Quantcast
Channel: Data on Poverty & Income – NWLC
Viewing all 112 articles
Browse latest View live

Women and Poverty, State by State

0
0

More than one in seven women, more than 18 million, lived in poverty last year. Poverty rates were particularly high for families headed by single mothers — four in ten (39.8 percent) were poor. Nearly six in ten poor children (56.7 percent) lived in female-headed families in 2014.

Click on a state below to see how many female-headed families are living in poverty, plus:

  • The share of all women living in poverty
  • The share of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American women living in poverty
  • The share of children and of women 65 and older living in poverty

You can also download the data for every state, and see more of NWLC’s analyses of the latest data on women and poverty.

Sources:

National poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on 2015 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

State poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on 2014 American Community Survey.

Note:

Dashes indicate unavailable data. Data are given for women ages 18 and over. Female-headed families are families with female householders, no husband present and related children under 18.

The post Women and Poverty, State by State appeared first on NWLC.


FAQs about the Census Bureau’s Poverty Measures

0
0

Each year, the Census Bureau releases data on poverty and income in the United States, and the National Women’s Law Center analyzes these data to provide a picture of how women and their families are faring. The following frequently asked questions take a closer look at what the Census Bureau numbers tell us—and don’t tell us—about poverty.

What does the official poverty rate measure?

A number of federal and state benefits that help support lower-income families are not counted as income in the official poverty measure. “Non-cash benefits” like food stamps (SNAP) and housing assistance, and refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit, do not count as income for purposes of calculating the official poverty rate.

In determining if an individual or family is poor, the official poverty measure also does not account for expenditures, such as those on medical needs or child care, which can be very large for some families and leave them little income to meet other basic needs.

What doesn’t the poverty rate measure?

A number of federal and state benefits that help support lower-income families are not counted as income in the official poverty measure. “Non-cash benefits” like food stamps (SNAP) and housing assistance, and tax benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit, do not count as income for purposes of calculating the official poverty rate.

The official poverty measure also does not account for any expenditures, such as those on medical needs or child care, which can be very large for some families and leave them little income to meet other basic needs.

How are the official poverty thresholds set?

The official poverty thresholds, which were established in 1960s, are adjusted for inflation annually—but they have not been adjusted over the past 50 years to reflect changes in consumption patterns, demographics, and overall living standards. Moreover, the same poverty thresholds apply to every family of a given size across the country; they do not vary based on the cost of living in different areas.

How does the “supplemental” poverty measure differ from the official measure?

To provide a fuller picture of economic wellbeing, the Census Bureau has developed a “supplemental” poverty measure. The supplemental measure accounts for additional resources like refundable tax credits (such as the EITC) and non-cash benefits (such as SNAP and housing assistance). On the expense side, it takes account of work-related expenses (like transportation and child care), taxes, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. It also uses updated data to establish poverty thresholds and considers geographic differences in cost of living.

How do the differences in the poverty measures affect reported poverty rates?

The child poverty rate for 2014 is lower under the supplemental poverty measure (16.7 percent)6 than under the official measure (21.1 percent), because the supplemental measure reflects the impact of many safety net benefits targeted to families with children that are not counted as income in the official measure. In contrast, the poverty rate for seniors is higher under the supplemental measure (14.4 percent) than under the official measure (10.0 percent), because the major source of income for seniors, Social Security, is pre-tax cash income that is already counted in the official measure, while out-of-pocket medical costs that are especially high for seniors are accounted for in the supplemental measure.

Is anything else different about the data this year?

A special note on the poverty data release for 2014: after many years of research the Census Bureau has redesigned some of the income questions and survey procedures in the Current Population Survey to increase response rates and reduce reporting errors, and these changes resulted in some differences from previously released data for 2013. Additional technical information is available on the Census Bureau’s website.

Who is most likely to live in poverty?

A special note on the poverty data release for 2014: after many years of research the Census Bureau has redesigned some of the income questions and survey procedures in the Current Population Survey to increase response rates and reduce reporting errors, and these changes resulted in some differences from previously released data for 2013. Additional technical information is available on the Census Bureau’s website.

Census data show that more than 46 million Americans lived in poverty last year. What can be done to reduce that number?

The high rates of poverty we have seen in the U.S. in recent years are due in large part to the very severe recession that lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. Unemployment is a key driver of the poverty rate—and some groups, such as African American women and men, continue to experience unemployment at much higher rates than the overall rate, while long-term unemployment remains at crisis levels. Despite some improvements in employment in 2014, the overall poverty rate was unchanged from 2013.

It is important to note that poverty would be considerably more widespread and severe without the federal and state policies and programs designed to support family incomes—a fact demonstrated by the supplemental poverty measure data. For example, refundable tax credits reduced the overall SPM poverty rate by 3.1 percentage points in 2014, and these credits were particularly important for children: without these tax credits, the SPM poverty rate for children would be 23.8 percent instead of 16.7 percent. Social Security benefits had an especially large impact, reducing the overall SPM poverty rate by 8.2 percentage points; among seniors, without Social Security, the poverty rate would rise from 14.4 percent to 50.0 percent. (Social Security benefits are counted as income under the official poverty measure as well, so the official poverty rate would also be much higher without Social Security.)

There is more that the federal government can do. To lift more people out of poverty, Congress can maintain and strengthen effective programs like Social Security, SNAP, and tax credits for low-income families. It can end the austere budget policies that have slowed job growth and cut programs and services that help low-income families make ends meet. Congress can also promote economic growth by investing in infrastructure and providing aid to states and localities to invest in education—starting with the first years of life—and other key services. And it can help women support themselves and their families by promoting equal pay for women; raising the minimum wage; and ensuring access to health care (including reproductive health care), supports for pregnant and parenting workers, paid leave and predictable schedules, high-quality affordable child care, job training, and other supports for women workers.

The post FAQs about the Census Bureau’s Poverty Measures appeared first on NWLC.

FAQ About the Wage Gap

0
0

Women who work full time, year round in the United States were paid only 79 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts in 2014. For women of color, the gaps are even larger. This document provides details about the wage gap measure that the Census Bureau and the National Women’s Law Center use, factors contributing to the wage gap, and how to close the gap.

What’s behind NWLC’s wage gap figure?

The wage gap figure that NWLC reports at the national level is the same as that reported by the Census Bureau—the median earnings of women full-time, year-round workers as a percentage of the median earnings of men full-time, year-round workers. Median earnings describe the earnings of a worker at the 50th percentile—right in the middle. Earnings include wages, salary, net self-employment income but not property income, government cash transfers or other cash income—so basically the money people see in their paychecks. Working full time is defined as working at least 35 hours a week and working year round means working at least 50 weeks during the last twelve months.

The national wage gap data come from the Current Population Survey and include workers 15 and older. The wage gap is not broken down by occupation or industry, though data on earnings by industry and occupation for women and men are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Why does NWLC use this wage gap figure?

The 79-cent figure reflects the many discriminatory barriers to equal pay—including lower pay for women in the same job; the segregation of women into lower-paying jobs and exclusion of women from higher-paying, nontraditional jobs; bias against women with caregiving responsibilities; and lack of workplace policies to allow workers to care for families without paying a stiff economic penalty. The 79-cent figure demonstrates just how strongly these many factors impact the economic security of women workers.

Comparable figures for the 79-cent figure are also available in earlier Census Bureau data sets, allowing for a longer historical comparison and permitting the data to be tracked over time. We can look back at the wage gap to 1960, prior to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and are able to discern trends, like the fact that the wage gap has not budged in nearly a decade.

How do factors like education and occupation affect the wage gap?

The wage gap occurs at all education levels, after work experience is taken into account, and it gets worse as women’s careers progress. An NWLC analysis found that in only three occupations out of 111 are the median weekly earnings of women working full time not lower than those of men: computer occupations; wholesale and retail buyers; and bakers. Skeptics of the wage gap may also insist that the wage gap exists because of the occupational choices that women make. However, this argument ignores the fact that “women’s” jobs often pay less precisely because women do them, because women’s work is devalued, and that women are paid less even when they work in the same occupations as men. Cases of company-wide pay discrimination are further evidence that discrimination contributes to the wage gap.

Women are underrepresented in higher-paying jobs that are often dominated by men, and overrepresented in low-paying jobs—women are two-thirds of workers in occupations that typically pay $10.50 or less per hour, as well as two-thirds of minimum wage workers. Isolation, active discouragement, harassment, outright exclusion, and lack of information about alternative job options are all barriers to women’s entry into higher-wage jobs that are nontraditional for their gender. In contrast, women are clustered in low-paying jobs like home health aide, child care provider, and nursing home worker.

A study by labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn also demonstrates the effects of a variety of factors that influence the wage gap, like occupation, industry, work experience, and more. However, Blau and Kahn found that when you look at all of these factors combined, 41 percent of the wage gap still remained unexplained.

How does caregiving affect the wage gap?

Another factor that plays into the wage gap is the role of women as caregivers and the persistent discrimination against women workers with caregiving responsibilities. A study by Shelley Correll, Stephan Benard, and In Paik found that, when comparing equally qualified women candidates, women who were mothers were recommended for significantly lower starting salaries, perceived as less competent, and less likely to be recommended for hire than non-mothers. The effects for fathers in the study were just the opposite—fathers were actually recommended for significantly higher pay and were perceived as more committed to their jobs than non-fathers.

How does the wage gap impact women of color?

In 2014, African American women working full time, year round were paid only 60 cents, and Hispanic women only 55 cents, for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men—wage gaps that are both wider than for women overall. In 2014, Asian women working full time, year round were paid only 84 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. We compare to white, non-Hispanic men because women of color carry a double burden of both sexism and racism—so it’s important to take those both into account when we look at their economic security.

What can be done to shrink the wage gap?

Here is a commonsense set of solutions to help finally close the wage gap:

  • Strengthen our equal pay laws so that women have the tools they need to fight back against pay discrimination.
  • Build ladders to higher-wage jobs for women by removing barriers to entry into male-dominated fields.
  • Lift up the wages of women in low-wage jobs by raising the minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage.
  • Increase the availability of high-quality, affordable child care.
  • Help prevent and remedy caregiver and pregnancy discrimination against women workers.
  • Provide fair schedules, paid family leave, and paid sick days so that workers with caregiving responsibilities are not unfairly disadvantaged.

The post FAQ About the Wage Gap appeared first on NWLC.

Chartbook: Women’s Overrepresentation in Low-Wage Jobs

0
0

Anne Morrison & Katherine Gallagher Robbins

Download a PDF of the chartbook.

Over the past four decades, women’s work experience and educational attainment have increased dramatically. Although women have better credentials than ever before, the job and income prospects for many are bleak. Women make up two-thirds of the over 23 million workers in low-wage jobs—defined as jobs that typically pay $10.50 per hour or less—although they make up slightly less than half of the workforce as a whole.

This analysis reveals a stark reality: regardless of their education level, age, marital or parental status, race, ethnicity, or national origin, women make up larger shares of the low-wage workforce than do their male counterparts. This pattern holds in each of these groups, even though in virtually all of them women represent a similar or smaller share of the overall workforce than their male counterparts. What’s more, of all the groups of women analyzed, only one group of women—those who have a bachelor’s degree or more—is underrepresented in low-wage jobs, relative to its share of the overall workforce. Nearly every other group of women, including mothers, women in the prime of their career (ages 25-49), and women with some college or an associate’s degree, is overrepresented in the low-wage workforce, relative to its share of the overall workforce.  Even within these low-wage jobs, women working full time, year round are typically paid less than their male counterparts, and the wage gaps are even larger for most women of color.

The note on methods at the end defines “low-wage jobs” and other terms used in this chartbook.

Women Are Overrepresented in the Low-Wage Workforce
  • Over 15 million of the more than 23 million low-wage workers—2/3—are women, even though women are less than 1/2 of the overall workforce.

Pie Charts Comparison

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

At Every Education Level, Women’s Share of the Low-Wage Workforce is Larger than Men’s
  • At every education level, women make up a larger share of the low-wage workforce than their male counterparts, even though their share of the overall workforce is similar or smaller.
  • Women are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce at every education level except bachelor’s degree or higher. Only men without a high school degree are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce.

Low-Wage Workfroce by Sex and Educational Attaintment

Overall Workforce by Sex and Educational Attainment

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

 

Women at all ages make up larger shares of the low-wage workforce than men
  • Women at all ages make up larger shares of the low-wage workforce than men of the same age, even though they make up similar or smaller shares of the overall workforce.
  • Both young women and women in their prime working years are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce. Only young men are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce.

Low-Wage Workfroce by Sex and Age

 

Overall Workforce by Sex and Age

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

Both Single and Married Women Account for Larger Shares of the Low-Wage Workforce than Their Male Counterparts
  • Both single and married women make up larger shares of the low-wage workforce than their male counterparts, though their shares of the overall workforce are similar or smaller.
  • Single women are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce, while single men make up similar shares of the low-wage and overall workforces. Married women make up similar shares of the low-wage and overall workforces while married men are dramatically underrepresented in the low-wage workforce.

Low-Wage Workforce by Sex and Marital Status

 

Overall Workforce by Sex and Marital Status

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

 

Mothers’ Share of the Low-Wage Workforce is Larger than Fathers’
  • Mothers’ share of the low-wage workforce is 3 times larger than fathers’, even though their shares of the overall workforce are similar.
  • Mothers are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce, while fathers are dramatically underrepresented.

Low-Wage Workforce by Sex and Parental Status

Overall Workforce by Sex and Parental Status

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

 

Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Women Account for Larger Shares of the Low-Wage Workforce than Their Male Counterparts
  • Across racial and ethnic groups women account for larger shares of the low-wage workforce than their male counterparts, even though their shares of the overall workforce are generally similar or smaller.
  • All groups of women of color are overrepresented in the low-wage workforce. In comparison, no group of men is overrepresented.

Low-Wage Workforce by Race Ethnicity

 

Overall Workforce by Race Ethnicity

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

Foreign-Born and Native-Born Women Account for Larger Shares of the Low-Wage Workforce than Their Male Counterparts
  • Both foreign-born and native-born women account for larger shares of the low-wage workforce than their male counterparts, even though they make up similar or smaller shares of the overall workforce.
  • Foreign- and native-born women are both overrepresented in the low-wage workforce, while both foreign- and native-born men are underrepresented.

Low-Wage Workforce by Sex and Foreign or Native Born

 

Overall Workforce by Sex and Foreign or Native Born

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

 

Women Working in Low-Wage Jobs are Paid Less than Their Male Counterparts, and the Wage Gaps are Even Larger for Most Women of Color
  • Women working full time, year round in low-wage jobs typically earn just 85 percent of what their male counterparts earn, a 15 percent wage gap.

Median Annual Earnings in the Low-Wage Workforce by Sex

  • The wage gap is even worse when compared to white, non-Hispanic men, especially for some groups of women of color.

Wage Gaps in the Low-Wage Workforce by Race and Ethnicity

 

Share on Twitter     |       Share on Facebook

 

Note on methods

“Low-wage jobs” and the “low-wage workforce” could be defined in different ways; this analysis uses occupations that pay median hourly wages of $10.50 or less because $10.50 in 2014 is roughly equivalent to $12.00 in 2020, which is the proposed new federal minimum wage in the Raise the Wage Act pending in Congress (2015), see David Cooper, John Schmitt, & Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute, We Can Afford a $12.00 Federal Minimum Wage in 2020 (April 2015) available at http://www.epi.org/publication/we-can-afford-a-12-00-federal-minimum-wage-in-2020/. Median hourly wages for occupations are determined using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics data from May 2014 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). Unless otherwise noted, data are National Women’s Law Center calculations based on Current Population Survey (CPS) 2014 using Miriam King et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), Current Population Survey: Version 3.0 [Machine-readable database] (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010). Some detailed occupations listed in the BLS Occupational Employment Statistics are not available using CPS data in which case a broader level of occupation is used.

When comparing representation in the low-wage or overall workforces, groups are considered to have the same or similar representation if their ratio is between 1.1 and 0.9 (inclusive). Some differences may appear in the text due to rounding.

It is important to note that these comparisons are of workers. People who are not in the workforce, including incarcerated individuals, are not counted in the data. Young, less-educated men of color, especially African American men, are very disproportionately incarcerated, and thus not counted in a comparison of the types of jobs held by people who are in the workforce. Thus this analysis does not provide a full picture of the employment prospects for some groups of men of color and the impact of high rates of incarceration on their economic security.

 

 

The post Chartbook: Women’s Overrepresentation in Low-Wage Jobs appeared first on NWLC.

Katherine Gallagher Robbins, Director of Research and Policy Analysis

0
0

Katherine Gallagher Robbins is Director of Research and Policy Analysis at the National Women’s Law Center. She oversees the Center’s research with a primary focus on women’s economic security and educational equity. Dr. Gallagher Robbins holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a BA in Government from the College of William and Mary. Before attending graduate school she worked as an organizer for the California Public Interest Research Group at the University of California, San Diego.

Download high resolution photos

The post Katherine Gallagher Robbins, Director of Research and Policy Analysis appeared first on NWLC.

Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President

0
0

Nancy Duff Campbell is a founder and Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center, one of the nation’s pre-eminent women’s rights organizations. A recognized expert on women’s law and public policy issues, for over forty years Ms. Campbell has participated in the development and implementation of key legislative initiatives and litigation protecting women’s rights, with a particular emphasis on issues affecting low-income women and their families.

Ms. Campbell’s accomplishments include participation in successful Supreme Court litigation establishing that two-parent families with unemployed mothers are entitled to AFDC benefits, in Califano v. Westcott; organization and leadership of the Coalition on Women and Taxes, whose analyses and advocacy led to expanded tax assistance for single heads of household and the removal of six million low income families from the tax rolls in the Tax Reform Act of 1986; the establishment of a uniform right to child support enforcement services for all custodial parents without regard to income, in Parents Without Partners v. Massinga; a central role in drafting and pressing a national agenda on child care, which culminated in passage in 1990 of the first comprehensive child care legislation since World War II and several improvements in the succeeding years;  and expansion of the rights and remedies of military women facing sexual harassment, unfair family policies, and stereotyped limitations on their jobs and ability to serve in combat, through congressional legislation and Department of Defense policies. She is also the author of numerous articles on women’s legal issues.

Ms. Campbell has been named by Working Woman magazine as one of the top 25 heroines whose actions over the last 25 years have advanced women in the workplace, a Woman of Genius by Trinity Washington University, and the 2010 Woman Lawyer of the Year by the District of Columbia Women’s Bar Association. She received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for her work to improve child support enforcement and was appointed by Congress to the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, to study and make recommendations on a range of issues, including child support, custody and visitation; family services; and family and juvenile court systems. She was the only North American representative to the 2009 United Nations Conference on the Implications for Women of the Global Financial Crisis and in 2010 was appointed by the Secretary of Defense to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. She is the recipient of the District of Columbia Bar’s William J. Brennan Award, in recognition of her exemplary legal career dedicated to service in the public interest, Barnard College of Columbia University’s Millicent Carey McIntosh Award, and the Center for Law and Social Policy’s 25th Anniversary Award, and she has been recognized by her law school as an “NYU Alumnus/Alumna of the Month” and by Online Colleges as one of “20 Influential Female Lawyers Every Law Student Should Know.” She has been selected for inclusion in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, and Wikipedia. She has served on the District of Columbia Bar Board of Governors, including its Executive Committee, as well as numerous other boards, and currently is a member of the Princeton University Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Advisory Board, Low-Income Investment Fund Board of Directors, Alliance for National Defense Board of Advisors, and Institute for Women’s Policy Research Board of Advisors. She is also a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.

Ms. Campbell received her undergraduate degree from Barnard College of Columbia University in 1965 and her law degree from New York University School of Law in 1968. Prior to her work with the National Women’s Law Center, she was a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Catholic University School of Law in Washington, D.C., and an attorney with the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law (now the National Center for Law and Economic Justice) in New York.

Download high resolution photos

The post Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President appeared first on NWLC.

NWLC Reports on Women’s Income and Poverty Rates

0
0

Recovery is Still Far Off for Communities of Color

0
0

Every month when our team analyzes the jobs data we talk about what the numbers tell us and how that matters for policy. This month the story and implications are very clear—would policymakers be talking about raising interest rates if the overall unemployment rate looked like it does for communities of color?

While the vast majority of headlines about today’s data release are positive, they gloss over the difficult reality millions of jobless workers and their families—especially communities of color—are facing. This month the unemployment rate for adult Black men increased to nearly double digits. Unemployment for adult Black women was 8.0 percent. And the unemployment rate for adult Latinas rose for the second month in a row, hitting 6.7 percent—higher than it was a year ago.

Modern working desk with digital tabletThese numbers tell us that communities of color have a long way to go until they reach a recovery—and policymakers need to pay attention.

Additional key findings from NWLC’s analysis include:

 Unemployment for vulnerable groups remains high:

  • The overall unemployment rate was unchanged for the month at 5.0 percent, down from 5.8 percent a year ago.
  • Unemployment for adult women (20 and older) increased slightly in November to 4.6 percent from 4.5 percent in October, down from 5.2 percent a year ago.
  • In November, unemployment rates for adult Black women ticked down to 8.0 percent from 8.1 percent in October. The rate for adult Black men increased to 9.9 percent from 9.2 percent in October. These rates were lower than a year ago (9.5 percent for Black women and 11.2 percent for Black men), but double or more than the rates of their white counterparts last month: white women (4.0 percent, up from 3.9 percent in October) and white men (4.0 percent, down from 4.1 percent in October).
  • The unemployment rate for adult Latinas was 6.7 percent in November, up from 6.4 percent in October and higher than a year ago, when it was 6.5 percent. The unemployment rate for Latino men increased for the month to 5.4 percent from 5.1 percent, but was down from 5.8 percent a year ago.
  • The unemployment rate for single mothers dropped to 6.9 percent in November from 7.5 percent in September and from 8.2 percent a year ago, but is over 2 percentage points higher than for women overall.
  • The unemployment rates for women and men ages 16-64 with a disability are both higher than last year (13.1 percent for women, up from 13.0 percent in November 2014, and 13.3 percent for men, up from 10.5 in November 2014).

Jobs:

 Women gained one-quarter (25.6 percent) of the 211,000 jobs added in November, and half (52.5 percent) of the 2.6 million jobs added in the last year.

  • Women’s largest gains in November were in leisure & hospitality (+22,000) and private education & health services (+20,000).
  • Men’s largest gains in November were in construction (+46,000), retail trade (+33,200) and professional & business services (+26,000). Men lost jobs last month in information (-11,000) and mining & logging (-10,000).

The post Recovery is Still Far Off for Communities of Color appeared first on NWLC.


Set Up To Fail: When Low-Wage Work Jeopardizes Parents’ and Children’s Success

0
0

Cover of Set Up To Fail: When Low-Wage Work Jeopardizes Parents' and Children's SuccessEvery day, working parents in low-wage jobs are desperate to keep food on the table and a roof over their families’ heads, and to provide a better life for their children. Yet, even when they work full time, they may not earn enough to lift their children out of poverty. They often have unpredictable work hours over which they have little control, making it difficult to arrange child care or manage other family responsibilities. And when they must miss work to meet the demands that all parents face—sick children, doctors’ appointments, parent-teacher conferences—their jobs may be at risk. For many low-wage working parents, the conditions of their jobs effectively set them up to fail: meeting both their work and family obligations becomes an impossible juggling act. And too often, despite their best efforts, parents’ low wages and work conditions undermine their children’s chances for success as well.

Set Up to Fail draws on academic and policy research as well as workers’ own stories to describe the interconnected challenges faced by low-wage working parents in meeting their work and family responsibilities. The report concludes by identifying policy areas to address as part of a multifaceted strategy for overcoming these challenges, which will serve to frame a forthcoming agenda for change.

The post Set Up To Fail: When Low-Wage Work Jeopardizes Parents’ and Children’s Success appeared first on NWLC.

Union Membership is Critical for Equal Pay

0
0

Union membership boosts wages for all workers—but women see especially large advantages from being in a union. The wage gap among union members is less than half the size of the wage gap among non-union workers, and female union members typically earn over $230 per week more than women who are not represented by unions—a larger wage premium than men receive. Protecting and strengthening workers’ rights to come together to form a union is a key strategy for achieving equal pay for women.

The overall gender wage gap for union members is less than half the size of the wage gap for non-union
workers.

  • Among non-union workers, women working full time typically make 80 percent of what their male counterparts make weekly—a wage gap of 20 cents.
  • Among union members, that gap shrinks dramatically: women working full time typically make 91 percent of what their male counterparts make weekly—a wage gap of 9 cents.
  • The gender wage gap is also smaller for African American and Latina union workers. Among full-time workers:
    • The wage gap between African American women and white men is 34 cents among non-union workers, compared to 27 cents for union workers.
    • The wage gap between Latinas and white men is 40 cents among non-union workers, compared to 26 cents for union workers.
  • The wage gap for Asian American women disappears among union workers.
    • Among full-time union workers, Asian American women typically make slightly more than white men (an extra 4 cents on the dollar), while among full-time, non-union workers, Asian American women make less than white men, resulting in a 7-cent wage gap.
  • Greater wage transparency and standardization in collectively bargained wages, as well as the availability of formal grievance processes and union representation to address complaints regarding wages, likely contribute to the smaller gender wage gap among union members.

Women’s union wage premium is 1.6 times as large as men’s.

  • Union members typically make more per week than non-union workers—but the bonus is larger for women, and is especially large for some women of color.
    • Women union members who work full time typically make $928 per week—33 percent ($231) more than women non-union workers who typically make $697 per week. In contrast, men union members who work full time typically make $1,017 per week—17 percent ($148) more than men non-union workers who typically make $869 per week.
    • Among women, Latina workers experience particularly large financial benefits from union membership. Among full-time workers, Latina union members typically make 44 percent more ($237 per week) than Latina non-union workers.
    • Among full-time workers, African American women union members typically make 29 percent more ($173 per week) than African American women non-union workers.
    • Among full-time workers, Asian American women union members typically make 31 percent more ($256 per week) than Asian American women non-union workers.
    • Among full-time workers white women union members typically make 33 percent more ($237 per week) than white women non-union workers.

The rate of union membership ticked up slightly for women between 2014 and 2015.

