DailyDirt: Women's Work
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
The social challenges of reducing the employment gender gap isn’t exactly new, but there could be a growing number of good reasons to reduce inequalities in the workplace. The economic benefits of more female employment might boost GDP statistics (though GDP is far from a perfect measure of an economy). It’s a complex issue, but here are just a few interesting data points on this subject.
- The often-quoted statistic that women are “paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men” isn’t as accurate or as simple as that single number. There’s a gap (women *are* paid less), but the whole story should account for factors such as education levels, hours worked, and occupations. [url]
- The “Opt-Out Revolution” described the phenomenon of working women choosing to drop out of the workforce in the early 2000s to raise kids and lead more enjoyable lives. Apparently, a decade later, there weren’t that many fairy tale endings for that choice, and nearly 90% of those SAHMs want to get back to work (but less than half find full time employment). [url]
- Japan could potentially boost its GDP by as much as 14% by adopting “womenomics” policies that would encourage more women to enter or stay in the labor force. In Japan, about 70% of women stop working after having kids — nearly double the figure for countries like the US or Germany. [url]
- Womenomics could work for the rest of the world, too. However, the benefits might not be as large, with estimates that countries like France and Germany could boost their GDPs by 4% if more women were in the work force. [url]
If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
Filed Under: employment, gdp, gender gap, happiness index, sahm, womenomics
Comments on “DailyDirt: Women's Work”
Yeah, if you look at two people, one male one female, with the same amount of education and experience working in the same job for the same number of hours, the woman makes 91 percent as much.
That in itself is a problem worth fixing.
But 77 percent is still the “right” number to focus on, because the fact that women don’t get the same education, work experience, jobs, and hours, are also problems worth fixing.
(I say this as a man in a male-dominated field whose wife is better-educated and better-paid than him.)
Apparently those women who “opted out” caused a large part of this “problem”. Is there something wrong with letting people make their own decisions and live with the consequences?
Re: Re: 77%
Sure, if they’re actually making their own decisions, and not being drummed out of the fields.
If one class of people is systemically disadvantaged, saying “Is there something wrong with letting people make their own decisions and live with the consequences?” is pure intellectual dishonesty.
Re: Re: Re: 77%
“Pure intellectual dishonesty”? Like talking about people whose chose family over career as if they’d been unfairly terminated? Like claiming systematic disadvantage without evidence (or perhaps without standard meaning of English words)? Like labeling a link “being drummed out of the fields” when the cited material says nothing of the kind?
I asked what was wrong with letting women make their own career decisions– decisions with consequences. If that’s what you call dishonesty, then you and I are simply speaking different languages.
Re: Re: Re:2 77%
What is wrong with letting anyone make their own career choices?
What is wrong with encouraging multitudes into careers and then pulling the rug out from underneath them?
What is wrong with taking advantage of workers?
What is wrong with deregulation?
Re: Re: Re:2 77%
people whose chose family over career
A more interesting question may be why they chose one, or why they weren’t able to achieve both. Usually “choosing family over career” means “raising a child” in this topic. So, was adaquate child care available? If it was available, how expensive was it? Was any flexibility available from employers?
Was there really a choice, or was there only the appearance of a choice?
Re: Re: Re:3 77%
Yes, there was a choice. Don’t have children. THAT in itself is a choice. I have made the active, conscious choice to not have children ever. I refuse to contribute to overpopulation. I refuse to bring someone into a world where there is a VERY real chance of them starving. I grew up starving. There were times we didn’t even have a house. They had privilege and made a incredibly reckless decision to give up good paying, STABLE jobs. All for a ideal that in the long run has put their families into jeopardy. I will concede some of their marriages were unequal and their quitting merely brought out that inequality. But at the same time they have no standing to complain. And the job market will gradually become worse. Automation, for good or ill, will make many jobs both redundant and wasteful.
Re: Re: Re: 77%
Systemically disadvantaged, you mean like affirmative action?
Re: Re: 77%
It becomes a real problem when we base laws on “Women not paid as much as men” and allow universities and companies to discriminate against men in recruitment for NO VALID REASON.
“But 77 percent is still the “right” number to focus on, because the fact that women don’t get the same education, work experience, jobs, and hours, are also problems worth fixing.”
Well no, it’s not a “problem worth fixing”. It’s not even (necessarily) a problem. Not everyone wants the education, work experience, jobs and hours that get the most pay. The fact that a certain group selects certain options that result in less pay isn’t a “problem”. It’s simply a fact. Different relative valuations of money and non-monetary values are not a problem. In fact it’s a good thing. Can you imagine a society where everyone valued nice days at the beach relative to money at the same ratio? Or everyone wanted to limit their work hours to the same extent and were all equally committed to do this? It would be bizarre inefficient and dystopian in a weird, 1984ish way.
In the adult movie industry, women are paid TWICE as much as men.
If you want to boost the GDP, stop the war on the middle class. It really is that simple, but it does not fit into some folks deranged agendas. they happily fiddle while Rome burns.
It is well known that a large quantity of the populace falls within the middle class, bell curve sort of fits. It is also well understood that, to a large extent, the economy is driven by middle class purchasing. When middle class jobs are lost and their replacement is minimum wage the economy suffers. Simply looking at the unemployment rates is missing a big part of the picture.
The economic benefits of more female employment might boost GDP statistics
It has also halved inflation-adjusted pay for workers doing the same job 30 years ago (double the labor supply -> same demand -> half the wages). Not saying women shouldn’t work per se, just saying that pushing it from a top-down approach doesn’t necessary increase a family’s earnings as a whole.
Uhm… How about let’s look at the entire gap among race, gender, and other social lines?