Question

. In what decades did US female labor force participation increase the most rapidly? What factors drove both the magnitude of this change and its timing? How has the wage gap changed over the period of the greatest change in female labor force participation? What do Goldin (and/or Gordon) believe has led to movements in the wage gap? What is the significance of this result [in terms of discrimination]? How has female labor participation changed in recent decades?

Answer 1

Answer)
In what decades did US female labor force participation increase the most rapidly?
A major factor that contributed to the growth of the U.S. labor force in the second half of the twentieth century was the remarkable increase in the labor force participation rate of women. During this time, the U.S. economy experienced economic growth that increased the demand for labor. Baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) began entering the labor force in large numbers in the early 1960s as they reached working age. Coupled with the rapidly increasing labor force participation rate of women, this resulted in a large influx of women into the labor market.
The percent growth of the labor force for women has been greater than for men for the past six decades. The first wave of the baby boomers began entering the labor force in the early 1960s. From 1964 to 1974, the women's labor force grew by 43 percent, compared with growth of about 17 percent for men. As the remainder of the baby boomers entered the labor force through the early 1980s, the women's labor force continued to display impressive growth. The gap between the women’s and men's growth rates narrowed through the next decades. From 2014 to 2024, the growth in the women's labor force is projected to be a bit larger than that for men—5.8 percent compared with 4.4 percent
What factors drove both the magnitude of this change and its timing?
After peaking in 1999, the labor force participation rate of women has continuously declined. During this time, the baby-boom generation aged and the economy experienced the impacts of the severe 2007–09 recession. BLS projects women's labor force participation rate to continue its decline in the 2014 - 18 decade.
Population: birth patterns. A number of distinct birth patterns evolved in the population of the United States in the last century that led to similar labor force patterns as the various cohorts9 reached 16 years of age and joined the workforce. These demographic patterns can be traced chronologically as follows: • Birth dearth: the decline in the number of births between the late 1920s and early 1930s. • Baby boom: the significant increase in the number of births between 1946 and 1964, with the peak birth year being 1957. • Baby bust: a decrease in the number of births occurring between the end of the baby boom and the late 1970s. • Baby-boom echo or baby boom let a growth in the number of children born to the baby-boom generation during the 1980s and early 1990s.
How has the wage gap changed over the period of the greatest change?
The gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, but it has remained relatively stable over the past 15 years or so. In 2017, women earned 82% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers in the United States. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 47 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2017.
By comparison, the Census Bureau found that full-time, year-round working women earned 80% of what their male counterparts earned in 2016.
analysis finds that the 2017 wage gap was smaller for adults ages 25 to 34 than for all workers ages 16 and older. Women in this age group earned 89 cents for every dollar a man in the same age group earned. The estimated 18-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2017 has narrowed from 36 cents in 1980. For young women, the gap has narrowed even more over time. In 1980, women ages 25 to 34 earned 33 cents less than their male counterparts, compared with 11 cents in 2017.
What do Goldin (and/or Gordon) believe has led to movements in the wage gap?
The gender gap has narrowed. The ratio of median earnings increased from 0.56 to 0.78 in the three decades prior to 2010. This narrowing of the gap in pay reflects the converging economic roles of men and women, a reality that is among the grandest social and economic advances in the last century. There are many aspects to the convergence, and each can be thought of as a chapter in a figurative book. The big question is whether the last chapter, in which the economy achieves full equality, can be written
The solution does not have to involve government intervention and it does not depend on the improvement of women’s bargaining skills or heightened will to compete. Nor must men become more responsible in the home (although that would greatly help). What is needed are changes in how jobs are structured and remunerated, enhancing the flexibility of work schedules. To succeed, the changes must decrease employers’ costs in substituting the hours of one worker for another. Firms that have family-friendly policies – and there are many of them – are moving in the right direction. But if those policies are accompanied by decreases in women’s average hourly pay and dimmer prospects for promotion because the cost of accommodating flexible hours remains high, they will only reinforce gender differences in the workplace. The gender gap in hourly compensation would vanish if long, inflexible work days and weeks weren’t profitable to employers – that is, if firms did not have a financial incentive to pay employees working 80 hours a week more than twice what they would receive for 40-hour weeks. A similar statement can be made with regard to working specific schedules tailored to episodic increases in demand or putting in enormous amounts of time at the start of one’s career to demonstrate allegiance and commitment. The costs of temporal flexibility have in fact begun to fall in some sectors – notably, technology, science and health. And the change is reflected in the increased use of teams of substitute employees, as well as in the more routine handing-off of clients, patients and customers from one employee to another. It should be noted, however, that adaptation has been slower in other sectors, among them financial and legal services.
What is the significance of this result?
There are so many significances on the women labor factors, below for the most items.
Increased purchasing power of women: “With female consumers controlling 85 percent of all purchase decisions, responsible for $7 trillion in spending, and 78 percent of women considering purchases more carefully, a woman’s wallet is more influential than ever before”

