The Next Rich Girl

Rise of the Sugar Mama?

Up until 1964, a woman could actually be fired from her job when she got married (and it would be totally legal).

My, how times have changed. (And thank god!)

According to a study from the Pew Research Center, things are changing dramatically:

We found that increasingly, women are more likely to marry husbands who have lower education levels than they do, and lower income levels than they do," says D'Vera Cohn of the Pew Research Center. From 1970 to 2007, husbands whose wives earned more than they did jumped from 4 percent to 22 percent.

And, to top this all off, for the first time in history, a higher percentage of women under age 44 have college degrees than men in the same age group.

Will the 2000s be the century of the sugar mama?

Earn Less, Pay More: Being a Woman Doesn't Add Up

It's tough being a woman.  We make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes.  We pay higher insurance premiums just because we were born with one of those pesky uteruses (Hey, I didn't ask for it!).  And, now, it seems that we pay more for just about everything else as well, including shaving cream, moisturizer and pain relievers.

It's no wonder that women are 32% more likely to have a sub-prime mortgage - we're running out of cash!

Consumer Reports compared "male" and "female" versions of six different products to see who pays more.  And, big shocker, women were the losers in this equation.

Some of the reasoning is hilarious.  For example, A PR rep for Neutrogena explained the difference between two moisturizers: Ageless Essentials is a "water-in-oil" emulsion; Hydrating Eye Reviver is an "oil-in-water" emulsion. "These emulsion technologies have distinct skin feel attributes resulting in different aesthetics to satisfy demands of different consumers," Meresman says.

Sounds like a hype-in-BS emulsion to me.

But, is it really any surprise that we pay more for health and beauty products?  Marketers know that once you throw something in a pretty pink box and slap the words "age-defying" or "slenderizing" on it, women are suckers.  Women tend to care more about labels and packaging then men.  We tend to be willing to pay more for beauty items.  And, we tend to buy more different types of these products.

For example, I have one moisturizer that I use for "day" under my makeup and another "night cream" I use at night. And I'm far more frugal than the average person.  If I have two moisturizers (drug store brand, but still...), imagine how much someone who isn't as thrifty as I am spends on their face alone! If someone told my husband that he needed to use two different types of moisturizer (or, really, any at all), he would laugh at me.  

In all honesty, it probably all stems back to the fact that there is more pressure on women to look good (young, slim, sexy, whatever) than there is on men.  So, women feel like using more expensive products gives them an edge.  Some probably even think that looking better helps them earn more.  After all, there is some evidence that better looking people (especially women) are paid more so isn't spending more on beauty products an investment in your earning potential?

Maybe.  But, at the same time, if two products are identical except for packaging, only a fool would pay more for the one in the pink box.  So, I urge everyone reading this to start really looking at packages and ingredients lists.  Don't pay more for something just because it's in a pretty bottle.  Don't let yourself be "taxed" for being a woman.

Will the Recession Make Men Step Up Around the House?

I've been thinking about this article in Newsweek this week that talks about how the recession may be helping families rebalance.  It argues that now that women account for 40% of the average household's income, men have to take up more of the slack around the house.  They need to do more cleaning, cook more meals, carry more of the parenting weight.  

And this is not just because women now spend more time outside the home, now women have to worry that any time taken off is a mark against her in the workplace.

Because women typically shoulder more of the weight of household management, they are perceived as more likely to allow their home life to interfere with work:

Maternal profiling is real. When a working father takes time off to watch a ballet recital, he's seen as noble. When a working mother rushes out of the office to care for a case of head lice, she's more likely to be labeled undependable. Mothers looking for work are less likely to be hired, are offered lower salaries, and are perceived to be less committed than fathers or women without children, according to a 2005 report by Shelley Correll, now an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University. And according to a 2007 survey by Elle/MSNBC.com, female bosses are twice as likely than their male counterparts to be seen as having family obligations interfere with work.

Women At the Top Earn Less

If you want to really blow your mind, check out this in-depth look at the male-female age gap.

The people at PayScale.com did a great job of trying to correct the data for outside factors (special skills and certifications, length of experience, company size, etc.) to see how much of a factor gender actually is in determining pay discrepencies:

PayScale found that the pay gap is largely the result of outside factors. Within a specific job, before controlling for outside factors the typical female worker earns pay that is only 90 percent of the typical male worker’s pay; after controlling for these variables, she earns 94 percent of the typical male worker’s pay. For jobs paying below $100,000, the gap narrows further.

This has some huge implications.  Mainly, that wage discrimination is likely the result of the individual choices made by male and female workers (how long to work, where to work, etc.) than on blatant discrimination by hiring managers.

However, there is one subset where gender plays the largest role in determining pay: Among workers earning more than $100,000.

Will Women Save the Economy?

Maybe.  According to the World Bank, the earning power of women around the world is expected to reach $18 trillion by 2014 - a $5 trillion rise from current levels.

Seems like great news right?  Unfortunately, companies seem unable to actually tap into this market.  According to a study from Boston Consulting Group, women feel under served at best by companies.  And many just feel ignored.

"The current way companies appeal to women is to take a male product and paint it pink," said Michael Silverstein, a partner at BCG.

No kidding.  Which of us isn't sick of this idea that women want their products to look like Barbie  vomited on it?

