yaojun li institute for social change manchester university email:...

20
Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: [email protected] Measuring Social Progress -- Labour Market Position of 1 st and 2 nd Generation Minority Ethnic Groups in Great Britain and the USA (1990/1-2000/1) For presentation at SAR Conference CCSR, Manchester University 2 nd Sept 2008

Upload: danielle-riley

Post on 28-Mar-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

Yaojun LiInstitute for Social Change

Manchester UniversityEmail: [email protected]

Measuring Social Progress-- Labour Market Position of 1st and 2nd Generation

Minority Ethnic Groups in Great Britain and the USA

(1990/1-2000/1)

For presentation at SAR ConferenceCCSR, Manchester University

2nd Sept 2008

Page 2: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

2

Rationale for the UK US comparison

• UK: British disease (sclerosis): characterised by class immobility and persistent social inequality (Goldthorpe and Mills, 2004; Goldthorpe and Jackson, 2007, albeit with signs of improvement, Heath and Payne, 2000), but there is officially endorsed ethnic equality for the legal immigrants (managed immigrant incorporation: Heath, 2007)

• US: The American dream!: fewer class barriers, with affirmative race policies to address past harms but little official immigrant incorporation management: Waters, 2008)

Page 3: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

3

Patterns and Trends

• Persistent ethnic disadvantage, with drag (origin) effects (Darity and Mason, 1998; Borjas, 1987, 2001, 2005)

• Gradual improvement with hypercyclical effects (Chiswick, 1978; Alba, 2005; Waters and Jimenez, 2005; Li and Heath, 2008)

• Segmented assimilation (Portes and Zhou, 1993) but does it really hold?

• Linear assimilation into middle class with White• Economic advancement but deliberate preservation of own values

and community solidarity• Permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass

Page 4: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

4

Conventional concerns (mostly on men)

Ultimate concerns: social and ethnic equality Processes of social reproduction

Optimist: the economic and technical exigencies of modern societies demand the best use of every potential talent in society Social forces (law, human rights movements, civil society etc) also exert considerable pressures against social inequality of all kinds, whether based on gender, class, ethnicity, religion or sexuality, thus promoting social progress

Ascription -> achievement Meritocracy: talent + effort: education as the channel and generator of

upward social mobility, all ascriptive forces are going to fade away.

Pessimist: unintended consequences of intended actions: ‘in terms of individuals of differing class origins pursuing ‘mobility strategies’ that, while rationally adaptive to the constraints typical of their class situations, tend in their aggregate outcome to maintain relative rates unaltered, at all events in the absence of any external modification of these constraints that would constitute a reduction – or an increase – in class-lined inequalities of condition’ (Goldthorpe and Mills, 2004: 223; see also Goldthorpe 1987; 2007ab; Heath 1980). The famous FJH hypothesis (Featherman, Jones and Hauser, 1975) Socio-economic-cultural capital (resources) (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam 2000; Lin, 2001)

Page 5: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

5

Sources of ethnic disadvantages

Ethnic stratification (social distance theory: Akerlof, 1997)

Returnee (no difference) Invisible (some historical-

cultural differences) Visible (skin colour,

language, former colonial connections)

Sources of differences Demographic Age, marital status, children, health and caring Socio-cultural Human capital (language fluency; foreign

qualifications; knowledge of local labour market) Social capital (community structure: bridging ties

with entrepreneurs/professionals within own community or with mainstream community for jobs)

People (soft) skills (dealing with people, symbols and paper)

Discrimination Statistical/direct/indirect Contact->less intolerance Conflict->hyper-cyclical Frames of reference 1stg (lengths of stay on subdued or rising aspirations) 2ndg (drag effects and subdued or rising aspirations) Contextual Ethnic density Levels of socio-economic development (regional) t t1 (generation, life cycle, and period effects: catching up?)