Business result improvements: According to research and advisory company, Catalyst, companies with the highest representation of women board members attain significantly higher financial performance than those with the lowest representation: 53% higher Return on Equity; 42% higher Return on Sales; and 66% higher Return on Invested

Increased Gross Domestic Product: The Economistarticle states, “Goldman Sachs calculates that, leaving all other things equal, increasing women’s participation in the labor market to male levels will boost GDP by 21% in Italy, 19% in Spain, 16% in Japan, 9% in America, France and Germany, and 8% in Britain.”

Increased number of women owned businesses: In the U.S., “nearly 10.4 million firms are owned by women (50% or more), employing more than 12.9 million people, and generating $1.9 trillion in sales” (2007 Wow! Quick Facts: Women, p.50).

Less time for mothers to spend with children due to their work schedules: There are definite downsides to women working. For example, mothers working full-time means they have busier schedules and less time to spend with children. “One third of all school age children in the United States are, for some part of the week, latch key kids; that is, they go home to an empty house or apartment” .As The Economist article warns, “Even well-off parents worry that they spend too little time with their children, thanks to crowded schedules and the ever-buzzing Blackberry.”

Increased stress levels and changing roles: Harper and Leicht (Exploring Social Change: America and the World, 2007, p. 91) state, “The most pressing problem of dual-income families is not money, but the problem of managing ‘ragged’ family schedules and adjusting husband/wife roles.” Women are currently juggling full-time careers, managing household chores and child rearing duties, as well as taking care of aging parents, thus greatly increasing their level of daily stress compared to women of previous generations. Family relationships have also been shifting in dual-income families from patriarchal authority and “from fixed ‘role scripts’ toward more flexible ‘role negotiation’” and equalitarian relationships (p. 93).

Difficulty accessing quality child care: Another pressing problem due to the increasing numbers of women working is access to quality child care, which Harper and Leicht (2007, p. 92) state “is in short supply and expensive.” For poor parents, the struggle can be even worse because “childcare eats a terrifying proportion of the family budget...but quitting work to look after the children can mean financial disaster” (The Economist, 2010, p.2).

Changing how people work: In order to help workers meet both job and family requirements, more and more companies are allowing a portion of jobs to be completed via telecommuting and “home-working is increasingly fashionable” (The Economist, 2010, p. 3).

Changing the school schedules of children: Even school districts are making changes in order to better match the school days of children with their parent’s dual-job households; thus alleviating some of the child care burden. “Some of the most popular American charter schools offer longer school days and shorter summer holidays” (The Economist, 2010, p. 4).

The analysis of the consequences from the increasing number of women in the workforce shows there have been many changes in business and family life. While some of the changes have been seen as positive, others have been seen as negative; and in some areas, the full social effects have yet to be felt.

How have you been affected, either positively or negatively, by the increasing number of women in the workforce? Share your thoughts in the “Comments” section.

How has female labor participation changed in recent decades?

The labor force participation rate of women increased throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and peaked at 60.0 percent in 1999. Over these four decades, the women's labor force participation rate increased even during several economic downturns. Since the peak, the women’s labor force participation rate, which historically offset the decline in the men's participation rate, has been decreasing and is now contributing to a decline in the overall labor force participation rate. Since the midpoint of the Great Recession in 2008, the rate has further declined by 2.8 percentage points to 56.7 percent in 2015. BLS projects that this rate will continue its decline and fall by 0.9 percentage.

In what decades did US female labor force participation increase the most rapidly?

