Recently in Economy Category
The International Museum of Women is always doing innovative, international work, so it came as no surprise when I discovered their most recent efforts: Economica. According to the site: "I.M.O.W.'s latest online exhibition explores the many facets of women's experiences of and contributions to the global economy."
You'll find interesting podcasts, including Naila Kabeer talking about "the relationship between social justice, economic growth, and gender equity" and Julie Nelson challenging economic jargon. You'll also find a great Q&A with Delores Huerta. I loved this excerpt:
In every one of our country's movements and struggles, women have always been at the forefront-whether it was the worker's movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement or of course the women's movement. Because women set the traditions for the family, they're in a very unique position to be able to come forward. Unfortunately, so many women are burdened with the work involved in family life that they feel they really can't find the time, even though we need their voices. Women need to understand that speaking out is as much a responsibility as it is to be a mother and a wife. As women we've got to find out what's happening in this world. Sometimes we have to then neglect other parts of our life. I would like to say in my own life, for every unmade bed, hopefully some farm worker family got a dollar an hour more in their wages, or got some relief out there from their work.
For starters, it's critical that all of us learn more about economics and make sure we're making informed decisions, not only about our own finances, but advocating for the economic health of our country, and increasingly, our interdependent world.
Today is Equal Pay Day in the United Kingdom. The pay gap there, for full-time workers, is 17.1%. Meaning women make on average 17% less than men make.
This website has some interesting graphics that breakdown the details of the pay gap for two different cities in the UK, where the pay gap is actually reversed in the city with lower income overall.
More information here.
USSA, Campus Progress and USPIRG are working on a campaign to get a bill that would increase Pell Grant funding passed through Congress. As many of us know intimately, debt is one of the most pressing economic issues of our generation and the rising cost of education is a huge part of this.
Getting a college degree is more important than ever, but students have to assume too much debt to pay for it. Increasing federal Pell grant aid will help students rely less on federal loans to pay for college.Both President Obama and the House proposed a massive $40 billion dollar increase in student Pell grants. Now it is up to the Senate to invest in students.
Big lenders have spent millions fighting this proposal, which cuts wasteful lender subsidies from the federal government, and uses the $87 billion in savings to make college more affordable. To ensure that the Senate prioritizes students over banks, we need to Raise Some Pell!
During the week of October 5 - 9, USSA, USPIRG and Campus Progress are asking young people to call, fax, and tweet their senators to demonstrate massive grassroots support for more Pell grant aid.
The link to take action is here. You can also sign the Student Wall of Debt, to show how much debt our generation really has.
Women have gained this latest bit of ground mostly because men have lost it -- 78 percent of the jobs lost during this recession were held by men. So not only is it unseemly to rejoice over a larger share of a smaller pie, it is also unsettling to face the fact that so much of the history of women in the workplace (both their leaps forward and their slips back) is a reaction to what was happening to men.Look, it's not that I can't appreciate the statistics. Clearly men are losing jobs. Middle class and low-income American families are really straining. Women and men's workforce participation is inextricably linked, along with their gender roles within the home. No doubt about it.
But why must we belabor these issues--economic decline, job loss--through a sex/gender dichotomy? He suffers vs. she gains is not the most compelling lens within which we can understand the current economic crisis or changing culture in the American workforce. Nor is it the most nuanced. In many ways, it feels like a large distraction from some of the more pressing issues that this economic moment presents: corporate conglomeration, class disparity, wealth accumulation and preservation, the lack of state and federal safety nets for the average American etc. etc.
There's some heavy analysis and powerful argumentation to be made. Instead we're raining all over the small and humble parade by feminists excited that women's participation in the workforce is nearing 50%. Ugh.
Check out this interesting round up of responses to the controversial New York Times article on Japan's hostess culture. In the original article, the following phenomenon was explored:
with that line of work, called hostessing, among the most lucrative jobs available to women and with the country neck-deep in a recession, hostess positions are increasingly coveted, and hostesses themselves are gaining respectability and even acclaim. Japan's worst recession since World War II is changing mores.
It would be easy to say that the downturn economy has done these young women a favor by destigmatizing their work, and therefore, allowing them to earn a living without the previously requisite shame. But the economic reality reveals a far less simplistic picture:
But behind this trend is a less-than-glamorous reality. Employment opportunities for young women, especially those with no college education, are often limited to low-paying, dead-end jobs or temp positions...Even before the economic downturn, almost 70 percent of women ages 20 to 24 worked jobs with few benefits and little job security, according to a government labor survey. The situation has worsened in the recession.
Aya Ezawa, a sociology lecturer in the Japanese Studies Program at Leiden University in the Netherlands, seems to have hit one of the major missing points smack on the head:
At a time of economic downturn, it is worrisome that the media in Japan and abroad portray hostessing as a glamorous job and a woman's road to success. Instead of focusing on the hostesses, it would make more sense to examine the attitudes of the men who are willing to pay a high price for being entertained, served, and pleased by women with short skirts and heavy makeup.
And, of course, I would add, expanding economic opportunities, especially for young and low-income women so that they can make a true choice about being involved in hostess work or doing other kinds of work that more genuinely match their interests and gifts.
While Jos alerted us a couple of weeks ago to the anti-choice Democrats who are trying to keep abortion funding out of the health care reform plan, a recent interview with our president makes us wonder if he's caving into their efforts.
In an interview with Katie Couric this week, he finally addressed abortion funding in health care reform, but it wasn't too pleasing; he asserted he wasn't looking to "micro-manage" which benefits are covered and that not funding abortion has generally been "the tradition":
Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?Well, that doesn't sound very pro-choice. Dana at TAPPED makes the connection to the Hyde Amendment:President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.
As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (Emphasis mine)
That is a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women. And while none of the health reform bills in Congress threaten Hyde, reproductive health advocates have been trying for decades to repeal the ban. By deferring to this "tradition," Obama seems to be signaling that he could support a public plan that excludes abortion coverage.
This is despite the fact that during his campaign, he stated that he opposed the amendment. Dana Goldstein has more. Read more about the Hyde Amendment here. And take action here.
As if David Zincenko's USA Today op-ed heralding "The Great He-cession," wasn't enough, now we've got Reihan Salam claiming "The Death of Macho" in Foreign Policy. Salam's argument, thank goodness, is a bit more sophisticated than Zincenko's--essentially he's arguing that the fall of the financial sector, loss of jobs, and psychological frailty of unmarried men (I'm not kidding), is going to lead to the end of macho culture. He uses lots of international examples--from China to Russia to Western Europe to prove his point. Men, he goes on, will have two choices when confronting this new reality--adapt or resist. Resistance could possibly be "very violent." Geez.
Claiming that sexism is over just because we're finally paying attention to these issues is like claiming that racism is over just because Barack Obama is president. Sexism has way deeper roots than Zincenko or Salam realize.
I don't think anyone can herald the "death of macho," or that men are an "endangered species" (Zincenko), until things actually change. Women still aren't making equal pay for equal work and still are disproportionately targeted with subprime mortgages. As Dana Goldstein reports in "Pink Collar Blues," sixty percent of impoverished children are living in female-headed households. The poverty rate is still higher among women than it is among men of any race. One out of six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
As I wrote in my column last week, this sort of men vs. women thinking is all a bunch of unproductive nonsense. Why does it have to be a man's world OR a woman's world? Why can't it be both. This either/or thinking doesn't acknowledge our interdependence. It just makes for shocking headlines.
And what about all these frickin' gender essentialisms being thrown around nilly willy? Amanda Fortini of Broadsheet puts it well:
If the recent mistakes of certain men at the highest levels of finance and government have altered our beliefs and opened our minds toward the possibility of more women in power, that's progress. But to conclude that the mistakes of a handful of men say anything conclusive about the entire gender is wrongheaded. And as for Salaam's assumption that women aren't aggressive or daring, well there's only one word for it, isn't there? Macho.
I'm taping a segment of CNN This Morning on the topic today. Will let everyone know when it's going to air...
A federal judge, calling his crimes "extraordinarily evil," sentenced Bernard L. Madoff to 150 years in prison today for operating a huge Ponzi scheme that violated thousands of people's trust and caused astronomical loss. I'm reminded of Nancy Goldstein's great piece over at Salon (which Ann linked to a while back in her WFR) about how the closing of two of Madoff's clients, the Picower Foundation and the JEHT Foundation, are affecting funding for advocacy and activism:
The media's obsession with wealthy individuals who have been ruined by Madoff and feel betrayed is understandable. But when that story wears thin, let's hope the cameras will document the effect of the $42 million shortfall that progressive nonprofits will face in 2009 without funding from JEHT and Picower. We've only just begun to understand the implications of that loss for women's health and human rights.
I saw an amazing panel yesterday about some different local struggles and their connections to global climate change. Two of the most affecting:
Elisa Young, a 7th generation Appalacian, is part of Meigs Citizens Action Now. She talks about the coal-fired power plants in her area and how they are affecting so many people's health. She's had cancer herself and has lost friends and neighbors to a range of other cancers thought to be caused by close proximity to so much CO2 emissions. Some tests estimate that folks in the area are being exposed to 341 million pounds of sulfur dioxide a year--unprecedented and highly dangerous levels. Young's own family has deep roots in the coal industry, but she says it's time to get real. New plants are planned, which would bring nine power plants in a ten mile radius.Young says: "There's a lot of denial involved. How do you admit that your job is going to kill you? That your job is going to give your kids learning disabilities? You have to put on those blinders so you don't go insane."
Then Lee Sprague talks about how the Little River Band of the Ottowa Indians are also being affected by coal-fired power plants. He introduces himself: "I am a member of the former majority. I am from the territories, currently occupied by Michigan and parts of Canada." He's part of Clean Energy Now. He says that the levels of mercury in women in his area are more than twice that of women in other parts of the country. He shows a picture of his little son, who was in the hospital for quite awhile because of breathing problems, thought to be connected to the power plants in the area. If you live in Michigan, definitely check out their work. They have lots of easy ways to get involved immediately. Check out this inspiring video of a young activist, Lee's daughter!, speaking at a rally:
I'm at a summit today in Detroit, Michigan on environmental justice--specifically looking at climate change. It's an issue that I'm learning more and more about thanks to one of the amazing subjects for my book, Nia Robinson, who is the Executive Director of the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative.
In short, the environmental justice movement (formally born in the 80s, traced back to indigenous Americans by some people), is aimed at calling attention to the ways in which low income people and people of color have been disproportionately affected by environmental issues (toxic power plants are often built in low income areas, those most vulnerable to the effects of global warming are in the Gulf South etc.). Hurricane Katrina was the most obvious recent example. Like feminism, environmental justice is based on looking at intersections--race, class, gender, environment, economics etc.
The whole community is really excited. A new report out by the Obama administration takes climate change seriously and a climate change bill is in the works. All of this is in anticipation of Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December.
One of the sponsoring organizations of this summit is WEDO--Women's Environment & Development Organization. An excerpt from their mission statement:
Today, WEDO recognizes that policy commitments alone are not enough to improve women's daily lives. That is why WEDO is collaborating more deeply with Southern partners on implementing global policy gains at the national level and holding governments accountable to their commitments on women's rights.
Climate change is the talk of the town today in Washington as the American Clean Energy and Security Act is up for a final vote in the House of Representatives.
The National Council for Research on Women has a new report out called, Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass - and Why it Matters, that argues that diversifying the leadership at the highest levels of the financial sector will ensure a more secure financial future for everyone. They call it the "critical mass principle." The report's lead sponsor was long time financial superwoman Jacki Zehner, who wrote a really interesting commentary on her experiences in the sector and her hopes for the future on Huffington Post when the economy sunk.
It's hard to argue with the notion that diversity raises the quality of leadership in any organization, financial included. As women on the panel this morning articulated, it's not about being nice to women; it's about better business, more responsible investing, and a more transparent financial sector overall. The world would simply be more fair were there a more diverse group of people making powerful decisions about how capital is invested. (And of course there is a HUGE conversation to be had about the potential for equity in a system that, in its very structure, encourages class inequality, but that's for another day...)
Where the NCRW treads on controversial ground is in their aggregation of research indicating essential gender differences in investment style and decision-making:
A 2005 study from the Center for Financial Research at the University of Cologne documented differences between male and female fund managers: Women managers tended to take less extreme risk and to adopt more measured investment styles (which perform well over time). And according to research published in 2002 in the International Journal of Bank Marketing, women tend to make investment-related decisions with a detailed, comprehensive approach, while men are more likely to simplify data and make decisions based on an overall schema.
I always get nervous when scientists or sociologists start making wide-sweeping gender claims, but I'm also not scientifically sophisticated enough to evaluate whether these studies are valid.
Anyone have any thoughts?
USA Today columnist David Zincenko had an op-ed today titled "Decline of the American Male":
Like most Americans, I look at the news about the economy, the need for health care reform and our growing national debt, and I worry about how we're going to escape the recession.But as someone who has spent his career working to save an endangered species men I have another worry on my mind: What are we going to do about the Great He-cession?
This troubling trend has been going on for several years, but it really picked up speed at the end of 2008. Of the 5.2 million people who've lost their jobs since last summer, four out of five were men. Some experts predict that this year, for the first time, more American women will have jobs than men. And that's just furthering the decline of the endangered male. (Emphasis mine)
That's right, folks - a "he-cession." While men in fact are losing jobs at a higher rate than women, what the author isn't taking into account is that not only are women paid less and generally have worse jobs than men, but are economically behind men in so many other ways. Dana Goldstein actually took this on last week in the American Prospect:
Historically, men suffer the majority of job losses during recessions, so policy-makers focus their efforts on getting men back to work. But when the economy picks up again, women typically do not share equally in the gains, in part because they aren't equally employed in high-paying fields. And unemployment isn't the only indicator of economic struggle. Women are one-third more likely than men to have sub-prime mortgages, nearly 60 percent of impoverished children are living in female-headed households, and the poverty rate is higher among women than it is among men of any race. Undergirding all that is the stubbornness of the pay gap between men and women, meaning that women still earn just 78 cents on the male dollar--even for the same work, with the same educational background and number of years on the job. Advocates say that given these disparities, it is actually women who are harder hit by the recession, despite more staggering joblessness among men.
What bothers me the most is the author's implication that men are being "left behind" not really because of the recession, but as a sacrifice of women's progression: "Women have gained in the past century, while men have fallen behind."
It's one thing to talk seriously about how the recession has effected the many groups of people who are suffering from it (including so many men who have lost their jobs), but to use it as a way to push some post-patriarchal nonsense is just ridiculous. Or should I say, "he-diculous." Jesus.
My good friend, colleague, editor of Wiretap Magazine and now Pulitzer Center on Journalism awardee has a series of pieces up about her recent trip to Latvia, one of her most striking being a story on a woman that has been affected by the harsh economic conditions. She has another up about the recent election in Lativa as well. Please check it out along with the rest of the articles at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting that focus on the untold stories in the mainstream media.
Moderator Isobel Coleman begins by pointing out that there is some controversy over the title of the panel itself. She asks: "Is this a new agenda? Who's agenda is it?"
The first panelist to speak is Lamia Karim (pictured right), from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oregon. She speaks to all of the various human rights discourses, many of which she obviously doesn't think are complex or ethical. "What I am most interested in is grassrooots, indigenous, human rights movements organized, not around an individual human, but much more on a group rights basis.This is taking up these rights discourses but trying to renegotiate with the realities on the ground."
"As feminists we need to really go beyond the rhetoric of the empowerment of women and ask carefully, 'What does it take to empower women? Is money enough? What does it mean to give women access to capital without giving them skills training?' This is the Grameen Bank model--based on neo-liberalism."
Larnia has a book coming out through UC Press in spring 2010 which she describes as "a radical critique of this model, this particular model. I wanted to put it out there because this has become a very innovative way of framing how women, especially in the global south and very poor women, can be economically and socially empowered." Can't wait for that!
Isobel turns to Jill Lester next, who is the ED of The Hunger Project, to ask her what her reaction is to the radical critique of micro lending.
"Unfortunately, I think we're going to be in violent agreement." [audience laughs]
"The Hunger Project believes in an integrated approach to poverty. Part of that is having a micro finance facility. We ask the community to form a micro finance committee of 100% women to set their own agenda."
Next up is Radhika Balakrishnan (pictured left), of the Marymount Manhattan College:
"Rather than talking about the crisis as if it something that fell from the sky, we're calling it the 'manufactured crisis,' caused by deliberate changes that the government made in the regulatory framework."
"We're trying to turn human rights around on them. You want to oppose human rights all over the world? What about the human right violation right here. What about the TARP legislation? There's no transparency. That's public money. This is our institution. Therefore there's a human rights obligation on the state."
Cynthia Enloe (holy amazing) jumps in as the pinch hitter:
"One has to be able to think analytically in order to act. I've hated the theory-practice divide. It's stupid. Anyone who acts, especially if you try to act collectively, if you try to mobilize beyond your best friend, it means you've done some causal thinking. You are an analyst. Out of your action come new analytical understandings. It works and you think why did it work? Or it didn't and you have to go back to the drawing table. We are all analysts. We are all thinkers who think thinking matters. Thinking is in handshake with action."
"If we've learned something from feminist thinking from around the world, it is that you have to think big in order to think small--the guys say that of course--but you also have to think small in order to think big. It works both ways and it's really one of the great strengths of feminist thinking for action."
"We are at a moment now where we've got a pool of schools and an understanding of what needs to be acted upon, some people call it an agenda, and we are at a moment, not just because we have a new president of one country, not just because the institutions of capitalism are wobbly (they're not as wobbly as we'd liked)."
"We really are at a moment amongst all of us, and I mean all of us who aren't in the room, where we have the capacity to think as if it matters and the capaity to know what needs to be acted upon. This is a very, very exciting moment. We shouldn't let cynicsm let that moment pass."
"Think as if it matters and then act as if it affects our thinking."
Don't miss this great group of articles over at The American Prospect about women's economic opportunities and the recession. An excerpt:
It is time for a different conversation about working women--one that considers the choices and careers of professional women with children, yes. But one that devotes far more time and energy to the needs of the majority of women workers--those without advanced degrees or professional salaries who must work to support their families--and to crafting policies that work for them.
My name is Courtney Martin and I'm a gentrifier.
Like so many young, urban writerly types, I live in a neighborhood that is predominantly and historically composed of folks very unlike myself. I'm white, they're West Indian. I'm a writer, they mostly hold traditional jobs (my neighbor Mary is a nurse, my other neighbor is a security guard etc.). In my building, I'm young, they're mostly 40+. I'm agnostic, they're more likely to be religious.
I've long been fascinated by issues of gentrification--intellectually--but also trying to understand my own roles and responsibilities when it comes to gentrification--practically speaking. People throw the word around, pay it lipservice from time to time, but rarely do we really untangle all the issues. I think it's especially egregious among progressives, like myself, who want think that we're not the "bad gentrifiers" because we care about the original culture of the neighborhood and try not to be too snotty about wanting a coffee shop with wireless or whatever. But you know what? Chances are, that if you pay rent or a mortgage in a neighborhood that has historically been inhabited by folks who look and live a lot differently than you do, especially if that rent or mortgage seems like a steal to you and raises the bar for everyone else, you're a gentrifier. Face facts and then figure out how to deal with it. (I'm still in this process, of course.)
I recently read this amazing article about one aspect of this issue--the social interactions. From the Brooklyn Rail:
I'm an urban planner. As part of my job with MIT's Community Innovators Lab, I spent four months interviewing residents of Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant and Clinton Hill neighborhoods with the goal of understanding what gentrification means for the longstanding community, at a time when that community is being threatened by swanky glass-faced co-op buildings and hordes of new residents fleeing high Manhattan rents.I re-listened to hours of audio recordings and found what I knew was already there: tape after tape of Bed-Stuy stalwarts lamenting that the new people moving into their neighborhood, specifically the new Caucasian people, were un-friendly. My interviews revealed that the arriving gentry didn't say hello on the sidewalk, didn't hold doors open, and didn't try to meet their neighbors.
She goes on to detail some of the interviews, and then analyzes gentrification in a historic context:
Gentrification is a re-shuffling. It's part of a relentless American history of moving populations en masse from one location to another when their presence becomes inconvenient. This country moved Native Americans out, and brought slaves in. In more recent history, it drew middle class people to the suburbs, and redlined African Americans into urban ghettos. It tore down and displaced whole neighborhoods with Urban Renewal in the 1950s and 60s. Hope VI, the most recent iteration in American housing policy, was meant to build mixed-income communities, but in practice displaced thousands of low-income people from functional homes and neighborhoods. Gentrification, in many ways, feels like a new name for an old game. At least we now have a multi-racial gentry class.
And one of the positive perspectives on such an often ugly and difficult phenomenon:
In my twenty interviews, one wish came through stronger than friendliness. People want diverse neighborhoods, including different races, ages, and sexual orientations, with an array of careers, representing different socioeconomic classes. Brooklyn native Tyrone Harris said, "The diversity in the neighborhood is so good, that we can learn about the whole world in just one neighborhood, because we have Chinese, African American, Latino, and White. We have everything here. Puerto Rican, Spanish--you name it, we got it. But the thing is, are we using our assets? Or are we just sitting back saying, 'We don't like this or we don't like that.' See, it's easy to complain, but the question is: What do you want to do?"
A really important question. Anybody have ideas of how those of us in gentrifying neighborhoods--both folks who have lived "here" forever and those who are just moving in--can collectively benefit from our assets?
I've developed good relationships with my neighbors; Mary visits me with her amazing birds and is generous enough to take my packages. I thank her with candles and free books. She never minds when Nik plays Rockband late at night. And this, I think, actually matters a lot...as small as it all may sound.
But beyond that, I'm hungry to interact with those in my community in a way that feeds us all.
Thanks to Ramin for the heads up.
Taxes! Don't know about you, but just seeing the word "taxes" can bring full-on panic. This week, President Obama announced part of his new tax code plan. I decided to get some help understanding it all from tax professor Annette Nellen, director of the Master's taxation program at San Jose State University.
Hope this helps! Here's Annette...
This is a great opportunity for students to get some writing published in a major magazine. Details below!
The Nation Student Writing Contest, 2009
We're looking for original, thoughtful, provocative student voices to answer this question: How has the recession affected you, your family or someone you know? Essays should not exceed 800 words and should be original, unpublished work that demonstrates fresh, clear thinking and superior quality of expression and craftsmanship. We'll select five finalists and two winners--one from college, one from high school. Each winner will be awarded a $1,000 cash prize and a Nation subscription. The winning essays will be published and/or excerpted in the magazine and featured on our website. The five finalists will be awarded $200 each and subscriptions, and their entries will be published online. Entries (only one per student) will be accepted through May 31, 2009. A winner will be announced by September 15. Please send entries to studentprize@thenation.com.The contest is open to all matriculating high school students and undergraduates at American schools, colleges and universities as well as those receiving either high school or college degrees in 2009. Submissions must be original, unpublished work (the writing can have been published in a student publication). Each entrant is limited to one submission. Entries will be accepted through May 31, 2009. A winner will be announced by September 15, 2009.
Please email studentprize@thenation.com for questions.
More information here.
[T]he UN has expressed fears that there could be a shortfall in money for reproductive health services as donors reduce funding and the costs of healthcare rise....Figures released last week showed that despite increases in funding for population assistance over the past few years, which reached $8.1m in 2007, the estimated rise to $11.2m this year is in doubt because of the economic downturn.
Donor funding for family planning - as a percentage of all population assistance - has already fallen from $723m in 1995 to $338m in 2007.
For more information on international family planning and how you can help, check out these great organizations: WEDO, MADRE, and IPAS.
Okay, you made it through tax day. Everything's going to be okay after all (I hope). For freelancers like me, the estimated tax business just keeps on coming. As soon as I take a sigh of relief, I've got another check to sign straight to the government. Which, honestly, I feel okay about these days. We're in a tough spot, I actually respect and trust the president, and I want things like public education and health care to be prioritized using my hard-earned money.
Here's something I don't feel okay about: as I've been reading the last six months of economic news, I've become discomfiting aware of how scant my economic knowledge is. Truth be told, I never took micro or macro economics, but if I had, my guess is that I would want to take it again. As is, I just want to take it for the first time. I'm feeling grossly unprepared to analyze all of this bubble bursting, bailout, stimulus, IMF, GDP, and what the fuck.
This all came to a head because I was hanging out with Erin Smith who had co-organized the recent Legal Momentum panel (check out Kyla's great post on it) featuring Heather Boushey, Linda Hirshman, Mimi Abramowitz, and Irasema Garza. Apparently our old pal Hirshman made a crack about the fact that she feels like feministing should stop posting pictures of our pets and start covering cold, hard economic news more often.
Monty isn't going anywhere Linda, but you've got a point here. I have made an effort to talk about the economy (as have others on this blog), but I usually feel like I'm trying to speak a language I only went to one semester of classes in. In other words, my economese sucks.
So what am I going to do about it? Read Suzie Orman? Probably not. I don't just want a personal finance guide and her vibe freaks me out. I want to really understand the big picture. Anyone have a book recommendation? I honestly don't want to invest a huge amount of time in this economic education project, but I do want to feel equipped to understand what's going on. Anyone else conquer feeling less than literate on the economic front and have advice for the rest of us?
And for funsies (sorry Linda), check out Kristin Wig's amazing Suzie Orman impression:
Last weekend's post was my attempt to help readers, if they were having a hard time like I felt most folks were, understand what was going on with AIG, bonuses and bailout money. This weekend's post is my attempt to help folks better understand what's going on with the auto industry and the auto bailout plans.
Susan Helper is AT&T Professor of Economics at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. She is also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and MIT's International Motor Vehicle Program. Here's Susan...
NPR's Morning Edition takes on women and health insurance.
Here's a pop quiz: Which of the following would violate federal employment law?1. Laying off a pregnant woman.
2. Laying off a woman on maternity leave.
Pencils down. The answer is "neither."
So long as employers can make the case that the firing has nothing to do with pregnancy or maternity leave - it's all good. And it makes sense in theory: after all, folks who do a bad job should be fired no matter what their pregnancy/motherhood status. But the problem is, it seems like employers are using the economy to discriminate against mothers.
"Some employers are using the economy as a pretense for laying off just one person," Ms. [Elizabeth] Grossman, [a lawyer for the New York district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] said. "And very often that person is pregnant or the oldest employee on staff. The economy may be the legitimate cause -- or there may be discrimination."Last year the number of pregnancy-based discrimination charges filed with the E.E.O.C. was up nearly 50 percent from a decade earlier, to a total of 6,285. That number seems likely to rise even higher this year.
The whole article is really interesting; make sure to check it out. For more information on motherhood and discrimination, go to Moms Rising.
Need help understanding what's going on with AIG, bailout money and the big picture issues behind the financial crisis? Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies, helps break it down.
Here's Sarah...
There were thousands of demonstrators this past Thursday outside of California's Supreme Court as justices weighed in on whether voters' decision to re-ban same-sex marriage in the state last November was a denial of fundamental rights or whether it's in the people's power to amend the state constitution.
But Prop 8 isn't the only issue facing LGBT communities. Ongoing battles across the nation continue for LGBT rights -- hate crime recognition, adoption rights, immigration and asylum rights, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," to name a few. Kim Ford has been an LGBT rights activist for more than 15 years, has worked extensively with community groups of color in New York City, and knows first-hand the myriad of everyday issues LGBT communities face. Here's Kim...
There's been lots of talk about clean coal these days. Have you seen any of the industry's commercials? But what you haven't heard much about since Robert F. Kennedy visited the region back in the day is where coal comes from -- the Appalachian Mountains. His son continues to speak out about the region. Ashley Judd a long with many folks in her home state of Kentucky have been doing a lot of activism around mining and the disparities in the Appalachian Mountains there. Judd recently spoke out about a piece Diana Sawyer aired on 20/20 last week called "Children of the Mountains on Appalachian life in Kentucky -- Diane Sawyer is also from the state. The piece sparked some reaction in the blogosphere from folks who have been in the trenches working on these disparities just about their whole lives.
I decided to ask Theresa L. Burriss, the Assistant Professor of English & Appalachian Studies at Radford University, about everyday life in Appalachia and what she thought about clean coal and Diane Sawyer's piece. (Diane Sawyer did a follow-up piece last night on "Mountain Dew mouth".)
Here's Theresa...
Women, especially women of color, have been disproportionally affected by getting sub-prime mortgages. Here are some facts:
Women make up 30% of borrowers for mortgages, but are 32% more likely than men to receive sub-prime mortgages, despite slightly higher credit scores (682 versus 675). This disparity occurs across all income levels, with the difference increasing as income rises.African Americans were twice or more likely to receive sub-prime loans than whites. Additionally, Hispanics were more than three times more likely to receive high interest rate loans than whites in all income ranges. The only group less likely to receive sub-prime loans than whites was Asian Americans.
A study by Wider Opportunities for Women found that older women, particularly older women of color, are more vulnerable to sub-prime loans because of the cumulative effect of lower wages, occupational segregation, and smaller retirement savings. Even with a median retirement income, older women who carry mortgages still fall 20% short of a level that would provide economic security.
For more, check out this fact sheet on the sub-prime mortgage crisis from the National Council for Research on Women.
Some of these women are now facing foreclosure and evictions. So what are we going to do about it?
Well ACORN, one of the biggest community organizing groups in the country, has one answer. They're setting up networks of people in various parts of the country--starting with New York and extending to 22 other cities--ready to instantaneously mobilize should folks who have been unfairly targeted be forced from their homes. The idea is to get allies and neighbors right to people's homes when officers are on the way so they can obstruct the forced evictions and get media attention. Read more about the campaign here.
I realize the immediate importance of helping folks stay in their homes, but I'm wondering how we are also going to change the system that got these women (and others) into this vulnerable position in the first place. What organizations--governmental or not--are being strengthened that can serve as watch dogs looking out for sketchy loan officers? Who is setting up financial education opportunities in low income communities where these loan offers prey? And how can women--who are especially interested in having a "room of one's own"--make sure that we are realistic about what we can afford?
I would love to see this short term activism be balanced out with some big picture strategizing. Anyone know anyone working at the long term level?
Update: Bizarrely, right after writing this post I found out that Obama answered this call directly yesterday with a $275 billion housing plan. Check it out.
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:
At a town hall meeting last week, Henrietta Hughes bravely stood up in front of the room full of people to ask the president for help for those like herself who are unemployed and forced to live in their car. She said:
"I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and I to live in. The housing authority has two years' waiting lists, and we need something more than the vehicle and the parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help."
Via Feministe, we find that her question resulted in an assault by conservative pundits, and it's truly enough to make one sick. Michelle Malkin was the biggest bully, snarkily saying:
If she had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too... Well, pardon my unbending belief in fairness and personal responsibility, but why should my tax dollars go to feed the housing entitlement beast?
Um, I don't know about you, but this "housing entitlement beast" i.e. homelessness is a pretty damn good cause to care about and put our money toward. Of course Rush Limbaugh jumped in as well, falsely saying that she "ask[ed] for a car," with others contending that she's "using the system." It's stories like this that exposes just how truly disgusting the likes of Malkin and Limbaugh are.
Last week, as the Obama administration and Congress debated exactly how far they were willing to go to deal with the current bleak economic realities, The New York Times highlighted the re-emergence of the rhetorical -- and policy -- discussion of the "safety net." One sentence pretty much sums it up:
Programs for the poor are often poor programs -- stigmatized and underfinanced.
But what happens when the people who need welfare are not characterized in the media as solely urban women of color? When the aid recipients include well-educated, former white-collar workers affected by the economic crisis, the vocabulary changes. Now it's suddenly a "safety net" -- a more positive, temporary-sounding term that does not have the same connotations as the much-maligned "W" word.
In his 2004 book American Dream, Jason DeParle (who also reported the Times piece) summarizes the history of public assistance, and how society's perception of it changed depending on who was receiving that assistance. Welfare's earliest iteration was a Depression-era "safety net" program for widowed mothers. De Parle writes in the book,
The payments were reserved for a small elite of "fit" mothers with so-called suitable homes. That typically excluded divorced mothers and those with children born outside of marriage, and it almost always excluded racial minorities. The screening was so rigorous, those on the rolls were sometimes called "gilt-edged widows." Decades later, welfare would be condemned for encouraging poor women to not to work. But that was precisely what it was created to do--in Edwin Witte's words, "to release from the wage-earning role the parent whose task is to raise children."
When the government was strictly controlling which "fit" women were worth assisting, there was not a stigma attached to the aid. (To the contrary -- it was almost an honor!) This was a program that propped up traditional gender roles when society's anointed breadwinner (the husband and father) was deceased, and allowed these selected elite mothers to continue in their caregiving role full-time. But, as anti-discrimination and desegregation laws began to take hold, the "safety net" was widened to accept more women -- and the connotations of receiving aid began to shift. The "welfare queen" pejorative began appearing in the 1960s, as these programs were being integrated, and became a really destructive meme that public assistance has never really shaken. (The right wing bears a lot of responsibility for perpetuating this, but Democrats certainly aren't blameless, either.)
It's undeniable that the tanking economy is once again changing the face of who needs assistance to get by. Given the way people on public-assistance programs have been vilified, it will be interesting to see whether public perception actually does shift as demographics change. If I were feeling optimistic, I'd say that perhaps our country would come away from the economic crash with a more compassionate perspective on poverty, public assistance, and homelessness. But we'll see. I'm not holding my breath.
UPDATE: My friend Noah, who brings some very relevant work experience to this discussion, responds on his blog, disPlacement.
I neglected to mention in my Georgia queer theory post that the House Republicans spearheading the campaign to fire professors and ban certain classes are using the economy as one reason behind their efforts.
Upset House Republicans are mounting a campaign to purge Georgia's higher education system of professors with an expertise in racy sexuality topics as the state grapples with a $2.2 billion shortfall.
Something similar, but arguably more dire, is happening at Florida Atlantic University where the school is may be using the recession as an excuse to dissolve the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies department and its MA program.
An email from the department reads:
We question the validity of the FAU administration's rational for proposing this unjust suspension. When the total money allocated to "Education" in FAU's last published budget (2006-2007) is $239, 949, 841.00 and the Women's Studies Center and M.A. program (at an operating cost of $60,000) only account for a total .00025% of that budget, we must question whether or not "budget cuts" are an adequate explanation of the administrations decision. Both the President's salary and Athletics departments' budget have increased over the past year. From our perspective, the university has chosen its priorities; These priorities represent an inexcusable attack on all women in and out of the academy. At a university where the average salary of a male professor is $16,000.00 higher than the average salary of a female professor, how else are we to interpret the proposed suspension of the Women's Studies Center and M.A. program than as an attack on women?
It doesn't surprise me one bit that women's and queer studies would be the first to be targeted in university cutbacks - after all, they're disciplines that have long been marginalized in academia.
So I'm wondering if folks are seeing this at their schools - anyone out there in Women's Studies (or other areas of study) want to weigh in?
Apropos of our recent conversations on the impacts of the recession, Rose-Anne Clermont in the Women's International Perspective reports on one woman's struggles with the economy, her son's mental health, and the housing crisis:
The irony of Pierrette's troubles could be seen, from one viewpoint, as tragic: She's a pediatrician but got lost within the maze of the medical system once her son became ill; she once treated patients from low-income families on Medicaid, yet she eventually became dependent on such services herself; for 13 years, she was a homeowner, but then sold her house to relocate to a county that had better health and educational services for her son; she took a subprime loan, lost the second house and ended up sleeping at her friend's place; and ultimately, she resorted to seeking pantry services for food.Yet Pierrette hardly complains as she recalls the turn of events that changed her life so drastically. "It has made me a better person," she says. "It's an opportunity to turn poison into medicine."
At another time in America, Pierrette's story might have been a hard pill for most Americans to swallow. A doctor - unemployed and on Medicaid? Going to soup kitchens? But in today's economic climate, such tragedies seem all too possible to fathom.
Read the rest here. It's a reminder of how precarious so many people's financial situations truly are.
Lauren had an understandably strong reaction to Courtney's post last week about her daily schedule. In a follow-up post, Lauren described her own work life -- and the economic situation surrounding her -- and wrote:
The other day, when I wrote, "a room of one's own is a privilege most of us don't -- and won't ever -- have," I wasn't trying to score some dramatic rhetorical point, or punish a successful person for being happy or having fulfilling work. In today's economic hierarchy some of us will be stuck on Maslow's lower rungs while others celebrate their own impending self-actualization -- this isn't a debate. But only one of these climbers gets the microphone.
She takes this a step further -- asking how, as the feminist blogosphere comes into more prominence, the writing of Professional Feminists might diverge from that of non-Professional Feminist women. While I wouldn't identify as a Professional Feminist -- I have a full-time day job that's not explicitly in the movement -- I am an editor and writer by profession. (Incidentally, I have actually been Lauren's editor before!) And I am grateful nearly every day that I have a full-time job that fulfills both my economic needs and my personal passion. Having a job I love is a privilege. And I do acknowledge the fact that this privilege affects not only what I write here on Feministing (and occasionally on TAPPED), but how I assign and edit articles. When I recently blogged about The New York Times' coverage of how upper-middle-class two-parent families are coping with the recession's gender implications, I wrote:
I understand that it's more interesting for the Times to write about gender dynamics in two-partner families where the male is the breadwinner. But, after awhile, the disproportionate coverage of impact of the economy on the upper-middle-class sends the message that these are the people who are most affected. That simply isn't true.
I've heard many people retort that, well, the people who read/buy the Times are upper-middle-class, and so that's the population they predominantly cover. But I don't think that's the whole story. I think it has way more to do with the economic status of the editors and reporters at the paper. Their friends are upper-middle-class professionals. They hear their friends discuss gender and the recession. They write an article that, surprise, happens to focus on upper-middle-class families. In their daily lives, I'd wager they don't actually hear from too many laid-off Midwest workers. (Which isn't to say they receive no coverage -- just demonstrably less, especially considering who's being impacted by the recession.)
Bringing it all back to Lauren's post and the Professional Feminist quandary, I think much of this applies to blogging, too. Most bloggers I know (especially women bloggers), feel most comfortable speaking to their own experience and community. Understandably so. It takes a concerted, sustained effort to write about people and dynamics beyond your personal experience, your own community.
This gets thorny to pull apart, because this conversation gets personal -- and folks get defensive -- really fast. I know both Courtney and Lauren personally, I know they are both incredibly smart, talented, and driven women. I know they both come to this conversation willing to, well, have a conversation! (Which is awesome.) It's not that one has done more to "earn" a career she loves, and neither one is getting rich. While it is indeed a privilege to make money doing what you love, for most of us, it is not lucrative.
A lot of this is lurking in the background of stories about job loss and career-shifting during this recession. Work is SO deeply tied to identity in this country, for better or worse, and so when jobs are at risk, everyone (yes, women too. duh.) feels pretty damn vulnerable. Talking about how our work-lives intersect and overlap with and inform our feminism is a conversation I want to continue. As Courtney wrote in comments to her post,
The post wasn't intended to be some sort of arrogant display of my day. As I said in the intro, I'd like to hear how others' days are composed in many different professions. I think privilege comes from secrecy and I was trying to be open about what one real day was like for me for those who are interested in the fields I work in.
I've already asked a friend of mine to write a guest post about how she is coping with being unemployed, as this is an experience I can't speak to personally. I would love to publish more stories from Feministing readers about how the recession has affected you -- and about how your daily routine affects your feminism. Send them to me at ANN [AT] FEMINISTING [DOT] COM.
It's been fascinating to watch the media coverage of the economic meltdown as it relates gender (and class) in our society.
In January, data showed that men's participation in the workforce was declining faster than women's. Basically, in recessions, more men tend to lose their jobs than women, hence there is a greater percentage of women in the workforce. (Hmmm... if what's bad for the economy is also bad for traditional gender roles, you'd think the right wing would have clamored a little harder for the stimulus package.)
The New York Times was inspired to publish an article on the implications for masculinity:
Mr. Steuer, 43, was recently laid off from his job at a small research business. "It's hard not to imagine yourself as the breadwinner," he said. "A lot of your ego eggs are in the job basket. I can't shake the psychology that I'm supposed to provide."
The article takes great pains to portray Steuer as a modern man, presumably to highlight the level to which these outmoded views of masculinity are ingrained in our society. (Say it with me, now: "Patriarchy hurts men, too!") New research also shows that the incidence of domestic violence rises along with unemployment. I have a hard time believing this is unrelated to issues of control and masculinity. And, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, lack of money is a common reason why a woman may refuse to leave her abusive partner.
As Emily Bazelon writes, "I'm skeptical about the broad claim that men feel the pain of layoffs more than women do." Me too. As the Times article notes, near the end:
YET while men may appear to reel more socially and psychologically from job loss, they fare far better when it comes to re-employment.In a 2002 study, two sociology professors at Wichita State University, Charles S. Koeber and David W. Wright, found that women who were laid off and went on to look for another job were re-employed less often than men in the same position.
The realities of layoffs are just as bad -- or even worse -- for women. The Times does not provide actual data on the psychological effects of layoffs on men versus women, but I'd wager that a significant number of upper-middle-class women DO strongly see their job as tied to their identity, and are likely suffering psychological effects of joblessness as well.
A nagging problem with this article -- as with so much coverage of the economy -- is that it focuses on people of one economic class (upper-middle or upper class), with the same family dynamic: two-income families with mixed-gender partners, where the male partner earns (or earned) more. I'm guessing the gender dynamics play out differently in families where the female partner is already the primary breadwinner, in families with much lower total incomes, in families where there is a single breadwinner (yes, I think there are still gender dynamics in play when there is only one head of household). But we're not reading much about them.
I understand that it's more interesting for the Times to write about gender dynamics in two-partner families where the male is the breadwinner. But, after awhile, the disproportionate coverage of impact of the economy on the upper-middle-class sends the message that these are the people who are most affected. That simply isn't true.
UPDATE: Girl w/ Pen has more links on this subject.
Woo hoo! Obama has officially signed, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, fair pay legislation! In Obama's own words:
It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign ... we are upholding one of this nation's first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness. If we stay focused, as Lilly did, and keep standing for what's right, as Lilly did, we will close that pay gap and ensure that our daughters have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedom to pursue their dreams as our sons.
Full remarks here.
Check out smarty pants Linda Holmes interesting research on the legitimacy of lack there of, of the DABA ladies on NPR.
Warning: best read on an empty stomach. This one is a puker.
The New York Times rounded out its seemingly never ending informal series on how the economy's downturn is affecting wealthy white people with a special little story yesterday entitled, "It's the Economy, Girlfriend." It turns out that women accustomed to dating men with lots of money (Do these women have jobs? Is heterosexuality a prerequisite for making it into the series?) are gathering online and in hot spots around New York City to commiserate about these tough, tough times. An excerpt:
In addition to meeting once or twice weekly for brunch or drinks at a bar or restaurant, the group has a blog, billed as "free from the scrutiny of feminists," that invites women to join "if your monthly Bergdorf's allowance has been halved and bottle service has all but disappeared from your life."Theirs is not the typical 12-step program.
Step 1: Slip into a dress and heels. Step 2: Sip a cocktail and wait your turn to talk. Step 3: Pour your heart out. Repeat as needed.
About 30 women, generally in their mid- to late-20s, regularly post to the Web site or attend meetings.
"We do make light of everything on the blog and it's very tongue in cheek," said Laney Crowell, 27, who parted ways with a corporate real estate investor last month after a tumultuous relationship. "But it all stems out of really serious and heartfelt situations."
Prepare for feminist scrutiny ladies. Here's the thing: humor is good. I'm glad that you're poking fun at yourselves (I have to believe this is the case or I would lose a lil' bit of my faith in humanity). I also understand that privileged folks feel pain too. I consider myself one of them in more ways than one and I bleed red like my less economically stable, less educated, less supported friends and allies.
But here's the other thing. Commiserating about the new lack of bottle service in your life is not going to make you feel any better. It's going to perpetuate your psychology of deprivation (an ironic state for a group of women who can still afford to sip cocktails). What will actually make you feel better, I promise, is to get sober about who is most deeply affected by economic downturn in this country and start seeking justice more sustainable than getting rich dudes to take you out to dinner at fancy restaurants. Here are a few stats to start you off:
Women make up 30% of borrowers for mortgages, but are 32% more likely than men to receive sub-prime mortgages, despite slightly higher credit scores (682 versus 675).
-The National Council for Research on Women
The gender wage gap is now 22.2 percent.
-Institute for Women's Policy Research
Annual earnings for young men who are employed full-time year round are about 10% higher
than for young women who are employed full-time year round -- $30,786 compared to $28,008.
Annual earnings for all other young men with earnings, which include part-time and/or part-year
earners, are about 32% higher than for all other young women with earnings, $15,033 compared
to $11,393.
-Legal Momentum
In other depressing news: word on the street is that ex-Lucky Beauty writer Dawn Spinner, Laney Crowell, a beauty editor at StyleCaster, and lawyer Megan Petrus (the shallow minds behind DABA) are getting a big juicy book deal. This from an industry that consistently tells brilliant, hardworking women that there's no market for books on feminism, class etc. Ugh.
Thanks to J. Courtney Sullivan for the heads up.
House Minority leader Boehner is at it again, only this time him, along with his conservative colleagues, are suggesting that since the stimulus bill has a section about state coverage of family planning, this somehow translates to, "hundreds of millions on contraceptives." The actual text published originally at Think Progress reads,
State Option to Cover Family Planning Services. Under current law, the Secretary has the authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred.
As Pelosi explained, covering family planning services will actually reduce costs in the state since it will increase the effectiveness with which states can address the needs of their residents, along with bypassing excess administration. It appears that one of the main differences in what is considered effective cost cutting between the right and the left is that the right believes that just denying those that "haven't worked hard enough to deserve it" will save the economy, where as it is seems liberals recognize the governments responsibility in providing for its people in the most efficient way possible.
Pelosi's comments were grossly misinterpreted as suggesting that, "birth control will help the economy" and Rush Limbaugh even had the audacity to suggest that if we want to keep pregnancy rates down to, "post a picture of Pelosi in every motel room in America," but more on that later. Apparently, the GOP is hanging on to every last argument they can, no matter how banal and imprecise. It is clear that state spending on family planning services not only save the state money and time, but have greater long-term benefits for the health of our people.
UPDATE: Obama might drop funds for family planning from the economic stimulus package. Argh!.
I've been reading so much lately about lay offs and bail outs and the general state of panic everyone seems to be in (has anyone else had friends blame ridiculous shit on the recession? I'm late because...well, you know, this recession.). It sucks. I'm with you. I'm really sad that some of my friends have lost their jobs, that my parents--who are on a fixed income--are worried about making ends meet for the long run etc.
In any case, I just wanted to say a few thank yous to the cosmic economic gods (not Milton Friedman, mind you, but some force more benevolent and wise).
1. Thank you for exposing the corruption and hubris of so many at the top of the economic food chain in a way that is undeniable and forces us, as a country, to face our own problem with greed that leads to so much inequality.
2. Thank you for making us re-examine our consumption practices. I hope that more Americans will realize that the explosion of storage spaces, consumer debt, and existential angst are not disconnected.
3. Thank you for the innumerable people who will be forced out of jobs that didn't fulfill them and inspired to creatively reinvent their lives so that, ultimately, they can be happier and contribute more to the world.
Got any thank yous you'd like to put out into the economic ether?
Reader Meredith sent along a link to this post by Steven Levitt on the Freakonomics blog:
What Do Prostitutes and Rice Have in Common?If you believe what you read, then the answer to that question is that they are both examples of one of economics' most elusive objects: Giffen goods. But don't always believe what you read.
A Giffen good is a product or service for which demand rises with price. In other words, if you hold everything else constant, but the good gets more expensive, the quantity consumed will increase.
I don't think it's inherently demeaning to analyze the economics of sex work. I do, however, think an entire post that equates human beings with a GRAIN is pretty fucking unacceptable. Also, note that the post does not compare the commodities purchased -- i.e. sex and rice -- but instead treats sex workers as if they themselves, rather than their services, are bought and sold.
Then, just in case any readers missed the fact that he doesn't think sex workers are human beings, Levitt turns it all into a big joke:
I offer a Freakonomics contest: the commenter who provides the best answer to the question of what prostitutes and rice have in common within the first 24 hours of this post will win their choice of Freakonomics schwag.
You'll be totally shocked to learn that the comments are a cesspool.
So I have a similar contest for you, dear commenters: What do asshole economists and rice have in common? Best answer wins a set of Feministing magnetic poetry.
Ever since I heard the anti-abortion protesters screaming in my ear and had their fake signs of dead babies thrown in my face as I sheepishly went into a Planned Parenthood on Colorado Avenue back in 1996, I've been pretty clear that these folks are up for using all sorts of manipulative tactics to limit choice. This new angle, however, surprised me. The argument goes:
We should stop federally funding Planned Parenthood because the economy is so bad and they already have private donations.
FYI, Planned Parenthood receives about $335 million a year from the government, specifically targeted for contraception, sex education and health care for poor women and teenagers. Yup. I'm sure this has everything to do with the failing economy and nothing to do with some strategic (not to mention righteous) thinking on the part of a few anti-abortion organizations that are trying to squeeze lemonade out of some really shitty lemons. Note: the federal funds don't go to abortions. That money comes from the other 2/3 of the budget raised through private sources. But I'm sure that the anti-choice folks see any way that they can hurt Planned Parenthood as a score for the team.
The Wall Street Journal gave this specious argument major column inches covering it in yesterday's paper, reporting that "The Family Research Council is developing a kit to help grass-roots activists dig through financial reports so they can make detailed presentations to elected officials about the assets and revenue of local Planned Parenthood chapters. The council has sent letters to 1,200 state legislators describing Planned Parenthood's strong financial position and urging 'a second look' at public funding."
Already, Planned Parenthood's in Florida and Georgia have been hit.
I ran across a really interesting article in Pink Magazine the other day about the ongoing struggle for pay equity. In it, journalist Christina Boufis makes a case for salary transparency.
She leads the article with a fascinating anecdote. Apparently Gloria Steinem once told a room full of corporate execs that they should pick one woman in the room and make a pact to always be honest with one another about their salaries. Paula Henderson, one of the young women in the room, made just such a pact, and through twenty years of career changes and economic ups and downs, she estimates that having that transparency made she and her pact partner about three million dollars!
Now certainly many of us aren't working in the same kind of lucrative field that Henderson and her partner are, but it really made me think about my own relationship to money when it comes to friends and colleagues. I've always been pretty transparent, partly because of my feminist values, but also because I think I've always hungered for the camaraderie of others who struggle with the freelance lifestyle (it's all feast and famine). But now I think I'm going to be even more transparent.
I urge you to send this post to someone you'd like to create a transparency pact with and ask her if she's down for the long haul. Or, if you're feeling really brave, just make a pact with yourself that you'll tell any and all other women how much you make if it looks like it might help them leverage their own salary negotiations or just make them better informed.
Via Veronica at Nuestra Vida, Nuestra Voz:
After a five-day sit-in at a Chicago window and door factory, workers declared victory as the Bank of America decided to extend credit to Republic Windows and Doors.The factory was slated to close when the Bank of America refused to continue credit to Republic Windows and Doors, a manufacturer of energy-efficient doors and windows, which would have not only put 300 people out of work and the benefits (including health care) that went along with it, but denied the workers the compensation and earned vacation and severance to which they were entitled. This is despite Bank of America having received millions of dollars in the financial bailout for the exact purpose of being able to give loans and credits to businesses. Since the bailout was highly unregulated, however, what many banks are choosing to do with their money is to simply sit on it, and are refusing to give small businesses credit at the cost, in this case, of hundreds of working-class jobs. The workers, however, who were part of the United Electrical Workers Union, occupied the factory and refused to leave until their demands were met.
[Starla D.] Darling, who was pregnant when her insurance ran out, worked at Archway for eight years, and her father, Franklin J. Phillips, worked there for 24 years."When I heard that I was losing my insurance," she said, "I was scared. I remember that the bill for my son's delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself."
So Ms. Darling asked her midwife to induce labor two days before her health insurance expired.
"I was determined that we were getting this baby out, and it was going to be paid for," said Ms. Darling, who was interviewed at her home here as she cradled the infant in her arms.
As it turned out, the insurance company denied her claim, leaving Ms. Darling with more than $17,000 in medical bills.
I just had to highlight this anecdote because it shows so starkly how all of these issues are connected.
Also check out the coverage of the sit-in at a Chicago factory on Sunday, where workers demanded the wages they're owed. Shark-Fu has more...
Related:
Women Charged More for Identical Health Insurance
Saving on health care costs by crossing borders
New report: Unionized women workers earn more
Health care is a feminist issue
Randy Albelda has an interesting piece over at The Boston Globe questioning if Obama's proposed stimulus package is sexist. Her argument:
Jobs in construction and many of those that come with green investment often pay decent wages with benefits. But they are overwhelmingly held by men. Outside of trickle-around effects, this stimulus package will not create jobs for women in any close proportion to the numbers that will be unemployed....Caring for those who cannot care for themselves, healthcare, and primary education are the very foundation of a civil society. Investing in these outcomes are as vital to our long-term economic health as airports, highways, wind turbines, and energy-retrofitted buildings. On the employment side, women are disproportionately employed in these sectors, so any stimulus package directed toward them would boost the employment prospects of women at all levels of the wage scale.
I see Albelda's point. Historically, the jobs she mentions have been gendered.
But we must not lose sight of the fact that caretaking, teaching, and wellness roles have been traditionally both imposed and embraced by women. Sometimes women have authentically been drawn to these fields; I certainly have female friends who love teaching, social work, and other caretaking professions. But some have been pressured into these professions along with traditional gender roles. When my grandmother was growing up, she could be either a teacher or a nurse. When my mom was growing up, she thought she might be a secretary because she heard if you got your work done really fast, you could read all day. Although young women today rarely have the same kind of social conscription when it comes to their career choices, many are still socialized to believe that a caretaking role in the most virtuous and congruent with their gender.
So, yes Albelda, let's pressure Obama to create lots of jobs in the educational and healthcare fields, but let's ask that his team do it, not because traditionally gendered jobs will continue perpetually to fall into "dude jobs" and "lady jobs," but because caretaking is valued as much as construction. And further, let's continue to support efforts like Men Teach and Non Traditional Employment for Women, that encourage both men and women to break out of traditional gender roles and follow their true calling.