Outcomes Employment Class Earnings

Page 6: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

6

Data

• The 1991 2% SARs for Great Britain

• The 2001 3% SARs for Great Britain

• The 1990 5% IPUMs for the US

• The 2000 5% IPUMs for the US

Page 7: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

7

Outcome and predictor variables• Outcomes: employment and class

For men aged 16-64 and women aged 16-59 in Great Britain and the USA

• Predictors1. Human capital: education, labour market experience

(age in bands and age square in similar vein following SAR2001: 16/19=1 20/24=2 25/29=3 30/44=4 45/59=5 60/64=6)

2. Health and dependent children3. Generational status (native and overseas born)

combined with ethnicity: White, Black Caribbean, Black African, Indian, Pakistani/Bangladeshi, Chinese and Other

Page 8: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

8

Table 1 Distribution of ethnic minority groups in Britain and US Britain USA 1991 2001 1990 2000 White 94.56 91.67 82.23 77.91 Black Caribbean 0.99 1.34 0.18 0.27 Black African 0.38 1.04 9.97 11.18 Indian 1.62 2.03 0.33 0.63 Pakistani/Bangladeshi 1.03 1.75 0.04 0.09 Chinese 0.32 0.52 0.69 0.88 Other 1.10 1.65 6.56 9.04 N 653,882 1,090,174 1,528,130 1,738,852 Notes:

1. For men aged 16-64 and women aged 16-59. 2. In the 1991 SAR, data are restricted to usual residents only.

Source: The 1991 2% SAR and 2001 3% SAR for Great Britain, and 1990 and 2000 5% IPUM for the USA (same below).

Page 9: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

9

Table 2a Employment status of ethnic minority groups in Britain 1991 2001 Employed Unemployed Inactive Employed Unemployed Inactive Men

White 76.1 10.7 13.1 77.1 4.9 17.9 B Caribbean 63.0 23.7 13.3 63.9 13.0 23.1 B African 45.6 22.1 32.4 58.7 12.8 28.5 Indian 69.3 12.9 17.8 71.3 6.1 22.6 P/B 50.1 24.7 25.3 56.8 11.6 31.6 Chinese 61.3 9.8 28.9 60.1 4.8 35.1 Other 61.9 18.3 19.8 60.9 8.3 30.8

Women White 62.3 5.2 32.5 68.7 3.1 28.2 B Caribbean 61.7 10.9 27.3 63.5 7.1 29.4 B African 41.8 16.5 41.8 50.5 9.6 39.9 Indian 50.6 8.9 40.6 58.9 4.6 36.5 P/B 15.5 9.9 74.6 24.4 5.8 69.8 Chinese 51.0 5.2 43.8 52.1 4.5 43.4 Other 47.9 10.2 41.9 51.7 5.6 42.8

Page 10: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

10

Table 2b Employment status of ethnic minority groups in the US 1990 2000 Employed Unemployed Inactive Employed Unemployed Inactive Men

White 80.7 4.6 14.8 77.7 3.9 18.5 B Caribbean 72.8 8.6 18.6 69.9 6.3 23.7 B African 63.1 9.6 27.3 56.4 8.1 35.6 Indian 80.9 3.6 15.4 77.7 3.2 19.1 P/B 79.1 4.3 16.6 72.6 2.9 24.6 Chinese 76.4 3.1 20.5 72.7 2.9 24.4 Other 72.8 7.8 19.4 66.8 6.1 27.2

Women White 67.1 3.7 29.2 68.1 3.3 28.6 B Caribbean 74.4 5.4 20.2 69.8 6.0 24.2 B African 59.6 8.5 31.9 60.1 7.6 32.3 Indian 57.9 4.3 37.8 53.9 3.5 42.7 P/B 35.8 6.7 57.5 40.9 3.9 55.1 Chinese 63.7 3.0 33.3 62.2 2.9 34.8 Other 55.3 6.6 38.2 53.7 5.9 40.3

Page 11: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

11

Table 3a Class position of ethnic minority groups among the economically active in Britain 1991 2001 I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl Men

White 29.1 24.2 34.2 12.5 39.4 32.3 22.9 5.3 B Caribbean 13.3 15.6 43.2 27.9 30.7 28.5 26.4 14.4 B African 24.0 18.4 24.2 33.4 42.3 24.2 20.8 12.8 Indian 26.3 27.6 30.1 16.1 43.2 29.7 20.5 6.6 P/B 12.4 21.6 32.4 33.6 23.5 31.8 31.2 13.4 Chinese 29.7 33.3 23.1 13.9 41.6 33.6 19.3 5.5 Other 33.5 21.1 22.2 23.2 44.8 26.1 20.3 8.9

