General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 10 reasons why girls and women are essential to ending extreme poverty [View all]ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:59 AM - Edit history (1)
My claim is: poor is poor, and poverty is the issue.
* Black & latino women are most likely to have pay parity with black and latino men (91% parity) -- and black and latino women are also most likely to be poor. Low wages = poverty, period.
* Low wage working women in general, including white women, are most likely to receive "gender-equal" wages. It doesn't make them less poor. Low wages = poverty, period.
* Male wages have stagnated since the 1970s, during which period women's increased moderately. At the same time, the real value of the minimum wage declined, pulling down the wages of low-income workers generally. The result: only the top tier of households gained, while the rest flatlined. Low wages = poverty, period.
*Although younger cohorts have the most gender-equal wages, they are also the households doing worse economically in comparison with their historic peers. Poor = poor, regardless of gender equality.
"◾The age cohort with the grimmest history, of course is the 15-24 bracket. As of 2011 they have the sole distinction of a lower real median income than their 1967 counterparts 7.9% lower. At least 2011 was better for this cohort than 2011, when they were 11.9% below their real 1967 income level."
* In fact, in contrast with post-war trends, no one is doing well but the upper middle class and the rich. And *that's* the real problem, one that equalizing the wages of the already poor won't remedy. They're already equal, and still poor.
The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[6]
Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap