It is an election year, which means we would be hearing a lot from both Democrats and Republicans claiming that their party is the true champion of working-class Americans. Sure, but what does it mean to be part of the working class in the US these days? It means being female.
If there is one statistic that describes the “working class” it is this: Of the 869,000 workers that are paid the federal minimum wage of US$7.25 per hour or less, 69 percent are women, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics said. Their ideal champion is one who fights for universal paid family leave, universal childcare, a higher minimum wage, improved regulations that guarantee paid sick days and better enforcement of labor laws that protect them from wage theft and sexual harassment.
The polling firm Gallup has routinely asked Americans to self-identify into a class: upper, upper-middle, middle, working and lower. By their categorization, the working class is somewhere between poor and comfortable, avoiding poverty, but missing the hallmarks of middle-class life, such as retirement security or owning a home. The working class have jobs, but they are surviving, not thriving.
Illustration: Louise Ting
As vague as the notion of “surviving, not thriving” is among workers, women are much more likely to fit the bill. Just under half, about 47 percent, of employed workers in the US are women, but they are the majority of low-paid workers. There are a few ways to think about this.
One is to look at the lowest-paying occupations and determine what share of the workers are women. Sure enough, among the bottom 20 lowest-paying occupations, in which a worker can expect to earn US$30,000 to US$35,000 per year, women are the majority in 15 of them, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics said — a clear over-representation.
An alternative to looking within low-paying occupations is to sum them up. Using this method, findings show that about 8 million workers are employed in the 20 lowest-paid occupations and 4.9 million, or about 62 percent, are women. Here, we see clear over-representation again. Summing up the data across the bottom 50 and 75 occupations would tell the same story. In other words, if it is lower paid, women would be over-represented.
With that in mind, the policies that they need championing are ones that improve working conditions for women, because low-wage jobs are less likely to have paid time off, retirement benefits or health insurance. Also, such jobs are more likely to be in high-violation industries or those identified by the US Department of Labor as having the highest incidence of wage theft.
For women workers, there is also the issue of harassment. Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is hard to come by, but historically, pregnancy discrimination and sexual harassment are much more common in low-wage industries, such as retail, accommodation and food services, than it is in higher-paying industries. Plus, there is the burden of caregiving. Women are more likely to be caring for children as well as sick or elderly family members than men. Hence, a true working-class champion would also be fighting for labor law enforcement and paid family leave.
The politics of the working class has largely ignored women, because they have proven less interesting as a voting bloc. Over the past 40 years, white men without a college degree switched political parties. They were dubbed the white working-class male. It is a political moniker, not borne from the actual working-class demographic, but a convenient shorthand to describe people who have not gone to college. That is not the same thing as actually being working class. For example, defined that way, 62 percent of Americans would be working class, which is far too broad. That is more than double what those in the Gallup polls self-identify as, which has held at about 30 percent since 2000.
Sure, plenty of men are part of the working class, but they are not representative of the group overall, because they generally earn too much. Consider that men with no more than a high school diploma out-earn their female counterparts by about US$6 an hour. Viewed another way, men who did not finish high school can expect to earn about the same as women who did — US$19 an hour. The low wages for women are one reason they are more likely than men to be working at least two jobs.
None of this is meant to minimize white male non-college degree holders as a group. They have a unique economic history that is deeply intertwined with the decline of blue-collar work.
The wages of 25 to 54-year-old men without a college degree tumbled by 18 percent in real terms between 1973 and 2015, economists said. However, keep in mind that even after that decline they are still far out-earning similarly educated working women. Plus, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would create more non-college jobs with higher pay in typically male occupations.
The true working class — the surviving, not thriving, low-paid women in jobs without fringe benefits, without leave, without care — deserve a champion, or at least a politician to recognize them for what they are.
Kathryn Anne Edwards is a labor economist and independent policy consultant.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS