User:Angelalin79/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupational segregation is a sociology term and is similar to occupational crowding. While a job refers to an actual position in a firm or industry, an occupation represents a group of similar jobs that require similar skill requirements and duties. Many occupations are segregated within themselves because of the differing jobs, but this is difficult to detect in terms of occupational data.[1] Occupational segregation compares different groups and their occupations within the context of the entire labor force.[2] The value or prestige of the jobs are typically not factored into the measurements.[3]

Types and Intersectionality[edit]

Race[edit]

Different minorities have different factors influencing their segregation. In the United States, Alonso-Villar et al. concluded that Asians are the most segregated group based on data of the overall distribution of employment, while Hispanics are the most segregated in local markets. Asians tend to be concentrated in both low pay jobs, such as sewing machine operators or tailors, and high pay jobs like medical or computer engineering jobs. This range may be due to the fact that within the “Asian” category, data for different ethnicities differ, such as between Southeast Asians and East Asians. When the factors of human capital characteristics and geographic variables are removed, African and Native Americans are the most segregated. [4] While Asians and Hispanics tend to be segregated due to their individual skills and characteristics, black people and Native Americans tend to be unconditionally segregated against.[3]

Almost 90% of jobs in the United States either overrepresent or underrepresent black males, which demonstrates segregation. Overrepresentation occurs in lower paid jobs, while underrepresentation occurred in higher paid jobs. Jobs with overrepresentation of black and Latino males tend to decrease pay over time.[2]

Intersectionality[edit]

The intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender in occupational segregation means that the two factors build on one another in a complex way to create their own unique sets of issues. Between genders, there are preconceived notions; when gender is further split up by race and ethnicity, stereotypes differ even more.[5] Women are treated to more segregation than men; however, the comparison of different sexes shows that a higher racial/ethnic disparity exists within men in comparison to their female counterparts. Within the workplace, the distribution of Hispanic, Asian, African American, and Native American women is very similar. Nonetheless, within low paid jobs, Hispanic women represent the largest demographic.[4]

Mintz found that since 1983, the gender gap has decreased, but has closed significantly only between white people. The representation of white women compared to other minorities has increased the most. For jobs that require a high level of education, representation of women in all races/ethnicities surpassed that of men; however, when comparing the gendered differences within races, the gap between white people was smaller, suggesting that education brings more benefits for white men in terms of occupations.[5]

Causes[edit]

Educational Disparities[edit]

Minorities are subjected to a language barrier. For some immigrants, despite having high levels of experience in the country they come from, they are unable to obtain an equally ranked job due to unfamiliarity with the language. Many immigrants to the United States are Asians or Hispanics who cannot speak English.[4] Immigrants may experience over or under education. Those who do not have high proficiency in English are limited to low paying jobs that also have low expectations for skills not pertaining to language. Since minority workers tend to be younger (the median ages of Hispanic, Native American, black, and Asian workers being 35, 38, 39 and 39 respectively, compared to the median age of white people, which is 42), they have less experience, which makes them less competitive candidates.[3]

Low education accounts for a large percentage of why Native Americans and black people are more segregated in the workplace.[3]However, although racial and ethnicity differences in education levels is said to be the primary explanation for the wage gap, when comparing the wages between races/ethnicities with the same educational level, there are still differences, suggesting that this is not the only reason why a wage gap exists. Black men who graduate from high school or drop out have an unemployment rate double the unemployment rate of their white peers. People who belong to a racial/ethnic minority will have a disadvantage in getting a job, regardless of their educational background.[2]

Work Experience Disparities[edit]

Employers can influence the pay disparity for women and minorities in three ways. They may do this through sorting women and racial minorities into lower paying jobs while their counterparts receive higher paying jobs, selectively not choosing women and racial minorities for promotions, and cater their recruiting and advertising to people who are not women or racial minorities. At the same time, employers systematically undervalue the work of women and racial/ethnic minorities in a concept known as valuative discrimination. For many jobs, in between the point of contact and the completion of the application, one of the roles of human resources is to direct applicants to certain jobs. Human resource steering can occur when this role is used to turn women and racial minorities to jobs with lower salaries.[6]

