مشاغل تفکیک شده و یا سوله های قومی : تاثیر استخدام نژادپرستانه بر نابرابری درآمد

Using data from the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality (MCSUI), this study examines the extent to which the racial or ethnic composition of jobs affects racial and ethnic-linked earnings inequalities among whites, blacks and Hispanics. Four types of jobs are distinguished according to the racial/ethnic composition of jobs in work establishments: predominantly white, multi-racial or mixed, predominantly black, and predominantly Hispanic. We found considerable differences among the four types of jobs. Jobs composed predominantly of white workers are characterized by the highest earnings, the highest status occupations, and the highest levels of education. In contrast, jobs predominantly composed of Hispanic workers are characterized by the lowest salaries, the lowest status occupations, and the lowest levels of education. The data analysis supports the hypothesis that job segregation is responsible for earnings disparities in the case of blacks versus whites, but only partial support for this hypothesis is found in the case of Hispanics versus whites. The analysis also provides support for the “devaluation hypothesis” which suggests that all workers experience pay penalties in jobs in which minority workers are predominant. Further analysis reveals that had most workers been rewarded like whites employed in predominantly white jobs, their earnings would have increased considerably. The only groups of workers who “benefit” from job segregation are Hispanic workers employed in predominately Hispanic jobs. In the absence of competition with others, Hispanics employed in predominantly Hispanic jobs earn more than they would earn in other jobs. The differential effects of the ethnic composition of jobs on economic outcomes of minority populations are evaluated and discussed in light of the roles played by sheltered and protected ethnic economies.

Much research on labor market inequality confirms that racial and ethnic minorities tend to be concentrated in low status and low-paying jobs and that whites are more likely to have employment in higher status and more lucrative jobs (e.g., Catanzarite, 2000 and Catanzarite, 2003; Fossett, Galle, & Kelly, 1986; Grodsky & Pager, 2001; Huffman, 2004; Huffman & Cohen, 2004; Jacobsen, 1997, Kaufman, 1986, Kaufman, 2002, Kmec, 2003, Reid, 1998 and Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). In terms of pay, there is a substantial penalty associated with working in segregated jobs, especially those that are predominantly black jobs (Huffman, 2004). At the core of the segregation phenomenon lies the Weberian concept “closure.” According to this concept, “social collectivities seek to maximize rewards by restricting access to resources and opportunities to a limited circle of eligibles” (Parkin, 1979: 99). To put this in Tilly's (1999: 8) words, “categorical inequality” pertains to actions taken by “people who control access to value producing resources solve organizational problems by means of categorical distinctions. Inadvertently or otherwise, those people set up systems of social colosure, exclusion and control.” Indeed, social scientists have viewed segregation in the labor market as one of the most effective mechanisms through which racial and ethnic minorities are denied access to economic rewards. Thus, labor market segregation acts as a major determinant of racial and ethnic inequality. Although researchers uniformly agree that segregation has detrimental consequences for the socioeconomic outcomes of the minority population, several have debated whether concentration of minority workers in a labor market (whether an occupation, an industry, a job or a locality) depresses earnings (or wages) of all incumbents (e.g., Catanzarite, 2003; Hircsh & Schumacher, 1992; Huffman & Cohen, 2004; Kmec, 2003 and Reid, 1998; Tienda & Lii, 1987; Wilson, 1999). To date, most studies on this issue suggest that all incumbents, regardless of their race or ethnicity, pay penalties in labor markets in which the majority of workers belong to a subordinate racial or ethnic minority group. Yet, several researchers specify conditions under which minority members can actually benefit from working in “ethnic niches” in which they are segregated from other racial and ethnic groups. That is, when racial and ethnic minorities constitute a numerical majority in an occupational niche, an industry, or a local labor market, they can gain control and hegemony over the market; hence, they can enjoy relative advantages not available elsewhere (e.g., Aldrich, Cater, Jones, Mcevoy, & Velleman, 1985; Jibou, 1988; Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1994; Pfeffer, 1983; Waldinger, 1996; Waldinger, Aldrich, & Ward, 1990). Similarly, due to segregation, minorities often establish ethnic enclaves or