At the Golden Globes last night, Connie Britton wore a sweater that said “Poverty Is Sexist.”

What does that mean? Well, we interpret that slogan in light of what we know about poverty. And the data tell us that, year after year, women are more likely to live in poverty than men. Single mothers, women of color, and elderly women are at particularly high risk of living in poverty. Specifically:

• Women were 38 percent more likely to live in poverty than men in 2016, the most recent year for which we have data. In 2016, more than 16 million women 18 and older, lived in poverty – compared to about 11 million men 18 and older.
• Women made up nearly two-thirds of the elderly poor in 2016.
• More than one in three female-headed families with children were poor in 2016, compared to 17.3 percent of male-headed households and 6.6 percent of married-couple families. Poverty rates were higher for Black women who head families (38.8 percent) and Latinas who head families (40.8 percent).
• Women of color more generally, as well as immigrant women and women with disabilities, are more likely to be poor than white, non-Hispanic men.

Here’s hoping that attention to the sexual harassment, discrimination, and other forms of inequality – including economic inequality — that women face every day will bring real change in 2018 and beyond. #TIMESUP

The post Poverty IS Sexist appeared first on NWLC.

Someone please tell the president that Black women face an unemployment rate at nearly twice the rate of white men. If you have been watching the news, you heard the President brag about the Black unemployment rate. Although the unemployment rate for Black workers was at a record low in December, the unemployment rate ticked back up in January – by 13 percent. And the overall Black unemployment rate of 7.7 percent is nothing to brag about, especially when the overall unemployment rate has held steady at 4.1 percent for the last four months.

The unemployment rate for Black workers is too high. Jobs data for January released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that Black workers are unemployed at over two times the rate of white workers.

The president sent a tweet to Jay Z last weekend and gave himself a pat on the back during the State of the Union address when he made the critical yet common mistake when he failed to recognize the individual experience of Black women. The data show that the unemployment rate for Black women this month (6.6 percent) was nearly twice the rate of white men’s (3.4 percent).

These obstacles are not new for Black women. In fact, if you are anything like me, you were very surprised to learn that the president’s State of the Union speechwriters hadn’t read any of our numerous blogs on the employment obstacles Black women face.

We ran the numbers and did the research and found that Black women face a steep wage gap, higher unemployment rates, employment discrimination, and a wealth gap. Until we enact policies that address the needs of Black women, there is no room for celebration.

However, the president pointed to a Black unemployment rate that has steadily fallen since 2011 to celebrate the Republican tax plan.  But the tax plan is set to leave many Black families behind. More than half of households with a Black householder (56 percent) are in the bottom two income quintiles. Yet our analysis shows 75 percent of the tax benefits will go to the top twenty percent of households.

At NWLC we are focused on centering women and girls of color. We will continue to recognize and fight for Black women until we can brag about Black women making $1 for every $1 paid to white, non-Hispanic men instead of just 63 cents; until less Black women are able to say #metoo; and until the unemployment rate for Black workers is equal to the unemployment rate of white workers.

This is not too much to ask for and we will continue to fight for it.

The post The Proof is in the Numbers: Black Women are Still Unemployed appeared first on NWLC.

Union membership boosts wages for all workers—but women see especially large advantages from being in a union. The gender wage gap among union women and men is about half the size of the wage gap among non-union workers, and female union members typically earn $224 more per week than women who are not represented by unions—a larger wage advantage than men receive. Protecting and strengthening the rights of working people 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 about half the size of the wage gap for those not represented by a union.

• Among non-union workers, women working full time typically make 81.6 percent of what their male counterparts make weekly—a wage gap of more than 18 cents.
  
• Among union members, that gap shrinks dramatically: women working full time typically make 88.0 percent of what their male counterparts make weekly—a wage gap of just 12 cents.
• Latina, Asian, and Black[1] women who belong to unions also experience smaller race and gender wage gaps. Among those working full time:
  • The wage gap between Latinas and white, non-Hispanic men is 38 cents among non-union workers, compared to 29 cents for union workers.
  • The wage gap between Asian women and white, non-Hispanic men is 12 cents among non-union workers, compared to 6 cents for union workers.
• 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 advantage is larger than men’s.

