Composition of life course SES groups

The LCA method revealed several interesting subgroups that add to our knowledge of generational SES exposure across the transition from adolescence to adulthood. For

example, we identified two distinct groups characterized by a single mother household in adolescence (i.e. “persistent disadvantage” and “educational advantage”). Despite their similar family structure, members of “persistent disadvantage” clearly had a more socially and economically deprived overall pattern of SES in adolescence as compared to members of “educational advantage.” Maternal education and occupational status likely played an

important role in further distinguishing these groups on their SES characteristics as young adults, with respondents in “persistent disadvantage” remaining at low SES while the educational pursuits of those in “educational advantage” placed them on an upward SES trajectory.

The two “disadvantaged” life course SES patterns identified by LCA (i.e. “persistent disadvantage” and “disadvantage with autonomy”) are another example of seemingly similar SES subgroups with important differences. In addition to the single mother household structure already described, members of “persistent disadvantage” were from unstable poor adolescent households with high levels of unemployment and hardship, and the cycle of disadvantage continued with their own low education and high unemployment in young

adulthood. In contrast, respondents in “disadvantage with autonomy” came from two-parent, working poor adolescent households, but they were more likely to be both pursuing some education and earning an income in the labor force, albeit in a low-status occupation. The transitional patterns of this group seems most akin to the “fast starters” identified by Osgood et al. (Osgood, Ruth et al. 2004), experiencing early transitions in residence, employment and social roles at the detriment of further education. Thus, although both groups were

“disadvantaged,” the overall patterns of life course SES are distinct.

The distribution of these distinct subgroups across race/ethnicity highlights the advantage of using LCA to define life course SES over traditional methods in several ways. For instance, although both blacks and Hispanics were most represented in the “stable low” social mobility group, their distribution across LCA groups suggests that their experience of disadvantaged SES was quite different. That is, blacks were more represented in unstable poor, single mother adolescent households (persistent disadvantage), while Hispanics were most likely to be in working poor, two parent adolescent households (disadvantage with autonomy). Similarly, although Asians were least represented in the “stable low” category, it was clear that the majority of low SES Asians were from working poor, two parent

households (disadvantage with autonomy) rather than ”persistent disadvantage.” LCA also identified three distinct “advantaged” life course SES groups with

considerable heterogeneity not captured in the traditional “upward” or “downward” mobility groups, providing a more detailed picture of what defines “advantage” in terms of life course SES exposure for young adults. While “highest overall advantage” clearly comprised the most well off group on a number of SES characteristics, they did not have the highest incomes in young adulthood, which may have misclassified them as “downwardly mobile”

using the traditional social mobility approach. Members of “material advantage” had a more mixed, yet still relatively “advantaged” SES profile; although they had the highest incomes as young adults, neither they nor their parents achieved particularly high education, raising questions as to whether they would be classified as upwardly or downwardly mobile. Again, examining distributions of these groups by race/ethnicity further illustrates the information gained using LCA. That is, both whites and Asians had their highest proportions in the “stable high” mobility group, but their largest proportions in the LCA groups split across “material advantage” and “highest overall advantage.” Finally, although we already discussed the relatively favorable profile of “educational advantage,” it bears mention that this group was an important “advantaged” group for blacks, as it was the only such group for which they had a sizable representation.

Although only select demographic characteristics of the young adults were included in the LCA because of their strong relationship and determination of SES exposure, these traits provide added insight on the profiles of these groups beyond SES. For instance, marriage rates in the “disadvantage with autonomy” group (mentioned above) were much higher than in “highest overall advantage.” In contrast, “living with parents” did not distinguish classes as clearly as may have been expected, suggesting that this has become a normative status for young adults in the US today. However, the other variables defining each group pattern suggest there may be different mechanisms driving the ultimately similar rates of living at home. Some of these include the potential inability of unemployed, low education young adults in “persistent disadvantage” to support themselves, whereas the recent trend of college graduates returning to the nest before launching into full

Porfeli et al. 2004). Results for “income from family” are consistent with recent research on parental outlays, showing that parents with the most means are most likely to provide

financial support to their children (Schoeni and Ross 2004). Interestingly, the middle SES, single mother adolescent household group (educational advantage) had substantially higher rates of supporting their children than the group with a working poor, two-parent adolescent household (disadvantage with autonomy).