Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender, or none of the aforementioned at all.
The ultimate causes and mechanisms of sexual orientation development in
humans remain unclear and many theories are speculative and
controversial. However, advances in neuroscience
explain and illustrate characteristics linked to sexual orientation.
Studies have explored structural neural-correlates, functional and/or
cognitive relationships, and developmental theories relating to sexual
orientation in humans.
Developmental neurobiology
Many
theories concerning the development of sexual orientation involve fetal
neural development, with proposed models illustrating prenatal hormone
exposure, maternal immunity, and developmental instability. Other
proposed factors include genetic control of sexual orientation. No
conclusive evidence has been shown that environmental or learned effects
are responsible for the development of non-heterosexual orientation.
As of 2005, sexual dimorphisms in the brain and behavior among vertebrates were accounted for by the influence of gonadal steroidal androgens
as demonstrated in animal models over the prior few decades. The
prenatal androgen model of homosexuality describes the
neuro-developmental effects of fetal exposure to these hormones. In 1985, Geschwind and Galaburda proposed that homosexual men
are exposed to high androgen levels early in development and proposed
that temporal and local variations in androgen exposure to a fetus's
developing brain is a factor in the pathways determining homosexuality.
This led scientists to look for somatic markers for prenatal hormonal
exposure that could be easily, and non-invasively, explored in otherwise
endocrinologically normal populations. Various somatic markers
(including 2D:4D finger ratios, auditory evoked potentials,
fingerprint patterns and eye-blink patterns) have since been found to
show variation based on sexual orientation in healthy adult individuals.
Other evidence supporting the role of testosterone and prenatal hormones in sexual orientation development include observations of male subjects with cloacal exstrophy
who were sex-assigned as female during birth only later to declare
themselves male. This supports the theory that the prenatal testosterone
surge is crucial for gender identity development. Additionally, females
whose mothers were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy show higher rates of bi- and homosexuality.
Variations in the hypothalamus may have some influence on sexual
orientation. Studies show that factors such as cell number and size of
various nuclei in the hypothalamus may impact one's sexual orientation.
Brain structure
There
are multiple areas of the brain which have been found to display
differences based on sexual orientation. Several of these can be found
in the hypothalamus, including the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the
preoptic area (SDN-POA) present in several mammalian species.
Researchers have shown that the SDN-POA aides in sex-dimorphic mating
behavior in some mammals, which is representative of human sexual
orientation.
The human equivalent to the SDN-POA is the interstitial nucleus of the
anterior hypothalamus, which is also sexually dimorphic and has
demonstrated dissimilar sizes between sexualities.
There are also other POA-like brain structures in the human brain which
differ between sexual orientations, such as the suprachiasmatic nucleus
and the anterior hypothalamus.
Using meta-analysis of neuroimaging, researchers have concluded that
these areas are linked to sexual preferences in humans, which would
explain why they may differ based on sexual orientation.
Another area of the brain which demonstrates sexual orientation
differentiation is the thalamus, which is a structure involved in sexual
arousal and reward. The thalamus of heterosexual individuals was found
to be bigger than that of homosexual individuals. The placement of connections in the amygdala have been demonstrated to differ between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.
The posterior cingulate cortex, a part of the occipital lobe, the
region of the brain that processes visual information, has also been
demonstrated to have differences based on sexual orientation.
Research has shown that a couple of the areas of connection
between the hemispheres of the brain have differences in their size
depending on sexual orientation. The front commission was found to be
wider in homosexual men than heterosexual men, and the corpus callosum
was found to be larger in homosexual men than heterosexual men.
Some areas of the brain which researchers looked at but did not
find differences in structure between sexualities are the temporal
cortex, hippocampus and putamen.
Neuroscience has been implicated in the study of birth order and male
sexual orientation. A significant volume of research has found that the
more older brothers
a man has from the same mother, the greater the probability he will
have a homosexual orientation. Estimates indicate that there is a 33–48%
increase in chances of homosexuality in a male child with each older
brother, and the effect is not observed in those with older adoptive or
step-brothers, indicative of a prenatal biological mechanism. Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert discovered the association in the 1990s, and named it the fraternal birth order (FBO) effect.
The mechanism by which the effect is believed to operate states that a
mother develops an immune response against a substance important in male
fetal development during pregnancy, and that this immune effect becomes
increasingly likely with each male fetus gestated by the mother. This
immune effect is thought to cause an alteration in (some) later born
males' prenatal brain development. The target of the immune response are
molecules (specifically Y-linked proteins, which are thought to play a
role in fetal brain sex-differentiation) on the surface of male fetal
brain cells, including in sites of the anterior hypothalamus (which has
been linked to sexual orientation in other research). Antibodies produced during the immune response are thought to cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal compartment
where they bind to the Y-linked molecules and thus alter their role in
sexual differentiation, leading some males to be attracted to men as
opposed to women. Biochemical evidence to support this hypothesis was
identified in 2017, finding mothers of gay sons, particularly those with
older brothers, had significantly higher anti-NLGN4Y levels than other
samples of women, including mothers of heterosexual sons.
The effect does not mean that all or most sons will be gay after
several male pregnancies, but rather, the odds of having a gay son
increase from approximately 2% for the firstborn son, to 4% for the
second, 6% for the third and so on.
Scientists have estimated that 15–29% of gay men owe their sexual
orientation to this effect, but the number may be higher, as prior
miscarriages and terminations of male pregnancies may have exposed their
mothers to Y-linked antigens. In addition, the effect is nullified in
left-handed men. As it is contingent on handedness and handedness is a
prenatally determined trait, it further attributes the effect to be
biological, rather than psychosocial. The fraternal birth order effect does not apply to the development of female homosexuality.
Blanchard does not believe the same antibody response would cause
homosexuality in firstborn gay sons – instead, they may owe their
orientation to genes, prenatal hormones and other maternal immune
responses which also influence fetal brain development.
The few studies which have not observed a correlation between gay
men and birth order have generally been criticized for methodological
errors and sampling methods. J. Michael Bailey has said that no plausible hypothesis other than a maternal immune response has been identified.
Research directions
As of 2005, research directions included:
finding markers for sex steroid levels in the brains of fetuses
that highlight features of early neuro-development leading to certain
sexual orientations
determine the precise neural circuitry underlying direction of sexual preference
use animal models to explore genetic and developmental factors that influence sexual orientation
further population studies, genetic studies, and serological markers
to clarify and definitively determine the effect of maternal immunity
neuroimaging studies to quantify sexual-orientation-related differences in structure and function in vivo
neurochemical studies to investigate the roles of sex steroids upon neural circuitry involved in sexual attraction
The human Y chromosome showing the SRY gene which codes for a protein regulating sexual differentiation.
Sexual differentiation in humans is the process of development of sex differences in humans. It is defined as the development of phenotypic structures consequent to the action of hormones produced following gonadal determination. Sexual differentiation includes development of different genitalia and the internal genital tracts and body hair plays a role in sex identification.
The development of sexual differences begins with the XY sex-determination system that is present in humans, and complex mechanisms are responsible for the development of the phenotypic differences between male and femalehumans from an undifferentiated zygote. Females typically have two X chromosomes, and males typically have a Y chromosome and an X chromosome. At an early stage in embryonic development, both sexes possess equivalent internal structures. These are the mesonephric ducts and paramesonephric ducts. The presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the development of the testes in males, and the subsequent release of hormones which cause the paramesonephric ducts to regress. In females, the mesonephric ducts regress.
Disorders of sexual development (DSD), encompassing conditions
characterized by the appearance of undeveloped genitals that may be
ambiguous, or look like those typical for the opposite sex, sometimes
known as intersex, can be a result of genetic and hormonal factors.
Most mammals, including humans, have an XY sex-determination system: the Y chromosome
carries factors responsible for triggering male development. In the
absence of a Y chromosome, the fetus will undergo female development.
This is because of the presence of the sex-determining region of the Y
chromosome, also known as the SRY gene. Thus, male mammals typically have an X and a Y chromosome (XY), while female mammals typically have two X chromosomes (XX).
Chromosomal sex is determined at the time of fertilization; a chromosome from the sperm cell, either X or Y, fuses with the X chromosome in the egg cell. Gonadal sex refers to the gonads, that is the testicles or ovaries, depending on which genes are expressed. Phenotypic sex refers to the structures of the external and internal genitalia.
6 weeks elapse after fertilization before the first signs of sex differentiation can be observed in human embryos.
The embryo and subsequent early fetus appear to be sexually
indifferent, looking neither like a male or a female. Over the next
several weeks, hormones are produced that cause undifferentiated tissue
to transform into either male or female reproductive organs. This
process is called sexual differentiation. The precursor of the internal
female sex organs is called the Müllerian system.
Differentiation between the sexes of the sex organs occurs throughout
embryological, fetal and later life. In both males and females, the sex
organs consist of two structures: the internal genitalia and the
external genitalia. In males, the gonads are the testicles and in females, they are the ovaries. These are the organs that produce gametes (egg and sperm), the reproductive cells that will eventually meet to form the fertilized egg (zygote).
As the zygote divides, it first becomes the embryo
(which means 'growing within'), typically between zero and eight weeks,
then from the eighth week until birth, it is considered the fetus
(which means 'unborn offspring'). The internal genitalia are all the
accessory glands and ducts that connect the gonads to the outside
environment. The external genitalia consist of all the external
reproductive structures. The sex of an early embryo cannot be determined
because the reproductive structures do not differentiate until the
seventh week. Prior to this, the child is considered bipotential because
it cannot be identified as male or female.
Internal genital differentiation
The internal genitalia consist of two accessory ducts: mesonephric ducts (male) and paramesonephric ducts
(female). The mesonephric system is the precursor to the male genitalia
and the paramesonephric to the female reproductive system.
As development proceeds, one of the pairs of ducts develops while the
other regresses. This depends on the presence or absence of the sex
determining region of the Y chromosome, also known as the SRY gene. In the presence of a functional SRY gene, the bipotential gonads develop into testes. Gonads are histologically distinguishable by 6–8 weeks of gestation.
Subsequent development of one set and degeneration of the other depends on the presence or absence of two testicular hormones: testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH).
Disruption of typical development may result in the development of
both, or neither, duct system, which may produce morphologically intersex individuals.
Males: The SRY gene when transcribed and processed
produces SRY protein that binds to DNA and directs the development of
the gonad into testes. Male development can only occur when the fetal
testis secretes key hormones at a critical period in early gestation.
The testes begin to secrete three hormones that influence the male
internal and external genitalia: they secrete anti-Müllerian hormone
(AMH), testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone
(DHT). Anti-Müllerian hormone causes the paramesonephric ducts to
regress. Testosterone converts the mesonephric ducts into male accessory
structures, including the epididymides, vasa deferentia, and seminal vesicles. Testosterone will also control the descending of the testes from the abdomen. Many other genes found on other autosomes, including WT1, SOX9 and SF1 also play a role in gonadal development.
Females: Without testosterone and AMH, the mesonephric ducts degenerate and disappear. The paramesonephric ducts develop into the uterus, fallopian tubes, and upper vagina (the lower vagina develops from the urogenital sinus).
There still remains a broad lack of information about the genetic
controls of female development, and much remains unknown about the
female embryonic process.
External genital differentiation
Development of external genitalia
By 7 weeks, a fetus has a genital tubercle, urogenital sinus, urogenital folds and labioscrotal swellings. In females, without excess androgens, these become the vulva (clitoris, vestibule, labia minora and labia majora
respectively). Males become externally distinct between 8 and 12 weeks,
as androgens enlarge the genital tubercle and cause the urogenital
groove and sinus to fuse in the midline, producing an unambiguous penis with a phallic urethra, and the labioscrotal swellings become a thinned, rugate scrotum
where the testicles are situated. Dihydrotestosterone will
differentiate the remaining male characteristics of the external
genitalia.
