Feminomics: A Woman’s Place - Still in the (Poor) House
Monday, 12/21/2009 - 10:23 am by Meizhu Lui | 5 Comments
Will 2010 be the year of the woman? We asked prominent thinkers to discuss women’s changing roles in the economy. How has the crisis affected them? Are women the key to reform? What economic impact will they have going forward? We’ll explore all this and more in a special ND20 12-part series. Meizhu Lui explains why the gender wealth gap is as important as the more familiar income gap.
They used to say things like “a woman’s place is in the home.” We thought we had that licked.
In the 60’s, women fought to get out of the house and into the workforce. (White women that is; most women of color were already low-wage earners). Today, women have not yet achieved income parity, making about 76 cents on the man’s dollar. And ironically, not only do women have the right to work, they must go to work. Married couples depend on two incomes, and about half of all households are unmarried, many of those headed by single moms.
We understand income. But little attention is paid to building wealth — what you own minus what you owe. Savings, homes, businesses, retirement and investment accounts enable a person to weather economic storms, to generate further income and assets, and to give the children a head start.
According to recent research by Mariko Chang, the gender wealth gap far exceeds the income gap. Single women of working age between 18 and 64 have only 36 cents of wealth to the single man’s dollar. And for women of color, economic security is non-existent. Single women of each race have less than half the wealth as men of their own race, but due to the racial wealth gap, women of color are at the bottom. In 2004, single white women had around $24,000 in wealth, while African-American women at the median had only $2000 dollars to fall back on. And for Latinas? Nada, zero.
The American myth is that hard work makes you rich. But the work of enslaved people didn’t make African-Americans rich. Women’s work never made women rich. It is still invisible, undervalued and un/under-paid. For example, dog walkers make a third more than child care workers. Does our society value dogs more than children? Or is it that “women’s place” thinking continues to affect women’s ability to achieve economic security? Women of color continue to be disproportionately employed doing “women’s work,” taking care of children and the elderly, working in food service and housekeeping — occupations that are often without wealth-building benefits such as retirement pensions or health insurance.
Asset building is a woman’s issue. And government actions and inactions are what create the mal-distribution of wealth by race and gender we see today. New policies can help poor women build wealth, such as removing asset limits for public benefits, refundable tax credits for dependents, matched savings and retirement accounts, and access to credit for micro-business development. Programs can also be targeted toward those who have worked the hardest and remained the poorest, by creating programs in the communities that were left behind by previous policies that favored white suburbs.
Women don’t just need to get what men get. We also need recognition of the personal and social value of women’s work. A woman’s place should be wherever she wants and needs to be, and that should not put her in the poor house.
Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Meizhu Lui is Director of the Closing the Racial Wealth Gap Initiative.
Great article.
You mention credit for microbusinesses…I’m sure you know of the Grameen Bank and other microcredit/lending institutions which focus on helping women start businesses. Do you think something like that is needed in this country?
Posted by Zach P | December 21st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The social, cultural, and political attitudes of modern society have enabled women to seize some power from men, despite being treated unfairly by unethical leaders, who continue to reinforce the “glass ceiling.” Women understand that fruitful conversations promote sound business relationships and teamwork, thus contributing to an improvement in the bottom line.
Women are usually well organized: they manage a dual career, as homemakers and professional employees. Women often regard their fellow employees as family and take time to ascertain their personal needs. Hence, they can sometimes be taken undue advantage of. Competition is strange to most women because they were groomed for caring, rather than winning!
Fay Weldon, a writer, stated, “Worry less about what other people think of you, and more about what you think about them.” A former mayor of Ottawa once said, “Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought of as half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult!”
When women start to follow in the footsteps of many men, by being intoxicated by power, they lose their identity and bearings. Women should focus on a diplomatic approach and learn how to exude self-confidence while maintaining self-respect and deal with the competition without being intimidated or taken undue advantage of.
Women who achieve powerful positions in the corporate world may be subjected to personal and professional attacks because of their gender. Independent women are strong, fearless, and in control of their homes, families, emotions, and their working environment. They tackle problems with a heads-on approach, being steadfast in their pursuit of success and happiness.
Men and women should operate as a team, both within a corporate environment and outside one with synergy in mind. Members of either gender should not feel threatened by the presence or performance of the opposite sex. What we need is a positive approach to life and business in an attempt to increase personal, corporate, national, and international welfare.
I have a policy of distributing free abridged versions of my books on leadership, ethics, teamwork, motivation, women, bullying and sexual harassment, trade unions, etc., to anyone who sends a request to crespin79@hotmail.com.
Maxwell Pinto, Business Author
http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/Management-TidbitsForTheNewMillenium.html
Posted by Maxwell Pinto | December 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Seems to be a spending problem? Savings=Income-Expenses.
If the typical woman makes 76% of a man’s salary, but retains only 36% of a man’s wealth, then her expenses must be larger than the man’s.
Posted by SG | December 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Those who earn less need to use more of their income to pay for daily survival needs like rent and food. The more you earn, the more you can set aside for another day.
Secondly, while men and women are equally responsible for PRODUCING children, women are disproportionately responsible for TAKING CARE of those children,which costs money. For this reason, yes, her expenses are larger than the man’s.
Posted by Meizhu Lui | January 5th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Zach,
Thaks for mentioning that. Yes, the Grameen success catalyzed much experimentation with micro-finance all over the world. Starting a business in the US however is more complex than in Bangladesh - legal, tax, etc. requirements - and the amount of capital needed is higher. Ensuring access to credit on fair terms and providing the technical assistance needed to understand how to run even a micro-business are also needed. There are community organizations in the US that are doing this and it works! These programs take the Grameen principles of building on the existing skills and entrepreneurial impulses of poor women and applying them to our own context. Thanks for the comment.
Posted by Meizhu Lui | January 5th, 2010 at 11:55 pm