Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Bailout or Not, Women Are Headed for Financial Trouble

By Allison Stevens, Women's eNews. Posted September 26, 2008.


Regardless of what happens on Wall Street, it looks like bad news for women.
womensenewslogo
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Congress is working at a fevered pitch to rush through a massive $700 billion emergency spending measure to bail out the ailing banking industry and protect the economy.

Lawmakers sparred Thursday over the broad outlines of the bill, and congressional leaders hoped an agreement could be reached in time to schedule a vote on final passage before the end of the weekend.

But women are headed for financial trouble whether the bill wins passage or not, women's rights advocates say.

"It's bad news all around for women," said Vicky Lovell, director of employment and work-life programs at the Institute for Women's Policy Research, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that focuses on women's economic issues. "I don't see anybody predicting that there's a way out of this that's going to be good for consumers or taxpayers in general, or for women."

The proposed $700 billion bailout introduced by the administration amounts to about $150 billion more than has been spent to date on the war in Iraq, according to the National Priorities Project, a research organization in Northampton, Mass.

As lawmakers went back and forth over the details of the banking bailout bill, Joan Entmacher, a budget expert at the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C., took a dim view of the overall economic prospects for women.

Bleak Forecast



If the bill does not pass, and the economy worsens, women will suffer most because they have less wealth than men and are more vulnerable in economic downturns, she said.

If Congress does clear the bill, its high cost will put a fiscal squeeze on government programs that aid low-income people, most of whom are women, she said.

Under the plan debated Thursday, the federal government would assume $700 billion in bad debts of troubled financial firms to help them keep lending spigots open to individual and business borrowers. These measures are expected to help stem layoffs and deeper losses for retirement accounts tied to credit-hungry financial markets.

The high price of the package will have a similar -- but potentially more profound -- effect on the budget as the war in Iraq and the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, Entmacher said.

Those big-ticket items prompted lawmakers to rein in government health care programs, she said. More likely to live longer and to live in poverty, women -- especially women of color -- are the main beneficiaries of these programs, Entmacher said.

Women's rights advocates were hoping for the inclusion of two provisions advocated by Democrats earlier this week: helping certain borrowers avoid foreclosure and creating a federal fund to insure money market accounts.

"Because they've been disproportionately affected by predatory lending, this could be especially important to women," Entmacher said.

Despite using credit at rates comparable to men and averaging slightly higher on credit scores -- 682 versus 675 -- women have a disproportionate share of the high-priced "sub-prime" loans, putting them at higher risk of foreclosure, according to a 2006 report by Allen Fishbein, a scholar at the Consumer Federation of America, a think tank and lobby in Washington, D.C. About one-third of female borrowers took on sub-prime mortgages compared to about one-quarter of men.

Money Market Funds



A Democratic proposal circulated earlier this week also included an insurance plan for money market funds -- low-risk, low-interest reservoirs of capital that invest in safe forms of debt. The plan would be modeled on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which was created in the wake of the Great Depression to insure bank deposits.

That would be especially helpful to women, said Lovell, of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, because women tend to have less personal savings and therefore are more inclined to invest in money market accounts, which have traditionally been viewed as safe havens. Several major money markets have collapsed during the crisis and fears that others could be at risk, however, have spurred the idea of federal insurance.

It was unclear Thursday if these provisions would end up in the final bill when a deal is reached.

Lovell also noted that Democrats' push to curb executive pay at the institutions that received federal aid -- initially opposed by the White House and many Republicans as excessive regulation -- would affect far fewer women because they hold fewer executive positions.

The guns-and-butter debate that typically emerges in wartime when another major cost arises has yet to rear its head in Congress.

But Leslie Wolfe, president of the Center for Women Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., a research group that focuses on women's human rights, predicted the onset of such discussions. So many people are "shell shocked" by the crisis that they haven't begun to discuss issues beyond the pending legislation in Congress, she said.

Anti-War Protests Revived



But female anti-war activists and pundits who have long criticized the Iraq war mobilized this week.

Code Pink, the anti-war group led by women and based in Venice, Calif., staged protests on Wall Street Thursday, calling on the government to pay for the bailout bill with new taxes on upper-income Americans and on financial transactions.

"They continue to find money for what they need, and borrow it, but they never find money for what the people of America need," said Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

"Welcome to Economic Shock and Awe," Ariana Huffington, founder of the online Huffington Post Web site wrote, comparing the rush to bailout to the Bush administration's rush to war. "Even the amount of taxpayer money being bandied about -- $1 trillion -- is similar. Think you got your money's worth for the Iraq war? Congratulations -- you're about to buy another pricey debacle."

Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women in New York, said women are especially vulnerable during economic downturns because they are more likely to be unemployed than men; as a result they have less money and face longer periods without regular income. If they do have a job they tend to make less, have fewer benefits or have part-time positions, she said.

Women are also more likely to hold minimum wage jobs, to leave the work force to shoulder caregiving responsibilities, and earn less than men in similar jobs, advocates say. Women also save less money and have smaller pensions or retirement accounts.

"We have fewer assets and fewer savings than men and therefore we are very worried about personal financial security," said Debbie Frett, head of Business and Professional Women USA, a Washington-based lobby for businesswomen.

In the last two years, more than 200,000 women have left jobs in the financial sector of the economy, but the number of men employed in such jobs has remained stable, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor. That suggests to Lovell that the bulk of those laid off in the sector have been women.

Copyright 2008 Women's eNews. All Rights Reserved.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: poverty, wall street, bailout, women and economics

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
of course....
Posted by: cordas on Sep 27, 2008 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the whole thing is rigged against the fairer sex by men....

This is going to hurt just about everyone... male - female, black - white - latino, christian - muslim - jew... the only people who aren't going to get hurt are some of the mega rich who will as always get richer (although not even all of them).

Trying to claim any different is just insulting to everyone and only divides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THANK YOU. Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: of course not Posted by: Beck
» RE: Now, Now, maxpayne... Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Now, Now, maxpayne... Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: of course not Posted by: cef
» RE: of course.... Posted by: meeneecat
Hilarious
Posted by: Q30 on Sep 27, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Regardless of what happens on Wall Street, it looks like bad news for women."

Even for CEO's wives? Or would including the class angle weaken the argument?

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at this headline. Because no matter what happens anywhere, Women's eNews always reacts by saying it's bad news for women.

Women, the poor dears, don't seem to know how to win. Ever. Women are said to be equally intelligent as men, but they're always losing and they're always on the edge of catastrophe. So how intelligent can they be, then?

One cannot take a stance of "women are always the biggest losers" without suggesting that women are... well... losers. And not very bright to boot. Personally, I've always thought that most women are pretty intelligent, so this condescending attitude-- this robbing women of agency-- is pretty offensive.

Nonetheless, I look forward to Women's eNews' upcoming article about women being the biggest victims of earthquakes, tsunami, Global Warming and the hole in the Ozone Layer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One of THE BEST !!!! Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: fork
The problem is white males
Posted by: nfamous on Sep 27, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women will suffer more than men as a result of this meltdown/bailout because women have always suffered more than men under capitalism. Women should not blame all men for this though. Women are equals in many cultures around the world, including Africa. America and most of the world happens to be run by white male patriarchy which objectifies and devalues women. Why do you think women in management make 30% less than men? It's because only white men are in upper management. White men don't give a damn about women, including white women. They want sex and a trophy so they can get back to making more money to make up for their massive insecurities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the same line of feminism...
Posted by: ellie on Sep 27, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is being written about again... ok, shout it from the rooftops... ellie is not a feminist OR a patriarchy supporter!!! why DO women HAVE to loose to maintain the status quo, reject the entire package and make your own way!!! now having said that... here goes...

we all have choices in life... it's up to us to use them wisely... no am not an elitist either... daughter of an inner city widowed mom, who pinned her hopes on a future that never had the time to evolve... this is what I learned...

jobs = do your homework... why should you accept a job that pays 3/4 of pay of men... negotiate to the higher pay... if an employer wants your skills, they'll cave in... we don't have the greatest economy right now, but this insistence will pay off in the long run...

kids = we are not just ovaries on feet... you have ultimate control over your reproduction... if you do not believe in birth control or abortion, don't fall into the arms of that sweet talking man... tell him to take it down the road... think ahead girls!

raising kids = expect to be broke for at least 20 years... make plans ahead of time... look around you honestly... is there affordable to you and reliable child care so you can go to work??? is there safe housing around you, you can afford even when the chips are down financially to move into??? kids need food, can you figure out how to feed them down the road on your own without help???

if your significant other takes off after all the promises in the world to 'take care of you and the kids' hold him to it and have an alternate plan in your head just in case... think critically not with your heart... relationships need to be equal partnerships from the start and don't let him forget it... maybe make it plain that if he wants to take off, HE takes the kids with him... this might give you a clear picture of his intentions right off the bat... before kids...

how much of a priority is education for you and your kids??? a biggie here!!!

yes, women live longer then men on average, so plan on it yourself...

don't ever think there will be always be a helping hand out there for you... know that you are an individual standing on your own two feet... the safety net you planned on may not be there in the future... so take it upon yourself to take care of yourself...

now onto the issue of all that rotten paper floating around looking for a 700 bil home... people do not get into arm's or worse unless they are offered them... you never could MAKE a lender OFFER a loan, the loan has to be on the table from the lender for you to sign...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the same line of feminism... Posted by: Bright Penny
One group the bailout won't hurt: the treasonous neocon Bush family
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 27, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush 41 was President Nixon's CIA chief, he formed the renegade conservative "Committee on Present Danger" -- predecessor of the rightwing extremist organization, "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), founded years later by arch conservative Bill Kristol.

As president, Bush 41 fostered the imperialistic "New World Order" agenda that became a PNAC hallmark. Formed in 1997, PNAC advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and dominating the world with U.S. military power. Jeb Bush, acting as the family surrogate, was a PNAC founder.

Also during the Bush 41 administration, the current no-bid DOD contract scam was created by Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense who later became a PNAC founder, along with his fellow Iraq invasion advocates, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby. All four enriched themselves with lucrative investments in military/industrial complex stocks.

After Big George lost his reelection bid, he joined the private investment firm, Carlyle Group, managed by PNAC member Frank Carlucci, former Reagan DOD Secretary.

Since its formation and primarly because of Iraq War 2, the Carlyle Group has reportedly earned Bush 41 almost a billion dollars on his original investment. Much of that wealth will be go to first son Dub-ya, who, not coincidentally, pushed for repeal of the "Death" (inheritance) tax.

One thing you can say about the Bushes. They know how to get rich -- at America's expense.

Finally, for NEW readers who are visiting AlterNet for the first time (not the old crowd), to see a laundry list of reasons why John McCain should not be president, click on: Vote Against McCain
(HOTTEST anti-McCain site on the Web!)

For revelations about McCain's shameful POW record, click on: Vietnam Vets Against McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hang them High
Posted by: No B.S. on Sep 27, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bail out is needed but lets try to get some of the losses back and put the criminals were they have put the country.
How you say.
First freeze All CEO's assets of all companies needing bail out. CEO's should not be awarded or even paid more than what they are worth. One cannot plea ignorance of the law . One should not be able to plea ignorance of his business responsibility.
The number show that the CEO have taken over $100,000,000,000.00 in unjust enrichment. To let them keep this unjust enrichment we promote bad behaviour. We must strip them as they have striped American consumers and tax payers. Justice must show one will not profit from corruption from years past. Like dealer caught they lose house ,car, money and go to jail.
The CEO are even worse for they used there positions with disrespect to all CEO's and with disrespect in spite of Law , ethics. To stop this type of behaviour we must take all they have and hang them high. This will bring back Honor and Respect to America. P.S. Congress law makers caught in this corruption also need assets frozen and if guilty lose All plus jailed.
Time to clean house. CEO's knew and are so greedy to make millions knowing they are slowly draining America. My number show CEO used the credit like taking one credit card after another knowing it would take some time until caught. To let them keep the money is like telling consumer they can max out as many credit cards until caught and be able to walk away with a slap on the wrist.
Let one like me cross check the numbers. In one month the number will show the leaks. These leaks are not small many knew the damn was going to burst and are so greedy that they unjustly awarded them self even more.
Rem; They will know use Americans money to create smoke and mirrors. We must freeze the assets know. So Consumers money cannot be used against us. Hang them high.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Poor critical thinking Posted by: gellero1
Oh now I get it
Posted by: DaBear on Sep 27, 2008 6:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I now understand why my wife/we got the subprime even when we qualified for the regular one.

Thanks, too to Ahnold who vetoed the bill that would have protected us or allowed us to recover damages from the despicable broker.

Fuckers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Don't Get It. Posted by: gellero1
» Wow, that's cold. Posted by: fork
Well Hell No Surprise here, but maybe it's an opportunity
Posted by: Grandmama4obama on Sep 28, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 63 and fit every description of financially screwed women in the article. I have lived below the poverty line most of my life. Strangely, I am a little hopeful if Obama is elected. I just ordered a book called Obamanomics so I can read more about Barack's plans, but the very fact that he wants to build the economy from the bottom up not the top down could really be good for women. We are good at organizing and working for common goals, and at making smaller amounts of money do more. NO ONE is going to have a lot of money or credit anytime soon, so I say let's organize at the community level and just change the whole concept of success and prosperity being about consumerism. Let's take back as much land as we can, have small urban and rural gardens and farms, build green rooftops, teach each other new skills, barter and celebrate life. And hey, since we will be community organizers, I guess one of us could rise from that to become President. On the other hand, if McCain/Palin win, I am sure I'll be one of the first witches driven out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So What's Stopping You? Posted by: gellero1
Gender, Race, and the Bailout
Posted by: CA NOW on Sep 30, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the great info! We used it in our post today “Gender, Race, and the Bailout”
http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/gender-race-and.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not equality but chauvanized class
Posted by: Andrew_S on Oct 6, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot for the econnomic thinking in me understand the poor female tales of 'woe is me.' The tremendous entitlements and government largesse to support what was always a case of regurgitated chauvanism. It is simply expanded by key political moves to include the professional welfare class recipient on the behest of women, is absolutely a bare faced truth. This 60% plus gynocratically and politically orientated lower class masses culture led by a semi patriarchal female leadership is the cause, like all societal/cultural demise, history always wins in the end. Same story different time. Welfare was based on an infinite consumer economy, nobody cared and the money flowed. Now the good times no longer roll where does the entitled class seek it's reward. Disenfranchising low to middle class males was key political tactics of the last few decades. It didn't matter how this was achieved, but it is a reverse miami shuffle, now let's see what happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement