Time to invest in tampons and Chardonnay.

Gun made out of tampons
image via Tampon Crafts.

Women will recover faster from the recession than men, which leads economists to suggest investing in female-centered companies like Ann Taylor and Lululemon.

Women will rebound from the U.S. recession faster than men because females didn’t lose as many jobs as men did during the recession, the report said. Some of the industries most affected by the economy, such as manufacturing and construction, had more male than female workers. The unemployment rate for women is 8.9 percent compared with 10.6 percent for men, the report said. The overall unemployment rate was 9.8 percent in November.

More women are also graduating from college, with more than 50 percent of the bachelor’s degrees in the last decade awarded to women, according to the report. They also make up the majority of the workforce in 9 of the 10 occupations that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts will add the most jobs over the next 8 years.

While a gender wage gap remains, it’s narrowing, the note said. Women working at least 35 hours a week in the first quarter of 2010 received 79 percent of the wages earned by men, according to the Labor Department.

Upside: More women have jobs. Downside: We don’t get paid fairly for the work we do. Conclusion: These are really great shorts and I would like a pair for Christmas. Women!

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Economics, Gender. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Time to invest in tampons and Chardonnay.

  1. Rkel says:

    In the context of this story, the gender wage gap they reference is that on average per person per week? Or averaged per Hour? Or is it just a gross total of all men’s and women’s wages compared?

    Sometimes I see authors use the term gender wage gap in different contexts; a little precision never hurt anyone…

  2. David says:

    As far as I can tell, those statistics refer to median wages earned per week.

    So, you take all women who worked more than 35 hours a week, and divide by the total number of women. Then you take all the men who worked more than 35 hours a week, then divide by the total number of men.

  3. Echidne says:

    Rkel and David, the gender gap can be measured in various ways but it’s always related to a time unit.

    One measure is for full-time workers (the linked article uses that), another one is for all workers (which shows a much larger gap as women are the majority of part-time workers and those earn less per time unit, too). Both of these can be “raw gaps”, meaning that they are just the salary data per some nominal time unit, or that the earnings have been divided by hours or weeks worked.

    A different level of analysis looks at the gaps while controlling for education, age, the number of children in the family and so on and so on. This analysis tries to see if the gap can be explained by such factors. Not all of it can. For more on this whole topic, see my gender gap series at echidne-of-the-snakes.com. The study I analyze is a little old by now but the methods are still the same.

  4. cottonsocks says:

    that image rocks, even if applicators are a waste of dosh.

  5. Dank says:

    David: As far as I can tell, those statistics refer to median wages earned per week.So, you take all women who worked more than 35 hours a week, and divide by the total number of women. Then you take all the men who worked more than 35 hours a week, then divide by the total number of men.  

    That’s not how you calculate the median.

  6. Dank says:

    David: As far as I can tell, those statistics refer to median wages earned per week.So, you take all women who worked more than 35 hours a week, and divide by the total number of women. Then you take all the men who worked more than 35 hours a week, then divide by the total number of men.  

    Come to think of it, that’s not how you find any kind of average. Your method would yield the percentage of each gender that works more than 35 hours per week.

  7. David says:

    Dank: That’s not how you calculate the median.  

    Sorry, I meant mean. I also meant to say that you add up all the salaries of people of a certain gender working over that amount, then divide by the total of people that you added together.

    Like if there were 5 men in the U.S who worked over 35 hours and they each made 40, 40, 60, 50, 50 k a year, then the average (arithmetic) mean that you would get would be 50k.

    I was typing fast. I hope most people got the picture. I hope that I’m understanding it correctly too. (Maybe I’m completely missing the point here)

  8. David says:

    BAH, I meant to say 40, 40, 50, 60, 60.

  9. Avida Quesada says:

    I don’t get the logic : “Women will recover faster from the recession than men, which leads economists to suggest investing in female-centered companies like Ann Taylor and Lululemon.”

    If we care about equality is indecent to invest in the strong and let down the weak. I can’t understand this logic. When woman are in disadvantage (like most of the time) we defend special investment in women because of this condition. Now we are demanding special treatment and investment in women because we are ahead?
    Some times I feel embarrassed to call myself a feminist.

Comments are closed.