Women Now Hold Half of U.S. Jobs - For Less Money Than Men
When these stories come out, I have to laugh. Because women on the working-class end of the economic spectrum have had to work for a very long time. Pay raises haven't get pace with the cost of living, to the point where paychecks aren't worth what they were in the 70s. Women stepped in to pick up the slack.
No, what the Wall St. Journal means is that the sort of women who are married to the men who read the Journal have to work now. (It's a class thing!) But some things remain the same: Women still get paid less.
The composition of the nation's work force is approaching an unprecedented benchmark. Due in part to deep layoffs of men, women are poised to become the majority of workers for the first time. As of September, women held 49.9% of the nation's jobs, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, a rise of 1.2 percentage points from their 48.7% share when the recession began in December 2007. In 1970, women held 35% of jobs.
Deep cuts in male-heavy sectors like construction and manufacturing have left unemployment for men age 16 and over at 11.4% as of October -- a quarter-century high. Joblessness among women is lower, at 8.8%, as employment in female-heavy sectors like education and health care has remained steadier.
There is evidence that women's growing representation in the labor force stems not only from men losing their jobs but from women who previously didn't work seeking employment. Since the recession began, the number of women age 16 and over in the labor force -- which includes both the employed and those who are looking for work -- has expanded by 300,000 to 71.7 million. Meanwhile, the number of men working or seeking work has dropped by 123,000 to 82.28 million, according to the Department of Labor.
"I think we are at a pivotal moment," said Arlie Hochschild, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has written several books on work-life balance. For many households, it used to be that "she worked because she wanted to," said Ms. Hochschild. "Now, she's working because she has to."
Despite households' increasing reliance on the female paycheck, women still earn markedly less than men.
Women are either the sole earner or make as much as or more than their male spouses in four out of 10 U.S. families with children under 18, said Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Yet the median earnings of full-time working women in 2008, the first year of the recession, fell by 1.9% to $35,745, while earnings for men declined 1% to $46,367, according to the Commerce Department.
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009...
Has anyone else noticed this trend? I think we're starting to see it here in the states. I spoke with my cousin in Seattle at her wedding. She is in her early thirties and many of her girl friends have given up on trying to find a male and are actually going to the sperm bank. She says guys just aren't into relationships.
The link above describes the trend in Japan, young men now tend to shun work and career paths, live at home with their parents and spend more time on their appearance than they did in the past.
Could this be related to women holding more jobs?
your an unemployed male there is little to next to no mercy on your soul in that case.
who make more then men where is this concept coming from?
I don't think its a conce4pt evet. Lots of stats to back it up and it is what I've observed from personal experience.
They aren't comparing individuals - it is overall averages.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
. . that wages have stagnated so much in this country that even if a say Husband and Wife are working they still are barely getting by if at all in many cases.
Don't talk much about that do we in this country?
A fair question about a different issue.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
... you missed that life lesson about not saying something and pass for a fool, than open your mouth (or typing as the case may be) and clear all sorts of doubt about your ignorance.
Good grief...
Pay women less and charge them more for insurance.
It's a perfect world for us white men - we got ours!
(sometimes I hate being one)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
so they can get a taste of the bullsh*t men have had to deal with.
If men hadn't done such a lousy job, women wouldn't have the opportunity to take over, would they?
I bet many women are willing and able - just pay them the same rate - that's all they want
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Women, the new Mexicans.
= Pay for = work is not a tough concept to grasp.
I've been reading your comments for awhile and all you ever do is whine. You comment so often you should start your own blog.
I'm not so sure about the couple in the video. Nice "everyman" approach from CBS news producers to select a family with a $50,000 kitchen cooking chicken breasts on their $5000 stove talking about recession/tough times woes.
. .
Its kinda like going over to the Greenspans to talk about how tough it is since Alan had to retire and Andrea Mitchell has to bring home all the bread.
bear mush for breakfast and ramen noodles for dinner.
Our story and how we came out stronger for it.
in a stupor with fly's swirling around him wouldn't keep the illusion alive.
But if his wife goes out to panhandle and brings home less than he, then the illusion is back alive again.
Why does equality seem somehow unfair?
Pay women the same amount for the same job.
The same goes for any difference that doesn't effect job description or performance.
It's no different than saying someone of Asian heritage (or any other) should be paid less (or more).
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
No matter her education, age, or social status, we women are never seen as overqualified to clean toilets.
Which, of course, is why I'm employed when 17% of the population is going bugf#@k trying to find a job which meets their qualifications. The real glass ceiling is the one between working-class women and the middle class where women get the same jobs for often equal pay.
Every time one of these studies comes out, invariably someone trots out the idea the the reason women make less is because they are less risk-taking and thus ask for less, or are willing to take less money than a man would. The point being that the discrepancy in wages is not sexism, but rather a natural result of the nature of women.
However if that were true and women, generally speaking could be counted upon to work for less than men and sexism had nothing to do with it, wouldn't women dominate in the work force?
Indeed, according to this logic, employers would naturally employ women since they ask for/accept less money which should have switched most of the work force to women (except _maybe_ few jobs requiring physical strength?)
Since this is not true, we can conclude that this is sexism. Either those employers think that a woman cannot do the job or they think that her place is at the kitchen/church or with the kids (as per the Nazi)
Anyway, considering this trend, time for society to be more accepting of a woman working while the husband/boyfriend takes care of the household?
Interesting societal fallout
Men earn more than women, but not for the same work — for 25 different workplace choices. Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.
Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).
Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay
If the statistics that show women earning less than men aren't for women and men in comparable situations, then its not a valid study.
The thing is for all the things you mention their are women who do those things and on average they earn less for doing it.
I agree, but that's not what this study, indeed most studies, does. If anything it bears out my point:
"Deep cuts in male-heavy sectors like construction and manufacturing have left unemployment for men age 16 and over at 11.4% as of October -- a quarter-century high. Joblessness among women is lower, at 8.8%, as employment in female-heavy sectors like education and health care has remained steadier."
Ergo, increased competition in female-heavy sectors thus driving down wages.
In addition, this study is guilty of exactly what you're claiming:
"Yet the median earnings of full-time working women in 2008, the first year of the recession, fell by 1.9% to $35,745, while earnings for men declined 1% to $46,367, according to the Commerce Department."
Whenever the 77¢ on the male dollar is quoted in any article it's never industry focused, but rather median average income as a whole. Statistically it's true, but you have to look under the hood as to why, and that's kind of hard for a man to do without being labeled a misogynist.
...for having the cajones (yes, that's a joke) to point out that while unequal pay is a real issue, fake numbers don't bring an air of honesty to the discussion.
Actually, I think part of the problem with joblessness, is now with more legal protection for gender and race applications, the number of applicants has increased while the market has stayed essentially stable, and in some sectors like manufacturing has actually dropped for outsourcing.
And because women, minorities, and illegals are all willing to work for less pay, it hurts those of us that don't belong to those sectors when we seek work, because we'd be forced to accept less.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
and hire Rice and Hadley to solve all their problems.
So long as I don't have to pay Condi as much as Steve.
Makes sense. In China, human labor is worth next to nothing because there are so many of them. (see CNBC + Home Depot + China)
and capitalize or starve.
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/2009...
Damn I want one of those shirts! Just because it would confuse people around here as much as it confuses the Chinese.
I agree we need more confusion to speed up the collapse so we start the hell over from scratch.
You could probably make huge quick cash selling those shirts at a teabagger event.
OBO MAO!
I'm gonna be saying that all day.
hahaha... love the headline.
It reminds me of about 15 years ago when females in my company were complaining about not being paid on par with the males (in a company of about 140). The owner ignorantly stated that the reason was because men had families to support. He hadn't stopped to notice the he was addressing a department that happened to have several women who were raising children on their own and single childless men who hadn't a care in the world.
or has "the recovery" quieted things down?
Divorced women support children. Middle-aged women support aged parents. Go to HR with that rationale, and you will be out on the street and not supporting anyone, even if HR told the last woman in his office that men have families to support.
The truth is that men support bookmakers, beer brewers, 'ho'houses, and the lottery. Women support families. And nobody gives a damn except women. When blacks rioted, they got what they wanted. If I advocate violence on this site, I will be thrown off it, but you are welcome to draw your own conclusions in the privacy (lordy, I hope it's still private!) of your minds.
Buffett exhorted students to "marry the right person" and said, "The worst investment you can have is cash."
Gates, meanwhile, said he sees big opportunities in environmentally friendly energy and medicine.
"Capitalism is great," he said.
*****************
There you go marry the right person! Capitalism is great!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_...
Nice job by CBS to find some *rich* family "suffering" during this time of "crisis". Why didn't the reporter go to the Bronx or Harlem to see how working moms are doing there?
Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.
life probably consists of pulling out of his garage at home then pulling into a company garage. With an occasional happy hour at the bar 10 floors down next to the parking garage. And listening to self esteem tapes during the rush hour traffic jam.
While I agree that there is a disparity in wages between genders, the real issue is stagnant wage growth in the U.S. for over 20 years.
We know the reasons...
1) Destruction of Unions
2) Labor Outsourcing
3) Offshoring of Jobs
4) Job Growth limited to low paying service jobs
5) U.S. Chamber of Commerce collusion with U.S. corporations to turn a blind eye to massive layoffs.
6) Destruction of labor protection rules.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
orthogonal, and IMHO both things need to be addressed at the same time: wage stagnation AND wage inequality.
We've lost so much power as citizens in this society, that we've developed a mindset in which we're terrified of multitasking, for we assume that may diminish the focus needed to get the tiny crumbs we get every now and then thrown at us by the powers that be...
Come on Brad your joking.
tasks at a time. Think of it as how you can multibitch, multicomplain, or whatever the heck it is that you "do."
It seems to me that the top is squeezing the US economy like a lemon to get every last drop out of it.
Have they thought about what might happen when they reach that point? (hint: no income=no consumer=everything grinds to a halt)
Well, at least we would reach wage equity with the 3rd world and the same ratio for low-to-high wages as there too!
Now, how do we turn that freight train back?
You're exactly right. Our economy has been dispersed all over the world. At bottom is political system the buys and sells the rule of law for money and favors. I think of the men and women who have been thrown out of work by the 6 listed reasons that I know personally. And it isn't all global competition. There's a world of cheap, exploitable labor. Already profitable companies here left to make even more money elsewhere.
And now losing even more rights, as we speak, from uncaring, ignorant, sexist men in congress.
A few years ago I listened to an interview with some social scientist who studies this issue. She said that after correcting for everything women were paid about 90% of what men were paid.
This had improved greatly over the previous thirty years, but I think she said it was kind of leveling out.
So pretty close, but still a bit lower.
I agree with those who wonder at sympathy for folks with granite counters while so many others have no counters at all. There has been plenty written about one of the reasons poor women tend to marry less is that the eligible men would drag them down economically. The trend is about lowering labor costs and if sexism or outsourcing or illegal immigration works for that, so be it.
Any injustice is at least two edged. Dewey points out that the priviledged tend to become supercilious, capricious, out of touch while those disadvantaged tend to become dull and routinized. This contention and Foucault's that these unjust relations create new kinds of people is being borne out by Goldman Sachs today.
Humans are such wonderous,dangerous animals.. if we ever do get to the point of equality, then we're looking for some other edge.
Where are these women who 'work because they want to"? Every woman I know works because she has to. If she's lucky (and I count myself there) she has an education, a career and a job she likes. But she still has to work - it may not be a matter of day to day survival, it may be being able to afford an education for your children, but trust me, they HAVE to work. And at least half of the women I know have spent time rearing children on their own - being prepared for that eventuality is a big part of why we work, too. I've seem too many women left with nothing.
women I know work because they want to. However, balancing their home and work life is still difficult for them.
President Obama* signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the first he signed as president. Ledbetter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and First Lady Michelle Obama were all present. Watch:
It's my opinion that this thread/issue/phenomena is divisive and off-base. It is my opinion, contrived and supported by a vengeful mindset. If we truly attempt to understand the necessity for the "Ledbetter Act", one can not deny on it's face... that it boils down to industry and the corporate "bottom-line" on a global scale... and springs forward, from there.
[Amended] At it's source, it really begins at the point where a "rib" is removed from some guy named..."Adam", though still on a global-scale... [Knights of Labor]
Re. Deadliest terrorist strikes in the United States; The Preparedness Day Bombing was a bombing in San Francisco, California on July 22, 1916.
*I wonder if "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would have secured the passage of the "Lilly Ledbetter Act"? Passion often overrides cognitive thought, and tends to cause injury to innocent individuals regardless of merit. IMO :-/
As a species we need each other...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
More profit made.
Jeanne
about the whole situation is if a woman asks for a pay raise she is likely to be looked upon as selfish. This is true regardless of the gender of her boss. Getting rid of engrained social expectations is tough. Women need to demand more money for what they do and stop taking so many hits for the team. The team has failed to earn them.
She will be looked upon as selfish--, she will be talked about by management, as greedy, and her coworkers will deride her as a woman who doesn't deserve the raise as much as they do. Little Big Ears has sat on her hiney in the break room and heard it all.
Of course women hold more jobs for less money. The job losses in the recession were in male dominated fields that pay more money, mainly jobs with high risk and significant physical demands.
Softer, service industry jobs, dominated by women were less affected. Thus the outcome.
The Women's Movement is just as Biased, Self-Serving and Insensitive as any other movement. Any job that I have ever done paid men and women equally for the same position. I would like to see how this statistic would look if the upper executive levels were thrown out and all other positions' compensation were averaged. I'll bet the average compensation for men and women would be much closer to equal.
Here's a 20/20 story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjaBQMog0Q
Here's the 2009 Department of Labor report:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%...
Every statistic put out there about rape, divorce, income, harassment, etc.. comes from extremely thuggish and self-serving feminists groups who will, quite literally, set out to destroy anyone who opposes them. The vast majority of women go along with it because, quite honestly, that's the way women think. If they hear something that bolsters their victimhood masquerade, they like it. If they hear something that benefits them, they like it. If they hear something that has nothing to do with them specifically, they could give a rat's behind. If they hear about something that hurts men, they could give a rat's behind.
If you substitute 'republicans' for 'women' and 'America' for 'men' I could almost agree with you.
And of course 'thuggish and self-serving feminists groups' should beat you down. Someone needs to, and you'd be surprised how many men will help.
he's such a credible guy, like yourself, I'm sure. I'm sure those women/feminists you hate so will be glad to see the likes of you speaking on their behalf...
me-oww!
...if you put on the application or resume that you're a woman trapped in a man's body. I can't give it away on 7th Avenue or 6th Avenue or even a cul-de-sac.
If you'd cull da sack you might have better luck.
Comments are closed on this entry