Women White 27.4 39.4 25.4 7.8 36.8 31.4 28.1 3.8 B Caribbean 29.5 30.7 24.4 15.4 40.9 30.1 21.3 7.6 B African 25.6 22.9 22.5 29.1 39.1 24.8 25.6 10.6 Indian 18.3 36.4 30.1 15.2 35.4 31.3 28.2 5.2 P/B 13.2 26.9 19.8 40.1 28.8 30.2 29.9 11.1 Chinese 29.8 38.4 22.5 9.3 40.4 32.3 22.2 5.1 Other 29.2 32.4 20.8 17.7 41.8 26.9 24.8 6.5

Page 12: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

12

Table 3b Class position of ethnic minority groups among the economically active in the US 1990 2000 I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl Men

White 28.2 28.4 38.3 5.1 29.9 28.7 36.9 4.4 B Caribbean 20.9 33.8 35.1 10.2 20.8 36.9 35.2 7.2 B African 15.1 31.9 41.3 11.7 17.5 33.5 38.1 10.8 Indian 54.2 26.9 15.2 3.6 61.1 22.2 13.4 3.4 P/B 41.6 32.8 20.8 4.9 40.4 34.7 21.7 3.2 Chinese 44.3 36.0 16.3 3.4 54.8 28.5 13.3 3.3 Other 16.2 33.5 41.8 8.5 16.7 34.1 41.8 7.3

Women White 32.2 53.4 9.8 4.6 37.2 50.4 8.3 4.1 B Caribbean 28.8 61.1 4.5 5.6 31.1 57.9 4.2 6.8 B African 22.4 52.6 14.8 10.2 26.6 52.5 11.1 9.8 Indian 40.3 44.2 10.3 5.1 50.3 37.6 7.7 4.6 P/B 42.7 35.4 12.2 9.8 33. 9 52.5 7.3 6.3 Chinese 37.4 43.2 15.9 3.5 47.7 37.5 11.2 3.6 Other 20.8 53.8 16.9 8.6 24.4 53.1 14.3 8.2

Page 13: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

13

Figure 1 Degree-level qualifications in Great Britain and the USA

9.9

3.0

17.314.4

7.1

20.7

16.4

31.2

23.8

57.2

47.4

31.1

54.6

49.8

020

40

60

80

Perc

ent

1991 2001

Degree for men in Great Britain

Based on 2% SAR for 1991 and 3% SAR for 2001.

W British B Caribbean B African Indian

Pak/Bang Chinese Other

21.8

14.9

8.8

57.2

47.9

41.6

11.5

23.6

14.410.5

62.4

47.4 48.3

11.9

020

40

60

80

Perc

ent

1990 2000

Degree for men in the USA

Based on 5% IPUM of the US Censuses for 1990 and 2000.

W British B Caribbean B African Indian

Pak/Bang Chinese Other

6.13.3

9.06.7

2.2

11.79.0

31.2

36.2

48.7

41.8

24.3

51.8 50.7

020

40

60

80

Perc

ent

1991 2001

Degree for women in Great Britain

Based on 2% SAR for 1991 and 3% SAR for 2001.

W British B Caribbean B African Indian

Pak/Bang Chinese Other

18.615.3

10.4

45.1

36.7 35.3

11.4

23.5

19.2

13.4

53.1

35.2

44.2

13.8

020

40

60

80

Perc

ent

1990 2000

Degree for women in the USA

Based on 5% IPUM of the US Censuses for 1990 and 2000.

W British B Caribbean B African Indian

Pak/Bang Chinese Other

Page 14: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

14

Table 4a Logit coefficients on male employment among the economically active in Great Britain 1991 2001 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

