‘Family, Work and Pay’ focus of UD prof’s new book

Saul Hoffman, professor of economics

4:31 p.m., Sept. 22, 2004--When Saul Hoffman, UD professor of economics, began writing Women and the Economy: Family, Work and Pay, a sweeping study of the status of women in the U.S. economy, his coauthor and researcher was Leslie Whittington, professor of economics at Georgetown University Institute of Public Policy, an acknowledged expert on the effects of tax policy on women, marriage, cohabitation and fertility.

But, on Sept. 11, 2001, their collaboration came to a sudden and tragic end when Prof. Whittington, her husband and two children were among the passengers who died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. They were on their way to Australia, where she was to be a visiting fellow at Australia, National University and where she planned to work on the book.

Hoffman finished the book with Prof. Whittington’s good friend and coauthor Susan Averett, professor of economics and business at Layfayette College. The book is dedicated to Prof. Whittington and Hoffman and Averett’s families.

Q: How have women's economic lives changed during the past 40 years? Are women better off today than they were in 1960?

A: The most obvious changes are in the labor market. Women, especially married women, are far more likely to be working than in the past. They are more likely to be doing the kinds of jobs that men are doing, including professional and managerial jobs, and they have narrowed, though not eliminated, the difference in pay. In addition, women are later to marry and the number of births per woman has fallen by 50 percent.

Q: Is there a difference in how having children affects women's economic viability as opposed to men?

A: Absolutely. Children have little or no impact on men's earnings, but have a negative impact on women's careers. Now that women have as much education as men, this "family gap" is the primary source of pay differences between men and women.

Q: In chapter three, you examine the economics of marriage, or how well off men and women are in a marriage. You even compare the economic impact of being single to being married. What did you find?

A: In the old days, a "traditional" marriage with a husband/provider and wife/homemaker was economically efficient. Each specialized in what they did best and both gained as a result. As men and women have become more alike—women's earnings are approaching men's, and men are more capable around the household—those gains are less important. That leaves modern marriages more dependent on emotional ties and more vulnerable to disruption.

Q: It is generally believed that divorce has a devastating effect on a
woman's economic well-being. Do your findings substantiate that?

A: About two decades ago, a popular book called The Divorce Revolution reported that women's economic well-being fell by 73 percent after a divorce. It was a very widely cited statistic. Knowledgeable researchers sensed right away that the 73 percent figure was too large to be correct. Research that I did with a colleague showed indirectly that the correct number was about 25 percent, and a later reanalysis by sociologist Richard Peterson showed that the figure was flat-out wrong. The consensus now is that the 25 percent figure is about right. Divorce has negative, but not devastating, economic impacts on women.

Q: In chapter 10, your analysis of the gender gap, you ask "Do women deserve to earn less than men?" How do you answer that question?

A: Probably, on average, the answer is still "yes." Right now, the median earnings of women who work full time is about three quarters of what men earn. Women still have less education than men and have a less regular work career, and those things bring down their wages. For young women, there are hardly any differences in education and career-commitment compared to men. But, their wages are lower than they ought to be, based on qualifications alone. About half of the gender gap in earnings isn't related to differences in the skills that economists measure.

Q: How has discrimination affected women in the workforce?

A: In the past, it greatly limited women's educational and career options. Only 40 years ago, 1 percent of dental students were female, and the percentages in law and medicine were not much higher. Now, women are more than 40 percent of students in those fields.

Q: In chapter 13, you discuss the "the potential tax consequences of legalizing same-sex marriages." What are they?

A: The net effect would be a small increase in government revenues. The tax system penalizes married couples with similar earnings and provides a bonus to couples with very different incomes; a family with a single worker and a stay-at-home spouse gets the most benefits. Partners in same-sex marriages tend to be dual earners, so they would be penalized, which equals higher revenues for the treasury.

Q: Are there more or fewer women living in poverty today, and what are the leading causes of women's poverty?

A: Poverty rates, especially for women, are down substantially from more than a decade ago, although they have crept up during the current economic slowdown. Poverty rates remain very high for single women with children. Marriage remains a very reliable route out of poverty. Women's lower wages are also an important factor.

Q: Have women moved closer to obtaining gender equity and pay equity in the labor market, or is there still a glass ceiling?

A: Women have certainly moved closer to obtaining pay equity, but there is a way to go. The old differences in pay between men and women doing the same job have been mostly, though not completely, eliminated. But, median earnings of women working full time are about three-fourths of men's, up from 60 percent from 1960-80. Narrowing that difference even further has been hard. Men and women still often work in different kinds of jobs, even when they have the same kind of skills.

Q. Did you find a correlation between women in the workforce and child obesity?

A: There is solid research that does show a link. One explanation is that when two parents work, kids end up eating less healthy foods—more "fast food" and fewer home-cooked ones. More research is needed on this. It probably shouldn't be used as an argument for why women ought not to be working.

Article by Barbara Garrison
Photo by Kathy Atkinson

E-mail this article

To learn how to subscribe to UDaily, click here.