Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: The Transformation of American Families, 1800–2015

Abstract

This article proposes explanations for the transformation of American families over the past two centuries. I describe the impact on families of the rise of male wage labor beginning in the nineteenth century and the rise of female wage labor in the twentieth century. I then examine the effects of decline in wage labor opportunities for young men and women during the past four decades. I present new estimates of a precipitous decline in the relative income of young men and assess its implications for the decline for marriage. Finally, I discuss explanations for the deterioration of economic opportunity and speculate on the impact of technological change on the future of work and families.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Notes

  1. 1.

    Except where otherwise specified, statistics in this article derive from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (Flood et al. 2015; Ruggles et al. 2015). In many cases, the analyses also appear in Ruggles (forthcoming), which includes additional documentation of sources and methods.

  2. 2.

    Martin et al. (2014) projected that assuming current marriage rates remain unchanged, 31 % of women and 35 % of men born in 1990 will not have married by age 40.

  3. 3.

    The 2014 and 2007 estimates come from the Current Population Survey (CPS), adjusted to account for group quarters (Flood et al. 2015). The 1970 estimate derives from the census microdata, adjusted to account for cohabitation (Fitch et al. 2005).

  4. 4.

    This analysis is confined to the United States because it is presently the only country with a suitable long-run data series. Similar processes, however, occurred in Northern Europe and now seem to be occurring in some East Asian and Latin American countries (Ruggles 2009; Stanfors and Goldscheider 2015).

  5. 5.

    This graph was inspired by a similar illustration that appears in Stanfors and Goldscheider (2015). The term “Corporate Family Economy” was coined by Ryan (1981), and my characterization of change was informed by Mintz (1998).

  6. 6.

    The white space at the top—labeled “Not in the labor force”—identifies women without identifiable economic activities, whose effort was probably devoted mainly to housework and childcare. Housework and childcare clearly have economic value (Folbre and Nelson 2000), but do not enable economic independence.

  7. 7.

    Some theorists argue the opposite, maintaining that that both family change and married women’s employment resulted mainly from the rise of individualistic values (e.g., Lesthaeghe 1983, 2010; Van de Kaa 1987). I discuss this interpretation in Ruggles (forthcoming).

  8. 8.

    Rising cohabitation can account for less than one-fifth of this overall change; in 2013, 44 % of households included no couple at all, either married or cohabiting (Flood et al. 2015).

  9. 9.

    Figures 1214 are inflated to 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS), which was designed to address concerns that the standard Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) exaggerates inflation, especially in the late 1970s (Stewart and Reed 1999). If I had instead used CPI-U, the decline in young men’s wages would have been even greater (32 % for full-time workers and 48 % for all men aged 25–29). Both CPI series, however, may actually understate inflation as experienced by young adults in the 1970s and 1980s: young adults spent a high proportion of their income on rent; and before 1987, the CPI seriously understated rent inflation (Crone et al. 2006; Gordon and Van Goethem 2007). CPI-U-RS is available only for the period from 1978 to the present; to inflate the earlier years, I calculated the ratio of CPI-U-RS to CPI-U in 1978, and used it to adjust the CPI-U from 1940 to 1977.

  10. 10.

    Median generation length for men ranged from 27.8 in 1970 to 32.2 in 2013 (Ruggles et al. 2015). To estimate incomes before 1939, I assumed that annual changes in income for young men were proportional to annual changes in the mean income of the bottom 90 % of the population excluding capital gains, as estimated by Alvaredo et al. (2015). Accordingly, the early decades shown in Fig. 13 should be viewed as approximate.

  11. 11.

    The analysis used the open-source DECOMP software (Ruggles 1989).

  12. 12.

    The occupational classification is based on the first digit of the OCC1950 variable in IPUMS; the decomposition categories correspond to OCC1950 codes 0–99; 100–399; 400–499; 500–599; 600–699; and 700–970 (Ruggles et al. 2015).

  13. 13.

    I conducted a series of decompositions using a similar approach to assess the difference in the percentage married between black and white men. The results suggest that at least one-half of race differences in marriage in the 1960–2013 period can be ascribed to race differences in the economic characteristics of young men, lending further support to a structural interpretation (e.g., Wilson and Neckerman 1987).

  14. 14.

    Among the 36 % of working-age men who did not work for wages in 2013, 10 % were enrolled in school or college; 11 % were in institutions; 15 % were unemployed; 24 % were self-employed (down from 42 % in 1970); and 40 % were not in school, not employed, not institutionalized, and not looking for a job (Ruggles et al. 2015).

References

  1. Aidala, A. (1958, Feb. 27). Is father losing place as head of family? New York Daily Mirror, 27.

  2. Aidala, A. (1959, Dec. 14). If a woman needs it, should she be spanked? New York Daily Mirror, 25.

  3. Akerlof, G. A., Yellen, J. L., & Katz, M. L. (1996). An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 277–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alvaredo, F., Atkinson, A. B., Saez, E., & Piketty, T. (2015). World top incomes database. Retrieved from http://topincomes.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/

  5. Amato, P. R., Booth, A., McHale, S. M., & Van Hook, J. (Eds.). (2014). Families in an era of increasing inequality: Diverging destinies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arnold, C., & Kiel, P. (Narrator). (2014, Sept. 14). Millions of Americans’ wages seized over credit card and medical debt [Radio broadcast episode]. In Morning Edition. Washington, DC: National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2014/09/15/347957729/when-consumer-debts-go-unpaid-paychecks-can-take-a-big-hit

  7. Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1993). Mothers, children, and cohabitation: The intergenerational effects of attitudes and behavior. American Sociological Review, 58, 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (2000). The transformation in the meaning of marriage. In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, & A. Thornton (Eds.), Ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 147–165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bailey, M. J. (2006). More power to the pill: The impact of contraceptive freedom on women’s life cycle labor supply. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 289–320.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bianchi, S. M. (1995). Changing economic roles of women and men. In F. Reynolds (Ed.), State of the union: America in the 1990s (Vol. 1, pp. 107–154). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

  11. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (2015). Industrial production: Manufacturing (NAICS) [IPMAN]. Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN/

  12. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What’s happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27, 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carbone, J., & Cahn, N. (2014). Marriage markets: How inequality is remaking the American family. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Carlson, W. (2008). The lucky few: Between the greatest generation and the baby boom. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cherlin, A. J. (2014). Labor’s love lost: The rise and fall of the working-class family in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York, NY: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York, NY: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Costa, D. L. (2000). From mill town to board room: The rise of women’s paid labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cott, N. (2009). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2001). Women’s work and working women: The demand for female labor. Gender & Society, 15, 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Crone, T. M., Nakamura, L. I., & Voith, R. (2006). The CPI for rents: A case of understated inflation (Working Paper No. 06-7). Philadelphia, PA: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

  24. Das Gupta, P. (1978). A general method of decomposing a difference between two rates into several components. Demography, 15, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Easterlin, R. A. (1966). On the relation of economic factors to recent and projected fertility changes. Demography, 3, 131–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Easterlin, R. A. (1978). What will 1984 be like? Socioeconomic implications of recent twists in age structure. Demography, 15, 397–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Easterlin, R. A. (1987). Birth and fortune (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fitch, C., Goeken, R., & Ruggles, S. (2005). The rise of cohabitation in the United States: New historical estimates (MPC Working Paper No. 2005−03). Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center. Retrieved from http://www.pop.umn.edu/sites/www.pop.umn.edu/files/cohabit_2005-03.pdf

  29. Flood, S., King, M. L., Ruggles, S., & Warren, J. R. (2015). Integrated public use microdata series, current population survey: Version 4.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

  30. Folbre, N., & Nelson, J. A. (2000). For love or money—or both? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ford, H., & Crowther, S. (1922). My life and work. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization? Oxford, UK: Oxford Martin School Study. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  33. Goldin, C. (1990). Understanding the gender gap: An economic history of American women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goldin, C. (1991a). Marriage bars: Discrimination against married women workers from the 1920s to the 1950s. In P. Higonnet, D. S. Landes, & H. Rosovsky (Eds.), Favorites of fortune: Technology, growth, and economic development since the Industrial Revolution (pp. 511–536). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goldin, C. (1991b). The role of World War II in the rise of women’s employment. American Economic Review, 81, 741–756.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Goldin, C. (1995). The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. In T. P. Schultz (Ed.), Investment in women’s human capital and economic development (pp. 61–90). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2002). The power of the pill: Oral contraceptives and women’s career and marriage decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 730–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2010). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Goldin, C., Katz, L. F., & Kuziemko, I. (2006). The homecoming of American college women: The reversal of the college gender gap. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). A theoretical framework for understanding new family-demographic behavior: The two halves of the gender revolution. Population and Development Review, 41, 207–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gordon, R. J., & van Goethem, T. (2007). A century of downward bias in the biggest CPI component: The case of rental shelter, 1914–2003. In E. Berndt & C. Hulten (Eds.), Hard-to-measure goods and services: Essays in honor of Zvi Griliches (pp. 153–195). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hartog, H. (2000). Man and wife in America: A history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332, 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). (2014). IEEE survey reveals cars will not have steering wheels, pedals, horns, or rearview mirrors by 2035. Retrieved from http://electricvehicle.ieee.org/telematics/ieee-survey-reveals-mass-produced-cars-will-steering-wheels-gasbrake-pedals-horns-rearview-mirrors-2035/

  45. Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s–2000s. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19(article 47), 1663–1692. doi:10.4054.DemRes.2008.19.47

  47. Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980–2010. Demography, 51, 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2015). Trends in union instability in the United States, 1980s-2010s (MPC Working Paper No. 2015-1). Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center.

  49. Kessler-Harris, A. (1982). Out to work: A history of wage-earning women in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Keynes, J. M. (1930). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. Nation and Athenaeum, 48, 2:36–37, 3:96–98.

  51. Lebergott, S. (1984). The Americans: An economic record. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lesthaeghe, R. (1983). A century of demographic and cultural change in western Europe: An exploration of underlying dimensions. Population and Development Review, 9, 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36, 211–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Levinson, M. (2015). U.S. manufacturing in international perspective (CRS Report R42135). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

  55. Martin, S. P., Astone, N. M., & Peters, H. E. (2014). Fewer marriages, more divergence: Marriage projections for Millennials to age 40. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Massey, D. S. (1996). The age of extremes: Concentrated affluence and poverty in the twenty-first century. Demography, 33, 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. May, E. T. (1980). Great expectations: Marriage and divorce in post-Victorian America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. May, E. T. (1990). Homeward bound: American families in the Cold War era. New York, NY: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  59. May, E. T. (2010). America and the pill: A history of promise, peril, and liberation. New York, NY: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  60. McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mintz, S. (1998). From patriarchy to androgyny and other myths: Placing men’s family roles in historical perspective. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 3–30). Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mintz, S., & Kellogg, S. (1988). Domestic revolutions: A social history of American family life. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Mokyr, J., Vickers, C., & Ziebarth, N. I. (2015). The history of technological anxiety and the future of economic growth: Is this time different? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Myers, C. K. (2012). Power of the pill or power of abortion? Re-examining the effects of young women’s access to reproductive control (IZA Discussion Paper No. 6661). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

  65. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1970). The female labor force in the United States: Demographic and economic factors governing its growth and changing composition (Population Monograph Series No. 5). Berkeley: University of California.

  66. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in industrialized societies. Population and Development Review, 20, 293–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Presser, H. B. (1998). Decapitating the U.S. Census Bureau’s head of household: Feminist mobilization in the 1970s. Feminist Economics, 4, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Read, J. E. (1884). Farming for profit: An encyclopedia of useful information and a practical assistant in the management of farm affairs. Devoted to agriculture and mechanics, fruit growing and gardening, live-stock, business principles, home life, and showing how to make money and secure health and happiness on the farm. Philadelphia, PA: J.C. McCurdy.

  71. Rinfduss, R. R., Brewster, K. L., & Kavee, A. L. (1996). Women, work, and children: Behavioral and attitudinal change in the United States. Population and Development Review, 22, 457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ruggles, S. (1989). DECOMP: A program for multiple standardization and demographic decomposition [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.umn.edu/~ruggles/DECOMP.html

  73. Ruggles, S. (1994). The transformation of American family structure. American Historical Review, 99, 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ruggles, S. (1997). The rise of divorce and separation in the United States, 1880–1990. Demography, 34, 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ruggles, S. (2003). Multigenerational families in nineteenth-century America. Continuity and Change, 18, 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ruggles, S. (2007). The decline of intergenerational coresidence in the United States, 1850–2000. American Sociological Review, 72, 962–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ruggles, S. (2009). Reconsidering the northwest European family system: Living arrangements of the aged in comparative historical perspective. Population and Development Review, 35, 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ruggles, S. (Forthcoming). Marriage, family systems, and economic opportunity in the United States since 1850. In S. M. McHale, V. V. King, J. J. Van Hook, & A. A. Booth (Eds.), Gender and couple relationships. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  79. Ruggles, S., & Brower, S. (2003). The measurement of family and household composition in the United States, 1850–1999. Population and Development Review, 29, 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ruggles, S., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Grover, J., & Sobek, M. (2015). Integrated public use microdata series: Version 6.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

  81. Ryan, M. P. (1981). Cradle of the middle class. The family in Oneida County, New York, 1790–1865. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Segal, H. P. (2005). Recasting the machine age: Henry Ford’s village industries. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Shammas, C. (2002). A history of household government in America. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Siegel, R. B. (1996). “The rule of love”: Wife beating as prerogative and privacy. Yale Law Journal, 105, 2117–2207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Smith, T. W., Hout, M., & Marsden, P. V. (2013). General Social Survey, 1972–2012 Cumulative File (ICPSR 34802-v1) [Data file]. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut /Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. doi:10.3886/ICPSR34802.v1

  86. Stanfors, M., & Goldscheider, F. (2015). The forest and the trees: Industrialization, demographic change, and the ongoing gender revolution in Sweden and the United States, 1870–2010. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, 2015, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Stanley, A. D. (2002). Marriage, property, and class. In N. A. Hewitt (Ed.), A companion to American women's history (pp. 193–205). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Stewart, K. J., & Reed, S. B. (1999). CPI research series using current methods, 1978–98. Monthly Labor Review, 1999(June), 29–38.

  89. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Thornton, A. (1985). Changing attitudes toward separation and divorce: Causes and consequences. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 856–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Torr, B. (2011). The changing relationship between education and marriage in the United States: 1940–2000. Journal of Family History, 36, 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). All employees: Manufacturing [MANEMP]. Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP/

  93. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42, 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Weil, D. (2014). The fissured workplace: Why work became so bad for so many and what can be done to improve it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Weiss, T. (1992). U.S. labor force estimates and economic growth, 1800–1860. In R. E. Gallman & J. J. Wallis (Eds.), American economic growth and standards of living before the Civil War (pp. 19–75). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Westoff, C. F., & Ryder, N. B. (n.d.). National Fertility Survey, 1970 (ICPSR20003-v1). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR20003.v1

  97. Wilson, W. J., & Neckerman, K. (1987). Poverty and family structure: The widening gap between evidence and public policy issues. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy (pp. 63–92). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Zinser, L. (2014, Nov. 5). Adrian Peterson agrees to plea deal in child-abuse case. New York Times, B13.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is a revised version of my Presidential Address to the Population Association of America, delivered in San Diego on May 1, 2015. Funding for data preparation was provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD43392, R01HD047283, and R24HD41023). I also had a lot of help from my friends. I presented versions of this article at 10 population center seminars and conferences, and at every venue received feedback that reshaped my thinking. Several people were extraordinarily generous, providing detailed critiques of multiple drafts: Philip Cohen, Stephanie Coontz, Cathy Fitch, Katie Genadek, Claudia Goldin, Fran Goldscheider, Miriam King, Steven Mintz, Phyllis Moen, Lisa Norling, Gina Rumore, Carole Shammas, and Matt Sobek. Two anonymous Demography reviewers also provided wise advice. My greatest debt is to the data creators, curators, integrators, and disseminators of the Minnesota Population Center, without whom it would be impossible to describe long-run family change.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Ruggles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruggles, S. Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: The Transformation of American Families, 1800–2015. Demography 52, 1797–1823 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0440-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marriage
  • Family
  • Wage labor
  • Relative income