Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Eric Horstick, Associate Professor of Biology, West Virginia University

Being right- or left-handed is a familiar fact about yourself you likely don’t think about much on a day-to-day basis. However, your handedness affects how you interact with the world.

For many people, it determines how they brush their teeth, use tools, play sports, write, eat and much more. Simply try to enjoy a bowl of soup or sign your name with your nondominant hand to appreciate the impact a hand preference can have on your daily life.

Interestingly, this behavioral asymmetry is not unique to humans. Preferences for using the right or left hand, paw or eye exist in most species. For example, many primate species have individual left- or right-hand preferences for manual tasks. Similarly, different bird species have varying eye preferences for distinct visual tasks. Even the largest animal alive, the blue whale, shows a preference for the direction of its rolls during feeding. This inherent and often-overlooked feature of behavioral asymmetry is a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom.

The universality of behavioral asymmetry suggests that having an assigned hand, eye or other preference is beneficial. But depending on one hand for so many important tasks means that a single injury could be devastating. This paradox poses an important question: Why would having handedness be better for survival than not?

Insights from fish ‘handedness’

To address this question, scientists have tried to understand the genetics of handedness. While large-scale genetic studies in humans have identified dozens of genes associated with handedness, researchers also found that genetics alone only partially accounts for whether someone is left- or right-handed. This means behavioral asymmetry like handedness is likely the product of complex interactions between genetics, development and the environment.

For the past six years, my research lab has been interested in understanding behavioral asymmetry and how such behaviors get encoded in the brain. We primarily use larval zebrafish to explore the neural basis of behavioral asymmetry. These animals have transparent bodies and rapidly develop into adults in just a few days, making them ideal models to study. Additionally, the genetics and brain structure of zebrafish are highly similar to those of humans.

Fish have a form of handedness called motor asymmetry, which involves sustained periods of turning in the same direction. I had previously found that when light was cut off, larval zebrafish start circling in a leftward or rightward direction, sometimes for up to a minute or more. The fish would continue to preferentially turn in that same direction over the course of hours, days and even weeks, looking for a light source. This meant that vision drove their motor asymmetry.

Students in my lab recorded the zebrafish’s neural activity in response to loss of environment light – the trigger for motor asymmetry. They found a subset of approximately 60 neurons in the thalamus – a region of the brain that is evolutionarily conserved among vertebrates and involved in relaying sensory information – was functionally linked to motor asymmetry. Removing these neurons eliminated this motor asymmetry, suggesting a potential neural basis for where behavioral asymmetry is established in the fish brain.

When my lab repeated our experiments on five additional species of larval fish from around the world, we found similar motor asymmetry in response to light. Much like handedness in primates, it appears that handedness in fish is likely more of a rule than an exception.

However, we did find one exemption: the Mexican tetra, also known as cavefish. These animals are found in perpetually dark cave environments and are naturally blind. In collaboration with our colleagues at the Duboué Lab at Florida Atlantic University, we found that these animals showed no motor asymmetry.

These findings suggest that the universal nature of behavioral asymmetries are likely crucial responses to common challenges that different organisms encounter.

Behavioral asymmetry may solve challenges

Hurting your dominant hand does more than just ruin your softball or ultimate frisbee game. Handedness is associated with broad neural asymmetries in the brain that are linked to performance in language comprehension and working memory tasks. In addition, having atypical handedness – such as preferring different hands for different activities – is associated with a range of neurological conditions, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Understanding why animals have behavioral asymmetries offers clues about how the environment influences broader cognitive function. If environmental challenges indeed drive handed behaviors, what problems does motor asymmetry solve for fish?

In nature, animals often circle when searching for something, such as a food source. For larval zebrafish, light is an important resource for their ability to see and capture prey. When we placed a light source at varying locations around them, the larval zebrafish start circling to quickly navigate into illuminated environments conducive to hunting. Based on our work, we hypothesize that the asymmetries in fish that allow them to search more efficiently work in parallel ways to those of other animals, like eye movement in birds or language comprehension in people.

Prior research has suggested that brain asymmetries improve cognitive performance by reducing competition between the two sides of the brain. Our work supports these hypotheses by showing how, for zebrafish, motor asymmetry provides a default response to find light and efficiently catch a needed snack.

With a helping hand from fish handedness, researchers are getting a clearer idea of the universality of behavioral asymmetry and how the environment may be shaping the brain so that one hand, or fin, provides an advantage in daily life.

Eric Horstick receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation.

