Search

This study broadens the traditional focus on income as the primary measure of economic deprivation by providing the first analysis of wealth deprivation, or net worth poverty (NWP), and adult health. Net worth poverty-having wealth (assets minus debts) less than one-fourth of the federal poverty line-likely exacerbates the negative effects of income poverty (IP). In 2019, one-third of US households were net worth poor, with substantially higher rates among Black (60%) relative to White (25%) households. We estimate longitudinal growth curve (i.e., linear mixed effects) models to test how NWP, IP, and the interaction of the two predict a diverse set of health measures. We also consider whether NWP resulting from either low assets or high debts is more predictive of health outcomes and test for heterogeneous associations by race. Data come from Panel Study of Income Dynamics on 8,962 individuals ages 25 to 64, observed between 2011 and 2019 (n = 26,776). Adjusting for income poverty, net worth poverty, relative to no poverty, was associated with a one-quarter to one-third increase in the likelihood of reporting poor self-rated health, psychological distress, and work limitations. Simultaneously experiencing both NWP and IP was associated with the largest deficits. Both asset-driven (low asset) and debt-driven (high debt) NWP reduced health, but asset-driven NWP had stronger associations (e.g., a 5-percentage point increase of being in poor health, twice that of debt-driven). White, relative to Black, adults exhibited statistically larger associations for psychological distress (4.3 vs 1.1 percentage points) and work limitations (3.7 vs. 1.5 percentage points). White and Black adults who were jointly net worth and income poor exhibited the most disadvantage. Findings underscore how wealth is a critical component of financial deprivation and that wealth deprivation, particularly the lack of assets, merits attention in socioeconomic studies of health inequalities., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In recent decades, the financial elite have seen their economic resources grow significantly, while the income and wealth of other households have stagnated. The financial elite includes couples who are super-rich (top one percent), rich (the 90th–99th percentile), and upper-middle class (the 80th–89th percentile). Gendered work–family arrangements in top economic groups may contribute to inequality—particularly to wealth accumulation among the elite—but relatively little is known about how these couples divide paid and unpaid work or the extent to which their arrangements differ from other couples. In this study, we uncover novel work and family patterns and trends in the most economically powerful families in the United States. We use the Survey of Consumer Finances (1989–2019) to compare the household division of labor across income and wealth groups and over time, with a focus on financial elites. We find stark contrasts between super-rich couples and other couples in the division of labor. Specifically, super-rich couples are much more likely than all other couples, including rich and upper-middle class couples, to have a traditional male breadwinner–female homemaker/caregiver arrangement. Importantly, the striking patterns of traditional arrangements in the top one percent have not changed in 30 years and, as we uncover, appear to be driven by a couple's wealth rather than income. These findings suggest that work–family arrangements may be an integral component of economic and gender inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on elites experienced a resurgence in sociology over a decade ago, but this work was largely gender neutral. Recently, a body of work on elite women and gender dynamics in elite families emerged and is growing rapidly. We propose here that gendered processes are critical for understanding the reproduction of elite privilege and inequality and highlight three subjects that dominate contemporary literature in this area. First, we address who counts as an elite and gender differences in pathways to the elite. Second, we discuss elite family dynamics and the mechanisms that create traditional gender divisions of labor in elite households. Third, we underscore the significant power that elites have and discuss gender differences in the sources of power. We conclude by identifying areas for future directions, including honing empirical and theoretical understandings of the complex relationship between gender and rising class inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]