Urban poverty creates very specific problems for poor working mothers. They cannot afford to leave their homes, because they do not make enough money at their minimum wage jobs. This means that they themselves are probably not well educated, and it leads to their children probably not getting a very extensive and well-rounded education, and almost entirely eliminates the possibility of going to college, because school is not a major priority when rent, food and health care are overwhelming expenses that leave these mothers with very little chance of saving, and thereby little chance of financial success.
Schooling is directly proportional to the ability of a person to escape poverty, and when schools are failing due to lack of funding from state taxes, grants and other forms of improving education levels. When this is paired with women being unable to maintain their low-paying jobs due to the necessity of child care to do so, the result contributes to keeping families in poverty. Before these children arrive at school, they are already disadvantaged because chances are good that they have received very little preschool care that worked to develop their education. Because women cannot afford center care, children are often left with family members, who are not trained teachers or caregivers, or with a group of children that are a variety of ages. There is almost no school preparation in these settings, and when it occurs, it is rare and often not very structured.
In the video titled "Profile of Another America," health care evidences itself as a major expense and issue for working people in poverty because, in many cases, there are no affordable benefits, insurance or overall help to keep these people healthy without severely denting their already minimal paychecks. In contrast from those interviewed for the piece who did not belong to unions, the woman who did belong to a union received benefits, reasonable wages and was able to maintain a livable lifestyle, seemingly without much issue. She did not have to make sacrifices, for instance choosing whether to eat dinner or buy a prescription, as others making low wages were forced to do. The tug between needing to feed oneself and one’s family, versus the need to stay healthy, versus the need to hold down any job that pays enough to make ends meet all comes back to what kind of a job one has, and contributing to that is how educated that person is. People's jobs, and thereby their education level, literally shape how they live.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Working Women's Paid Labor: Part I
The factors contributing to the instability of child care that the subjects Jacqueline and Julia experience in Ajay Chaudry's "Putting Children First" began with the fact that Julia used Jacqueline's father as the child's primary caregiver when she was first born, but the end of their romantic relationship left her without child care. Julia's original reason for using the father as the care provider was because she wanted to better herself and her life through schooling. Then Julia's sister moved in and became Jacqueline's primary caregiver. Then, in need of more money than what was coming from Julia's internship, both Julia and Izzy found work at a fast food restaurant, alternating shifts and lucky enough to have a manager who allowed them to bring Jacqueline to work with them when needed.
Minimum wage jobs greatly contribute to the ability of working women to find and maintain stable and safe children in that children are constantly being shuffled from one caregiver to the next on a schedule that is unstable. Chaudry also noted that the frequent change of a care provider can result in delayed development of children, particularly in their ability to form healthy relationships and in learning how to interact with others, and behave well in general. Often times, when women get jobs they immediately need to find care, which leads them to handing over their children to people who might not be the best reviewed or qualified. Since the jobs also tend to be unstable, children don't spend much time with their mothers and don't keep a set schedule. Additionally, these jobs are not high in compensation and child care is a bill that must be paid. The pay also has the ability to negatively affect how many types of child care a mother can choose, including the availability of things like vouchers or special programs in her community. There is an apparent constant strain, as evidenced in Roseanne Barr's interviews with women living on minimum wages. While wanting to be successful and work hard, many feel trapped by a system that gives them exactly no power over their lives or their futures.
Minimum wage jobs greatly contribute to the ability of working women to find and maintain stable and safe children in that children are constantly being shuffled from one caregiver to the next on a schedule that is unstable. Chaudry also noted that the frequent change of a care provider can result in delayed development of children, particularly in their ability to form healthy relationships and in learning how to interact with others, and behave well in general. Often times, when women get jobs they immediately need to find care, which leads them to handing over their children to people who might not be the best reviewed or qualified. Since the jobs also tend to be unstable, children don't spend much time with their mothers and don't keep a set schedule. Additionally, these jobs are not high in compensation and child care is a bill that must be paid. The pay also has the ability to negatively affect how many types of child care a mother can choose, including the availability of things like vouchers or special programs in her community. There is an apparent constant strain, as evidenced in Roseanne Barr's interviews with women living on minimum wages. While wanting to be successful and work hard, many feel trapped by a system that gives them exactly no power over their lives or their futures.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Cost of Child Care
Low-income mothers use a variety of forms of child care which range from state-subsidized care, leaving children with family, and allowing children, of an appropriate age, to care for themselves. These all result in varying degrees of success and very frequently mothers end up placing their children in the different forms of child care either simultaneously, for instance preschool followed by the use of kin caretakers until a mother is home from work, or throughout the youth of the children. Below I have paraphrased definitions of the types of childcare available adn most frequently occurring according to Ajay Chaudry in his book "Putting Children First."
1. Kin care - care from the relative of a child, often the child's maternal grandmother, but also potentially relatives of the mother or father. Care occurs in either the home or the relative or the child.
2. Informal care - Care for a child from a person who is not a relative at that person's home. Care is arranged on an individual basis for the one child, and can come from a friend, neighbor or acquaintance.
3. Family day care - Care with a licensed provider who runs a child care business in her home. The child is generally part of a group of kids who are not necessarily related.
4. Center care - This includes both preschool, day care and nursery programs that congregate large groups of children and the nature of their locations varies from churches, to schools to community centers.
5. Alternative care - This category encompasses father care, babysitters and any other means of care.
What is interesting in Chaudry's findings is that, while mothers prefer the structure and development found in center care, due to scheduling conflicts and the financial burden that comes with them. Most frequently family day care is used because it costs less and the hours can stretch to accommodate commutes and long hours that seem to coincide with the jobs that low-income mothers hold.
1. Kin care - care from the relative of a child, often the child's maternal grandmother, but also potentially relatives of the mother or father. Care occurs in either the home or the relative or the child.
2. Informal care - Care for a child from a person who is not a relative at that person's home. Care is arranged on an individual basis for the one child, and can come from a friend, neighbor or acquaintance.
3. Family day care - Care with a licensed provider who runs a child care business in her home. The child is generally part of a group of kids who are not necessarily related.
4. Center care - This includes both preschool, day care and nursery programs that congregate large groups of children and the nature of their locations varies from churches, to schools to community centers.
5. Alternative care - This category encompasses father care, babysitters and any other means of care.
What is interesting in Chaudry's findings is that, while mothers prefer the structure and development found in center care, due to scheduling conflicts and the financial burden that comes with them. Most frequently family day care is used because it costs less and the hours can stretch to accommodate commutes and long hours that seem to coincide with the jobs that low-income mothers hold.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Identifying The Working Poor
In "Putting Children First," author Ajay Chaudry agrues that, based on the welfare system in the United States, that while "we [society] are asking the least fortunate to strive and work harder, we are deeply discounting our public responsibility for the children born into poor families and disadvantaged communities" (14). His point of view is the product of, first, legislation passed under President Bill Clinton, called The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This reform set forth the requirement that, in order to receive welfare benefits, one must first have a job.
The videos from this section that identify the working poor support Chaudry's perspective that the issue of poverty is a public one and not simply a personal problem because so much of the population is in the category of "working poor." This means that although they get by, many are in debt because, as Professor Katherine Newman notes, they try to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. Additionally, they must work more, longer hours, at jobs where healthcare is probably not provided. Making ends meet and living check-to-check is a way of life for people who are not bordering the poverty line. Because the group of people that compose the "near-poor" or "working poor" was 53 million Americans as of 2007, according to Newman, this cannot be simply written off as a private problem. It is obviously a wide-reaching issue that is also reflected in the current economic climate: People bought things they could not afford, and which their jobs could not pay for. This class of working poor issue touches women, men, married, single and divorced. These people become trapped in a seemingly unbeatable system where they cannot make enough money to truly be safe or comfortable in the world. When such a large group of people are being affected aversely by their attempts to improve their station in life by either working more or receiving welfare, the issue has to be the system in which they participate, and not they, themselves, as cogs within it.
The videos from this section that identify the working poor support Chaudry's perspective that the issue of poverty is a public one and not simply a personal problem because so much of the population is in the category of "working poor." This means that although they get by, many are in debt because, as Professor Katherine Newman notes, they try to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. Additionally, they must work more, longer hours, at jobs where healthcare is probably not provided. Making ends meet and living check-to-check is a way of life for people who are not bordering the poverty line. Because the group of people that compose the "near-poor" or "working poor" was 53 million Americans as of 2007, according to Newman, this cannot be simply written off as a private problem. It is obviously a wide-reaching issue that is also reflected in the current economic climate: People bought things they could not afford, and which their jobs could not pay for. This class of working poor issue touches women, men, married, single and divorced. These people become trapped in a seemingly unbeatable system where they cannot make enough money to truly be safe or comfortable in the world. When such a large group of people are being affected aversely by their attempts to improve their station in life by either working more or receiving welfare, the issue has to be the system in which they participate, and not they, themselves, as cogs within it.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Balancing Work and Family
Characteristics of a good family life include quality time spent with family, whether that family is children or relatives or even close friends, a distinct separation from one's work life, and the feeling of satisfaction in home life with one's family. The idea that work does not encroach on one's personal life is majorly tied into the balance of career and family life. Boundaries, and thereby expectations for both the employer and employee, that are set upon the realization for more of a balance are key in having a good family life and a good career life. Setting up a work schedule, whether it all takes place in an office, at home, if it includes flextime, telecommuting or a combination of all of the above.
Difficulties arise all over the socioeconomic map when attempting to strike a true balance between work and home. It seems that statistically, people in high-paying positions and those in lower-paying positions struggle most with balancing work and home because of expectations their employers hold for all employees, regardless of the employees' home life. High-profile professionals, lawyers, for instance, are expected to work upwards of 70 hours a week. While low-wage workers are expected to work shifts that are assigned to them, often not schedules that are consistent on a week to week basis. It is telling that the less money one makes, the less options one has as far as flexibility goes. According to the AFL-CIO, "Flextime is available to nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of workers with incomes of more than $71,000 a year but to less than one-third (31 percent) of working parents with incomes less than $28,000."
Across the board, the major transition from the traditional man breadwinner paired with a woman homemaker, to a society with women and men both working. When women fulfilled a role solely in the home and community, while men were the only ones in the workplace, there was a societal norm to which almost all Americans adhered. With gender roles blurred, and many women seemingly questioning their choice to stay in the work force full time, the work landscape is in a state of shambles. Both workers and employers have to make concessions in order to be successful. There is almost a sense of resentment toward women who ask for work concessions to be made once they have children. This is largely a response to women who have worked hard to be men's equals, but then cannot work on the same demanding levels once family becomes important. The result is what is referred to by some as women's choice to opt-out of work, while others call it a push-out. This has also pushed almost half of women who are married or share a household with someone to work a different schedule from their spouses or partners, according to the AFL-CIO. Obviously this attempts to make the family life more harmonious, but actually serves to make it an additional challenge to surmount.
Employers can be sensitive to their employees' family needs and obligations by having an open line of communication between the two. If an employer maintains an open-door policy, then an employee will feel more comfortable discussing alternative work options, like telecommuting and flextime. Employers should be open to alternative ideas and explore the evidence how employees benefit from using non-traditional techniques to achieve comparable, if not improved, levels of success. Positive changes have included increased productivity, higher quality of work and higher rates of material retention. Overall, responses to flextime have been better than responses to telecommuting, although both have the potential to be very potent in assisting people looking to balance their work and home lives.
The support of family members, workers or neighbors would make balancing work and home priorities far easier because having an actual life, outside of work and children or a husband or someone who a worker cares for, gives them more of an initiative to have experiences that are not necessarily just work and home, but also a broader community. Every person has the potential to define their life in whatever terms he or she chooses, but in giving oneself more of an opportunity to experience all kinds of things and people, one can truly become happy and know oneself. Additionally, these types of support will likely push the worker in question toward what is truly best for his or her overall livelihood. It is easy to get or feel trapped in a situation, as a caregiver or worker, but alternative perspectives on any situation can help to realize where a balance lies.
• How can employers be sensitive to their employees’ family needs or obligations?
• How might having the support of family members, workers or neighbors make balancing priorities easier?
Difficulties arise all over the socioeconomic map when attempting to strike a true balance between work and home. It seems that statistically, people in high-paying positions and those in lower-paying positions struggle most with balancing work and home because of expectations their employers hold for all employees, regardless of the employees' home life. High-profile professionals, lawyers, for instance, are expected to work upwards of 70 hours a week. While low-wage workers are expected to work shifts that are assigned to them, often not schedules that are consistent on a week to week basis. It is telling that the less money one makes, the less options one has as far as flexibility goes. According to the AFL-CIO, "Flextime is available to nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of workers with incomes of more than $71,000 a year but to less than one-third (31 percent) of working parents with incomes less than $28,000."
Across the board, the major transition from the traditional man breadwinner paired with a woman homemaker, to a society with women and men both working. When women fulfilled a role solely in the home and community, while men were the only ones in the workplace, there was a societal norm to which almost all Americans adhered. With gender roles blurred, and many women seemingly questioning their choice to stay in the work force full time, the work landscape is in a state of shambles. Both workers and employers have to make concessions in order to be successful. There is almost a sense of resentment toward women who ask for work concessions to be made once they have children. This is largely a response to women who have worked hard to be men's equals, but then cannot work on the same demanding levels once family becomes important. The result is what is referred to by some as women's choice to opt-out of work, while others call it a push-out. This has also pushed almost half of women who are married or share a household with someone to work a different schedule from their spouses or partners, according to the AFL-CIO. Obviously this attempts to make the family life more harmonious, but actually serves to make it an additional challenge to surmount.