– ref. I study why zebrafish larva prefer to circle left or right, to understand how and why human brains encode right- and left-handedness – https://theconversation.com/i-study-why-zebrafish-larva-prefer-to-circle-left-or-right-to-understand-how-and-why-human-brains-encode-right-and-left-handedness-274578

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Michigan State University

A bureaucratic shift in Washington is threatening to undo years of progress in Detroit’s fight against homelessness, potentially forcing thousands of the city’s most fragile residents back onto the streets.

In November 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development revised how it would allocate funding through its flagship homelessness program, the Continuum of Care.

The change reduced the share of funding available for permanent subsidized housing and increased funding for transitional short-term housing.

HUD officials described the shift as a move away from a “housing first” model toward a “treatment first” approach that emphasizes participation in services, such as drug addiction disorder treatment, before or alongside housing placement.

The administration has argued that this promotes self-sufficiency. Critics contend that stable housing is the foundation that makes treatment and recovery possible.

The policy revision has been challenged in court by 20 states, including Michigan, as well as city and county governments and advocacy organizations. They argue it could destabilize individuals and families across the country, state and here in Detroit.

I am an urban and regional planning scholar who studies housing policy, and I serve on the research council of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

In December 2025, I joined 77 other homelessness researchers who sent a letter to Congress analyzing the likely impacts of HUD’s revised funding approach. That analysis draws on decades of peer-reviewed research evaluating which housing interventions reduce homelessness and which do not.

That same month, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily pauses HUD’s efforts to shift funding away from permanent supportive housing.

HUD officials stated that the agency intends to apply the changes in future funding rounds, once the order is no longer in effect.

Homelessness in Detroit

Detroit’s homelessness crisis is both long-standing and worsening.

The number of people who experience homelessness in Detroit, Hamtramck and Highland Park increased by about 16% from 2023 to 2024, with roughly 1,725 people experiencing homelessness on a single January night, including hundreds of families. Children in particular have been hit hard by this crisis. One data snapshot shows 2,579 children reported being doubled up, staying in a shelter, staying in a hotel or motel or being unsheltered. This was a record number for the Detroit Public Schools Community District.

While permanent supportive housing has strong outcomes for those who receive it, overall homelessness has continued to increase due to rising rents, economic instability and the limited housing supply, which has historically outpaced the number of available supportive units.

Detroit’s homelessness response system is coordinated through the federally funded local Continuum of Care led by the Homeless Action Network of Detroit.

In recent years, Detroit has taken steps to strengthen coordination, expand shelter capacity and increase housing placements. But the system heavily depends on federal funding to provide permanent supportive housing.

What could change in federal homelessness funding

The Continuum of Care program began in 1994 and was later codified in 2009 by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. It is the largest federal funding stream dedicated to addressing homelessness in the United States.

Last year alone, Detroit received US$40 million from the HUD program.

Those funds pay for emergency shelters, transitional housing and rapid rehousing programs – which provide temporary rental assistance and the assistance of a social worker, without preconditions – and permanent supportive housing.

Like other cities nationwide, Detroit has built its homelessness response system around HUD’s funding priorities.

For more than a decade, HUD has emphasized permanent housing. A strong body of evidence shows that stable housing leads to better long-term outcomes than temporary programs.

Prior Continuum of Care funding cycles allocated roughly 85% to 90% of funds to permanent housing, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

The revised funding priorities announced in late 2025 would substantially reduce that share and redirect funding toward transitional housing and short-term interventions.

According to the Homeless Action Network of Detroit, this means that Detroit area providers could go from about $34 million per year allocated for permanent supportive housing under the current allocation to no more than about $11 million under the new priorities.

Local advocates warn that capping permanent housing at roughly 30% of Continuum of Care dollars would drastically reduce the number of supportive units available and place hundreds of households at risk of returning to homelessness.

Why permanent supportive housing matters

Permanent supportive housing is one of the most rigorously studied homelessness interventions in the United States.

It is an evidence-based intervention that provides long-term rental assistance paired with voluntary supportive services for people who have experienced chronic, or repeated, homelessness, particularly those with disabilities or chronic health conditions.

Under the current Continuum of Care framework, households typically pay no more than 30% of their income toward rent, with the subsidy covering the remainder. Assistance can continue as long as eligibility criteria are met.

Programs also offer staff to help with coordination of health care and behavioral health services and assistance identifying and applying for relevant benefits to promote long-term housing stability. Tenants hold standard leases and have the same legal protections as other renters.

Research shows that permanent supportive housing using a housing-first approach consistently reduces homelessness and improves health outcomes for people with disabilities.

Greater investment in permanent supportive housing is also linked to reductions in chronic homelessness, meaning individuals or families who have been homeless for long periods or repeatedly over time.

A long-term study published in Social Service Review in 2014 found that communities that increased permanent supportive housing capacity experienced measurable declines in chronic homelessness over time.

Local data from the Detroit Continuum of Care indicate that at least 160 new permanent supportive housing units have been made available in the past year, and another 235 units are projected for 2026. These units help people exit homelessness and maintain stable homes amid rising rents and affordability challenges.

How transitional housing compares

Transitional housing typically requires residents to participate in supportive services or programming as a condition of stay. This can include regular meetings with a social worker, employment readiness classes, substance use treatment or financial literacy workshops, for example.

The model is often used for survivors of domestic violence or young adults aging out of foster care. While transitional housing can provide short-term stability and support during these transitions, it differs from permanent supportive housing in that it is time-limited and may require program compliance as a condition of continued residency. Transitional housing placements typically last from about six months up to two years.

However, research consistently finds that transitional housing is less likely than permanent housing to produce long-term housing stability. This is particularly the case for families and people with disabilities.

HUD’s Family Options Study in 2016 found that families offered permanent housing experienced significantly better long-term housing stability than those offered transitional housing, despite transitional housing costing more per household.

Follow-up research conducted by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies economic policy, similarly found that many families who leave transitional housing once their time limit expires struggle to maintain stable housing. These findings are especially relevant for individuals with disabilities, chronic illnesses or mental health conditions, all groups that are typically prioritized for permanent supportive housing.

Why Detroit is especially vulnerable

Research shows that housing instability increases reliance on emergency services such as shelters, hospitals and public safety systems. This drives up taxpayer costs and additionally strains already overextended local services.

Detroit area homelessness service providers are pushing back against the potential federal changes, which they identify as “radical.”

In response, many organizations are turning to state and philanthropic partners for support while continuing to develop housing locally to help offset possible reductions in federal funding.

Deyanira Nevárez Martínez has received funding from the State of Michigan, the Latino Policy and Politics Institue at UCLA, the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Freedom Together Foundation (formerly the JPB Foundation). She is an Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Michigan State University and is an elected member of the Lansing City Council representing ward 2.

– ref. Housing First helps people find permanent homes in Detroit − but HUD plans to divert funds to short-term solutions – https://theconversation.com/housing-first-helps-people-find-permanent-homes-in-detroit-but-hud-plans-to-divert-funds-to-short-term-solutions-274272

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Institute for Humane Studies

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. But most modern presidents and their legal counsel have asserted that Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior congressional approval – and have acted on that, sending troops into conflicts from Panama to Libya, with no regard for Congress’ will.

Congress has for the most part registered only feeble and ineffective opposition to such executive action. The current move in Congress to deny President Donald Trump the ability to continue the war with Iran – led by Democrats, but with some Republican support – will likely fail, as have previous efforts during other conflicts.

But there was a time when Americans saw Congress stand up to a president who unilaterally took the country to war.

It was at the tail end of the Vietnam War, when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, asserting that it was legislators – not the president – who had the power to declare war.

Once it passed both houses, President Richard Nixon vetoed it, claiming it was unconstitutional.

In response, the legislative branch overturned the veto with the two-thirds majority vote needed to prevail.

Compared to Congress’ limp response to Trump’s actions in Iran, and its similar failure to assert itself during Trump’s military action in Venezuela, it was a breathtaking act of legislative assertion.

Congress asserts itself

When they debated the War Powers Resolution, members of Congress were seeing the erosion of their control over the decision to engage in military operations large and small. With a strong bipartisan consensus, they determined they had to collectively use their powers, including the power of the purse, to thwart executive overreach.

Congress’ actions came in response to the growing protests against the Vietnam War in general and Nixon’s decision to expand the war by sending U.S. troops to invade the neutral country of Cambodia to disrupt the supply lines of the Viet Cong, the communist guerrilla force that accounted for a large number of the 58,000 Americans killed in the war.

Nixon had begun covert carpet bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and then announced in 1970 that he would send ground troops into the country the next year.

Congress – and the country– reacted extremely negatively. Members of Congress collaborated across party lines to draft legislation in an attempt to assert their power. It was a slow process, however, involving long periods of deliberation.

