently have an estimated 2.8 births over their lifetimes <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html>. Although this fertility rate is below the 3.0 figure in 2001, the number of women at peak childbearing ages in developing countries has increased by more than 73 million over the last seven years as a result of higher fertility in the past. Worldwide, births have increased because this momentum is large enough in developing countries to offset the decline in fertility rates.

In contrast, women in more developed countries average 1.6 births each, well below the number required to replace these children’s parents. Birth numbers in the more developed world have been relatively constant in recent years because both fertility rates and the number of women at peak childbearing ages have remained fairly stable.

Currently, nearly half of the world’s countries or areas have fertility levels that are at or below replacement level. Most of these countries are in Europe but a number are located in Asia, including Singapore, Japan and South Korea. Thirty-two countries in the world — mostly in sub-Saharan Africa — have an estimated lifetime fertility of more than five children per woman.

These and other demographic dynamics can be explored through the Census Bureau’s International Data Base, which provides annual estimates of population, fertility, mortality, net migration and annual growth through 2050 in countries and regions of the world. The latest update of this database includes revisions of population estimates and projections for 29 countries and areas. The International Data Base and additional information can be found at <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/>. Tables showing world demographic trends are available at <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html>.

Action: Gender Equity and the Obama Stimulus Package

A few weeks ago there was an editorial written by Randy Albelda aboutthe lack of gender equity in the stimulus package as proposed by theObama administration - and the need to invest in the care sector/human infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure. A similar op-ed by Linda Hirschman recently appeared in the NYT

Below is a letter composed by a group of feminist historians urging Obama to consider gender equity in his construction of the stimulus package. They would like to gather signatures for the letter - please take a minute to read. To sign on, please send an email with your name and affiliation to Alice O'Connor: aoconnor@history.ucsb.edu Please respond NO LATER THAN 5pm (PST) Monday December 15. Please forward to others.

********************************************************************************

Dear President-elect Obama,

As students of American history, we are heartened by your commitment to a jobs stimulus program inspired by the New Deal and aimed at helping "Main Street." We firmly believe that such a strategy not only helps the greatest number in our communities but goes a long way toward correcting longstanding national problems.

For all our admiration of FDR's reform efforts, we must also point out that the New Deal's jobs initiative was overwhelmingly directed toward skilled male and mainly white workers. This was a mistake in the 1930s and it is a far greater mistake in the 21st century economy, when so
many families depend on women's wages and when our nation is even more racially diverse.

We all know that our country's infrastructure is literally rusting away. But our social infrastructure is equally important to a vibrant economy and livable society, and it too is crumbling. Investment in education and jobs in health and care work shores up our national welfare as well as our current and future productivity. Revitalizing the economy will require better and more widespread access to education to foster creative approaches and popular participation in responding to the many challenges we face.

As you wrestle with the country's desperate need for universal health insurance, we know you are aware that along with improved access we need to prioritize expenditure on preventive health. We could train a corps of health educators to work in schools and malls and medical offices. As people live longer, the inadequacy of our systems of care for the disabled and elderly becomes ever more apparent. While medical research works against illness and disability, there is equal need for people doing the less noticed work of supervision, rehabilitation and personal
care.

We are also concerned that if the stimulus package primarily emphasizes construction it is likely to reinforce existing gender inequities. Women today make up 46 percent of the labor force. Simple fairness requires creating that proportion of job opportunities for them. Some
of this can and should be accomplished through training programs and other measures to help women enter traditionally male-occupied jobs. But it can also be accomplished by creating much-needed jobs in the vital sectors where women are now concentrated. The most popular programs of the New Deal were its public jobs. They commanded respect in large part because the results were so visible: tens of thousands of new courthouses, firehouses, hospitals, and
schools; massive investment in road-building, reforestation, water and sewage treatment, and other aspects of the nation's physical plant--not to mention the monumental Golden Gate and Triborough Bridges, the Grand Coulee and Bonneville dams. But the construction emphasis discriminated against women. At best women were 18% of those hired and, like non-white men, got inferior jobs. While some of the well-educated obtained jobs through the small white-collar and renowned arts programs, the less well educated were put to work in sewing projects, often at busy work, and African American and Mexican American women were slotted into domestic service. This New Deal policy assumed that nearly all women had men to support them and underestimated the numbers of women who were supporting dependents.

Today most policy-makers recognize that the male-breadwinner-for-every-household assumption is outdated. Moreover, experts agree that, throughout the globe, making jobs and income available to women greatly improves family wellbeing. Most low-income women, like men, are eager to work, but the jobs available to them too often provide no sick leave, no health insurance, no pensions and, for mothers, pay less than the cost of child care. The part-time jobs that leave mothers adequate time to care for their children almost never provide these benefits.

