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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS