#particularly in jobs like marketing that skew female

[villainanders]

When I was at that conference I went to a session with my manager (who is only a bit older than me and maybe has a year or two more of career experience) and the speaker asked audience members to raise their hands if they considered themselves early career (I raised my hand) and who was mid career (she raised her hand). And I kind of keep thinking about that. Bc I know she’s under 30 and has probably like 5-6 years of career experience? Which to me feels objectively early career if we’re all presumably working until around 60! I don’t have a real point with this just that it got me thinking about how we perceive careers and the kind of sunk cost around the path we set ourselves on after a working few roles in a field when those of us in the 20s/30s bracket still have decades left to be doing different things

[genderisareligion]

re: your post what 30+ radfems would give as advice

i grew up with my older brothers's hand-me-downs, so the first big purchase in my 20s was a €200 michael kors handbag with my first money. i saved up for it for several months, but looking back, it wasn't even a particularly nice handbag. i guess i just wanted to have something expensive AND specificially feminine because i never had anything of that sort as a teenager. so, advice i would give my younger self now is that this money would have been better invested in a city trip. because i don't remember that bag any more, but i remember all of the travel experiences i had.

also, those backpacks that you can roll like carry-ons might look uncool but not having back pain is worth looking uncool.

My current back and I hard agree on the backpacks 😅

And even though I'm still not 100% there yet now I'd definitely tell me in my 20s to spend less money on outer adornments and more on actual investments, as much as you can actually own as possible because future you lives in a world where everything that can be is a rented paid subscription that will still hound you with ads to pay them even more, and show her these horrific predictions:

Current me hates late stage capitalism so hard it's extremely difficult to find anything I feel passionate enough about to make enough money to subsist (plus now I know just how skewed against autistic people the job market is set up to be and that I was autistic for 29 undiagnosed years lol) but it's also very important that while living in this shit system some (if not all) transference of wealth is made from males to females, because at the rate males in leadership are going:

[khalilhumam]

The Black-white wealth gap left Black households more vulnerable

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/the-black-white-wealth-gap-left-black-households-more-vulnerable/

The Black-white wealth gap left Black households more vulnerable

By Emily Moss, Kriston McIntosh, Wendy Edelberg, Kristen E. Broady The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted devastating effects on the U.S. economy, with job losses  especially concentrated among women, minorities, and low-wage workers. Economists have described the uneven and unequal economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession as a “K-shaped” recovery, characterized by divergent recovery trajectories for the affluent relative to those of less means. While considerable attention has been devoted to examining the preexisting disparities in labor market outcomes that left some households more vulnerable than others to the COVID-19 recession, less attention has been paid to the role of wealth in determining a household’s ability to buffer the pandemic’s economic shocks. Wealth (defined as the difference between a household’s assets and debt) provides a critical safety net to households during economic downturns. Wealth holds several advantages over wages as an economic resource: In particular, income from wealth is taxed at much lower rates than income from work, and wealth can serve as a source of savings to absorb temporary setbacks such as a loss of employment income. A previous Hamilton Project analysis revealed staggering inequalities in wealth held by white versus Black households. Using updated data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 2019, we find that the Black-white wealth gap persisted heading into the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving Black households with far fewer resources to weather the storm.

Wealth Inequality Preceding COVID-19

In 2019 the median white household held $188,200 in wealth—7.8 times that of the typical Black household ($24,100; figure 1). It is worth noting that levels of average wealth, which are more heavily skewed by households with the greatest amounts of wealth, are higher: white households reported average wealth of $983,400, which is 6.9 times that of Black households ($142,500; SCF). While median wealth is more reflective of the typical household, the scale of average wealth is indicative of the outsized levels of wealth held by the richest households. The Black-white wealth gap today is a continuation of decades-long trends in wealth inequality, as shown in figure 1. Over the past 30 years, the median wealth of white households has consistently dwarfed that of Black households—ranging from a gap of $106,900 in 1992 to $185,400 in 2007 (both adjusted for inflation to 2019 dollars). Furthermore:

In the second quarter of 2020, white households—who account for 60 percent of the U.S. population—held 84 percent ($94 trillion) of total household wealth in the U.S.

Comparatively, Black households—who account for 13.4 percent of the U.S. population—held just 4 percent ($4.6 trillion) of total household wealth.

Buffering Economic Shocks during Downturns

The ability of wealth to buffer economic shocks can provide critical support to households during economic downturns—yet not all households have equal holdings of wealth at their disposal. The Black-white wealth gap serves as an important factor in understanding how economic recoveries can become uneven and unequal across demographics. Black and white households both experienced a reduction in median wealth from 2007 to 2010 during the Great Recession. Despite white households holding higher levels of wealth than Black households throughout the Great Recession, the decline in median wealth for white and Black households was nearly equal during this period: the median white household experienced a 27 percent decline in wealth from 2007 to 2010 compared to a 28 percent decline for the median Black household (figure 1; authors’ calculations). Yet in the aftermath of the Great Recession, white households began to recover the wealth they had lost: wealth for the median white household rose by 1 percent from 2010 to 2013. By contrast, wealth for the median Black household continued to fall—declining by 23 percent during this period (figure 1; authors’ calculations). These divergent changes in wealth in the years immediately following the Great Recession illustrate how recoveries from recessions do not necessarily benefit all households equally. In fact, the Great Recession exacerbated the Black-white wealth gap and left Black households more vulnerable to the current COVID-19 recession.

The Intersection of the Black-White and Gender Wealth Gaps

In addition to the Black-white wealth gap, a gender wealth gap (and its intersections with race) reveals another dimension of wealth inequality. We use microdata from the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) to analyze how the Black-white wealth gap varies by gender throughout the life cycle. Because the SCF is a household-level survey and the vast majority of householder respondents within married couples are men, our analyses involving gender are limited to single households. In single households, male and female respondents are each representative of their personal holdings of wealth. Figure 2 shows that single white men start with the highest median wealth, which continues to outpace that of single white women and single Black men and women throughout the life cycle. The median wealth of single white men under the age of 35 ($22,640) is 3.5 times greater than that of single white women ($6,470), 14.6 times greater than that of single Black men ($1,550), and 224.2 times greater than that of single Black women ($101). By the age of 55 and older, single white men hold 1.3 times more wealth than single white women and 8.1 times more wealth than single Black men. The median wealth of single Black women trails slightly behind that of single Black men until the age of 55, when single Black women hold $40,760 in median wealth compared to single Black men with $27,100. Evaluating wealth gaps by race as well as gender provides clear evidence of the relatively meager resources that women—Black women, in particular—have to withstand the economic shocks of the COVID-19 recession. Labor market data show how women have been hit particularly during the COVID-19 recession: of the 1.1 million people who left the labor market in September 2020, over 860,000 were women. Black women have faced especially large job losses; the share of Black women with a job decreased by 11.0 percentage points from February to April 2020 compared to a 9.9 percentage point reduction in the share of white women with a job and a 9.2 percentage point decline in the share of white men with a job. It is important to note that these racial and gender wealth gaps cannot simply be attributed to differences in household savings patterns or cashflow management challenges; rather, they are the outcome of public policy decisions spanning centuries throughout U.S. history. For example, landmark progressive laws, ranging from the New Deal to the formation of Social Security, excluded many occupations (such as domestic workers) widely held by Black women—the majority of whom remain excluded from Social Security today. Accordingly, it is imperative to evaluate wealth gaps by both race and gender to fully understand the depth and breadth of continued wealth inequality in the U.S. today.

Inherited Wealth

Though wealth accumulates with age, the persistence of wealth gaps at every stage of the life cycle further reflects disparities in the intergenerational transfer of wealth via inheritances. White households are substantially more likely to expect and receive inheritances than Black households. Figure 3 shows that in 2019, 17 percent of white households expected to receive an inheritance compared to just 6 percent of Black households. These differing expectations of inheritance receipt comport with disparities in the actual occurrence and magnitude of intergenerational wealth transfers: 30 percent of white households received an inheritance in 2019 at an average level of $195,500 compared to 10 percent of Black households at an average level of $100,000. Because inheritances are lightly taxed, inequalities in inheritances play a significant role in perpetuating a Black-white wealth gap that spans generations.

The Black-White Wealth Gap Intensifies the Effects of Labor Market Disparities

Racial disparities in wealth can intensify the severity of income shocks, as households with lower levels of wealth have fewer resources available to temper the adverse economic impacts of job loss. For Black households who have reported disproportionately high levels of unemployment—and even more so during the COVID-19 recession—this means the Black-white wealth gap can exacerbate the effects of the negative labor market outcomes that Black households are more likely to face. When comparing the labor market distress of Black families relative to white families, it is important to consider trends in both unemployment and underemployment rates. Unemployment—the number of people who do not have a job and are actively seeking work—is a common indicator of labor market strength. However, an equally important measure is underemployment, defined as the number of people who currently work part-time but would rather have a full-time job and people who want and are able to take a job but have not sought work in the last four weeks. Underemployment can more broadly capture the share of the population that is ready and willing to work more if employers were hiring. Rates of unemployment for Black individuals—whether measured by the traditional, narrower metric of unemployment (“U-3”) or the broader metric of underemployment (“U-6”)—have been consistently higher than unemployment among white individuals in every year since 1994 (authors’ calculations). Figure 4 focuses on unemployment and underemployment rates beginning in January 2019 through September 2020 of the COVID-19 recession. At the onset of the pandemic, unemployment and underemployment rates for Black and white Americans more than doubled from March to April 2020. Unemployment and underemployment peaked in April 2020 for both groups, but these rates were significantly higher for Black Americans. More than one quarter of Black Americans were classified as underemployed at its peak—1.5 times the underemployment rate for white Americans. Notably, even the narrower measure of unemployment for Black Americans surpassed the broader measure of underemployment for white Americans since June 2020. As of September 2020, the unemployment rate of Black Americans was still 5.5 percentage points higher than that of white Americans, while the underemployment rate of Black Americans was 7.2 percentage points higher than that of white Americans. One reason that labor market outcomes in the COVID-19 recession have been worse for Black workers is that they are more likely to be employed in industries hit hardest by the COVID-19 recession. Three of the hardest-hit industries by the pandemic in terms of job loss—retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and leisure and hospitality—are among the top ten employers of Black workers. When it comes to outcomes for Black-owned businesses during the COVID-19 recession, the statistics are also grim: analysis by the Economic Policy Institute found that 28 percent of Black-owned businesses were in industries with the largest total job losses relative to just 20 percent of white-owned businesses. Although Black-owned businesses only represent a minority of all businesses, they are disproportionately likely to operate in sectors most severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated shutdowns.

Black Households Face Higher Rates of Distress during COVID-19

With lower levels of wealth prior to the pandemic, compounded by continued labor market disparities during the pandemic, access to emergency savings and other assets are crucial for Black households to withstand the COVID-19 recession. Yet black households have substantially less emergency savings than white households: the average value of liquid assets among white households was $8,100 in 2019 compared to $1,500 for Black households. Furthermore, 72 percent of white households say they could get $3,000 from family or friends compared to 41 percent of Black households. Racial disparities between Black and white households are present in holdings of nonliquid assets as well. In 2019, 73 percent of white families compared to 42 percent of Black families owned a home. Black families are not only less likely to own a home, but their homeownership also yields lower levels of assets. In 2019 the typical white families’ home value was $230,000 compared to $150,000 for Black families. Similarly, of the $30.8 trillion in total real estate assets reported in the second quarter of 2020, white households held 78 percent ($23.9 trillion) compared to 5 percent ($1.6 trillion) held by Black households. With fewer nonliquid assets to borrow against or sell, Black households were particularly vulnerable to economic shocks heading into the COVID-19 pandemic. For some Black households, this has led to taking extraordinary measures to stay afloat. Leveraging data from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) along with the SCF, we can observe how families have been utilizing their retirement assets to weather the COVID-19 recession. Despite holding lower levels of retirement assets, young Black families were more likely to borrow from or cash out their retirement savings during the current crisis. Among households with positive retirement equity, figure 5 shows that the median value of retirement equity for households with a household head under the age of 35 in 2019 was $5,000 for Black Americans compared to $7,500 for white Americans. Although Black households tended to hold lower levels of retirement equity at this age, 14 percent of Black Americans under the age of 35 borrowed from or cashed out their retirement savings compared to just 4 percent of white Americans under the age of 35 in July 2020 (SHED; authors’ calculations). Figure 5 shows that the median value of retirement equity among white households with a household head at least 55 with retirement assets was 2.4 times that among Black households—yet only 10 percent of white Americans over the age of 55 borrowed from or cashed out their retirement savings compared to 22 percent of Black Americans over the age of 55 (SHED; authors’ calculations).

Conclusion

In the short-term, renewed fiscal support is needed to curb the economic pain many households  are experiencing because they are unable to absorb the economic shocks of the COVID-19 recession. More specifically, policies aimed at providing income support and strengthening the safety net, along with implementing automatic stabilizers that trigger expansions of economic aid during fiscal crises, are critical during this time. Yet while a stronger safety net and additional income support can provide families with immediate protection against economic crises, it is unlikely to provide them with the long-term stability to prepare for future shocks in the same way that wealth can. Accordingly, when designing policies to reduce the Black-white wealth gap, avoiding the conflation of income with wealth is imperative. In fact, our previous Hamilton Project analysis showed that the Black-white wealth gap remains even among households of similar incomes. Neither differences in income nor differences in educational attainment, indebtedness, or a host of other demographic and socioeconomic indicators can fully account for the persistence of the Black-white wealth gap. Indeed, closing the Black-white wealth gap will require that the deep and systemic economic disparities brought about by centuries of discriminatory policies are addressed through significant structural changes across a range of policy areas. As discussed in a previous Hamilton Project analysis, these policies range from redlining and the denial of financial services to minority communities, to the Jim Crow Era’s “Black Codes” strictly limiting opportunities in many southern states—all of which contributed to the disproportionate accumulation of wealth held by white households while exacerbating the economic fragility of many Black households. Overcoming the effects of these policies will necessitate substantive and systemic changes in education, small business, healthcare, broadband access, tax reform, and broader place-based policies. The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of the Black-white wealth gap and its impact on the ability of households to weather the economic shocks caused by recessions. By expanding policymakers’ focus not only on strengthening the safety net and income supports, but also on the inclusion of systemic and structural public policy changes across a range of areas to close the Black-white wealth gap, disparities in the ability of Black and white households to weather the next economic storm will be greatly reduced.

[labourpress]

Sarah Champion speech at the London School of Economics

Sarah Champion MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, speaking at the London School of Economics today, said:

***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

It’s such an honour to be here at the LSE. 

Founded by Beatrice Webb, a visionary woman who paved the way for the Beveridge report, and who arguably drew up the blueprint for what would later become the welfare state and the birth of our NHS.

I would like to thank the LSE Department for Economics as well as the Equality and Diversity Taskforce, for hosting this important event here today ahead of the Spring Budget next week.

It is great to see so many senior female economists and academics here. Too often women’s voices on the economy are ignored or take a back seat.

Just over a year ago, the Fawcett society analysed newspaper coverage of the economy and found that over 80% of those quoted or referenced were men, and over 80% of articles were imbalanced in favour of men.

From that I take two things:

One, that the voices of women, like many of you here today, with relevant expertise and experience, are rarely given a platform – which reinforces the public perception that being an expert on the economy is a male role.

Secondly, the economy is an area where there have been significant negative impacts on women since 2010.

From cuts to tax credits to the crisis in social care budgets – it is women who have consistently been hit hardest, yet it is our voices that are continuously excluded.

This year, the Spring Budget is on the same day as International Women’s Day – so the 8th March becomes a critical day both for women’s rights and for the economy.

Labour are determined to ensure that we do not miss this opportunity to lay out our demands for women to be at the heart of economic decisions.

For women’s voices, perspectives and interests to be properly understood, considered and heard.

As of the last autumn statement, 86% of the net gains to the Treasury through tax and benefit changes since 2010 had come from women.

That figure is up on the previous year’s autumn statement, in which the figure was 81%.

That is why, today, Labour are calling for a Spring Budget that works for women.

A budget that invests in jobs for women.

A budget that recognises and supports the services that women depend on.

A budget that advances women's equality and economic independence

At its heart, we expect a budget that works for women as it is a key opportunity for the advancement of gender equality.

This concept, often referred to as gender budgeting, now takes place in more than 40 countries around the world.

It was originally inspired by the early experiences of countries such as Australia, and then given further momentum by the United Nations commitment to gender budgeting in the Beijing platform for action.

The perceived assumption is often that budgets are neutral, that they benefit and impact on everyone equally, regardless of gender, ethnic background or disability.

 We know this is not the case.

Women are particularly vulnerable to being hit harder by this Government policies, for a number of reasons.

First, social security payments make up a greater share of women’s income than men’s, as women still earn less in the labour market.

Women make greater use of public sector care services than men, because they have greater caring responsibilities.

Women also pay less direct tax than men, because they tend to earn less. Meaning that tax breaks for top earners disproportionately benefit men.

Finally, women are hit harder by this Government’s policies, because a higher proportion of women are employed in the public sector, which is consistently under attack.

If we are to create a budget that works for women, these factors must be properly taken into account during the formative stages of policy making and budget setting.  It needs to be done in a way that ensures that women are not disproportionately penalised, and that gender economic equality is advanced.

However, Gender inequality will not simply be addressed through gender budgeting. 

Children aren’t born with expectations about what is, or is not, appropriate for their future careers, or beliefs about what their work is worth. 

The stereotypes we see embedded from such a young age ultimately contribute to the inequalities we see in adult life, in the workplace and in the economy more widely.

This must change.

Violence against women, maternity discrimination, unequal pay and lack of access to decently paid, secure employment: all take an economic toll.

Gender inequality is economically inefficient.  Gender equality is good for economic growth.

Janet Stotsky, who has researched the economics of gender since the mid 90’s, recently led an International Monetary Fund survey.  She has said simply that;

‘gender budgeting is good budgeting’.

The imperative for a budget that works for women goes far beyond an economic one. Legal and international obligations on the Government are clear in the need to protect and advance women’s economic equality.

The Equality Act 2010, introduced by Labour, enshrined in law the public sector equality duty which requires public authorities to have due regard of equality considerations when exercising their functions.

In section 149 of the Act, Labour placed the provision that any public body must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to “eliminate discrimination�� and “advance equality of opportunity” for those with protected characteristics, which include gender and ethnicity.

Given that the legal and economic arguments are clear that budgets must work for women, why is it women who continually fair worst under this government?

 My belief is it is a combination of outdated and intrinsically biased assumptions in accounting and policy, as well as a lack of transparency in how equality considerations are taken into account, have brought us to the point where the 86% figure I mentioned earlier is a reality.

Take, for example, the way investment and current expenditure are defined by the Treasury.

Currently, the wages of construction workers paid to build a school count as public investment. However, when government staffs the school to provide education, the wages of the teachers are not counted as investment expenditure, but as current expenditure.

The benefits produced by teachers accrue over the years, both to the children who have been educated, and to the wider economy. These are not just ‘day to day’ immediate benefits.

Feminist economists have long argued that the work force is a produced asset that requires investment of resources for it to be available on a daily basis.

In the example I just gave – both the wages of the teachers and the construction workers would be defined as public investment.

Similarly, there is also an inherently skewed way that governments think about infrastructure.

The Labour Party have long acknowledged that economic development requires a well-functioning social infrastructure; Schools, hospitals, care and public services.

Investment in social infrastructure both alleviates unpaid care work and generates more jobs for women.

Underinvestment in public services and infrastructure not only reduces the productivity of the current and future work force, but it also dumps the burden of, often unpaid, care work on women.  This leads to an inevitable impact on women earning ability.

Yet in statement after statement, we hear the government effortlessly justify investment of tax payer money in roads and transportation projects, while their last Autumn Statement, failed to offer any investment in care or the NHS.

The government’s excuses for their unprecedented lack of investment in care, the NHS and public services don’t stack up for the economy, and they definitely don’t stack up for women.

When the UK Labour government invested in creating the NHS in 1948, the ratio of debt to GDP was over 200 per cent, and that higher public investment led to higher growth. High debt ratios did not prompt cuts to public investment in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s.

What is unarguable is that at the same time as imposing cruel spending cuts that have been shown to hit women hardest, this government has added almost £700bn to the national debt.

That’s not just more than the last Labour government.

It’s more than every Labour government, in history, added together!

So, not only have public services like our NHS or our Local Councils been shredded, the scale of the failure is such that the Tories can’t even claim to have reduced the debt!

The question that we must focus on is whether an individual investment project has economic returns that are higher than, or at least equal to, its costs in terms of interest payments.

If the returns are high enough, debt sustainability would automatically be satisfied as the additional growth would decrease, or at least stabilise the debt to GDP ratio.

But, if we continue to think of public investment exclusively as spending on physical infrastructure - roads, railways, ports, airports – the benefits to women will continue to be limited by this definition. 

And remember, this is in addition to the deepening and damaging cuts to social infrastructure under this government that fail to invest in our future workforce, and women in particular.

The last autumn statement posed a real opportunity for the Government to make changes:

They had the opportunity to start a new economic path with a new female Prime Minister.

They missed that opportunity by a mile.

The disproportionate impact on women had in fact increased from the autumn statement the previous year, from 81 to 86%.

Joint analysis from the Runnymede Trust and the Women’s Budget Group also showed that, as of the last autumn statement, low- income black and Asian women are paying the highest price for this Government’s failed austerity agenda.

The 86% impact figure sounds shocking, but we know it isn’t just a number in a textbook or a policy paper.

These are real women. 