Meanwhile the country needs a stronger social as well as physical infrastructure. Teachers, social workers, elder and child-care providers and attendants for disabled people are overwhelmed with the size of their classes and caseloads. We need more teachers and
teachers' aides, nurses and nurses' aides, case workers, playground attendants, day-care workers, home care workers; we need more senior centers, after-school programs, athletic leagues, music and art lessons. These are not luxuries, although locality after locality has had to cut them. They are the investments that can make the U.S. economically competitive as we confront an increasingly dynamic global economy. Like physical infrastructure projects, these jobs-rich investments are, literally, ready to go.

A jobs-centered stimulus package to revitalize and "green" the economy needs to make caring work as important as construction work. We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges, the social connections that create cohesive communities. We need a stimulus program that is maximally inclusive. History shows us that these concerns cannot be postponed until big business has returned to "normal." We look to the new administration not just for recovery but for a more humane direction-and in the awareness that what happens in
the first 100 days and in response to immediate need sets the framework for the longer haul of reform.

Child Child and Hard Economic Times

Facing economic uncertainty, families are cutting back on costs left and right. One expense that families are cutting back on is child care (see Wall Street Journal article below).

Research has shown that when there is an economic recession, fathers are more likely to provide child care (see Casper and O'Connell 1993). It will be interesting to see if the same trend occurs during the current recession. The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) collects child care data and the 2008 panel will be in the field later next year, so it might be possible to pick up on such a trend. Can't wait to get my hands on the data!


Families Cut Back on Day Care As Costs - and Worries - Rise

By SUE SHELLENBARGE

Behind the drumbeat of grim economic news, a lot of quiet shuffling is going on as parents pull small children out of paid child care.

Enrollment at some child-care centers is falling and nanny agencies are reporting mounting layoffs as families cut child-care costs -- which rival mortgage payments in many households. An October online survey by the women's Web site BettyConfidential.com found that 12% of 100-plus parents who responded are cutting child care.

Some parents are tapping grandparents or even great-grandparents for help. Others are switching to back-to-back shifts to trade off child-care duties. Still others try to work at home with their children present, or even take them to the office. And many wonder just how deeply they can cut child-care costs without hurting the kids.

Caroline Fafara's 3-year-old son and infant twins used to be in a child-care center full-time. But now, facing soaring food and health-insurance costs and pay cuts on her husband's city job, Ms. Fafara has withdrawn the twins and cut her son's preschool hours to part-time. Filling the gap: an elaborate three-generation scaffolding of relatives.

Ms. Fafara, an inventory manager in Philadelphia, drops off her son at preschool each day and her husband takes the twins to his grandparents' house, where his cousin helps care for them. After preschool, Ms. Fafara's parents bring her son to their house. Then, the couple picks everyone up at day's end. While she's immensely grateful for the help, says Ms. Fafara, all the shuttling around can be hard.

Some 40% of grandparents who live near young grandchildren are regularly providing child care, according to an August survey of 500 grandparents by the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies. While research shows leaving a baby or toddler with grandparents can be good for them, the trend isn't without its costs. Although Mayra Montano, of Los Angeles, is happy to care for her daughter's three children, her husband was recently laid off and she needs to look for a job herself now. "I'm getting sick from all the stress," she says.

Job hunting without child care can be tough. After losing his job in an aluminum plant last week, Kevin Eaton of Morehouse, Mo., withdrew his 4-year-old daughter from preschool and is doing his best to care for her, preparing meals and keeping her at home during a cold snap. But he already missed out on one job opening after other applicants showed up at the plant to apply in person, he says. Juggling bills, child care and a job hunt, Mr. Eaton -- whose wife works full-time -- describes his state of mind as "confusion."

Other parents are giving up family time. Devorah Hicks, a Hatboro, Pa., teacher, says her husband, a supervisor for an airline, chose to work 10-hour shifts through the weekend so they could cut their toddler's child-care time to two days a week from three. While this is helping save money in case of a layoff, "it's hard not having a full day" together, she says.

All this tends to be hardest on the parents. There's little evidence that changing child care, in and of itself, hurts children, says James Griffin, a deputy chief at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. An institute study of 1,100 children found stability of child care had little predictive impact on development.

Experts cite just three "don'ts." First, try to avoid taking preschoolers out of group care entirely, says Deborah Lowe Vandell, chairwoman of the education department at the University of California, Irvine. Some preschool experience aids development starting around age 2½.

Second, avoid placing a child with someone who isn't warm, caring or responsive, says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute; that bond with the caregiver matters most.

Finally, parents should guard against their stress spilling over onto children. "Think of them as listening and reading, if not your words, then your feelings," Ms. Galinsky says. Transitions can be positive, if you think of them "as teaching your children to venture out" and learn new skills.

Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com

New Census Data for Midsize Areas

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a project of the U.S. Census Bureau that replaces the long form in the decennial census. It is an ongoing statistical survey, and thus more current than information obtained by decennial census.

Beginning with the next census in 2010, all households will only receive only the short form. Unlike the decennial census (which is a 100 percent count), the ACS is based on a sample of the population. Therefore, one would be unable to make estimates for small geographic areas with 1-year data because the sample would be too small. However, as the ACS continues to be collected one can "pool" together data years to produce estimates for smaller geographic areas. Such data is now available and the Census recently released the 2005-2007 ACS 3-year data. Five-year estimates will be available in 2010.

From ACS page:

The 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year data release provides data products for a set of geographic areas with a population of 65,000 or more. The ACS combines samples across multiple years to produce and publish multiyear estimates for smaller geographic areas.. The 2005 - 2007 ACS 3-year data release provides data products for geographic areas with populations of 20,000 or more. The population sizes for both these 1-year and 3-year data products are based on the July 1, 2007 population estimates from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program. In the future, areas with population of less than 20,000 will have access to ACS data from 5-year estimates.

Recent Press Release:
*************************************************************************************

American Community Survey Gives Midsized Areas Their First Detailed Update Since 2000

New data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau give more than 2,500 midsized counties, cities and towns [Excel] nationwide (those with populations between 20,000 and 64,999) their first statistical “portrait” since the 2000 Census on a wide range of key socioeconomic and housing topics.

These are the first American Community Survey (ACS) estimates that combine three years of survey responses (2005-2007) to produce data. The technique makes it possible to release a new set of multiyear estimates annually for smaller geographic areas. The three-year data can produce estimates for areas with populations as small as 20,000.

“Today’s release represents an important milestone for data users everywhere,” said Census Bureau Director Steve H. Murdock. “Communities are no longer limited to a once-a-decade look at their population’s characteristics. The ACS’s multiyear data will allow small towns and communities to track how they are changing on an ongoing basis.”

Also released today are three-year estimates for areas with populations of 65,000 or more. The Census Bureau released single-year data for these larger areas in September.

**********************************************************************************

You can download data and make tables on live via American Fact Finder. I highly recommend reading many of the methodology papers on the ACS webpage about how to correctly use multiyear data.

Sociologists and the economy

The economy is collapsing, but we have heard little from sociologists about what the current financial crisis will mean for millions of Americans. While economists tend to be somewhat narrow in their evaluation of the economy and consequences, sociologists could offer a discussion that is more meaningful to the general public by discussing issues such as race, class, education, and gender outcomes and the future of the American middle class. See the excellent post below from Ron Anderson at the Contexts Blog.


From the Contexts Blog:

Where are the sociologists in a time of financial crisis?

by Ron Anderson on Dec 07, 2008 at 6:56 pm

During the past year 1.9 million Americans lost their jobs, with almost a third of those losing them last month. When the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released these numbers this week, one of the Bureau’s commissioners said the report was probably the most negative report in BLS’s 124 year history.

Meanwhile this year over 2 million houses went into foreclosure. Many of those losing their homes did not lose their jobs; they were at least somewhat fortunate. But the firings and foreclosure together affected over 3 million workers.

In the past year while the stock markets fell by nearly 50%, my retirement savings dropped 25%. I would imagine that most sociologists felt equivalent personal financial losses this year. Even those putting their savings in “fixed income” retirement funds have lost money because of the collapse of the bond markets.

Despite the huge magnitude of this economic trauma, sociologists appear to be silent about the financial crisis. The American Sociological Association’s newsletter, Footnotes, has not mentioned the crisis nor is it a special topic of the forthcoming annual convention. It is even scarcely mentioned in Contexts magazine’s blogs. Isn’t there a big enough hurt yet to talk about?

This month, after economists have begun comparing our current financial crisis to the great depression, the government finally admitted that the United States economy was in a recession. Ironically, they also added that we had been in a state of economic recession for 12 months.

Sociologists, like the American government, have not told the public anything about the financial crisis. Wait, isn’t that criticism a bit unfair? After all, it takes at least a year or two, if not three, to conduct a thorough study. But have we not learned what social effects resulted from previous economic recessions and depressions? Maybe. It is difficult to find discussions in the sociological literature on this topic.

