A full-time worker making nine dollars an hour cannot raise a family above the poverty line. A paper by Sheldon Danziger and David Ratner demonstrates that fewer women survive on less than $9 an hour today than (its adjusted equivalent) in 1979. The same cannot be said for men: 
The authors write:
…changes in the labor market over the past thirty-five years, such as labor-saving technological changes, increased globalization, declining unionization, and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, have made it more difficult for young adults to attain the economic stability and self-sufficiency that are important markers of the transition to adulthood.
This is just more evidence of the shrinking of the middle class; solid working class jobs that will allow you to buy a modest home are disappearing. Hat tip to Family Inequality and Karl Bakeman’s blog.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 7
rowmyboat — May 22, 2010
The zinger here, of course, is not a 'what about teh menz' moment, but rather that at every spot on this figure, many more women are making $9 than men. (Second to that, is that non-white people make less than white people.)
Fewer women are making poverty wages than there used to be, but it is still true in 2009 that more women are making poverty wages than men are making poverty wages (from 6.5% for whites to 8% for hispanics). To further the point, while more men are making poverty wages in 2009 than in 1979, more women are also making poverty wages.
I'd chalk this up to (a) some positive move from feminist advances such as legislation on equal pay, and (b) shitty economic policies, with the right wing leading the charge. As you said, this is a shrinking middle class issue. It's not really a gender issue. It's not 'women are taking all the men's jobs!!11!' That is, previously only people who weren't white men were shat upon, while white men were not. And now everyone is shat upon. If you take people other than white men to be the standard (rather than the minority of white men being the standard), we've got an economic situation where white men are no longer given extra privileges. It's just that instead of extending the privileges held by white men to other groups -- women, people of color -- those privileges have been revoked for everyone. Race to the bottom and all.
Anonnymouse — May 22, 2010
Just a peeve of mine, but I'd prefer "level" or "guideline" over "line." Also, I assume the level here is the federal one, which is consistent across the United States despite the fact that costs of living vary.
MissPrism — May 23, 2010
I don't understand how you reach your interpretation about shrinking middle classes.
If you assume an equal sex ratio (which is inaccurate, but only slightly), that chart shows that the proportion of people earning poverty wages, since 1979, has gone from
13.45% to 11.45% for non-Hispanic white people,
19.75% to 18.75% for non-Hispanic black people,
24.65% to 26.6% for Hispanic people.
So over the 30 years, Hispanic people have become more likely to work for poverty wages, but both the other racial categories presented have become less likely to do so (although the differences are small). Within each racial category, the poverty wages are now distributed a bit more evenly across the sexes - which is why the values for men have risen and for women have fallen - but women are still more likely to be paid a low wage than men are.
DJ On A Dime « The Ruined Auditorium — May 25, 2010
[...] all the messy business about the poverty line and student loans, people need their money. But there is this music out there and sometimes you [...]