Yellen Touts America’s Women as Solution to Solve Slow Growth: But Trump Touts “Handmaid’s Tale”

Donald Trump’s Mother’s Day proclamation is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale” reported Quartz (source). The Handmaid’s Tale is a 1985 dystopian novel[2] by Canadian author Margaret Atwood.[3][4] Set in a near-future New England, in a totalitarian theocracy that has overthrown the United States government, the novel explores themes of women in subjugation and the various means by which they gain individualism and independence. While on fiction, America under Trump & his GOP backers, including the Right Wing Evangelicals, has ushered in many back-slide American women’s had gained in recent years, under the Left and Liberal America. Meanwhile, America’s most powerful economist, Yellen, said solution for slow growth of the US economy is more working women. If women worked at the same rate as men, the US economy would be 5% bigger, according to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, who cited a 2012 study. This article on Yellen by CNN is presented towards the end of this blog post. Globally, UK’s top media & research house, in 2006, summarized the situation. This article is presented also toward the end of this blog post.

On women, From the Wikipedia.

The educational gender gap in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries has been reduced over the last 30 years. Younger women today are far more likely to have completed a tertiary qualification: in 19 of the 30 OECD countries, more than twice as many women aged 25 to 34 have completed tertiary education than have women aged 55 to 64. In 21 of 27 OECD countries with comparable data, the number of women graduating from university-level programmes is equal to or exceeds that of men. 15-year-old girls tend to show much higher expectations for their careers than boys of the same age.[84] While women account for more than half of university graduates in several OECD countries, they receive only 30% of tertiary degrees granted in science and engineering fields, and women account for only 25% to 35% of researchers in most OECD countries.[85]

In 1992, women earned 9 percent of the PhDs awarded in engineering, but only one percent of those women became professors.[citation needed] In 1995, 11 percent of professors in science and engineering were women. In relation, only 311 deans of engineering schools were women, which is less than 1 percent of the total. Even in psychology, a degree in which women earn the majority of PhDs, they hold a significant amount of fewer tenured positions, roughly 19 percent in 1994.[88]

Women are underrepresented in government in most countries. In October 2013, the global average of women in national assemblies was 22%.[90] Suffrage is the civil right to vote. Women’s suffrage in the United States was achieved gradually, first at state and local levels, starting in the late 19th century and early 20th century, and in 1920 women in the US received universal suffrage, with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Some Western countries were slow to allow women to vote; notably Switzerland, where women gained the right to vote in federal elections in 1971, and in the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden women were granted the right to vote on local issues only in 1991, when the canton was forced to do so by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland;[91][92] and Liechtenstein, in 1984, through a women’s suffrage referendum.

 

CNN reports (source)

America’s most powerful economist, Yellen, said solution for slow growth of the US economy: More working women

If women worked at the same rate as men, the US economy would be 5% bigger, according to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, who cited a 2012 study.

“We, as a country, have reaped great benefits from the increasing role that women have played in the economy,” Yellen said Friday at Brown University, her alma mater, which is celebrating 125 years of admitting female students. “But evidence suggests that barriers to women’s continued progress remain.”

Yellen shed light on the legacy and challenges faced by women in the workforce.

Her chief point: America needs better policies to encourage more women to work full careers. Sustained careers could help narrow the gender wage gap and boost growth overall.

Women working full-time still earn about 17% less than men per week, Yellen said. Even when comparing men and women in the same job positions with similar backgrounds, the wage gap is 10%.

Yellen also warned that the US is falling behind other advanced economies in Europe. The rate of working women in the US economy — known as female labor force participation — ranks 17th out of 22 advanced nations.

What’s troubling is that female participation among those who could be working has declined since 2000. Participation of “prime age” women between 25 and 54 years old is at 74.7% today, down from its peak of 77.3% in 2000, though it did make progress last year.

Male participation is much higher at 88.8%.