Employers can be sensitive to their employees' family needs and obligations by having an open line of communication between the two. If an employer maintains an open-door policy, then an employee will feel more comfortable discussing alternative work options, like telecommuting and flextime. Employers should be open to alternative ideas and explore the evidence how employees benefit from using non-traditional techniques to achieve comparable, if not improved, levels of success. Positive changes have included increased productivity, higher quality of work and higher rates of material retention. Overall, responses to flextime have been better than responses to telecommuting, although both have the potential to be very potent in assisting people looking to balance their work and home lives.
The support of family members, workers or neighbors would make balancing work and home priorities far easier because having an actual life, outside of work and children or a husband or someone who a worker cares for, gives them more of an initiative to have experiences that are not necessarily just work and home, but also a broader community. Every person has the potential to define their life in whatever terms he or she chooses, but in giving oneself more of an opportunity to experience all kinds of things and people, one can truly become happy and know oneself. Additionally, these types of support will likely push the worker in question toward what is truly best for his or her overall livelihood. It is easy to get or feel trapped in a situation, as a caregiver or worker, but alternative perspectives on any situation can help to realize where a balance lies.
• How can employers be sensitive to their employees’ family needs or obligations?
• How might having the support of family members, workers or neighbors make balancing priorities easier?
Home and Work, Public and Private
In my family I've seen carework through the actions taken by my parents, aunts and uncles in response to my aging grandmothers. My paternal grandmother has early signs of Alzheimers, and my aunt lives with her and cares for her constantly, in addition to working a full-time job. On my maternal side, my grandmother spends alternate parts of the year with each of her three daughters, including my mother. In both cases, the caring individuals put forth their own money, time, love and effort into making my grandmothers as comfortable as possible. I can only imagine that if the numbers were calculated as they were in the documentary The Love Economy, the proportional wages would be similarly substantial.
In relating that private homelife care to the public sector, I cannot recall any of my family members being able to bring their caretaking situation to a boss at work and come to a solution that works for both the employer and employee, as was shown in Juggling Work and Care. In my opinion, feeling obliged to care for a family member likely comes across as an excuse in the workplace to slack off. This is definitely an American mentality, for the formerly mentioned series takes place in the UK and all parties interviewed said that their employers were willing to work with employees who needed more work flexibility.
American society desperately needs to re-evaluate how women, and men, in the workplace are treated when it comes to balancing their private lives. With more women working, and continuing to work after starting families, men and women are sharing more responsibilities in the home, corresponding to the sharing outside of it. What was previously considered "women's work" has been partially transferred to men, but not entirely. Private work, although not monetarily valued, must exist to balance the public work done by men and women. Without maintaining a home life, the work life will absolutely suffer.
If carers, whether for children, ill people, or the elderly, are not supported in the workplace then there is likely no way for them to continue supporting their families fiscally. Carers in America are forced to either continue working, in a then resentful environment, and give up their caring roles, or hire an outsider to take them on, or the carer can give up their job and somehow figure out how to cover expenses.
In relating that private homelife care to the public sector, I cannot recall any of my family members being able to bring their caretaking situation to a boss at work and come to a solution that works for both the employer and employee, as was shown in Juggling Work and Care. In my opinion, feeling obliged to care for a family member likely comes across as an excuse in the workplace to slack off. This is definitely an American mentality, for the formerly mentioned series takes place in the UK and all parties interviewed said that their employers were willing to work with employees who needed more work flexibility.
American society desperately needs to re-evaluate how women, and men, in the workplace are treated when it comes to balancing their private lives. With more women working, and continuing to work after starting families, men and women are sharing more responsibilities in the home, corresponding to the sharing outside of it. What was previously considered "women's work" has been partially transferred to men, but not entirely. Private work, although not monetarily valued, must exist to balance the public work done by men and women. Without maintaining a home life, the work life will absolutely suffer.
If carers, whether for children, ill people, or the elderly, are not supported in the workplace then there is likely no way for them to continue supporting their families fiscally. Carers in America are forced to either continue working, in a then resentful environment, and give up their caring roles, or hire an outsider to take them on, or the carer can give up their job and somehow figure out how to cover expenses.
