Here’s a link to my guest blog at MotherhoodLater…ThanSooner – an on and offline community/resource serving those parenting later in life, with chapters nationwide and beyond. Their mission is to connect, empower and inform those who became moms at age 35+, whether for the first time or again: Ready When You Are
On the fiftieth anniversary of the biggest birth year in US history, the record burst. More babies were born in 2007 than in any year prior: 4,317,119, according to the CDC. Before that the record was an approximate 4,300,000 – set in 1957, the zenith of the baby boom. Birth rates were up in all age ranges except the very youngest and the very oldest, which held steady: fifteen year olds and fifty year olds and everyone in between were reproducing busily (the overall rise was 1%, with 30-34 year olds leading the pack at 2%).
So does a new boom loom? Not quite. While the numbers look alike, the birth rate differs dramatically: In 1957, it flew at 118 births per thousand women ages 15 to 44, while in 2007 it jogged along at 69.5 (and that included an expanding number of women over 45, using donor eggs).
Our population has grown, so relatively speaking fewer women had babies in 2007 than 50 years before (the hypothetical average woman had 3.8 kids in the late 50s, whereas now it’s 2.1). While that still adds up to more babies on the ground, they won’t make the huge proportional change in the population that the boomers did.
But it’s not the increase in population alone that spurs the current rise. From 2003 to 2007 the birth rate increased steadily if incrementally, from the all-time low of 64.8 per thousand in 2002 up to the new 69.5 – the highest since 1990.
So what’s up with this? The rise in teen births (this 1% adds on to a 3% rise among teens in 2006, interrupting the 34% decline that ran from the peak in 1991 until 2005) links in some measure to the failures of abstinence-only education and decreased access to birth control. But what about the rest?
Have all the star babies in the media spawned a copy cat trend? Or does the influence go the other way? While the tabloids belabor us with endless updates on pregnant celebrities, most people don’t reproduce just because Angelina does (except maybe the octo-mom). Jen, under big tabloid pressure, has held out for her own timetable.
But the baby fever in the tabloids does operate in a feedback loop with lots of other cultural factors that affect decisions around babies, like
•optimism over what looked until recently like a good economy
•a heightened anxiety about possible infertility (overplayed in the media, especially for women in their mid-30s)
•diminished access to and information about contraception and abortion
•nostalgia for the more relaxed pace of the family-filled fifties (in contrast to our busy lives)
•expectation that the work world will either live up on its own to recent promises to provide family-friendly options or that it could be made to do so
These factors and more skew differently for women (and their partners) in different age ranges, since their work, economic and fertility situations differ.
But 2007 is quickly fading into the deep past, and these trends may shift quickly. Though the tabloids continue to provide regular fertility scoops, recessions have historically been potent contraceptives–and then they pass. On the other hand, later would-be parents are likely to be less willing to wait for better times than their younger counterparts. Since they’re generally in more stable financial positions than younger folks, the downturn may be less of an issue. But not necessarily.
Stay tuned for the 2008 installment in our national fertility retrospect from the CDC toward the end of this year. But for the breaking story, keep an eye on the tabloids, on your neighbors, and on your own thoughts in this direction, for updates from the home front.
Click here for direct comparisons of male and female average wages within specific professions:
The last post examined how in recessions women’s movement up career ladders has historically suffered setbacks, with long-term negative effects. Can we break the recessionary pattern today? Absolutely.
Firstly, as Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute notes, flexibility has suddenly become a mainstream business strategy for companies seeking to retain current workers rather than having to start from scratch with new employees come the upturn. Reduced hours are among the cut-backs on the table, until things improve. President Obama endorsed that option in his Inaugural speech, and the savings to the nation when people stay in jobs speak for themselves.
Reduced hours may look like automatic family friendliness, but if the reduction is entirely on the employers’ terms it doesn’t help parents in need of flexibility much more than the standard workweek did. If employers work with employees, male and female, in devising reduced schedules, all parties gain.
