scarce jobs and racial differences in the decline of

American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90

DOI: 10.5923/j.sociology.20160603.03

Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline of

Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000

Cedric Herring

Language, Literacy, and Culture PhD Program, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Maryland, USA

Abstract Recent studies of male marriageability have placed the topic within the context of the dramatic structural

changes that have occurred within the U.S. industrial economy. This study seeks to determine the relative impact of

demographic and social factors on racial and ethnic differences in marital patterns for men between 1980 and 2000. It

employs a ―population and structural change‖ perspective and data from the Current Population Surveys to assess the impact

of the interaction of demographic and social variables on marital patterns for black, white, Latino and other males in the

United States. The results show that during the 1980s, the proportions of unmarriageable males grew more rapidly among

racial and ethnic groups with the lowest percentages of unmarriageable bachelors. Also, the proportion of college-educated

black and Latino males who were unwilling to marry surpassed the proportion of college-educated white males who chose to

remain single. The implications of the findings for patterns of marriage and family structure in the U.S. are discussed.

Keywords Race, Employment Discrimination, Diversity, Marriage

1. Introduction

One of the most significant and recurring themes in the

area of racial and ethnic inequality is that of differential

marital patterns by race. Several studies have searched for

the link between male joblessness and marital status (e.g.,

Wilson and Neckerman, 1986; Sampson, 1987; Wilson,

1987; Henderson and Herring, 2013). Generally, these

studies have focused on the differences in the pools of

eligible males from which females choose prospective

mates (Spanier and Glick 1980; Lichter, LeClere, and

McLaughlin 1991; Henderson and Herring, 2013). They

have noted that over the past several decades, the ratio of

employed black men to the population of young women has

declined significantly. The decline in the pool of

―marriageable‖ (i.e., employed) black males is the major

reason for changes in the black family (Wilson 1987, 1996;

and Henderson, 2009). More recently, studies have linked

the issue of black male marriageability to changes in the

economic options of black females, the growth of black

female-headed households, and changes in the industrial

economy (Wilson 1987; South 1991; Lichter, McLaughlin,

Kephart and Landry 1992; Henderson, 2013). Still, social

scientists have not adequately articulated how demographic

and social variables interact over time to produce

differences in marital patterns for various racial and ethnic

* Corresponding author:

[email protected] (Cedric Herring)

Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/sociology

Copyright © 2016 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved

males. Moreover, they have not sufficiently explored the

possibility that declines in marriage reflect declining

preferences for marriage among eligible bachelors as well

as decreases in the proportion of marriageable males

because of a deteriorating labor market.

This study seeks to determine the relative impact of

demographic and social factors on racial and ethnic

differences in marital patterns for men in the United States

at the turn of the 21st Century. Specifically, the objectives

of this study are to: (1) articulate a theoretical perspective

that explains how demographic and social forces interact to

produce racial and ethnic differentials in male

marriageability; (2) compare patterns in marriage between

blacks, whites, Latinos and other racial/ethnic groups; (3)

examine the impact of preferences for bachelorhood on

male marital patterns for all racial/ethnic groups; and (4)

assess the change in these patterns for all men between

1980 and 2000.

2. Disadvantage, Demography, and Marriageability

Several studies have examined the connection between

male joblessness and marriage (e.g., Becker 1973, 1974,

1981; Wilson and Neckerman, 1986; Ellwood and Crane,

1991; Herring, 2013; Rockquemore and Henderson, 2015).

Some of the leading works along these lines have suggested

that the decline in the pool of marriageable black males is the

main reason for changes in the black family structure. Becker

(1981), for example, argues that marriage is attractive only if

one party (traditionally the male) has a comparative

American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 75

advantage in generating income from the labor market.

When the relative availability of ―marriageable‖ (i.e.,

employed) men is in short supply, a larger percentage of

marriageable men than women must marry for there to be

balance in the marriage market. This has serious implications

for marital dynamics and patterns. Any worsening of the

labor market position of men would produce more jobless

men. This in turn would tend to make men less attractive as

potential spouses since their possible wives would stand to

gain less from such couplings. At the same time, such

scarcity of marriageable males would make those men with

employment even more attractive, better positioned to take

advantage of their comparative advantage in the labor market,

and ironically less willing to marry without there being a

greater share of the gains from the marital trade. In other

words, worsening labor market conditions for men also make

it less likely that marriageable bachelors will marry.

The concept of marriageability was reintroduced to the

debate on racial inequality by Wilson (1987). Wilson (1987)

defined a marriageable male as one who is both single and

employed. Linking black male unemployment to the

transformation in the American industrial economy, he went

on to note that the dearth of marriageable males was

associated with the rise in female-headed

households-particularly in the central city areas.

Wilson and Neckerman (1986) argued that it is the decline

in the pool of marriageable black males that is the main cause

of changes in the black family. They showed that declines in

the sex ratio for blacks mirrored declines in their marriage

rates in the 1970s and the 1980s. Others using this basic

framework have found support for this male marriageability

hypothesis (e.g., Sampson, 1987; Testa, Astone, Krogh, and

Neckerman, 1989; Bennett, Bloom, and Craig, 1989;

Thomas, Herring, and Horton, 1994; Henderson, 2015a;

Henderson, 2015b).

Despite the significant advancement that the concept of

marriageability represents, there are limitations in the

manner in which it has been operationalized and

implemented in research (Horton and Burgess 1992).

Specifically, the concept does not adequately address the

impact of underemployment (especially poverty wage

employment) on racial differentials in marriageability

(Lichter 1988). Moreover, implicit in the current usage of the

term is the assumption that declines in marriage is

specifically attributable to a rise in the number of blacks of

lower socioeconomic status and in the central city areas

(Wilson 1987). Research has not fully appreciated the

possibility that there have been dramatic declines in marriage

among those who are not poor and/or unemployed. Some of

the decline in the proportion of married men may be

attributable to increases in the number of men who prefer to

stay single. Relatedly, the research and debates have focused

almost exclusively on blacks and whites. Few researchers

have paid attention to the implications of dramatic

demographic changes in the Latino and other racial and

ethnic minority communities for male marital patterns. Most

importantly, the concept of marriageability ignores the

broader demographic forces that have a bearing on male

marital patterns.

Racial differences in marriage patterns have been noted by

demographers for some time (Bianchi and Farley 1979;

Spanier and Glick 1980; Bianchi 1981; Farley and Allen

1987; Bennett, Bloom, and Craig 1989; Landale and Tolnay

1991; Qian and Preston 1993; Morgan, McDaniel, Miller,

and Preston 1993; Ruggles 1994; Herring and Henderson,

2015; Herring and Henderson, 2016). Placed in the context

of the general trends on the American family in the

post-World War II era, there have been parallels and some

convergent trends of marriage, divorce, and cohabitation

(Glick 1988; Cherlin 1990; Herring, Horton, and Thomas,

1993; Herring, and Wilson-Sadberry, 1993). Bianchi (1981)

noted the relationship between female-headed households

and racial inequality. Cherlin (1990) cited the extended

family network and cultural adaptation as partial

explanations for the differences in black and white patterns

of marriage and family formation. Landale and Tolnay (1991)

argued that the system of stratification must be considered

when examining differences in marital timing by race.

One disadvantage of prior studies on black male marital

patterns has been the absence of an explicit theoretical

framework. The general trend has been to analyze Black

male marital patterns in isolation from racial discrimination

(Lichter et al. 1992) and apart from tastes for marital statuses.

In addition, the linkage between Black male marriageability

and the increasing marginalization of workers from other

racial groups tends to be ignored (Lieberson 1980). Thus,

detailed analyses of the demographic and social

characteristics of the population of marriageable males of

various racial groups are necessary. Such studies would add

significantly to the understanding of the American family

and the prospects for change in the future (Landale and

Tolnay 1991; Lichter 1992; Herring, Henderson, and Horton,

2014).

3. The Population and Structural Change Thesis

The population and structural change thesis maintains that

changes in the relative size of minority populations interact

with changes in the social structure to exacerbate

racial/ethnic inequality. This perspective acknowledges

structural arrangements that have relegated larger segments

of the black and Latino communities to joblessness.

However, it also argues that changes in the social and

demographic characteristics of the population interact with

changes in the social structure.

For example, in the past five decades, African Americans

and other racial and ethnic minorities have steadily increased

their levels of educational attainment. The educational

attainment gap between whites and blacks dwindled to less

than a year by 1990. In addition, there has been some

movement of racial minorities into nontraditional jobs. But

these changes have occurred in the context of a deteriorating

76 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline

of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000

labor market. Simply put, as the overall opportunity structure

declines, dominant groups attempt to maintain their

relatively privileged positions in society by eliminating

subordinate groups from competition (Blumer 1958;

Bonacich 1972; Smith 1981; Herring, and Henderson, 2012).

Moreover, the competitive threat to dominant groups is not

simply a function of a change in the size of the subordinate

population. Conflict occurs when that segment of the

subordinate population increases which is most likely to

compete with the dominant population (Bonacich 1976;

Lieberson 1980).

In the United States, dominant and subordinate group

relations have historically taken the form of racial and ethnic

conflict (van den Berghe 1967; Wilson 1973; Herring, 2006).

In the case of black-white relations, changes in the social

structure, in conjunction with changes in the population of

labor force participants, led to the wholesale

disenfranchisement of blacks from the post-Reconstruction

Era to the mid-1960s (Lieberson 1980; Franklin and Moss

1988).

Certainly, changes in population size have been linked to

inequality, labor force participation and intergroup conflict

in past studies (Blumer 1958; Blau 1977; Olzak 1996;

Tomaskovic-Devey and Roscigno, 1996). Moreover, the

association between social dislocation, black male

marriageability and female-headed households has been

documented (Wilson 1987). However, none of these studies

has focused upon how change in demographic and structural

factors interact to produce differences in black-white male

marriageability.

3.1. Race and Population Change in the United States

The story of population change in the United States over

the last two decades has been the phenomenal increase in the

various racial and ethnic minority populations (U.S. Bureau

of the Census 1993). The most dramatic increases have

occurred in the Asian American and Hispanic populations

(O'Hare 1992). Over the 1980-1992 period, the former has

increased by 123.5% and the latter by 65.3%. In both

instances, the increases were primarily due to relatively high

rates of immigration (O'Hare 1992). These subpopulations

are doing more than contributing to the increase or changing

racial and ethnic composition in the United States. They are

also bringing into question the social definition of race in this

society (Massey 1994; Waters 1994; Horton, Allen, Herring,

and Thomas, 2000; Herring, 2005).

The black population has also contributed to this increase

in the size and diversity of the overall minority population

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). Having a growth rate of

16.4%, their increase has been three times that of whites

between 1980-1992 (Butler and Herring, 1991; O'Hare 1992).

However, the history and sociology of the black experience

adds a different dimension to the overall issue of race and

population change. Despite gains since the Civil Rights

Movement of the 1960s, there is still a disproportionate

number of blacks who are disadvantaged (Wilson 1987;

Herring, House, and Mero, 1991). Moreover, blacks still

experience levels of discrimination that exceed those of other

groups— irrespective of class (Lieberson 1980; Feagin 1991;

Massey and Denton 1993; Herring, 2009). Hence, an overall

increase in the minority population is likely to have a

disproportionately negative effect on the black population as

various groups compete for existing opportunities.

3.2. Race and Structural Change

Equally as important as the increase in racial and ethnic

diversity in the United States is the structural context within

which diverse groups compete (Olzak 1992). The

transformation of the American industrial economy has

resulted in the displacement of many American workers. Hit

hardest have been those labor-intensive, manufacturing

industries and the blue collar workers that they employed

(Bluestone and Harrison 1982; Herring and Johnson, 1990;

Horton, Thomas, and Herring, 1995; Semyonov and Herring,

2007). Placed in the context of increasing levels of education

and job readiness among racial minorities, racial and ethnic

conflict is likely to be exacerbated. As jobs become

increasingly more difficult to obtain, irrespective of race and

education, gains experienced by blacks and other racial

minorities are perceived as coming at the expense of white

workers (Gans 1988; Bobo and Kluegal 1993). Wilson (1987)

focuses upon the effects of the restructuring of the American

industrial economy on blue-collar African American

workers. But the population and structural change thesis

suggests the likelihood that increased labor force

discrimination will also be experienced by middle-class

blacks and other middle class people of color. There are

several considerations that lend support to this hypothesis.

First, the increase in the black middle class population means

that for the first time in the history of the United States, white

middle class workers will have to compete with blacks for

professional job opportunities. Second, the restructuring of

the American economy is also impacting upon white-collar

workers, as companies downsize to meet the new economic

realities. In short, the black middle-class is growing at the

time when the opportunity structure for middle class people

is in a state of decline.

The population and structural change thesis also provides

a cogent explanation of differential marriageability for

different racial and ethnic groups: Labor market dynamics

are not guided by pure rationality and perfect competition;

rather, a number of concrete processes operate

systematically to generate dissimilar employment for whites,

blacks, Latinos and others. For example, segmented labor

markets offer qualitatively different jobs (Cain, 1976; Beck

et al., 1978; Dickens, and Lang, 1988; and Lichter, 1988).

Positions in the primary labor market offer relatively low

unemployment rates, high pay, good benefits, job security,

and the possibility for on-the-job advancement; jobs in the

secondary labor market offer relatively high unemployment

rates, low pay, poor benefits, seasonal or contingent

employment, and little upward mobility on the job. Blacks,


Latinos, and other racial and ethnic minority groups are

under-represented in the primary labor market and

over-represented in the secondary labor market. In addition,

normative beliefs about ―minority jobs‖ and ―white jobs‖

(Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991), employer reliance on

―soft skills‖ rather than tangible ones (Kirschenman, 1992),

informal recruitment networks (Braddock and McPartland,

1987), employers' ―tastes for discrimination,‖ (Portes and

Sassen-Koob, 1987; and Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991)

and exclusionary practices by labor unions and professional

associations (Johnson and Oliver, 1992) all act to steer racial

minorities into less stable, racially typed jobs in the

secondary labor market.

But as racial minorities have acquired credentials that

make them more competitive with white males for positions

in the primary labor market, the competition for more

desirable jobs in a declining labor market has become stiffer.

All of these factors contribute to lower overall levels of

marriageability for men. Nevertheless, there is a tendency for

the same credentials for minorities to result in less access to

professional jobs than for whites (Shelton, 1985; and Landry,

1987). Thus, smaller proportions of college-educated

minorities occupy positions of authority. So, fewer

minorities are able to influence decisions concerning hiring,

retention, and promotion of subordinates. Consequently,

minorities at different career stages lack the objective

sponsorship of their white counterparts. In addition, racial

minorities are more likely to be dismissed from their jobs,

especially early in their careers (Johnson and Herring, 1989).

These structural barriers lead to even lower levels of

marriageability for men of color.

3.3. Theoretical Implications for Male Marriage Patterns

Population and structural change provides the context

within which to assess differences in marriage patterns

among various racial groups over time. These differences are

expected to be manifested over various social and

demographic categories: age, region, urbanicity, education,

and occupation.

Age is expected to be a major determinant of marital status.

However, the pattern here is expected to be differentiated by

race. Contrary to arguments that suggest that discrimination

is primarily a historical legacy (Wilson 1980), the population

and structural change thesis argues that younger minority

males will have lower levels of marriageability relative to

comparable whites. This relationship is not expected to vary

significantly over time, and if anything, will be more

pronounced in 1990 than in 1980.

Regional variations in male marriageability by race are

expected because of racial and ethnic differences in

population distributions (O'Hare 1992) and employment

opportunities (Lichter 1989). Previous studies have

documented more directly the relationship between race,

male marriageability, and region (Wilson 1987; Horton and

Burgess 1992). In the current study, change in the gap

between blacks and whites in marriageability is expected to

be greater in the northeast and midwest because these two

regions have experienced the brunt of the economic

restructuring during the last decades. (Herring and Fasenfest,

1996).

The disproportionate percentage of racial minorities found

in the central cities makes urbanicity a key variable in this

analysis. Past studies have documented the effects of the

outmigration of middle class Blacks from the inner city areas

(Wilson 1987; Jaynes and Williams 1989). Thus, it would

follow that Black male marriageability would be lower in the

central city areas than outside them. Moreover, it would be

expected that Blacks outside of the central cities would have

levels of marriageability that would be more comparable to

white males. Yet, the population and structural change thesis

leads one to hypothesize a different relationship between

race, urban residence and male marriageability: It is

precisely outside of the central cities where blacks are most

likely to be in competition with whites for existing

employment opportunities. Thus, the differential in

marriageability between the two groups is argued to be

greater outside of the inner city.

Education could be expected to be the most important

variable relative to racial differentials in marriageability. A

male is more likely to be marriageable (i.e., employable) if

he is better educated. To the degree that race, per se, has

become less important in determining employment prospects

minority males with higher educational attainment would be

expected to have levels of marriageability that are equal to

comparably educated whites (Wilson 1980). On the other

hand, the population and structural change thesis would

predict a different result. It predicts that the racial

differentials in male marriageability will be greater among

those with higher educational attainment than among

minorities and whites with similarly low levels of

educational attainment. To reiterate, it is in the more highly

educated and skilled minority males who are most likely to

be competing with whites for the most prized jobs in the

labor force. In the midst of economic restructuring, it is in

this highest educational category where blacks and other

racial minorities are expected to have lost the most ground

relative to whites in marriageability.

Similar findings are expected when examining the racial

differentials in marriageability by occupation. Minorities in

the higher occupational categories are expected to have

lower levels of marriageability than their white counterparts.

In addition, these categories are expected to have

experienced greater increases in the marriageability

differential over time.

3.4. Statement of Hypotheses

H1. Blacks and Latinos are significantly less likely than

whites to be married and more likely to be unmarriageable,

net the effects of demographic and social variables.

H2. (a) The proportion of married men decreased over the



1980-1990 period. (b) Among racial minorities, these

declines in marriage were more likely than those of whites to

be due to increases in the number of unmarriageable

bachelors. (c) Among whites, declines in marriage were

more likely than those of minorities to be due to increasing

preferences for bachelorhood.

H3. Blacks and Latinos have higher levels of

unmarriageability than whites in every region of the country.

H4. Black and Latino marriageability will be less than that

for whites within every age category.

H5. Blacks and Latinos do not have parity with whites in

marriageability within categories of education.

H6. College-educated black and Latino males are

relatively more likely to unwilling bachelors than are their

college-educated white counterparts.

4. Data and Methods

The data for this study come from the 1980 and 1990

Current Population Surveys. The study includes only male

respondents between the ages of 18 and 54. The sample size

is 64,169. The dependent variable, marital situation, is

operationalized as a trichotomy: husband, marriageable (i.e.,

marriageable but ―unwilling to marry‖) bachelor, and

unmarriageable (i.e., ―unable to marry‖) bachelor. Currently

married men were dummy coded to indicate that they were

husbands. Men who were not currently married but who

were employed with income above the poverty level for the

given year were dummy coded as marriageable bachelors.

All others (unmarried and unemployed or with incomes

below the poverty level) were dummy coded as

unmarriageable bachelors.

It is useful to introduce at this point language that will

facilitate a clear understanding of the analysis of the

dependent variable, marital situation. From this point on,

marriageable bachelors will be referred to as ―the unwilling‖

and unmarriageable bachelors will be referred to as the

―unable.‖ The third category, ―husband‖ will remain as is. It

will function as the reference category of the dependent

variable.

The independent variables of the study are as follows: (a)

Race was dummy variable coded as white, black, Latino, and

others. (b) Age was coded in years, but was collapsed into

categories of 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 for tabular

presentations. (c) Region was dummy variable coded into

four categories: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. (d)

Urbanicity of residence was dichotomized into central (inner)

city and non-central city. (e) Education coded as years of

attainment (or its equivalent), but was collapsed into a

trichotomy (of ―less than high school,‖ ―high school only,‖

and ―at least some college‖) for tabular presentation. (f)

Occupation was dummy variable coded into professional,

technical and managerial; administrative support and sales;

craftspersons; service workers; operators, fabricators and

laborers; and others. (g) Decade was dummy coded to

indicate whether the respondent was interviewed in 1980 or

1990. (h) Percentage Black in a community was coded to

reflect the proportion of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area (SMSA) that was African American, non-Hispanic. (i)

Percentage Hispanic in a community was coded to reflect the

proportion of an SMSA that was Hispanic, non-Black and

non-white. (j) Ratio of marriageable Black bachelors to

single Black females in a community was coded to reflect the

number of unmarried Black men (between the ages of 18 and

54) with jobs paying wages over the poverty threshold

divided by the number of unmarried Black women (between

the ages 18 and 54). (k) Ratio of marriageable Hispanic

bachelors to single Hispanic females in a community was

coded to reflect the number of unmarried Hispanic men

(between the ages of 18 and 54) with jobs paying wages over

the poverty threshold divided by the number of unmarried

Hispanic women (between the ages 18 and 54).

5. Results

Are blacks and Latinos less likely than whites to be

married and more likely to be unmarriageable bachelors?

Did the proportion of married men decrease between the

1980s and the 1990s? Are college-educated blacks and

Latinos more likely than their white counterparts to be

unwilling bachelors? Below we provide some preliminary

answers to these questions.

Figure 1 presents the distribution of male marriageability

by race and ethnicity for 1980 and 1990. It shows that for

1980 and 1990 combined, 18% of white men were unwilling

(i.e., marriageable) bachelors. This compares with 17% of

black males, 14% of Latino males, and 16% of other males.

This figure also shows that 21% of white males were unable

(i.e., unmarriageable) bachelors, compared with 38% of

black males, 29% of Latino males, and 28% of other males.

We also see that 61% of white males were husbands,

compared with 45% of black males, 57% of Latino males,

and 56% of other males. These differences provide a chi

square statistic of 1094.5 with six degrees of freedom, and

they are statistically significant at p<.01. Figure 1 also shows

that the proportion of husbands decreased for all racial and

ethnic groups between 1980 and 1990. Among whites, the

decline was from 62% to 60%. For Blacks, the decrease was

from 48% to 43%. For Latinos, the decline was from 60% to

54%. And for others, the drop was from 56.1% to 55.7%.

Among whites, the decrease in the proportion of males who

were husbands can be accounted for completely by a

corresponding increase in the proportion of the unwilling

bachelors. Among blacks, Latinos, and others, however, the

decline in the proportion of men who were husbands is

attributable, at least in part, to increases in the proportion of

unable bachelors.


Figure 1

Table 1 presents the relationships among marriageability

and race and ethnicity by various sociodemographic

variables and decade. These results show that racial and

ethnic patterns in marriageability vary by sociodemographic

subgroups. This table shows some general patterns: with

increasing age, the proportion of husbands increases for each

racial and ethnic group, and there were general increases in

the proportion of unable bachelors between 1980 and 1990.

For example, among those younger than age 25, racial and

ethnic differences in marriageability became smaller

between 1980 and 1990--not because of a decrease in the

proportion of unable bachelors for those groups with the

highest proportions of unmarriageable males. Rather, the

proportions of unable bachelors grew more rapidly among

those ethnic groups with the lowest percentages of them in

1980. In 1980, 59% of young whites, 78% of young Blacks,

61% of young Latinos, and 72% of young others were unable

bachelors. By 1990, these percentages had climbed to 68%,

83%, 73%, and 80% respectively.

Table 1 also shows that among men between the ages of

25 and 35, the proportion of husbands decreased for every

racial and ethnic group between 1980 and 1990. This decline

in husbands showed up as increases in the proportion of

unable bachelors. While the same basic patterns held true for

men between the ages of 35 and 44, the gap between black

men who were husbands and all other racial and ethnic

groups became greater between 1980 and 1990. During the

1980s, the proportion of men between the ages of 45 and 55

who were unable bachelors grew for whites, blacks, and

others. For blacks between ages 45 and 55, however, the

increase in the percentage of unable bachelors was greater

than for all other racial and ethnic groups. Consistent with

the predictions of the population and structural change thesis,

blacks and Latinos at every age category were more likely

than similar whites to be unable bachelors.

This table also shows that there was a general pattern of

decreases in the proportion of married men of all races in

three of the four regions. For whites, these declines in

marriage were accompanied by parallel increases in the

percentage of marriageable bachelors. For blacks, this

pattern held true only in the northeast. In the midwest and the

south, declines in marriage among black males were mostly

attributable to increases in the percentage of unable

bachelors. Among Latinos, declines in marriage were mostly

due to increases in the proportion of unablebachelors in each

of the regions. Again, these patterns are in keeping with the

expectations of the population and structural change thesis.

The table indicates that the percentage of married men in

urban settings increased between 1980 and 1990. Meanwhile,

there was little change in the proportion of urban men who

were unable bachelors, but there was an increase in the rate

of unwilling bachelors in urban settings. In contrast, there

was a decrease in the percentage of married men outside of

urban settings and a corresponding increase in the proportion

of men who were unable. While these patterns cut across

racial lines, they were consistent with the population and

structural change idea that black-white differences would be

greater outside of inner city areas. This held true in both 1980



and 1990.

In 1980, 31% of those without at least a high school degree

were unable bachelors. By 1990, this had increased to over

45% of those without high school diplomas. While there

were racial differences in the proportion of those without

diplomas who were unable, the magnitude of increase among

them was similar for all racial groups. Among those with

high school diplomas, however, there were racial differences

in the patterns. In particular, there was a small decrease in the

percentage of high school-educated whites who were unable

bachelors, but there was an increase in the unable among

those from other racial groups with comparable levels of

education. Among those with at least some college education,

the changes in marriageability were similar for the various

racial groups, as there were small declines in the percentage

of the unable for all racial groups and slight increases in the

percentage of unwilling for whites, blacks, and Latinos.

