Mar. 8, 2018 "Hiring more women can boost men's pay": Today I found this article by Linda Nazareth in the Globe and Mail:
Linda Nazareth is the Senior Fellow for Economics and Population Change at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Her fourth book, Work Is Not a Place: Reimagining Our Lives and Our Organizations in the Post-Jobs Economy, will be published in 2018.
Linda Nazareth is the Senior Fellow for Economics and Population Change at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Her fourth book, Work Is Not a Place: Reimagining Our Lives and Our Organizations in the Post-Jobs Economy, will be published in 2018.
It's International Women's Day, so let's talk about men. No really, enough about women's wages; so much has been written already. Let's focus instead on the way that men's wages can go up if women join the work force.
Over the past few decades, women's participation in the labour force has resulted in gains in the earnings of men. That may seem counterintuitive: You would think that an increased labour pool would push down wages for everyone. And yet, the evidence is clear. According to a new U.S. study from a researcher at the University of Akron, there is a very strong correlation between female labour-force participation and male earnings.
The research, by economist Amanda Weinstein, focused on U.S. census data from 1980 to 2010. Looking at female labour-force participation and median wages in 250 U.S. metro areas, she isolated other factors in a bid to see how overall economies changed as women garnered paid employment.
The results were striking: Every 10-per-cent increase in female labour-force participation in a metro area was associated with a 5-per-cent increase in median inflation-adjusted wages for both men and women. That is a powerful statistic, given that over the time period in question the median worker in 40 per cent of the cities in question saw no wage gains at all as income inequality grew in North America.
The overriding reason why it is good – in dollars and cents terms at least – to bring women into the work force seems to stem around the murky concept of productivity. Roughly defined as getting more out of every hour worked, productivity is a hot topic in economics these days. When productivity goes up, wages tend to go up as well.
That is why there has been so much hand-wringing in recent years over Canada's dismal productivity gains. If you want to increase the standard of living for everyone, you have to figure out how to be more productive.
That is why there has been so much hand-wringing in recent years over Canada's dismal productivity gains. If you want to increase the standard of living for everyone, you have to figure out how to be more productive.
Although the research to date is not crystal-clear on the mechanism by which it happens, bringing women into the work force causes productivity to rise. It seems that having more women looking for work creates a larger pool of skills and abilities from which employers can choose, which benefits them.
As well, in both Canada and the United States, the industries that have gained the most over the past decades have tended to be in the service sector and to be the ones that rewarded higher skill and education levels.
As well, in both Canada and the United States, the industries that have gained the most over the past decades have tended to be in the service sector and to be the ones that rewarded higher skill and education levels.
Women's labour-force participation has especially aided in the expansion of those industries, and as they have expanded other jobs have been created. Think of a hospital that needs to attract skilled medical personnel and professionals in other fields as well.
As they are able to fill their positions, other positions within and outside of the actual hospital are created and there tends to be an upward impact on wages.
As they are able to fill their positions, other positions within and outside of the actual hospital are created and there tends to be an upward impact on wages.
Or maybe the fact that women increase the sheer numbers of workers just lets companies expand at higher rates. That a lack of workers hinders expansion is all too clear these days, as companies in many sectors lament the dearth of skilled workers.
That is something that is only going to get worse in the coming years as the baby boom heads for retirement, taking their skills with them.
That is something that is only going to get worse in the coming years as the baby boom heads for retirement, taking their skills with them.
Although we do not have a comprehensive study showing Canada's experience over the same period, it stands to reason that increasing the pool of workers would potentially be a good thing for Canada's economy.
As of 2017, 61.5 per cent of women over the age of 15 were in the Canadian labour force. Some of the other 38.5 per cent were in school or at home taking care of family, perfectly content to not be looking for work.
Some were not content at all, but for one reason or another did not find it feasible to look for work.
Some were not content at all, but for one reason or another did not find it feasible to look for work.
Figuring out the reasons for why women are not looking for work – which could stem from a lack of good child care to a lack of information of what jobs are available – and addressing them could benefit the entire economy.
It's worth a shot: As we worry about income stagnation and a declining level of family incomes, ignoring the potential contributions of 38.5 per cent of potential workers seems counterproductive at best and foolish at worst.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/another-good-reason-to-hire-women-to-boost-productivity-and-mens-pay/article38241278/
It's worth a shot: As we worry about income stagnation and a declining level of family incomes, ignoring the potential contributions of 38.5 per cent of potential workers seems counterproductive at best and foolish at worst.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/another-good-reason-to-hire-women-to-boost-productivity-and-mens-pay/article38241278/
"Why we #PressforProgress in the boardrooms": Today I found this article by Carol Liao in the Globe and Mail:
Carol Liao is a professor at the Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC and the UBC Sauder Distinguished Scholar of the Dhillon Centre for Business Ethics at the UBC Sauder School of Business.
