Japan is not exactly the country that comes to mind as a model of gender equality and high labor force participation for women. In 1995, the OECD estimated women’s employment rate in Japan at 56.5 percent, almost 10 percentage points lower than in the U.S., which had an employment rate of 66 percent for women at the time. Between 1995 and 1999, the employment rate for Japanese women grew by less than half a percentage point, while for women in the U.S. it grew by almost 3 percentage points.
However, since 2000 this trend completely reversed. Between 2000 and 2015, the employment rate for women in Japan increased by almost 14 percentage points, while in the U.S. it dropped by over 6 percentage points. Japan’s employment rate for women surpassed the U.S. in 2014. Currently, almost 65 percent of Japanese women are employed, while only about 63 percent of women in the US are employed.
In recent years, Japan has launched extensive campaigns to encourage labor force participation by women. The government took various steps such as increasing allowances given to new parents, subsidizing daycare, and ensuring both mothers and fathers benefit from paid parental leave.
A look at the employment rate for women in some other OECD countries over time shows that other countries had increases similar to Japan’s. The only country besides the U.S. where the participation of women in the labor force has decreased since 2000 is Denmark, which has seen a 1.8 percentage point drop in the employment rate of women. Despite this drop however, Denmark still boasts one the highest employment rates for women of any country in the world.
In Germany, Japan, Canada, France, and the U.K. the employment rate for women has been increasing. In the last 10 years, German women have seen the biggest gains in their employment rate, which increased by 17 percentage points. The increases in the other countries have been more modest: 2 percentage points for Canada, 11 percentage points for Japan, 4 percentage points for France, and 3 percentage points for the U.K.
By 2015 only France had a lower employment rate for women than the U.S. While France still trails behind the U.S., it has made progress in the past 10 years. The employment rate for women is on a steady upwards trend, meaning it could surpass the U.S. in the near future.
What all other countries besides the U.S. have in common is fairly generous parental leave policies for new parents. While in the U.S. new parents have no guarantee of paid leave, in Japan both mothers and fathers can take up to 58 weeks of paid leave. New mothers are guaranteed 58 weeks of paid leave in Germany, 52 in Canada, 50 in Denmark, 42 in France, and 39 in the U.K. For new fathers, France offers 28 weeks of paid leave, Germany, nine weeks, and the U.K. and Denmark, two weeks.
Furthermore, child care costs in the U.S. are extremely high, and are growing at a much faster pace than overall inflation. The rising costs of childcare make it unaffordable for many parents, especially for low-wage workers. The Economic Policy Institute found that childcare costs in some areas can take up more than a quarter of a family’s income. In some states, costs for daycare are higher than for college tuition.
This post originally appeared on the blog of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
A series of protests have begun to rock Lebanon as of mid-March 2017. Protesters are taking to the streets to denounce the Lebanese government’s plan to introduce or increase 22 new taxes on citizens, most notably increasing the VAT tax from 10-11%, as well as various other taxes on food, drink, public notary services, and other categories that stand to impact daily purchases in the country. These measures will further reduce spending power of average Lebanese citizens during a time period when poverty has already risen by 66%(!) in the past 6 years, when around 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, when 9% of the Lebanese population lives on less than $1 per day, and when Syrian refugees continue to pour into Lebanon by the millions, further exacerbating Lebanese economic woes. Furthermore, Lebanon is the 3rd most unequal country on this planet in terms of wealth inequality, and this inequality implies that these new tax measures will primarily impact those who are already struggling to survive, let alone maintain a decent standard of living. In fact, these newly proposed taxes will be what economists call a “regressive tax,” since they will consume a bigger portion of the poor’s income compared to the rich.
The biggest complaint, rightfully so, of the protesters is that Lebanese politicians, with their entrenched system of confessionalism and nepotism, have stolen from public funds to aggrandize their own wealth, and have left the average Lebanese citizen struggling to survive off of the crumbs tossed to them. This rampant corruption, culture of excess, and paralysis of state oversight has contributed to a debt-to-GDP ratio of 140%, one of the highest in the world. Despite such mounting debt, the Lebanese government has little show for it in terms of providing services to the public.
For example, the Lebanese government cuts off electricity for several hours a day throughout the country— sometimes as much as 40-50% of the day, and claims that there are simply no public funds available to provide electricity for a full 24 hours. This is where the new tax proposal comes in; the government maintains that their hands are simply tied, and that these painful measures are needed to make a dent in paying off the public debt. However, when we examine the issue of public debt from the perspective of Modern Money Theory (MMT), we find that this idea is based on ignorance of how taxes and spending work at the public level.
MMT asserts that any sovereign government is capable of printing its own money into existence to pay for anything that it wishes to, from public healthcare to defense to infrastructure, or any other government-funded project. Because the government can create money out of nothing by simply printing it, or electronically transferring it to bank accounts, this by definition removes the necessity to collect taxes as a form of revenue to pay for things. The Lebanese government, for example, could have enough money to pay for electricity 24 hours a day if it simply created money to pay for it by electronically transferring the sum to the bank accounts to pay electricity companies. All of this can be done without ensuring that there is an equal amount of taxes flowing into the government, because the government does not use these taxes to pay for things. It pays for things by creating money out of nothing.
With this understanding, we can then reverse the causal relationship between taxes and public spending: taxes do not fund public spending. Rather, public spending creates the money by which citizens can conduct economic activity, including paying taxes. This is not an example of the classic “chicken vs. egg” conundrum. In this case, we can definitely say which side came first, for logical reasons. Citizens would simply not be able to pay taxes unless they had the money to pay for them in the first place, which in turn must be created by the government and released into the economy through public spending.
This implies that the government’s debt and deficit, as a matter of principle, does not matter to the public sector in the same way that a debt would matter to a household or firm. Government can always print more money in order to pay for things, including interest on debts. If a household tried to create its own play money and offer it to the credit card company at the end of the month, it would be rightfully ridiculed. However, because the government’s currency is universally recognized as bestowing the holder with value, it is accepted anywhere, and for “all debts, public and private.” In effect, it is the sovereignty of the state, and the credibility of their power to meet contractual financial obligations, that gives the money its value.
So, what then is the purpose of taxes, if they are not used to fund government spending? Primarily, taxes are a way of the government asserting sovereignty over its citizens. By denominating the taxes levied on citizens in the currency that they print, the government ensures that there will always be a widespread demand for its currency that people need to obtain to pay taxes. This ability to create money out of nothing and to generate widespread demand for it is a powerful component of state sovereignty, and, as other articles attest, the modern state as we know it would not even exist today without this power.
Taxes also serve another important economic function: they limit how much money a person can spend (purchasing power). When the government is worried about inflation (rising prices throughout society) brought about by rapid economic growth, for example, increasing taxes would be one way of decreasing spending in the entire economy, thus counteracting the threat of inflation. However, what does this mean for a country like Lebanon with a sizable percentage of its population living under the poverty line, and where the problem is too little spending and economic growth, not too much?
If Lebanese citizens have to pay increasingly higher taxes on daily necessities, their purchasing power will shrink. As their purchasing power and consumption declines, businesses will suffer. Investment and employment rates would likely decline, and poverty would increase. This increase in poverty would translate into citizens having even less money to contribute to taxes, since they would be consuming less and would have a smaller income. In such a situation, instead of these new tax measures decreasing the government debt, it is conceivable that they would actually do the exact opposite by increasing it, due to a decline in consumption and income, which are two of the biggest sources of taxes for the Lebanese government.
To conclude, it is time to admit the problems facing Lebanon are much more complex and fundamental than any new tax proposals would ever fix. Taxes do not create revenue for government spending, and in fact, new taxes in the country would even threaten to propel the already unacceptably high poverty line in the country even higher, as incomes and purchasing power are eroded. There is no reason to believe that the government debt even needs to be paid off in the first place, since government can never run out of money to pay for things, including debt servicing payments. Rather, the most fundamental problem in Lebanon is a political system characterized by diversionary religious sectarianism, and a culture of corruption and disdain for the masses that have allowed the Lebanese politicians to usurp public funds for personal gain, all while keeping a stranglehold on the people’s aspirations for freedom and dignity for decades.
Written by Stephanie Attar Stephanie is part of the third group of students studying at the Levy Institute. Prior to coming to the Levy, she completed a masters degree in political science, with a concentration in political philosophy. Her research always incorporates Marxian dialectical materialism in order to analyze the interconnected nature between the state and the economy. She is also interested in the Arab world, global inequalities engendered by capitalism-imperialism, and radical solutions to advance the interests of humanity.
A friend recently told me that he voted for Donald Trump, despite the candidate’s racist approach, because racism is “something that hasn’t existed [in America] for sooo long.”
We know some groups of voters—e.g. the KKK—deliberately organized and voted not to “make America great again” but to make America white again. While we don’t know how many of this type there are, we know they couldn’t have elected Trump on their own. They had help from people like my college-educated friend, who thinks racism is confined to history books. This tells us a lot about the degree to which voters are misinformed. Millions of people decanted towards a racist candidate even though they don’t consider themselves to be racists. The election made it clear that there are enough people like my friend to get Donald Trump elected.
In our last piece we discussed Dean Baker’s book, which shows that many policies and institutions disproportionately benefit the social elite, and in effect, further marginalize the already marginalized and perpetuate inequality. People of color have long been kept down by policies and institutions that favor the hegemonic class. Racism will not be an issue of the past as long as we have a rigged socio-economic system that systematically breaks down communities of people of color, concentrates poverty to their neighborhoods, cripples their educational opportunities, and limits their access to better incomes and wealth accumulation. The numbers below speak to such current racial disparities.
Wealth and income inequality
Figure 1 shows the disparities between selected races, in terms of wealth, income, home equity, and savings for retirement. As can be seen in the figure, in 2013 net worth for white households was almost 13 times larger than that of African-Americans and 10 times higher than that of Hispanics.
Figure 1. Median Household Wealth, Income, Home
Equity, and Retirement Savings by race, for 2013
Source: Authors’ calculations per The Survey of Consumer Finances (2013)
Not only did whites hold more wealth, but whites also receive higher incomes. A black or Hispanic household in the middle of the income distribution is likely to receive only as much as 58 percent as its white counterpart. While the amounts of savings for retirement for average white households are 4 times larger than those for black or Hispanic.
White households not only have larger sums saved for retirement, but also over 54 percent of these households have some kind of savings. Meanwhile the percentage of black or Hispanic households with savings is considerably lower, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Percentage of households
with savings and home equity, by race for 2013
Savings
Retirement Savings
Home Equity
White
54
57
70
Black
39
34
38
Hispanic
37
26
38
Source: Authors’ calculations per
The Survey of Consumer Finances (2013)
Table 1 also shows that average white households are more likely to have equity on their homes. While in 2014 homeownership rates for whites households was at least 26 percentage points larger than the other two groups analyzed here, making whites 1.6 times more likely to own a home—the principal source of wealth-building for most Americans.
Educational Attainment
People of color see their access to incomes and wealth building opportunities severely crippled by educational attainment. Figure 2 below offers a breakdown of educational attainment within each race, using household data. It shows, for example, that 77 and 87 percent of all blacks and Hispanics household heads have less than a College degree as their highest level of education, respectively, while 62 percent of white household heads have less than a completed college education. These differences increase for higher levels of education. As the figure shows, only 7 percent of blacks and 5 percent of Hispanics obtain a graduate degree.
Figure 2. Highest Educational Attainment of Household Head Within Each Race
Source: Authors’ calculations per The Survey of Consumer Finances (2013)
Moreover, a college degree is not a guarantee of financial success in the future, at least not for non-white families. Even if they attend college, the median wealth return to college graduation for Black and Hispanic households is 9 and 8 percent, respectively, of the returns that accrue to white households, as shown in Table 2. Meaning that for every $1 in wealth that accumulates to Black and Hispanic families, white families accrue $11.5 and $13.33, respectively.
Table 2. Median Wealth Return to College Graduation, 2011
The rapid increases in incarceration rates in the U.S. beginning in the mid-1970s have disproportionately affected people of color. By 2008, African-Americans and Hispanics were being incarcerated at a rate 6 times greater than whites and they represented 58 percent of all prisoners, even though blacks and Hispanics only comprise around 25 percent of U.S. population. By 2010, 1 out of 3 high school dropout black male between 20 to 39 years old were imprisoned; compared to just 13 percent for whites with similar characteristics.
As an election-relevant impact of the era of mass incarceration, it is estimated that 1 in 13 African Americans of voting age are deprived of their right to vote as a consequence of voting restrictions imposed by twelve states, with the sole objective of disenfranchising individuals after they have completed their sentences; more than 7 percent of black adults are disenfranchised, while the same restrictions apply to 1.8 percent of non-African-Americans.
The result is that it is estimated that 1 in 3 black males born today is likely to spend some time in prison. And even after they serve their time, wages for black ex-inmates tend to grow 21 percent slower than those of white ex-inmates.
Red lining and exclusionary zoning
Exclusionary zoning and red lining are policies that effectively deny affordable housing and other services—e.g. banking, insurance, supermarkets—to certain groups of the population based on their incomes, race, or ethnicity. It has been widely reported how those policies make it difficult for people of color to find homes in good, safe neighborhoods with access to quality education, employment opportunities, and quality healthcare. The impact of these policies is the creation of race and income segregated areas, with poverty and wealth concentrating in different neighborhoods. It is estimated that a black person is over 3 times more likely to reside in neighborhoods with high poverty concentration than a white person, while Hispanics are twice more likely than whites.
A close reminder of how African-Americans suffer this issue is that the President-elect of the U.S. was investigated and eventually sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against potential black tenants in his company’s buildings; what The New York Times called “the color barrier of the Trump real estate empire.”
These are only a few selected facts, but there are many more; these facts are not as evident to everyone, nor do they capture headlines on TV and Facebook like, e.g., police shootings of unarmed African-Americans.
This piece does not address the reasons, causes, and policies that got us to this point. This is nothing close to a history of racism in America and these are by no means the only injustices that people of color suffer in this country. However, after seeing all this, it should be evident that racism is not an issue of the past—certainly not one for the history books. There are still many people today that lived in racially segregated states under the Jim Crow laws. They had to literally fight for their rights to vote, to access the same schools as whites, or just to sit in the front of a bus. We might not have legal Jim Crow-style discrimination anymore, but American institutions covertly retain remnants of the Jim Crow era. Meanwhile the rich and powerful have rigged American socio-economic institutions with a bias towards their class and race, perpetuating an oppressive system that pretty much defines our place in society according to the color of our skin and the class status of the families from which we are born.
Now, my friend, be careful with any “buts” you might want consider as retort. If you are still not convinced that there is a deeply-rooted-institutionalized race problem in America, then go further than this piece, be curious about it, turn to your black and brown friends—ask them about it, and hear what they have to say.
Econ 101 operates under the observation that “households and firms interacting in markets act as if they are guided by an invisible hand that leads them to desirable market outcomes.” Thus the role of the economist is “to understand how this invisible hand works its magic,” a role limited to developing and employing models to illustrate the magic workings of this invisible hand. Dean Baker’s latest book, “Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer,” tells a different story. The “invisible hand,” guiding the market, is actually the hand of the financial and political elites, who work to ensure the market works in their favor and to facilitate upwards distribution of income.
In the late 19th century neoclassical economicstransformed the subject into “the Calculus of Pain and Pleasure,” by introducing the concept of utility, and creating a theory based on the assumption that each individual aims to maximize their own utility. By introducing a mathematical component, the new theory offers, as Bakerstates, “a basis for distributing income that is independent of political decisions or moral judgments.” The discussions about class struggle and distribution of wealth, which previously dominated the economics debate, became obsolete. Ever since the mathematical component has become the norm in mainstream economics.
“Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer” very skillfully proves that textbook economics is far removed from the world we actually live in. Baker shows how the distribution of income in our society has little to do with merit and how postulates of neoclassical economics are selectively invoked to prevent any actions that do not benefit elites. Interventions that promote upwards distribution of incomes are never criticized, while inequality and unemployment are left for the invisible hand to fix.
Head-on the book addresses the myth of the free market: “markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices.” It is active policy and not some magical invisible hand that lead to the unequal society in which we live. Baker then goes on to address some of the main policies that actively intervened in the economy to distribute income upwards.
Mainstream economics heavily criticizes government regulation and intervention, yet “almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis.” Regulation is criticized when it threatens profit opportunities but welcomed in instances where it provides government-backed insurance. The financial sector, which has significantly ballooned in the past decades, has enormously profited from bailouts, yet without suffering any consequences for the harm it caused to the rest of the economy in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The large wages in the financial sector effectively constitute rents for those who manage it and offer no incentive to reform and reduce its size. A “ballooned” financial system where the waste “provides income for some of the highest earners in the economy” that takes government bailouts when it fails is a good example that there is no invisible hand moving things towards optimal outcomes.
Another form of government intervention that is heavily critiqued by mainstream economics is protectionism. The recent debates on trade deals have brought the issue of protecting U.S workers from competition from abroad to the forefront. Many of the people “remarking on the narrow-mindedness and sense of entitlement of manufacturing workers” that are refusing to quietly take a hit on their pay to make goods cheaper for everyone else “earn comfortable six-figure salaries.” And while trade deals open up competition for manufacturing workers, they actually offer protections for those at the top of the income distribution. These deals usually propose strict enforcement of copyright and patent protections that secure monopolies and high incomes for many companies and their top earners.
Furthermore, while manufacturing workers are exposed to competition from abroad, professionals are shielded from it. “Developing countries also have tens of millions of smart and ambitious people willing to work as doctors and lawyers in the United States for a fraction of the pay of the ones we have now.” They are not allowed to do so and there are many restrictions in place that bar those people from working in the United States. Yet, these policies are not being labelled as protectionism. Again, intervention is considered unacceptable to protect those who are vulnerable but acceptable when it benefits those in political power.
At the core of mainstream economics is the idea that pay is related to productivity. This claim is refuted in the chapter that addresses the pay of executives in the United States. It is hard to explain the sharp increase in the pay of top executives based on their actual productivity. Baker points out that in the 1960s, CEO pay was 20-1 compared to their average worker. In 2015 that ratio was 276-1. Significantly, stories like that of Home Depot’s Robert Nardelli, who walked out with a significant payout after leaving the company in worse shape, prove that his pay had little to do with the value added to the company. “The pay of top executives is not determined in anything resembling a normal market” but is decided by corporate boards with little incentive to restrict it. To make matter worse, the high pay of CEOs spills out to other top executives, including those working in the non-profit sector. All this while wages for most other workers have virtually stagnated in the past decades. The story of workers being paid based on their marginal productivity just does not hold.
Perhaps the most important issue in Baker’s book is pointing out the problem of unemployment as a deliberate policy choice. A full-employment economy is clearly beneficial to workers and “the key element in assuring the benefits of growth are shared equally throughout the income distribution.” In a full employment economy, workers have the necessary bargaining power to ensure they also enjoy the gains from growth. Persistent unemployment is proof that the invisible hand is not taking the economy towards full employment.
The financial industry, as well as some powerful business interests, would be the only potential losers in a full employment situation. For financial intermediaries, the risk of inflation is damaging to any lending activities. For business, high bargaining power of workers means more money paid towards wages. The non-interventionist principles of mainstream economics are aggressively used to argue against any type of expansionary policy that promotes full-employment. The same elites that benefit from all the non-market mechanisms that distribute income upwards, selectively invoke the dangers of intervention when it is not in their favor.
Average people are scared into opposing any type of expansionary government policy through predictions of hyperinflation that would destroy the economy. Weimar and Zimbabwe are brought up as examples of what happens when a government decides to print money. However, neither of those stories are appropriate comparisons to the current situation the US finds itself in. For the US government, the purpose of printing money would be stimulating weak demand. Zimbabwe and Weimar simply printed money to pay their bills because they were broke. A policy “that insists on balanced budgets or low deficits is a policy designed to keep unemployment high” but sold as one that is meant to protect everyone from the dangers of inflation.
The policies presented by Baker in his book prove that the society we live in “is not laissez-faire or the free market” but it “is operating the government to benefit a select group.” This group cites the wisdom of neoclassical economics when it aligns with their interests but does not follow the same principles in other circumstances. Clearly, textbook economics is far removed from how the real world works.
Baker proves our economy is rigged in favor of the rich. To ensure economic gains are shared by all, it is essential to deepen our understanding of economics to more than just one failed theory. Mainstream economic models all failed to see the crisis and housing bubble, while Baker and non-mainstream economists, such as Hyman Minsky were able to see it coming. While Minsky’s work, in relation to the financial system, has gained many followers since the crisis, his ideas aimed at addressing poverty and reaching full-employment, are still overlooked. Maybe it is finally time to consider other non-mainstream proposals and make out-of-the-box economic approaches accessible to all, so we can all participate in an informed debate on policy issues.
The book “Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer” is available inPDF form for free. You can also order ahard copy from Amazon.
The U.S. trails the rest of the world in benefits available to families. Currently, the only industrialized country that does not guarantee paid maternity leave for new mothers is the United States. While other countries offer generous paid parental leave and some form of childcare subsidies, the U.S. does not. This lack of policies to support working families widens economic inequality and limits opportunities of children not born in wealthy households.
Deficit hawks often use their concern for future generations as a basis to argue in favor of cutting entitlement programs such as Social Security. Instead of talking about cutting entitlements, the story should be about expanding them with programs that will actually help children, such as providing paid family leave for parents and addressing the rising costs of childcare. If our children are so important to deficit hawks, then why do they oppose policies that would actually have a positive impact on their future?
Various studies have pointed out the positive impact of paid parental leave on both the child and family’s health. Some of the known benefits are lower child mortality, lower rates of post-natal depression in mothers, and a greater likelihood that mothers will return to work. Particularly interesting is a study that points to higher educational attainments and incomes for children whose mothers had taken maternity leave.
In the United States, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) offers 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave to eligible employees. To qualify for unpaid leave under the FMLA, an employee needs to have been working for over 12 months for a company that hires at least 50 people. While this might be a start, it leaves about half of the workers uncovered. Even for those who are covered by the FMLA, they must afford giving up their paychecks for those 12 weeks. The act does little to help those who are left out or cannot afford to renounce their paychecks. This adds pressure on people at the lower end of the income distribution that might be pushed below the poverty line if forced to give up their incomes.
California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island are the only three states that offer paid family leave by building onto existing disabilities programs. These states labeled pregnancy as a “temporary disability,” which offered a path to receiving a wage replacement for up to 6 weeks. An extensive study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that introducing the policy had a positive or no noticeable effect on 89 percent of the businesses surveyed. However, these policies are very modest compared to the rest of the world, with countries sometimes offering more than 50 weeks of paid leave.
Despite the lack of a federal mandate, some employers voluntarily provide paid family leave. While prestigious companies boast generous leave policies, they are usually only available to highly skilled and highly paid workers. The BLS estimates that about 13 percent of all workers in the US have access to paid family leave. However, there are very large discrepancies between types of workers. Twenty-five percent of those working in the management, business, and financial sector benefit from paid family leave, compared to only 7 percent of those working in the service industry.
The above figure shows the striking differences in access to paid leave by wage level. Top-earners are more than 4 times likelier than those at the lower end to be offered paid family leave by their employer. The data illustrate how mandating paid leave would help those who need it the most and are least likely to afford to take unpaid leave.
Another issue that disproportionately affects lower-income families is the cost of childcare. The Economic Policy Institute found that minimum wage workers would have to spend most of their income on childcare. Another shocking finding is that in 33 states the cost of infant care exceeds average tuition at a public 4-year university. While conversations about college affordability and the debt some students have to incur to cover the costs are common, the issue of daycare affordability is discussed much less. The quality of daycare affects the future outcomes for children, putting those whose parents cannot afford high-quality childcare at a clear disadvantage.
It is fairly common practice in many other countries for the government to subsidize childcare. The generous leave policies, along with childcare subsidies seem to be working for other countries that are catching up with the US in terms of female labor force participation. Surprisingly enough, at some point in its history, the US had a government funded universal childcare program. During World War II, the Lanham Act provided funds to enable women to participate more actively in the labor market. Despite the positive impact the program had, it was abandoned once the war ended and the men who returned took back their jobs. If such a program was possible then, it is most certainly possible now, when a high percentage of women are in the labor market.
With childcare costs outpacing overall inflation, while wages not at the top of the distribution have been stagnating, the burden of raising children falls disproportionately on families that are not wealthy. Paid leave and affordable daycare would help children grow up to their full potential. By lowering financial strain on the parents and improving outcomes for the children, these policies would also tackle the growing income inequality. Instead of focusing on reducing the deficit, which would actually hurt future generations, the U.S should expand entitlements to children to show it is really concerned with their future.
The jobs in our society that focus on caring for others are often held by women. Women hold 70% of teaching jobs, 90% of nurses are female, social workers, childcare, customer service, you name it. If the duties performed in a particular industry involve caring for another person, most of the workers employed in that industry will be female. Yet within these industries men who do the same jobs are still paid more. Overall, women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men who perform the same job. This gender pay gap exists even in these jobs dominated by women. A male elementary school teacher earns 9% more than a female teacher. A male nurse’s median weekly income is $556 versus a female’s $446. When we cut budgets for our schools and our hospitals, we’re doing more than hurting the women typically in these jobs. We’re hurting everyone. If we want to better care about our citizens and reverse these trends, women would know how to do it best.
Yet women only hold 24% of C suite positions in the United States. Only 19% of our “representatives” in Congress are female. How does that stack up with the fact that half (that’s 50%, y’all) of our nation has the power to birth a human being? Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy performed a comprehensive review of literature with regards to preferences and gender. They find that women are more risk averse than men, are more sensitive to social cues, and are more cooperative. If women were in charge, would the bets placed on the housing industry that helped cause the last financial meltdown have happened? Would we be cutting funding for educating our children, profiting off our students in colleges, or letting 48 million Americans live in poverty? Given the findings, it seems unlikely. Women just seem to care more about these things.
Take a look at Hillary Clinton’s choice for chief economist for her transition team, Heather Boushey. Her book, Finding Time, highlights how care for our health, our children, and the elderly, have all been subsidized by “the American Wife.” As women have entered the official workforce, “the market” needs to recognize these valuable contributions with equitable pay. Or look at our recently spotlighted economist Pavlina Tcherneva. She advocates for feminist fiscal policy, claiming our current gender and race blind policy approach is anything but. Policy that is race and gender blind really just means favorable for white males. These problems are intersectional, income disparities get even worse if you’re female and a person of color. If we want to reverse these trends, we need to target policy towards helping these communities who have been harshly marginalized. Sadly, I doubt it’s going to be males who get it done. Males are the more competitive gender, and real competition drives capitalism. If society was driven by the cooperative gender, and we had real cooperation and caring instead, where would we be?
months for a company that hires at least 50 people. While this might be a start, it leaves about half of the workers uncovered. Even for those who are covered by the FMLA, they must afford giving up their paychecks for those 12 weeks. The act does little to help those who are left out or cannot afford to renounce their paychecks. This adds pressure on people at the lower end of the income distribution that might be pushed below the poverty line if forced to give up their incomes.
introducing the policy had a positive or no noticeable effect on 89 percent of the businesses surveyed. However, these policies are very modest compared to the rest of the 
disproportionately affects lower-income families is the cost of childcare. The Economic Policy Institute 
With childcare costs 