Feminomics: Race, Gender, and Poverty in Economic Recovery
Thursday, 12/24/2009 - 10:24 am by Maya Wiley | 3 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. Maya Wiley argues for focusing on the needs of women of color as a bellwether for the overall economy.
We all need jobs: men and women, people of all races, ages and physical abilities. So it’s welcome news that recent jobs numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that we only lost 11,000 jobs — not the 135,000 we thought we’d lose. And these numbers also tell us that we have a lot more to do to ensure that all who should work can work. To do that, we must make sure that we add the jobs to the economy that we all need. So why talk about women and why talk about women and race?
Talking about women and race will help focus us on where our economy is very broken. Men have lost jobs faster than women. Men need jobs. But most job creation has been in male-dominated industries like construction. Women of all races, and black men too, are grossly under-represented in construction jobs.
According to 2008 Department of Labor data, women are almost 60 percent of the US labor force — working or looking for work. But women also earn only about 80% of what men earn. And women of color are faring worse than white women. When we at the Center for Social Inclusion crunched the numbers, we found that unemployment has also risen faster for young women of color than for white women in the same age range. Unemployment among young black women has increased by 8.6% to 20.4%. Today, 14.6% of Latina women in that age category are unemployed — an increase of 7.2% since the start of the recession. Age matters, too. Young, white women are doing as poorly as their young male counterparts — unemployment has risen 6.2% to 11%.
Another reason to pay attention to women’s needs in this recession? In a word: poverty. The poverty rate for black women is 26.2%, and it’s 25.5% for Latina women — more than 4 times higher than the white male poverty rate. And it is not surprising that children are the collateral damage when we fail address the unemployment and poor pay that is behind these numbers. Even in a recession, it is shocking that 30.6% of Latino children, 33.9% of Black children, 15.8% of white children, and 13.3% of Asian children live in poverty.
A democracy needs a democratic economy. That means that we invest our public dollars in our people so that we all can participate in the economy. Our economy is a set of relationships - childcare, health care, transportation, education and networks. Investing in childcare, access to education — particularly higher education - and in critical infrastructure like broadband and public transit that connects excluded communities to job opportunities and job centers, can ensure that our economy and our nation work. The White House is on the right track when it looks to reform health care, invest in infrastructure and fix financial institutions. But neutral decisions will mean that women, particularly women of color, will probably not have the same opportunities. Collecting data by race and gender, understanding where investments are low and unemployment is high, and removing the barriers the excluded face will produce a stronger nation.
Maya Wiley is executive director of the Center for Social Inclusion.
































































“So why talk about women and why talk about women and race?”
To maintain an aura of political correctness, i.e. “same ol’ same ol’”
“But women also earn only about 80% of what men earn.”
That’s because men *earn* the money by taking more risks, working undesirable hours, working longer during the day, etc. If women would do this while men would not, then by and large women would earn more. Women actually earn more than men in some jobs, but that’s only because of affirmative action –> political correctness (i.e. who they are, not what they do). This is not right.
Posted by Vince | January 1st, 2010 at 11:47 am
Haha, men earn more because they take risks but where women earn more it’s because of affirmative action. Oh how I love the patriarchy popping up in your logic.
What’s not right is the gender/ race bias seen blatantly in the economy.
Posted by Tori | January 5th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Great the gender wars pop up again within the first few comments. This article is a great example of Rawlsian justice applied to modern political economy - women of color are probably the most disadvantaged group in the our society, so they deserve to most help from the government. All well and good, but that’s not a compelling argument that we should shift our efforts away from construction jobs - if anything, it’s an argument that we should institute hiring practices that encourage construction firms to hire women of color. While that’s a nice idea, it’s not especially in tune with reality.
Construction happens to be a male dominated industry, but it’s not exactly a cushy gig. The lack of women in construction jobs is no more a problem (in itself) than the lack of men in nursing - some parts of the job market are simply geared towards one gender or the other through a combination of social norms and real-life competitive advantage. It so happens that construction has lost the most jobs in this recession, it’s a vital industry that drives continued growth (the focus on construction is actually a focus on infrastructure and economic development that happens to drive construction hiring), and it happens to be an male-dominated industry. Our focus on helping this industry recover is driven by pragmatism, not patriarchy.
Posted by Oliver | April 7th, 2010 at 10:57 am