270 likes | 286 Views
This seminar explores the significant rise of women's labor force participation over the past half-century, the factors that have pushed and pulled women into the labor market, and the economic implications for families and society.
E N D
When Women Get Paid for Work: The Entry of Women to the Paid Labor Market CEPR Basic Economics Seminar Heather BousheyOctober 20, 2005
Today’s talk • The past half-century has witnessed a significant and sustained rise of women’s labor force participation. • In the 1960s, the majority of mothers worked at home, by the 1990s, the majority were in the paid labor market. • The labor force participation rate (LFPR) is the share of the population either at work or searching for a job (unemployed). • This is one of the most important, society-altering trends of our recent history, one which we, as a society, have not yet fully adjusted to. • In the next seminar series, we will focus on the gender pay gap, including the “mommy pay gap”.
Were women “pushed” or “pulled”into the labor market? • Is work a “choice” that women make for their own benefit or is it necessary to sustain their and their family’s livelihood? • The answer will significantly affect how we think about policy. • Recent media about women “opting out” of employment highlights the lack of resolution to this question.
Caveat: Women have always worked • By 20th century, paid work (valued work) mostly occurs outside the home. • Historically, wives were seen as the husband’s “yoke-mate” (Coontz 2005, p. 110), participating fully in the family’s farm or trade. • Initially, women still had intensive housework, but latter 20th century technological advances limit the needs for an industrious homemaker. • Lower-income women, women of color, and immigrant women always had been more likely than middle-class white women to work outside the home. • Work in the home is also work, even though it’s unpaid.
Caveats aside, why did women’s LFPR increase? • Was it family economics pushing them towards employment? • Was it the feminist movement that opened the doors for women’s employment (empowerment)? • Short answer: BOTH • In Seminar 3, John Schmitt showed two figures that I want to review.
Women’s earnings critical to family income (push factors) • Without the contribution of wives, families would have seen a decline in income (Figures 3 and 4, Table 1). • As was, income was relatively flat from the early 1970s onwards, compared to the period from WWII until the early 1970s (Again, a figure from John’s presentation, Figure 5). • Critical for economic mobility (next week’s topic) (Table 2). • Bradbury and Katz (2004) found that favorable family income mobility outcomes are associated with greater wives’ labor market activity.
Figure 3. Real hourly wage growth, men, 1979-2004 Source: John Schmitt, 2005. “Labor markets and economic inequality in the United States since the end of the 1970s.”
Figure 4. Real hourly wage growth, women, 1979-2004 Source: John Schmitt, 2005. “Labor markets and economic inequality in the United States since the end of the 1970s.”
Table 1. Income growth, married-couple families with children Source: Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto, The State of Working America 2004-05, p. 104.
Figure 5. Real median family income, 1947-2003 Source: John Schmitt, 2005. “Labor markets and economic inequality in the United States since the end of the 1970s.”
Table 2. Decomposing annual earnings growth, prime-age wives with children Source: Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto, The State of Working America 2004-05, p. 105.
In short, economics of the family requires a second earner • In most families, a woman works because she has to, not necessarily because she wants to have a career. • It is the case that not working carries long-term penalties in terms of wage gains, but working under those conditions is certainly not a “choice”. • There are also cumulative effects, when women moving into paid employment is part of a broad transformation of social life.
Figure 6. The “two-income trap” Source: Warren and Tyagi, 2005. The Two-Income Trap, p. 51.
Answer to push or pull affects how to think about “work/family” • Centuries-long movement of work out of the home requires a new mode of care and household production. • Children, sick, the elderly need care. • Historically, provided while women worked at home (farm, trade), alongside those needing care. • More recently, greater commute times (suburban living) necessitates even longer hours of care.
Women in paid employment is causing broad transformations • Workplace practices. • Family practices. • Social policy. • This is not to say, however, than any of these changes necessarily have occurred.
Workplaces have still not adapted • Most workers (over 60%) do have access to paid sick days when their children take ill. • Long hours—and increasing hours of work, especially to get ahead in elite and semi-elite fields. • Limited opportunities for part-time employment at parity with full-time in terms of pay scale, promotion opportunities, and benefits.
Family life showing some signs of adaptation • Time use surveys reporting show that men are increasing parental/housework hours while women decreasing. • Still, women do about twice as much housework as men. • FMLA often used by men, but usually for own illness.
Social policy remains unfocused on family realities • The U.S. has no national paid maternity or paternity leave. • U.S. workers have no right to paid sick days. • Child care inadequate and school districts still have less than full-day kindergarten.
So, are women opting out of employment by choice? • Louis Story, Lisa Belkin, etc. argue that elite women are “choosing” to stay home rather than work. • But: • Most families need mothers’ wages. • Most families do not have the luxury of adaptive institutions.
Lackluster labor market led to falling employment • Women were especially hard hit during the recession of 2001. • Prime-age women with children (ages 25 to 44) saw a 4.4 percentage point decline in their employment rate from 1999 to 2003. • However, a large drop (-3.2 percentage points) also occurred for women without children. • Indicates that the drop in women’s EPOP is not due to mothers “opting out” of employment, but is rather a widespread phenomenon among women, as well as men.
Work Cited:Gender Bias in the Current Economic Recovery?: Declining Employment Rates for Women in the 21st Century by Heather Boushey, David Rosnick, and Dean Baker, August 2005 http://www.cepr.net/pages/publications/ labor_markets_2005_08_29.pdf
When Women Get Paid for Work: The Entry of Women to the Paid Labor Market Heather Boushey Hboushey@cepr.net Center for Economic and Policy Research www.cepr.net