And the government can assist. In 17 states, a Shared Work program helps employees and employers who must reduce hours by paying pro-rated unemployment benefits. In 2008 in New York 83% more employers participated in this program than in 2007, and a 2009 surge is already underway. In Texas the program is little known, but word is spreading. This option makes much more sense than layoffs in many environments and should be available nationwide.
Where potential savings on worker health care pushes employers to consider cutting workers they might prefer to cut hours for, government should cover the difference.
A second break with old patterns lies in society’s enormous capital investment in women’s education and in the extensive work experience women now have. Like any other form of capital, business leaders should find ways to utilize this human capital in a downturn. Smart employers will make every effort to hold onto their best talent, whatever the worker’s gender.
Thirdly, the enormity of the failure of the business culture of greed means the time is ripe to rewrite the model and move toward a culture of care. Rather than view the downturn as reason to turn away from initiatives that support women’s participation in better-paid jobs, the nation will be best served if we redouble our efforts in that direction, to take advantage of our full national talent pool.
It’s time for new ideas and big pictures. In today’s troubled economy, one way business and government can collaborate to keep workers, male and female, employed is by cutting hours instead of jobs, at all levels. One by-product could be that the old recessionary patterns that slow women’s progress up career ladders finally fall away. But we’re going to have to work actively and intentionally to make that happen.
We’ve heard a lot recently about how this recession is affecting men’s jobs more than women’s. But while women’s relative labor-force participation rises in recessions, most of the jobs women hold on to earn small wages and low status. In the long-term, recessions can have very negative effects on women’s careers — both at the individual and national levels. Gains for women earned through years of effort may be swept away in the undertow of layoffs, when flexibility and diversity efforts suddenly disappear.
Women’s movement up business ladders and through glass ceilings is endangered right now. Early reports suggest that on Wall Street, a disproportionate number of women overall and almost all those hired in through firms’ “opt-in” programs to work flex time have been let go. Little thought is being given to maintaining diversity as layoff decisions are made. This could have huge negative effect long-term. One financial insider (who requests anonymity in sensitive times) observes about the downturn: “In this industry, it definitely set women’s progress back at least 20 years.”
The current issue of Forbes documents a resurgence of sexism in the finance field — “In the worst financial crash since the Depression, financial services and insurance firms have cut 260,000 jobs. Seventy-two percent of the missing workers laid off have been women, even though they constituted 64% of employment before the crash began.”
Women overall earn a lot less than men do because many industries are still strongly sex-segregated, often because women with kids need part-time or otherwise flexible work. Historically the jobs offering such arrangements have paid less.
But the professions are not as gendered as they used to be, and some women do make high wages. Additionally, once sufficient numbers of women reach positions of influence within business and government, they change the gender-dynamics of the workplace at all levels, introducing family-friendly policies and challenging the gendering of the pay structure. The work still gets done, but on a new, more flexible schedule. It takes a while to establish these new dynamics, which allow women to contribute more fully to the national economy.
While women comprise only 15.2% of boards of directors and 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs, they hold 50.6% of professional and management positions. As a result, 79% of businesses reported offering some flex options in 2008, the pay equity bill is now law, and we have several initiatives in Congress to put all workers on an equal playing field.
Progress has been made, but the recession could halt it, and not just in the finance world. In troubled economic times the historical tendency has been to send the ladies with higher-status jobs back home, or down ladder, pushing them out not just through individual actions but through policy changes and negative media messages.
In the Depression, working women were scapegoated for men’s lack of jobs, and the group’s career progress was set back for decades. Similarly, in the recessions of the 70s and 80s and in this decade, women’s progress up ladder was slowed by a hostile environment that paralyzed the EEOC, undermined access to abortion and birth control, and portrayed women’s job losses as the result of a choice to stay home.
When recessions past ended, laid-off men returned to good jobs. Women remained largely in dead-end, low-wage work. With their collective status diminished, post-recessionary women had less ability to influence business policy than before the recession, and the system remained biased in favor of people without care-giving commitments (remember that these are not “merely personal” commitments, they are essential to the running of the nation). Eventually the trickle up began again, but the recessionary cycle ensured that it remained just a trickle. Recessionary setbacks have been a big part of the answer to the question “Why has women’s progress been so slow?” The Wall Street example makes it clear that long-term setbacks could occur again now.
