Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:49:22.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrimination and Income Inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2009

June Ellenoff O'Neill
June Ellenoff O'Neill
Affiliation:
Baruch College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discrimination against particular groups has existed throughout history and in all types of societies. Few would challenge the idea that inequality of income based on discrimination is unjust. The more problematic issues are the extent to which discrimination is in fact a significant source of inequality and whether such discrimination-based inequality is inherent in a capitalist system.

There is little doubt that discrimination can affect a group's income. But the link is by no means automatic or certain. Thus, the incomes of blacks, particularly in past decades, seem surely to have been lowered by discrimination. Yet other examples are less clear. Jewish and Japanese Americans, for instance, have had incomes substantially above those of white non-Jewish groups, despite evidence of discrimination against them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Autumn 1987 , pp. 169 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Becker, Gary S., The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).Google Scholar

2 The idea that capitalism produces racism proliferates in Marxist literature. See, for example, Perlo, Victor, Economics of Racism U.S.A. (International Publishers Co. Inc., 1975.)Google Scholar But also see Berry, Mary F. and Blassingame, John W., Long Memory: The Black Experience in America, (Washington, DC.: Howard University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; also see Aptheker, H., The Negro Problem in America (New York: International Publishers, 1946).Google Scholar

3 These data are reported in Alchian, Armen A. and Kessel, Reuben A., “Competition, Monopoly, and the Pursuit of Pecuniary Gain,” Aspects of Labor Economics, A conference of the Universities–National Bureau Committee for Economic Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 157–183.Google Scholar

4 Reported in Bennett, Robert A., “No Longer A Wasp Preserve.” New York Times, June 18, 1986.Google Scholar

5 See, for example, Kosters, Marvin and Welch, Finis, “The Effects of Minimum Wages on the Distribution of Changes in Aggregate Employment,” American Economic Review vol. 62 (June 1972), pp. 723–32.Google Scholar

6 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Economic Progress of Black Men in America, October 1986, chapter 4.

7 Sowell, Thomas, The Economics and Politics of Race (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1983), pp. 111–115.Google Scholar

8 ibid., p. 117.

9 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Recent Activities Against Citizens and Residents of Asian Descent, Clearinghouse Publication 88.

10 Tabulations from the March 1985 Current Population Survey show that 61 percent of black female family heads worked at all during 1984 and 41 percent were welfare recipients. Among black male family heads, 80 percent worked and 15 percent received welfare. Among white female heads, 78 percent worked and 17 percent received welfare compared to white men of whom 88 percent worked and 3 percent received welfare.

11 See Chiswick, Barry R., “An Analysis of the Earnings and Employment of Asian-American Men,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 1, (April 1982) pp. 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Oriental students perform above white students on the mathematics component of the Scholastic Aptitude Test for college entrance, although they perform less well on the verbal component (perhaps due to lack of English fluency). See Appendix Table 16 in Murray, Charles, Losing Ground (New York: Basic Books, 1984).Google Scholar

13 In 1980, among foreign born Hispanic men who were in the U.S. between 10 and 20 years, English-speaking ability was reported as “not at all” or “not well” among 47 percent of persons from Mexico, 32 percent from Cuba, and 25 percent from other Hispanic groups. Among native-born men of Spanish origin, English speaking ability was less than “very well” for 27 percent of Mexicans, and 14 percent of all other Hispanic groups, compared to 0.6 percent for all non-Hispanic white men. These statistics are reported by Barry R. Chiswick The Labor Market Status of Hispanic Men, 1900 to 1980, Oct.22, 1984, unpublished manuscript, University of Illnois, Chicago campus.

14 See McManus, Walter, Gould, William, and Welch, Finis, “Earnings of Hispanic Men; The Role of English Language Proficiency,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 2 (April 1983), pp. 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See the report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Economic Progress of Black Men in America, Clearinghouse Publication 91, October 1986 for a detailed analysis of the effects of region, schooling, and other factors on the black-white earnings differential. The statistics reported in the South and non-South are in appendix D.

16 The Economic Progress of Black Men in America, chapter 4.

17 ibid.

18 ibid, Appendix D.

19 Paul B. Sheatsley, “White Attitudes Toward the Negro,” Daedalus (Winter 1966), pp. 217–238.

20 U.S. Census of Population, 1980, Earnings by Occupation and Education, Volume 2, Subject Reports, Tables 3–7.

21 One study has found that employed black women at ages 45–49 (in 1977) worked 2.3 more years than employed white women of the same age. At ages under 35 years, there were no significant differences found by race. These data are not sorted by schooling, however, and it may well be that black women have more years of experience than white women within schooling levels even at younger ages. O'Neill, June, “The Trends in the Wage Gap in the United States,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 3, no. 1, pt. 2, (1985) pp. S91–S116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 ibid

23 Data from the National Longitudinal Survey show that in 1968 only 32 percent of women aged 20–24 expected to be in the labor force when they reached age 35; yet 10 years later when the group reached ages 30–34, 60 percent were actually in the labor force.

24 See the discussion in June Neill, O., “Role Differentiation and the Gender Gap in Wage Rates,” Laurie, Larwood, Stromberg, A.H., and Gutick, B.A. eds., Women and Work, vol. 1 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985).Google Scholar

25 These results are in Cunningham, James S., and O'Neill, June, Analysis of Male-Female Differentials in the Federal Government, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

26 These statistics are based on unpublished data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data refer to the usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers. Weekly earnings were adjusted for male-female differences in full-time hours to obtain hourly earnings.

27 See the Commission on Civil Rights, The Economic Status of Americans of Southern and Eastern European Ancestry. Clearinghouse Publication 89, October 1986.