While the racial difference in the percentage of unwilling

bachelors did not increase with level of education, the gap

between the percentage of blacks and whites who were

unable bachelors did increase with levels of education. Once

more, this corresponds to what the population and structural

change thesis argues about the racially differentiated effects

of education on access to adequate employment and

subsequent marital situation.

The results presented in Table 1 do not take into account

how these factors and others simultaneously affect the

relationship between male marriageability and race. Tables

2-4 present more rigorous evidence from multinomial logit

analysis that examines this relationship net of other variables

such as age, region, urbanicity, education, occupational type,

the percentage of the population that is black and Latino, and

the ratio of black men to women and the ratio of Latino men

to women.

The logit (logistic probability unit) model--a special case

of the general log-linear model--is appropriate when the

dependent variable can take on only limited values, and thus,

violates the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model

assumptions that the variables will be continuous and

measured on an interval scale. It assumes that the underlying

probabilities are logistic, i.e., in the form:

F(p) = 1/(1 + e-P) = ln(P/1 -P)

where p is the probability of the occurrence of an event

and e, an irrational number, is the base of natural logarithms

such that ln(ex) = X and the antilog of X is ex .

The logit is the logarithm of the odds of success; i.e., the

ratio of the probability of the occurrence of an event to the

probability of nonoccurrence of that event. The function

confines the value of (p) between 0 and 1. When the odds of

success are even (.5) the logit (coefficient) is zero; when they

are greater than even, the logit has a positive value; and when

they are less than even, its value is negative.

Column one of each table presents the log odds of being a

marriageable (unwilling) bachelor versus being a husband.

Column two of each table presents the log odds of being an

unmarriageable (unable) bachelor versus being a husband.

Unfortunately, the signs of logit coefficients are not

sufficient for determining the direction and magnitude of

change of corresponding probabilities in polytomous logit

models. For this reason, column three of Tables 2-4 presents

the odds ratios of being unable versus unwilling. These odds

ratios are calculated as follows:

antilog(2*CoefficientUnmarriageable Bachelor)

Odds Ratio = _____________________________________________

antilog(2*CoefficientMarriageable Bachelor)

Ratios of 1.0 indicate that being unwilling (i.e., a

marriageable bachelor) and unable (i.e., an unmarriageable

bachelor) are equally probable; ratios greater than 1.0 mean

that being unable is more likely; and ratios less than 1.0

suggest that the odds of being unwilling are greater. While

both the probabilities of being unwilling (Column 1) and an

unable (Column 2) may increase (or decrease) in comparison

to being a husband, it is their relative odds (Column 3) that is

the focus of much of this analysis. Therefore, when both

coefficients are in the same direction, comparisons will be

made between being unwilling and being unable.

Table 2 shows that, net of the correlates of marital status,

there were still significant differences in marriageability.

Column 1 shows that, net of other factors, blacks were more

likely than whites to be unwilling bachelors than husbands,

(p < .01), but Column 2 indicates that they were also more

likely than whites to be unable bachelors than husbands (p

< .01). Column 3 discloses that, net of all other variables,

black men were substantially more likely than whites to be

unable rather than unwilling bachelors.

Net of other factors, Latinos were less likely than were

whites to be bachelors than to be married. They were less

likely than comparable whites to be unable bachelors and

unwilling ones. But they were slightly more likely to be

unwilling than unable, net of the other factors.

Members of the other racial groups were more likely than

whites to be unable bachelors than husbands. Members of the

other racial groups were also more likely than were whites to

be unable bachelors rather than unwilling ones. The race by

decade interaction terms indicate that a higher proportion of

blacks than whites became unable bachelors (rather than

husbands) during the decade. The interactions also indicate

that a lower proportion of Latinos than whites became

unwilling bachelors (rather than husbands) during the

decade.

Other results of note include the finding that unwilling

bachelors became more common in the 1990s (versus the

1980s). In addition, during the 1990s, college graduates

became less likely to be unwilling bachelors, but more likely

to be unable bachelors. During the decade, higher

proportions of men with professional positions became

unwilling bachelors and fewer of them became unable ones;

lower proportions of those with administrative positions,

however, became unwilling bachelors, and more of them

became unable bachelors.


Table 1. Changes in the Distribution of Male Marital Situations by Race and Various Sociodemographic Variables, 1980, 1990, and 2000



Table 2. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Net of Race/Ethnicity and Other Attributesa

Net of these structural and compositional changes, there

were other factors associated with marital condition. As

expected, the tendency to be a husband increased with age,

and the tendency to be an unwilling bachelor rather than an

unable one also increased with age. Those living in the

Northeast, the Midwest, and the South were less likely than

those living in the West to be unwilling bachelors, and higher

proportions of them were unable rather than unwilling

bachelors. Men living in urban settings were more likely to

be bachelors than to be husbands. With higher levels of

education, men were more likely to be unwilling bachelors

than husbands, less likely to be unable bachelors than

husbands, and more likely to be unwilling than unable

bachelors. Men with professional and administrative

positions, craft employment, and those who were employed

as laborers were less likely than others to be unable bachelors

than husbands. Men who lived in communities with higher

concentrations of black and Latino residents were more


likely to be bachelors. And finally, men who lived in areas

that had higher ratios of marriageable Latino bachelors to

Latino females were less likely to be unwilling bachelors

than husbands.

Generally, these results support the claim of the

population and structural change thesis that declines in

marriage reflect declining preferences for marriage among

the unwilling as well as decreases in the proportion thereof

because of a deteriorating labor market. There are changes in

marital patterns among men that are associated with changes

in education, occupational distribution, racial composition,

and sex ratios. These results are not inconsistent with the

idea that declines in marriage are in part due to the increasing

preference for bachelorhood among men of all racial and

ethnic groups who are marriageable bachelors.

Table 3 presents similar results for African Americans,

and Table 4 presents results for Latinos. As was the case in

the overall analysis, bachelorhood became more common

among black men in the 1990s. Generally, higher

proportions of black males became unwilling bachelors

rather than unable ones. During the 1990s, Black men with

professional or administrative positions, while already more

likely than others to be unwilling bachelors and less likely to

be husbands, became even more likely to be unwilling

bachelors during the decade. The results also show that

African Americans who lived in communities with higher

concentrations of black residents were more likely to be

bachelors. Similarly, those who lived in areas where the ratio

of the black unwilling bachelors to black females was high

were still more likely to be unwilling bachelors. These

findings underscore the tendency for some men, especially

those with options, to choose to remain unmarried.

