Women's status in the US workforce 2000+.

Tucker, Shirley H. ; Hill, Kathy L.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the research was to explore the status of women in the US workforce including (1) a brief history of women's entrance into the workforce, (2) a comparison of men and women's pay, work positions, and promotion possibilities, (3) a review of women entrepreneurs, and (4) an examination of obstacles facing women in the workplace.

Historical highlights reveal women's entry into the workforce and US demographics and projections are used to bring attention to "perhaps the most significant change in the history of the American workplace--the gender shift;" women now make up 46 percent of US workers. Women are becoming better educated and single moms who serve as the head of households are fast becoming the new norm.

Although tremendous growth in numbers of women participating in the workforce is evident, equal treatment is not. Women continue to make 72.2 percent of the Caucasian male and fill only 6.2 percent of top management positions. Barriers such as stereotypical attitudes, "good ole boy networks", and the "glass ceiling" continue to stifle women's achievements and contributions to the corporate world.

As a result, many women are electing nontraditional careers such as engineering and science technicians, computer specialists, and starting their own businesses. Women have also invaded and proven themselves successful in traditional white male bastions--architects, economists, pharmacists, lawyers, and journalists.

INTRODUCTION

A plethora of articles has been published addressing the significant changes in US society and workforce demographics. Massive changes have been documented by the U.S. Census Bureau, (2000), indicating the change in Caucasian population in 1950 of 89 percent, to the predicted 60 percent of 2050, revealed in Table 1.

Each decade manifests a decline in numbers of Caucasians in the US population and increases in minority numbers, especially since the 1990s. A significant growth in the Hispanic population is forecast, from 6 percent in 1990 to 20 percent by 2050. Although the total percentage of Asian Americans is small, this demographic group is currently the fastest growing in the US (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

Additionally, as indicated in Table 2, the number of older workers is forecast to increase significantly, graying US society and the labor force. The percentage of the US population of 45-54 year olds is predicted to increase from 19 to 24 percent, and of 55-64 year olds from 9 to 12 percent, and will significantly impact organizations, insurance costs, and social security and medicare benefits. Perhaps, however, the greatest demographic shift is the influx of women into the workforce; their proportion is expected to increase from 46 to 48 percent by 2005.

In general, these demographic changes are already reflected in today's work environment, but the effect will continue to increase through the first half of the Twenty-first Century. However, the "gender shift may be the most significant change in the history of the American workplace" (Judy & D'Amico, 1997, 52). According to the US Department of Labor Women's Bureau (2000), 62 million women were participating in the US labor force, i.e., six of every ten women 16 years and over were employed in 1999.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this research is to explore the status of women in the US workforce including (1) a brief history of women's entrance into the workforce, (2) a comparison of men and women's pay, work positions, and promotion possibilities, (3) a review of women entrepreneurs, and (4) an examination of obstacles facing women in the workplace.

WOMEN ENTER THE US WORKFORCE

Historical beginnings of women entering the workforce provide a foundation for evaluating growth, participation, capabilities, and contributions of women in the US workforce and in the economy. The number of women in the workforce steadily increased during the 1800's (The Effect, 1996). Predominantly, jobs for women included domestic work, selling hand-made goods and food, and positions in lower class situations. However, a small number of women enjoyed employment in gender-specific positions as teachers and nurses or in low-end jobs in mills and sweatshops (Judy & D'Amico, 1997). Additionally, some women worked as domestics during this time period. Both women and children entered the workforce during the 1929 depression, working along-side men. Still, men dominated the workplace and upper level positions. World War II, however, was a catalyst for women entering the work world during the last half of the Twentieth century.

World War II

During the early 1900's women's participation in the workforce gradually increased but made up a small percentage of the total workforce--in 1900, the percentage of female workers was only 18.1 percent and had risen only to 20.4 percent by 1920 and 21.9 percent by 1930. During the Civil War and World War I, women entered the job market as men left to fight the wars. However, most women returned home after these wars ended (Kay, 2000).

On the other hand, World War II served as the conduit of major change in the demographics of the US work force. Many women entered the job market, working on farms and in factories to take the place of men who had gone to war (Judy & D'Amico, 1997). During this difficult time, women's traditional role took on new perspectives as they became the head of the home, held full-time jobs, and educated their children. Generally, women did not return home after World War II and made up 57 percent of the workforce in 1945 (Kay, 2000). This demonstration of women's strength is only one indication of women's ability to contribute to the US economy (The Effect, 1996).

