Gotcha! This is not a post about sex... Nah, we're gonna talk about the economic stimulus bill that Obama signed yesterday. In addition to a bunch of much-needed funding for things like early childhood programs, health insurance, and assistance for low-income Americans, how will the law expand job opportunities for women? The National Women's Law Center breaks it down,
* Funding provided to rebuild infrastructure and develop clean energy will create many jobs and provide lasting benefits, but most of these jobs are in fields where women are still severely underrepresented. To help ensure that these opportunities are available to women and men, the Act provides $80 million for enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations. Among other things, these laws and regulations ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative steps to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment without regard to sex and other categories.
* The increased funding the Act provides for programs such as health care, education, child care, and other social services will preserve and create jobs in fields currently dominated by women.
(Emphasis mine.) We hear a lot about laid-off white-collar workers. Yet, according to Crain's New York Business:
Domestic Workers United estimates that some 200,000 people work serving others in the metropolitan area. They are even more vulnerable than corporate employees during downturns because many of them work off the books, which means they don't have health insurance and can't collect unemployment.
In short, creating jobs in female-dominated sectors is definitely important. People in service jobs are slammed by the recession, and investing in infrastructure doesn't do much to help manicurists and child-care workers. But the flip side, as Legal Momentum points out, is making sure that those service jobs pay living wages:
Given gender disparities in wages and poverty rates, however, preserving the status quo will not work for low-income women. While women who have been standing at check-out counters, pulling double-shifts at restaurants and childcare facilities can take some solace in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, in order to have a real shot at recovery, they also need a Jobs That Pay Act.
One answer is to support the organizing efforts of these
service-sector workers for higher wages and benefits. New York domestic
workers are calling for a bill of rights. California homecare workers are fighting state budget cuts.
And Congress could always do more to support these workers -- Karen
Kahn at Women's eNews has some thoughts on legislation that could improve things for people in caregiving professions.
All
of this is a reminder that simply saying that one of the goals of the
stimulus bill is "job creation" does not tell the whole story.
Particularly when we look at how women are affected, it's important to
make distinctions about what kinds of jobs and workers are being
supported by this legislation.
On a related note, Obama's next step toward economy recovery is to lay out some major cash to prevent people losing their homes to foreclosure -- which should also provide some much-needed help for women homeowners.
Related:
A Gendered Read on the Stimulus Package
Conservative lies: Wasteful spending on contraception hurts our economic stimulus package
Gender implications of the recession
UPDATE: My colleague Tim at TAPPED writes,
Happy news, though, for feminists who have been calling on the new administration to make sure this plan works for women, or rather, gets women to work. Part of the report is dedicated to looking at the distribution of these new jobs, and the two authors estimate specifically that approximately half (1.5 million) of the new jobs the plan aims to create will go towards women.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who's getting stimulated?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12025
Increasing consumption generally, through infrastructure spending for example, tends to directly go to the retail sector. If you look at the RIMSII data* the retail has a pretty large coefficient for just about every project. Largely because all the workers from the project tend to spend their money in the retail sector.
On top of that there are the tax cuts which will mostly go towards the retail sector. Same goes for all the other spending. Any spending travels through the entire economy, usually going through retail first.
The government doesn't stimulate the retail sector in the sense that it goes out and buys things directly from them. It doesn't really need to, because all the spending the government does do will likely directly impact the retail sector.
Further how would you directly stimulate the retail sector? To use the example of manicurists, the government isn't about to purchase manicures, but if peoples economic situation improves generally they will be more inclined to get them for themselves.
As a result to say that the government is ignoring the retail sector is a tad misleading. It is just that the government typically doesn't buy most of its goods through retail outlets.
*Regional Industry Multiplier Statistics, basically data which tells you if you spend some amount of money in this area or employ some number of workers, it creates so much spending or so many workers in other sectors.
One major problem is that women are the dominant gender in the so-called informal economy. By the nature of this market--legal, gray, and illegal sectors alike--it is difficult to regulate, protect, and stimulate. These workers will have to rely on stimulus to trickle down to them. However, this economy is largely fueled by the disposable income of upper and upper-middle class consumers, which should increase under the stimulus plan.
The point of the stimulus is to get cash moving again. It's not just for the benefit of those who are getting the money right away. It's for the benefit of whom they spend their money on, and whom they spend their money on, etc...
I can't say the gender equity of the stimulus package was something I'd have thought of unless it was brought up...That said, I don't know that there's an easy quick solution to it.
The money needs to hit the streets as quickly as possible to stimulate the economy and I don't know how to do that other than 'shovel ready projects'.
Someone said put the money toward libraries because they employ more women than men...Well, libraries don't employ many people so I don't know how that helps. I mean to stimulate the economy the money has to put people to work.
Construction jobs are high paying, are partially unionized and are filled by very few women. The old excuses are quite alive. Whether it's construction companies, unions, or government employment, Barack should require that these entities hire and provide training for women. Construction is how 30 yo males make 50k+ a year, while a woman working in a hospital makes half that. Getting more women into construction will significantly reduce income inequality.