What Will Obama's "Good Jobs in America" Mean for Women?

UPDATE: Linda Hirshman has expanded on this topic in the December 9 New York Times.

President-elect Barack Obama's economic agenda includes a goal of creating 2.5 million jobs by 2011. It's too early to know the details of the plan, much less what will be enacted by Congress and what its overall effects will be. But early indications are the plan will do more to improve the jobs outlook for men than for women (a problem suggested to me by sociologist Paula England, an expert on gender inequality).

Some general aspects of the agenda, such as small business and job creation credits, are ostensibly gender neutral. But what about the "immediate investments to rebuild America's roads and bridges and repair our schools"? According to government data, the construction industry employs 90% men. And the auto industry bailout? Motor vehicle and equipment manufacturing is a 73% male industry, car dealers' employees are 79% male. (The overall labor force is 54% male.)

Those may be worthy investments anyway, but what about the investment in human infrastructure? England suggests pre-K education. In a 2007 article, Makiko Fuwa and I listed the public childcare enrollment rates for 34 countries. In the U.S., 14% of preschool aged children are in public childcare, which is higher than some rich countries, like Australia (3%) or Japan (1%) - but lower than most, such as Britain (31%), and in a different league from Denmark (90%), Sweden (84%), and France (83%). Instead, the U.S. relies on a system of private care, which is spotty and unequally distributed. The Head Start programtripled in size in the 1990s, then grew only about 10% in the 2000s.

What does it mean to lag behind on this crucial investment indicator? The benefits of pre-k education are well known, as are the problems with its availability and quality in the U.S. Kids with good pre-k education are more likely to graduate high school, with less grade repetition and lower chances of being in special education programs or being arrested for a violent crime. When they grow up they are more likely to have jobs and earn higher wages. All this means the return on pre-k education investment is many-fold over the long run.

What would a universal pre-k program mean for women's employment? The direct effect is clear. Pre-k and kindergarten teachers are 98% female. Of course, these are low-paying jobs, but a shot in the arm from on high might help with that, too.

Indirectly, childcare problems put the squeeze on women's ability to get and keep jobs. Studies show that the costs of childcare for pre-school-aged children have strong negative effects on mothers' employment rates, especially single mothers. Lowering childcare costs to improve women's employability might even see lead to more women getting those good construction jobs Obama plans to subsidize.

Obama says he wants to address the immediate economic crisis in a way that supports long term goals. If one of those goals is reducing gender inequality, then universal pre-k education might be a good place to start.

Comments

[rollingoffset]

I'm a female construction worker - a pipefitter - and a damn good one. I love what I do. I wouldn't trade it for a career in any other industry, and I certainly wouldn't trade it for marriage to a pipe fitter. The myth that women can't or don't want to work construction is just that: a myth.

[Social Construct]

Darn those social and institutional norms and mores. Perhaps we can begin to teach our young in those pre K schools that employment is less of a gender issue. When genderfication roadblocks begin in the home and are perpetuated by our institutions it gets very difficult to convince young minds that this is a social problem. The earlier we start the better.

[tavote08]

Get a life!!!! How about a woman doing your job only better....

[lafrance]

Apparently the writer has not listen to any of Obama's speeches or town halls which cspan carried throughout the primaries and general election.
President Obama talked about universal pre-K. He talked alot about the need for starting before kindergarten and to reform the education system and bring back things like art and music and the things that make for a good rounded education and keeps kids stimulated and involved.
I suggest the writer dial up youtube and check out some of his old campaign speeches and town halls and his answer will be there.

[jitsnbeer]

I don't think that we need to bring back the art and music programs. There has been studies already proving that art and music do not make people more creative. these art and music programs will just be generating more starving artists that contribute nothing to American society.

[Eastexgal]

Are you kidding? It was Da Vinci the artist that first conceived the idea of the helicopter, and Da Vinci the mathematician that painted The Last Supper.
Art and discovery go hand in hand.

[Samalabear]

I second this. You have got to be kidding. Artists contribute nothing to American society? What is your problem?

[hippynanainblingland]

Though I can't quote them, studies have shown that kids involved in music learning also get more effectively involved in mathematics, as well. It's not about creating more starving artist, bro, (or sis), it's about rounding up education.

[egal]

What does creativity have to do with it? Art and music programs improve MATH and SCIENCE performance, which should be self-explanatory, as well as language arts and English performance. They also increase learning and grades in every single other course, across the board, as well as helping with confidence. But, you know, the so-called "creativity" study is more important, because it's not like math and science are vital in education, employment, and virtually all other achievements.

The results all show that adding arts and music classes improve scholastic and later (job) performance across the board, far more than even extra, intensive studies within an individual subject--not to mention increasing reasoning and memory--but perhaps that's not important enough for your mention.

[Philip N. Cohen - Huffpost Blogger]

Right, thanks. The question is whether that will be part of the stimulus/recovery operation or the long-term policy agenda.

[canucklivinginUSA]

It is a crucial part of his agenda, and I think, given his mandate, it will definitely be part of the stimulus operation. He would win big if its part of the recovery operation instead of the long-term agenda

[liberalrebuttal]

Ha Ha !

Watch how many FEMALE Iraq Vets take theses "muscle jobs" and watch employers even attempt to pay them less than the men.

Ha Ha Ha.

You just watch.

[gypsy508]

"Good jobs?" I still remember jobs created under the Clinton years - outside of the high tech bubble that later burst, mostly a lot of crappy ones. I wouldn't hold your breath.

[NABNYC]

If Obama wants to help women obtain equality in the workplace, he needs to stand up and speak up, dedicate his administration to that goal. Construction jobs are a good place to start. Just tell the contractors that they will only get the job if they have only American workers (as opposed to illegal immigrants, who have done much of the construction jobs in recent years at minimum-wages), and must have a certain percentage women in their company -- on the job and in the front office. Tell everyone that. Tell the Democratic leadership that we need 50% women and not one less in the Senate and the House, in the governor's seats, in state and local government. We need the same in the law firms and aerospace and other companies that are given government work, which will force the other firms to follow. It's very simple: women are out there ready to do the work, but the good old boys refuse to hire them, or to promote them, or in any way to treat them fairly.

I can't see that expanding the pink collar ghetto is an answer to much of anything. If anyone thinks teaching pre-k is so important, then why don't we have men doing that job? (I think it is important but should not be a consolation prize for women who are excluded from other professions). Why don't we push for 50% tenured college professors as women if we really want to get serious?

[Liberal2]

"...If anyone thinks teaching pre-k is so important, then why don't we have men doing that job?...."

Because small children don't accept men as readily as they do women, women being a better "comfort" figure at that age. Men do better in the upper grades because teen age boys accept direction better from men.

I'm not arguing one gender is better than another, but how the psychology of the student makes one more effective than the other.

[UncommonSenz]

ENOUGH with the identity politics. There are some who keep trying to create "issues" where there are none.

Yes, the construction industry is overwhelmingly male- but the dollars in construction multiply much further than other professions (like, say pre-k as your example). Construction projects mean manufacturing purchases, which means more dollars for those firms that make the tools they use. It means permits and licensing fees, which grow the local tax base. It means jobs for the vendors that set up on site to service the workers. And since the wages are fairly high (compared to service industry jobs) it means more trips to the local mom and pop eatery, the grocery store, etc. which helps keep those jobs in place. That is known as the multiplier effect and it is much stronger with construction jobs than something like pre-k.

This incessant "what has he done for this group" stuff has to stop if we ever hope to move forward.

[lafrance]

Bravo!!!!!! The hallmark of the failed boomer thinking and politics. As a tailend boomer I have long grown weary of identity politics that rendered most of the democratic party paralyzed because they could not do anything more then pay homage to the different interest groups with their individual agendas of "What about me" and 'What I want".
They found themselves unable to break free and talk in big terms or sweeping ideas because everyone demanded their own indentity group be singled out and bowed to.
As a woman, I don't want my party held hostage anymore by identity politics and immature babyish demands of 'me, me, me'
One of things I really loved about President Obama was that he was one politician that refused to bow and scrape to identity politics and pay special homage to all these individual agendas and spoke instead of unity of all of us and the community and people as a whole - not an identity or group.
Identity politics died with the Clintons and political correctness to the extreme. And boomer control. It's just sooooooo 90s and thank god it is over! and we are moving back to the whole and away from identity agendas.

[Philip N. Cohen - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for commenting. "Back to the whole" is an interesting comment. What era when did the parties had an agenda that supported "the whole" would you like to return to? I can't place it. I think as long as there are inequalities experienced by groups, there will be agendas to address them. If the construction industry is almost all male and higher-paying, and pre-k jobs are almost all female and low-paying, isn't that a problem?

[canucklivinginUSA]

To add to your points, we seriously need to imitate the millenials approach to issues instead. I am a tailend generation X(sometimes I am lump with millenials) who believe in inclusiveness and consensus. That is the best way forward in trying to correct wrongs of the past decades.

[Liberal2]

Again, someone who thinks they understand economics because they can spell the word. NO DAMMIT, your example is complete nonsense. If construction jobs were stimlators because of all the money spent...well, damn, spend twice as much on each project. Economic stimulation is when money spent today creates conditions for higher net income tomorrow.

A farmer raises crops, but transportation from his farm is poor,
1/3 of his produce goes bad before it reachs the market. If a
railroad spur is built, he and other farmers no longer lose a high
percentage of their potential income. THAT"S FREAKIN'
STIMULUS!

To put it in abstract terms: economic stimulus is physics.

[propitiousmoment]

The point is a little more complicated than that. A lot of women have trouble getting into and retaining better career positions because of the childcare problem. Opening up pre-k means BOTH employment for more women, because those jobs tend to be filled by women, AND letting more women (others, obviously) pursue more lucrative careers.