About the only one discussing the sociological effects of the current recession is David Brooks, a journalist who writes Op-Ed Columns for the New York Times. Last month in “The Formerly Middle Class”, he wrote that those on the low rungs of the middle class are those for whom the recession is the most catastrophic. “Recessions breed pessimism,” he wrote, and he claimed that millions of Americans, to say nothing of the billions in the developing world, are “facing the psychological and social pressures of downward mobility.”

Career reversals and job loss yields serious self-doubt, he argued. For the formerly middle-class, housing reversals mean returning from suburban dream homes to run-down apartments, to paraphrase David Brooks’ message.

Brooks’ most interesting theories have to do with social capital and social identity. Quoting Robert Putnam, he argues that economic depression yields social isolation because people have to stay home more and their community bonds break up. In fact, the history of our great depression shows that suicide rates and divorce rates went up while birth rates went down.

These predictable trends yield alienation and social protest, and therefore Brooks predicts that the next big social movements will start from the formerly middle class.

Much of this analysis is conjecture, but isn’t it more relevant than any other sociological topic these days? Economic forecasters share the hunch that the economy will continue to worsen for at least a year. It is very likely that most of us in the middle class will have lost half of the value of our assets before the recession is over. Few will not face sacrifices, struggles and maybe even suffering during the years ahead. What can sociology say now, not next year, to help us understand better what is happening so that we can get through this with greater understanding, and compassion for ourselves as well as for others?

Required reading for the auto industry

For anyone who wants to understand why the American car industry has been a failure for so long, I highly recommend The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production.

This book has forever shaped how I view the car industry and manufacturing. The main lesson that I learned was that American companies are slow to implement change and fail to plan ahead.

Description from Amazon.com:

Based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's five-million-dollar, five-year study on the future of the automobile, a groundbreaking analysis of the worldwide move from mass production to lean production.

Japanese companies are sweeping the world, and the Japanese auto industry soars above the competition. Drawing on their in-depth study of the practices of ninety auto assembly plants in seventeen countries and their interviews with individual employees, scholars, and union and government officials, the authors of this compelling study uncover the specific manufacturing techniques behind Japan's success and show how Western industry can implement these innovative methods. The Machine That Changed the World tells the fascinating story of "lean production," a manufacturing system that results in a better, more cost-efficient product, higher productivity, and greater customer loyalty. The hallmarks of lean production are teamwork, communication, and efficient use of resources. And the results are remarkable: cars with one-third the defects, built in half the factory space, using half the man-hours. The Machine That Changed the World explains in concrete terms what lean production is, how it really works, and--as it inevitably spreads beyond the auto industry--its significant global impact.

The Politics of Food

Check out this fascinating class about the Global Politics of Food offered at St. Cloud State. As part of the class, students created facts sheets about the production and consumption of variety of ordinary items and the actions that can be taken to improve the quality of our food and its impact on our communities.

The Course web site:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/FoodPolitics.htm

2008 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts4/index.html

2007 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts3/index.html

2006 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts2/index.html

2005 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts/index.html

The Dumbest Generation?

An interesting piece from The Washington Post about how the dumbest generation is not current generation of high school kids, but most likely their parents (those born between the late 1950s to the mid 1960s). This generation scored lower on standardized tests, had lower high school graduation rates, and lacked career ambitions. While the author provides some explanations for this trend, I think he glosses over how the sheer size of this cohort put a tremendous strain on the educational infrastructure and was one of the largest generations to entry the workforce. (Thanks Nathaniel!)

The Kids Are Alright. But Their Parents ...

By Neil Howe
Sunday, December 7, 2008; B01

It is the prerogative of every generation of graybeards to look down the age ladder and accuse today's young of sloth, greed, selfishness -- and stupidity. We hear daily jeremiads from baby boomers who wonder how kids who'd rather listen to Linkin Park and play "Grand Theft Auto III" than solve equations or read books can possibly grow up to become leaders of the world's superpower. The recent publication of "The Dumbest Generation" by Mark Bauerlein of Emory University epitomizes the genre. His subtitle -- "How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future" -- says it all.

Generational putdowns, Bauerlein's included, are typically long on attitude and short on facts. But the underlying question is worth pursuing: If the data are objectively assessed, which age-slice of today's working-age adults really does deserve to be called the dumbest generation?

The answer may surprise you. No, it's not today's college-age kids, nor even today's family-starting 30-somethings. And no, it's not the 60-year-olds who once grooved at Woodstock. Instead, it's Americans in their 40s, especially their late 40s -- those born from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. They straddle the boundary line between last-wave boomers and first-wave Generation Xers. The political consultant Jonathan Pontell labels them "Generation Jones."