  • The rate of union membership—the percentage of
    employees who were members of unions—remained flat
    in 2015 at 11.1 percent.
  • The percentage of employed women who were union members ticked up slightly between 2014 and 2015 to 10.6 percent from 10.5 percent, while the rate for men declined to 11.5 percent from 11.7 percent.

To promote equal pay for women, workers’ rights to organize must be strengthened—but these rights are under attack.

  • Half the states have enacted so-called right-to-work laws, which hinder workers’ efforts to organize and bargain collectively and result in lower wages for working people. Defending against such laws is critical to ensure the economic security of all workers and equal pay for women.
  • The ability of public sector unions to promote equality and economic security for women, who make up a majority of the public sector workforce, is presently being challenged in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The plaintiffs in that case are seeking to overturn nearly 40 years of precedent and establish new barriers to workers coming together to advocate for improved wages and working conditions in the public sector.
  • Other lawmakers are working to strengthen the right of workers to band together. The Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act, introduced in this Congress, would discourage employer retaliation against workers who exercise their right to organize and would assure that if the right to organize is denied, remedies will be prompt and fair.

Technical note: Unless otherwise noted, all data come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Union Members 2015 release (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). BLS data on union membership include all employed wage and salary workers 16 and older. Figures are annual averages. Data are not available broken down by gender and sector. Data on union representation (workers represented by unions include both workers who are union members as well as those who are not members but whose jobs are covered by a union contract) are not reported here but are similar to those for union membership. Wage gaps in this analysis are calculated based on median weekly earnings. These data differ slightly from the often-used measure of median annual earnings for full-time, year-round workers. Using that measure, the typical woman makes 79 percent of what the typical man makes (see National Women’s Law Center, The Wage Gap is Stagnant for Nearly a Decade (September 2015) available at http://www.nwlc.org/resource/wage-gap-stagnant-nearly-decade).

The post Union Membership is Critical for Equal Pay appeared first on NWLC.

Reggie Oldak, Senior Counsel and Director of Government Relations

0
0

Reggie Oldak was Senior Counsel and Director of Government Relations. She coordinated the Center’s advocacy efforts and also worked to promote fair tax and budget policies for low-income families. Prior to joining the Center in 2008, Ms. Oldak worked for the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service and then in private practice, primarily on issues affecting the taxation of nonprofit organizations. She is a past president of the Montgomery County (MD) Commission for Women, chaired the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, and has worked extensively with state and local government representatives and community leaders in Maryland to advocate for issues central to the concerns of women and girls. Ms. Oldak is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and Smith College.

The post Reggie Oldak, Senior Counsel and Director of Government Relations appeared first on NWLC.

Joan Entmacher, Former Vice President for Family Economic Security

0
0

Joan Entmacher is the former Vice President for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center, where she lead a team working to improve policies important to the economic security of low-income women and their families, including tax and budget, child care, child support, unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and Social Security. Ms. Entmacher is a leading expert on issues affecting low-income women. She has been invited to testify before Congress on several occasions, written numerous analyses and reports on income support policies and their impact on poor women, and spoken frequently at conferences, briefings, and to the media. Prior to joining the National Women’s Law Center, Ms. Entmacher served as Director of Legal and Public Policy at the National Partnership for Women & Families, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College, Chief of the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, and attorney in the U.S. Department of Labor Solicitor’s Office. Ms. Entmacher is a graduate of Yale Law School and Wellesley College.

Download high resolution photos

The post Joan Entmacher, Former Vice President for Family Economic Security appeared first on NWLC.

Poverty Rate Falls but Being a Woman Increases the Odds of Being Poor in America, Uninsurance Among Women Dropped by Nearly One-Third under the ACA, and the Wage Gap Closes by Just One Penny, NWLC Analysis Shows

0
0

More than 1 in 5 young Millennial women (ages 18-24) were poor in 2015

 

(Washington, D.C.)  Despite some substantial improvements on poverty, wages and health insurance for millions of Americans—nearly 17 million women lived in poverty last year, according to analysis by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) of data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. More than one in five or 3.1 million young Millennial women (ages 18-24) were poor last year. The data also show that women working full-time, year round, were paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts in 2015. Uninsurance among women (ages 18-64) dropped by nearly one-third, which means that 5.4 million more women have health insurance since the Affordable Care Act was implemented in 2013.

Poverty in 2015:

  • More than 1 in 8 adult women (18 and older), nearly 17 million, lived in poverty in 2015. The poverty rate among women was 13.4 percent in 2015, down from 14.7 percent in 2014.
  • The poverty rate for adult men in 2015 was 9.9 percent, down from 10.9 percent in 2014.
  • Poverty rates were higher for women who head families (36.5 percent), African American women (23.1 percent), and Hispanic women (20.9 percent).
  • More than 1 in 5 (21.7 percent) young, Millennial women (ages 18-24) were poor in 2015.
  • Millennial women (ages 18-34) were much more likely than their male counterparts to be in poverty. They were also much more likely than women of any other age group to be poor.
  • The poverty rate for women 65 and older decreased to 10.3 percent in 2015, from 12.1 percent in 2014. About two-thirds (64.6 percent) of the elderly poor were women in 2015.
  • About 1 in 5 (19.7 percent) children lived in poverty in 2015, down from 21.1 percent in 2014. More than half (56.2 percent) lived in female-headed families in 2015, unchanged from 2014.

“Today’s news is mixed,” said Anna Chu, NWLC Vice President for Income Security and Education.  “The official poverty rate fell by 1.2 percentage points and real median income rose 5.2 percentage points from 2014 to 2015.  But the grim reality is that being a woman still increases the odds of being poor in America. Women are 35 percent more likely to be poor than men. More than 1 in 8 women was poor in 2015. Women are about two-thirds of the elderly poor. And nearly 1 in 5 children were poor – more than half living in families headed by women. These statistics should be a loud wake-up call for Congress to strengthen income and work supports for women and families, including investing in child care, expanding tax credits for working families, and protecting the social safety net. Millions of Americans can’t wait any longer.”

Wage Gap in 2015:

  • Women working full time, year round were paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts in 2015, statistically unchanged from 2014.
  • Black women working full time, year round were typically paid only 63 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts in 2015, statistically unchanged from 2014.
  • Hispanic women working full time, year round were typically paid only 54 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts in 2015, statistically unchanged from 2014.

“Women of America, if you are looking for a raise, don’t get your hopes up:  the wage gap closed by only a penny last year,” said Emily Martin, NWLC Vice President for Workplace Justice. “Women are now typically being paid 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. While a small step forward is better than standing still, over a 40-year career women still stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to the wage gap. And for many women of color, the cost of the lifetime wage gap will still exceed a million dollars. We can’t afford to close this gap one penny at a time.”

Health Insurance and Medicaid Coverage in 2015:

  • Nearly 92 percent of women and girls had health insurance in 2015.
  • The uninsurance rate among women 18-64 dropped by nearly one-third, from 16.9 percent in 2013 to 11.3 percent in 2015.
  • More than 16.8 million women 18-64 relied on Medicaid in 2015, up 3.2 million since the Affordable Care Act was implemented in 2013.

“Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, uninsurance among women has dropped by nearly one-third,” said Fatima Goss Graves, NWLC Senior Vice President for Program. “This means that an additional 5.4 million women have health insurance since the law was implemented in 2013. Women’s access to meaningful and affordable health care has been an economic game changer: The birth control benefit alone has saved women more than $1 billion in just one year. The health law plays a pivotal role in bolstering economic security for women and their families.”

NWLC will continue to update its analysis here: http://www.nwlc.org/povertydata

###

For immediate release:  September 13, 2016

Contact:  Maria Patrick (mpatrick@nwlc.org) or 202-588-5180

The post Poverty Rate Falls but Being a Woman Increases the Odds of Being Poor in America, Uninsurance Among Women Dropped by Nearly One-Third under the ACA, and the Wage Gap Closes by Just One Penny, NWLC Analysis Shows appeared first on NWLC.

Women and Poverty in 2015

0
0

nwlc_unemployment2Today, the Census Bureau released data showing that many Americans are finally starting to make real economic gains in what has been an uneven economic recovery. The overall poverty rate in 2015 fell from 1.2 percentage points to 13.5 percent and the real median wage in 2015 increased 5.2%, the fastest ever increase ever recorded by the Census Bureau. At the same time, the overall health uninsurance rate fell 1.3 percentage points from 2014 to 9.1% in 2015. This good news shows that progressive policies are making a difference in people’s lives—the Affordable Care Act helped millions of people gain insurance coverage, refundable tax credits lifted an estimated 9.2 million people out of poverty, and overall safety net programs lifted more than 42 million people out of poverty.

Although the overall news is good, women are still 35 percent more likely to be poor than men. In 2015, 13.4 percent of women were in poverty, compared to 9.9 percent of men.

Here is a quick snapshot of poverty, the wage gap, and health insurance coverage among women and their families:

Poverty among Women and Families

  • Women have a 35 percent higher chance of living in poverty than men. In 2015, nearly 17 million adult women 18 and older (13.4 percent) lived in poverty—that is more than 1 in 8 women. The poverty rate for adult men in 2015 was 9.9 percent.
  • Poverty rates were particularly high for certain women:
    • Women who head families: 36.5 percent
    • African American women: 23.1 percent
    • Hispanic women: 20.9 percent
    • Millennial women ages 18 to 24: 21.7 percent
  • The poverty rate for women 65 and older decreased from 12.1 percent in 2014 to 10.3 percent in 2015, a statistically significant drop.
  • About 1 in 5 (19.7 percent) children lived in poverty in 2015, down from 21.1 percent in 2014. More than half (56.2 percent) lived in female-headed families in 2015, unchanged from 2014.

Wage Gap

  • Women working full time, year round were paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts, statistically unchanged from 2014.
  • Black women working full time, year round were typically paid only 63 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts, statistically unchanged from 2014.
  • Hispanic women working full time, year round were typically paid only 54 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts, statistically unchanged from 2014.

Health Insurance

  • As of 2015, nearly 92 percent of women and girls have health insurance.
  • The uninsurance rate among women 18-64 dropped by nearly one-third since the Affordable Care Act was implemented, from 16.9 percent in 2013 to 11.3 percent in 2015.
  • Adult women of all races gained health insurance in 2015, with Hispanic women seeing the greatest gains in proportion to their numbers. However, Hispanic women still have high rates of uninsurance among women ages 18-64, with 20.3 percent going without coverage, compared to 8.6 percent of white women and 13.6 percent of African American women.
  • More than 16.8 million women 18-64 relied on Medicaid in 2015, up 3.2 million since the Affordable Care Act was implemented in 2013.
  • Women continue to rely more heavily on Medicaid coverage than men. 16.8 percent of adult women ages 18 to 64 relied on Medicaid in 2015, compared to 13.5 percent of adult men.

Stay tuned to NWLC’s blog and follow @nwlc on Twitter (#talkpoverty) and Facebook to learn more about what the Census data tells us about how women and their families are faring— and to find out what you can do to help make sure next year’s data show improvements on all fronts.

The post Women and Poverty in 2015 appeared first on NWLC.

Caring Means Sharing…in the Wage Gap

0
0

And some employers still discriminate against working moms by assuming they are less committed to their jobs… Photo from Facebook post by Megan Meier, an Oklahoma City sports medicine physician, who is seen here attending to a football player even though her child care fell through.

The wage gap numbers for 2015 are in: overall, women working full time, year round in the United States earned a paltry 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The wage gap for many women of color is even larger—in 2015, for example, African American women made 63 cents and Latina women made 54 cents for every dollar made by a white, non-Hispanic man. And these unfair numbers haven’t budged in a decade.

I hope you’re asking yourself: It’s 2016–what the heck is going on here?!

There are several, unfortunate dynamics contributing to the wage gap. Outright discriminatory decisions to pay women less for the same job; subconscious bias and sex stereotypes that lead employers to value women’s work less; the segregation of women into lower-paying jobs and exclusion from higher-paying, non-traditional jobs.

And Then There Is the Impact of Caregiving…

Women’s caregiving work is a key dynamic that contributes to the gender wage gap and that too many have pointed to as evidence that the wage gap stems from women’s choices, not discrimination. The argument goes: women don’t earn as much as their male counterparts because they choose to take time off work or to work part-time to care for children, or they choose to be more focused on their kids and less committed to their careers.

Workplace Policies and Practices Penalize Women for Taking Time to Care

Arguing that “women’s choices” explain the wage gap overlooks a lot of the ways these choices are constrained. By and large, the American workplace remains structured around outdated assumptions that men are the primary breadwinners and that they have wives who stay home and care for children. As a result, few employees—especially workers in low-wage jobs, 2/3 of whom are women—have access to affordable child care, paid sick leave, or paid family and medical leave. Or women face unpredictable and inflexible work schedules that make staying employed and meeting caregiving responsibilities nearly impossible. Likewise, the way many workplaces value employee worth—so often based on the number of hours put in at work instead of production or performance—penalizes women who have caregiving responsibilities. These outdated workplace structures mean that many women with caregiving responsibilities are losing wages because they are forced out of the workplace, forced to cut back on their hours, forced to take leave without pay, or because their work is undervalued.

Caring for children or other family members shouldn’t necessarily mean a pay cut—but too often it still does.