Major Concepts and Theories on Gender Inequality
"Sex segregation" means the separation of the sexes within the workplace based on specific jobs, and more broadly in occupation. According to Paula England and Lori McCreary's "Gender Inequality in Paid Employment," "This segregation is attended by a sex gap in pay, with most 'male jobs' offering higher earnings than most 'female jobs.'" While socialization absolutely plays a role in how we act and what jobs we desire, statistics from the American Association of University Women reveal that even when men and women are counterparts in the workplace, women make up to 89% of their male co-workers.
Sex segregation at ASU is seen in simply who runs the university: a white male. A white male has always held ultimate power at Arizona State. This also exemplifies hegemony that has been so ingrained at ASU that it seems many fail to notice. This leads into the point made by a CNBC report which notes that women represent only 2.5% of Fortune 500 CEOs. This might be explained away by either sexism, namely that a woman cannot successfully hold a powerful job, or "women's choices" to take time off or work less for more family time.
In my personal socialization, I've always been taught that, regardless of anyone else's opinion, I can do anything I want, whether that means being a CEO, a teacher or an artist beatnik hippie. As previously mentioned, I grew up with a single mother and seeing her major success in the newspaper industry, open her own business and then work in a Fortune 500 company has made me feel ultimate freedom in my choices. I have held ultimate authority jobs, and ones where I've ranked highly. My experiences relate to patriarchy in that my family life growing up was an absolute matriarchy, in a girl power sort of household. When this was translated into outer male-dominated world, I have successfully translated my own ideas of how the world should work into action.
The NPR report “Moms Become Breadwinners As Job Losses Hit Men,” explained that although more men than women have lost their jobs in this recession, women still "make 77 cents to every dollar males make." Additionally women who didn't have jobs are working part-time, while full-time workers have taken on multiple jobs. Men still dominate the normally union-based and higher-paying jobs where health care and retirement plans are factored in, while women are in lower paying jobs without such benefits. I work three jobs, not out of necessity (although extra money is nice, and certainly nothing to complain about), but out of the desire to do more and learn more. I definitely can sympathize with women taking on more work and more jobs because they have to take ultimate responsibility for themselves and their families: if they don't take care of their interests, no on else will. I also know women my age who, despite the increase in women breadwinners, cannot find work, or want to find more work but overall there is little hiring going on. This could be attributed to either the jobs that they are looking to take on, due to socialization, or perhaps a simple shortage in the economy. Either way, the situation, while interesting, is nothing to celebrate.
Sex segregation at ASU is seen in simply who runs the university: a white male. A white male has always held ultimate power at Arizona State. This also exemplifies hegemony that has been so ingrained at ASU that it seems many fail to notice. This leads into the point made by a CNBC report which notes that women represent only 2.5% of Fortune 500 CEOs. This might be explained away by either sexism, namely that a woman cannot successfully hold a powerful job, or "women's choices" to take time off or work less for more family time.
In my personal socialization, I've always been taught that, regardless of anyone else's opinion, I can do anything I want, whether that means being a CEO, a teacher or an artist beatnik hippie. As previously mentioned, I grew up with a single mother and seeing her major success in the newspaper industry, open her own business and then work in a Fortune 500 company has made me feel ultimate freedom in my choices. I have held ultimate authority jobs, and ones where I've ranked highly. My experiences relate to patriarchy in that my family life growing up was an absolute matriarchy, in a girl power sort of household. When this was translated into outer male-dominated world, I have successfully translated my own ideas of how the world should work into action.
The NPR report “Moms Become Breadwinners As Job Losses Hit Men,” explained that although more men than women have lost their jobs in this recession, women still "make 77 cents to every dollar males make." Additionally women who didn't have jobs are working part-time, while full-time workers have taken on multiple jobs. Men still dominate the normally union-based and higher-paying jobs where health care and retirement plans are factored in, while women are in lower paying jobs without such benefits. I work three jobs, not out of necessity (although extra money is nice, and certainly nothing to complain about), but out of the desire to do more and learn more. I definitely can sympathize with women taking on more work and more jobs because they have to take ultimate responsibility for themselves and their families: if they don't take care of their interests, no on else will. I also know women my age who, despite the increase in women breadwinners, cannot find work, or want to find more work but overall there is little hiring going on. This could be attributed to either the jobs that they are looking to take on, due to socialization, or perhaps a simple shortage in the economy. Either way, the situation, while interesting, is nothing to celebrate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)