Quantcast

Bryce Covert | The Nation

  •  
Bryce Covert

Bryce Covert

Lady business with equal parts lady and business.

The Recovery Is Really Good at Creating Bad Jobs

Indicators of the economic recovery weren’t stellar this quarter: consumer and business spending seem to have slowed down, making analysts nervous. Not to mention news out of Europe that the UK and Spain have slid back into recession. Yet it was just last month that a rosy jobs report from the Labor Department touting the addition of 227,000 jobs made some optimistic that we were finally about to experience a real recovery.

But that glow of returning job security isn’t necessarily going to shine on everyone, even if the recovery really does take hold. A report out on Monday from the International Labor Organization took a look at not just how many jobs are being created but perhaps an even more crucial question: What kinds of jobs are being created in the aftermath of the recession? And the answer isn’t heartening.

We’d hope that as the economy starts to pick up the pieces and dust itself off, it would do so by creating stable jobs that pay decently, putting workers on solid footing as we move out of the mess. Yet that’s not what’s going on. The ILO reports, “Since the onset of the global crisis, part-time employment has increased in two-thirds of the advanced countries [in the report], and temporary employment has increased in one-half of the countries.” This comes on the heels of a general increase in this kind of work over the past two decades. What it means is that the jobs our economic recovery is best at producing aren’t full-time—or even permanent. We may be putting people back to work, but it’s in jobs that offer little financial security.

How to Close the Gender Wage Gap in Just Seven Easy* Steps


(AP Photo/Erik Schelzig)

The Fast Pace of Change for Women Workers Can’t Distract From the Work Left to Do

Editor's Note: Please join us for a livechat with Bryce Covert, along with Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, and Joan Entmacher and Kate Gallagher Robbins from the National Women's Law Center, on Tuesday, March 27th, at 1pm EST, here in the comments section! The discussion will center on the obstacles that women face in the current economy and the ways in which women can achieve economic equality. To join the chat, please use the comments box at the top of the conversation thread, rather than the “reply” function.

“You’ve come a long way, baby.” That was Virginia Slims’ opening salvo to the professional woman when it launched a brand aimed solely at her less than a half century ago. That half-century has seen radical changes in the American workforce, women’s roles and the shape of our families.

In that time the birth control pill became widely available, helping to triple the number of working women from the 50s to the aughts. The latest generation of women workers has the most positive outlook on their careers and the labor force than any in history. Almost 40 percent of today’s working wives outearn their husbands. And women who have children are much more likely to stay in the workforce when their kids are young than they were in the past.

The Not Yet Richer, Still Struggling for Economic Equality, Sex

The wave of optimism about women’s economic fortunes has crested yet again with the release of Liza Mundy’s latest book, The Richer Sex. Her thesis is that given certain trends, any day now women will outearn men, become the majority of breadwinners and therefore upend social and cultural norms relating to marriage, sex and families. (Upfront caveat: I have only read, and will only be discussing, the part of the book that sets up the trend, and not the parts that examine what the social fallout will look like. I’ll address those in a follow up.) The exact timing of what she calls The Big Flip, where women overtake men, is unclear, but she feels we are just about there, if not already experiencing it.

This is the heart of her thesis: “Almost 40 percent of U.S. working wives now outearn their husbands, a percentage that has risen steeply in this country and many others.” She adds that “[w]ives are breadwinners or co-earners in about two-thirds of American marriages” and that “[a]lmost 7 percent of wives—nearly 4 million women, up from 1.7 percent in 1967—[are] sole breadwinners.” These are impressive statistics to be sure, but as some have pointed out, the math doesn’t add up to a claim that women are already the richer sex. After all, to flip her numbers around, 60 percent of men are still outearning their wives, a third of married women are still contributing less to their families than their husbands and 93 percent of wives are not sole breadwinners. But Mundy predicts that the time when the balance will tilt toward women is “just around the corner.” “We are entering an era where women, not men, will become the top earners in households,” she says. “We are entering the era in which roles will flip.”

How are we going to get there? One of the biggest trends that has Mundy—and many others—excited is that women are getting more degrees than their male counterparts. She points out, “By the year 2050, demographers forecast, there will be 140 college-educated women in the United States for every 100 college-educated men.” Women are getting higher degrees faster than men, it’s true—they hold 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees—and a college education is correlated with higher earnings overall. But why might women be scrambling to get a college education? Mundy says it herself: “Women have become so accustomed to discrimination they naturally assume they will need more education to be paid an equivalent wage,” and these women would be absolutely correct. As I wrote earlier, women experience a pay gap compared to men at every level of post–high school education. Overall, college-educated men make $800 more per month than college-educated women, but the gap expands the more education they each take on. Women are getting degrees not to outshine men but to try to keep pace—and they’re failing. That trend, of achieving more degrees just to fall further behind, does not bode well.

Why We Need More Sarah Palins and Herman Cains

The Republican nominee for the 2012 slate hasn’t even been picked yet, but we’re already speculating about who might run in 2016. The latest rumor is that New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is going to ask Hillary Clinton to run again. This isn’t terribly surprising, as Gillibrand has been working a project called Off The Sidelines to get more women to run for office. It’s a problem we’ve made little progress on: women make up half of the population, yet they hold only 16 percent of Congressional seats, 12 percent of governorships and 8 percent of mayoralties. And that highest office in the land? No female has yet been named Commander in Chief besides Geena Davis.

Jamelle Bouie wrote a fantastic article at The American Prospect recently that made a similar point about African Americans. Just as with women, he notes that black people aren’t proportionally represented in politics. African-Americans make up 12.2 percent of the population, but there is not a single black Senator in the current Congress, and at the most the 2012 election cycle will produce two black governors and out of 150. Just over 8 percent of Representatives in the House are African-American, which is a bit closer but still not quite proportional. And of course Barack Obama is our first black president, out of forty-four.

But in a follow-up blog post, Bouie notes that black Republicans may actually be better poised for taking higher office. Which for him:

Despite the History of Brutality, We Must Reform, Not Abandon, the Police

In a piece I wrote yesterday about the killing of Trayvon Martin, I urged America not to turn its back on the government and put the law in private hands. Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, is an example of how vigilante justice can (and does) go so wrong.

But many who responded felt that my solution—reforming the police force, rather than abandoning it—didn’t give enough airtime to the history of police brutality in this country. And it’s an important and disturbing one. The violence used to crack down on Occupy Wall Street just this past weekend is a perfect example. But violence against Occupy has been a visible incarnation of a problem that black America has long lived with. Elon James wrote eloquently about this when Occupy was first under attack: “While the Occupiers were dealing with such abuse, during civil disobedience, communities of color suffer these type of injustices simply because it’s Wednesday.… Abuse of this kind is all too familiar to the black community. If someone hasn’t directly experienced it, they probably know someone who has.” The NYPD, which has been at the forefront of using violence against Occupiers, is also at the forefront of racially repugnant policies. Its stop-and-frisk policy hit another record last year with 684,330 stops, and blacks and Hispanics were 87 percent of those stopped—whites were just 9 percent. Its violent tactics against minority groups led to the deaths of Sean Bell and Jateik Reed—both unarmed—and countless others.

While these actions make me sick, they only strengthen my resolve to reform our country’s police force. Because my question still remains: What’s the alternative? It absolutely cannot be putting the law in the hands of private citizens like George Zimmerman and Joe Horn, the Texas man who shot two men on his neighbor’s lawn.

The High Cost of Being a Woman

It turns out being a woman is an expensive undertaking. Despite laws on the books meant to prevent companies and firms from charging women more for the same products and services, we’re still shelling out more than men for a variety of things. And we do it on less pay.

A new report out this week from the National Women’s Law Center found that insurance companies have been charging women $1 billion more than men for the same coverage. In fact, in the states that haven’t banned the practice of jacking up prices for women – known as gender rating – women were charged more for 92 percent of the best-selling health plans. The difference can’t be explained by a higher cost of maternity care: even when that care is left out, almost a third of plans charged women at least 30 percent or more, and that care is usually not part of a standard benefits package. Why might insurers decide women are more expensive? Because they tend to use more services – like going to the doctor more often for regular check ups. Damn them being preventative.

Paying higher dollar amounts for similar care isn’t the only way health issues screw women. Nona Willis Aronowitz and Dylan C. Lathrop of GOOD added up the numbers on how much women spend on lady-specific care. The average woman will spend 30 years trying to prevent pregnancy, eventually having two children. With insurance, at the low end, their estimates show that she will end up spending $10,070 on her particular health needs. Those include costs for having a baby, such as gestational diabetes screening ($80), a lactation class ($80), and breast-feeding supplies ($670). It also includes preventative care, such as HPV tests every three years ($260), annual HIV counseling and screening ($1,500), annual pelvic exams ($2,080), and co-pays for hormonal birth control ($5,400).

Trayvon Martin’s Killing and Our Deep Distrust of Government

It seems the grieving family of Trayvon Martin, the slain 17-year-old whose killer has thus far gone free due to a claim of self-defense, may get some justice. The US Department of Justice announced today that it will investigate the killing and the local police's bumbling investigation into the crime.

But we still need to talk about the conditions under which this crime took place. Martin was killed by a neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, even though the 911 operator Zimmerman had called to report Martin’s “suspiciousness” told him not to pursue. The law that may have emboldened Zimmerman, and that has most definitely shielded him from proper prosecution, is referred to as Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Passed in 2005, it kicked off a wave of similar legislation across the country that expanded the rights of civilians who use lethal force in self-defense, undoing the former requirement that they retreat from confrontation when possible. And as Liliana Segura reported in 2008, “The new laws are particularly expansive in that they go beyond the boundaries of private homes to include cars, workplaces or anywhere else a person may feel threatened.” Months after Florida passed its bill, similar legislation was proposed in more than twenty states.

At the time, a critic warned the law could “turn Florida into the OK Corral,” Segura reported. And that warning has played out. Martin was not the first victim of cowboy-esque figures taking the law into their own hands. Segura reported the case of 61-year-old Texan Joe Horn, who saw a pair of black men on a neighbor’s property and, out of frustration that law enforcement wouldn’t arrive in time, went outside and shot them both, once again against the desires of the 911 operator. As he said in the call transcript, “I ain’t letting them get away with this shit.”

Women Left Out of Manufacturing Rebound

The good news: manufacturing employment rose for the first time in more than a decade last year. The bad news: that was only true for men. In a report released today, the National Women’s Law Center found that men gained 230,000 jobs in manufacturing between 2010 and 2011, while women lost 25,000 jobs.

Interestingly, manufacturing has not been a very mancession-y sector. Yes, employment there tanked and was a big part of why men had such a high rate during the recession. But the job losses within the sector were actually proportional according to gender. Women held about 30 percent of the jobs before the recession and lost 30 percent of the jobs during it; men held about 70 percent of jobs and lost the same amount. But as with the economy as a whole, the recovery has not been as kind to women. From 2010 to 2011, not a single sector in manufacturing showed job gains for women; rather, there were a few in which women lost ground.

Why would this trend appear now? The answers aren’t so clear. I spoke with Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic security at NWLC, who told me that because this phenomenon is “so widespread and diverse across the manufacturing sector, we really don’t know why.” She also pointed out that we don’t know precisely where the new jobs are coming from—it could be that some plants are rehiring jobs sloughed off during the downturn, or it could be in brand new plants—which complicates the picture. History may shed some light: in the past, she said, some of the reasons women were underrepresented in the sector included employer discrimination, harassment from coworkers (or even the perception of potential harassment) and a lack of training in particular fields. But if the country is going to invest in manufacturing jobs, she says, “we need to be self-conscious about making sure the jobs are available to everyone.”

Big Changes in the Impact of Childcare on Working Women

The standard logic goes as follows. Woman gets pregnant. Woman takes time off for pregnancy. Woman finds out how high the cost of childcare is, or how hard it is to leave a child, and drops out of her job within the first year of her child’s life. This logic assumed that very young children pushed women out of the labor force. And it was right—that is, up until recently.

Last week I wrote about some new evidence that some women do in fact opt out of the labor force. The study shows that a significant percentage of college-educated women whose husbands make more money have the urge to leave their careers. I speculated that while this is clearly about the gender wage gap, it may also be about childcare duties. After all, many couples still assume that only a wife’s, and not a husband’s, income goes toward paying for someone to watch the little one.

But that picture seems to be far more complicated than we may have once assumed. In fact, the tug of childcare duties may have completely changed since the 1970s and ’80s. As Stefania Albanesi, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and author of the study, told me in a conversation about the childcare implications in her study, “It doesn’t seem that children play the role that they played in the past. The flattening out of labor force participation occurs both for women with no children and women with children; this suggests that having children per se is not driving it.” In the past, giving birth to a child was the key factor in whether a woman left her job. Now both mothers and women without children are those dropping out.

Syndicate content