Informing policy. Inspiring change. Improving lives.
1200 18th Street NW, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20036
202 785-5100
iwpr@iwpr.org

Small Steps Forward in Job Gains, But Not Enough to Close Gender Gap

road signs for recession and recoveryBy Caroline Hopper

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new data, showing 65,000 of the 120,000 jobs gained last month went to women. While I welcome this news, I would like to take a step back and examine the full picture before celebrating. The numbers also show that 339,000 women have dropped out of the labor market and the gender job gap remains at 1.5 million jobs.

During what has been an extended recovery from the recent economic crisis, men have gained a significantly larger  number of jobs than women. Since October of 2009, when men and women showed similar total job numbers, men have gained over 1.5 million more jobs than women, according to IWPR. In fact, just in the past year, women have filled only 30 percent of the 1.6 million jobs added to payrolls.

Women Abandoned Job Market

As a college student during final exams week, these statistics leave me deflated. It’s hard to stay motivated during sleepless nights in the library, working towards a degree and a profession, with these numbers looming over my head. The outlook for anyone to find a job after college is not good and for me, as a woman, it may be even worse. Once in the job market, women also face a gender wage gap that can cut deeply into their lifetime earnings—leaving them behind in their retirement years.

I’m not alone in this discouragement. According to BLS data, from October to November, 339,000 women stopped looking for work and dropped out of the labor market. Meanwhile, 23,000 men starting working or combing the classifieds for job postings. This could be a cause for some of the apparent improvement in unemployment rates (which fell for both women and men).

According to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, those who have abandoned the job market recently might be teachers or other employees who have been laid off from the public sector. IWPR research found that at the local level, between December 2008 and July 2011, the number of women in public sector employment  decreased by 4.7 percent while the number of men  decreased by only 1.6 percent. The majority of employees in the local public sector are elementary and secondary teachers.

Balancing Act for Women Has Gotten More Difficult

Another factor leading to these departures from the job market is the difficulty for women with obligations to care for children or for elderly parents to find a job that will accommodate their needs in a poor economy. For a woman, it is now even harder to try to do it all, balancing family and career.

According to an IWPR/Rockefeller Foundation survey released in October, women are less willing to move or accept a longer commute for a new job (54 percent of women would accept an increase in commuting time compared with 64 percent of men). Single mothers are much more willing to learn a new skill (85 percent) than to accept a job with lower pay (51 percent) or have a longer commute to work (55 percent).

So, while women did gain more jobs than men this month, these numbers are only one frame of an economy that is leaving many women unemployed—and possibly facing the expiration of their unemployment benefits. And, while job opportunities increased proportionally for women last month, it is also crucial to note that job growth remained quite slow for all. After all, the recovery should not be a competition between men and women. Rather, I hope that the recovery may lift our entire nation.

Caroline Hopper is a Communications Intern at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

After the Great Recession

By Heidi Hartmann

This post was originally published on the Women’s Media Center blog. The economic recovery has yet to begin for American women, according to two reports issued this week by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). Here, acclaimed economist Heidi Hartmann, who co-authored the analyses, explains the disturbing findings.

Frequently referred to as a ‘mancession,’ the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 hit men much harder than women initially. Men’s employment fell farther and faster than women’s, as the male dominated construction and manufacturing industries each lost more than a million jobs while the only industry that gained jobs every month was health care, one that employs more women than men.

The recovery period is however a different story.  In the past two plus years since the recession was officially declared over, women lost jobs while men regained some of the jobs they lost.  For women the recovery has not yet begun, and their economic worries have not abated.

It is almost as if women and men have had two different recessions and are now having two different recoveries. Case in point: 50 percent of women aged 18 to 34 report in a recent IWPR survey funded by the Rockefeller Foundation that they were unemployed and looking for work sometime in the past two years; the figure for men in the same age group is 24 percent.  Single moms report experiencing a month or more of unemployment in the past two years at roughly double the percentage of other parents:  42 percent of single moms compared with 21 percent for married dads and 26 percent for married moms.

Both women and men by the millions still report severe economic distress two years into recovery, but women have the worst of it:

  • Ten million women and six million men aged 18 and older report having gone hungry in the past year because they could not afford food.
  • Twelve million women and eight million men have gotten food stamp benefits in the past year.
  • Forty-one million women and 27 million men are currently having difficulty paying for other basics like utilities.

Among Americans lucky enough to have jobs, only 35 percent of single moms, compared with 58 percent of married dads, say they have enough personal savings to cover two months of earnings if they lost that job.  Not so surprising, since we know that single mothers are disproportionately poor—not only do they have multiple mouths to feed but they are typically doing so on their own, without an additional earner.  But here’s a surprise: married mothers report a level of personal financial security more like that of single moms than like that of their husbands: only 31 percent say they have enough savings to cover two months of earnings.

Married moms are just about as likely as single moms to say they are having trouble paying for health care for their families, at 38 percent for single moms and 34 percent for married moms.  But only 17 percent of married dads report they are having trouble paying for their family’s health care.

Looking at the future, both men and women worry about losing health care, not saving enough for retirement, and not having enough to maintain their standard of living in retirement, and both men and women report being substantially more worried about these issues in 2010 than they were in 2007, before the recession began.  But on virtually all types of worries and in both years, women are much more concerned than men. For one example, in 2010, 58 percent of women are worried about not having enough money to live on in retirement, and 43 percent of men are similarly worried.

Although the gender differences are striking, these numbers are shocking for both women and men: 43 percent of men worried about not having enough money to live on in retirement?  Sixteen million adults going hungry in the past year for lack of money? These numbers should simply not be so in the richest nation in the world.

Women’s greater expression of worry fits with so much of what is known about women’s lives.  In this survey, women report experiencing greater hardship across the board:  hunger, not filling medical prescriptions, skipping doctors’ visits, having to double up since the recession began for financial reasons (17 percent of women versus 11 percent of men).  According to Census Bureau data, the typical woman who works full-time, year-round earns only 77 percent of what the typical man earns for full-time work.  Women more often raise children on their own than men do.  Women live longer than men and when older are much more likely than men to live alone and much more likely to be poor.

For many reasons, women living without men in their households have a lower standard of living than married couples or single men. But the differences observed between the experiences of women and men even when they report living in the same type of household—married couples—raise a further concern. Researchers typically measure the well-being of family members by assuming all members of the family share all income equally. The survey results suggest men and women in families may have different access to family resources, or perhaps different family roles (who pays the bills, who takes the child to the doctor) that lead one gender to express more hardship—with women worrying more about not taking a child to the doctor for lack of money, not having savings to cover two months of lost income, not having enough money to live on in retirement. As the sociologist Jessie Bernard observed in 1972, there is his marriage and her marriage and they are not the same.

What do women want?  According to the survey:  jobs, jobs that make it easier to meet family demands, economic security, equal opportunity, workers’ rights, more generous Social Security benefits, and no cuts in either Social Security or Medicare.  The say they will support candidates who will work for legislation on these issues.  Men say the same, but not in quite as large numbers as women.

Dr. Heidi Hartmann is the President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

New IWPR/Rockefeller Survey Reveals Need and Support for Social Security Funding

By Zoe Li

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation, recently completed a survey of economic security. Retirement on the Edge: Women, Men, and Economic Insecurity After the Great Recession (download the report and other resources from the IWPR/Rockefeller Survey of Economic Security on our website) compiled data from over 2,700 adults to provide a national snapshot of how Americans view retirement and Social Security. The survey, that collected data from over 2,500 respondents in the fall of 2010, revealed that the recent domestic recession has strongly impacted the current financial situations, and prospective financial futures, of many Americans.

In particular, the widespread loss of employment, salaries, and pensions felt across many sectors of the economy has heightened the importance of Social Security to many Americans. In 2010, only 25 percent of women and 35 percent of men not yet retired felt that they were saving enough money for retirement, compared to 34 percent of women and 45 percent of men not yet retired in 2007. This effect is due in no small part to financial losses during the recession: nearly 50 percent of both men and women reported losing money within the last two years, with similar numbers of men and women experiencing some form of unemployment in their households during that same period. Indeed, the predominant reason given for not saving more money for retirement was “I cannot afford to save more for retirement” (69 percent of women, 53 percent of men).

With many American families feeling the pressures of the Great Recession, the study suggests that the very notion of retirement has morphed; no longer regarded as the “golden years” when one could completely stop working, retirement is now considered by many as a change in income streams, not work demands. Seventy-two percent of women and seventy  percent of men not yet retired believe they will keep working even after retirement, while 26 percent of women and 37 percent of men over the age of 60 predicted that they wouldn’t retired until after the age of 70 or that they will never retire at all.

