JESSE POWELL writes:

In 1900 and before, the rates of divorce, illegitimacy, and working married women were all very low. Indeed, they all had similar levels in the distant past and they all have similar levels today. It is widely agreed that divorce and illegitimacy are indicators of family breakdown but what about married women working? Isn’t a married woman working a sign of “empowerment” and vital to her sense of identity and a necessary part of her contribution to society?

In 1900, certainly, people didn’t think so. A look at family-related indicators from the distant past suggests that this view was correct. Married women working should be seen as just as significant an indicator of family breakdown as illegitimacy and divorce; all three phenomenon were rare in the past and socially stigmatized. Similarly, today, all three phenomena are common and widespread.

 In 1900, the divorce rate was 8.1 percent (only 3.3 percent in 1870), the illegitimacy ratio was about 1 percent, and the proportion of married women working was 3.0 percent (I’m referring to white women here). In 2009, the divorce rate was 50 percent; the illegitimacy ratio was 29.0 percent, and the proportion of married women working was 61.3 percent. This represents about a twentyfold increase in all three measures over the course of 110 years (140 years on the measure of divorce). The annualized rates of growth in the quantity of the three measures are 2.5 percent for divorce, 3.5 percent for illegitimacy, and 3.7 percent for married women working.

Looking at all three of these indicators, decade by decade, you find that they all grow in an exponential fashion incrementally, radically transforming what used to be seen as obviously bad and dysfunctional behaviors into normal and acceptable matters of “personal choice,” and in the case of married working women something that is actively promoted as a positive social good. Don’t be fooled. Married women working is just as much an indicator of family breakdown as illegitimacy and divorce are. These are three different indicators of family breakdown, all rare 100 years ago (among whites) and all common today.

I would like, however, to look at the economic realities of women working and how this phenomenon has affected the relative incomes of men, women and the family.

The economy grew rapidly in America starting in 1934, after the bottom of the Great Depression.  We have all heard of the “post-War boom” which was from 1947 until 1973, however, in terms of total economic output per person, that measure of material prosperity accelerated starting in 1934 and has been rising very rapidly ever since all the way up to the current day. At the same time, in recent decades, there has been a sharp rise in income inequality, with median wages for the less educated actually falling.  

The period from 1947 to 1973 is still significant, however, because during that time America’s economic growth went directly to fulfilling consumer needs (not for war production) and because more importantly men’s wages, as well as women’s wages, went up rapidly during this period, at a rate of a little more than 2 percent a year. 

This period of broadly shared prosperity, for all social classes, abruptly came to an end in November 1973 due to the beginning of a recession caused by an Arab oil embargo.  The embargo  determined the specific timing of the end of the post-War boom but why did the “post-War boom” truly end?  Did the rate of introduction of new innovations and new technologies suddenly and permanently slow down starting in 1973?  One obvious factor is the feminist revolution, which brought women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers. With women taking on leadership and decision-making roles in companies and with anti-discrimination laws forcing businesses to hire and promote women even when such policies are opposed by company management, we see a general decline in social cohesiveness, a weakened attachment to living one’s life according to an ethical code and the removal of incentives for men to strive in the working world. 

From 1948 to 1973, women’s participation in the labor force grew greatly, but the proportion of women working part-time compared to full-time also grew during this period; in addition, the education level of men grew more than the education level of women.  Before 1973, you could say that women were at the periphery of the labor force instead of being in the center of it. The anti-discrimination laws that resulted from the 1965 Civil Rights Act were still new and the feminist glorification of work had not fully taken hold. 

Below are two tables describing the changes in men’s and women’s economic outcomes before and after 1973. All data is from government sources.

The labels in the table are: EA (Educational Attainment, the percentage with a college degree or higher among the 25 years old and older population); ME (Median Earnings, for full-time year round workers 15 years old and over, expressed in constant inflation adjusted 2009 dollars); R/C (Rate of Change, the annual rate of change in median earnings compared to the prior date); LFPR (Labor Force Participation Rate, among those 25 to 54 years old, for January of the following year); CTME (Comparative Total Median Earnings for Wage and Salary workers 15 years old and older; here I take the median Wage and Salary Income for all Wage and Salary workers multiplied by the total number of such workers for men and women and compare the total median earnings of women and men, expressed as the proportion of women’s earnings compared to men.) 

