Juggling Work, Kids a Global Concern
Before Mona Sahlin was elected to Sweden’s parliament, she thought workplace discrimination between the sexes was a thing of the past. But, 25 and pregnant, she encountered it all too personally.
“All these men wanted to know why I was there, why I wasn’t home with babies,” she said. “I realized that the structures in politics are made by men for men. It’s not something that will just change with time.”
Sahlin and many government and corporate leaders around the world have made a concerted effort to reduce workplace discrimination and improve the economic status of women. Yet there’s one hurdle that continually trips up women in the work force all over the world--children.
As Americans celebrate Mother’s Day, it’s worth noting that economists and workplace experts agree that economic inequalities frequently are tied to parenthood. Childless, never-married American women earn slightly more than men in the same circumstances, according to a recent study by the Employment Policy Foundation in Washington.
But, by age 45, the average working woman has 3.2 fewer years of work experience than men, mainly because many women take time off to raise children, said Ron Bird, the foundation’s chief economist. Women also devote an average of 14.2 hours each week to household chores; men devote just seven hours.
Sweden Guarantees Affordable Child Care
This “housework effect” might contribute to the earnings advantage of married men, who make about 15% more than similarly situated unmarried men, the study said, and might put married women at a disadvantage.
Sweden, with a population slightly smaller than metropolitan Los Angeles, has dealt with gender equality through a series of laws. Sahlin, the country’s minister of industry, said in a recent interview that these laws have had a dramatic effect, boosting employment among women to unprecedented levels.
Now, about 80% of women in Sweden work, which is slightly higher than the employment rate among men. Women earn about 15% less than men, but that pay gap is narrowing and it’s among the smallest in the world. The average American woman earns about 22% less than the average man.
What did Sweden do, and would those actions have a positive effect in the United States?
Three laws have most affected employment among women in Sweden, Sahlin said. One that bars discrimination is similar to U.S. laws. Another mandates that, after the birth of a child, companies give women as much as six months of leave and men as much as a month. The third is a law guaranteeing affordable child care for everyone.
The child-care system, which is largely publicly financed, provides care from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. for about $100 a month, Sahlin said. However, this and other costly public services have pushed the country’s tax rate to 52%. Comparatively, the highest federal marginal tax bracket in the U.S. is 38.6%. However, state taxes can push combined marginal rates above 40%, particularly in high-tax states such as California and New York.
Although affordable child care has made it possible for women to work, Swedish companies often subvert antidiscrimination laws because they find the burden of doing without workers for long stretches onerous, Sahlin said.
“The most common question a woman hears when she applies for a job is, ‘Do you want to have children?’” she said. “If you say yes, you won’t get the job. No one asks the man.”
If a company employs several young women who have children, the burden can be particularly great. Some experts say the combination of Sweden’s high tax rate and costly time-off laws deters individuals from starting new businesses.
Sahlin said the purpose of her trip to the United States was to better understand what drives so many women to open businesses here. In Sweden, it is rare for an individual to start a company. In the U.S., women account for about 25% of business owners and a third of sole proprietorships.
Sahlin heard many explanations of why American women are entrepreneurial, including the fact that they were driven to start their own firms by companies that were unwilling to provide enough flexibility for women to work and raise a family.
Sweden can’t afford to be insensitive to women’s needs, however. Without women in the work force, the country would suffer a serious labor shortage, Sahlin said. Moreover, if the country is unable to maintain a strong birth rate, future labor shortages--as well as systemic problems with the country’s retirement system--would be nearly assured.
Accommodating Women’s Dual Roles
No country with a pay-as-you-go retirement system--including the U.S., with Social Security--can afford to let its population stagnate. There would be too few workers to support too many retirees.
“All these companies know about the age of the population and they know that we have to have people in the labor force in the future,” Sahlin said. “The only way to do that is to give birth now.”
That means the government has to find ways to work with corporations to accommodate women’s dual roles in society.
But it’s not an easy balance. “My mother had to fight to get the right to work,” she said. “I have been working all my life, and I had to fight to get the right to stay home.
“We have to convince women that they don’t jeopardize their position in the work force if they have babies. We have to be able to both work and have children,” Sahlin said.
“The labor market has to accommodate reality.”
Times staff writer Kathy M. Kristof, author of “Investing 101” (Bloomberg Press, 2000), welcomes your comments and suggestions but regrets that she cannot respond individually to letters or phone calls. Write to Personal Finance, Business Section, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, or e-mail kathy.kristof @latimes.com. For past Personal Finance columns visit The Times’ Web site at www.latimes.com/ perfin.
