Race, Class, and Mobility in U.S. Marriage Markets

Ariel Binder, Caroline Walker, Jonathan Eggleston, Marta Murray-Close

U.S. Census Bureau

Center for Economic Studies

Fall 2022

1
Disclaimer

Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the 

authors and do not represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau or 

the Internal Revenue Service. The Census Bureau has reviewed this 

data product for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information 

and has approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied to this 

release. DRB Approval Numbers: CBDRB-FY2021-CES010-022, CBDRBFY2022-CES005-010, CBDRB-FY-2022-CES005-011, and CBDRB-FY2022-

CES010-028.

2
Motivation

Disparities in intergenerational mobility by race and ethnicity (Chetty, et al. 2018; Pfeffer 

and Killewald 2019)

• Inequality in parent generation  disparate child outcomes

• But also differences in transmission of advantage across generations by race

• Black Americans have lower rates of upward mobility and higher rates of downward mobility than 

white Americans

• Thinks of outcomes for individuals

• BUT persistence of econ disadvantage may drive family formation patterns as those 

individuals partner, become next gen of parents

Large disparities in HH structure by race and ethnicity (Smock & Schwartz 2020; Cross 2020)

• Gap in union formation well-documented

• What are the characteristics of partners in unions that form? How do they differ by race 

and ethnicity?

3
Research Questions

• Descriptively: 

• How do economic circumstances in childhood translate to marriage market 

outcomes in adulthood? 

• Union formation

• Assortative matching

• Expected income from partner (EIFP)

• How do these outcomes differ by racial-ethnic identity?

• How do these disparities translate to intergenerational mobility?

• What socioeconomic mechanisms may explain racial-ethnic 

disparities in marriage market outcomes?

4
Data and Results preview

We link IRS 1040 forms to the 2011-2019 ACS and find:

• Modest effect of CFI on partnering, large disparities by race/ethnicity

• Compared to median CFI, assortative matching is

• High at the top (but especially for average-rich groups)

• High at the bottom (but especially for average-poor groups)

• Large racial-ethnic gaps in women’s partner’s income, adult family income

• Differences in women’s partners incomes (rather than personal income) 

explain bulk of gaps in mobility

• Women’s marriage market outcomes improve with lower racial 

segregation, lower income inequality

5
Outline

• Data and samples.

• Descriptive results on partnering and marriage.

• Investigation of CFI assortative matching. 

• Local marriage market regressions.

6
Data overview

7

ACS 2011-2019 IRS 1040 forms

• Marital and cohabitation links 

based on reln to reference person

• Marital status

• Sex

• Age

• Race/ethnicity

• Adulthood family income

• Marital and cohabitation links 

based on future joint tax returns

• Childhood family income

• Childhood tract of residence
Sample definitions

• ACS person record received a PIK.

• Person was born in the U.S.

• Criteria for birth year and age depend on sex and family structure.

• Birth years approximately 1979-86.

• Ages approximately 28-35.

• N: ~1.3 million individuals, ~450,000 couples. 

8
Measures of family income

• Childhood family income (CFI)

• Average AGI of tax units claiming child as dependent when child is age 10-18.

• AGIs deflated to 2015 dollars.

• Omit negative AGIs.

• Filer(s) who claim the child may change over time.

• Adulthood family income (AFI)

• ACS Personal income of focal person + personal income of partner (0 if no partner).

9
Childhood family income breakdown

10

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms.

Note: NH stands for non-Hispanic, AIAN stands for American 

Indian / Alaska Native.
Shares married and partnered by CFI (Women)

11

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms. 

Notes: Note: CFI stands for childhood family income, NH stands for non-Hispanic, AIAN stands 

for American Indian / Alaska Native. AIAN, NH line omitted from left panel for disclosure reasons.

Married Partnered
Partner CFI rank – own CFI rank slope (Women)

12

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms.

Note: CFI stands for childhood family income, NH stands for nonHispanic, AIAN stands for American Indian / Alaska Native.
Mechanism: assortative matching on childhood 

family income

13

Begin with simple criterion: share of women with a partner within 8 CFI ranks.

