Women in Low-Wage Jobs Are Underpaid and Overloaded

Despite holding better educational credentials than ever before, women continue to make up two-thirds of the workers earning $10.10 per hour or less.

Joan Entmacher is vice president for family economic security at the National Women's Law Center.
National Journal
Joan Entmacher
Add to Briefcase
Joan Entmacher
July 30, 2014, 1 a.m.

Maybe you think that gender in­equal­ity is a thing of the past — or soon will be — be­cause wo­men are out­pa­cing men in edu­ca­tion­al achieve­ment.

Think again.

Des­pite hold­ing bet­ter edu­ca­tion­al cre­den­tials than ever be­fore, wo­men make up two-thirds of the work­ers in low-wage jobs — jobs that typ­ic­ally pay $10.10 per hour or less. For men, it takes only a high school de­gree to avoid be­ing overrep­res­en­ted in low-wage jobs. But for wo­men, it takes a bach­el­or’s de­gree.

Those are just some of the start­ling find­ings in the Na­tion­al Wo­men’s Law Cen­ter’s new re­port, Un­der­paid & Over­loaded: Wo­men in Low-Wage Jobs. The re­port takes an in-depth look at wo­men and men in the low-wage work­force, in po­s­i­tions such as home health aides, child care work­ers, fast-food work­ers, res­taur­ant serv­ers, maids, and cashiers. We found that re­gard­less of their edu­ca­tion level, age, mar­it­al or par­ent­al status, race, eth­ni­city, or na­tion­al ori­gin, wo­men rep­res­ent a dis­pro­por­tion­ate share of the low-wage work­force.

For ex­ample, fed­er­al em­ploy­ment data in­dic­ate that wo­men with some col­lege or an as­so­ci­ate’s de­gree make up twice as large a share of the low-wage work­force as their male coun­ter­parts (22 per­cent versus 10 per­cent). Wo­men age 50 and older make up more than three times as large a share of the low-wage work­force as their male coun­ter­parts (17 per­cent versus 5 per­cent). Moth­ers make up three and a half times as large a share of the low-wage work­force as fath­ers (21 per­cent versus 6 per­cent). Here’s how we know this is a gender-re­lated eco­nom­ic prob­lem: In each of these groups, wo­men make up a sim­il­ar or smal­ler share of the work­force than men.

The wo­men in the low-wage work­force may not be whom you think. Only one in 10 is a teen­ager. More than one-quarter are 50 and older. Four of five have a high school de­gree or high­er; more than four in 10 have some col­lege or more. Nearly half are wo­men of col­or. Close to one-third are moth­ers, and four in 10 moth­ers in low-wage jobs have fam­ily in­comes be­low $25,000.

Ima­gine a moth­er who is a re­tail cash­ier or a sales as­so­ci­ate. It was the only job she could find, even though she gradu­ated from com­munity col­lege. She earns $9 an hour, with no be­ne­fits. She’s nev­er sure ex­actly how much she’ll earn each week, be­cause her sched­ule some­times changes at the last minute. That makes ar­ran­ging child care a real hassle and pay­ing for it a frus­trat­ing eco­nom­ic chal­lenge. Pay­ing the bills each month is a struggle. And a single health emer­gency — or a broken-down car — could push her fam­ily over the fin­an­cial edge.

Wo­men’s overrep­res­ent­a­tion in low-wage jobs is a par­tic­u­lar con­cern today be­cause the share of fam­il­ies re­ly­ing on wo­men’s earn­ings has in­creased dra­mat­ic­ally. Work­ing moth­ers are the primary bread­win­ners or es­sen­tial co-bread­win­ners in about two-thirds of fam­il­ies with chil­dren. At the same time, wo­men still shoulder most care-giv­ing re­spons­ib­il­it­ies. And the char­ac­ter­ist­ics of low-wage jobs pose par­tic­u­lar chal­lenges to wo­men as both bread­win­ners and care­givers.