Whatever you call them (I'll just call them early Xers), the numbers are clear: Compared with every other birth cohort, they have performed the worst on standardized exams, acquired the fewest educational degrees and been the least attracted to professional careers. In a word, they're the dumbest.

Obviously, we're talking averages. No one would apply the word "dumb" to Barack Obama (born in 1961) or Timothy F. Geithner, his nominee for secretary of the Treasury (born in the same month). Yet the president-elect himself has written eloquently about how hard it was for him and his peers to obtain a serious education during their dazed-and-confused teen years. Like it or not, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (born in 1964), who stumbled over basic civics facts during her vice presidential run, is more representative of this group. Early Xers are the least bookish CEOs and legislators the United States has seen in a long while. They prefer sound bites over seminars, video clips over articles, street smarts over lofty diplomas. They are impatient with syntax and punctuation and citations -- and all the other brainy stuff they were never taught.

Want proof? Let's start with the long-term results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is housed within the U.S. Department of Education. Considered the gold standard in assessing K-12 students, the NAEP has been in continuous operation for decades. Here's the bottom line: On both the reading and the math tests, and at all three tested ages (9, 13 and 17), the lowest-ever scores in the history of the NAEP were recorded by children born between 1961 and 1965.

The same pattern shows up in SAT scores. The SAT reached its all-time high in 1963, when it tested the 1946 birth cohort (including such notables as Gilda Radner and Oliver Stone). Then it fell steeply for 17 straight years, hitting its all-time low in 1980, when it tested the 1963 cohort (Mike Myers, Quentin Tarantino). Ever since, the SAT has been gradually if haltingly on the rise, paralleling improvements in the NAEP. In 2005, teens born in 1988 scored better on the combined SAT than any teens born since 1956 -- and better on the math SAT than any teens born since 1951.

Some critics say that the average SAT score should be adjusted for the share of all teens taking the test, since a larger share "dilutes" the average with lower-aptitude kids. Good point, but it only deepens the mystery. Early Xers have both the lowest average score and the lowest share of test-takers. The share taking the SAT peaked at about 40 percent in the mid-1960s, fell to a low of only 30 percent around 1980 and has since been rising again -- to a record high of more than 45 percent during the last few years.

These numbers make the recent rise in SAT scores by the new Millennial generation seem even more impressive -- and the early Xer low even more disappointing. With a lot more kids getting higher scores, the average SAT scores of Ivy League undergrads have jumped since the late 1970s -- from 1230 to 1425 at the University of Pennsylvania, for example. Average scores for nearly all graduate exams have also been rising since the early 1990s, including the GRE, the LSAT, the GMAT and the MCAT.

Now let's turn to education and career outcomes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Americans born from 1958 to 1962 have the highest share that has never completed high school among all age brackets between 25 and 60. They also have the lowest share with a four-year college degree among all age brackets between 30 and 60, and they're tied for lowest in graduate degrees. Pushed by their passion for enlightenment (and by their fear of being drafted for Vietnam), first-wave baby boomers became obsessive degree achievers. That drive dropped off sharply during the next 10 or 15 years. Less-degreed than their elders, early Xers represent an anomalous back-step in educational progress.

Once early Xers entered the labor force in the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics noticed something else: For the first time in decades, the share of young adults entering professions such as law, medicine and accounting began to drop. Around the same time, economists began to worry about the stagnation of median income and the decline of household assets among Americans in their 20s. Today, they're worrying about the economic stagnation of Americans in their 40s.

So what explains the smartness deficit (and the related income gap) that has tracked these early Xers throughout their lives? Some say it's demographic pressure. Early Xers were born into large families at the tail end of the baby boom, with a relatively large share of higher-order siblings (just as first-wave boomers have a relatively large share of first-borns). As they grew up, they got crowded out in the competition for parental attention, good teachers and good colleges. Later on, by the 1980s, they arrived too late to enter the most lucrative professions and the cushiest corporations, by now glutted with boomer yuppies. Their only alternative was to pioneer the pragmatic, free-agent, low-credential lifestyle for which Generation X has since become famous.

Yet sheer numbers aren't the whole story. The early Xers' location in history also plays a large role. Quite simply, they were children at a uniquely unfavorable moment -- a time when the divorce rate accelerated, when the media image of children turned demonic and when the "latch-key" lesson for kids stressed self-reliance rather than trust in others. By the time they entered middle and high school, classrooms were opened, standards were lowered, and supervision had disappeared. Compared with earlier- or later-born students at the same age, these kids were assigned less homework, watched more TV and took more drugs.