2001 vs 1991

Ethnicity (W=ref) 1stgen Black Caribbean -0.627*** -0.680*** -0.669*** -0.729*** -0.899*** -0.894*** -0.744*** 1stgen Black African -1.171*** -1.490*** -1.495*** -1.054*** -1.519*** -1.532*** -1.516*** 1stgen Indian -0.124** -0.567*** -0.517*** -0.155* -0.746*** -0.727*** -0.591*** 1stgen Pakistani/Bangladeshi -1.196*** -1.525*** -1.419*** -1.130*** -1.562*** -1.535*** -1.476*** 1stgen Chinese -0.063 -0.437*** -0.435*** -0.227 -0.708*** -0.725*** -0.539*** 2ndgen Black Caribbean -1.344*** -0.865*** -0.879*** -1.244*** -0.909*** -0.920*** -0.895*** 2ndgen Black African -1.414*** -1.162*** -1.114*** -1.347*** -1.289*** -1.282*** -1.230*** 2ndgen Indian -0.934*** -0.577*** -0.555*** -0.810*** -0.656*** -0.650*** -0.640*** 2ndgen Pakistani/Bangladeshi -1.557*** -1.227*** -1.165*** -1.803*** -1.537*** -1.526*** -1.459*** 2ndgen Chinese -0.627* -0.341 -0.324 -0.776*** -0.557* -0.563* -0.499** Other -0.742*** -0.822*** -0.801*** -0.744*** -0.942*** -0.936*** -0.859*** Education (deg=ref) -1.079*** -1.047*** -0.639*** -0.616*** -0.760*** Age 0.828*** 0.825*** 0.798*** 0.768*** 0.819*** Age squared -0.110*** -0.110*** -0.097*** -0.088*** -0.105*** Marital (married=ref) -0.958*** -1.046*** -0.964*** -0.962*** -1.011*** Long-term illness (no=ref) -0.972*** -0.946*** -0.952*** Dependent children (no=ref) -0.246*** -0.027 -0.162*** Year (1991=ref) 0.927*** Constant 1.959*** 2.076*** 2.244*** 2.921*** 2.477*** 2.536*** 1.864*** N 291,730 341,400 633,130

Page 15: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

15

Table 5a Logit coefficients on male employment among the economically active in the US 1990 2000 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

2000 vs 1990

Ethnicity (W=ref) 1stgen Black Caribbean -0.715*** -0.637*** -0.671*** -0.505*** -0.467*** -0.476*** -0.533*** 1stgen Black African -0.705*** -0.660*** -0.688*** -0.552*** -0.568*** -0.581*** -0.595*** 1stgen Indian 0.252* -0.220* -0.252* 0.450*** -0.047 -0.055 -0.101 1stgen Pakistani/Bangladeshi 0.101 -0.249 -0.298 0.344 0.037 0.022 -0.044 1stgen Chinese 0.329*** 0.083 0.046 0.245** -0.161* -0.158* -0.047 2ndgen Black Caribbean -0.888** -0.539 -0.568* -1.011*** -0.627** -0.634** -0.589*** 2ndgen Black African -0.999*** -0.761*** -0.770*** -1.097*** -0.912*** -0.918*** -0.833*** 2ndgen Indian -0.087 0.280 0.273 -1.287*** -1.097*** -1.089*** -0.884*** 2ndgen Pakistani/Bangladeshi -1.773 -1.178 -1.232 -0.833 -0.389 -0.393 -0.499 2ndgen Chinese 0.335 0.288 0.270 0.162 0.220 0.226 0.239* Other -0.638*** -0.466*** -0.481*** -0.608*** -0.428*** -0.440*** -0.439*** Education (deg=ref) -0.988*** -0.945*** -0.891*** -0.896*** -0.919*** Age 0.544*** 0.561*** 0.843*** 0.790*** 0.681*** Age squared -0.062*** -0.060*** -0.091*** -0.082*** -0.072*** Marital (married=ref) -0.841*** -0.828*** -0.557*** -0.491*** -0.653*** Long-term illness (no=ref) -0.966*** 0.097*** -0.306*** Dependent children (no=ref) -0.050** 0.296*** 0.123*** Year (1990=ref) 0.139*** Constant 2.872*** 3.048*** 3.004*** 3.002*** 2.319*** 2.297*** 2.570*** N 652,814 701,534 1,354,348

Page 16: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

16

Figure 2 Net gaps in employment between White and minority ethnic groups in Great Britain

100.0

90.3

78.4

98.4

77.8

99.2

74.0 72.2

84.0

68.3

90.3 88.0

020

40

60

80

10

012

0W

hite m

en

in 1

991

= 1

00

Men's employment among the economically active in 1991

100.094.8

91.3

99.2

90.3

98.7

88.8 87.3

94.0

79.4

94.3 94.7

020

40

60

80

10

012

0W

hite m

en

in 2

001

= 1

00

Men's employment among the economically active in 2001

100.097.2

79.8

94.1

66.9

99.5

85.8

70.6

83.5

64.4

87.6 89.5

020

40

60

80

10

012

0

Wh

ite w

om

en

in 1

991 =

10

0

Women's employment among the economically active in 1991

100.096.2

87.5

98.2

86.4

97.793.2 91.8

94.7

83.2

96.3 94.4

020

40

60

80

10

012

0

Wh

ite w

om

en

in 2

001 =

10

0

Women's employment among the economically active in 2001

Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.

Page 17: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

17

Figure 3 Net gaps in access to the salariat between White and minority ethnic groups in Great Britain

100.0

41.3

89.594.8

42.2

97.4

50.8

60.864.9

45.1

147.8

114.9

020

40

60

80

10

012

014

016

0W

hite

men

in 1

991

= 1

00

Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1991

100.0

67.3

115.5

100.3

52.2

92.3

85.3

109.4113.2

73.7

101.6

114.3

020

40

60

80

10

012

0W

hite

men

in 2

001

= 1

00

Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2001

100.0

131.2

97.4

67.9

50.4

109.6

79.1 80.2

62.2

43.7

100.3106.4

020

40

60

80

10

012

014

0W

hite w

om

en

in 1

991 =

10

0

Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1991

100.0

116.7

100.6

79.7

71.9

101.9

110.3

131.9

123.4

86.1

123.2

112.6

020

40

60

80

10

012

014

0W

hite w

om

en

in 2

001 =

10

0

Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2001

Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.

Page 18: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

18

Figure 4 Net gaps in employment between White and minority ethnic groups in the US

100.094.7 94.8

101.2 100.5 101.5

92.9 91.6

99.5

79.2

101.5

95.4

020

40

60

80

10

012

0W

hite m

en

in 1

990

= 1

00

Men's employment among the economically active in 1990

100.097.0 96.6

101.7 101.4 101.0

92.4 91.489.0

94.2

100.796.2

020

40

60

80

10

012

0W

hite

men

in 2

000

= 1

00

Men's employment among the economically active in 2000

100.0 98.493.8

98.0

88.3

100.397.4

92.2

100.8 102.4

94.2

020

40

60

80

10

012

0

Wh

ite w

om

en

in 1

990 =

10

0

Women's employment among the economically active in 1990

100.0 97.794.5

99.295.6

100.4

89.892.9 93.4 95.7

98.394.4

020

40

60

80

10

012

0

Wh

ite w

om

en

in 2

000 =

10

0

Women's employment among the economically active in 2000

Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.

Page 19: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

19

Figure 5 Net gaps in access to the salariat between White and minority ethnic groups in the US

100.0

73.5 77.3

194.6

148.2 151.8

82.1

52.1

132.5

88.7

180.7

57.6

020

40

60

80

10

012

014

016

018

020

0W

hite

men

in 1

990

= 1

00

Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1990

100.0

69.2

85.1

207.4

136.0

182.8

72.4

56.2

165.0

123.4

187.2

56.0

020

40

60

80

10

012

014

016

018

020

022

0W

hite

me

n in

20

00

= 1

00

Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2000

100.0

88.2

73.8

126.4

135.8

107.6

99.3

69.4

100.4

150.2

64.6

020

40

60

80

10

012

014

016

0W

hite w

om

en

in 1

990 =

10

0

Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1990

100.0

82.2 79.6

136.8

85.9

124.8

91.3

71.0

121.3

152.0144.5

65.60

20

40

60

80

10

012

014

016

0W

hite w

om

en

in 2

000 =

10

0

Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2000

Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.

Page 20: Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: Yaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.ukYaojun.Li@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour

20

Main findings

• More minority groups in Britain and US during the decade• Inactivity increased for Chinese, P/B and B Caribbean men in Britain,

reduced for P/B women although it still remains a major obstacle for LM participation

• Inactivity increased for B African and remains a major gaol for P/B women in the US

• Among the active in Britain, B Caribbean and P/B men, and P/B women are least likely to have access to the salariat, but notable progress

• In the US B African men and women least likely to be in the salariat, and progress is not less notable

• Controlling for human capital and health and children, minority groups in Britain are still disadvantaged in gaining access to the labour market and to salariat but there are signs of progress; similar stories in the US

• Whilst Pakistanis/Bangladeshis in Britain fare quite badly, they do much better in the US, and Black Americans do worse in the US than in Britain, especially in access to the labour market

• Much more work needs to be done!