They used many different methods to attempt to constrain the president. Within months of the introduction of troops to Cambodia, Congress attempted to pass amendments that would restrict his ability to invade neighboring countries. Prompted by protesting and the illegal actions in Cambodia, Congress began crafting legislation that would draw down troops in Vietnam.

With these moves, lawmakers placed immense pressure on the president. This eventually led to the drafting and eventual signing of the peace agreement ending the Vietnam war in 1973.

This was not enough for Congress, however.

Rules – and flexibility

Congress wanted to create a document ensuring presidents could not unilaterally make war. They wanted legislative consultation.

They intended the War Powers Resolution to act as a permanent constraint. So, in the resolution they spelled out the specific actions in which presidents can start a conflict:

• First, if there is an invasion of the United States, the president can respond. In this instance, the president can act prior to congressional authorization.

• Second, if Congress provides an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” the president can assume he has authorization – but only as long as it is in effect.

• Finally, if Congress declares war, the president can act.

Lawmakers did, however, provide some flexibility. In the War Powers Resolution, they said a president can initiate and carry out hostilities for 60 days and has a further 30 days to draw down the troops. Once the executive has initiated hostilities, Congress must receive information about that action within 48 hours.

This opens the door for presidents to engage in smaller-scale or short operations without stepping outside the lines set in the law.

Presidents from both parties have availed themselves of this flexibility. As far back as 1975, when President Gerald Ford rescued the SS Mayaguez, the merchant ship captured by Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, presidents have acknowledged the law and dutifully reported their military actions to Congress.

Like his predecessors, Trump sent a letter to Congress after his June 2025 missile attacks against Iran, as well as at the start of the currently open-ended conflict.

Presidents since the passage of the War Powers Resolution have not, however, acknowledged that they have to get congressional approval of their actions, with few exceptions. Predominantly, without congressional approval, they limit their actions to the 60-to-90-day window.

President Barack Obama, however, attempted to circumvent the window when his bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 dragged on, as well as when he bombed the Islamic State group in 2014. In the first instance, he claimed the War Powers Resolution did not apply. In the second, he claimed each bombing campaign was discrete, rather than part of a larger campaign.

Exploiting authorizations

The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches changed considerably with the passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that gave legislative permission for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Because Congress did not put sunset dates into these authorizations, subsequent presidents Obama, Trump and Joe Biden used those same authorizations for a host of later military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And legislators are deeply divided in the current discussions about demanding the cessation of hostilities against Iran.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson says that limiting the president at this time is “dangerous.” Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – who has fallen out of favor with Trump’s MAGA base and the president himself – took the opposing view, posted on social media, “Now, America is going to be force fed and gas lighted all the ‘noble’ reasons the American ‘Peace’ President and Pro-Peace administration had to go to war once again this year, after being in power for only a year.”

Has the U.S. entered a moment when members of Congress reassert themselves the way they did at the tail end of the Vietnam war?

It is possible that they will follow James Madison’s advice about the power relationship between Congress and the president. Writing in the Federalist Papers, Madison said that “ambition” has “to counter ambition.” He continued, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

As I explain in my book about congressional war powers, the constitutional system creates an invitation to struggle. Now, as the U.S. wages war on Iran, Congress must decide whether it wants to struggle, as it did during the Vietnam War, or remain compliant and in the president’s shadow.

Sarah Burns has received funding from the Institute for Humane Studies.

– ref. Congress once fought to limit a president’s war powers − more than 50 years later, its successors are less willing to assert their authority – https://theconversation.com/congress-once-fought-to-limit-a-presidents-war-powers-more-than-50-years-later-its-successors-are-less-willing-to-assert-their-authority-277435

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dylan Spencer, Assistant Professor of Criminology, Georgia Southern University

In late February 2026, the Panamanian government took control of two ports in the Panama Canal that had been operated by a Hong Kong conglomerate for two decades. The move is the latest in a long-simmering legal battle after Panama’s high court voided the company’s contracts.

Far from just a local dispute, however, the episode has drawn in the United States and China, whose competition over global ports and trade routes has intensified in recent years, including in the crucial Panama Canal Zone, where China’s presence has repeatedly drawn the ire of the Trump administration.

Chinese firms now own or operate terminals at more than 90 ports worldwide, including many of the busiest. The network spans Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with growing activity in South America.

The scale of China’s involvement in overseas ports has fueled debate over whether these investments are purely commercial or serve broader strategic goals.

Much of that debate has relied on case studies and politicized headlines, including in the case of the Panama Canal. But understanding where these ports are located, and whether there are consistent patterns in the countries that host them, is important given that disruptions to global shipping lanes can reverberate across the world economy.

In a recent study, we – researchers in maritime security, global infrastructure and trade – built the first global database of Chinese-affiliated ports and analyzed 133 coastal countries to understand why some host Chinese port investments while others do not.

We found that China’s overseas port expansion is not random. Far from being driven primarily by general business climate measures, the investments cluster near maritime chokepoints and piracy-prone shipping corridors, with more modest evidence that resource-rich countries are also more likely to host these ports.

The importance of chokepoints

Some sea routes are more important than others. The Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are examples of chokepoints – narrow routes through which large volumes of global trade and energy shipments must pass.

In our findings, countries near primary or secondary chokepoints, such as Panama or countries bordering the Dover Strait, such as France, were substantially more likely to host a Chinese-affiliated port. Put simply, proximity to critical trade bottlenecks strongly predicts Chinese investments.

This makes economic sense. China depends heavily on maritime trade to sustain economic growth. And ports near chokepoints sit along the world’s most sensitive shipping corridors and offer long-term commercial access in strategic locations.

Despite concerns in the West that Beijing is developing ports for military reasons, not every port is a naval base in disguise.

Most Chinese-affiliated facilities are commercial terminals. However, commercial infrastructure can still have strategic value. China’s first overseas military logistics base in Djibouti sits alongside the Chinese-operated Doraleh port complex. A report from the Congressional Research Service notes that the facility supports naval operations and regional access in the western Indian Ocean.

That does not make other Chinese-owned or operated ports military installations. But control over terminals, logistics platforms, and supply chain data can shape economic and security relationships over time.

The role of piracy and resources

The same corridors in which Beijing is concentrating port investment are also hot spots for maritime crime. In separate research, we found that seaports can facilitate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing when oversight is weak. Our latest findings show that Chinese-affiliated ports are more common in countries already experiencing piracy and maritime insecurity.

That overlap does not mean ports cause illicit activity, but it shows these investments often occur in higher-risk maritime environments.

One of the most surprising findings from our study was the relationship between piracy and port investment.

Between 1991 and 2018, thousands of piracy incidents were recorded worldwide. But rather than avoiding risky waters, Chinese-affiliated ports are more common in countries experiencing higher levels of piracy.

Why invest in unstable corridors? One explanation is that piracy signals where trade routes are both vulnerable and valuable. Investing in ports in areas such as the Gulf of Guinea or parts of Southeast Asia may help Beijing protect its shipping interests. In this sense, piracy may signal not just risk but opportunity.

We also examined natural resource wealth of port host nations using a broad measure that includes extractive mineral and agricultural resources. We found modest evidence that countries with higher resource levels were more likely to host at least one Chinese-affiliated port, though this relationship was not consistent across all models.

Some commonly cited explanations as to where and why China invests in ports did not hold up in our analysis.

Broad measures of business climate and governance, such as ease of doing business or institutional stability, were not consistent predictors of Chinese-affiliated port presence.

This suggests that geography and maritime risk factors may matter more than general economic or governance indicators.

Broader implications

Whatever the motivations behind Chinese investments, their implications extend beyond local trade and logistics.

Ports are no longer just local infrastructure projects. They are nodes in global supply chains and increasingly in geopolitical competition.

And while not every investment signals a covert military ambition, it would be naive to treat all port projects as politically neutral.

---

Read more:
China is losing ground in Latin America

---

Recent U.S. policy responses reflect these growing concerns. In early 2026, the White House outlined a plan to strengthen the U.S. shipping industry and reduce reliance on foreign-controlled maritime infrastructure. The administration has also taken a closer look at foreign involvement in key facilities in the Western Hemisphere, including ports linked to the Panama Canal.

Such moves suggest that control over maritime infrastructure is no longer viewed in Washington as just a commercial issue but increasingly as a matter of economic and national security.

And as the map of countries with Chinese-affiliated ports suggests, Beijing’s investments are following the world’s most consequential trade routes not by accident, but by design.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Far from random, China’s global port network is clustering near the world’s riskiest trade routes – https://theconversation.com/far-from-random-chinas-global-port-network-is-clustering-near-the-worlds-riskiest-trade-routes-274934

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Leila Gautham, Lecturer in Economics, University of Leeds

When economists track inequality, they typically focus on income and spending.

But a significant share of the services that families actually consume – meals cooked at home, child care, housecleaning and lawn mowing – is produced by unpaid labor that never appears in these conventional measures.

As economists who study caregiving and inequality, we wanted to know whether accounting for unpaid work at home might change our understanding of inequality in American living standards – the gap between what richer and poorer Americans can actually afford to consume.

To find out, we conducted a study, published in the March 2026 issue of the Journal of Public Economics, in which we estimated the dollar value of unpaid housework and child care and added it to standard measures of income and spending for U.S. households from 1965 to 2018. Economists call these broader measures “extended income” and “extended consumption.”

We found that unpaid work used to significantly cushion inequality through the provision of many services. But we also determined that this cushion has been thinning for 50 years. Our findings indicate that the inequality in living standards has grown more than standard data suggest.

Counting unpaid work reduces inequality

To visualize these findings, consider the financial situation faced by two families.

While both have two adults and two children, their income from their salaries and other cash flows – including everything from stock dividends to Social Security benefits – is different. One has two earners bringing in a total of US$150,000. The other has a single breadwinner making $110,000 and a stay-at-home spouse. The lower-income family gets 45 more hours per week of unpaid chores done.

If every hour of those chores were worth $17, the typical wage for a housekeeper, that unpaid work would be worth roughly $39,780 a year. Factor it in, and the gap between the two families shrinks from $40,000 to just $220.

Extended income, the economic term that includes not just what’s in your paycheck but the value of doing the laundry, home repairs and other unpaid work yourself for your own benefit, tends to be more equally distributed than earned income.

The reason for this consistency is straightforward: Rich and poor families generally devote about the same amount of time to housework and child care.

A shrinking buffer

Because we valued everyone’s unpaid hours at the same wage in our study, adding unpaid work to income narrowed the gap between the top and the bottom somewhat.

But we also found evidence that this equalizing effect is eroding.

Between 1965 and 2018, the average amount of time that Americans devoted to unpaid chores at home fell, driven by changes in what women did. Their average number of hours fell from 37 to 24 per week. Meanwhile, men increased the time they spent on unpaid chores a little: Their number of weekly unpaid hours of work rose from 12 in 1968 to 15 in 2018.

To be clear, we did not try to figure out why these hours of unpaid work fell. Among the many reasons for the change could be the large increase in women’s employment and the growth of time-saving technology, such as dishwashers.

Lowest-income families hit hardest

We studied these shifts by combining three national datasets: time diary surveys from the American Heritage Time Use Study, income data from the Current Population Survey and expenditure data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey.

To put a dollar figure on unpaid work, we valued each hour at what U.S. housekeepers typically earn in a particular year.

The decline in unpaid work hit low-income households hardest – not because they cut more hours, but because unpaid work made up a much larger share of their total income.

We found that the income gap between households near the top and those near the bottom between 1965 and 2018 grew around 40% using conventional measures. Once we added unpaid work, this gap grew by 66%. For household spending, the contrast is similar: conventional inequality barely budged – up 4%. When we incorporated the value of unpaid work at home, inequality grew by 18%.

Overall, we determined that a typical U.S. family’s extended income grew 40% from 1965 to 2018. That was a much slower pace than the 69% growth in the income they earned from their paid work and other cash flows over the same period.

Who lost the most

Conventional data suggest that the gap between middle-income and poor households was generally stable during this period. Once we accounted for unpaid work, however, that is no longer true: This gap grew substantially.

Single-parent families – mostly headed by single mothers – were hit especially hard. Their income from paid employment rose sharply, but this came with large declines in the value of their unpaid work at home.

While they could afford to spend more on purchased goods and services, once unpaid work is factored in, single parents saw no net improvement relative to married parents.

What it means

The roughly 20-percentage-point increase in the share of women working outside the home over the past six decades was driven by expanded opportunity and economic necessity.

It has brought enormous economic benefits to those women and their families. But it has also meant that families – especially those with the least income – lost a cushion of services that women used to do in their own homes.

Our findings suggest that looking only at changes in income and spending can exaggerate improvements in living standards for the lowest-income Americans over the past five decades.

When you do fewer hours of chores that need to be done, you wind up paying other people to do them for you, and that costs money.

Otherwise, you have to make do with fewer services than you had before.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. When unpaid cooking, cleaning and child care get a dollar value, income inequality in the US shrinks – but the gap has grown since 1965 – https://theconversation.com/when-unpaid-cooking-cleaning-and-child-care-get-a-dollar-value-income-inequality-in-the-us-shrinks-but-the-gap-has-grown-since-1965-275499