• Union members typically make more per week than non-union workers—but the bonus is larger for women, both as a percentage and as absolute dollars, and is especially large for Latina women.
  • Women union members who work full time typically make $970 per week—30 percent more ($224 more) than women non-union workers who typically make $746 per week. In contrast, men union members who work full time typically make $1,102 per week—5 percent more ($188 more) than men non-union workers who typically make $914 per week.
  • Among women, Latina workers experience particularly large financial benefits from union membership. Among full-time workers, Latina union members typically make 36 percent more per week ($227 more) than Latina non-union workers.
  • Among full time workers, Black women union members typically make 23 percent more ($148 more per week) than Black women non-union workers.
  • Among full time workers, Asian women union members typically make 14 percent more per week ($120 more) than Asian women non-union workers.
  • Among full-time workers, white women union members typically make 32 percent more per week ($248 more) than white women non-union workers.

The rate of union membership ticked down slightly for women between 2016 and 2017.

• The rate of union membership—the percentage of all employees who were members of unions—remained flat in in 2017 at 10.7 percent.
• The percentage of employed women who were union members ticked down slightly between 2016 and 2017 to 10 percent from 10.2 percent, while the rate for men went up to 11.4 percent from 11.2 percent.
• The percentage of employed Latinas who were members of unions ticked up between 2016 and 2017 to 9.1 percent from 8.3 percent.
• Asian and Black women saw slight decreases in union membership. Black women who were members in a union decreased from 12.1 percent in 2016 to 11.7 percent in 2017. Asian women decreased from 10 percent in 2016 to 9.7 percent in 2017.

To promote equal pay for women, workers’ rights to organize must be protected and 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.[2] Defending against such laws is critical to ensure the economic security of all workers and equal pay for women.
• The ability of public service unions to promote equality and economic security for women, who make up a majority of those represented by public service unions, is presently being challenged in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.[3] The plaintiff in that case is seeking to overturn nearly 40 years of Supreme Court precedent and weaken the ability of unions to advocate for policies that benefit the whole community – like equal pay for equal work, pay transparency, fair scheduling, paid parental leave, and anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ workers, often unavailable under state or federal laws.
• Some lawmakers are working to strengthen the right of workers to band together. The Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act,[4] 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.

• 1. “Asian” includes those who identified themselves in the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey as Asian. “Black” includes those who identified themselves as Black or African American. The “white” race category includes those who identified themselves as white. “Latinas” includes people of any race who identified themselves to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.
  2. Right-to-work laws make it illegal for unions to negotiate a contract that allows them to collect fair share dues from all of the employees who benefit from the union contract. Regarding lower wages, see Elise Gould & Will Kimball, Economic Policy Institute, “Right-to-Work” States Still Have Lower Wages (Apr. 2015), available at http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-states-have-lower-wages/. See also Jake Rosenfeld, Patrick Denice & Jennifer Laird, Economic Policy Institute, Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers (Aug. 30, 2016), available at http://www.epi.org/files/pdf/112811.pdf.
  3. No. 16-1466 (S. Ct. 2018)(cert granted Jun. 6, 2017, to be argued Feb. 26, 2018). See Brief of National Women’s Law Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and 85 Additional Organizations Committed to Civil Rights and Economic Opportunity as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Brief-of-National-Womens-Law-Center-The-Leadership-Conference-on-Civil.._.pdf.
  4. H.R. 4548, S.2143, 115^th Cong. (2017).

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

The post By The Numbers: Data on Key Programs for the Well-Being of Women & Their Families appeared first on NWLC.

Last week, the Council of Economic Advisors released a report that made a number of extremely specious assertions, including that “our War on Poverty is largely over and a success.” Contrary to a recent, scathing United Nations report on extreme poverty in the United States, the CEA’s report concluded that while millions of people in this country “sometimes” struggle to make ends meet, “the vast majority of Americans are able to meet their basic human needs.”

To put it mildly, the CEA’s conclusions are vastly overblown. While poverty has certainly declined since the beginning of the War on Poverty over 50 years ago, poverty remains a significant problem in the United States: more than one in eight women 18 and older, or more than 16 million, still lived in poverty in 2016. And while poverty — whether measured by the official federal poverty guidelines or the Supplemental Poverty Measure – is an important benchmark for the economic security of people in this country, the official poverty measures do not reflect how much income families actually need to meet basic living standards. For example, in 2018, the federal poverty guideline for a family of four was $25,100 in income. But according to one think tank’s calculations, a family of four in Morristown, TN would need over $68,000 in income to have a modest, but adequate, standard of living. The CEA’s blithe conclusion that most people in this country can meet their basic needs would probably come as a surprise to the over 41 million Americans who live in households that struggle against hunger. Or to a full-time worker at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, who would need to work 99 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, in order to afford a one-bedroom home at the national average fair market rent. Or to a woman working full-time at the federal minimum wage who lacks health insurance, for whom the average cost of a full year’s worth of birth control pills is the equivalent of 51 hours of work, and for whom the up-front costs of the IUD, one of the most effective birth control methods, are nearly a month’s salary.

The CEA’s report not only misrepresents the prevalence of poverty and economic insecurity in this country, but argues that because poverty has been reduced since 1964, in no small part due to public benefits programs that help people meet basic needs, the obvious next step should be to make it harder for people to receive those benefits. Yes, they actually say that. Specifically, the CEA report argues that work requirements should be imposed in benefit programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance – despite the fact that one very likely outcome is that fewer people would receive these critical supports as a result.

The CEA’s recommendation flies in the face of everything we know about public benefits programs and the people who rely on them to meet their families’ basic needs. It ignores the fact that the purpose of the Medicaid program is to provide health care, and that having health care helps people go to work (rather than the other way around). It further disregards the fact that SNAP and some housing assistance programs already require participants to work or participate in training or education activities under certain circumstances. The recommendation also fails to account for the fact that most participants in these programs who can work, already do work, but that the kind of work available to many low-income individuals is often unstable and characterized by low pay and few benefits, such that these workers are unable meet their families’ basic needs on their income from work alone. And finally, the report studiously ignores that studies have shown that work requirements do not increase participants’ long-term employment or help them find jobs that lift them out of poverty, but instead cut the very benefits that help them make ends meet or push them out of benefit programs altogether. Indeed, research has shown that welfare-to-work programs increased deep poverty – where family income was less than half of the federal poverty level – among children.

This Administration’s willful ignorance of the facts about poverty and public benefits programs isn’t a surprise. The Administration has repeatedly and consistently voiced its desire to cut people off public benefits with little regard for the impact on their health, well-being, and economic security. In fact, as a federal judge recently ruled when issuing an injunction blocking a Kentucky’s imposition of work requirements in its state Medicaid program, the Administration never considered whether work requirements would help accomplish the purpose of the Medicaid program: to provide health care. Rather, the Administration has advanced punitive policies grounded in negative and harmful stereotypes about those who use public benefits to meet basic living standards – like the “welfare queen” trope – that seek to demonize and shame those who find themselves on the wrong end of an increasingly unjust economy. And Republicans in Congress have eagerly taken those up as well.

As a country, we want people to have access to basic supports, including food, health care, and housing, when they need them. Women are more likely than men to face economic insecurity at all stages of their lives, due to ongoing employment discrimination, overrepresentation in low-wage jobs, difficulty accessing affordable, comprehensive health care, and greater responsibilities for unpaid caregiving. As a result, programs and policies, like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance, that protect health and help people meet their basic needs are essential to women and their families. Rather than imposing punitive and ineffective work requirements that cause people to lose benefits, slashing funding for public benefits programs, or enacting massive tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, we should make sure that women and families have all the supports they need to make ends meet.  But I haven’t yet seen the report or proposal from this administration that would make that happen – and the CEA’s recent report confirms my suspicion that I may be waiting for a while before I do.

The post ICYMI: Poverty Is Still a Thing appeared first on NWLC.

The post NWLC Comments to the Department of Commerce on the 2020 Census appeared first on NWLC.

When the minimum wage falls short, women pay the price. Why? Because women represent more than six in ten minimum wage workers across the country, and close to three-quarters of minimum wage workers in some states. Today, the federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour, and full-time earnings of $14,500 a year leave a family of three thousands of dollars below the federal poverty line. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have minimum wages above the federal level, but in most states, the minimum wage still leaves a full-time worker with two children near or below the poverty level.

Click on a state below to see its statewide minimum wage and tipped minimum wage, plus the share of minimum wage workers who are women.

