DailyDirt: Women's Work

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Wed, Sep 18th 2013 5:00pm — Michael Ho

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: employment, gdp, gender gap, happiness index, sahm, womenomics

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

mudlock (profile), 18 Sep 2013 @ 5:49pm

77%
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.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 18 Sep 2013 @ 6:27pm

Re: 77%
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2013 @ 6:35pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 18 Sep 2013 @ 6:38pm

In the adult movie industry, women are paid TWICE as much as men.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 18 Sep 2013 @ 7:23pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 6:31am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 6:43am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 7:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:32pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: 77%
Systemically disadvantaged, you mean like affirmative action?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Allaun Silverfox (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:23pm

Wage gap
Uhm... How about let's look at the entire gap among race, gender, and other social lines?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Price, 30 Sep 2013 @ 12:49am

Re: 77%
"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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]