1. Family Polarization and Child Inequalities SNS Stockholm September 1, 2014

2. Trends in Household Income Inequality. Disposable Incomes Gini 1980Gini 2000s%Change Denmark.254.266+4 Norway.223.251+13 Sweden.197.252+28 France.270.280+3 Germany.244.286+11 Italy.306.333+9 Spain.318.334+5 UK.270.345+28 US.301.368+24

3. Year Year Three+ years OneTwo Denmark.410.282.026 France.590.418.128 Germany.490.303.091 Italy.635.411.161 Spain.597.369.120 U.K..494.287.110 U.S..814.704.576 The Persistency of Income Poverty in Families with Children. Kaplan-Mayer Survival Functions.

4. A Skill Profile of Tomorrow’s Workforce. % with only ISCED 1-2 (age 20-24) Mean Math score (native born) % below PISA minimum (Math) %Pisa ´Elite´ (Math) Denmark1452654 Finland8547719 France1450774 Germany1552795 Spain31487194 Sweden105181211 UK85111316 USA *)204991812

5. The Immigrant Deficit in Different Countries (difference from country mean) Raw Immigrant Adjusted Immigrant Effect Effect Austria -60 -36 Belgium -82 -56 Denmark -33 -17 Finland -18 -22 France -33 -20 Germany -68 -40 Ireland 15 +13 Netherlands -73 -43 Spain -21 -23 Sweden -37 -25 UK -21 -21 US -35 +14 Source: PISA 2000 data files. Adjusted effect includes controls for: mother education, parental SEI, sex, and books in home.

7. Table 2.3. Women’s role in Household Income: Couples aged 25-59. Earnings ratio; top/bottom quintile MenWomenHousehold Denmark5.84.35.2 France5.78.56.3 Germany4.14.84.3 Ireland9.312.09.7 NL5.27.75.7 Spain8.823.210.6 UK7.05.36.4

8. Figure 8. Percent Dual Earner Couples in the US

9. The family-demografic U-turn and child welfare

11. Gender egalitarian countries Fertility 2010 Gender traditional countries Fertility: 2010 Denmark1.9Germany1.4 Norway2.0Italy1.4 Sweden1.9Portugal1.4 U.S.2.1Spain1.4

12. Acitivity Rate Mothers 1960 Activity rate Mother 2000 Divorce rate Cohort 1970s Divorce rate Cohort 1990s Single mom 1960 Single mom 2000 Low Educ 103035311542 High Educ 10654018 5 8 The Polarization of Family Life. US Data

13. Gender egalitarian countries % change in CDR 1985-2010 Gender Unequal countries % change in CDR 1985-2010 Denmark- 4Germany 0 Iceland-28Ireland0 Norway-13Italy80 Sweden- 4Portugal190 US-30Spain267 Divorce Trends

14. The Socioeconomic Gradient of Divorce. United States

15. Low educationHigh Education Married in: 1975-793631 1985-893521 1990-954018 US Example: Percent Divorced by Marriage Cohort

16. Figure 2.3. Trends in Marital Homogamy in the US by Income Quintiles.

17. Polarized Parenting? Ratio of Care Time: High versus Low Educated Parents MothersFathers Denmark2.21.7 Spain1.72.7 US1.21.7

18. Marginal effects of the interaction between maternal hours a day in childcare and parental education (Mundlak random effects model, controlling for mother fixed effects). N=886. Time investment reinforces SES inequalities of gymnasium line

19. Socio-economic gradient of parent inputs

21. Table 2.5. Probability that Sons end up in their Father’s Income Quintile. (Percentages) DenmarkSwedenUKUS Father´s Q Bottom25263042 Middle22 1926 Top36373536

22. Low Educated Father Effects: Do their kids make it to upper-secondary level? Controls for cognitive test scores, sex and immigrant status :odds ratios USAUKDenmarkNorwaySwedenGermany Cohort 1.115***.185***.449**.661*.320**.094*** Cohort 2.097***.153***.248***.447**.164***.067*** Cohort 3.133***.162***.213***.205***.091***.098*** Data source: IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey). Cohort 1 is born 1970-75; cohort 2, 1955-64; cohort 3, 1945-54. The cognitive test scores refer to reading comprehension. Reference group for estimations is fathers with ISCED 3 or more. Significance levels: * = 0.5; ** = 0.1; *** = 0.05 or better.

23. Table 1. Transitions Analysis for Upper Secondary (2 nd ) and Tertiary (3 rd ) Education. Bivariate Probit Selection Models (SILC) DKFranceItaly Spain UK 2nd3rd2nd3rd2nd3rd2nd3rd2nd3rd Father Low EGP Cohort 50-63-.13-3.25*.05-.94*-.10-.19**-.17***-.21***-.52***.01 Cohort 64-77-.11-.25-.11-.42.12 -.34 *** -.19***-.13*-.31***-.08 Father Highest EGP Cohort 50-63.77***6.78***.99**2.49***.14.36***.38***.48***.59***.32** Cohort 64-77.37**.38**.051.48***.22.33***.38***.47***.27***.19*

24. Table : Results from OLS Regressions of Children’s Reading Abilities in Denmark βStandard errorStandardized beta Quality Care.123***.037.056 Poverty-.234***.044-.094 Low birthweight -.129.083-.026 Reading daily.065.041.027 Divorce-.073.047-.026 Boy-.210***.033-.108 Low-educ Mother.007.042.003 Hi-educ Mother.376***.041.166 Mother employed.104.056.032 constant-.213.090 N3327

25. Figure 3 – Quantile Regression for Effect of School- or Center-Based Care on Reading at 5 th Grade in the U.S. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Center-based 0.2.4.6.81 Quantile

26. Figure 1. Quantile Regression for Effects of High-Quality Child Care on Reading in Denmark