Discrimination Against Caregivers is a Real—and Persistent—Problem

And then there is the persistent discrimination that women with caregiving responsibilities—and mothers in particular—face in the workplace, which leads to lower wages.

Working mothers still face discrimination based on gender stereotypes about mothers’ competence and commitment at work. A 2007 study found, for example, that when comparing equally qualified women candidates, women who were mothers were recommended for significantly lower starting salaries, perceived as less competent, and less likely to be recommended for hire than non-mothers. The effects for fathers in the study were just the opposite—fathers were actually recommended for significantly higher pay and were perceived as more committed to their jobs than non-fathers.

Given all that, it is not surprising that, in 2014, mothers who worked full time, year round typically made only 73 cents for every dollar paid to fathers. (We won’t know for a few more months whether the wage gap for mothers changed in 2015). Caregiver discrimination disproportionately affects women, and in particular women of color, who are more likely to be employed while raising young children or caring for other individuals, and more likely to be the sole source of income for their families.

This discriminatory dynamic is why states have begun considering—and in Maryland’s case, passing—anti-“mommy tracking” provisions in their equal pay bills to curtail employers from passing women over for promotion opportunities based on discriminatory stereotypes about their commitment to their jobs. Likewise, six states—including Delaware just this year—have enacted laws prohibiting discrimination based on family caregiving responsibilities to some degree.

So, yes, caregiving is one driver of unequal pay for women. And that’s a reason for mobilizing to change our workplace policies and nondiscrimination laws so that caring doesn’t mean sharing in the wage gap.

The post Caring Means Sharing…in the Wage Gap appeared first on NWLC.


National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women & Families, 2015

0
0

By Jasmine Tucker and Caitlin Lowell

The U.S. Census Bureau data released in September 2016 shows that many American families are experiencing some real economic gains. Despite this good news, women’s poverty rates were substantially above the poverty rate for men in 2015. More than one in eight women – more than 16.9 million – and nearly one in five children – more than 14.5 million – lived in poverty in 2015. More than half of all poor children lived in families headed by women.

Women were 35 percent more likely to live in poverty than men

  • More than one in eight women, more than 16.9 million, lived in poverty in 2015. More than 2 in 5 (45.7 percent) of these women lived in extreme poverty, defined as income at or below 50 percent of the federal poverty level. This means nearly 1 in 16 women lived in extreme poverty last year.
    Women (13.4 percent) were 35 percent more likely than men (9.9 percent) to live in poverty in 2015. Women were also more likely than men to be in extreme poverty: 6.1 percent of women versus 4.4 percent of men lived in extreme poverty in 2015.
  • Poverty was even higher for certain groups of women
  • Women in all racial and ethnic groups were more likely than white, non-Hispanic men to be in poverty. 9.6 percent of white, non-Hispanic women lived in poverty in 2015, compared to 7.1 percent of white, non-Hispanic men. However, poverty rates were particularly high for women of color:
    o African American women: 23.1 percent of African American women lived in poverty.
    o Native American women: 22.7 percent of Native American women lived in poverty.
    o Hispanic women: 20.9 percent of Hispanic women lived in poverty.
    o Asian women: 11.7 percent of Asian women lived in poverty.
  • More than 1 in 6 (17.6 percent) foreign-born women lived in poverty in 2015.
  • The poverty rate for women with disabilities (ages 18-64) (31.6 percent) was higher than it was for women without disabilities (12.7 percent), men with disabilities (25.3 percent), and men without disabilities (9.3 percent).

What Does the Federal Poverty Rate Measure?

The official poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau measures the percentage of the U.S. population with total income below the federal poverty threshold for their family size (e.g., $24,036 in 2015 for a family of four with two children). “Income” is calculated before taxes and includes only cash income, such as:

  • Earnings
  • Pension income
  • Investment income
  • Social Security
  • Unemployment benefits
  • Child support payments

A number of other federal and state benefits that help support low-income families are not counted as income under the official poverty measure. These include:

  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly known as Food Stamps)
  • Tax benefits (e.g., Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit)
  • Housing subsidies

Nearly 1 in 5 children lived in poverty in 2015

  • More than 14.5 million kids lived in poverty in 2015, more than two out of five of whom (45.1 percent) lived in extreme poverty. This means that nearly one in five (19.7 percent) children was poor last year.
  • Poverty rates were even higher for certain groups of children:
    o African American children: Nearly 1 in 3 (32.9 percent) African American children lived in poverty.
    o Hispanic children: More than 1 in 4 (28.9 percent) Hispanic children lived in poverty.
    o Native American children: More than 1 in 4 (30.7 percent) Native American children lived in poverty.
    o Asian children: Nearly 1 in 8 (12.3 percent) Asian children lived in poverty.
    o White children: More than 1 in 9 (12.1 percent) white, non-Hispanic children lived in poverty.
    o Foreign-born children: More than 1 in 4 (28.3 percent) foreign-born children lived in poverty.

More than 1 in 3 single mother families lived in poverty in 2015

  • Over half of all poor children (56.2 percent) lived in families headed by women.
    About 525,000 single women with children (11.2 percent) who held full time jobs throughout 2015 were poor last year.
  • Female-headed households with children were much more likely to be in poverty than male-headed households or households headed by married couples. The poverty rate for female-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared to 22.1 percent for male-headed families with children and 7.5 percent of families with children headed by married couples.
  • Families headed by women of color fared even worse:
    o African American female-headed families: Nearly 2 in 5 (39.9 percent) of African American female-headed families with children lived in poverty.
    o Hispanic female-headed families: More than 2 in 5 (41.9 percent) of Hispanic female-headed families with children lived in poverty.
    o Native American female-headed families: Nearly half (48.4 percent) of Native American female-headed families lived in poverty.
    o Asian female-headed families: Nearly 1 in 4 (24.2 percent) of Asian female-headed families lived in poverty.
    o White female-headed families: More than 1 in 4 (30.6 percent) white, non-Hispanic female-headed families lived in poverty.
  • Families headed by foreign-born women also experienced high rates of poverty: more than 2 in 5 (41.0 percent) of foreign-born female-headed families lived in poverty in 2015.

Older women were more likely to be poor than older men

  • Women made up nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent) of all poor people 65 and older in 2015.
  • The poverty rate for women 65 and older was 10.3 percent, 3.3 percentage points higher than the poverty rate for older men (7.0 percent).
  • Poverty rates were particularly high for certain groups of older women in 2015:
    o African American women: Nearly 1 in 5 (19.6 percent) African American women 65+ lived in poverty.
    o Hispanic women: About 1 in 5 (20.1 percent) Hispanic women 65+ lived in poverty.
    o Native American women: Nearly 1 in 4 (24.6 percent) Native American women 65+ lived in poverty
    o Asian women: About 1 in 7 (14.2 percent) Asian women 65+ lived in poverty.
    o White women: More than 1 in 13 (7.7 percent) white, non-Hispanic women 65+ lived in poverty.
    o Foreign-born women: Nearly 1 in 6 (16.1 percent) foreign-born women 65+ lived in poverty.
    o Women living alone: More than 1 in 6 (16.8 percent) women 65+ living alone lived in poverty, compared to 12.6 percent for men 65 and older living alone.