Where did this idea of "shrink it and pink it" (via Jezebel) even come from?

If "girl" stuff is pink, why isn't "boy" stuff blue?  It's one thing to paint a nursery blue for a little boy or pink for a little girl, but don't we all grow out of that after we're, I dunno... two years old?  

Is the Recession an Excuse for Women to "Opt Back In"?

It was only six short years ago when the New York Times reported that women with college degrees and high-powered careers were "opting out" -- giving up their careers to become full-time moms -- spurring an epic feminist debate across the media and the blogosphere. 

Now, according to recent news reports, these women are looking for excuses to opt back in -- and apparently using the recession as an excuse to not seem like hypocrites. 

In the Times of London:

Until recently, the working mother was somewhat overshadowed in the aspirational stakes by the stay-at-home mother, who, with her Bugaboo pram, baby yoga and cupcake life, seemed to be the one who was having it all. Just a short year ago, “working-mother envy” would have sounded highly unlikely . Now we’re adjusting to a world that shifts on its axis every other day, where decisions we once deemed everyday choices are transformed into luxuries for the super-rich.

I always thought this was the crux of the "mommy wars." It's easy to wax poetic about how a mother needs to be home with her children when your husband makes six-figures or you're sitting on a hefty inheritance.  The "choice" to stay home becomes less of an option when you're firmly ensconced in the lower or middle classes and your family depends on two incomes to survive.  It's no shock that as all of us tighten our belts, the women who "opted out" are finding it difficult keep up their previous standard of living.

Of course, there's another element at play in these stories: the idea that the very women who abandoned those elite jobs have been itching to get back in, but felt like they couldn't without an excuse.  The recession gives them that.

As Forbes reports:

"These women were struggling with their identities because they weren't working," Keroes says. But now, she adds, "I think 'having to' has made it easier for lots of women who were already struggling with whether to return."

For some reason, the women who opted out, don't feel like they're allowed to change their mind.  Are they ashamed that they feel the need to be fulfilled by more than raising their kids?  Is it guilt?

I was actually talking about this very subject with my mother-in-law over the weekend.  She made the choice to stay at home to raise her boys and we were talking about how difficult that was for her and my father-in-law financially (this wasn't opting out, it was a real financial struggle, but one they wanted to make work so she could care for her children).  She said something that struck me as we talked about a friend of hers who decided to keep working, "It doesn't matter what you do, either way you feel guilty.  If you stay at home, you worry about making ends meet.  If you work, you worry about your kids and who's taking care of them."  That pretty much sums this up.

The "Opt Out" trend got so much hype because it highlighted the problem that all mothers struggle with (What is the best decision for the kids?) and places the parenting burden firmly and squarely on the shoulders of the mother, ignoring the idea that fathers just might be equally responsible for the decision-making about who should care for the kids.  My in-laws made the decision together, and it's becoming increasingly common (especially as women, slowly, approach pay parity with -- or even surpass the pay of -- their husbands) but many mothers feel like they are making this choice alone, that they are the half of the parenting equation who shoulders the responsibility of actually parenting.  This is what needs to change.

Read more:
Jezebel: Grass/greener: Is the Recession the Newest "Excuse" for Moms to Go Back to Work?

A Deeper Look at the Wage Gap

The New York Times took a closer look at the wage gap between men and women and determined that, yes, it still exists.

It doesn't matter where the job lies on the income spectrum: all but a handful fall below the bar of equal pay. The percentage gap is about the same for lower-wage workers, like medical assistants, as it is for higher-wage workers, like physical therapists.

The breakdown by job is pretty interesting, but still doesn't get to the heart of why women make less than men for doing the same job.

Some hypotheses include the idea that women naturally gravitate to jobs that pay less, even when they work in the same field as men.  (The article cites women doctors who choose family practice over surgery, for example.)  Others think that women choose fields that allow for more flexibility, since they still bear the brunt of housework and childrearing responsibilities.

What do you think?  Are women partially responsible for their lower earning because of the career choices they make?  Do you think this will change if and when men start taking on more household responsibilities?

 

Women May Soon Pass Men in the Workforce... Good News?

Unintended consequence of the recession #83: Layoffs are affecting men more than women -- so much so that women are now poised to pass men in the workforce, in terms of numbers. 

According to the New York Times:

The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.

In fact, its not just this recession, during each of the last three recessions, women's' share of the workforce has actually increased by 0.5%. 

Is this a good thing?  Maybe.

Obviously, if women want or need to work, it's certainly great that they are more likely to keep their jobs right now.  However, part of their job security comes from the fact that women earn less money to do the same job -- or better -- as men.  When you're a CEO who needs to cut the budget, it's pretty appealing to keep a female employee who earns 80 cents for every dollar a male employee makes for doing the same job.  Paying women less is a great deal for a company.  And, during a recession, it's keeping women employed -- which isn't necessarily bad.  The real problem is that, when the economy turns around, those men are rehired at their higher rate, and the women tend to continue being paid the lower rate.  That's what needs to stop. 

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a start.  But, women also need to start negotiating their pay.  Our bosses aren't just going to serve us higher pay on a silver platter.  We need to demand it.

More on this over at Blogher: Women May Soon Be Majority of Workforce