A macho stimulus package: is it what we need? what we'll get?
I recently read an Op-Ed piece (from back in December!) on what its author called a "macho" stimulus package. One that funds construction jobs, in other words. He argues that what we really need is a stimulus package that supports our social infrastructure, not just our actual infrastructure (roads, airports, etc...). He wrote:
Jobs in construction and many of those that come with green investment often pay decent wages with benefits. But they are overwhelmingly held by men. Outside of trickle-around effects, this stimulus package will not create jobs for women in any close proportion to the numbers that will be unemployed. Almost one-quarter of families with children under the age of 18 are headed and supported by women as are the majority of single-adult households without children. This package will not put food on their plates.
Another economist prepared a letter to President-elect Obama, saying this: "A majority of women in this country - but not of men - voted for you in November. We have the audacity to hope that you will not just remember us, but respond to our specific economic needs."
What do you think? It makes sense to me, but then I'm not an economist and am way predisposed to support what I think is best for women and families.
Interesting. My first thought is that we shouldn't rule out women who DO work in construction and construction related jobs (this is stereotypical, but I worked as a secretary for a construction company for a few years).
And then a question -- so what WOULD help women more? Putting money into quality child care programs and child care subsidies?
Posted by: Kathleen McDade | January 12, 2009 at 10:09 PM
You raise an interesting topic, though a lot of the jobs created with this stimulus package are geared more towards males, we should be excited because they are jobs.
I also really like Kathleens question what would help woman? As a single Mom, the head of my household, I do see childcare as a huge issue and know that focus on that would be beneficial! I know that would be the case for families all around!
Hopefully at some point in time our country will realize childcare is a need of ALL families and perhaps we will get universal daycare, basically expand HeadStart to everyone. (To anyone that doesn't know HeadStart is a free daycare program for low income families) That would not only take the burden off families, people would have better cash flow, and it would create jobs (geared for women,not to be sexist but thats who you mainly find working in daycares and schools)
Posted by: AJ McCreary | January 13, 2009 at 10:05 AM
The only two fields that come to mind as being dominated by women are nursing and teaching at the preschool and elementary levels. Nursing is one of the only fields that is still hiring and I think everyone agrees that the public schools need more funding and the teachers need better wages. More money for childcare subsidies would be great, but they wouldn't be helping all women. Not all women have children, or have children who are in childcare. Maybe the real issue is, why aren't there more women working in the fields of engineering, architecture, urban planning and the sciences? And what are we going to do about that?
Posted by: e. | January 13, 2009 at 01:38 PM
How about putting more money into programs that support women (and men!) to return to college to pursue degrees in nursing, education, and many other fields.
I work at at local community college, and we have a nursing program. An RN degree is, technically, a two-year degree. However, one must apply to the program having completed 200-level courses in writing, biology, and chemistry. That takes most students at least an additional two years of pre-requisites, more if they begin school needing remediation in writing, reading, and math (most non-native English speakers and first-generation college students do).
I'm AMAZED every day at the number of women and men who are able to support their families on federal financial aid for four or more years while they complete degrees.
And the ones who get into nursing are lucky. Most associates degree programs qualify graduates to make entry-level wages that do not support a family.
Posted by: SJ | January 13, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Great post that made me think. I've dealt with a lot of construction and contracting vendors and let me tell you, women are essential for those places to run. While the percentage of women out in the field is less than 50/50, there are plenty of women who keep the business going at the office. Let's not forget them.
Posted by: DanielF | January 13, 2009 at 04:38 PM
my husband works in construction and I feel that this field needs to be funded, also.. he works with quite a few women carpenters.. Sooooo.. although the above comments have mentioned women working in the offices of construction companies, there are also A LOT of carpenter women too! Lets fund them!
Posted by: Jennifer | January 14, 2009 at 07:13 AM
Even if traditional construction work is typically thought of as a man's job, there are plenty of women who own contruction companies, who are architects and engineers, and in the periphery areas of construction. I agree - these jobs are JOBS and hopefully will jump-start many other industries.. I am an intern architect, and believe me, we are hopeful that a stimulus package that funds construction will help our industry.
Posted by: Jamie | January 17, 2009 at 04:40 PM