Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. A binomial logistic regression is estimated using data from the 1980 US Census, the last Census where post-migration marriages can be identified. Results show that the probability of intermarriage increases the longer a migrant resides in the U.S. and the younger the age at arrival. Both relationships can be attributable to the accumulation of US-specific human capital and an erosion of ethnic-specific human capital. Inter-ethnic marriages are more likely between individuals with similar education levels, providing evidence of positive assortative mating by education for immigrants. Construction of the availability ratio for potential spouses and group size are unique to this study, providing a more accurate measure of the marriage market by using data from several Censuses. Intermarriage is lower the greater the availability ratio and the larger the size of the group. Linguistic distance indirectly measures the effect of English language ability at arrival and is found to be a significant negative predictor of intermarriage. Those who report multiple ancestries and who were previously married are more likely to intermarry. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SJEL Classification: J12, J15, J61, F22

Abstract. We utilize over 30 years of the Current Population Survey to examine labor force participation and wage patterns among five cohorts of white and black women. By estimating wages using four selection correction techniques in determining the wage gap for women who are not in the labor force, we provide evidence of the changing role of selection among women over time. We find an increasing observed wage gap between white and black women for younger cohorts; however, the decline in selection for both black and white women does not explain the rising wage gap.

This article uses a comprehensive descriptive analysis to examine the determinants of racial intermarriage for native-born men and women using the 2012 American Community Survey. A comparison between military and civilian samples is the main focus of the article. We improve upon the existing literature by identifying the proximity of the respondent’s current residence to a military base and including an analysis of anti-miscegenation laws by state. Further, we provide a cohort analysis to parse out generational differences. We find that military members are more likely to intermarry, regardless of cohort, and that non-White military members have higher rates of education than their civilian counterparts. Black females in the military are more educated and have a significantly higher rate of intermarriage than their civilian counterparts. Additionally, the difference in intermarriage rates between civilian and military members is 31 percentage points higher for Black women than Black men.

Using the 2004 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses and the 2004-2005 American Community Surveys, we estimate the black-white wage gap among females with at least some college education. We find that black female nurses earn 9 percent more at the mean and median than white female nurses, controlling for selection into nursing employment. Among K-12 teachers, black females earn 7 percent more than white females at the median. There is no blackwhite wage gap among all women with a bachelor's degree. Differences in opportunities for education and marriage between white and black women may explain why highly educated black females earn on par with highly educated white females.

No abstract

The research program of the Center for Economic Studies (CES) produces a wide range of economic analyses to improve the statistical programs of the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of these analyses take the form of CES research papers. The papers have not undergone the review accorded Census Bureau publications and no endorsement should be inferred. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed. Republication in whole or part must be cleared with the authors. To obtain information about the series, see www.census.gov/ces or contact C.

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

The research program of the Center for Economic Studies (CES) produces a wide range of economic analyses to improve the statistical programs of the U.S. Census Bureau. Many of these analyses take the form of CES research papers. The papers have not undergone the review accorded Census Bureau publications and no endorsement should be inferred. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed. Republication in whole or part must be cleared with the authors. To obtain information about the series, see www.census.gov/ces or contact C.