Here\u2019s something I\u2019d been meaning to write about, and which is timely with today having been labelled as #EqualPayDay:<\/p>\n
According to\u00a0a new McKinsey Report<\/a>, as\u00a0linked to by Slate<\/a>, implementing\u00a0\u201cgender parity\u201d in the United States would fuel an extraordinary leap in GDP growth.<\/p>\n What does this mean? \u00a0And is it reasonable?<\/p>\n They identify 6 high-impact markers of inequality between men and women:<\/p>\n and 4 indicators in which the US scores at low to medium inequality on their metrics:<\/p>\n and created a hypothetical economic forecast based on a \u201cbest-in-class scenario in which each US state matches the state with the fastest rate of improvement toward gender parity in work over the past decade.\u201d \u00a0In this scenario, GDP would be 10% higher in 2025 than without these improvements.<\/p>\n First comment: \u00a0GDP is not a measure of well-being. \u00a0It is the measure of all goods and services produced in a country, that\u2019s it. \u00a0And, ironically, Bad Stuff can increase GDP, and Good Stuff can decrease it, if, for instance, a cure for cancer means that Americans need a lot less medical treatment. \u00a0Second comment: \u00a0four of their metrics are not differentials between men and women, but rates for women, without a comparison to men, so there is no defined measure of \u201cgender equity.\u201d<\/p>\n How does this boost happen?<\/p>\n By\u00a0increasing women\u2019s labor-force participation, as well as increasing their hours worked, and their representation in higher-paying fields. \u00a0All the other metrics are incidental to this headline 10% claim.<\/p>\n To support an increase in women in the workforce, the report calls for \u201cjob creation\u201d \u2014 which is taken for granted as something the government can readily achieve. \u00a0Taking for granted that jobs will be available, increasing women\u2019s labor force participation, from 74% of women ages 25 \u2013 54 in 2014 to 76% in 2026, is modeled to account for 38% of the total potential increase in GDP.<\/p>\n Another 32% of the GDP boost is modeled to come from women moving from part-time to full-time work; on average, currently the average woman works 89% of the work hours of the average man. \u00a0And 30% is modeled to come from raising female employment in higher-productivity sectors.<\/p>\n Before I get into the reasonableness of their modeling, you can guess my first reaction: \u00a0there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to work part-time, or not at all. \u00a0To make it government policy, or the policy of think-tanks\/policymakers, that as many women as possible should work full-time, is wrong. \u00a0And I say that as a mother of three school-aged children: \u00a0even though none of them requires the constant care of a small child, it makes life a heck of a lot easier for me to work part-time, and be home after school, supervising homework, managing the afterschool activities, getting dinner ready, etc.<\/p>\n To be sure, there are countries where women are flat out unable to particiate in the labor force \u2014 Saudi Arabia, from yesterday\u2019s blog post<\/a>, is an extreme example. \u00a0But I tend to think that there\u2019s a Goldilocks zone here, where families are able to make decisions that are right for them, some choosing full-time work for both parents, others a stay-at-home parent, and others part-time work or juggled schedules. \u00a0To take it as a given that a moderate maternity leave followed by a return to full-time work, as is the norm in Scandinavia, for instance, is right and proper, and the goal of policy should be for this to be universal, is wrong. \u00a0(And, even in European comparisons, part-time, not full-time work, has become the norm for Dutch women<\/a>.)<\/p>\n But, for what it\u2019s worth, let\u2019s get back to the report, which states that their model is based on a supply-side perspective, that is, taking it for granted that the jobs will be there, or, rather, they say, \u201cwe acknowledge that the supply-side approach needs to be accompanied by demand-side policies that could influence the ability to create jobs to absorb additional female workers.\u201d \u00a0(p. 4 of the full report PDF) \u00a0The report also ignores the potential impacts of costs or benefits of women working longer hours, or \u201cany negative impact on male labor-force participation due to increased female participation\u201d \u2014 that is, they ignore the possibility that\u00a0mothers\u00a0being prodded to work longer hours could mean\u00a0fathers\u00a0working fewer hours.<\/p>\n Recognizing that there\u2019s no movement into the labor force without new jobs, and given the desire that women move into the \u201cright kinds of jobs,\u201d they create a scenario of hypothetical new job creation by 2025, modelling that 46% of the \u201cnew\u201d workers will be in professional, business services, and information sectors, 14% in manufacturing, 11% in financial activities, and the remaining 29% in other sectors. Where this modeling comes from isn\u2019t clear; these projection seem very removed from the real-world economy in which actual present-day workers experience stagnant wages. \u00a0Oddly, they tout as potential lures back into employment for stay-at-home mothers \u201conline talent marektplaces\u201d which sound a lot like the poorly-paid \u201con-demand\u201d\/\u201dsharing\u201d economy that comes in for so much criticism elsewhere. \u00a0The report refers often to \u201cmore investment\u201d being needed, without addressing who, exactly, they envision doing the \u201cinvesting.\u201d \u00a0The authors also, very generically, state that new jobs will require \u201caddressing skill shortages.\u201d \u00a0All in all, there\u2019s a very odd feeling that they perceive of the U.S. as a planned economy, and envision planners, of some sort or another, implementing recommendations.<\/p>\n The report also addresses the disproportionate amount\u00a0of unpaid care work done by women. \u00a0The authors write, \u201ceconomists have emphasized the importance of recognizing, reducing, and redistributing unpaid work.\u201d \u00a0(p. 8) \u00a0However, oddly, since the report looks at average hours worked, and assumes an incremental increase, they \u201csolve the problem\u201d of work time in part by assuming that men would \u201callocate more of their leisure time to helping out around the house\u201d \u2013 a very strange failure to understand the actual lives of families\u00a0behind those averages.<\/p>\n But they do acknowledge that the increase in full-time working mothers would largely be a matter of more children in childcare, which would, of course, provide more jobs for childcare workers, as well as elder care and care for the disabled, when it is those tasks which occupy nonworking women. \u00a0The report takes the idealized view that in a perfect world these jobs would also be valued and high paying \u2014 do they presume that the government would be paying, and set these high pay rates because, in the future, it will be oozing with money?<\/p>\n So that\u2019s the key first third of the report. \u00a0The second third\u00a0discusses social rather than economic indicators, and presents a number of graphs splitting out states and metro areas. \u00a0And the last third proposes solutions of various kinds \u2014 delving into women in politics, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and sexual assault, though they never attempt to model the impact of improvements in these areas on GDP.<\/p>\n Also, incidentally, unless I missed it, they likewise don\u2019t model a GDP impact of \u201cpay equity\u201d as commonly believed to be occurring, in the form of women facing outright discrimination and being paid less than men for the same jobs, or being denied promotions. \u00a0Which makes sense \u2014 after all, GDP\u00a0is not a direct measure of wages, and goods and services produced wouldn\u2019t increase based solely on equalization. \u00a0What\u2019s more, even to the extent that pay inequities were explainable in this manner, one imagines that employers would keep total payroll the same \u2014 men\u2019s salaries and women\u2019s salaries would meet in the middle. \u00a0Certainly, more women advancing to C-suite positions would also not increase the total number of C-suite positions available.<\/p>\n\n
\n