Real women whose lives are being made increasingly more difficult through government policy and successive budgets.

Women who have to struggle with more caring responsibilities due to the ever increasing gap in social care funding.

Women on increasingly insecure employment terms, unable to plan properly for their family’s future.

Women born in the 1950’s who, with little to no notice, are having to face a crisis in their retirement planning.

54,000 women a year who are forced out of their jobs through maternity discrimination and who can’t afford this government’s extortionate fees to take their employer to tribunal.

Women in my constituency and constituencies up and down the country who will have to wait another 60 years before the gender pay gap closes.

155 women and 103 children on a typical day, who are turned away from refuges due to lack of space, according to Women’s Aid

Women struggling under more pressure placed on them through cuts to universal credit and to child tax credits.

And perhaps most shamefully, women who, as of next month, will have to prove their third child is a product of rape if they wish to qualify for child tax credits.

I’m not sure how we have ended up here?

But I am sure that this cannot continue, and that Labour will hold this government to account for their seismic failings.

Twice Labour has formally presented the government with clear analysis on the impact of their budgets on women, only for the data to be dismissed out of hand by Ministers.

It would be far more credible if the government produced their own gender impact analysis alongside their financial statements, rather than to criticize the House of Commons library data without producing any alternative of their own.

To add insult to injury, the Government knows how to conduct a proper audit of their polices on women and those with protected characteristics.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Women’s Budget Group, have outlined suggested methodologies very clearly.

We have to ask why, in the light of the availability of those methodologies, the Government continue to be so evasive in stepping up to their duties.

It is getting to the point where the government can no longer plead ignorance of the way their policies are impacting women or that there doesn’t exist evidence to show this impact or the strategies to overcome it.

And the continued lack of transparency is deeply concerning.

The cross party, parliamentary Women and Equalities select committee have had precious little cooperation from the government in this area.

The Treasury have refused, in writing, to send a minister to answer questions on the impact of the Autumn Statement on women.  And they have sent inadequate or incomplete answers to questions asked by the committee.

The committee have stated publicly that, I quote,

‘The lack of information provided to us demonstrates a concerning lack of transparency. The promotion of transparency is a central aim of the Public Sector Equality Duty requirements, but the Government’s current position does not engender confidence that these requirements are being complied with.’

Next week, during the Chancellor’s budget, on international women’s day, there will be nowhere to hide if the government continue to avoid addressing this omission.

The game is up.

Labour is demanding the government put an end to this embarrassing ducking and diving and produce a transparent, cumulative impact analysis of their polices on women since 2010, as well as an equalities impact assessment of the specific measures announced in the Spring Budget.

The usual one-off cash give-away, or a gimmicky policy aimed at women, will not suffice.

Let me be very clear;

We are talking about a fundamental, structural, disproportionate impact on women of government policy since 2010. 

Nothing short of a fundamental, structural solution will do.

This government seem keen to support gender equality on paper if it only means marginal changes, or a few one off measures. 

What is needed however, are root-and-branch changes on how the fiscal system supports gender equality. 

I appreciate this is much more challenging, but it is vital and long overdue.

 The Labour Party will not shy from this challenge.

I am pleased announce today that Labour will build upon current equalities legislation, consulting over the next 12 months on bringing in an Economic Equality Bill.

Put simply, this Bill would seek to ensure that on equality, the money follows the policy.

It will no longer be possible for governments to talk the talk on equality while implementing economic policies that make life harder for women and protected groups.

It’s about ensuring that we eliminate intrinsic, structural barriers that prevent people from reaching their full economic potential.

Next week, during the Spring Budget, Labour will be watching.

In the absence of the government conducting their own gender impact analysis on the budget, once again, Labour will be working hard with the House of Commons Library to produce this data.

I have to say, I find it shameful that we have to hold the Government’s feet to the fire in this way, simply to ensure that their policies are not disproportionately impacting one particular group and reversing progress on economic equality.

Globally, when one of Trump’s first acts as President, in a room full of men, was to curtail women’s reproductive rights while Vladimir Putin has de-criminalised domestic violence, leadership from the UK on gender equality has never been so urgent.

Then there is the triggering of Article 50 and a Government white paper that failed to even mention the word equality.

The prospect of the UK becoming a deregulated off shore tax haven, free from EU treaties and law does not bode well for women. 

Labour will make clear during our budget next week that that we expect the government to fundamentally and structurally enable and promote economic equality for all women.  

Labour’s economic aims always have, and always will be, our social aims too.

Our new Economic Equality Bill is the next step in realising this.

Labour is committed to overturning a rigged economic system that sees women bearing the brunt of failed austerity.

Labour has committed to producing a gender impact analysis alongside all of our financial statements in government.

Historically, I am extremely proud that that almost every major piece of legislation that has improved the lives of working women has been introduced by a Labour Government.

It was a Labour Government who introduced legislative protections for women under the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equality Act.

Labour were the first administration since the Second World War to accept state responsibility for developing childcare policy, and we introduced paternity leave and increased maternity leave. Labour brought in Sure Start centres, working tax credits and all-women shortlists, and we have more women MPs than all the other parties in the House combined.

And it is Labour who are now at the forefront of challenging the government on their abysmal record on gender economic equality and it is Labour who are taking the lead on working to develop in government, a budget that works for all.

[biofunmy]

Minority Women Are Winning the Jobs Race in a Record Economic Expansion

The United States economy on Monday hit a milestone, reaching its longest expansion on record. Just a decade ago, the nation was mired in a severe recession that had erased trillions of dollars in wealth and left millions of people out of work.

While the recovery has delivered uneven gains, Hispanic women have emerged as the biggest job market winners in an economy that has now grown for 121 straight months, assuming data released in coming months confirms continued growth.

Employment rates for Hispanic women between 25 and 54, prime working years, have jumped by 2.2 percentage points since mid-2007, the eve of the Great Recession. That’s the most of any prime-age working group. Black women came in second, adding 1.6 percentage points.

While employment rates have risen for minority women, they are far from the expansion’s biggest winners by other measures. The richest 1 percent of earners — who are heavily white and male — have notched outsize earnings throughout the expansion and recovery. The top 1 percent also received nearly 17 percent of the total first-year benefit from the Trump administration’s $1.5 trillion tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center.

“We have an issue with wage inequality, income inequality and wealth inequality where most of the growth is going to the top,” said Valerie Wilson, director of the Economic Policy Institute’s program on race, ethnicity and the economy. “Those people are less likely to be women, and much less likely to be women of color.”

But the economic and social trends that have long kept minority women from making job and wage gains appear to be shifting. Hispanic women have historically worked less than any other demographic, earned fewer degrees than white and black women, and had among the highest fertility rates. That is changing: Hispanic women have posted a major fertility decline over the past decade and they have steadily raised college attainment.

The recent job gains show that prolonged economic growth, combined with those social changes, has the power to lift long-marginalized minorities. The pattern also offers hopeful news for employers: As these women pour into jobs, they are providing a new source of labor in an economy where workers are increasingly scarce.

The expansion record won’t be official until growth data is reported over the coming months, but America has clearly experienced a long period of job market healing. Unemployment is near its lowest level in 50 years and prime-age employment rates have bounced back after falling off sharply during the 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath.

That progress has allowed the black work force to begin recovering from a painful recession. For Hispanic women, the recent gains are part of a more long-running trend toward higher employment, but one that has recently accelerated.

Starting around 2012 and picking up around 2014, Hispanic women between 25 and 34 began pouring into jobs, contributing substantially to the group’s overall progress. They now work at their highest rates on record. Hispanic women concentrate strongly in service jobs including health care, which have grown throughout the expansion.

“It does seem like there’s something structural happening,” said Ernie Tedeschi, policy economist at Evercore ISI.

Education is a big part of the story. While the share of whites and blacks age 18 to 24 who were enrolled in college actually dropped slightly between 2010 and 2016, the share of Hispanic women going for a degree jumped to 41 percent from 36 percent.

That’s an improvement from a low level — 48.9 percent of white women were enrolled, by way of comparison — but it has major job market implications. Employment rates climb steadily with educational attainment.

Mariah Celestine, 25, is a student at Columbia Business School and the first person in her family to pursue a master’s degree. She has a firsthand view of the cultural shift. Going back to school and leaving her salary at Bank of America was a difficult choice, because she was financially helping an aunt in New York and her extended family in Puerto Rico.

“For us, a lot of times, it’s a balancing act: pursuing that passion but knowing that there will be stability,” she said. “We know that other people will be depending on our success.”

She believes that her peers — often the first generation in their families to be born in the United States and raised in its culture — are watching women succeed on a national stage and trying to follow in their footsteps.

“It’s about investing in yourself and having as many opportunities as possible,” she said. “A lot of the household work and care-taking responsibility have fallen on women in the past, and we don’t see that changing. But I think it’s: What can I do to make my family as comfortable as possible?”

Smaller families might be allowing more Hispanic women time to devote to careers. Age-adjusted fertility rates for Hispanic women plunged between 2008 and 2016, based on an analysis by the Institute for Family Studies.

[Why birthrates among Hispanic Americans have plummeted.]

Both changes — education and fertility — bring Hispanic women more in line with other American racial and ethnic groups. The group’s millennials are more heavily United States-born, so they’ve been raised within American culture, smoothing the way for that convergence.

But economic opportunity seems to have been the spark that enabled a long-running cultural change to catch fire. While young women had been improving their education rates and delaying motherhood for years, their employment rate picked up in earnest only midway through the expansion, as available jobs outpaced available workers.

Black workers’ experience underlines the hot labor market’s role. While black women are also having fewer children, the group’s employment has historically moved in lock step with the economy. That pattern has held in this business cycle: As companies hired steadily, black workers’ labor force participation climbed.

Now, the question is whether those gains will prove sustainable. Policymakers sometimes point out that some minorities suffer from a last-hired, first-fired phenomenon. Black women saw their employment rate drop 9.4 percentage points from its peak to its trough in the last crisis. Hispanic women had a similar but more muted response, losing about 6 percentage points.

Even if that pattern repeats itself come the next downturn, the fact that minority women are finding jobs now could leave them with more experience for their future résumés and more money in the bank.

“Shoring up labor market experience and earnings is a good thing,” said Heather Boushey, executive director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “I think it is an unambiguous good.”

But it’s up in the air whether minority workers will see their wages catch up. Hispanic women with bachelor’s degrees or higher made $46,237 on average in 2017, compared with $55,450 for non-Hispanic white women and $85,855 for non-Hispanic white men, based on Census Bureau data.

Much of that gap comes from the types of jobs women, and particularly minority women, work in, Ms. Boushey said. They skew heavily toward lower-paying service work. Research suggests career breaks and the lower hours that are sometimes associated with child rearing also play a role.

It’s also unclear what is happening with Hispanic men, and what that might mean for their families and communities. Like white men, Hispanic men are working less across education levels. Before the downturn, the employment rate for 25- to 34-year-old Hispanic men peaked at 91.6 percent. In May, that rate stood at 85.7 percent.

The jobs available in today’s economy may favor women over men — health services, food and leisure jobs, and education have all been hiring aggressively and are all female-dominated — and women may be working more to patch up household earnings as men struggle to find their footing.

Regardless, the fact that minority women are steadily joining the ranks of the employed could spell good news for talent-hungry companies. Because the unemployment rate is historically low, economists have been concerned that businesses would run out of applicants, forcing them to abruptly raise wages and prices as they competed for a finite number of would-be employees.

As sidelined groups prove themselves ready to work, they could help to keep widespread labor shortages at bay.

“There is still room for employment-population ratios to grow: These are largely untapped segments of the labor force,” said Ms. Wilson at the Economic Policy Institute. “Since there are more black and brown people in the population, in the labor force, it’s reasonable to think that these are the groups in which you’ll see the growth.”

Sahred From Source link Business

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2RRBKAD via IFTTT

[educationtoday2017]

Why do so many women want to become teachers?

by Dirk Van Damme Head of the Innovation and Measuring Progress Division, Directorate for Education and Skills 

It is well known that the share of women in the teaching force is growing. According to the latest Education Indicators in Focus brief, the average share of female teachers across OECD countries increased from 61% in 2005 to 65% in 2010 and to 68% in 2014, in all education levels combined. Around 82% of primary school teachers and 63% of secondary school teachers are women. Some policy makers see this trend as a cause for concern, citing, among other things, that the lack of male teachers and role models might play a role in the decline of learning outcomes among young boys. But it seems fair to say that few people would be concerned about a similarly skewed gender imbalance in other professions if it benefited men. The statistics on the age distribution of male and female teachers show that the gender imbalance in the teaching profession will increase even more in the years to come. At the lower secondary level, women make up 70% of teachers under the age of 30, while they account for 65% of those aged 50 and over. This pattern is observed in 22 out of 35 countries with available data. The larger proportion of women among young teachers raises concerns about future gender imbalances at the lower levels of education, where women already dominate the profession. Gender imbalances among teachers have a lot to do with gender stereotyping, and the power and prestige connected with certain occupations within the profession. This is seen in the smaller shares of female teachers in the higher levels of education, in (perceived) more prestigious fields of study and in leadership positions. Women fill only 43% of the jobs in tertiary education. In secondary school, women are less frequently found teaching science, mathematics and technology classes. And, on average across OECD countries, 68% of lower secondary teachers are women, but only 45% are principals. This is particularly striking given that principals tend to be recruited from among the ranks of teachers – suggesting that female teachers are less likely to be promoted to principal than their male counterparts. So, the large share of women in the teaching profession is, itself, skewed towards specific jobs: those at the bottom of the education pyramid and the bottom of the hierarchy of power. So why, then, do so many women want to become teachers? Gender imbalances in teaching are the result of women’s conscious and strategic choices as much as of labour market conditions, social norms and cultural messages. In many countries, women’s increased participation in the labour market coincided with the need for more trained teachers in expanding education systems. Countries where female labour participation in general is low, like Japan, also have the smallest shares of female teachers. In addition, stereotypical views of teaching as a profession that, at times, resembles parenting, probably play a role, especially with younger generations of women who apparently value motherhood more than their own baby boom mothers did. Labour provisions that allow teachers to work part time and to flexibly combine work, family life and the care of one’s own children also seem to be more appealing to women. But less well-known is that the salaries of teachers, as measured against the average wages of other tertiary-educated workers, are much more attractive for women than for men. As shown in the chart above, on average across OECD countries, male primary school teachers earn 71% of the wages of other tertiary-educated men. But female teachers earn a significantly higher relative wage. Women in primary education earn over 90% of the salaries of other tertiary-educated female workers. While men and women doing the same teaching job in public schools earn nearly the same, the relative value of their earnings in the professional labour market is strikingly different. This is probably why more women are interested in teaching, especially at the lower levels of education. Paradoxically, introducing a greater gender balance into the teaching profession depends on the extent to which and the speed with which other sectors reduce gender gaps in earnings. But the education sector could do much more to ensure that women are promoted into leadership positions, and to end the stereotyping that prevents women from breaking the glass ceiling in specific subject areas and in universities. It could also do more to attract young men into teaching by offering them better career prospects and labour conditions that can make teaching a more competitive career choice, even if teachers’ salaries still lag behind those of other professionals. Links:  Education Indicators in Focus No. 49: Gender imbalances to the teaching profession Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators Follow the conversation on twitter: #OECDEAG

Chart source: OECD (2016), Education at a Glance (database)

[khalilhumam]

New but narrow job pathways for America’s unemployed and low-wage workers

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/new-but-narrow-job-pathways-for-americas-unemployed-and-low-wage-workers/

New but narrow job pathways for America’s unemployed and low-wage workers

By Marcela Escobari, Ian Seyal, Carlos Daboin In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic struck a uniquely precarious workforce: No other high-income country has experienced such deep job losses. The shock has exposed and widened rifts in our two-tiered labor market—between workers with stable jobs and the newly unemployed, between those who can work from home and those who can’t, and between high-income workers and those struggling to make ends meet. These challenges were not inevitable. Before the pandemic, U.S. labor markets were historically tight—what labor experts called a “now or never moment” to improve job quality and worker mobility. But low-wage workers saw only marginal gains. Today, the problems are accelerating, and the stakes are even higher. COVID-19 job losses hit low-wage workers the hardest, and these workers are having the hardest time getting back on their feet. Meanwhile, the pandemic is rapidly shifting consumer preferences and company behaviors, with demand for digital services surging. But few unemployed workers have the time or resources to reskill and find new work on their own. If these shifts continue, many low-wage workers may see less demand for their labor in the long run—meaning lower wages and decreasing job quality for those who can find work, and long-term unemployment for those who can’t. The pandemic is an urgent reminder of what long-term labor trends have been illustrating for years: Low-wage workers need better pathways into decent jobs, and from shrinking occupations to the jobs of tomorrow. Policymakers face a dual imperative: to facilitate safe reemployment as soon as possible, even as COVID-19 continues to surge in many parts of the country, while also helping low-wage workers on the journey to jobs with dignity, stability, and a fair shot at economic mobility. While the risk of mass unemployment has already spurred large public expenditures, more funding and efforts are needed to ensure opportunity reaches those who need it the most. Along with state and local governments, companies and workforce organizations are on the leading edge of this work. To help, the Workforce of the Future initiative has created a new tool—Mobility Pathways—that visualizes data on thousands of real job-to-job transitions, tracing the common pathways into and out of 441 occupations across 130 industries at the national and city levels. Mobility Pathways is the first element of a multipart toolkit to support job mobility and smart growth. Its goal is to help workers (and the organizations supporting them) explore career opportunities, give companies a wider lens on recruitment and talent management, and provide tools for policymakers to target investments in talent development as a strategy to diversify and grow their economy.

How the pandemic exacerbated long-standing labor market dynamics

These problems are not new. Before the pandemic, we identified 53 million low-wage workers most of whom earned less than $18,000 per year, many stuck churning through low-wage jobs, with declining and uneven access to training, development, and career advancement opportunities. Not surprisingly, this low-wage workforce is disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and female. Using data from our Mobility Pathways tool, we can see that these workers also face lower rates of upward mobility. Prior to COVID-19, 56 percent of occupational transitions by white men were upward, compared to only 43 percent and 37 percent for Black and Hispanic women, respectively (Figure 1).  An upward transition is one likely to yield a higher wage than would be expected given the wage of the starting job. Note: Upward transitions are occupational transitions into an occupation that typically pays more than expected, given the wage of the starting job; see technical note for a more precise definition. For each group, we estimate the share of all transitions that are upward. Source: Brookings analysis of CPS (2003-2019) and OES (2019) data. Recent jobs data show that low-wage workers are also having the hardest time getting back to work (Figure 2) largely because COVID-19 has disproportionately disrupted high-contact occupations (e.g., cleaning, hospitality, and food services), which tend to pay low wages.

Figure 2. The employment shock has hit low-wage workers hardest

Note: Not seasonally adjusted. We define a low-wage occupation as one that pays median wage below $17.26/h, which is two-thirds the median wage of white men. This definition builds on our definition of low-wage work in Realism about Reskilling. Source: Brookings analysis of IPUMS CPS (2020) and OES (2019) data. Even as it destroys jobs, the crisis is also creating a few new opportunities, particularly in digital-heavy occupations. While this may open doors for some low-wage workers, job transitions data suggest that today’s hardest-hit occupations—from waiters and bartenders to teachers and personal care aides—have not historically offered pathways into occupations that have added jobs in recent months (Figure 3). Likewise, today’s high-demand occupations like software engineering have not typically absorbed workers from the occupations currently under pressure. This mismatch suggests that many of today’s unemployed workers may find it harder than in the past to find new jobs and advance through the labor market. The accompanying technical note quantifies the economy-wide potential for growing occupations to absorb displaced workers. In 2020, that potential to absorb is at its lowest point since at least 2004.

Figure 3. Unemployed workers from the hardest-hit occupations may struggle to transition to today’s in-demand jobs

Note: The x-axis reflects the severity of COVID-19-related unemployment for each occupation, represented by percent change in the average number of workers between Q1 and Q3 2020 (with the hardest-hit occupations to the left). The y-axis reflects the historical likelihood that each occupation could transition into one of today’s resilient occupations, represented by the share of job transitions between 2003 and 2019 that went into occupations that have added jobs since January 2020. For readability, the figure shows only occupations with more than 330,000 workers, which together account for 65 percent of employment and 82 percent of employment in shrinking occupations. Source: Brookings analysis of IPUMS CPS (2003-2020) and OES (2019) data. That said, low-wage workers in certain struggling occupations have realistic pathways into a number of in-demand jobs. For example, cashiers and retail salespersons—which both face declining demand—have historically transitioned successfully into telemarketer and stock clerk jobs, demand for which is growing. While not offering higher wages, such transitions could put people back to work quickly with little to no training. A more promising possibility is for workers in administrative jobs (e.g. administrative assistants, office clerks, and other administrative support workers), occupations which are seeing significant displacement due to long-run trends but that have commonly transitioned successfully to jobs as business operations specialists—a higher-paying occupation that has seen some growth in recent months. Mobility Pathways offers new insights that can help address our skewed labor market dynamics. With millions of workers seeking reemployment, it can target promising transitions into resilient occupations that offer good wages and opportunities for upward mobility, tailored to workers’ experiences and location. Companies can use it to widen their pools for talent acquisition and make career paths available to a greater number of workers. Policymakers can use talent development as a competitive asset to grow their economies, while providing opportunity to workers. By identifying the most realistic pathways into today’s most resilient occupations, Mobility Pathways offers a map and compass for navigating labor market shifts—during and after the pandemic.

Access Mobility Pathways

Download the Mobility Pathways technical note.