Cost of Gender Inequality

http://stream.goodwin.drexel.edu/womenincoaching/2012/01/03/gender-equality/

     Gender inequality in the United States is one of the major problems affecting the economy. The National Partnership for Women and Families has found that women in the United States women earn $10,784 less than their male counterparts each year. According to their calculations, if women earned equal pay for equal work, they could purchase 1.7 years worth of groceries in Washington state, an additional 2,746 gallons of gas in Colorado, and 3.7 extra years of health insurance premiums in Connecticut. Men earn more money in this traditional form of economy based on sexism. This is the modern day form of sexicism that seems to go by un-noticed Women are not being payed at the same rates as men are and that's causing households with women as the head to suffer more and cause women to be more likely on government funding like SNAP and welfare than men.

    People show that gender is an important variable and that gender relations can affect economic development and growth. Gender relations such as job segregation within the paid labor market, labor that is paid or unpaid, the distribution of income and resources within the household and credit in financial markets. The effect of gender based economic opportunities is that women and men on average are in different classes. Women more likely to be poor, malnourished, less educated, and overworked in relation to men. This is based on a number of different things such as the difference in wages between the genders and employment rates, hours of paid and unpaid work, rates of unemployment, educational attainment, life expectancy rates and the ratio of females to males in the population.
     Women in the workplace always make less money than a man even though they have more experience than the man.  Studies show that gender  inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970's. People argue that the majority of the wage gap is due to women's choices and preferences. Women are more likely to consider factors other than salary when looking for employment. On average, women are less willing to travel or relocate, take more hours off and work fewer hours, and choose college majors that lead to lower paying jobs. Women are also more likely to work for governments or non-profits, that pay less than the private sector. According to this perspective certain ethnic minorities and women receive fewer promotions and opportunities for occupation and economic advancement than others. In the case of women this concept is referred to as the glass ceiling keeping women from climbing the occupational ladder.
     I feel that saying that because women are picky is what is preventing them from getting the same amount of pay as men is another sexist way of talking. Whether or not women are picky should not affect them getting equal pay. Gender inequality I believe is affecting the economy because if women were getting paid the same as men, they would be able to spend as much as men on things that aren't considered a necessity to survive. Women getting less pay than men mean that they would not be able to spend a percentage of their paycheck on something that would boost the economy. Women should get paid the same amount and maybe then, the economy may start to get better slowly. 

Krugman and Jobs

     Krugman's solution to the economic problems is to have the government create new jobs. Krugman is addressing the fact that the government should be creating jobs because jobs are important to Krugman because he believes that giving people jobs is the way in which people survive. Krugman proposes that the government creates jobs to have us back at full employment. His recommendations reflect a public economic solution because he sees how the government policies are affecting job creation.
Paul Krugman proposed that we use the same solution that President Roosevelt did to get the United States out of the depression. However, the opposing argument is that Roosevelt did not really bring us out of the Depression. It was the war, in which so much money was spent, you couldn't help but put people to work. Krugman wants the government to take the same actions that were took during the Great Depression in order to end the "depression" which we are currently facing. Unemployment has skyrocketed  regardless of what Krugman and other Keynesians believe, there is absolutely no way to conclude that money spent by government has had a positive economic impact at least as it pertains to job creation. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/05/krugmans-delusion-past-year-good-test-theory-cutting-spending-creates#ixzz2Kt6GQAWD 
Paul Krugman also suggested that the government create a trillion dollar coin in order to pay off their debt. The opposing idea to this other suggestion of Krugman is, If governments or  really can create wealth simply by creating money, why does poverty exist anywhere on earth? If Federal money creation really works, and does not create inflation, why haven’t Americans gotten richer as the money supply has grown? Krugman wanted Obama to read his book before his inauguration and to pass a legislation that will make the government create jobs to have the nation at 5% unemployment which is what he considers to be full employment. http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?42657-Ron-Paul-blasts-Paul-Krugman-and-the-Trillion-coin

My opinion on Krugman's solution is it seems believable but how does he propose that the government create jobs? He is saying that the government should create more jobs but he isn't giving a direct solution as to where he proposes that he put these unemployed people to work. To put millions of people to work like the United States did in the 30's would mean that there would need to be a need for jobs like in the case of a war where people are needed to produce weapons and other supplies.
The argument which I agree with is Krugman's. I believe that if the government does create more jobs, more people wont be dependant on the government aid such as Food Stamps (SNAP), WIC or public housing. More people would be able to support themselves and their family using the money they are earning and not the money that the government provides to them to barely get by. When people have jobs, the government would be able to tax their income and start gaining more money to help bring down the debt.

     The relevance between the two images based on Krugman's interview is that he believes that food stamps are the new form of a soup kitchen. Food Stamps are now just being handed out to anyone who needs help in the same way that food is handed out at a soup kitchen. But the fact of the matter is  that the people who have food stamps are still as desperate, they're getting by day to day with the aid of a trickle of government aid, just like the people who were on, standing in line at the soup kitchens in the 30's, but they're not visible. People are still suffering the same way according to Krugman you just don't see them lining up on the corners for food or selling apples for money.

What is Economics?

Economics is the study of how society gets the most out of limited resources. Economics helps us deal with the problem of scarcity. Economies try to answer 3 questions 1. WHAT will be made? 2. HOW will things be made? and 3. WHO gets what made?