Women are also two-thirds of tipped workers, such as restaurant servers. In most states, employers can count a portion of tips toward wages (known as a “tip credit”) and pay their tipped employees a minimum cash wage that is lower than the regular minimum wage—often far lower. The federal minimum cash wage for tipped workers has been frozen for more than 25 years at $2.13 per hour — just $4,260 a year for full-time work, providing little reliable income when fluctuating tips make it difficult to cover regular expenses like rent and groceries. Tipped workers receive more stable pay in states that do not have a separate tipped minimum wage, but most states have established tipped minimum wages below $5.00 per hour (including 18 states that follow the federal standard). Nationwide, the poverty rate for tipped workers is twice as high as the rate for other workers.

Raising the federal minimum wage—and ensuring that tipped workers are entitled to this wage before tips—is essential to help millions of working women across the country support themselves and their families. And because women are the majority of workers who would get a raise, increasing the minimum wage would also help close the gender wage gap.

Sources:

Share of minimum wage workers who are women: NWLC calculations based on unpublished U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics data for all wage and salary workers. Figures are annual averages for 2017 and are therefore calculated based on the minimum wage in effect in 2017. Available data do not permit a precise calculation of the percentage of women making the state minimum wage in all states due to the increments by which wages are reported. Estimates are based on the share of workers who are women at or below the reported wage levels immediately above and below the relevant state’s minimum wage. “Minimum wage workers” at the national level refers to workers making the federal minimum wage or less. “Minimum wage workers” at the state level refers to workers making their state’s minimum wage or less.

Minimum wages: U.S. Department of Labor, Minimum Wage Laws in the States, July 1, 2018.

Tipped minimum wages: U.S. Department of Labor, Minimum Wages for Tipped Employees, July 1, 2018.

Note on local minimum wage rates: Some sub-state localities have adopted minimum wages above their state minimum wage, and some state minimum wage laws (e.g., Oregon and New York) provide for minimum wage rates in specified metropolitan areas that vary from the statewide base wage. For more detail on local minimum wage rates, see the Economic Policy Institute’s Minimum Wage Tracker.

The post Women and the Minimum Wage, State by State appeared first on NWLC.

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released their monthly employment report. There’s good news and bad news.

Let’s start with the good. The overall unemployment rate for women decreased from 3.7% in July to 3.6% in August (compared to 3.5% for men). And the unemployment rate for Black women ticked down to 5.7% after a big increase last month. However, women’s overall share of the new workforce took a hit.

For the past two months, women have been making up a lower and lower share of the new jobs in the economy. In June, women held nearly 75% of the 213,000 new jobs in the economy. However, in July, women’s share of the new jobs added to the economy fell to about half. It fell further in August, when only 44% of the 201,000 new jobs went to women. That’s a pretty troubling shift to see in women’s employment numbers.

Although our President tends to lie about poverty and employment, data do not. This month’s BLS numbers show that women still struggle with economic security – women struggle with the wage gap and now appear to be making up a lower percentage of those hired in new jobs compared to men. Moreover, women of color are disproportionally left out of the workforce and face discrimination at higher rates than anyone. Despite President Trump’s belief that he “fixed” poverty, he cannot be further from the truth, especially for women.

The post Employment Numbers Show War on Poverty Isn’t “Fixed” appeared first on NWLC.

Today, the U.S. Census Bureau released its Report on Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017. The report revealed an official poverty rate in 2017 of 12.3 percent (a decrease of 0.4 percentage points from 2016). While the poverty rate has declined, if only slightly, for the third straight year, it is important to not overstate the significance of this fact. The number of people — 39.7 million — who had incomes below the poverty line in 2017 did not represent a statistically significant change from 2016. And being a woman still increases the odds of living in poverty. Nearly one in eight women across the country had incomes below poverty in 2017; and women made up 63 percent of people in poverty over the age of 65. In addition, more than one in six children lived in poverty in 2017, with more than half of these children living in families headed by women. This is a far cry from the victory in the war on poverty that the Administration claimed earlier this year.

Today’s data release also underscores the importance of key programs and benefits that help women and families make ends meet. For example, Social Security, a program that is critical to the economic security of women and families, kept 27 million people out of poverty in 2017. The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure demonstrates that refundable tax credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable Child Tax Credit) lifted the incomes of over 8 million people above the poverty line. And the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and housing subsidies boosted 3.4 and 2.9 million people, respectively, out of poverty.

