Pushing Back Against Poverty
In 2010, more than one in five U.S. children lived in poverty – substantially more than in most other wealthy countries. Poverty affects children in a variety of ways, including poor nutrition, housing, health and educational outcomes. No mother would choose poverty for her children – yet, too many cannot avoid poverty.
The youngest children are also more likely to be poor: children under three are at the highest risk of living in poverty. This reflects that young children require care, which can be very difficult to balance with employment. At the same time, low-wage jobs often do not pay enough to support a family, and even many middle-class jobs do not afford parents the opportunities to pay for high quality childcare.
My research (with collaborators Irene Boeckmann, Michelle Budig, Stephanie Moller, Eiko Strader, and Elizabeth Wemlinger) examines how industrialized democracies have worked to support and ensure opportunities for women and their children. We explore employment, wages, income, and poverty, and consider how welfare state policies can create better outcomes. This research gives us robust answers about the policies that are most important for families in the 21st century, providing a safety net that also acts as a trampoline – giving real opportunities to women and their families.
Employment protections are key, and the United States gained significant ground over the 20th century in ensuring that women have more equitable access to education and employment opportunities. Yet while we have seen a growth in educational attainment and employment, we need to consider work scheduling, leaves, and childcare as part of the package that will help women attain true success in the workplace, while supporting their families.
AN OVERWHELMING 96% OF SINGLE MOTHERS SAY PAID LEAVE IS THE WORKPLACE POLICY THAT WOULD HELP THEM MOST
A WOMAN'S NATION PUSHES BACK FROM THE BRINKMany discussions of work scheduling refer to flexibility. Yet calls for flexibility often assume that we need greater flexibility in order to work long hours, and do not recognize the ways flexibility has been used against part-time workers, whose “flexible” schedules are cost-effective for their employers, but