(* – EA given for 1960 is actually for 1959) 

 Labor Status Before and After 1973 for Men 

The next table shows per capita money income from the Current Population Survey from 1967 to 2009, in 2009 dollars; all income and earnings figures I give are expressed in constant 2009 dollars, all figures are inflation adjusted.  Per capita money income is based on the money income the respondents to the Current Population Survey reported receiving.  “Per Capita” means the income received is divided among everyone whether they personally had any income or not. 

The labels in the table are: PCMI (Per Capita Money Income, expressed in constant 2009 inflation adjusted dollars), R/C (Rate of Change, the annualized rate of increase in PCMI compared to the prior date), All (both men and women); Men; Women.

Per Capita Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2009, and Employment to Population Ratio for those 16 years and over, December of each year 

 The above table shows that family income, divided by all members of the family, has been growing at a progressively slower and slower rate since 1967, with a literal “0.0%” rate of growth from 1998 to 2009.  The high rate of 3.0% a year from 1967 to 1977 is partly due to baby boomers emerging from childhood and entering the workforce.  I include information on the proportion of men and women 16 years old and older who are working to help explain why the rates of increase in per capita money income reported are what they are. 

The next table examines median income for men and women from 1950 to 2009.  Not all income comes from earnings; “income” includes all sources of cash income whether earned or not; income from investments or retirement plans is included, Social Security is included, welfare is included, and the income women receive from alimony or child support payments is also included in the total amount of income that women receive. 

The labels in the table are: Men (the median income of men expressed in 2009 dollars); Women (same thing for women); Ratio/W (Ratio to Women, ratio of male median income to women); ratio (ratio of the number of women receiving some income compared to the number of men with income; many women before 1980 had no separate source of income and so were not included when calculating “median income” ); %gM (% growth Men, the annual rate of growth in Men’s median income compared to the prior date); %gW (% growth Women, same thing for women) 

Median Income – 15 years and older 

 This next table shows the actual earnings power of men and women, what they are paid at their jobs.  I’m sure you’ve heard the cry “a woman only makes 60 cents for every dollar a man makes”; well, the below table is where that statistic comes from.  Women’s earnings compared to men have been steadily climbing since 1981, when they were at 59.2 percent, up to 77.0 percent in 2009. 

The time from 1960 to 1981 was a period of stagnation in women’s earnings compared to men; during that time women’s median earnings grew at a rate of 1.3 percent a year and men’s grew at 1.4 percent a year; from 1981 to 2009, when women’s earnings in relation to men took off, their earnings grew at a rate of 1.0 percent a year while men’s earnings grew at 0.1 percent a year.  From 1960 to 1973, when women’s earnings grew at 2.2 percent a year, their earnings in relation to men fell from 60.7 percent to 56.6 percent, the lowest comparative earnings for any year since 1960. 

Such is the stupidity of complaining about “the earnings gap”; these figures suggest that when the earnings power of men is harmed and undermined the entire labor market is damaged and women’s earnings end up being suppressed as well. 

The labels in the below table are: Men (the median earnings of men in constant 2009 dollars), Women (same thing for women), Ratio/W (ratio of men’s earnings compared to women), %gM (annual rate of growth in Men’s earnings compared to the prior date), %gW (same thing for Women’s earnings) 

Median Earnings – Full Time Year Round Workers

15 years old and over 

 Since 1973, income inequality has grown, as you can see in the tables below. The below tables cover a period of 34 years, from 1973 to 2007.  If wages had grown at 2 percent a year over this period, as was the case from 1947 to 1973, then wages would have doubled.  For no demographic group shown, among men or women, did wages double over the 1973 to 2007 period.  

The labels in the table are:  20% (wages at the 20^th percentile, 20% earned less and 80% earned more), 50% (the median wage), 80% (wages at the 80^th percentile),  HSgrad (High School Graduate only, no college education), COLgrad (College Graduate only, Bachelor’s Degree but no higher).  Wages are expressed in constant 2009 dollars. 

Hourly Wages; by Class Status and Education Level

Men 

Hourly Wages; by Class Status and Education Level

Women 

Sources:

US Census Bureau – Income – People

US Census Bureau; Table P-53. Wage or Salary Workers by Median Wage or Salary Income and Sex

Economagic.com: Economic Time Series Page

Economic Policy Institute; Datazone: National Data

Please follow and like us: