women’s economic empowerment

As an addendum to the post I wrote about the new Catalyst study earlier this week just came in from GWP’s resident sociologist, Virginia Rutter:

Related research: In “Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage Gap” (October 07 issue of the American Sociological Review), Philip Cohen and Matt Huffman demonstrate that the greater representation of women in management jobs narrows the wage gap among non-management workers. When ladies are boss, all the ladies do better. But for it to really make a difference, women need to be in the higher levels of management. In fact, the authors reference the “title inflation” phenomenon: they saw evidence of a concentration of women in lower management–and that concentration doesn’t give the workers much relief in terms of the gender wage gap. Reason I like this story–and the one on board membership here–is that it gives us concrete evidence for the glass ceiling, and why breaking through matters.

And btw, for Philip Cohen’s latest, check out his post last month at HuffPo (“Women May Be Losing Jobs Too, But They’re Different Jobs”) in response to the NYTimes piece on how hard economic times are affecting women’s employment rates. -GWP

Women feel the impact of economic insecurity and rising food, energy, education, and health care costs more deeply than men – and see government as a key to the solution — according to yesterday’s poll from the National Women’s Law Center. Are we surprised that women are significantly more pessimistic than men in their attitudes about the status quo in America, both on a societal level and in terms of their own lives?

Turns out, regardless of age, income, and education, more than half of women (55%) feel that the government should do more to solve problems and help meet people’s needs. Candidates, are you LISTENING? For more on it all, check out the NWLC’s (stellar!) blog.

This week my colleagues at the Council on Contemporary Families released a briefing paper, “Families and the Current Economic Crisis,” examing the maelstrom of financial dilemmas facing Americans today, along with the far-reaching human impact. The report is available at www.contemporaryfamilies.org. Here’s a quick rundown of the different effects of the current economic crisis by age, race, and gender:

Gender

Men and women are affected by the job market cuts differently. In the recession of 2001-2004, women lost jobs at a higher rate than men. Today the reverse is true. From November 2007 through April 2008, men lost 700,000 jobs, especially in traditional “family-wage” occupations such as manufacturing and construction. Women, by contrast, gained almost 300,000 jobs, since female-dominated fields such as health care have remained strong. No one is “winning” any gender battles here, though. The pay gap between men and women had been narrowing for several years, but this past year it began to widen again. And in families where women have become the main providers, the results are mixed. Some families report increased respect by husbands and children for women’s economic contributions. But men who have a strong identification with the “male breadwinner” role experience a decline in marital quality when their wife begins to bring in a larger share of family income.

Age

Thirty million Americans are over age 65, and with the average social security payment set at $1,079, there is not much of a margin to cover rising medical, prescription, food, and gas bills. Since more than a third of retired Americans help their children financially, according to a recent AARP poll, their financial troubles may trickle down to their children and grandchildren as well. The AARP reports that the majority of baby boomers (aged 44-62) say they are struggling to make ends meet. Sixty percent have cut back on extras and 25 percent report having trouble paying their mortgage. Young adults aged 25-35 have their own issues. Many are still paying off student loans, and 35 percent are not saving for retirement at all.

Race

As is so often the case, African Americans and Hispanics are at higher risk both for job loss and foreclosure than are whites. Studies consistently show that even where black and white families earn the same yearly income, African-Americans have much lower levels of accumulated wealth, largely because their mobility has been more recent and they did not inherit homes or assets from earlier generations. More than half of all mortgages granted to African Americans in 2006 were sub-prime. In fact, a family living in an upper-middle class African American neighborhood is twice as likely to have a sub-prime mortgage as a lower-middle class white family. Hispanics were also over-represented in the sub-prime housing market. Given the continuing residential segregation in America, foreclosures on such homes will disproportionately affect African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods.

For more information, please contact Stephanie Coontz, Professor of History and Family Studies, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA (coontzs@msn.com; 360 556-9223).

This just in, courtesy of the Women’s Media Center: Shaky Economic Times are Shakier for Women by Heidi Hartmann, director of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

A summary:

As politicians’ focus turns from the Primaries to the General Election, the economy has become the biggest issue for voters. Based on an Institute for Women’s Policy Research survey about Americans’ economic insecurities, there are differences between men and women, as Heidi Hartmann reports in the latest WMC Exclusive. Hartmann points out that women are especially concerned about Social Security, whatever their income level or minority status, and highlights that three primary facts drive women’s economic concerns. First, women have the children and generally rear them to adulthood. Second, women earn less than men. Third, women live longer than men. Hartmann concludes by saying that “women rely on Social Security. This election season, with economic issues becoming paramount, women would do well to find out which candidate-whether running for the White House or the Senate or House of Representatives-is most likely to sustain and strengthen the system that is so important to them.”

Read the article.

Lately I’ve heard the term “diversity fatigue” used to describe a) the genuine frustration that diversity programs at corporations haven’t made more progress, and b) the eye-rolling backlash against affirmative action.

Offering a fresher take, there’s a great post over at the NYTimes blog Shifting Careers called “Diversity at Work: More than Just Numbers” in which Marci Alboher interviews Natalie Holder-Winfield, an employment lawyer turned diversity consultant and author of Recruiting and Retaining a Diverse Workforce. The book, says Marci, is “a well-researched and eye-opening account of why minority employees flee workplaces even when employers have so-called diversity programs in place.”

Based on interviews with professionals from various backgrounds, Holder-Winfield seeks to provide managers, employees, and students with advice for navigating the overlay issues of cultural and generational diversity. The book looks great, but from a “making it pop” perspective, I kind of wish it had a catchier title. This one would be hard. I’m coming up dry. Which is probably why they went with the title they did?!

Read excerpts from the interview here.

The economy may be Issue No. 1, but what do working women have to say about it all?

The leading labor-rights organization, the AFL-CIO, and its community partner, Working America, are collecting data online for their Ask a Working Woman survey between now and June 20. The survey is a chance for working women to tell decision-makers what it’s like to be a working woman in America in election years. It’s open to all. They want to hear what working women need – health care, pension benefits, flex time? – to make the crazy juggling act that is working womanhood easier.

Findings will be announced to decision makers and released in nationwide media in order to highlight and help improve the status of the working mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, nieces, you get the picture. In 2006, more than 22,000 working American women took the survey. I hope in 2008 they get even more.

There’s more background information about the survey available on the AFL-CIO News Blog.

From time to time, I offer a snapshot of a new blogger on the block. Here I offer a quick Q&A with PursePundit, who started blogging in January of this year. Offline, PursePundit goes by the name of Jacki Zehner, and was the youngest woman and first female trader invited into the partnership of Goldman Sachs. She left in 2002. Now an impassioned philanthropic visionary and social change activist committed to the economic empowerment of women, Jacki is becoming a frequent media commentator on women’s success in the workplace, investing, current market events, women and wealth, and high-impact philanthropy. Here we go!

DS: What made you decide to start a blog?

JZ: I’ve been writing forever, but my work has generally been buried in my journals. Recently I read The Artist’s Way which suggested that the way to unleash your creativity is to commit to writing every day and I am trying to do that. Most of the time what I write about is people I’ve met with, or opportunities I’ve heard about, or what is going on in the markets, so I thought, why not share it? I’m also very interested in writing a book, and want to get myself out there as a writer. The blog is a place to start.

DS: I see you started by blogging about the markets—why start there?

JZ: What’s going on in the credit markets is unprecedented. As an ex-mortgage trader and an investor, I’ve been following the markets with great interest and I feel compelled to write about what’s happening. Given my experience, I feel I have a credible voice and want to share what I think, like I used to do with my clients.

DS: Tell us something about the blog’s name, “Purse Pundit.”

JZ: I love the whole idea of a purse as a symbol for the economic power of women and I believe that positive change will happen when women really start to use that power. Money is a tool that we have to shape the world that we live in—by how we invest it, by how we spend it, by how we give it away.

DS: Your tagline is “Musings on Money, Markets, and Changing the World.” Do these things really go together?

JZ: My goal with this blog is to expand the dialogue that women are engaging in about money, and inspiring them to use their money in smart and meaningful ways. Women account for more than 50% of all stock ownership in the U.S and we do most of the consumer spending. By 2010, women will account for half of the private wealth in the country, or about $14 trillion. There’s a lot of power in our collective purses.

After doing this Q&A with Jacki, I went and bought a new purse. For more musings from PP, visit www.pursepundit.blogspot.com. You can also now find Jacki blogging over at 85 Broads and Huffington Post.

While we were all focused on PA, the Republicans were busy filibustering to prevent a vote on the Fair Pay Act. NOW has been tirelessly fighting for this on all of our behalf. As Kim Gandy tells it, there’s nothing new in this bill. Writes Kim, “The Fair Pay Act just gives women back the rights that the Supreme Court took away last May. Simple, right?” For the latest, which isn’t good, click here.

And do check out the interview with Lily Ledbetter in TAP. Here’s the preamble:

Of all the appalling decisions the Roberts Court issued last year, one of the worst was the 5-4 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which gutted the equal-pay provisions of the Civil Rights Act and overturned a decades-old employment-law precedent.

The plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, worked for nearly two decades at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama. She brought an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Goodyear after she discovered that for years she had been paid less than male co-workers with the same job. The justices ruled that employees can only file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days of when the payroll decision was made.

After the Supreme Court issued its decision, which leaves women and minorities in Ledbetter’s situation with no recourse, congressional Democrats pledged to pass legislation that would give employees two years to file a complaint, in accordance with the law before the Supreme Court issued its decision. The Senate is considering the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act this week, and TAP talked with Ledbetter, who was in Washington to push for the bill’s passage.

Read the interview here.

Quick note, late to the table: As Gordon E. Finley of the Washington Times reported a while back, a headline by Reuters on Nov. 7 was startling and certainly newsworthy: “Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study.” And empirically incorrect. What gives? Read the rest.

So I return from my traveling bubble to find headlines here ablaze, of course, with Eliot Spitzer (why can’t these powerful men just keep it in their pants?) and Geraldline Ferraro’s comments about Barack Obama (why oh why). Meanwhile, The Guardian reports this morning that for the first time, the four key members of the Treasury committee that is working with chancellor Alistair Darling to shape the budget are women. The article begins with a cutesy little zinger:

“After Blair’s babes, meet Darling’s darlings.”

Guess the US ain’t the only one with issues around women taking charge. You’d think they’d be used to it, with all those queens. The rest of the piece is great, but why must we start with babes and darlings, I ask. Sigh. I was really enjoying my temporary news blackout yesterday.