mono-ethnic labor markets in which they are able to shelter themselves from the detrimental consequences of discrimination. At times, they are even able to benefit relatively from employment in the “segregated ethnic labor markets” (Aldrich et al., 1985 and Jibou, 1988; Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1994; Portes & Bach, 1985; Semyonov, 1988; Wilson & Martin, 1982). In this paper, we examine the relationship between the racial and ethnic composition of jobs and earnings inequality. Specifically, we look at whether earnings inequalities among whites, blacks and Hispanics can be attributed to segregation across jobs and whether such segregation produces divergent patterns of earnings inequality. Similar to previous studies on the issue (e.g., Catanzarite & Aguilera, 2002; Kmec, 2003), we distinguish between jobs in work settings which are predominantly composed of minority workers (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) and jobs that are either mixed or that are predominantly composed of white workers. Also similar to previous studies on the issue, we examine the extent to which ethnic composition of jobs intervenes between racial minority status and economic outcomes. We also analyze the degree to which concentration of minority workers in jobs produces earnings penalties for all incumbents. Unlike previous studies on this issue, however, we extend the analysis also to examine the extent to which racial and ethnic segregation across jobs results in different patterns of inequality. By doing so, we will be in a position to better understand the mechanisms through which job segregation affects racially linked earnings inequality in the labor market

The major objective of this research was to examine the role of ethnic segregation across jobs in the determination of socioeconomic inequalities in general, and in producing ethnic-linked earnings inequalities in particular. We suggested that job segregation is a structural device through which subordinate racial and ethnic minorities are denied equal access to occupational opportunities and economic rewards. We also proposed that the extent of disadvantage a superordinate group can force on a subordinate minority population is dependent to a large extent on competition between the two groups in the same labor market. Following this rationale, we expected lower levels of socioeconomic rewards in segregated jobs (i.e., jobs that employ predominantly racial and ethnic minorities) than in jobs dominated by white workers. We also expected, however, that jobs with predominantly ethnic minorities would provide minority workers with some temporary protection from competition and discrimination and with opportunities not available to them elsewhere. Specifically, in the absence of competition with majority group members, minority workers employed in ethnically segregated jobs are able to attain earnings that are higher than expected on the basis of their lower levels of human resources. The data analysis focused on black, Hispanic and white workers and the ethnic composition of their jobs. We defined segregation according to the ethnic or racial composition of the workers performing similar jobs in the same work establishments. We distinguished among four types of jobs: predominantly whites, multi-ethnic (or mixed), predominantly blacks, and predominantly Hispanics. We found considerable differences among the four types of jobs. Jobs dominated by white workers are characterized by the highest salaries, by the highest occupational status, and by employees with the highest levels of formal schooling. In contrast, jobs that predominantly employ Hispanics pay the least, have the lowest occupational statuses, and employ workers with the lowest levels of education. Jobs with predominantly black workers and jobs with multi-ethnic composition are in between. We also found that within each type of job composition, for the most part, whites earn the highest wages and have the highest levels of education while Hispanics earn the least and have the lowest levels of formal education. The data analysis provides only partial support for the hypothesis that ethnic segregation across jobs is responsible for the economic disparities between whites and minority populations. The findings revealed that workers employed in ethnically segregated jobs are penalized in term of their earnings when compared with workers employed in jobs dominated by whites. However, only part of the earnings gaps between whites and Hispanics or blacks can be attributed to labor market segregation. Although we find, similar to previous research on the issue (e.g., Catanzarite, 2003; Catanzarite & Aguilera, 2002; Huffman & Cohen, 2004; Kmec, 2003), that employment in jobs dominated by minorities is associated with earnings penalties for all workers, we do not find that job segregation can fully explain the earnings disparities between ethnic minorities and whites, especially between Hispanics and whites. The analysis presented by this research underscores significant and meaningful effects of labor market segregation on economic inequality. Had most workers been rewarded like whites employed in jobs dominated by white workers, their earnings would have increased considerably. This finding holds for all whites employed in minority-dominated jobs as well as for most blacks whether employed in or outside white-dominated jobs. That is, relative to whites, most blacks are disadvantaged in the attainment of economic outcomes regardless of the ethnic composition of their jobs. The earnings disadvantages for blacks, however, are considerably more pronounced in ethnically segregated jobs than in jobs dominated by white workers. In contrast, Hispanics employed in ethnic labor markets “benefit” from segregation. The positive effect of job segregation on the economic attainment of Hispanic workers is evident in jobs that are mostly composed of Hispanic workers. In the Hispanic type jobs, Hispanic workers are advantaged in the attainment of economic outcomes. In the absence of competition with whites, their earnings in Hispanic type jobs are considerably higher than the earnings that they would attain in jobs dominated by whites. That is, in comparison to whites employed in the white labor market, they are able to attain earnings that are substantially higher than expected on basis of their lower education, relative youth, and weaker English. The concept sheltered (or protected) labor market outlined at the outset of this paper appears to have some validity in the case of Hispanic workers employed in Hispanic type jobs. Our findings indicate that employment in ethnically segregated jobs is advantageous to Hispanic workers. These socioeconomic advantages can be attributed, in large part, to the unique position of Hispanics within the larger economy. That is, Hispanic workers develop entrepreneurial activities mostly in manual type jobs that pay very low salaries (cf., Raijman and Tienda, 2000a and Raijman and Tienda, 2000b; Rosenfeld & Tienda, 1999). Consequently, these jobs offer opportunities to workers whose human resources make them non-competitive in other segments of the economy. Unfortunately, our data do not permit us to examine the extent to which the Hispanic type jobs operate as an enclave economy providing relative advantages through networks of exchange and support among firms similar to the Cuban economy in Miami (e.g., Portes & Jensen, 1987; Wilson & Martin, 1982) or the extent to which Hispanic workers take control and hegemony over specific segments of the labor market similar to Japanese in California (e.g., Jibou, 1988). The data clearly demonstrate, however, that Hispanic job segregation becomes a significant resource to Hispanic workers and that the rules according to which these workers are recruited and rewarded differ considerably from mainstream jobs that are predominantly composed of white employees. Unlike Hispanic type jobs, our analysis suggests that jobs that are mostly composed of black workers do not provide those black workers with earnings advantages. Blacks employed in black type jobs are not doing better than blacks employed in other types of jobs. That is, when compared with whites, blacks are at a disadvantage in the attainment of economic outcomes in all types of jobs, including predominantly black ones. We suspect that this is, to a large extent, due to the lack of a developed enclave economy or relatively low levels of economic entrepreneurship in the black community (e.g., Bates, 1997 and Butler, 1991; Butler & Herring, 1991; Herring, Horton, & Thomas, 2002; Wilson, 1996; Wilson & Martin, 1982). In the absence of independent economic systems, blacks are less able to assume control over segments of the labor market, and thus, unable to provide better employment opportunities for black workers employed in jobs with predominantly black workers. The findings presented in this paper clearly demonstrate the differential effects of the ethnic or racial composition of jobs on economic outcomes in general and on ethnic-linked socioeconomic inequalities in particular. The rules by which ethnic and racial minorities achieve socioeconomic status vary substantially from one type of job to another, as well as from one ethnic group to another. Thus, the ethnic composition of jobs and job segregation should be viewed not only as a consequence of the sorting mechanisms of individuals into positions in the labor market, but also as a major cause of socioeconomic and ethnic inequality and of social stratification. On the basis of these findings, we suggest that more attention should be devoted to studying the underlying mechanisms that dominate the distribution of outcomes and rewards across jobs and ethnic labor markets.