Obama Adviser: Stimulus Won't Be Sexist, Not Just Help For "Burly Men"

The Obama transition team put out a video on Sunday detailing the job creation components of their proposed stimulus legislation.

Putting aside, for a moment, the novelty of having the Chair-designate for the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, using YouTube to discuss the contours of a potentially $1 trillion stimulus, you get a sense of the kind of political pressures facing Obama's economic gurus.

Romer, during the nine-minute long clip, recounts how shortly after her appointment was announced, she received an email from a women's group expressing concern that any stimulus effort would disproportionately aid "burly men."

"That's been in the back of my mind as I've looked at this and thought about this, and that's where I have been one of the strong proponents," said the Berkeley economics professor. "The balance of the program, the fact that it does have the investments in education and health care, it does have the state fiscal relief, it does have the middle class tax cuts. All those pieces are creating jobs in some of the sectors like health care, education and retail trade, where women are a disproportionately large fraction."

In conversations with several women's issues officials, you do indeed get the sense of legitimate worry that the makeup of the stimulus package will be too focused on construction and manufacturing -- traditionally male areas of work.

"There is great concern," Martha Burk, formerly chair of National Council of Women's Organizations, told the Huffington Post, "not only that women won't get the jobs, but that unemployment itself is not helping women in the same numbers as men."

And, as such, the Obama team has been pressured in public and private to -- at the very least -- take into consideration the circumstances that women confront in the labor market and make sure that the stimulus bill reflects these circumstances. In her video Romer addressed this as well, saying:

We do think, obviously, if we are going do a lot of investment in roads and bridges, we are probably going to create jobs in construction. Absolutely, that is in there. But again... think about the investment in health care and education or state fiscal relief. Those are creating jobs in education and health care, not just in construction or in manufacturing where you might be used to thinking about where that kind of government spending is going to show up. Likewise, if you have a middle class tax cut, one of the places that that shows up is in wholesale and retail trade, because as people start buying things, we need people to run stores again...

...The jobs effects are somewhat concentrated in some industries, absolutely. Construction and manufacturing will have more than you get if you just had a completely generic kind of recovery package. But it is pretty broad-based and it is going to show up throughout the economy.

Comments

[truegreen]

uh...i think the Obama adviser was just kidding!

[hortonhearsawho2]

So, Burly women will get help to is it...

[PATina]

While more jobs may go to men... I don't think women will automatically lose out. One of the things my friends and I are the 'support' jobs that women could get. For example... if states increase the number of projects (roads, schools, etc.) they are working on... it would seem likely that it would create the need for more support staff in handling those projects (working on budgets, payroll). Also, while this may seem like a double edged sword... more people getting on unemployment... more people will be needed to help process the unemployment claims, job counseling, etc.

[PennP]

And I'd bet that those "support" jobs will pay $1 to every $2 of the "real" jobs.

[PATina]

You're probably right... but once they are hired... and we pass the Employee Free Choice Act... it will be easier to organize... and bargain for equal pay.

[BLinCincinnati]

I'm so sick of the "what about me" whining from one group or another.

Even if all the money went to fund "burly men" jobs. Those men would now have money, health care, and a job. They are going to likely get hurt and need health care. They are going to see doctors, dentists, insurance agents, etc with that paycheck. They are going to spend money in restaurants, shops, online, etc. They are going to take their families on vacations, to the movies, games, or other events. They are going to put money into investments, stash it away for their kids education. Their wives will spend it on clothes, groceries, bills, etc.

You don't need to directly hand the money to one group or another, to have the beneficial effects seen by that group.

[PATina]

Understood... but when women make less than men... and many households are headed by women... isn't it plausible for them to be concerned about how the stimulus would benefit them? W/ the exception of your first sentence... I think your post is quite good. It explains how women can benefit from the stimulus... you just may have educated a woman or two. However, your first sentence makes it more likely that they would take offense at your explanation... and less likely that they would heed your advice.

[ouroborous]

No, even his first sentence was correct, even if it was worded a little harshly.

The problem is that we can spend from now until eternity slicing this stimulus package up until it is politically correct and acceptable to every group. Once women, gays, African Americans, and every other interest group has given it their stamp of approval, the bill will be so straightjacketed and so late that it'll be essentially dead.

While implying that women who want parity are "whiners" may be a little harsh, the poster's point is a good one; we may have to put aside identity politics for the time being and focus on doing the most good for the most people right now, even if the result isn't perfect.

[scnilajo6]

I am a huge Obama supporter & a unemployed­/underempl­oyed female...this does not make me feel any better for those like me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/obama-adviser-stimulus-wo_n_157156.html#

[mcantwell]

Article from CNN: President-elect wants to computerize the nation's health care records in five years.

"The biggest cost will be paying and training the labor force needed to create the network."

"But highly skilled health information technology professionals are as rare as they come, and many IT workers will need to be trained as health technology experts."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/12/technology/stimulus_health_care/index.htm?cnn=yes

[bygollymissmolly]

And if it goes as it has in the past, those jobs will be sent to India.

[mcantwell]

It's part of the Recovery Stimulus package to create jobs IN AMERICA.

[robXdion]

But jobs held by men are hit hardest in a largely service economy, no matter what feminists say.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Saying women can't mess up a drive thru burger order ...

[AnnfromCA]

We'll know the reality when we see the programs actually being proposed. Right now, it's all generalities.

It does sort of sound like a bridge-builder's paradise.

[hortonhearsawho2]

given some time....