Moth­ers struggle to af­ford the safe and stable child care they need to work — much less the high-qual­ity child care their chil­dren need to be suc­cess­ful in school. Low-wage jobs of­ten lack ba­sic be­ne­fits such as paid sick leave or health in­sur­ance. While the Af­ford­able Care Act has sig­ni­fic­antly im­proved wo­men’s ac­cess to af­ford­able health in­sur­ance, work­ers in these jobs may still face bar­ri­ers to health in­sur­ance cov­er­age and ser­vices, in­clud­ing re­pro­duct­ive health care. Twenty-four states have re­fused to ex­pand Medi­caid cov­er­age. Even with as­sist­ance from the ACA, health care costs can be steep, and the Su­preme Court re­cently ruled that cer­tain com­pan­ies can re­fuse to sub­sid­ize in­sur­ance cov­er­age for birth con­trol. Wo­men work­ing in low-wage jobs, es­pe­cially wo­men of col­or, of­ten face dis­crim­in­a­tion and har­ass­ment.

Wo­men’s in­creased edu­ca­tion, train­ing, and work ex­per­i­ence — along with an­ti­discrim­in­a­tion laws — have led to real gains for wo­men in the work­place over the past 40 years. But des­pite bet­ter cre­den­tials, the job and in­come pro­spects for many re­main bleak. In fact, wo­men’s con­cen­tra­tion in low-wage jobs has in­creased in the wake of the Great Re­ces­sion, and the trend is likely to con­tin­ue. Many of the jobs pre­dicted to add the most work­ers in the com­ing years are low-wage — and fe­male-dom­in­ated. That list in­cludes re­tail salespeople, fast- food work­ers, home care aides, child care work­ers, maids, and house­keep­ers.

The pre­dom­in­ance of wo­men in low-wage jobs makes clear that an eco­nom­ic agenda that works for wo­men must ad­dress the needs of low-wage work­ers and of wo­men in these jobs in par­tic­u­lar. En­sur­ing that work­ers are treated fairly and can provide for their fam­il­ies is vi­tal not only for them, but for all Amer­ic­ans.

The cen­ter’s re­port out­lines a com­pre­hens­ive agenda to ad­dress the chal­lenges faced by wo­men in low-wage jobs — policies to in­crease wages and eco­nom­ic se­cur­ity, sup­port work­ers with fam­ily re­spons­ib­il­it­ies, re­move per­sist­ent bar­ri­ers and cre­ate path­ways to op­por­tun­ity, strengthen col­lect­ive bar­gain­ing rights, and fa­cil­it­ate new forms of work­er or­gan­iz­ing. These policies are es­pe­cially crit­ic­al for wo­men in low-wage jobs. They will also im­prove the lives of work­ers across the in­come spec­trum and make our eco­nomy stronger for every­one.

Joan Ent­mach­er is vice pres­id­ent for fam­ily eco­nom­ic se­cur­ity at the Na­tion­al Wo­men’s Law Cen­ter.

HAVE AN OPIN­ION ON POLICY AND CHAN­GING DEMO­GRAPH­ICS? The Next Amer­ica wel­comes op-ed pieces that ex­plore the polit­ic­al, eco­nom­ic, and so­cial im­pacts of the pro­found ra­cial and cul­tur­al changes fa­cing our na­tion, par­tic­u­larly rel­ev­ant to edu­ca­tion, eco­nomy, the work­force, and health. In­ter­ested in sub­mit­ting a piece? Email Jan­ell Ross at jross@na­tion­al­journ­al.com with a brief pitch. Please fol­low us on Twit­ter and Face­book.

What We're Following See More »
Cruz: Eight Justices Could Be an Ongoing Situation
1 hours ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

Chaffetz Also Caves, Says He’ll Vote Trump
3 hours ago
DNC Sues RNC Over Trump’s Rigged Vote Comments
3 hours ago

The Democratic National Committee sued the Republican National Committee in U.S. District Court in New Jersey for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged." The DNC claims "that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities."

Clinton Foundation Staffers Steered Biz to Bill
11 hours ago

"Two chief fundraisers for the Clinton Foundation pressed corporate donors to steer business opportunities to former President Bill Clinton as well, according to a hacked memo published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. The November 2011 memo from Douglas Band, at the time a top aide to Mr. Clinton, outlines extensive fundraising efforts that Mr. Band and a partner deployed on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and how that work sometimes translated into large speaking fees and other paid work for Mr. Clinton."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
20 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.