Emerging Socioeconomic Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccine Second-Dose Completion Rates in the United States

Although COVID-19 vaccination plans acknowledge a need for equity, disparities in two-dose vaccine initiation have been observed in the United States. We aim to assess if disparity patterns are emerging in COVID-19 vaccination completion. We gathered (n = 843,985) responses between February and November 2021 from a web survey. Individuals self-reported demographics and COVID-19 vaccination status. Dose initiation and completion rates were calculated incorporating survey weights. A multi-variate logistic regression assessed the association between income and completing vaccination, accounting for other demographics. Overall, 57.4% initiated COVID-19 vaccination, with 84.5% completing vaccination. Initiation varied by income, and we observed disparities in completion by occupation, race, age, and insurance. Accounting for demographics, higher incomes are more likely to complete vaccination than lower incomes. We observe disparities in completion across annual income. Differences in COVID-19 vaccination completion may lead to two tiers of protection in the population, with certain sub-groups being better protected from future infection.

Familiar Faces, Worn Out Places: The Effect of Personal and Place Prosperity On Well-Being

Higher rates of income inequality are correlated with lower average well-being across different domains (such as health, financial security, friendship etc.) across nations. It is unclear, however, whether this pattern is driven by income differences between people or if places also play a role. In this paper, I test this by constructing a Se- nian Capability Index of well-being and then testing the relative role of personal and place-based prosperity on its domains using linked individual-area data. I find that while personal income has the strongest link to well-being domains, places also also have a significant, non-uniform, association as well. These effects differ between the labour market and neighbourhood level spatial scales. Local labour market prosperity gives its residents higher potential incomes and is associated with greater financial se- curity and more friends. Moving to a more prosperous labour market also indirectly improves well-being by increasing potential incomes. Neighbourhood prosperity is as- sociated with greater overall well-being, physical security, and a lower probability of death. These results suggest that policies aimed at improving personal and place-based characteristics are needed to create a “good life” for all citizens.

Generational differences in income trajectories in the Nordic welfare state

How much it matters for your income development what generation you happen to be born? We answer this question by using registers of the total population, we study generational income inequality during 1970–2018 and, for men and women in Finland. We follow the income trajectories of the cohorts born in 1920–1983 over their adult life course and observed, how certain structural factors explain differences in income trajectories. Our study expands state-of-the-art knowledge, as previous research has often bypassed the question of how much generational income differences explains of populations total income inequalities and what factors may explain the different generational income trajectories. Results show that overall generational income differences explained quarter for women and 6 percent for men total income inequality. Each successive cohort until 1980s had a higher average income trajectory. However, generation born in the 1980s has been falling behind. For both men and women, age structure and education were the most important factors associated with income inequality. On contrary to previous findings on Nordic welfare state, our results also indicate that, generational income trajectories are affected by economic shocks.

Income Differences between Flexibly and Nonflexibly Employed Persons and Their Deconstruction: An Analysis Based on Data from the 2018 China Mobility Monitor

The article analyzed the income differences between flexibly and nonflexibly employed persons based on the 2018 China Mobile Population Dynamics Monitoring Data, using OLS methods, propensity score matching (PSM), and Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. The results show that the income of flexibly employed persons is 11.9%–23.6% higher than that of nonflexibly employed persons, with differences in individual endowment characteristics explaining 53.9% of the income difference and differences in coefficients of nonmarket factors explaining 45.7% of the income difference. The degree of income difference between the two groups in different industries varies; except for the primary industry, the secondary and tertiary industries all show higher income for flexibly employed persons than for nonflexibly employed persons. The difference in income between the two groups was as high as 25% or more in the sectors of “rental and business services,” “education,” and “culture, sports, and entertainment.” The high ratio of employers and self-employed workers in flexible employment and the fact that the average number of hours worked per week is 12.6 hours higher for flexible workers than for nonflexible workers are important factors contributing to the difference in earnings between these two groups. Clarifying the extent of the current income disparity between flexible and nonflexible employment groups and its sources, and formulating and adjusting relevant policies and measures in a timely manner are conducive to creating a fair and equitable labour market environment and promoting the healthy development of flexible employment under the new circumstances.

‘If I could afford an avocado every day’: Income differences and ethical food consumption in a world of abundance

This study explores how ethical food consumption is framed in the accounts of ordinary people living in affluent societies, with a particular focus on income differences. Research on ethical consumption often associates ‘ethical’ with the consumption of certain predefined products. This study leaves the question of the content of ethical consumption open for empirical investigation. Further, instead of focusing only on the moment of purchasing, this study considers how people with different income levels relate to both food consumption and waste. The analysis draws from qualitative interviews with 60 people living in Canada and Finland. The analysis identified the techniques, subjects and norms through which the question ethical food consumption is posed by the informants and how they framed these issues with regard to income. The findings underline that ethical consumption is a socially constructed, contested and even internally contradictory discourse. Differences in income do not only mean differences in the role that money plays in food choices but also in what kind of consumption people consider worth pursuing. Further, differences in income dictate differences in how people are morally positioned vis-à-vis abundance. For people with a higher level of income, moral blame is asserted on wasteful consumption habits. For the people with a low income, in turn, it is ethically condemnable to refuse to rejoice at the abundance around us. The findings indicate that even in a society where the rhetoric of choice is prominent both as a right and as an obligation by which people ought to display ethical agency, the ethics of choice is tied to the resources available for consumption. People with a severely low income occasionally enjoy the trickling down of abundant treats and surprises. However, for them, occasional indulgence causes not only pleasure but also trouble.

The Relationship Between Income Inequality and the Palliative Function of Meritocracy Belief: The Micro- and the Macro-Levels Both Count

In the current paper, we report the analysis of the relationship between meritocracy belief and subjective well-being using two large international databases, the European Social Survey Program (N = 44,387) and the European Values Study Program (N = 51,752), involving data gathered from 36 countries in total. We investigated whether low status individuals are more likely to psychologically benefit from endorsing meritocratic beliefs, and the same benefits are more pronounced in more unequal societies. Since meritocracy belief can function as a justification for income differences, we assumed that the harsher the objective reality is, the higher level of subjective well-being can be maintained by justifying this harsh reality. Therefore, we hypothesized that the palliative function of meritocracy belief is stronger for both low social status (low income) individuals, and for those living in an unequal social environment (in countries with larger income differences). Our multilevel models showed a positive relationship between meritocracy belief and subjective well-being, which relationship was moderated by both individual-level income status and country-level income differences in both studies. Based on these results, we concluded that the emotional payoff of justifying income inequalities is larger if one is more strongly affected by these inequalities.

Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey

We quantify differences in attitudes to loss from individuals with different demographic, personal and socio-economic characteristics. Our data are based on responses from an online survey of a representative sample of over 4000 UK residents and allow us to produce the most comprehensive analysis of the heterogeneity of loss aversion measures to date. Using the canonical model proposed by Tversky and Kahneman (1992), we show that responses for the population as a whole differ substantially from those typically provided by students (who form the basis of many existing studies of loss aversion). The average aversion to a loss of £500 relative to a gain of the same amount is 2.41, but loss aversion correlates significantly with characteristics such as gender, age, education, financial knowledge, social class, employment status, management responsibility, income, savings and home ownership. Other related factors include marital status, number of children, ease of savings, rainy day fund, personality type, emotional state, newspaper and political party. However, once we condition on all the profiling characteristics of the respondents, some factors, in particular gender, cease to be significant, suggesting that gender differences in risk and loss attitudes might be due to other factors, such as income differences.