Female business founders received only 2.2 per cent of the US$85-billion invested by venture capitalists in 2017 – abysmal, unless you spin it as an improvement from 2016 (even if the improvement is only by 0.3 percentage points). Board diversity in Canada is slowly improving, too – but the numbers remain in the teens, and at these rates gender parity isn't going to happen in my children's lifetime.
As we #PressforProgress on this International Women's Day, it is important to ask: In what ways do corporations entrench gender inequality, erect barriers for women's participation in labour and fortify masculine norms of governance?
International Women's Day gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the gendered history that underpins the rise of big business, pooling of capital and concentration of power in the world.
This history reverberates in the principles that guide regulatory development, and affects the decisions corporations make every day – directly and indirectly influencing the ways in which issues are identified as problems, how these problems are solved and whose interests are protected.
This history reverberates in the principles that guide regulatory development, and affects the decisions corporations make every day – directly and indirectly influencing the ways in which issues are identified as problems, how these problems are solved and whose interests are protected.
Feminist discourse has helped identify systemic disadvantages women face when climbing the corporate ladder – such as the glass ceiling, the glass cliff, and motherhood penalty, to name a few.
Traditional characteristics of leaders are unconsciously considered different from our socialized idea of the female gender, and multiple studies have shown that people hold implicit biases against women in leadership roles. These biases persist across gender lines, with both men and women alike judging women more harshly than men, exposing internalized forms of misogyny.
Traditional characteristics of leaders are unconsciously considered different from our socialized idea of the female gender, and multiple studies have shown that people hold implicit biases against women in leadership roles. These biases persist across gender lines, with both men and women alike judging women more harshly than men, exposing internalized forms of misogyny.
Diverse feminist perspectives have developed throughout history, at times with conflicting viewpoints and goals. Some common traits of feminist theory draw upon notions of equality and ethics of care. In the context of corporate law, these include challenges to the singular focus on short-term profit to the detriment of long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Feminist legal theory offers a reminder that Canadian boards must consider a broad array of stakeholders in their corporate decision making – not just the interests of shareholders but of employees, creditors, consumers, government, communities, and the environment – and ensure corporations act as good corporate citizens.
Feminist perspectives challenges the self-interested shareholder concept and aligns with social finance movements and broader conceptions of impact and value. It also critiques the disproportionately negative effect corporate power has had on women, particularly on racialized and Indigenous women, and women in Third World countries.
Feminist perspectives challenges the self-interested shareholder concept and aligns with social finance movements and broader conceptions of impact and value. It also critiques the disproportionately negative effect corporate power has had on women, particularly on racialized and Indigenous women, and women in Third World countries.
The "tone at the top" and who comprises "the top" also matters. An intersectional understanding of lived experiences and social categorizations (including gender, race, class, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability/ability) are highly relevant in the context of power structures and different forms of privilege.
Feminist perspectives focus on the use and distribution of power, and consciousness-raising is a necessary component. Awareness of power imbalances in the boardroom, and in the day-to-day functioning of corporate activities, are critical in reform efforts.
Now, along with #MeToo, #TimesUp, and other social movements, gender is becoming a complex and potentially evolving issue within corporate culture and the future viability of companies.
Now, along with #MeToo, #TimesUp, and other social movements, gender is becoming a complex and potentially evolving issue within corporate culture and the future viability of companies.
As industry leaders weigh in, and the transfer of capital moves into the hands of women and millennials, the seismic shift toward a new era of corporate sustainability is looming. The next few decades mark a critical period in domestic and international corporate reform as businesses begin to adapt to worldwide pressures for greater sustainability and changing consumer demands.
The corporate sustainability movement is in its nascent years, but far more global in nature than "business case" corporate social responsibility, and is growing at a formidable pace.
The corporate sustainability movement is in its nascent years, but far more global in nature than "business case" corporate social responsibility, and is growing at a formidable pace.
Putting businesses on a more sustainable path will require the participation of all factions of society, and all genders. On this International Women's Day, it's time for an unapologetic call to redesign of existing power structures and internal power dynamics that are leading our world into crises.