Nature of Work Changes

In addition to the impetus of World War II requiring women to fill men's work positions, the nature of work performed began to change. Much of the work during the first half of Twentieth Century involved agriculture and manufacturing, and many jobs were labor bound and more easily completed by men because of their size and strength. American women proved themselves, however, as adept factory workers during World War II. Since the 1940s and 1950's, the number of women entering the workforce has increased, and especially so as the US economy changed from a manufacturing economy to a service economy during the last few decades (Judy & D'Amico, 1997). Most jobs, now, may be performed as easily by women as men. However, women had to fight for their status and place in their expanding role in society.

Women's Rights Movement

Women's battle for equality, both in the home and work place, in the US began in 1848 at the first Women's Rights Convention. However, it was not until 1920 that women gained the right to vote universally--144 years after the founding of the US. It was a struggle that took much picketing and conviction (National, 2002), but the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed women the right to vote, among others. Although women's right to vote did not radically change politics, as was hoped, it did open the door for women to have a greater voice in shaping American society (Murrin, et al.,2002).

Another contributing factor to women entering the US work place was the Women's Rights Movement of the 1960's. In 1961, President Kennedy established the Commission on the Status of Women; the commission investigated discrimination against women and produced documentation that women were being treated as second-class citizens (National, 2002). The Commission also made recommendations on how to eliminate discrimination. Their work prompted the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that provided women equal pay with men for performing the same work (Kay, 2000). Also, in 1964, the Civil Rights Bill was amended to include sex. Although sex" was added to the bill as a joke to "kill" the bill, the bill was passed, and women (sex) came under the same protection from discrimination as race, age, handicap, or national origin.

Since the 1960's, the role of women has drastically changed in the US. The passage of the Equal Pay Act and The Civil Rights Bill have provided women the impetus to enter the US workforce in much larger numbers (Kay, 2000). Additionally, women no longer see themselves as a reflection of a man (husband) or children. Most women see themselves equal to men and are interested in pursuing careers, as opposed to jobs, and independent lifestyles (National, 2002). Women have fought for equal opportunities in the workplace for many years and continue that struggle still today.

Education of Women

Obtaining advanced education is a reliable prediction of work force participation, and women have taken advantage of this path for entering the work force in greater numbers and at higher entry levels, possessing greater possibilities for promotion and advancement. Women's education levels at the undergraduate and graduate levels have matched the educational level of men since the early 1980s and have continued through the 1990s (Equal Pay, 1998) By the 1990s women earned 55 percent of bachelor's degrees, 53 percent of master's degrees, and nearly 40 percent of doctorates (Judy & D'Amico, 1997). With increased education and work experience, women began to realize that they deserved more than the traditional pink collar or role-segregated jobs of their predecessors. Education also helped women become more aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and, as a result, women are demanding their rights more in society and in the workplace (Khojasteh, 1998).

Men No Longer Sole Provider

Traditionally, American society placed the man as head of the home and "bread winner." However, developments within the US society, mainly increased divorce rates, women's changing self-perceptions, and abandonment of families by men, truly launched new trends. First, men are no longer the sole or even the primary source of financial support of families. In 1980 wives were the sole support in 14 percent of American married-couple families; by 1993, the percentage had increased to 20.

A second trend involves two-earner families, where both husband and wife work full-time.

This demographic category also increased from 39 percent to 55 percent of all married-couple families from 1980 to 1993. It appears that this trend is likely to continue (Judy & D'Amico, 1997). This category also experienced the highest median income of all family types (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2000).

A third trend involves women who are sole earners; women make up nearly two-thirds of families maintained by a single person, a category that increased from 12 percent of all families in 1980 to 16 percent in 1993 (Judy & D'Amico, 1997, 53). "In 1998, women maintained 13 million (18 percent) of the 71 million families in the U.S. These are families with no husband in the household and consisted of 14 percent Caucasian families and 47 percent Black families; and 24 percent were of Hispanic origin families" (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2000-2001).

Today, single parents head 27 percent of American households with children under 18 years of age, compared to a mere seven percent in 1950. What's more startling is that single fathers only comprise five percent of that total with 16 percent living below poverty level; the poverty level for single mothers is more than double that amount at 34 percent. Single mothers have become the new norm for the American family (Carlson, et al., 2001). Although women's roles are increasing and broadening in the work force, their pay and advancements possibilities are not increasing at the same rate.

A COMPARISON OF MEN AND WOMEN'S PAY, WORK POSITIONS, AND PROMOTION POSSIBILITIES

Pay Comparisons

Individuals with the same qualifications performing the same jobs should make the same pay, and this right was guaranteed women with the passage of the 1963 Equal Pay Act. The Act provided for equal pay for equal work in the same establishment for employees performing jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility (Milkovich & Newman, 1999). Although Congress has been active in trying to eliminate discrimination in the workplace and in work opportunities, more than 250,000 women representing all 50 states indicated in a 1994 survey conducted by the Women's Bureau Fair Pay Clearinghouse that "improving pay scales...." was one of their highest priorities in improving workplace issues (U.S. Dol Women's Bureau Fair Pay, Retrieved 2/24/2002).

In 1967, women earned 60 cents for full-time work, while men earned $1. Women's salaries experienced the most growth during the 1980s, then made very small growth percentages throughout the 1990s, as displayed in Table 3. Although progress in equity pay has been made, there remains a startling imbalance in pay; according to the U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau, women continued to make only 72.2 cents to a man's $1 in 1999 (Facts on Working Women, 2000). Additionally, some researchers indicate that women's salaries are increasing, but that some of the decline experienced in the wage gap is actually a result of men's salaries decreasing.

The AFL-CIO Report (2001) supports the US Department of Labor's statistics indicating that women's wages fell to 72 cents to a man's $1 in 1999. Additionally, the AFL-CIO Report indicated that wages for minority women were much worse, with African-American and Hispanic women making 65 cents and 52 cents, respectively, to a Caucasian male's $1.

There is a great divide of opinion, however, on the validity of the US Department of Labor and AFL-CIO's reports of pay discrimination. The counter to the previous statistics, including the National Committee on Pay Equity, believe that the wage gap exists because of differences in education, experience, length of service, and women's choices (Edmonds, 1999). Another reason purported to explain the pay difference between men and women is that "average full-time" pay is the determinant, without taking into account that women's average workweek is 41.3 hours compared to 45 hours for men (Facts and Fallacy, 1999). According to Facts and Fallacy, correcting for the difference in number of hours worked lowers the difference between men and women's pay to 19 cents. This same viewpoint asserts if experience and tenure, education and field of specialization, and industry and occupation of men and women are considered the gap goes down even further.

The President's report (Women in the Workforce, 2000) somewhat supports this viewpoint. The report indicates that differences in income is attributed one-third to differences in skills and experience between men and women, one-third to the fact that men work in higher paying industries, and one-third remains unaccounted for. Another reason given for the remaining unexplained income is that women's job experience is more likely to be discontinuous, but according to Infante (2001), "only 5.1 percent of all women in the workforce take more than a week off for any reason--including maternity leave, which is not significantly more than the 3.3 percent of men who do the same."

The U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau (Facts About Working Women, 2000) indicates that women may congregate in too few occupations, generally the lower paying ones, and that the influx in numbers causes less demand for workers, resulting in lower wages. However, the scientific evidence reviewed by the Natinal Academy of Sciences does not support this view. Instead, their findings suggests that women face discrimination and institutional barriers such that "opportunities that women encounter in the labor market and in pre-market training and education constrain their choices to a narrow set of alternatives" (Sex Segregation, 1986, p. 2). It is also believed that women may be directed into lower paying career fields by society and stereotypical gender roles. Discrimination and a difference in personal-value structure were also named as contributing to the wage gap. The differences in wages between men and women in the 20 leading occupations for women are revealed in Table 4.

There is merit to the discrimination reasoning, however, as evidenced by two to three million dollars being awarded to defendants each year between 1992 and 1997, who had filed discrimination cases with the Equal Opportunity Commission. Additionally, according to the National Science Foundation, female college graduates aged 25 to 36 earned only 73 percent of their male peers in 1993.

In 1999, nearly 50 percent of female college graduates earned 87 percent of male peers when controlling for age, degree level, field of study, and occupation (WOW, 2000). Also demonstrating that there is still not equal pay for equal work, as shown in Table IV above, females, even in female dominated occupations, continue to make less than men. Further, women householders fair worse than any other group as shown in Table 5.

Even though a gap remains between men and women's pay, the gap has been gradually closing since 1973. Women's pay experienced the greatest increase during the 1980's and incremental increases during the 1990's. At the same time, men's earnings peaked in the 1970's and have "drifted downward" since (U. S. Dept. of Labor, 2000). Although the pay gap is decreasing, the presence of women in top-level corporate positions is minimal.

Work Position Comparisons

A very small percentage of women have made it to the highest levels of authority in US corporations. Women have been promoted and make up 12.5 percent of corporate officers, and 4.1 percent of top earners. Only 6.2 percent of top managers are women (chairman, vice chairman, CEO, president, chief operating officer, senior executive vice president, executive vice president); in numbers this percentage represents 154 women versus 2,488 men. And only 7.3 percent of "line"--revenue-generating--positions are held by women (Catalyst Fact Sheet, 2000).

Considering that women make up 46 percent of the workforce, an extremely disproportionate number of women hold upper management positions. "Catalyst's 1997 Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners' showed that only 10.6 percent of the corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies are women" (Solomon, 1998). Also, the few women who hold top management positions still earn only a fraction of what their male coworkers are making. Sheila Wellington, president of Catalyst (the research and advisory commission for helping women achieve equality in the workplace) says, "We couldn't find any simple explanation for such a salary gap. By any measure of comparison--title, functional status, age, company ranking among them--women top earners aren't only out numbered, they earn less than their male counterparts" (Laabs, 1999).

Supporting these figures are the results of the 1995 Glass Ceiling Commission that reported that 95-97 percent of senior managers of Fortune 1000 and Fortune 500 companies were male. Additionally, "in the Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies, only 5 percent of senior managers were female" (Equal Pay, 1998).

The greatest numbers of women work in technical, sales, and administrative positions. More women, however, were employed as K-12 teachers, secretaries, managers and administrators, and as cashiers (U.S. DOL, 2000-2001). The six occupations with the greatest number of women, making up 25 percent of all women workers, are shown in Table 6 below.

Perhaps more encouraging in some ways is the statistics provided by the "Economic Report of the President" released in mid-February by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. From 1950 to 1999, the percentage of women among U.S. architects nearly quadrupled, to 16%; the percentage of women economists nearly tripled to 51% of the profession; the share of women pharmacists increased six-fold, to 49%; and the number of women lawyers went up sevenfold, to 29%. Women journalists now total 50% of the workforce, up from 38% in 1950 (Women in the Workforce, 2000).

Promotion Possibilities

Explanations for such negligible numbers of women in top management are offered by Stavraka (2000). She purports that women are predominantly put in staff positions as opposed to line positions "those with revenue or profit-and-loss responsibility)" and, as a result, are not able to take advantage of obtaining the training and experience to advance up the corporate ladder. As discussed previously, women make up only 7.3 percent of line positions (Catalyst Census, 2000). Also, men and women's employment evaluations differ, with men's focused on career development and women's on current performance. Further, Stavraka (2000) believes women's progress is hindered by three obstacles--"stereotyping, exclusions from informal social (good old boy) networks, and lack of opportunity." She states, "It's the prevalence of unfair gender myths--such as the belief that women simply aren't interested in the fast track--that often keeps women out of the management pipeline." Because of problems with advancement and other discriminations, many women are opting for nontraditional work situations.

Women have begun increasing their presence in nontraditional occupations such as "bank officials and financial managers, transport equipment operatives, engineering and science technicians, and computer specialists", and many women have chosen to join the military. These occupations offer women opportunities to break out of the traditional career paths for women. "Women now account for more than 25 percent of all lawyers and physicians--once male bastions (Equal Pay, 1998). Another career avenue women have selected in order to exert more control over their careers is evident in the increasing numbers of women starting their own businesses.

A REVIEW OF WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS

Women are leading an economic revolution in this country. Women who are weary of trying to adapt to environments where they are not welcome are leaving to create companies that fit them (Nichols, 1994). Women frequently start companies in which the customer pays up front for the product, making their business a trust-based business. The voice of the woman entrepreneur is controlled, calm, and self-assured.

Women business owners have styles of thinking and management that differ in several important ways from men. While men strongly emphasize logical, left-brain thinking, women are somewhat more likely to emphasize intuitive, right-brain thinking. Women are less hierarchical, may take more time when making decisions, seek more information, and are more likely to draw upon input from others (WBENC, 2001).

In 1977, women owned fewer than one million firms (Equal Pay, 1998). However, women-owned businesses increased 15 percent each year between 1977 and 1992, "the most recent year for which data is available" (U.S. Depart. Of Labor, Women Business Owners, 1999). "By 1992, they owned nearly 6.4 million businesses" (Equal Pay, 1998). And by the end of the Twentieth Century, women owned 38 percent of all US firms and "generated more than 3.6 trillion dollars annually in sales, resulting in women owning more than 60 percent of the nation's wealth and 35 percent of the nation's stocks and mutual funds" (National Foundation for Women Business Owners, 2001). These women owned firms also represent 35 percent

of all US firms with employees (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Women Business Owners, 1999).

Moore and Buttner (1997) indicate that prior to the 1980s, most women-owned businesses were small, slow growing and offered low income for owners. Second generation women-owned businesses, however, are diversifying into more nontraditional female business areas such as construction, wholesale, automotive dealers, and service stations. Characteristics of women-owned businesses are presented in Table 7.

Another reason for the tremendous increase in women owned businesses is the existence of the glass ceiling, an invisible barrier to advancement opportunities for women. Research completed by the National Foundation for Women Business Owners indicated that "women business owners with corporate experience said that glass ceiling issues' were significant in motivating them to start their own companies" (Equal Pay, 1998).

Women moving into their own businesses have been compared to "entrepreneurial patterns of other minority groups, particularly immigrants to the United States, who have experienced language barriers, stereotypes, and discrimination which limited access to jobs and hindered earning potential" (Equal Pay, 1998).

Women of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century are seeking careers, not just jobs (Smith, 1992). According to the latest "economic report of the President (BW Online, 2000) "the progress made by women in the paid labor market has been one of the most important economic changes of the 20th century."

BARRIERS

Stereotypical Attitudes

According to a research study by Catalyst, women in high ranking positions in companies in the US, Canada, and the UK indicate that "male stereotyping and preconceptions of women's roles and abilities are top barriers to women's advancement" (Catalyst 2000). These results were garnered from studies completed in the US, 1996, and in Canada, 1997, and again in the UK, 2000. Each study was a replication; a total of 1188 women participated, of which 117 were CEO's. These research studies enabled the comparison of women's views from three countries.

Gender role norms--expectations about appropriate behavior of women versus men--are learned in very early stages of childhood. "Specifically, children learn which gender they are and the role behaviors associated with being male or female in their culture" (Parsons, 1983, 19). These stereotypes regarding women's role in society, many times carry over into the workplace. The 'traditional woman' is viewed as being "emotional, passive, nurturing, weak, dependent, non-assertive, and incompetent, except in narrowly defined domestic chores" (Obstacles to Women, 1996). Traditional attitudes toward women may also be characterized by the belief that women are better at certain jobs and tasks and that men are better at others.

Men in positions of authority and in peer-positions at work may view assertive, female leaders as being "out of their role" thus affecting evaluations, promotions, and salary. Men may also see women as incapable of performing certain tasks as well as a man.

"Good Ole Boy" Networks

A second major barrier for women obtaining high level positions and further promotions is the glass ceiling or "good ole boy" networks. Women are many times overlooked because individuals tend to hire people they know and feel comfortable around. As mentioned above, women's employment evaluations may reflect inaccurate appraisals. Additionally, "good ole boy" networks generally operate by word-of-mouth as opposed to reviews of corporate performance appraisals (Carlson, 1999), thus making it almost impossible for women with excellent past performance records and many years of experience to be honestly considered for positions of power and authority.

The "Glass Ceiling"

Even now, the glass ceiling still exists. It is preventing women from holding the top corporate offices in America As a result men have a much better opportunity to reach top-level management positions in the largest corporations of America. Additionally, the experience that a woman can gain is many times considered inferior to the experience of men, and many times, this lack of experience is because women are not usually promoted into line positions--revenue generating positions that lead to top levels of management.

This dogma can be blamed on the fact that, historically, men have been the sole economic providers of the family. And women often stayed at home. Now that women are "cracking" the glass ceiling, many men view them as a threat and as competition. Because many men perceive women a threat in the business world and in traditional positions, such as secretary, assistant, or clerk, women are stereotyped as being less competent in business leadership. The fact that women now make up 46 percent of the total work force but only 6.2 of top managers is evidence that the "glass ceiling" is still a significant barrier to women in the U.S. workforce (Catalysts Fact Sheet, 2000). The existence and powerfulness of the "glass ceiling" is also evident by the low numbers, only 3 to 5 percent, of women in top management positions in Fortune 500, 1000, and 2000 companies as reported by the 1995 Class Ceiling Commission discussed previously (Solomon, 1998).

SUMMARY

Women entered the U.S. work force in mass and in nontraditional work positions primarily in response to jobs left vacant during World War II. After the War, however, many women continued to work, although they were relegated to role segregated jobs and jobs considered to be traditional, such as teaching and nursing. Women had to fight for equality in the home and in the workplace. Education was one venue that women elected to follow to increase their value, worth, and advancement possibilities in the workplace.

Significant societal changes also placed women in position of head of home and as sole support or in dual income family situations. Even though women made some gains in equal treatment via the 1963 Equal Pay Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the US workforce has predominantly remained a Caucasian male bastion.

Women now make up 46 percent of the total US work force, yet their percentage of top managers is a mere 6.2 percent, 154 women versus 2,488 men. Additionally, only 7.3 line positions, those that lead to top positions, are made up of women. Further, women continue to make only 72.2 cents to a man's $1 in 1999 (Facts on Working Women, 2000). As a result of these and other hindrances, many women are choosing nontraditional work positions such as financial managers, computer specialists, and self-employment. By 1992, women owned nearly 6.4 million businesses, and by the end of the Twentieth Century, women owned 38 percent of all US firms and generated more than 3.6 trillion dollars annually in sales, resulting in women owning more than 60 percent of the nation's wealth and 35 percent of the nation's stocks and mutual funds (National Foundation for Women Business Owners, 2001).

Although women are making great strides in the work environment, they still face and must deal with stereotypical attitudes, "good ole boy" networks, and the "glass ceiling."

REFERENCES

Across Three Cultures Catalyst Finds Top Barriers to Women's Professional Advancement. (December 11, 2000). Catlystwomen.org [Online] Available: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/releases/release121100.html. Retrieved July 22, 2001.

AFL-CIO. (2000). Facts About Working Women. [Online] Available: http://www.alcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm. Retrieved October 15, 2001.

BW Online. (February 15, 2000). Women in the Workforce: They Have Come a Long Way. [Online] Available: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2000/nf00215.htm. Retrieved October 18, 2001.

Catalyst Fact Sheet: 2000. (2000). Catalyst...Corporate Officers and Top Earners. [Online] Available: http://catalystwomen,org/press/factsheets/factscote00.htm. Retrieved July 18, 2001.

Carlson, M., Kaarpeta, K., Svensson, E., Weaver, C. & (Tutor) Mullern, T. (1999). Women and Leadership. Paper within Leadership Course, Jonkoping, December 1999, Sweden. [Online] Available: http://studweb.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~euv-5327/papers/lead_big.htm.

Edmonds, P. (June, 1999). The Wage Gap: Pay Equity Debate Creates Huge Political Divide. [Online] Available: http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/wm990630.htm. Retrieved July 29, 2001.

Equal Pay: A Thirty-Five Year Perspective. (1998). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart. Of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Facts and Fallacy: The Facts About Pay Equity. (March, 1999). Employment Policy Foundation. [Online] Available: http://www.epf.org/research/newslettes/1999/ff990315.asp. Retrieved August 2, 2001.

Facts on Working Women: Earnings Differences Between Women and Men. (2000). U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau. [Online] Available: http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_ubs/wagegap2000.htm. Retrieved February 27, 2001.

Facts on Working Women: 20 Fact on Women Workers. (March 2000). U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau. [Online] Available: http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/20fact00.htm. Retrieved August 10, 2001.

Guirdham, M. (1999). Communication Across Barriers. Indiana: Purdue University Press.

Infante, V. (2001). Why women still earn less than men. Workforce. [Online] Available: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSPage?pagename+=ftascii: pagetype=print:entityprinting=true=entitycurrencno=1:sessionid... Retrieved November 18, 2001.

Kay, H.H. (December, 2000). From the Second Sex to the Joint Venture: An Overview of Women's Rights and Family Law in the United States During the Twentieth Century. California Law Review, 88(6), 2017-2093.

Laabs, J. (1999). Sturn Gets Female President, but Female Leaders are Still a Corporate Oddity. Workforce. [Online] Available: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/ FTFETCH? sessionid=sp04sw01-59110-cu7ghofr-57bcjj: entitypagenum=11:0:rule990:fe ... Retrieved November 18, 2001.

Judy, R. W. & D'Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21st Century. Indiana: Hudson Institute.

Khojasteh, M. (1998). Managing Workforce Diversity in Organizations. Champaign: Stipes Publishing.

Milkovich, G.T. & Newman, J.M. (1999). Compensation. 6th Edition. The Government's Role in Compensation. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 539-571.

Moore, D.P., & Buttner, E.H. (1997). Women Entrepreneurs Moving Beyond the Glass Ceiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Murrin, J.M., Johnson, P.E., McPherson, J.M., Gerstle, G., Rosenberg, E.S., & Rosenberg, N.L. (2002). A History of the American People, Volume II: Since 1983. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.

National Foundation of Women Business Owners. (2001). Key Facts [Online]. Available: http://www.nfwbo.org/key.html. Retrieved February 25, 2001.

National Women's Hall of Fame. Gloria Steinham(National Organization of Women) link. Retrieved from American Cultural History web site: http://www.njmccd,edu/contracts/lrc/kc/decade60.html.

Nichols, N. Ed. (1994). The Memo Every Women Keeps in Her Desk. Reach for the Top. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 81.

Obstacles to Women in the Workplace. (1996). [Online] Available: http://www.snu.edu/syllabi/history/f96projects/women/obstacle.htm. Retrieved November 18, 2001.

Sex Segregation. (1986, February 14). Monthly Labor Review.

Smith, A.S., Ahmed, B., & Sink, L. (November 2000). An Analysis of State and County Population Changes by Characteristics:1990-1999. [Online] Available: http://www.census.gov/population/ www/documentation/twps0045/twps0045.htm. Retrieved July 7, 2001.

Solomon, C. (1998). Women are Still Undervalued: Bridge the Parity Gap. Workforce. [Online]. Available: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSPage?pagename+= ftascii:pagetype=print:entityprinting=true=entitycurrecno=2:sessionid ... Retrieved November 18, 2001.

Stavraka, Carol. (March 2000). Women in the Workforce: Is Equality in the Executive Office Achievable? DiversityInc.com. [Online] Available: wysiwyg://74/http://www.diversityinc.com/Feature/equity.cfm. Retrieved February 27, 2001.

The Effect of Women in the Workforce. (1996). [Online] Available: http://www.snu.edu/syllabi/history/f96projects/women/work/htm. Retrieved November 18, 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. (August 2000). Population Estimates Program, Population Division. [Online] Available: http://www.census.gov/ppulation/estimates/nation/intfile3-1. Retrieved August, 2000.

U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau. (2000-2001). Facts on Working Women. 20 Facts on Women Workers. [Online] Available: www.dol.gov. (March 2000).

U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau. (April 1999). Facts on Working Women: Women Business Owners. [Online] Available: http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/wbo.htm. Retrieved August 10, 2001.

U.S. DOL Women's Bureau Fair Pay Clearinghouse. From Don't Work in the Dark, Know you Rights Campaign. [Online]. Available: http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/programs/fpc.htm. Retrieved February 24, 2002.

WBENC. (2001). Key Facts The Center for Women's Business Research. [Online] Available: http://nfwbo.org/key.html. Retrieved October 23, 2001.

Women in the Workforce: They Have Come a Long Way. (February 15, 2000). BusinessWeek Online: Daily Briefing. [Online] Available: http://www.businessweek.com:/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2000/nf00215a.htm? scriptFramed (July 22, 2001).

WOW! (2000). Working Women Gender Equity. [Online] Available: www.ewowfacts.com/wowfacts/pdfs/women/1working3women.pdf. Retrieved October 15, 2001.

Shirley H. Tucker, Sam Houston State University

Kathy L. Hill, Sam Houston State University Table 1 US Ethnic Population and Estimates Population White Black Other 1950 89% 10% 1% 1960 88% 11% 1% 1970 88% 11% 1% American Asian Indian, Pacific Eskimo, 1980 80% 11% Hispanic Islander Aleut 1990 77% 11% 6% 2% 1% 2000 74% 12% 8% 3% 1% 2010 70% 12% 10% 4% -- 2020 68% 12% 12% 5% 1% 2050 60% 12% 20% 7% 1% Source: Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Internet Release Date: August 25, 2000. Http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1. Table 2 US Labor Force by Gender, Race, and Age 1994-2005 2005 US Labor Force 1994 (Estimates) Gender Men 54% 52% Women 46% 48% Race White, non-Hispanic 77% 73% Black, non-Hispanic 11% 11% Hispanic 9% 11% Asian, other non-Hispanic 3% 4% Age 16-19 3% 6% 20-24 11% 10% 25-34 26% 21% 35-44 27% 24% 45-54 19% 24% 55-64 9% 12% 65 and older 3% 3% Source: Employment outlook: 1994-2005 Job quality and other aspects of projected employment growth. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995. Table 3 Women's Earnings as a Percent of Men's Earnings, 1979-1997 Year Annual Weekly Hourly 1979 59.7 62.5 64.1 1980 60.2 64.4 64.8 1981 59.2 64.6 65.1 1982 61.7 65.4 67.3 1983 63.6 66.7 69.4 1984 63.7 67.8 69.8 1985 64.6 68.2 70.0 1986 64.3 69.2 70.2 1987 65.2 70.0 72.1 1988 66.0 70.2 73.8 1989 68.7 70.1 75.4 1990 71.6 71.9 77.9 1991 69.9 74.2 78.6 1992 70.8 75.8 80.3 1993 71.5 77.1 80.4 1994 72.0 76.4 80.6 1995 71.4 75.5 80.8 1996 73.7 75.0 81.2 1997 74.2 74.4 80.8 1998 73.2 76.3 81.8 1999 72.2 76.5 83.8 Source: U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau. March 2000. Facts on Working Women. 20 Facts on Women Workers. Table 4 20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women 2000 Annual Averages (In Thousands) Total Total Employed Employed (Men and Percent Occupations Women Women) Women Total, 16 years and over 62,915 135,208 46.5 Sales workers, retail and 4,306 6,782 63.5 personal services Secretaries 2,594 2,623 98.9 Managers and Administrators, 2,418 7,797 31.0 n.e.c.(2) Cashiers 2,277 2,939 77.5 Sales supervisors and 1,989 4,937 40.3 proprietors Registered nurses 1,959 2,111 97.8 Elementary school teachers 1,814 2,177 83.3 Nursing aides, orderlies, 1,784 1,983 90.0 and attendants Bookkeepers, accounting, & 1,548 1,719 92.1 auditing clerks Receptionists 984 1,017 96.8 Sales workers, other 949 1,428 66.5 commodities (3, 4) Accountants and auditors 903 1,592 56.7 Cooks 899 2,076 43.3 Investigators & Adjusters 833 1,097 75.9 (excl. insurance) Janitors and cleaners 811 2,233 36.3 Secondary school teachers 764 1,319 57.9 Hairdressers & cosmetologists 748 820 91.2 General office clerks 722 864 83.6 Mgrs., food serving & 677 1,446 46.8 lodging establ. Teachers' aides 646 710 91.0 1 Wage and salary for 3 Included in sales full-time workers. workers, personnel and workers. retail 2 Job elsewhere classified. 4 Includes food, drugs, health, and other commodities. Women's Ratio Median Women's Usual Earnings Weekly To Men's Occupations Earnings Earnings Total, 16 years and over $491 76.0 Sales workers, retail and 301 55.8 personal services Secretaries 450 N.A. Managers and Administrators, 733 66.3 n.e.c.(2) Cashiers 276 88.2 Sales supervisors and 485 69.8 proprietors Registered nurses 782 87.9 Elementary school teachers 701 81.5 Nursing aides, orderlies, 333 88.1 and attendants Bookkeepers, accounting, & 478 88.7 auditing clerks Receptionists 388 N.A. Sales workers, other 319 69.3 commodities (3, 4) Accountants and auditors 690 72.4 Cooks 290 89.5 Investigators & Adjusters 459 82.6 (excl. insurance) Janitors and cleaners 309 83.1 Secondary school teachers 741 88.6 Hairdressers & cosmetologists 339 N.A. General office clerks 430 91.3 Mgrs., food serving & 475 73.0 lodging establ. Teachers' aides 338 N.A. 1 Wage and salary for 3 Included in sales full-time workers. workers, personnel and workers. retail 2 Job elsewhere classified. 4 Includes food, drugs, health, and other commodities. N.A. Median not available where base is less than 50,000 male workers. Source: 20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women in 2000. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/20lead2000.htm February 21, 2002. Table 5 Median Income of Families, by Family Type, 1998 Type of Family Median Income Married-couple family $54,180 Wife in paid labor force 63,751 Wife not in paid labor force 37,161 Male householder, no wife 35,681 Female householder, no husband 22,163 Source: Facts on Working Women, U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau, March 2000. Table 6 Leading Occupations of Employed Women, 1999 (numbers in thousands) Occupation Number Employed Teachers, excluding post secondary 3,952 Secretaries 2,742 Cashiers 2,321 Miscellaneous Managers/Administration. 2,349 Sales supervisors & proprietors 2,005 Registered nurses 1,978 Source: Facts on Working Women, 2000. Table 7 Women Owned Businesses Characteristics * Owned 54 percent of all firms and accounted for 34 percent of gross receipts in apparel and accessory stores * Owned 53 percent of all firms and accounted for 31 percent of gross receipts in miscellaneous retail stores * Accounted for 51 percent of the retail trade revenue in automotive dealers, gasoline service stations, and miscellaneous retail stores * Fifty percent were home-based * Twenty-six percent used home to produce goods and services on the premises * Approximately two-thirds had 50 percent women employees * Started from a desire of self-determination, challenge, respect, recognition, and self-esteem Source: (U.S. Dept of Labor, Women Business Owners, 1999).