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms
Formal assortative matching index

• Problem with informal measure is the density of people within CFI 

percentile differs by race/ethnicity.

• Estimate LPM for each CFI percentile p and racial-ethnic group r: 

1 mm ∈ cc1 = αpppp + βpppp1 ww ∈ cc1 + εii

where cc1 indicates CFI is within a tolerance of 8 percentiles.

βpppp = Marginal probability of having a partner within 8 percentiles

14
15

Formal assortative matching index: βpppp

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms.

Notes: CFI stands for Childhood Family Income.
Integrating extensive and intensive margins: 

EIFP = P(partner) � E(partner income|partner)

16

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms.

Note: EIFP stands for Expected Income from Partner.

Measure of 

expected income 

obtained from 

marriage market 

for women.
17

Mobility statistic White NH Black NH Hispanic AIAN NH

Panel A. Observed Data

Pr(move out of Q1) 0.73 0.57 0.72 0.54

Pr(remain in Q5) 0.39 0.16 0.29 0.22

Panel B. Counterfactural: All Groups Have White Women's Personal Income

Pr(move out of Q1) 0.73 0.56 0.69 0.63

Pr(remain in Q5) 0.39 0.18 0.33 0.27

Panel C. Counterfactual: All Groups Have White Women's Partner's Income

Pr(move out of Q1) 0.67 0.72 0.74 0.66

Pr(remain in Q5) 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.3

How do gaps in EIFP translate to gaps in 

intergenerational mobility?

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms.

Notes: EIFP stands for Expected Income from Partner. Childhood family income quintiles come from IRS 1040 

AGI, adulthood family income quintiles come from ACS personal income.
Summarizing the descriptives

18

• Women from poorer racial-ethnic groups obtain (conditional on CFI):

• Lower probability of partnering.

• Lower CFI partner, lower income partner.

• Flatter CFI slope (i.e. lower expected partner income returns to CFI).

• Intensive margin dynamics:

• Higher propensity to match on CFI at bottom and top of CFI distribution.

• Mechanically driven by marginal probabilities.

• But also shows up in formal indices that control for this.

• Equalizing EIFP for women greatly diminishes racial-ethnic disparities in mobility

• Suggests frictional matching story: IG mobility is constrained through the marriage market, 

creating wedge between initially-average-poor and initially-average-rich social groups.
Regional regression analysis

19

• Comparing womens outcomes across local marriage markets (birth CBSAs).

• Higher same-race share in Q5 

 more assortativeness, higher EIFP for both Black and White women.

• Higher Q5 inequality 

 Higher assortativeness at the top for White women, lower assortativeness at the top for Black women.

 No effect on White women’s EIFP, much lower EIFP for Black women.

• Higher racial segregation

 Lower EIFP for Black and White women, but especially for Black women.

 More assortativeness for White women, less assortativeness for Black women
Appendix slides

20
Primary sample and partners

21

Oldest Birth year Youngest

Age of

Primary women

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

2008 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17

2009 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18

2010 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19

2011 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20

2012 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21

2013 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22

2014 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

2015 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

2016 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25

2017 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26

2018 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27

2019 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28

Age of 

primary men

Age of 

Partners
22

Partnership coverage rate of primary sample

Married couples 79.3

Cohabiting couples 65.4

Of people in the primary sample who were linked to a 

spouse or partner, what percentage are included in the 

couple sample?

Source: 2011-2019 ACS linked to IRS 1040 Forms
Segregation: Dissimilarity index

Racial segregation in a CBSA c:

DDcc=

1

2 ∑tt=1

NN wwtt

WW − bbttBB , where

wwtt=white population in tract t

W = white population in CBSA c

bbtt=black population in tract t

B = black population in CBSA c

Analogous for income segregation, segmenting population into:

• Segregation of wealth: {Top 20 CFI percentile,bottom 80 percentile}

• Segregation of poverty: {Bottom 20 CFI percentile,top 80 percentile}

23