Market Opportunities[edit]

Increasing populations results in more needs within a community, which causes more jobs to be created.[7]

Residential communities consisting of a single racial minority in metropolitan areas tend to form job networks due to isolation from other races. Job networks are often used as a better way to find good employment opportunities, but it can be detrimental if it does not result in higher wages. Networks can lead to unequal access to job opportunities and for minorities, result in reduced competition for higher paid job markets and increased competition in lower ones. This results in a decrease in wage price for the labor markets. Black and Latino men who use networks mainly consisting of their own race have a lower rate of employment, while white men will have higher rates of employment.[2] Additionally, for those who immigrate illegally, it is easier to get certain low paying jobs. Because they often network within their community, these jobs are further concentrated with certain racial/ethnic groups. [4]

Individual Preference[edit]

It is important to note that although individuals have different preferences for the jobs they want, society and job inequality can influence these choices.[6] According to Eli Ginzberg, self-selection starts at a young age, and has many different stages. As children begin thinking about jobs, they are open to all possibilities and are not limited by their gender, race, or social class. At the end of young adulthood, the final occupation choice depends on the person’s degree of education, the value they place on different occupations, their emotions in response to the world around them, and the environmental restrictions they have. Adults choose jobs that have a work environment that is familiar to them and that they believe has value.[7]

Effects[edit]

Wage Gap[edit]

Occupational segregation of minorities results in “very low pay, little or no job or income security and lower social protection.”[3] Wage gaps begin at the point of hire. In Penner’s study on the role of occupational sorting for starting salary in a firm, he found that the average market salary rate for the women hired was 67 percent of that of men. Compared to that of white people, the average market salary rate for black, Hispanics, and Asians were 72, 84, and 90 percent, respectively. Since market salary rates are predetermined before the applicants are hired, the differences in market salaries between each group is the result of occupational sorting.[6]

Von Lockette found that in metropolitan areas with a high concentration of occupational segregation, less-educated black, Latino, and white males received less pay. In areas of residential segregation, white men were able to receive better pay, while black and Latino men received less, which indicates the possibility that social/job networks have an effect on pay.[2]

In occupations that consist of mainly women, wages decrease the earnings of all workers, regardless of race and gender.[8]

Lost Opportunities[edit]

The abilities women and minorities can offer are wasted because they are allocated to inappropriate roles. Those who are highly skilled cannot contribute to the constantly changing labor economy, resulting in a decrease in efficiency and diverse thinking. [4] To actively keep black people out of higher positions in the workforce, management often allocates black executives to positions that are more racialized, such as diversity positions or liaison jobs that connect them to the black community. Although these positions are important, they are not track to higher positions such as CEO and are less visible.[1]

In comparison to being independent, using community networks can be beneficial in that it is easier to get a job that people in your social circle also work. However, this often results in inefficiencies in the labor market overall. Individuals who are overeducated for the position not only take up space that could have gone to other people in their social network, but also decrease the average productivity of work in the labor market.[9]

Measurement[edit]

The Duncan Segregation Index is used to measure occupational segregation in an occupation/industry. Because it compares ratios of both groups, a score of 0 means that there is equal representation between the two groups, while a score of 1 demonstrates a high concentration of one group and unequal distribution between both groups.[7] The number derived from this equation is equal to the proportional of one group that must change their position for equality to happen.[10]

Solutions[edit]

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[edit]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to ensure fair treatment and legal protection to women and minority groups.[11] Title VII states that it is illegal to “discriminate in employment based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” and is enforced by the EEOC. Claims of discrimination are sent to the EEOC to be resolved. The EEOC also seeks out places where systemic discrimination occurs. It can have both direct and indirect effects in resolving discrimination: it can help the victim win cases against discrimination of their company, while simultaneously influencing companies around them to change their policies to avoid possible future transgressions. It also sets precedents in court under Title VII.[12]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission receives a report covering the race, ethnicity, and gender of employees in nine different categories from each private employer that have “more than 100 employees and government contractors with more than 50 employees and contracts worth $50,000.” This was required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[13]

Wages increase as the EEOC charges against an industry increase. In the past few decades, wage increases as a response to filed court cases are larger for black women in comparison to white women. However, this could be due to more black women filing for discrimination. Wilhelm shows that filing for gender discrimination transgressions is working, but filing for racial discrimination transgressions is less likely to work.[12]

Diversity Programs[edit]

Common diversity practices include affirmative action plans, diversity committees and task forces, diversity managers, diversity training, diversity evaluations for managers, networking programs, and mentoring programs. Kalev found that diversity in the workplace does not occur as a result of programs like diversity training and diversity evaluations, which are intended to stop managerial stereotypes through education. When workplaces incorporated programs designed to help women and minorities increase their reach, like networking or mentoring, their diversity increased moderately. Programs that worked considerably were those that changed the structure of the workplace and held them responsible for change, such as affirmative action plans, diversity committees, and diversity staff positions. These programs acknowledge that segregation is systemic and more than just individual bias. White women benefit the most from affirmative action, and black women benefit more than black men. Implementation of these programs allow for the other programs to work better too[13].

One drawback to initiatives such as affirmative action is that people may view women and minorities as undeserving of their positions. Other pushbacks to diversity training include white guilt and perceptions that minorities are trying to gain power over them.[13]

In the United States[edit]

Data for sex segregation after the 1990s is extensive but data for racial segregation is less comprehensive. Additionally, although it is easy to see national trends, it does not always reflect the trends within different sectors. Certain regions of the United States are more prone to occupational segregation. Due to the history of slavery, Jim Crow, and the slow transition into an industrial economy, the South’s workforce has been more racially segregated than the rest of the United States.[14]

The Great Migration (1910 - 1970) represented a shift in the African American population from the South to the North, and from agricultural to industrial jobs.[7]

The Great Depression (1929 - 1933) caused many African Americans to be fired first compared to others in their companies, which caused them to turn towards self employment, with jobs such as housework or opening up their own businesses as dressmakers or shop owners.[7]

In 1940s, the types of jobs available began to shift from industrial to service, while the agricultural portion switched to machines that did not require many workers. This shift both created new jobs and pushed other jobs out.[15]

During World War II, African Americans could not easily join the 1.5 million people accepted to work in infrastructures to help the war, until President Roosevelt created Executive Order 8802, which allowed African Americans to help out in government agencies and defense contractors.[7]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is illegal to discriminate or segregate people based on their race, ethnicity, or sex. After this act was created, racial segregation began to decline.[14]

African American Women[edit]

From 1940-80, segregation in the workplace for African American women significantly decreased, while from 1980-2000, it decreased a little, and from 2000-2010, it remained the same.[15]

The decrease of occupational segregation towards African American women did not occur evenly; from 1940 to 1960, it only occurred in the Northeast, Midwest, and West regions. During this time, approximately 77.3 percent of working African American women were concentrated in 10 percent of total employment.[15]

In 1980, jobs that had a higher representation of African American women doubled. After the 1980s, occupational segregation appeared to be reduced less significantly due to the increase of representation of African American women within areas previously with low representation (such as lawyers, judges, or accountants), and a decrease of representation within areas previously with high representation (e.g. private household occupations, kitchen workers, and janitorial services). However, in other sectors of the economy, the reverse happened; increased overrepresentation occurred in areas like administrative support occupations, and increased underrepresentation occurred in areas like chief executive and public administrators.[15]

The impact of the original shift towards more representation of African American women in the workplace that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s began to decrease in the 1990s and 2000s, resulting in less African American women moving up in the workforce. From 1940 to 2000, African American women from all educational backgrounds experienced decreasing occupation segregation; however, after 2000, a decrease in segregation only occurred for women with a bachelor’s degree or a general college experience. Despite this, wages of the women with college degrees are below average in comparison to that of their peers.[15]

  1. ^ a b MAUME, DAVID J. (1999-11). "Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators". Work and Occupations. 26 (4): 483–509. doi:10.1177/0730888499026004005. ISSN 0730-8884. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e Von Lockette, Niki Dickerson; Spriggs, William E. (2016-01). "Wage Dynamics and Racial and Ethnic Occupational Segregation among Less-Educated Men in Metropolitan Labor Markets". The Review of Black Political Economy. 43 (1): 35–56. doi:10.1007/s12114-015-9222-5. ISSN 0034-6446. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d e Gradín, Carlos (2012-09-06). "Conditional occupational segregation of minorities in the US". The Journal of Economic Inequality. 11 (4): 473–493. doi:10.1007/s10888-012-9229-0. ISSN 1569-1721.
  4. ^ a b c d e ALONSO-VILLAR, OLGA; DEL RIO, CORAL; GRADIN, CARLOS (2012-04). "The Extent of Occupational Segregation in the United States: Differences by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender". Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. 51 (2): 179–212. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232x.2012.00674.x. ISSN 0019-8676. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b Mintz, Beth; Krymkowski, Daniel H. (2010-12). "The Intersection of Race/Ethnicity and Gender in Occupational Segregation". International Journal of Sociology. 40 (4): 31–58. doi:10.2753/ijs0020-7659400402. ISSN 0020-7659. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ a b c Penner, Andrew M. (2008-08). "Race and Gender Differences in Wages: The Role of Occupational Sorting at the Point of Hire". The Sociological Quarterly. 49 (3): 597–614. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00129.x. ISSN 0038-0253. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ a b c d e f Perry, Nancy; Reybold, L. Earle; Waters, Nigel (2014-03-06). ""Everybody Was Looking for a Good Government Job"". Journal of Urban History. 40 (4): 719–741. doi:10.1177/0096144214524341. ISSN 0096-1442.
  8. ^ Cotter, David A.; Hermsen, Joan M.; Vanneman, Reeve (2003-01). "The Effects of Occupational Gender Segregation Across Race". The Sociological Quarterly. 44 (1): 17–36. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2003.tb02389.x. ISSN 0038-0253. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Pothier, David (2017-12-28). "Occupational Segregation and the (Mis)allocation of Talent". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 120 (1): 242–267. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12206. ISSN 0347-0520.
  10. ^ Duncan, Otis Dudley; Duncan, Beverly (1955-04). "A Methodological Analysis of Segregation Indexes". American Sociological Review. 20 (2): 210. doi:10.2307/2088328. ISSN 0003-1224. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Pedriana, Nicholas; Stryker, Robin (2004-11). "The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965–1971". American Journal of Sociology. 110 (3): 709–760. doi:10.1086/422588. ISSN 0002-9602. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ a b Wilhelm, Sarah A. (2002-09). "The Impact of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement on the Wages of Black and White Women, 1988–1996". The Review of Black Political Economy. 30 (2): 25–51. doi:10.1007/bf02717311. ISSN 0034-6446. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ a b c Kalev, Alexandra; Dobbin, Frank; Kelly, Erin (2006-08). "Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies". American Sociological Review. 71 (4): 589–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404. ISSN 0003-1224. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ a b Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald; Zimmer, Catherine; Stainback, Kevin; Robinson, Corre; Taylor, Tiffany; McTague, Tricia (2006-08). "Documenting Desegregation: Segregation in American Workplaces by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, 1966–2003". American Sociological Review. 71 (4): 565–588. doi:10.1177/000312240607100403. ISSN 0003-1224. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ a b c d e Alonso-Villar, Olga; del Río, Coral (2016-03-10). "The Occupational Segregation of African American Women: Its Evolution from 1940 to 2010". Feminist Economics. 23 (1): 108–134. doi:10.1080/13545701.2016.1143959. ISSN 1354-5701.