These data show that recent efforts to cut benefit programs are woefully misguided. Instead of cutting funding for critical benefits that help women and families meet a basic standard of living – or proposing even more tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and big corporations – Congress and the Administration should be focused on increasing funding for these programs, and centering women and families in the tax code. And we can’t ignore that people need good paying, quality jobs so that women can support their families on their paychecks. So in truth, today’s Census report shows us both how far we have to go – and the direction policymakers should take to ensure economic security for women and families.

The post Release of 2017 Census Data on Income and Poverty Should Be a Wake-Up Call appeared first on NWLC.

The post NWLC Resources on Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance in 2017 appeared first on NWLC.

The Census Bureau released income data for 2017 this week, and while there was some good news (like a 1.8 percent increase in median household income from the previous year) not everyone has cause to celebrate. The gender wage gap for all women remained stagnant in 2017, holding firmly at 80 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. This lingering pay disparity is frustrating, especially for those who have been fighting for parity in pay for decades. However, what’s even more disheartening is that the gender wage gap widened for women of color.

In 2017, Asian women were paid 85 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, but the gap is substantially larger for many communities of Asian women. Black women were paid 61 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men; Native women were paid 58 cents; and Latinx women were paid 53 cents. When compared with the 2016 data, the wage gaps for Native and Latinx women widened by a penny, while the gaps for Black and Asian women widened by 2 pennies. In other words, women of color got paid less for doing the same or similar jobs as their white, male counterparts than they did the previous year.

While a few pennies might not seem like much, they add up big time. If the wage gap remains the same, women of color stand to lose a lot of their hard-earned money over the course of their 40-year careers:

These annual and lifetime losses are staggering and prevent women of color from pulling themselves and their families out of poverty, much less doing the important work of building wealth by saving for retirement, purchasing a home, and paying off consumer and educational debt. Less money in their pockets every month equates to fewer resources for groceries, rent, child care, and health insurance premiums. These pennies add up to a big problem for working women of color who face systemic barriers to creating economic security. Closing the gender wage gap for all women should be a priority for all legislators, policymakers, and employers.

The post The Wage Gap for Women of Color Widened in 2017 appeared first on NWLC.

As the details of CBS C.E.O. Les Moonves’ removal for sexual harassment and assault were unraveling last week, the U.S. Census Bureau was releasing data about the gender wage gap. Once again, the data showed that nationally, women across all races are paid only 80 cents on the dollar paid to men, meaning that the wage gap has been stagnant for over a decade now. When broken down by race, the data showed that the wage gap between women of color and white, non-Hispanic men increased by as much as 2 cents.

While the breaking of the Moonves story and the annual release of Census Bureau data were entirely unrelated, the disturbing realities presented by both are, in fact, entirely related. 

Throughout the stories of sexual harassment and assault suffered at the hands of Moonves and others in positions of power at CBS, we see a disturbing theme: the harassment resulted in economic harm to the survivors. For some, the emotional and psychological distress caused by the harassment or the assault deeply impacted their ability to work, leaving them unable to focus and perform and visibly distressed and shaking in the presence of their assaulter. Some were berated at work after refusing sexual advances, their professional performance severely criticized, and rumors spread that they were difficult to work with. And many were quickly pushed out of contracts or potential career advancement opportunities. For those now coming forward years after the initial incident, they did not speak up about the harassment or assault at the time because they knew (or were threatened by Moonves himself) that to do so could be “career suicide.” Indeed, the damage Les Moonves reportedly actively inflicted on Janet Jackson’s (but not Justin Timberlake’s) album sales and reputation after Timberlake ripped off a piece of Jackson’s costume briefly exposing her breast during their 2004 Super Bowl performance reveals the extent to which Moonves’ sex- and race-based harassment could destroy careers. In stark contrast, men at CBS who had sexual harassment complaints and settlements lodged against them were promoted.

Destroying their ability to perform at work, disparaging their professional performance, pushing them out of professional opportunities or jobs altogether, and blacklisting them from entire industries—these are just a few of the ways in which sexual harassment and retaliation can cut down survivors’ earnings. And failing to hold harassers accountable, choosing instead to protect and promote them, is how employers like CBS operate to continue to boost harassers’ earnings.

Given that targets of harassment are predominately women, and the harassers predominately men, this is how we end up with a gender wage gap. 

But this doesn’t even account for the economic harm suffered by women who didn’t pursue certain advancement opportunities at CBS or left higher paying opportunities in the entertainment industry because of the toxic culture towards women that is created when the head of an organization engages in harassment and leadership fails to hold harassers accountable. Nor does it account for the gender pay discrimination which is also often a symptom of a corporate culture that values women less. (See Lilly Ledbetter’s New York Times Equal Pay Day op ed describing the sexual harassment she suffered at Goodyear years prior to filing her pay discrimination suit). All of this decreases women’s earnings relative to men’s, playing a not insignificant role in the wage gap data released last week.

Of course, as the Me Too movement has so clearly shown us, what happened at CBS isn’t unique to CBS or even the entertainment industry.

Just one example: today, McDonalds workers will be striking to protest a corporate culture where sexual harassment is apparently routinely tolerated. Women in low-wage jobs are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, often feeling forced to tolerate inappropriate behavior so as not to jeopardize their income. Sexual harassment can cause significant financial insecurity by forcing women to cut back on hours or change jobs and blocking them from opportunities to advance out of lower paying positions or occupations into higher paying positions. All of this, once again, contributes to the wage gap.

So the next time you hear someone say the wage gap is due largely to “women’s choices” to take or leave certain jobs or advancement opportunities, think about CBS and McDonalds. The real choice we should be concerned about is an employer’s decision to hold harassers accountable and protect survivors from retaliation. 

The post What Do Les Moonves and the Gender Wage Gap Have in Common? A Lot. appeared first on NWLC.

This is the fourth part of a twelve-part blog series that tackles the obstacles to wealth building that Millennial women face over their lifetimes. The goal is to unpack the forces that create the wealth gap for Millennial women and point to both practical advice and policy suggestions that can help create a more stable economic future for this generation of women.

Census data released this month highlighted the economic realities of many Americans in 2017. Comprised of both national and state-level data, the Census contains very useful information about poverty rates, household income, and health insurance coverage. There was some good news this year: the median household income in 2017 went up 1.8 percent from the previous year, and the official poverty rate went down 0.4 percentage points. But, how did Millennials fare?

A little backstory: When the 2015 Census data was released, Millennials^[1] got a lot of attention because the data depicted some harsh economic realities that seemed to contradict popular stereotypes of Millennials with liberal arts degrees who spend afternoons sipping almond milk lattes and their evenings sleeping on their parents’ couches. That year, data showed that Millennial women were more likely than women of any other age group to be poor and 18 percent of Millennial women were living in poverty, which was double the rate of Millennial men.

Now, two years later, let’s see what the data say about Millennial women and poverty. [Note: The numbers below single out Millennials ages 25-34, which is right in the center of the designated age range.]

Fifteen percent of Millennial women ages 25-34 lived in poverty in 2017, which is a small drop compared to 2015 (when the number reached 16 percent).

Almost nine percent of Millennial men 25-34 lived in poverty in 2017, which also represents a decline from 2015 (when it was 9.9 percent. This head-to-head comparison shows that rates of poverty for Millennial men are consistently lower, which is consistent with poverty data showing women are more likely than men to live in poverty.

The gap between poverty rates for Millennial men and women slightly increased between 2015 and 2017. There is a 6.3 percentage point difference between Millennial men and women’s poverty rates, which is up 0.2 since 2015—not a big jump, but worth noting, nonetheless.

Breaking the data down by race is even more illuminating. Millennial women have higher poverty rates than men of the same race in all racial categories. In 2017, 11.4 percent of white, non-Hispanic Millennial women ages 25-34 lived in poverty, whereas only 6.9 percent of white, non-Hispanic Millennial men lived in poverty (each group saw a 0.1 increase in poverty since 2015). As you can see from the chart below, which highlights 2017 data, the smallest poverty gap is between Asian Millennial men and women (2 percentage points) and the largest gap is between Black Millennial men and women (10 percentage points), followed closely by Latinx Millennial men and women (9 percentage points).

These data show that sex and race intersect in ways that decrease the economic security for Millennial women of color.

