Economist Randy Albelda of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, discussed whether economic research can move policy debate to help low-wage women workers in a lecture at Hamilton on March 29. After a brief introduction by Ann Owen, director of the Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center, Albelda delved into a wide-ranging array of statistics that lead economists to debate.
While Albelda acknowledged that many students at Hamilton come from enormous privilege, she believes most people have been or will be in a low-income family at some point in life. The uncertainty of the future and the constantly shifting economic tides should, according to Albelda, help all sympathize with those who are trying to make ends meets on less than livable wages.
Women both make less money and display lower labor force participation than men. Although the gap has been narrowing since the '70s, the average woman continues to take in a smaller income. In 2005, median annual earnings of full-time, full-year female workers were 77% of those made by men. This marks a significant improvement over the 59 cents on the dollar women earned in the early '70s, but the gap is still present.
According to Albelda, data reflect lower wages for women whether you cut the pie by average or median, hourly, weekly, or annual wages, block by industry, occupation, age or ethnicity. The gender gap is smaller among black workers, but only because black men earn less. Female participation in the labor force has risen dramatically over the past 50 years, yet some women are much more likely to participate than others. Black women have historically worked more than white women, but the gap is closing. Disturbingly, evidence that the gender gap is shrinking is more indicative of a decrease of wages for men in low-wage jobs than of increased wages for women, said Albelda.
Labor force participation for women of childbearing age has drastically increased since 1960 and, as a result, 51% of modern women are unmarried. Albelda emphasized that whether people are "pulling out their hair or celebrating, what matters is household structures look really different now than they did 100 or 50 years ago." Despite this, the labor market structure has not adjusted. One in four American families with children relies on the income of a single-mother, but the market does not allow most women to earn enough to support children in addition to themselves.
Economists argue whether the gender wage gap is supply-side or demand-side economics, individual or occupational choice. Traditionally female jobs such as nursing, childcare, clerical work, waitressing, and hotel work are substantially less lucrative than stereotypically male occupations. On behalf of the demand-side argument, feminists have argued that care penalties and gendered employment norms continue to make it harder for women to be firefighters, police officers, carpenters, and electricians. Women tend to invest less in building up their own human capital, either because they prefer or are naturally better at raising children.
Less self-investment leads to less personal human capital, which ultimately results in lower wages. There is ongoing debate whether income inequality results more from women's own failure to invest in themselves, or occupational segregation beyond their control. Either the primary responsibility of having children explains these choices, or women are stuck in lower-paying occupations because traditional notions of what is "womanly" are deeply imbedded in society. Albelda addressed legitimate arguments for both explanations.
Although women have gained a considerable number of rights over the past 30 years, women with low levels of education face the same dismal job choices they did before the modern feminist movement. Real wages are even lower than before, as federal minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation, and the number of minimum wage jobs has risen. Despite increased rights and career aspirations, women without male support are still likely to be poor, and are still primarily responsible for raising and caring for children. Breadwinner jobs, jobs that pay enough to support a family and have benefits according to Albelda, require workers to have either a full-time caregiver or wife, or no children. Men used to make more because they were in fact the main breadwinners, but the market has yet to recognize that household structure has changed.
Feminist economists argue that women are penalized for caretaking regardless of whether or not they have children. Social norms about women as caregivers hold, and low-wage jobs do not allow for childcare. Mothers with high levels of education find themselves unable to work the number of hours required to get to the top, and employers often find it hard to imagine women in top positions. Employers question if a woman will continue to do the job well if she does decide to have a baby in five years, but such thoughts rarely cross their minds with men.
While Albelda objectively introduced different sides to many explanations for the gender gap, she was adamant that inequality is built into job structure, and undeniably linked to the fluidity of household structure. Albelda expressed that she harbored hope for low-wage women, but policy makers must realize that policies that help single moms help two-parent families as well.
The United States is very unique in that it is highly developed, yet does not require employers to provide health insurance, pensions, paid vacations, sick days, or even pay a livable wage to their workers. Employers have few incentives to change the job structure themselves, so Albelda outlined several policies that would help low-income women, and low-income men as well. Congress can vote to better subsidize childcare and increase the minimum wage, the EITC (earned income tax credits), and opportunity for education and training, as well as force employers to allow part-time benefits for part-time workers. Furthermore, if universal early education is available to 3-5 year olds in Georgia, the United States can make it available in every state.
With a climbing federal deficit, Albelda is not hopeful that these changes will happen soon. She stressed that it is crucial to present a vision for a "high-road society in which the work of taking care and the work of those who are paid the least are valued." The United States needs to face the reality of changing household structure, and become more, not less, like the rest of the industrialized world.
-- by Mariam Ballout '10