Family Friendly Recession?: Cut Hours, Not Jobs
We’ve heard a lot recently about how this recession is affecting men’s jobs more than women’s. But while women’s relative labor-force participation rises in recessions, most of the jobs women hold on to earn small wages and low status. In the long-term, recessions can have very negative effects on women’s careers — both at the individual and national levels. Gains for women earned through years of effort may be swept away in the undertow of layoffs, when flexibility and diversity efforts suddenly disappear.
Women’s movement up business ladders and through glass ceilings is endangered right now. Early reports suggest that on Wall Street, a disproportionate number of women overall and almost all those hired in through firms’ “opt-in” programs to work flex time have been let go. Little thought is being given to maintaining diversity as layoff decisions are made. This could have huge negative effect long-term. One financial insider (who requests anonymity in sensitive times) observes about the downturn: “In this industry, it definitely set women’s progress back at least 20 years.”
The current issue of Forbes documents a resurgence of sexism in the finance field — “In the worst financial crash since the Depression, financial services and insurance firms have cut 260,000 jobs. Seventy-two percent of the missing workers laid off have been women, even though they constituted 64% of employment before the crash began.”
Women overall earn a lot less than men do because many industries are still strongly sex-segregated, often because women with kids need part-time or otherwise flexible work. Historically the jobs offering such arrangements have paid less.
But the professions are not as gendered as they used to be, and some women do make high wages. Additionally, once sufficient numbers of women reach positions of influence within business and government, they change the gender-dynamics of the workplace at all levels, introducing family-friendly policies and challenging the gendering of the pay structure. The work still gets done, but on a new, more flexible schedule. It takes a while to establish these new dynamics, which allow women to contribute more fully to the national economy.
While women comprise only 15.2% of boards of directors and 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs, they hold 50.6% of professional and management positions. As a result, 79% of businesses reported offering some flex options in 2008, the pay equity bill is now law, and we have several initiatives in Congress to put all workers on an equal playing field.
Progress has been made, but the recession could halt it, and not just in the finance world. In troubled economic times the historical tendency has been to send the ladies with higher-status jobs back home, or down ladder, pushing them out not just through individual actions but through policy changes and negative media messages.
In the Depression, working women were scapegoated for men’s lack of jobs, and the group’s career progress was set back for decades. Similarly, in the recessions of the 70s and 80s and in this decade, women’s progress up ladder was slowed by a hostile environment that paralyzed the EEOC, undermined access to abortion and birth control, and portrayed women’s job losses as the result of a choice to stay home.
When recessions past ended, laid-off men returned to good jobs. Women remained largely in dead-end, low-wage work. With their collective status diminished, post-recessionary women had less ability to influence business policy than before the recession, and the system remained biased in favor of people without care-giving commitments (remember that these are not “merely personal” commitments, they are essential to the running of the nation). Eventually the trickle up began again, but the recessionary cycle ensured that it remained just a trickle. Recessionary setbacks have been a big part of the answer to the question “Why has women’s progress been so slow?” The Wall Street example makes it clear that long-term setbacks could occur again now.
Can we break the recessionary pattern? Absolutely.
Firstly, as Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute notes, flexibility has suddenly become a mainstream business strategy for companies seeking to retain current workers rather than having to start from scratch with new employees come the upturn. Reduced hours are among the cut-backs on the table, until things improve. President Obama endorsed that option in his Inaugural speech, and the savings to the nation when people stay in jobs speak for themselves.
Reduced hours may look like automatic family friendliness, but if the reduction is entirely on the employers’ terms it doesn’t help parents in need of flexibility much more than the standard workweek did. If employers work with employees, male and female, in devising reduced schedules, all parties gain.
And the government can assist. In 17 states, a Shared Work program helps employees and employers who must reduce hours by paying pro-rated unemployment benefits. In 2008 in New York 83% more employers participated in this program than in 2007, and a 2009 surge is already underway. In Texas the program is little known, but word is spreading. This option makes much more sense than layoffs in many environments and should be available nationwide.
Where potential savings on worker health care pushes employers to consider cutting workers they might prefer to cut hours for, government should cover the difference.
A second break with old patterns lies in society’s enormous capital investment in women’s education and in the extensive work experience women now have. Like any other form of capital, business leaders should find ways to utilize this human capital in a downturn. Smart employers will make every effort to hold onto their best talent, whatever the worker’s gender.
Thirdly, the enormity of the failure of the business culture of greed means the time is ripe to rewrite the model and move toward a culture of care. Rather than view the downturn as reason to turn away from initiatives that support women’s participation in better-paid jobs, the nation will be best served if we redouble our efforts in that direction, to take advantage of our full national talent pool.
It’s time for new ideas and big pictures. In today’s troubled economy, one way business and government can collaborate to keep workers, male and female, employed is by cutting hours instead of jobs, at all levels. One by-product could be that the old recessionary patterns that slow women’s progress up career ladders finally fall away. But we’re going to have to work actively and intentionally to make that happen.
As jobs disappear, stocks plummet and credit freezes, many of us are cutting expenses and looking for ways to save. This is new territory for most of us, who’ve grown up in the age of disposability and more, more, more. But it’s familiar ground to the old folks, who made it through the Depression and WW2 rationing. Before them, before the past 100 years really, recycling, at home and in the wider world, was the only way of life. Turns out the finance crisis and the eco-crisis share a cause, and, at least in part, a solution.
The current emergency throws us back on old wisdom and skills. “Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without,” went the old line. “Mend and make do, ” the British government enjoined the home-front. Time to talk to grandma and your old-hippie aunt who still buys kasha in bulk with no packaging (we do pay for that stuff we then have to cart away). Or to the twenty- and thirty-something members of your local knitting group, who’ve made parsimony over into a new style and who don’t fear the realms of craft. Time to practice a new frugality, one with lots in common with the old frugality.
Last month inaugural poet Elizabeth Alexander invoked images of the old thrifty ways, describing “[Someone] stitching up a hem, darning / a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, /repairing the things in need of repair.” These may be viewed as images of poverty — of how far many of us come from a darker past, but they are also images of love and caring and a model for behavior now on many fronts. There’s a lot in need of repair nowadays.
The skills themselves are not so difficult — fixing, re-using, making from scratch — though the mindset behind them may be, in the short term. “Do you know how to do that?” someone asked me incredulously, when I said I’d just have to darn the holey cuffs of an otherwise cute sweater I picked up at a clothing swap. It won’t look expert, but even I can figure out a basic warp and woof. Maybe with practice I’ll manage that special look of stylish ruin. Make it a game, not a sign of shame.
What these skills also require that’s maybe harder to come by is time. Collectively, we haven’t had much of that to spare recently. But increasing numbers of us will — if we’re out of work, or if our hours reduce. This last could have its positive side. If employers cut everybody’s hours instead of cutting some workers and keeping others (one more argument for a national health plan), everyone will have more time to talk to our families and our neighbors and to make good, cheap soup. More time to invest in looking for bargains, since, as our elders knew, a frugal housewife fattens the family fortune (works with househusbands too). More time to write letters to our purveyors reminding them to stock in bulk and to let us refill our old shampoo bottles, on the old co-op model. More time to follow through on that model and actually carry those bottles back.
Frugality can’t make soup out of a stone — nor will it provide the kind of stimulus the economy needs to pull us out of the current fast-deepening hole. We do have to spend some money in order to make money, it seems. But we recognize that we can’t just go back to the profligacy of the recent past, even if we do get access to credit again. And we do have to re-think the operations of value in all the senses of that word.
As we figure out the terms of the new economy, we could do a lot worse than to listen to the band of grandmas, knitters, granddads, historians, hippies, poets, cooks, tightwads and crafts-men and -women who connect us to the wisdom of generations past. Not only could that wisdom save us a few bucks, it could reinforce the fabric of those ties that bind.
[This piece first appeared at huffingtonpost.com]
l