However, this change in the definition of retirement does not reflect a waning of support for Social Security among the American people. Rather, 74 percent of women and 69 percent of men supported paying Social Security taxes to receive benefits from the program upon retirement. An even higher percentage of respondents (88 percent of women and 82 percent of men) said they did not mind paying Social Security taxes to support retired, disabled, orphaned, and widowed Americans. A majority of both men and women surveyed by the study (54 percent and 61 percent, respectively), endorsed increasing Social Security benefits to help Americans who had lost their savings and pensions in the recession. Despite economic hardships experienced within many families, a majority of Americans support Social Security spending not only for their own sakes, but for the wellbeing of others.

And yet the need and support for Social Security found in this study are not well reflected in congressional plans. Congress continues to discuss cutting funding for Social Security without regard to the long-term health of the program. Without strong congressional support for Social Security, the substantial portion of Americans who do not think they have enough money to support themselves in retirement may find themselves in a difficult situation as they age and lose the capacity to work. The will and the hope to ensure Social Security’s survival seems demonstrated in this large-scale survey of the American people—it is up to Congress to translate those sentiments into policy.

Zoe Li is a Research Intern with the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 

An Unbalanced Debt Deal: Cutting Vital Programs Does Not Address the Deficit

The deal to raise the debt ceiling that may or may not have been reached between President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner should be rejected by members of the House and Senate if it is as unbalanced as is being reported in the press. Supposedly it includes no tax increases and that makes it unbalanced on its face. Rather it includes a promise of future tax reform in exchange for immediate cuts to vital programs.

In general, the White House has been trying to get agreement with Republicans in Congress to balance budget cuts with tax increases as a way to tame annual deficits and contribute to bringing the accumulated debt down as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The White House was asking for $4 trillion in cuts and revenue increases over 12 years, but numbers discussed recently are somewhat more modest and talk of cuts, not tax increases, has dominated.

While the Republicans have refused to accept tax increases, the President has been willing to put large cuts on the table, even suggesting significant cuts in well-loved programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This inclination exists despite the White House’s insistence that Social Security does not contribute to the budget deficit and its Trustees projection that the program will have sufficient funds to pay benefits in full through 2036, even if no changes are made. While Medicare’s future shortfalls are expected to contribute to future budget deficits—if health care costs are not brought under better control—the Trustees of the two plans project that Medicare can pay all benefits through 2024, and an Actuary Office within DHHS moved their estimate from 2017 to 2029 due to the passage of health care reform, even if no further changes are made on the benefit or revenue side.

Any deal that makes significant cuts to the benefits provided by these programs should be rejected. Women are the majority of those receiving benefits from both Medicare and Social Security, primarily because they live longer than men and these programs primarily serve those in their 60s and beyond. IWPR research shows how much women rely on Social Security. More than two-thirds of all women aged 65 and older rely on Social Security for half or more of their income. For men that age, the share is more than half.

Among the cuts to Social Security that may be included in the deal, as reported in the media, is a shift in the cost of living adjustment (COLA) to a smaller measure of inflation which is less accurate than the current price index used to adjust Social Security benefits. Health and aging experts agree that elders face higher than average price inflation because they consume so much health care, yet the proposed switch to the “chained CPI” would reduce benefits.  According to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), at age 65 the chained CPI would reduce benefits by 1 percent and, by age 95, it would result in a 10 percent reduction of benefits. Women are twice as likely as men to live to age 95, meaning a benefit cut that accumulates over time, as the chained CPI does, would especially hurt women.

Raising the eligibility age for either Social Security or Medicare amounts to a disastrous cut to seniors and future retirees, who have paid for these benefits throughout their lives. Every one year increase in the eligibility age for Social Security amounts to a seven percent cut in benefits across the board. Lack of health insurance is an enormous problem for older adults. Rates of employer-sponsered health insurance coverage decline beginning at age 50—and continue to decline until the Medicare eligibility age (65) is reached. Raising the eligibility age for Medicare would prolong the period without insurance coverage that many experience just as their health care needs are increasing.

The debt ceiling needs to be raised to enable the federal government to meet obligations it has already incurred. Congress has already approved the budget expenditures that require the ceiling to be raised and they should lift the debt ceiling to allow the budget they voted for to be fully implemented.

Cutting essential programs that do not contribute to the deficit now and will not for at least a decade is a completely unnecessary part of any deal on the debt ceiling. There are many ways of bringing the nation’s debt under control without attacking programs that Americans rely on for survival. Moreover, Americans strongly support these programs and would be willing to pay more in taxes if necessary to preserve current levels of benefits.

Members of Congress who vote for cuts such as these may well find that voters do not agree with their actions.

Heidi Hartmann, Ph.D., is the President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. he has published numerous articles in journals and books and her work has been translated into more than a dozen languages. She lectures widely on women, economics, and public policy, frequently testifies before the U.S. Congress, and is often cited as an authority in various media outlets.

Putting the Pieces Together: How Social Security Supports Black Women

by Mallory Mpare

The longer Social Security remains on the table for cuts as part of a comprehensive debt reduction plan, the more nervous those close to the program should be. And with good reason. Social Security was conceived as a protection against the risks—such as disability or lack of employment at older ages –that might lead to poverty. It is meant to work in conjunction with other retirement plans or savings as a critical piece of a comprehensive economic security plan. In the aftermath of the Great Recession and in the midst of economic recovery—when unemployment is high (9.1 percent unemployment as of May 2011)— it seems an especially inopportune time to discuss actions which might make people even more vulnerable to the very circumstances Social Security protects against.

While Social Security has benefited men and women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds and income levels, the impact of proposed cuts to Social Security on women of color is particularly troubling. Black women experience higher rates of poverty, are concentrated in low-wage jobs, have fewer employee benefits, and are less likely to work in jobs covered by pensions. This combination of circumstances makes black women particularly vulnerable to economic insecurity at older ages.

Following a fact sheet on the importance of Social Security to Latinas, IWPR released a fact sheet that describes the critical role Social Security plays in the lives of many black women. To begin with, the Social Security benefits received by black women are modest. Black women over the age of 62 average $961 per month in benefits as retired workers. Still, Social Security is the most common source of income for black women aged 62 and older—received by 49 percent of black women aged 62–64, 83 percent aged 65–74, and 88 percent of black women 75 years and older. In fact, a solid majority of black women aged 75 and older rely on Social Security for at least four-fifths of their income.

What would happen to these women if Social Security disappeared? Simply put, without the income received from Social Security many more black woman would live in families or as individuals with incomes below the poverty threshold. If you think this is an exaggeration (as some must, considering the attacks on the program), think again. Even with the program as it stands today, more than one in four black women aged 75 and older lives with an income below the poverty threshold. Without Social Security benefits, six out of ten of these women would live in poverty. When we talk about Social Security beneficiaries, images of the elderly are easily brought to mind. However, 26 percent of black women who receive Social Security do so not by consequence of reaching retirement age, but because of disability. This contrasts to the 12 percent of white women and 14 percent of all adult women combined who receive Social Security benefits due to disability and not age. In other words, for disability benefits alone Social Security is especially important to black women.

It is hard to tell when attacks on Social Security will stop. One thing is for certain: the puzzle of economic security is incomplete without a strengthened Social Security program.

Mallory Mpare is the Communications Fellow with the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

IWPR Releases New Findings on Increasing Importance of Social Security

A January 27 event at the National Press Club brought together experts on Social Security and the economy to discuss findings.

by Caroline Dobuzinskis

Social Security is vital to women and minorities. For many, this is not new knowledge. More surprising are findings from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research showing that rates of reliance on Social Security increased dramatically between 1999 and 2009—particularly among men. The findings were released on January 27 in our latest report, Social Security Especially Vital to Women and People of Color, Men Increasingly Reliant, authored by Heidi Hartmann, Jeff Hayes, and Robert Drago.

At the National Press Club, IWPR President Heidi Hartmann presented IWPR’s new findings at a release event that coincided with the kick-off of the annual conference of the prestigious National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI).

The report finds that, between 1999 and 2009, the number of men aged 65 and older relying on Social Security for at least 80 percent of their incomes increased by 48 percent (from 3.8 million to 5.7 million) to equal more than a third of all men aged 65 and older in 2009. The increase for comparable women was 26 percent (from 8.2 million to 10.3 million) to equal half of older women in 2009.

Dr. Hartmann, lead author of the report, was joined by other experts who shared their views on the report’s findings—Dr. Gary Burtless, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, Brookings Institution; Virginia Reno, Vice President for Income Security,  NASI; and, Dr. Maya Rockeymoore, President and CEO, Global Policy Solutions.  Dr. Robert Drago, IWPR’s Director of Research, moderated the panel.  All the presentations are available to be viewed on YouTube.

The main theme of the discussion was the need for preserving the Social Security system, because of the impact that cuts would have for many who depend on it. Speakers pointed to how, particularly in the aftermath of the recent recession, Social Security is increasingly essential to keep many out of poverty. “For the majority of the aging population, the Social Security safety net is getting the job done,” said Virginia Reno.

“This [report] is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of how many older people, and particularly different population groups among the aged, depend on Social Security,” said Dr. Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institute. “It’s the most important source for the great majority of the elderly. Cutting it would have serious repercussions for the most vulnerable of the aged.”

IWPR’s report shows that, in 2009, Social Security helped more than 14 million Americans aged 65 and older stay above the poverty line. Without access to Social Security, 58 percent of women and 48 percent of men above the age of 75 would be living below the poverty line.

Dr. Burtless pointed to the fact that the social safety net continues to “get the job done” for the majority of the nation’s aged population, including those in the lowest income distribution brackets. As a result, many have been spared from the worst impact of the recent recession.

Dr. Maya Rockeymoore of Global Policy Solutions put forth the significance of the findings to communities of color, “a population that was already suffering from disparities in assets and income prior to the financial crisis.” She pointed to the asset gap outlined in the report, with white women in particular having more income from assets than black or Hispanic women.

IWPR’s research found that, among women aged 62-64, white women report an average of $3,471 in income from assets compared with $1,738 for black women and $1,417 for Hispanic women. Among women aged 75 and older, white women report $3,278 in income from assets, compared with $715 for black women and $549 for Hispanic women, on average.

“I would argue that the fact that we’ve seen increases in reliance in Social Security over the past 10 years is going to be a harbinger of the future as well,” said Dr. Rockeymoore. “Overall we know that this is going to have significance—severe significance—for populations of color in the future, not only today’s retirees.”

Additional findings from the report support the continued need for Social Security among minorities and women, who benefit disproportionately from Social Security because the program is designed to pay proportionally higher benefits to lower earning workers. Women also benefit from the program’s family benefits.

The study is based on IWPR analysis of data from the 1978 to 2010 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements collected jointly by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Please read the report in full on IWPR’s website.

To follow the conversation on Social Security, follow IWPR on Twitter. Join the conversation by using the hashtags #Social Security and #womenspolicy.

Caroline Dobuzinskis is Communications Manager with the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

IWPR’s Top Five Findings of 2010

by Jennifer Clark

1.  The recent recession was not predominantly a “mancession.”

While men represented the majority of job losses during the recession, IWPR’s research shows that single mothers were almost twice as likely as married men to be unemployed.  Another IWPR briefing paper examines how the “Great Recession” was an equal opportunity disemployer, doubling nearly every demographic group’s unemployment rate. In many families, women increasingly became the primary breadwinner, but they still spent more time in unpaid household labor than men. This imbalance of effort at home persists whether men are employed or not.

2. Only 12 percent of single mothers in poverty receive cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

In the briefing paper, “Women in Poverty During the Great Recession,” IWPR shows that the numbers of single mothers in poverty receiving TANF assistance varies in the states. In Louisiana, only four percent of single mothers in poverty have TANF assistance. While in Washington, DC, the jurisdiction where impoverished mothers have the highest enrollment, still only 40 percent of single mothers receive any cash assistance through TANF.

3. Community colleges would need to increase the supply of child care on campus at least 10-fold to meet the current needs of students.

More than one-quarter of the students at community colleges have children, yet the supply of child care on campus does not meet the current needs of students. For many student parents, community college is an avenue to better jobs that allow them to support their families. As part of IWPR’s current project on post-secondary education, IWPR released a fact sheet in June, which noted that the proportion of community colleges providing on-campus care for the children of students decreased between 2001 and 2008, despite the great need.

4.  Young women are now less likely to work in the same jobs as men.

Reversing the progress made by earlier cohorts of young women entering the labor market, younger women today are now less likely to work in traditionally male and integrated occupations, which tend to pay better than traditionally female occupations. When told that traditionally male occupations pay more, women receiving workforce training said they would choose the higher paying job. In addition, women earn less than men in all but four of 108 occupational categories including in occupations-such as nursing and teaching-where women represent the majority of workers.

5. The majority of all likely voters support paid sick days.

IWPR’s new study shows that, while 69 percent of likely voters-including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents-endorse laws to provide paid sick days, two-fifths of all private sector workers lack this benefit. IWPR’s research also shows preventing workplace contagion of communicable diseases-such as influenza or H1N1-by providing paid sick days will save employers and the US economy millions of dollars.

Jennifer Clark is the Development Coordinator with the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Go to Home Page