Table 3. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among African Americans, Net of Other Attributesa



Other factors associated with the marital conditions of

African American men include age, region, urbanicity,

education, occupation, racial composition of one's

neighborhood, and the black marriageable male to female

sex ratio. Again, these patterns as a rule correspond to those

for the general population, and they support the central

predictions of the population and structural change thesis.

Table 4 presents results for Latino men. For this group,

being an unwilling bachelor became more common during

the decade. Most other patterns for Latino males also

corresponded to those of the general male population. Latino

college graduates became less likely to be unable during the

1990s. Latino men with professional and administrative

positions were more likely than others to be unwilling

bachelors than husbands. Those with administrative

positions became more likely to be unable bachelors during

the decade. Latinos who lived in areas where the ratio of

Latino unwilling to females was high were more likely to be

unwilling bachelors. At the same time, the likelihood of

being an unwilling bachelor was more than that of being a

husband.

Other factors associated with the marital conditions of

Latino men include age, region, education, and occupation.

These results generally conform to the patterns discussed

above, and they also support the central predictions of the

population and structural change thesis.

Table 4. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among Latinos, Net of Other Attributesa


Tables 5 presents results for men of other racial categories.

This table 5 shows that there were few systematic patterns

among men of other racial and ethnic categories in terms of

changes between 1980 and 1990. The one exception

occurred among men with professional positions. A higher

proportion of these men became unable bachelors during the

decade. Other patterns among this group generally parallel

those of the general population. Other factors such as age,

region, occupation, and racial composition do, however,

affect marital patterns among these men.

Table 6 presents the results for white men. This table

shows that between 1980 and 1990, a greater proportion of

white men became unwilling bachelors. At the same time,

however, a higher proportion of white men with college

educations and professional or administrative positions

became unable bachelors. There were marital patterns

among white men that were associated with age, region,

urbanicity, education, occupational distribution, racial

composition, and sex ratios. Again, these results are not

inconsistent with the idea that declines in marriage are in part

due to the increasing preference for bachelorhood among

these men.

Table 5. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among Others, Net of Other Attributesa



Table 6. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among Whites, Net of Other Attributesa

6. Conclusions

The purposes of this paper were twofold. First, an

assessment was made of the relative impact of social and

demographic variables on racial differences in

marriageability. Second, the extent to which demographic

and social variables interact with race to impact upon

marriageability was measured.

The results revealed that the race effect did change over

the 1980-1990 period. For blacks, there was a substantial

reversal in the likelihood of marriageability. In 1980, the

chances of a black male being marriageable were slightly

better than even. By 1990, the odds for Black males were

markedly lower. While there was a similar decline in

marriageability rates for comparable white males, only in

1990 were whites less likely than not to be marriageable.

Blacks still trailed whites in marriageability in 1990.

Moreover, racial differences persisted across regional, age,

and educational categories. In no category for any variable

did Blacks equal whites in marriageability. Perhaps the most

important finding was for those Black males that are

presumed to be the most advantaged--the college educated.

Not only were Blacks in this category more likely than not to

be unmarriageable, but their level of marriageability was

comparable to that for Blacks who had not completed high

school. Ironically, Blacks with high school education were

the most marriageable and the only group with a better than

even chance of being so. Once again, this finding

underscores the importance of the interaction between race

and class.


In addition, these findings are consistent with the

dynamics of the marriage market within the context of

structural change. In other words, it is important to reiterate

how the concept "marriageable male" is operationalized. A

marriageable male is one who is: a) unmarried, b) employed

full time, and c) has an income above the poverty level. One

consequence of population and structural change relative to

racial inequality would be to decrease the number of black

males in the latter two categories, which in turn increases the

number in the former. Lieberson (1980) noted that when

employment opportunities decline racial discrimination

intensifies because whites perceive Blacks as competitors in

the labor force. This decline in marriageability for

college-educated Blacks is consistent with the reality of

fewer opportunities for college-educated persons in general,

and with the "cost" of being black in a competitive market.

Finally, these trends in black male marriageability have

serious implications for the future of the black family.

Should these trends continue, then further increases in the

proportion of female-headed households is expected.

Moreover, the gap in social and economic standing between

blacks and whites is likely to be exacerbated as employment

opportunities, even for the college educated, dwindle in the

face of population and structural change

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the

American Sociological Association annual meeting and the

annual conference of the Association of Black Sociologists.

REFERENCES

[1] Bennett, Neil, David E. Bloom and Patricia H. Craig. 1989. "The Divergence of Black and White Marriage Patterns." American Journal of Sociology 95:692-712.

[2] Bianchi, Suzanne and Reynolds Farley. 1979. "Racial Differences in Family Living Arrangements and Economic Well-being: An Analysis of Recent Trends." Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:537-551.

[3] Bianchi, Suzanne. 1981. Household Composition and Racial Inequality. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

[4] Bianchi, Suzanne. 1986. American Women in Transition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

[5] Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press.

[6] Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.

[7] Bluestone, Barry and Bennett Harrison. 1982. The Deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books.

[8] Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." Pacific Sociological Review 1:3-7.

[9] Bobo, Lawrence and James R. Kluegel. 1993. "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?" American Sociological Review 58:443-464.

[10] Bonacich, Edna. 1972. "A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market." American Sociological Review 37:547-559.

[11] Bonacich, Edna. 1976. "Advanced Capitalism and Black/White Race Relations." American Sociological Review 41:34-51.

[12] Bumpass, Larry L. 1990. "What's Happening to the Family? Interactions between Demographic and Institutional Change." Demography 27:483-98.

[13] Butler, John Sibley and Cedric Herring. 1991. ―Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship in America: Toward an Explanation of Racial and Ethnic Group Variations in Self-Employment.‖ Sociological Perspectives 34:79-94.

[14] Cherlin, Andrew J. 1990. "Recent Changes in American Fertility, Marriage and Divorce. The Annals of the American Academy of Social Science 510:145-154.

[15] Cherlin, Andrew J. 1992. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[16] Durkheim, Emile. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.

[17] Ellwood, David T. and Jonathan Crane. 1990. "Family Change Among Black Americans: What Do We Know?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 4:65-84.

[18] England, Paula and George Farkas. 1986. Households, Employment, and Gender: A Social, Economic, and Demographic View. New York: Aldine.

[19] Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

[20] Farley, Reynolds. 1988. "After the Starting Line: Blacks and Women in an Uphill Race." Demography 25:477-95.

[21] Feagin, Joe R. 1991. "The Continuing Significance of Race." American Sociological Review 56:106-116.

[22] Fossett, Mark A. and K. Jill Kiecolt. 1990. "Mate Selection Availability, Family Formation and Family Structure Among Black Americans in Nonmetropolitan Louisiana 1970-1980." Rural Sociology 55:305-327.

[23] Fossett, Mark A., Omar R. Galle, Jeffrey A. Barr. 1989. "Racial Occupational Inequality, 1940-1980: A Research Note on the Impact of the Changing Regional Distribution of the Black Population." Social Forces 68:415-427.

[24] Franklin, John Hope and Alfred A. Moss, Jr. 1988. From Slavery to Freedom. 6th edition, New York: Knopf.

[25] Gans, Herbert. 1988. Middle American Individualism. New York: The Free Press.

[26] Glick, Paul. 1988. "Demographic Pictures of Black Families." Pp. 111-132 in Harriette Pipes McAdoo (ed.) Black Families. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.

[27] Goldman, Noreen, Charles F. Westoff, and Charles Hammerslough. 1984. "Demography of the Marriage Market



in the United States." Population Index. 50:: 5-25.

[28] Goldscheider, Frances Kobrin and Linda J. Waite. 1986. "Sex Differences in the Entry into Marriage." American Journal of Sociology. 92:91-109.

[29] Guttentag, Marcia and Paul F. Secord. 1983. Too Many Women? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

[30] Henderson, Loren and Cedric Herring. 2013. ―Does Critical Diversity Pay in Higher Education? Race, Gender, and Departmental Rankings in Research Universities.‖ Politics, Groups, and Identities: Journal of the Western Political Science Association 1 (3): 299-310.

[31] Henderson, Loren, Cedric Herring, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Melvin Thomas. 2015. ―Credit Where Credit is Due? Race, Gender, and Discrimination in the Credit Scores of Business Startups.‖ The Review of Black Political Economy 42: 459-479.

[32] Henderson, Loren. 2009. ―Between the Two: Determinants of Bisexual Identity among African Americans.‖ Journal of African American Studies 13:263-282.

[33] Henderson, Loren. 2013. ―From Political Novice to Veteran: Youth Participation in the Immigrant Mobilization.‖ Pp. 335-350 in Reinventing Race, Reinventing Racism. J. Betancur (ed.) Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publisher.

[34] Henderson, Loren. 2015a. ―Racial Isolation and Chlamydia Rates in U.S. Counties.‖ Race and Social Problems doi 10.10007/S12552-015-9143-8.

[35] Henderson, Loren. 2015b. ―Tying the Knot Across the Color Line: An Intersectional Analysis of Getting Married Interracially.‖ Issues in Race and Society: An Interdisciplinary Global Journal Vol 2 Issue 2:62-85.

[36] Herring, Cedric and Gloria Jones Johnson. 1990. ―Political Responses to Underemployment among African Americans.‖ National Political Science Review 2:92-109.

[37] Herring, Cedric and Karen Rose Wilson-Sadberry. 1993. ―Preference or Necessity?: Changing Work Roles of Black and White Women, 1973-1990.‖ Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:314-325.

[38] Herring, Cedric and Loren Henderson. 2012. ―From Affirmative Action to Diversity: Toward a Critical Diversity Perspective.‖ Critical Sociology 38:629-643.

[39] Herring, Cedric and Loren Henderson. 2015. Diversity in Organizations: A Critical Examination. New York: Routledge.

[40] Herring, Cedric and Loren Henderson. 2016. ―Wealth Inequality in Black and White: Cultural and Structural Sources of the Racial Wealth Gap.‖ Race and Social Problems 8:4–17.

[41] Herring, Cedric, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Melvin Thomas. 1993. ―Feminization of Poverty or Pauperization of Women? Clarifying the Sources of Change in the Impoverishment of Women and That of Their Families.‖ National Journal of Sociology 7:43-65.

[42] Herring, Cedric, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Melvin Thomas. 2015. ―Life at the Edge: Racialized Precarity and Economic Insecurity in the United States.‖ Research in Race

and Ethnic Relations 19:125-143.

[43] Herring, Cedric, James S. House, and Richard P. Mero. 1991. ―Racially Based Changes in Political Alienation in America.‖ Social Science Quarterly 72:123-134.

[44] Herring, Cedric, Loren Henderson, and Hayward Derrick Horton. 2014. ―Race, the Great Recession, and the Foreclosure Crisis: From American Dream to Nightmare.‖ Pp. 95-110 in Re-Positioning Race: Prophetic Research in a Post-Racial Obama Age. Sandra L. Barnes, Zandria Robinson and Earl Wright, II. (Eds.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

[45] Herring, Cedric. 2005. ―Open for Business in the Black Metropolis: Race, Disadvantage, and Entrepreneurial Activity in Chicago’s Inner City.‖ The Review of Black Political Economy 31:35-57.

[46] Herring, Cedric. 2006. ―Hurricane Katrina and the Racial Gulf: A Du Boisian Analysis of Victims’ Experiences.‖ Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3:129-144.

[47] Herring, Cedric. 2009. ―Does Diversity Pay? Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity.‖ American Sociological Review 74: 208-224.

[48] Herring, Cedric. 2013. ―Critical Diversity and Departmental Rankings in Sociology.‖ American Sociologist 44:267–281.

[49] Herring, Cedric. 2014. ―Diversity and Departmental Rankings in Chemistry.‖ Pp. 225-236 in Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise. H. N. Cheng, Sadiq Shah, and Marinda Li Wu. (Eds.). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society Books.

[50] Horton, Hayward Derrick and Norma J. Burgess. 1992. "Where Are the Black Men? Regional Differences in the Pool of Marriageable Black Males in the United States." National Journal of Sociology 6:3-19. Jaynes, Gerald D. and Robin Williams. 1989. A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.

[51] Horton, Hayward Derrick, Beverlyn Lundy Allen, Cedric Herring, and Melvin Thomas. 2000. ―Lost in the Storm: The Sociology of the Black Working Class, 1850-1990.‖ American Sociological Review 65:128-137.

[52] Horton, Hayward Derrick, Melvin Thomas, and Cedric Herring. 1995. ―Rural-Urban Differences in Black Family Structure: An Analysis of the 1990 Census.‖ Journal of Family Issues 16:298-314.

[53] Landale, Nancy S. and Stewart E. Tolnay. 1991. "Group Differences in Economic Opportunity and the Timing of Marriage: Blacks and Whites in the Rural South, 1910." American Sociological Review 56:33-45.

[54] Lichter, Daniel T. 1989. "Race, Employment Hardship, and Inequality in the American Nonmetropolitan South." American Sociological Review 54:436-46.

[55] Lichter, Daniel T. 1990. "Delayed Marriage, Marital Homogamy, and the Mate Selection Process among White Women." Social Science Quarterly 71:802-11.

[56] Lichter, Daniel T. 1988. "Racial Differences in Underemployment in American Cities." American Journal of Sociology 93:771-92.

[57] Lichter, Daniel T., Diane K. McLaughlin, George Kephart


and David J. Landry. 1992. "Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?" American Sociological Review 57:781-799.

[58] Lichter, Daniel T., Felicia B. LeClere, and Diane K. McLaughlin. 1991. "Local Marriage Markets and the Marital Behavior of Black and White Women." American Journal of Sociology 96:843-67.

[59] Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press.

[60] Malthus, Robert T. 1798. An Essay on the Principles of Population, as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society. London: J. Johnson.

[61] Mare, Robert D. 1991. "Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating." American Sociological Review 56:15-32.

[62] Mare, Robert D. and Christopher Winship. 1991. "Socioeconomic Change and the Decline of Marriage for Blacks and Whites." Pp. 175-202 in The Urban Underclass, edited by Christopher Jencks and P.E. Peterson. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

[63] Massey Douglas S. 1994. "The New Immigration and the Meaning of Ethnicity in the United States." Paper presented at the 13th annual Albany Conference entitled, "American Diversity: A Demographic Challenge for the Twenty-First Century," April 15-1 6, 1994, at SUNY-Albany.

[64] Massey, Douglas and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

[65] Mastracci, Sharon and Cedric Herring. 2010. ―Nonprofit Management Practices and Work Processes to Promote Gender Diversity.‖ Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21:155-175.

[66] Melton, Willie and Darwin L. Thomas. 1976. "Instrumental and Expressive Values in Mate Selection of Black and White College Students." Journal of Marriage and the Family 38:509-17.

[67] Michael, Robert T. and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1985. "Entry Into Marriage and Parenthood by Young Men and Women: The Influence of Family Background." Demography 22:515-44.

[68] Morgan, S. Phillip, Antonio McDaniel, Andrew T. Miller, and Samuel Preston. 1993. "Racial Differences in Household and Family Structure at the Turn of the Century." American Journal of Sociology 98:798-828.

[69] O'Hare, William P. 1992. "America's Minorities--The Demographics of Diversity." Population Bulletin 47:1-47.

[70] O'Hare, William P., Kevin M. Pollard, Jaynia L. Mann and Mary M. Kent. 1991. "African Americans in the 1990s." Population Bulletin 46:2-40.

[71] Olzak, Susan, Suzanne Shanahan and Elizabeth H. McEneaney. 1996. ―Poverty, Segregation and Race Riots: 1960 to 1993.‖ American Sociological Review 61:590-613.

[72] Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[73] Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincade. 1988. "A Theory of Marriage Timing." American Journal of Sociology 94:563-91.

[74] Oropesa, R.S., Daniel T. Lichter and Robert N. Anderson. 1994. ―Marriage Markets and the Paradox of Mexican American Nuptiality.‖ Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:889-907.

[75] Preston, Samuel H. and Alan Thomas Richards. 1975. "The Influence of Women's Work Opportunities on Marriage Rates." Demography 12:209-22.

[76] Qian, Zenchao and Samuel Preston. 1993. "Changes in American Marriage, 1972 to 1987: Availability and Forces of Attraction by Age and Education." American Sociological Review 58:482-495.

[77] Rockquemore, Kerry Ann and Loren Henderson. 2015. ―Inter-Racial Families in Post-Civil Rights America.‖ Pp. 99-112 in Families as They Really Are, Second Edition. B. Risman (ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

[78] Ruggles, Steven. 1994. "The Origins of African-American Family Structure." American Sociological Review 59:136-151.

[79] Schoen, Robert and James R. Kluegel. 1988. "The Widening Gap in Black and White Marriage Rates: The Impact of Population Composition and Differential Marriage Propensities." American Sociological Review 53:895-907.

[80] Semyonov, Moshe and Cedric Herring. 2007. ―Segregated Jobs or Ethnic Niches? The Impact of Racialized Employment on Earnings Inequality.‖ Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25: 245-257.

[81] Smith, A. Wade. 1981. "Racial Tolerance as a Function of Group Position." American Sociological Review 46:558-573.

[82] South, Scott J. 1991. "Sociodemographic Differentials in Mate Selection Preferences." Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:920-40.

[83] South, Scott J. 1992. "For Love or Money? Sociodemographic Determinants of the Expected Benefits from Marriage." Pp. 171-94 in The Changing American Family: Sociological and Demographic Perspectives, edited by S.J. South and S.E. Tolnay. Boulder, CO: Westview.

[84] South, Scott J. and Kim M. Lloyd. 1992a. "Marriage Opportunities and Family Formation: Further Implications of Imbalanced Sex Ratios." Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:440-51.

[85] South, Scott J. and Kim M. Lloyd. 1992b. "Marriage Markets and Nonmarital Fertility in the U.S." Demography 29:247-64.

[86] Spanier, Graham B. and Paul C. Glick. 1980. "Mate Selection Differentials Between Whites and Blacks in the United States." Social Forces 58:707-25.

[87] Spanier, Graham B. and Paul C. Glick. 1996. ―Contextual Influences on Young Men’s Transition to First Marriage.‖ Social Forces 74:1097-1119.

[88] Teachman, Jay D., Karen A. Polonko, and Geoffrey K. Leigh. 1987. "Marital Timing: Race and Sex Comparisons." Social Forces 66:239-68.

[89] Thomas, Melvin, Cedric Herring, and Hayward Derrick



Horton. 1994. ―Discrimination over the Life Course: A Synthetic Cohort Analysis of Earnings Differences Between Black and White Males, 1940-1990.‖ Social Problems 41:608-628.

[90] Tomascavik-Devey Donald and Vincent J. Roscigno. 1996. ―Racial Economic Subordination and White Gain in the U.S. South.‖ American Sociological Review 61:565-589.

[91] United States Bureau of the Census. 1993. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

[92] van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1967. Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[93] Waite, Linda J. and Glenna Spitze. 1981. "Young Women's Transition to Marriage." Demography 18:681-94.

[94] Waters, Mary C. 1994. "The Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity." Paper presented at the 13th annual Albany Conference entitled, "American Diversity: A Demographic Challenge for the Twenty-First Century," April 15-16, 1994, SUNY-Albany.

[95] Wilson, William Julius. 1973. Power, Racism and Privilege. New York: The Macmillan Company.

[96] Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[97] Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[98] Wilson, William Julius. 1991. "Public Policy Research and the Truly Disadvantaged." Pp. 460-481 in The Urban Underclass, edited by Christopher Jencks and Paul E. Peterson. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.

scarce jobs and racial differences in the decline of

Documents