Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Descriptive Characteristics for the Full Sample and for Subgroups by Mothers’ Joint College and Partnership Status at First Birth, 1983–2019
Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1984–2018 panels.
Note: Weighted means and proportions at first birth. The analytical sample includes all women who have a first birth during the SIPP and who belong to one of three groups: women who do not hold a college degree and are unpartnered at first birth, women who do not hold a college degree and are partnered at first birth, and women who hold a college degree and are partnered at first birth. This subgroup analysis excludes women who hold a college degree and are unpartnered at first birth, although this group is included in all full-sample analyses. Data for the 2010s decade come from the redesigned 2014 and 2018 panels. The optimal way to view the figures in this article is in color. We refer readers of the print edition of this article to https://www.rsfjournal.org/content/12/1/96 to view the color versions.
- Figure 2.
Income-to-Poverty Dynamics Around First Birth, by First Birth Decade
Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1984–2018 panels.
Note: Weighted means for family income-to-poverty ratio by distance from first birth month. Each line represents a different first birth cohort (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s). The dashed line for 2010s indicates that the data come from the redesigned 2014 and 2018 panels. The analytical sample includes all women who have a first birth during the SIPP.
- Figure 3.
Dynamics of Income-to-Poverty Ratios for Each Income Source Around First Birth, by First Birth Decade
Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1984–2018 panels.
Note: Weighted means for income-to-poverty ratios for family income components: her contributions, his contributions, and public support. See online supplement table S.1 for a description of the income sources included in each family income component. Each line represents a different first birth cohort (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s). The dashed line for 2010s indicates that the data come from the redesigned 2014 and 2018 panels. The analytical sample includes all women who have a first birth during the SIPP.
- Figure 4.
Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio Around First Birth, by Subgroup and First Birth Decade
Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1984–2018 panels.
Note: Weighted means for family income-to-poverty ratio by distance from first birth month and by subgroup defined by mothers’ joint partnership and college status at the time of birth. Each line represents a different first birth cohort (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s). The dashed line for 2010s indicates that the data come from the redesigned 2014 and 2018 panels. The analytical sample includes all women who have a first birth during the SIPP and who belong to one of the three groups: women who do not hold a college degree and are unpartnered at first birth, women who do not hold a college degree and are partnered at first birth, and women who hold a college degree and are partnered at first birth. This subgroup analysis excludes women who hold a college degree and are unpartnered at first birth, although this group is included in all full-sample analyses.
- Figure 5.
Decomposition of the Contributions to Changes in Postbirth Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio Between the 1980s and 2010s First Birth Cohorts
Source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1984–2018 panels.
Note: Figure 5 shows results for the simulation decomposition. Data for the 2010s decade come from the redesigned 2014 and 2018 panels. Panel A shows results for the simple pooled model (presented in table 5) and panel B shows results for the pooled fully interacted model by subgroups. Panel B bars should be read as additive. The total change in panel A and panel B are not the same because the analytical sample differs. Panel A includes all women who have a first birth during SIPP, whereas Panel B only includes women in the three groups examined in this study; therefore, it excludes the group of women unpartnered and with a college degree at birth. Areas show the contribution of each simulation to explain changes in postbirth family income-to-poverty ratio between the 1980s and 2010s first birth cohorts. For instance, in Panel A our calculation for this change is 0.78 (from 2.66 in the 1980s to 3.44 in the 2010s). The area corresponding to the simulation “fixing her birth effect,” indicates how much holding constant the impact of birth on her income contributions to the 1980s values changes the 2010s postbirth family income (see second row in table 3) for the pooled sample. This simulation reduces the change in postbirth family income-to-poverty ratio by 0.01 units (from 0.78 to 0.77). Areas below zero indicate that the simulation does not contribute to explain the increase in postbirth family income-to-poverty ratio between the 1980s and the 2010s because they indicate that the increase would have been even greater under that scenario. For instance, for the pooled sample in panel A, the simulation that fixes his birth effect results in a larger change in postbirth family income-to-poverty ratio than the one observed (a change of 0.81 rather than 0.78). See the third row in table 3. This reflects the fact that the negative impact of births on men’s contributions has become larger over time (see table 1) and that, had this change not taken place, families’ postbirth income position would have been better.
Tables
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.