The post National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women & Families, 2015 appeared first on NWLC.

Women and Poverty, State by State

0
0

More than one in eight women, more than 16.9 million, lived in poverty last year. Poverty rates were particularly high for families headed by single mothers — 1 in 3 (36.5 percent) lived in poverty. More than half of all poor children (56.2 percent) lived in female-headed families in 2015.

Click on a state below to see how many female-headed families are living in poverty, plus:


Sources:

National poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

State poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on 2015 American Community Survey.

Note:

The “African American” race category includes those who identified themselves in the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey as Black or African American. The “Asian” race category includes those who identified themselves as Asian. The “Native American” race category includes those who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaskan Native. The “white” race category includes those who identified themselves as white, but not of Hispanic origin. The “Hispanic” category includes people of any race who identified themselves to be of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.

Dashes indicate unavailable data. Data are given for women ages 18 and over. Female-headed families are families with female householders, no husband present and related children under 18.

The post Women and Poverty, State by State appeared first on NWLC.

This Native American Women’s Equal Pay Day, We Need to Close the Gap

0
0

Piggy Bank.

Today we observe Native American Women’s Equal Pay Day, marking the symbolic day this year to which Native American women have to work to catch up to the earnings of their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts last year. The wage gap is bad for all women, but it is even worse when we look specifically at Native American women and other women of color. Women in the United States who work full time, year round are typically paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts, yet Native American women are paid only 58 cents for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts. The wage gap that Native American women face doesn’t’ just impact them; it also has damaging implications for their families. Research has found that two out of three Native American women are mothers and the primary breadwinners for their families, meaning that the wage gap these women experience has serious consequences for children and families across the country.

Thirteen states have wage gaps for Native American women that amount to over one million dollars in losses over a 40-year career. That is an unbelievably large number. But the five below have the largest gap- and do the most damage over a lifetime to a Native American Woman’s earnings.

States With the Worst Lifetime Wage Gap for Native Women:

#5: Virginia:

Native American women working in Virginia are typically paid $27,683 less than their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts, creating a lifetime wage loss of $1,107,320 over the course of their career.

#4: Texas:

The gap in Texas between Native American women’s yearly income and their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts is nearly as large as the state-$28,627- adding up to a lifetime income loss of $1,145,080 for Native American women.

#3: New Jersey:

Native American women in New Jersey typically make $43,029 a year compared to the $73,551 that their white, non-Hispanic, male counterparts make. The $30,522 difference between the two amounts to $1,220,880 in lifetime losses for Native American women over their careers.

#2: Delaware:

In Delaware, a white, non-Hispanic man’s annual income for the year is $54,784 while a Native American woman’s annual income is only $22,159, a difference of $32,589 that amounts to a lifetime loss of $1,303,560 for Native women in the state.

#1: California:

In California, the typical gap between Native American women and white, non-Hispanic men’s annual wages is $34,833 dollars, adding up to a whopping $1,395,320 in lifetime losses due to the wage gap.

These numbers are staggering and demonstrate the devastating effect the wage gap has on Native American women and their families. The worst overall gender wage gap in the nation is in Louisiana, where women overall working full time, year-round only make 65.3 cents for every dollar men make. In 37 states, including Louisiana, the wage gap for Native American women is even wider. So while the wage gap negatively impacts all women, today we acknowledge that Native American women in this country face an especially challenging road to equal pay and economic security. Join the National Women’s Law Center and our allies today on Twitter by using the hashtag #NativeWomenEqualPay during a Twitter storm at Noon Eastern Time. Let’s lift up the voices of Native American women around the country and stand in solidarity for today’s #NativeWomenEqualPay.

The post This Native American Women’s Equal Pay Day, We Need to Close the Gap appeared first on NWLC.

Poverty Rates State by State Tables, 2015

0
0

More than one in eight women, more than 16.9 million, lived in poverty last year. Poverty rates were particularly high for families headed by single mothers — 1 in 3 (36.5 percent) lived in poverty. More than half of all poor children (56.2 percent) lived in female-headed families in 2015.

Download the data for every state here, and see more of NWLC’s analyses of the latest data on women and poverty.

Sources:

National poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on 2016 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

State poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on 2015 American Community Survey.

Note:

The “African American” race category includes those who identified themselves in the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey as Black or African American. The “Asian” race category includes those who identified themselves as Asian. The “Native American” race category includes those who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaskan Native. The “white” race category includes those who identified themselves as white, but not of Hispanic origin. The “Hispanic” category includes people of any race who identified themselves to be of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.

Dashes indicate unavailable data. Data are given for women ages 18 and over unless otherwise noted. Female-headed families are families with female householders, no husband present and related children under 18.

The post Poverty Rates State by State Tables, 2015 appeared first on NWLC.

Older Women and Poverty: Takeaways from the 2015 Census Data

0
0

Final_nwlc_SocialSecurityPov2016While the 2015 Census Bureau Data showed that many American families are experiencing real economic gains, the data also paint a picture of women’s economic lives that continues to be of concern.

  • Women overall make just 80 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. For older women, the wage gap is even wider: working women aged 65 and older only make 73 cents for every dollar earned by men of the same age. Women of color experience even greater wage gaps overall, and when they are older.
  • The wage gap adds up over time – and the cumulative impact is shocking.  A woman would have to work more than 50 years to earn what a man earns in 40 to make up the $418,800 she loses over her lifetime from the wage gap.
  • A lifetime of lower earnings and more time spent out of the workforce (often for caregiving responsibilities) has a striking impact on women’s economic security as they grow older.  Because Social Security benefits are based on lifetime earnings, the average Social Security retirement benefit for women 65 and older is less than that received by men of the same age (about $14,411 per year, compared to $18,258 for men of the same age). And because they have fewer earnings and savings – and tend to live longer – women rely more on their Social Security benefits than men do.

The bottom line is that 10.3 percent of older women were poor in 2015 (compared to 7.0 percent of older men), with nearly 1 in 5 African American women, about 1 in 5 Hispanic women, and nearly 1 in 4 Native American women aged 65 or over living in poverty in 2015. And of the 1.56 million older women living alone, more than 1 in 6 (16.8 percent) was poor.  We can – and should – do better by and for our nation’s women.

The post Older Women and Poverty: Takeaways from the 2015 Census Data appeared first on NWLC.

Viewing all 112 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images