Yellen argued that European economies are seeing more working women due to expanded parental leave policies, increased affordability of child care and more opportunities for part-time work.

Citing research, Yellen said if the US had such workplace policies as those in Europe, female participation could jump to 82% from 74.3%.

That would boost the economy, she argued.

“We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back,” Yellen said, quoting Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani advocate for women’s education and Nobel Prize winner.

“WHY can’t a woman be more like a man?” mused Henry Higgins in “My Fair Lady”. Future generations might ask why a man can’t be more like a woman. In rich countries, girls now do better at school than boys, more women are getting university degrees than men are and females are filling most new jobs. Arguably, women are now the most powerful engine of global growth.

In 1950 only one-third of American women of working age had a paid job. Today two-thirds do, and women make up almost half of America’s workforce (see chart 1). Since 1950 men’s employment rate has slid by 12 percentage points, to 77%. In fact, almost everywhere more women are employed and the percentage of men with jobs has fallen—although in some countries the feminisation of the workplace still has far to go: in Italy and Japan, women’s share of jobs is still 40% or less.

The Economist reports (source)

Women and the world economy

A guide to womenomics

The future of the world economy lies increasingly in female hands

The increase in female employment in developed countries has been aided by a big shift in the type of jobs on offer. Manufacturing work, traditionally a male preserve, has declined, while jobs in services have expanded. This has reduced the demand for manual labour and put the sexes on a more equal footing.

In the developing world, too, more women now have paid jobs. In the emerging East Asian economies, for every 100 men in the labour force there are now 83 women, higher even than the average in OECD countries. Women have been particularly important to the success of Asia’s export industries, typically accounting for 60-80% of jobs in many export sectors, such as textiles and clothing.

Of course, it is misleading to talk of women’s “entry” into the workforce. Besides formal employment, women have always worked in the home, looking after children, cleaning or cooking, but because this is unpaid, it is not counted in the official statistics. To some extent, the increase in female paid employment has meant fewer hours of unpaid housework. However, the value of housework has fallen by much less than the time spent on it, because of the increased productivity afforded by dishwashers, washing machines and so forth. Paid nannies and cleaners employed by working women now also do some work that used to belong in the non-market economy.

Nevertheless, most working women are still responsible for the bulk of chores in their homes. In developed economies, women produce just under 40% of official GDP. But if the worth of housework is added (valuing the hours worked at the average wage rates of a home help or a nanny) then women probably produce slightly more than half of total output.

The increase in female employment has also accounted for a big chunk of global growth in recent decades. GDP growth can come from three sources: employing more people; using more capital per worker; or an increase in the productivity of labour and capital due to new technology, say. Since 1970 women have filled two new jobs for every one taken by a man. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the employment of extra women has not only added more to GDP than new jobs for men but has also chipped in more than either capital investment or increased productivity. Carve up the world’s economic growth a different way and another surprising conclusion emerges: over the past decade or so, the increased employment of women in developed economies has contributed much more to global growth than China has.

Girl power

Women are becoming more important in the global marketplace not just as workers, but also as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors. Women have traditionally done most of the household shopping, but now they have more money of their own to spend. Surveys suggest that women make perhaps 80% of consumers’ buying decisions—from health care and homes to furniture and food.

Kathy Matsui, chief strategist at Goldman Sachs in Tokyo, has devised a basket of 115 Japanese companies that should benefit from women’s rising purchasing power and changing lives as more of them go out to work. It includes industries such as financial services as well as online retailing, beauty, clothing and prepared foods. Over the past decade the value of shares in Goldman’s basket has risen by 96%, against the Tokyo stockmarket’s rise of 13%.

Women’s share of the workforce has a limit. In America it has already stalled. But there will still be a lot of scope for women to become more productive as they make better use of their qualifications. At school, girls consistently get better grades, and in most developed countries well over half of all university degrees are now being awarded to women. In America 140 women enrol in higher education each year for every 100 men; in Sweden the number is as high as 150. (There are, however, only 90 female Japanese students for every 100 males.)

In years to come better educated women will take more of the top jobs. At present, for example, in Britain more women than men train as doctors and lawyers, but relatively few are leading surgeons or partners in law firms. The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching. This pattern is likely to change.

The fairer and the fitter

Making better use of women’s skills is not just a matter of fairness. Plenty of studies suggest that it is good for business, too. Women account for only 7% of directors on the world’s corporate boards—15% in America, but less than 1% in Japan. Yet a study by Catalyst, a consultancy, found that American companies with more women in senior management jobs earned a higher return on equity than those with fewer women at the top. This might be because mixed teams of men and women are better than single-sex groups at solving problems and spotting external threats. Studies have also suggested that women are often better than men at building teams and communicating.

To make men feel even worse, researchers have also concluded that women make better investors than they do. A survey by Digital Look, a British financial website, found that women consistently earn higher returns than men. A survey of American investors by Merrill Lynch examined why women were better at investing. Women were less likely to “churn” their investments; and men tended to commit too much money to single, risky ideas. Overconfidence and overtrading are a recipe for poor investment returns.

Despite their gains, women remain perhaps the world’s most under-utilised resource. Many are still excluded from paid work; many do not make best use of their skills. Take Japan, where only 57% of women work, against 65% in America (see chart 2). Greater participation by women in the labour market could help to offset the effects of an ageing, shrinking population and hence support growth. Ms Matsui reckons that if Japan raised the share of working women to American levels, it would boost annual growth by 0.3 percentage points over 20 years.

The same argument applies to continental Europe. Less than 50% of Italian women and only 55-60% of German and French women have paid jobs. But Kevin Daly, of Goldman Sachs, points out that among women aged 25-29 the participation rate in the EU (ie, the proportion of women who are in jobs or looking for them) is the same as in America. Among 55- to 59-year-olds it is only 50%, well below America’s 66%. Over time, female employment in Europe will surely rise, to the benefit of its economies.

In poor countries too, the under-utilisation of women stunts economic growth. A study last year by the World Economic Forum found a clear correlation between sex equality (measured by economic participation, education, health and political empowerment) and GDP per head. Correlation does not prove the direction of causation. But other studies also suggest that inequality between the sexes harms long-term growth.

In particular, there is strong evidence that educating girls boosts prosperity. It is probably the single best investment that can be made in the developing world. Not only are better educated women more productive, but they raise healthier, better educated children. There is huge potential to raise income per head in developing countries, where fewer girls go to school than boys. More than two-thirds of the world’s illiterate adults are women.

It is sometimes argued that it is shortsighted to get more women into paid employment. The more women go out to work, it is said, the fewer children there will be and the lower growth will be in the long run. Yet the facts suggest otherwise. Chart 3 shows that countries with high female labour participation rates, such as Sweden, tend to have higher fertility rates than Germany, Italy and Japan, where fewer women work. Indeed, the decline in fertility has been greatest in several countries where female employment is low.

 

It seems that if higher female labour participation is supported by the right policies, it need not reduce fertility. To make full use of their national pools of female talent, governments need to remove obstacles that make it hard for women to combine work with having children. This may mean offering parental leave and child care, allowing more flexible working hours, and reforming tax and social-security systems that create disincentives for women to work.

Countries in which more women have stayed at home, namely Germany, Japan and Italy, offer less support for working mothers. This means that fewer women take or look for jobs; but it also means lower birth rates because women postpone childbearing. Japan, for example, offers little support for working mothers: only 13% of children under three attend day-care centres, compared with 54% in America and 34% in Britain.

Despite the increased economic importance of women, they could become more important still: more of them could join the labour market and more could make full use of their skills and qualifications. This would provide a sounder base for long-term growth. It would help to finance rich countries’ welfare states as populations age and it would boost incomes in the developing world. However, if women are to get out and power the global economy, it is surely only fair that men should at last do more of the housework.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s