Most early Xers know the score. Graduating (or not) from school in the early 1980s, they saw themselves billboarded as a bad example by blue-ribbon commissions eager to reform the system for the next generation, the Millennials. Angling for promotions in the early 1990s, they got busy with self-help guides (yes, those "For Dummies" books) to learn all the subjects they were never taught the first time around. And today, as midlife parents, they have become ultra-protective of their own teenage kids and ultra-demanding of their kids' schools, as if to make double-certain it won't happen again.

Does America need to worry that this group is taking over as our national leaders? Probably not. Early Xers have certain strengths that many more learned people lack: They're practical and resilient, they handle risk well, and they know how to improvise when even the experts don't know the answer. As the global economy craters, they won't keep leafing through a textbook. They may be a little rough around the edges, but their style usually gets the job done.

Just don't tell the early Xers that today's youth are the dumbest generation. Not only is that jibe factually untrue, it also calls into question all the family sacrifices the early Xers are now making on behalf of these youth. Let Generation Jones keep the "dumbest" label. They know it fits, and they're tough enough to take it.

Neil Howe is the co-author of "Millennials Rising" and other books on generational issues.

Child Care Research - More complicated than you think

Anybody who has ever done research on how working mothers find and select child care will undoubtedly tell you that it’s complicated. Each mother brings a unique child, a particular set of individual and family circumstances, employment constraints, and assumptions about what child care means. Furthermore, mothers’ decisions regarding child care often takes place within a mixed market of formal and informal providers, including licensed child care centers and family day care homes as well as individual care givers.

At the Census, I analyze and conduct research related to child care issues using the Survey of Income and Program Participation. The data I work with daily has been discussed most recently in The New Times and Time and further highlights the complexity of child care.

In my own work, I examine the relationship between child care decisions and mothers’ work through the use of “spatial stories”. I borrow the term “spatial stories” from scholars in geography (see Hanson and Pratt 1995) as a way to illustrate the importance of physical and social space in mothers’ ability to manage complex time and space problems in their daily routines when linking together the geographies of home, child care, and work. I will post some of this research soon.

In the meantime, check out these recent reports and data releases:

Taking pressure off families: Child-care subsidies lessen mothers' work-hour problems

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/29child.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/08/19/midwestern_moms_most_likely_to/

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/childcare.html

LOL Cats and the Economy

New blog via Slate featuring the LOL cats and commentary about the slumping economy. Brilliant. Apparently the author of the blog is accepting photos. Anyone that can make a reference to the economy using Adam Smith and cats is just hot in my book! (Thanks Bri!)

Adam Smith Appears The Big Money

Posted using ShareThis

Cougars and Cougletts

Sugar mommas. Cougars. Mature women. All of these expressions have been used to describe older women who date younger men. The media is particularly fond of the term "cougar" to describe this group of women. While I find the term somewhat offensive because it suggests that older women are on the prowl and treat younger men as their prey....I can't help using the term myself.

I would general classify single women 40 and older as cougars and single women 30 to 39 as cougars in training...or cougletts if you want to be cute about it. I also wouldn't consider an age difference of 3-4 years cougar like action. I would consider cougars women who are 40 or older dating men in their 20s (think Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher).

Regardless of how much media attention cougars have received, what are the real numbers behind this fade? A 2003 survey conducted by AARP found that 34 percent of women over 40 are dating younger men. Unfortunately, the survey doesn't specify the actual age difference.

Dating a younger man is one thing, but how serious do these relationships become? Does dating a mature women lead to cohabitation and/or marriage?

Data from the Current Population Survey (March supplement 1998) shows that among couples, women who are 2 or more years older than the man are more likely to cohabit with their partners (24 percent) than to marry (12 percent).

I pulled this table from the Census to illustrate current trends in marriage and age and we see in 2007, 13 percent of women 2 or more years older are married compared to 54 percent of men 2 or more years older then their spouse. However, these "older" married women are really not that much older than their husbands. Of that 13 percent I mentioned above, 7 percent are 2-3 years older than their husband. Whereas about 25 percent of married men are 4 to 9 years older than their spouses. So I guess you could say cougletts are more likely to get married while those red, hot cougars are enjoying their single life. Grrr...!

As perceptions about age change and women continue to gain in eduction and the workplace, might we see an increase in marriage between older women and younger men?

Married Couple Family Groups, by Presence of Own Children Under 18, and Age, Earnings, Education, and Race and Hispanic Origin of Both Spouses: 2007
Current Population Survey 2007
(Numbers in thousands.)
All Married Couples	All Married Couples		Without Own Children		With Own Children
			Under 18		Under 18
	N	%	N	%	N	%
ALL MARRIED COUPLES	60,676	100.0	33,874	100.0	26,802	100.0
.AGE DIFFERENCE
Husband 20+ years older than wife	484	0.8	278	0.8	206	0.8
Husband 15-19 years older than wife	940	1.5	549	1.6	391	1.5
Husband 10-14 years older than wife	3,144	5.2	1,788	5.3	1,357	5.1
Husband 6-9 years older than wife	7,464	12.3	4,194	12.4	3,270	12.2
Husband 4-5 years older than wife	8,101	13.4	4,667	13.8	3,434	12.8
Husband 2-3 years older than wife	12,371	20.4	6,742	19.9	5,629	21.0
Husband and wife within 1 year	19,467	32.1	10,516	31.0	8,950	33.4
Wife 2-3 years older than husband	4,266	7.0	2,429	7.2	1,837	6.9
Wife 4-5 years older than husband	2,054	3.4	1,194	3.5	860	3.2
Wife 6-9 years older than husband	1,555	2.6	935	2.8	620	2.3
Wife 10-14 years older than husband	534	0.9	341	1.0	193	0.7
Wife 15-19 years older than husband	158	0.3	121	0.4	37	0.1
Wife 20+ years older than husband	137	0.2	119	0.4	18	0.1

What makes a man want to marry an older women? Better in bed, more money, more confident? There are probably reasons that I will leave to you to speculate about.

This funny clip from the Today Show discusses a recent British documentary called Sugar Mummies. Put that one in the netflix! (Thanks to Gretchen for the clip)

Because a good Census matters!

Op-Ed piece from the New York Times:

December 4, 2008

Editorial

Rescue the Census

Congressional investigators recently outlined 13 issues for President-elect Barack Obama to focus on without delay. Most are obvious, such as military readiness, homeland security, financial regulation and Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The 2010 census also made it onto the urgent 13. It deserves to be there.

As with any huge undertaking, the census requires years of planning, but preparations have been systematically sidetracked during the Bush years. The most plausible explanation, beyond incompetence, is that the administration aimed to make it even more difficult than usual to count hard-to-count groups, like minorities, immigrants and the poor, who tilt Democratic. Their numbers, if accurately gauged, could reshape electoral maps.

The White House, with the early support of a Republican-led Congress, shortchanged and delayed financing for the Census Bureau. The administration left top bureau positions unfilled for long stretches and allowed political judgment to dominate bureau management, which damaged morale and impaired performance.

The Census Bureau is currently on its third director in eight years, its third deputy director and its third decennial director, the point person for the 2010 census. None of those senior managers have ever led a nationwide census, and two of them — the deputy and the decennial director — assumed their posts last October. The lack of experience is especially disturbing given that test runs and other preparatory steps for the upcoming census have been scaled back or canceled in the past year.

To put the nation on track for an accurate census, President-elect Obama should nominate a new census director as soon as possible, and the incoming Senate should fast track the nominee’s confirmation hearing.

The new director should be a social scientist with proven leadership ability on large projects executed under pressure. That’s a short list. Kenneth Prewitt, who directed the 2000 census and earned acclaim for its innovation and accuracy, is the obvious choice. Mr. Obama and the American people would be well-served if Mr. Prewitt were offered, and accepted, the position.

The importance of the census cannot be overstated. Among other uses, it determines the number of congressional representatives from each state, the boundaries of congressional districts and the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in annual federal aid to states and localities. The census also tells us who we are as a nation and how we’ve changed — information we need to build a strong society and a strong democracy.

Feed the Squirrels!

It's no secret, I love squirrels! I love them in the city and I love them in the woods. They have so much energy and jump about with such grace. Oh the squirrel! So, this recent story in The Washington Post has got me a little concerned for my favorite creature and is good reminder that animal population changes can tell us a lot about the environment around us. So if you have any extra peanuts around the house, please put them out for the squirrels!

Acorn Watchers Wonder What Happened to Crop
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page A01
The idea seemed too crazy to Rod Simmons, a measured, careful field botanist. Naturalists in Arlington County couldn't find any acorns. None. No hickory nuts, either. Then he went out to look for himself. He came up with nothing. Nothing crunched underfoot. Nothing hit him on the head.

Then calls started coming in about crazy squirrels. Starving, skinny squirrels eating garbage, inhaling bird feed, greedily demolishing pumpkins. Squirrels boldly scampering into the road. And a lot more calls about squirrel roadkill.

Click on link above for full story.

Reverse in Migration - Is China its own Mexico?

I find the population dynamics of China extremely fascinating. The population of China makes up about a quarter of the world's population. Unlike other developing countries, China made several advances in industrial development and technology, thus providing jobs to a growing population. The growth in jobs has led to a large migration from rural areas to urban areas. A trend not uncommon when looking at population dynamics of more developed countries like the United States.

However, the recent financial crisis has reversed the flow of migration - people are now leaving large cities and going back to the rural country side. A recent article from the Wall Street Journal describes the situation. A large part of the reverse migration is among a group known as the "floating population". This is a population moves back and forth between rural and urban areas to find work. Many of them gave up farming because they were able to find enough work in the cities. However, such jobs are drying up and now they don't even have farm work to go back to. If this trend continues, it will again put further strain on social services in rural areas, another reason why people migrated to urban areas. It will be interesting to see how the government of China deals with this new population dynamic.

I was talking about this trend with a friend (thanks Keith!) and he said it sounds like China is its own Mexico. In the United States, the largest group of immigrants comes from Mexico. The number of immigrants from the Mexico entering the U.S. has declined recently. Part of this decline is because of tougher immigration laws as well as increased boarder patrols. However, the economic downturn in the U.S. is sending Mexican workers back to Mexico and some are not even coming to the U.S. at all. See Mexico Braces for Economic Blow; Immigration Adds to Complexity of the Issue

What would a 21st Century Economic Depression look and feel like?

The Boston Globe has an interesting article discussing what a economic depression would look like in 2009. For most of us, we've only heard stories or seen pictures of the Great Depression. My father was born during the depression (1935) on a farm in Nebraska. His mother and father (my grandparents) were hit especially hard by the economic downturn of the 1930s and never really ever got over it. My grandparents house had a fully stocked kitchen because they never wanted to go hungry again. My grandmother would also stocked up on shoes, because she often went without shoes as a child and during other hard economic times and vowed to never go with out shoes again in her life. When my grandmother passed away earlier this year, my father found boxes upon boxes of brand new shoes through out her house. My father also tends to stock up on certain items, but not to the extent that my grandmother did.

Family stories and the Globe article got me wondering about how will Americans react if a true economic depression were to happen. Bennett suggests that while we might not see long soup lines or an people jumping from buildings, we will probably see an increase in lines at the ER, more people will stay home and watch tv (leading to a television boom), emptying suburbs, and people will shop more at Walmart and Target.

Prehaps the most interesting result of a 21st century economic depression would be the "desurburbanzation" of America. If home prices continue to sink, homeownership will become less appealing and individuals may find living in the city and better economic investment because commuting costs are cheaper and access to services would be greater. While this would benefit some cities, urban places like Detroit could just disappear.

While the numbers that will likely come out in the coming year regarding poverty, use of government programs such as food stamps, unemployment and so on, will provide further evidence of declining American economy, it will be interesting to see how generations of Americans who have never experienced a depression will react. Do we know how to tighten our belts and how to live with less? Will families take to gardening again and learn to live all together? Only time will tell.

AIDS and Washington, DC

Washington, DC with a population just over a half a million residents, has one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the United States. One in 20 DC residents are HIV positive and the rate of new AIDS cases is 128.4 per 100,000 people, compared to the national average of 13.7 per 100,000 people.

For men in DC, the most common way HIV is spread is through unprotected sex followed by intravenous drug use. For women, sharing needles is the most common mode of HIV transmission. It was only recently that the District was allowed to use federal money to spend on needle exchange programs in hopes of preventing the spread of HIV. Prevention Works provides needle exchange and health services to DC residents.

Even with the amazing advances in research and eduction, HIV/AIDS is still a major health epidemic, particularly in poor minority communities like those in DC. On November 20, activists gathered in DC to demand (and support) that Presidential-elect Obama keep his promise to fight AIDS here in the U.S. and aboard. I was lucky enough to attend the event and march to the White House. Members of Philadelphia ACT UP and NYC AIDS Housing Network then met with members of Obama's transition team. Here's HOPING to a president who will create a real national AIDS strategy and a real national health care system.

Well, I guess this why I am happy!

I recently decided to do away with television. Well, I actually kept my tv, but just use it to watch movies and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. The cost was too much, I am not home enough to watch tv and it gets me out of office talk about last night's episode of Dancing with The Stars.

Well, it turns out that happy people watch less tv and spend more time socializing and going out...this according to researchers at the University of Maryland. While the direction of the relationship is unclear (do people watch tv because they are unhappy or do does tv make people unhappy) I support the idea of less television and more television covers.

What Happy People Don't Do - New York Times

Using my sociological imagination

Greetings researchers, thinkers, data monkeys, and general public!

I work with a lot of data daily and I enjoy learning and commenting on the social world around me. I hope to use this virtual space to post interesting articles, research, social science data, and statistical methods related to sociology and family demography. I hope you enjoy!