A major factor that contributed to the growth of the U.S. labor force in the second half of the twentieth century was the remarkable increase in the labor force participation rate of women. During this time, the U.S. economy experienced economic growth that increased the demand for labor. Baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) began entering the labor force in large numbers in the early 1960s as they reached working age. Coupled with the rapidly increasing labor force participation rate of women, this resulted in a large influx of women into the labor market.

The percent growth of the labor force for women has been greater than for men for the past six decades. The first wave of the baby boomers began entering the labor force in the early 1960s. From 1964 to 1974, the women's labor force grew by 43 percent, compared with growth of about 17 percent for men. As the remainder of the baby boomers entered the labor force through the early 1980s, the women's labor force continued to display impressive growth. The gap between the women’s and men's growth rates narrowed through the next decades. From 2014 to 2024, the growth in the women's labor force is projected to be a bit larger than that for men—5.8 percent compared with 4.4 percent

What factors drove both the magnitude of this change and its timing?

After peaking in 1999, the labor force participation rate of women has continuously declined. During this time, the baby-boom generation aged and the economy experienced the impacts of the severe 2007–09 recession. BLS projects women's labor force participation rate to continue its decline in the 2014 - 18 decade.

Population: birth patterns. A number of distinct birth patterns evolved in the population of the United States in the last century that led to similar labor force patterns as the various cohorts9 reached 16 years of age and joined the workforce. These demographic patterns can be traced chronologically as follows: • Birth dearth: the decline in the number of births between the late 1920s and early 1930s. • Baby boom: the significant increase in the number of births between 1946 and 1964, with the peak birth year being 1957. • Baby bust: a decrease in the number of births occurring between the end of the baby boom and the late 1970s. • Baby-boom echo or baby boom let a growth in the number of children born to the baby-boom generation during the 1980s and early 1990s.

How has the wage gap changed over the period of the greatest change?

The gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, but it has remained relatively stable over the past 15 years or so. In 2017, women earned 82% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers in the United States. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 47 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2017.

By comparison, the Census Bureau found that full-time, year-round working women earned 80% of what their male counterparts earned in 2016.

analysis finds that the 2017 wage gap was smaller for adults ages 25 to 34 than for all workers ages 16 and older. Women in this age group earned 89 cents for every dollar a man in the same age group earned. The estimated 18-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2017 has narrowed from 36 cents in 1980. For young women, the gap has narrowed even more over time. In 1980, women ages 25 to 34 earned 33 cents less than their male counterparts, compared with 11 cents in 2017.

What do Goldin (and/or Gordon) believe has led to movements in the wage gap?

The gender gap has narrowed. The ratio of median earnings increased from 0.56 to 0.78 in the three decades prior to 2010. This narrowing of the gap in pay reflects the converging economic roles of men and women, a reality that is among the grandest social and economic advances in the last century. There are many aspects to the convergence, and each can be thought of as a chapter in a figurative book. The big question is whether the last chapter, in which the economy achieves full equality, can be written

The solution does not have to involve government intervention and it does not depend on the improvement of women’s bargaining skills or heightened will to compete. Nor must men become more responsible in the home (although that would greatly help). What is needed are changes in how jobs are structured and remunerated, enhancing the flexibility of work schedules. To succeed, the changes must decrease employers’ costs in substituting the hours of one worker for another. Firms that have family-friendly policies – and there are many of them – are moving in the right direction. But if those policies are accompanied by decreases in women’s average hourly pay and dimmer prospects for promotion because the cost of accommodating flexible hours remains high, they will only reinforce gender differences in the workplace. The gender gap in hourly compensation would vanish if long, inflexible work days and weeks weren’t profitable to employers – that is, if firms did not have a financial incentive to pay employees working 80 hours a week more than twice what they would receive for 40-hour weeks. A similar statement can be made with regard to working specific schedules tailored to episodic increases in demand or putting in enormous amounts of time at the start of one’s career to demonstrate allegiance and commitment. The costs of temporal flexibility have in fact begun to fall in some sectors – notably, technology, science and health. And the change is reflected in the increased use of teams of substitute employees, as well as in the more routine handing-off of clients, patients and customers from one employee to another. It should be noted, however, that adaptation has been slower in other sectors, among them financial and legal services.