There’s not one singular cause of Millennial women’s poverty. Some of the key things that characterize a securely middle class life for Boomers (a good, affordable education, buying a home, and having decent employer-sponsored health insurance) are all astronomically priced today–to the point where Millennials are deep in student loan and credit card debt, are buying homes at much lower rates than Gen Xers and Boomers did at the same age, and are holding on to their ACA plans for dear life while the Trump administration tries to gut the law.

The early careers of many Millennial women were defined by the uncertainty of the Great Recession, a period defined by job loss and a nationwide housing crisis. Despite being in the recovery years, Millennials are making (on average) 20 percent lower wages than their Boomer parents did at the same age and, for Millennial women, these wages are even more depleted by the gender wage gap, which widens depending on women’s race.

Just as you start to think you’ve got a full picture of Millennial women’s poverty, there’s more…

Many Millennial women are in their prime childbearing years, which means they are starting families and paying for child care at a time in their lives when they are earning the least. When combined with other factors like pregnancy discrimination, the medical costs associated with pregnancy, labor, and the sad state of paid family leave policies in this country, Millennial mothers face many economic challenges.

But why stop there? Throw in some unbalanced caregiving responsibilities for children and aging parents for good measure, and, suddenly, it’s easy to see why Millennial women who are already in poverty are much more likely to stay that way.

But there are policies that can make a difference for Millennial women struggling to make ends meet. Millennial women, along with millions across the country, benefit from family support programs that help provide a basic standard of living. For example, in 2016, 21.5 percent of all SNAP recipients were ages 18-34. These numbers show that keeping public benefits programs — like SNAP — intact and adequately funded is crucial to helping Millennial households survive and thrive. There are also proposals that would extend the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to workers without dependent children. This expansion would benefit millions of women, including Millennials, who are shouldering the financial burdens of low-wage work and student loan debt.

While we’re waiting on our legislators to get their act together, there are things that you can do now to help ensure your economic security. First, get informed about what financial supports you have access to. Reach out to your student loan officer and see what options you have for repaying and managing your student loan debt. At work, talk to your HR representative about your employer’s paid family and sick leave policies (which can be very important to learn about if you’re a Millennial parent), health insurance options, and retirement savings matches in order to make sure you’re taking full advantage of what’s being offered. Next, get involved in local community activism. Chances are there’s a group in your area that is fighting for the issues you care about, whether it’s higher minimum wages or fair work schedules. Lastly, don’t be afraid to call your representative and let him or her know your stance on the issues that are most important to you.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Millennials aren’t living in poverty because they’re buying an iPhone instead of health insurance or ordering avocado toast at brunch instead of saving for a down payment on a home. It’s time to step back and bust the narrative that Millennials are poor because of bad personal decisions by looking at the obstacles that keep Millennial women in poverty and focus on some policies that can help.

 ^[1] This blog series uses the definition of Millennials outlined by Pew Research Center here as those born between 1981 and 1996, making these young adults anywhere between 22 to 27 years-old in 2018.

The post Making Sense of Millennial Women’s Poverty appeared first on NWLC.

The post National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women & Families, 2018 appeared first on NWLC.

BREAKING NEWS: Today, the Trump administration announced that on Wednesday, October 10, it will publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule that will harm immigrants and their families, after announcing plans to do so last month. Now that we know when the proposed “public charge” rule will officially be published, we know when the clock will start running. t’s time to get ready to fight back and make sure this punitive rule never becomes finalized.

First, let’s be clear on what’s at stake. The proposed rule would dramatically change the public charge determination that affects immigrants seeking to enter the United States and those trying to change their status to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or “green card” holders). Specifically, this rule would:

• Significantly expand the list of benefits taken into consideration when making this determination, to include not only cash benefits and long-term institutional care but also non-emergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, and housing assistance.
• Create an income threshold for households trying to overcome a public charge determination, by requiring that the immigrant have income of at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($31,375 annually for a family of four), thus transforming our immigration process into a “pay to play” system.
• Harm women, families, and communities (for the Spanish language version, go here) by forcing people to choose between providing for their families’ basic needs and reuniting family members.

Put simply, this proposed rule is an affront to our values and would make our nation poorer, sicker, and hungrier. But the publication of the proposed rule is only the beginning and there is still plenty of time to take action. Here’s how you can help:

• Find out more information at protectingimmigrantfamilies.org;
• Speak out publicly against the proposed rule on social media using #ProtectFamilies;
• Prepare to submit comments as an individual or on behalf of an organization to gov within the 60-day time period, which will open on October 10 and close on December 10; and
• Call your representatives and senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to publicly oppose this rule.

And stay tuned for more materials from the Law Center. In the days to come, we will share template comments individuals can use to highlight this rule’s potential to devastate women and families in our communities. Make sure to sign up for our emails here.

Together, we can fight back against this attack on immigrant families, and our nation’s values.

The post It’s Time to Fight Back and Stop Yet Another Attack on Immigrant Communities by the Trump Administration appeared first on NWLC.

The post NWLC Comments in Response to Proposed Rulemaking: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds appeared first on NWLC.

Today is the last day for public comments regarding the Trump administration’s punitive and discriminatory “public charge” rule.  This proposed rule would take the radical and unprecedented step of counting any of the following things against individuals applying for entry to the country or legal permanent resident (LPR or green card) status:

• The use of benefits that low-income families, many of whom are working, use to make ends meet: Medicaid, nutrition assistance and housing assistance, and the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy that helps with the cost of medicine;
• Having income of less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL);
• Being younger than 18 or older than 60;
• Having a large family;
• Not being proficient in English; and
• Having a critical medical condition without insurance coverage.

The radical changes in the proposed rule would skew our immigration system in favor of the wealthy, and against those seeking opportunity in this country. And this proposal, like the Muslim ban, family detention policies, and restrictions on refugees, is just another form of family separation.

This proposed rule targets immigrants of color and women for exclusion with almost surgical precision. And it would deeply harm immigrants who are women and people of color, and their families. A recent study found that immigrants from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Asia, South America and Africa would have a higher risk of denial than immigrants from Europe or Canada under this proposed rule. And the same study found that women may be more likely to be denied green cards under the proposed rule, as compared to immigrant men.

The administration’s proposed “public charge” is a thinly veiled race and gender test – no surprise from a President who speaks of s***hole countries and has sought to undermine women’s autonomy and dignity at every turn. This outrages me as an advocate. But this is also personal. Like millions of others across the country, my family has an immigration story.

Almost fifty years ago, my mom emigrated to this country from Malaysia. She raised three daughters, cutting our hair and making our clothes when times were tight. I know without a doubt that I owe my education, my health, and the fact that I can now provide for my own family, to my mom’s sacrifices and hard work. She took care of family members when they were undergoing cancer treatment. She’s worked for a paycheck, but also volunteered thousands of hours of her time in schools and community gardens. My mom has contributed immeasurably to my family, our community, and this nation. But if this rule had been in place in 1970, immigration officials might have concluded that she would end up being a burden to society — and denied her application.

My mom has lived in this country for almost half a century – and yes, she is a naturalized citizen. But she has said that in the current climate, she has been made to feel like she doesn’t belong here. And our cringeworthy family joke over the past two years is that my dad should hide her in the basement whenever the doorbell rings. But this rule and everything it represents is truly no joke.

My parents’ 48th wedding anniversary is this week. To honor my mother and my belief in the best version of this country, I made my voice heard and submitted a public comment in opposition to the proposed “public charge” rule. On the last day of the public comment period, I ask you to do the same.

The post Today Is the Last Day To Tell The Administration You Oppose Their “Public Charge” Rule. Here’s Why I Did. appeared first on NWLC.

The post NWLC Comments in Response to Proposed Rulemaking: Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 appeared first on NWLC.

Asian women who work full time, year round are paid only 85 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. This gap, which amounts to a loss of $9,010 a year, means that Asian women have to work more than 14 months—until early March this year—to make as much as white, non-Hispanic men did last year alone. Many communities of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women experience much larger wage gaps compared to white, non-Hispanic men.

The post Equal Pay for Asian American and Pacific Islander Women appeared first on NWLC.

The higher risk of economic insecurity lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) women face makes health, nutrition, and housing assistance programs critical for helping LGBTQ women and their families meet their basic needs. According to a nationally representative survey conducted by the Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2017, many LGBTQ women and their families participate in Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), and public housing assistance. Despite their vital role in increasing economic security, these programs have been under attack. In 2019, state and federal governments should shift to proactive policies that support LGBTQ women’s economic security.

The post Programs That Support Basic Living Standards for LGBTQ Women Should Be Strengthened – Not Cut appeared first on NWLC.