A sufficient amount of any androgen can cause external masculinization. The most potent is dihydrotestosterone
(DHT), generated from testosterone in skin and genital tissue by the
action of 5α-reductase. A male fetus may be incompletely masculinized if
this enzyme is deficient. In some diseases
and circumstances, other androgens may be present in high enough
concentrations to cause partial or (rarely) complete masculinization of
the external genitalia of a genetically female fetus. The testes begin
to secrete three hormones that influence the male internal and external
genitalia. They secrete anti-Müllerian hormone, testosterone, and
Dihydrotestosterone. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) causes the
paramesonephric ducts to regress. Testosterone, which is secreted and
converts the mesonephric ducts into male accessory structures, such as
epididymis, vas deferens and seminal vesicle. Testosterone will also
control the descending of the testes from the abdomen into the scrotum.
Dihydrotestosterone, also known as (DHT) will differentiate the
remaining male characteristics of the external genitalia.
Further sex differentiation of the external genitalia occurs at puberty,
when androgen levels again become disparate. Male levels of
testosterone directly induce growth of the penis, and indirectly (via
DHT) the prostate.
Alfred Jost observed that while testosterone was required for mesonephric duct development, the regression of the paramesonephric duct
was due to another substance. This was later determined to be
paramesonephric inhibiting substance (MIS), a 140 kD dimeric
glycoprotein that is produced by Sertoli cells. MIS blocks the development of paramesonephric ducts, promoting their regression.
Visible differentiation occurs at puberty, when estradiol and other hormones cause breasts to develop in typical females.
Psychological and behavioral differentiation
Human
adults and children show many psychological and behavioral sex
differences. Some (e.g. dress) are learned and cultural. Others are
demonstrable across cultures and have both biological and learned
determinants. For example, some studies claim girls are, on average,
more verbally fluent than boys, but boys are, on average, better at
spatial calculation.
Some have observed that this may be due to two different patterns in
parental communication with infants, noting that parents are more likely
to talk to girls and more likely to engage in physical play with boys.
The following are some of the variations associated with atypical determination and differentiation process:
A zygote with only X chromosome (XO) results in Turner syndrome and will develop with female characteristics.
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia –Inability of adrenal to produce sufficient cortisol,
leading to increased production of testosterone resulting in severe
masculinization of 46 XX females. The condition also occurs in XY males,
as they suffer from the effects of low cortisol and salt-wasting, not
virilization.
Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome – A rare type of pseudohermaphroditism
that occurs in 46 XY males, caused by either a mutation in the
Müllerian inhibiting substance (MIS) gene, on 19p13, or its type II
receptor, 12q13. Results in a retention of Müllerian ducts (persistence
of rudimentary uterus and fallopian tubes in otherwise normally
virilized males), unilateral or bilateral undescended testes, and
sometimes causes infertility.
XY differences of sex development – Atypical androgen production or
inadequate androgen response, which can cause incomplete masculinization
in XY males. Varies from mild failure of masculinization with
undescended testes to complete sex reversal and female phenotype (Androgen insensitivity syndrome)
Swyer syndrome. A form of complete gonadal dysgenesis, mostly due to mutations in the first step of sex determination; the SRY genes.
A 5-alpha-reductase deficiency results in atypical development characterized by female phenotype or undervirilized male phenotype with development of the epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicle, and ejaculatory duct, but also a pseudovagina. This is because testosterone is converted to the more potent DHT by 5-alpha reductase. DHT is necessary to exert androgenic
effects farther from the site of testosterone production, where the
concentrations of testosterone are too low to have any potency.
A chart illustrating the differences in earnings between men and women of the same educational level (USA 2006)
A glass ceiling is a metaphor usually applied to people of marginalized genders, used to represent an invisible barrier that prevents an oppressed demographic from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy. The metaphor was first used by feminists in reference to barriers in the careers of high-achieving women. It was coined by Marilyn Loden during a speech in 1978.
In the United States, the concept is sometimes extended to refer to racial inequality.
Minority women in white-majority countries often find the most
difficulty in "breaking the glass ceiling" because they lie at the intersection of two historically marginalized groups: women and people of color. East Asian and East Asian American news outlets have coined the term "bamboo ceiling" to refer to the obstacles that all East Asian Americans face in advancing their careers. Similarly, a multitude of barriers that refugees and asylum seekers face in their search for meaningful employment is referred to as the "canvas ceiling".
Within the same concepts of the other terms surrounding the
workplace, there are similar terms for restrictions and barriers
concerning women and their roles within organizations and how they
coincide with their maternal responsibilities. These "Invisible
Barriers" function as metaphors to describe the extra circumstances that
women go through, usually when they try to advance within areas of
their careers and often while they try to advance within their lives
outside their work spaces.
"A glass ceiling" represents a blockade that prohibits women from advancing toward the top of a hierarchical corporation.
These women are prevented from getting promoted, especially to the
executive rankings within their corporation. In the last twenty years,
the women who have become more involved and pertinent in industries and
organizations have rarely been in the executive ranks.
Definition
The United States Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1991–1996)
defined the glass ceiling as "the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that
keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the
corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."
David Cotter et al. (2001) defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists. A glass ceiling inequality represents:
"A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee."
"A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome."
"A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into
higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race
currently at those higher levels."
"A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career."
Cotter and colleagues found that glass ceilings are correlated
strongly with gender, with both white and minority women facing a glass
ceiling in the course of their careers. In contrast, the researchers did
not find evidence of a glass ceiling for African-American men.
The glass ceiling metaphor has often been used to describe
invisible barriers ("glass") through which women can see elite positions
but cannot reach them ("ceiling").
These barriers prevent large numbers of women and ethnic minorities
from obtaining and securing the most powerful, prestigious and
highest-grossing jobs in the workforce.
Moreover, this effect prevents women from filling high-ranking
positions and puts them at a disadvantage as potential candidates for
advancement.
History
In 1839, French feminist and author George Sand used a similar phrase, une voûte de cristal impénétrable, in a passage of Gabriel, a never-performed play: "I was a woman; for suddenly my wings collapsed, ether closed in around my head like an impenetrable crystal vault,
and I fell...." [emphasis added]. The statement, a description of the
heroine's dream of soaring with wings, has been interpreted as a
feminine Icarus tale of a woman who attempts to ascend above her accepted role.
Marilyn Loden invented the phrase glass ceiling during a 1978 speech.
According to the April 3, 2015, The Wall Street Journal the term glass ceiling was notably used in 1979 by Maryanne Schriber and Katherine Lawrence at Hewlett-Packard. Lawrence outlined the concept at the National Press Club at the national meeting of the Women's Institute for the Freedom of the Press in Washington DC.
The ceiling was defined as discriminatory promotion patterns where the
written promotional policy is non-discriminatory, but in practice denies
promotion to qualified females.
The term was later used in March 1984 by Gay Bryant, who is credited with popularizing the glass ceiling concept. She was the former editor of Working Woman magazine and was changing jobs to be the editor of Family Circle. In an Adweek
article written by Nora Frenkel, Bryant was reported as saying, "Women
have reached a certain point—I call it the glass ceiling. They're at the
top of middle management and they're stopping and getting stuck. There
isn't enough room for all those women at the top. Some are going into
business for themselves. Others are going out and raising families."Also in 1984, Bryant used the term in a chapter of the book The Working Woman Report: Succeeding in Business in the 1980s. In the same book, Basia Hellwig used the term in another chapter.
In a widely cited article in the Wall Street Journal
in March 1986 the term was used in the article's title: "The Glass
Ceiling: Why Women Can't Seem to Break The Invisible Barrier That Blocks
Them From the Top Jobs". The article was written by Carol Hymowitz and
Timothy D. Schellhardt. Hymowitz and Schellhardt introduced glass
ceiling was "not something that could be found in any corporate manual
or even discussed at a business meeting; it was originally introduced as
an invisible, covert, and unspoken phenomenon that existed to keep
executive level leadership positions in the hands of Caucasian males."
As the term "glass ceiling" became more common, the public
responded with differing ideas and opinions. Some argued that the
concept is a myth because women choose to stay home and showed less
dedication to advance into executive positions. As a result of continuing public debate, the US Labor Department's chief, Lynn Morley Martin,
reported the results of a research project called "The Glass Ceiling
Initiative", formed to investigate the low numbers of women and
minorities in executive positions. This report defined the new term as
"those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias
that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their
organization into management-level positions."
In 1991, as a part of Title II of the Civil Right Act of 1991, The United States Congress created the Glass Ceiling Commission. This 21 member Presidential Commission was chaired by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich,
and was created to study the "barriers to the advancement of minorities
and women within corporate hierarchies[,] to issue a report on its
findings and conclusions, and to make recommendations on ways to dis-
mantle the glass ceiling."
The commission conducted extensive research including, surveys, public
hearings and interviews, and released their findings in a report in
1995.
The report, "Good for Business", offered "tangible guidelines and
solutions on how these barriers can be overcome and eliminated".
The goal of the commission was to provide recommendations on how to
"shatter" the glass ceiling, specifically in the world of business. The
report issued 12 recommendations on how to improve the workplace by
increasing diversity in organizations and reducing discrimination
through policy.
The number of women CEOs in the Fortune Lists has increased between 1998 and 2020, despite women's labor force participation rate decreasing globally from 52.4% to 49.6% between 1995 and 2015. Only 19.2% of S&P 500 Board Seats were held by women in 2014, 80.2% of whom were considered white.
In 2017, The Economist
updated their Glass Ceiling Index, combining data on higher education,
labour-force participation, pay, child-care costs, maternity and
paternity rights, business-school applications, and representation in
senior jobs. The countries where inequality was the lowest were Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Poland.
Gender stereotypes
2001 Gallup Poll: Men are perceived as more aggressive, women are perceived as more emotional
In a 1993 report released through the U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, researchers noted that although
women have the same educational opportunities as their male
counterparts, the Glass Ceiling persist due to systematic barriers, low
representation, mobility, and stereotypes.
The perpetuation of sexist stereotypes is one widely recognized reason
as to why female employees are systematically inhibited from receiving
advantageous opportunities in their chosen fields. A majority of Americans perceive women to be more emotional and men to be more aggressive.
Gender stereotypes influence how leaders are chosen by employers and
how workers of different sex are treated. Another stereotype towards
women in workplaces is known as the "gender status belief" which claims
that men are more competent and intelligent than women, which would
explain why they have higher positions in the career hierarchy.
Ultimately, this factor leads to perception of gender-based jobs in the
labor market, so men are expected to have more work-related
qualifications and hired for top positions. Perceived feminine stereotypes contribute to the glass ceiling faced by women in the workforce.
Gender stereotyping is thinking that men are better than women in
management and leadership roles; it is the concept of alluding that
women are inferior and better suited in their biological roles of mother
and spouse.
The nature of this stereotype is toxic and hindering to women's success
and their rights in every aspect but it is even more damaging in the
workplace in a patriarchal society. It represents an invisible but
strong barrier that stands in the way of women. Men are put at the
utmost positions for they are primally viewed as better leaders whereas
women are stuck in low or medium level positions.
These barriers to women's progression in management roles and a of
significant issue. For example, the few women that have worked hard and
relentlessly to break those barriers and have earned their deserving
place in a leadership role are either viewed as "competent or warm" but
never both.
This is because the idea of a successful woman is stereotyped within
the idea that she must be a ruthless, competitive, cold person whereas a
woman of a warm and caring nature will be perceived as not having the
right skill set for leadership and progression because "she does not
have what it takes".
Hiring practices
When
women leave their current place of employment to start their own
businesses, they tend to hire other women, and men to hire other men.
These hiring practices (seemingly) diminish "the glass ceiling" effect
because there is a perception of less competition of capabilities and
sex discrimination. They appear to ally with the idea of "men's work"
and "women's work".
Cross-cultural context
Few
women tend to reach positions in the upper echelon of society, and
organizations are largely still almost exclusively led by men. Studies have shown that the glass ceiling still exists in varying levels in different nations and regions across the world.
The stereotypes of women as emotional and sensitive could be seen as
key characteristics as to why women struggle to break the glass ceiling.
It is clear that even though societies differ from one another by
culture, beliefs, and norms, they hold similar expectations of women and
their role in society. These female stereotypes are often reinforced in
societies that have traditional expectations of women.
The stereotypes and perceptions of women are changing slowly across the
world, which also reduces gender segregation in organizations.
Overcoming glass ceiling
Despite significant improvement of women's participation in the labor force due to equity programs, advanced education levels, and work-life balanced policies, women are still underrepresented in upper-level positions in the workplace. There has been substantial invisible barriers for them to reach high-level management position such as lack of social capital, low level of self-efficacy and self-esteem, gender stereotypes, and masculine organizational culture.
In fact, individual, government and organization effort are needed to
break double glass ceilings in which not only cultural and gender biases
but also limitation of access to resources and opportunities have been
rooted in the male-dominated workplace.
"Individual effort"
One
of the effective strategies that women can use to overcome the glass
ceiling effect on their own is networking. Social networks are critical
for promoting one's career and receiving access to resources.
Establishing intensive connections within and outside an organization
can contribute to better interpersonal understanding and reduction of
negative stereotypical views of women and thus achieving career
advancement in return.
Social networks can be constructed through connections with individuals
on various dimensions such as formal vs. informal, homogeneity vs.
heterogeneity, instrumental vs. psychosocial and strong vs. weak ties. Women have strong capabilities of building and maintaining social relationship.
They can create internal network within their organizations that
influence on deciding promotion and acceptance while an external network
with outsiders contributes to psychosocial support. They can build social networks in different ways depending on their social identity and cultural background. However, building and maintaining networks can be time-consuming and not straightforward. Women can also face additional barriers to construct networks in an organization that have been dominated by powerful men.
The benefits accumulated from social networks become social capital for individuals. Thus, the quality of one's social network can determine the value of its social capital.
Social capital can contribute several positive career outcomes such as
task accomplishment and social support for career advancement.
Women can enhance their social capital and promote their professional
images through mentoring. Mentoring plays a critical role in supporting
women to achieve executive-level positions in an organization.
Mentoring means a senior with advanced knowledge, skills and experience
helps a junior through career and psychological support. Career support includes sponsorship, coaching and visibilityile psychological support includes acceptance, emotional support and role modeling.
A supportive supervisor or mentor can enhance the opportunity of being
appointed to the critical roles and increase the probability of actual
promotions through temporary promotions. To achieve this, women can intentionally forge relationships across race, gender, occupation level and organizational culture. Moreover, they can borrow this kind of social capital from strategic partners to get important contacts.
But, such kind of connection is related with only temporary promotions.
Mentors are more likely to support the same-gender mentee in an
organization. Female mentors may be sympathetic and understand about women's challenges and emotions in the battle of promotions. However, this benefit could be realized only when female mentors reach relatively high-level positions.
In fact, it is difficult for women to receive mentoring from the same
gender since there are fewer senior management positions occupied by
women.
Positive attitude towards glass ceiling can also help women to
break glass ceiling. Optimistic beliefs about chances of being promoted
in an organization can cause positive actions towards pursuing
promotions. Resilience and denial are optimistic glass ceiling beliefs
for subjective career success.
Resilience means women believe that they are able to break glass
ceiling: they can fight for their rights to promotion and career
development. Denial means women think that men and women experience the
same issues and barriers in pursuing executive positions. On the other
hand, resignation and acceptance are pessimistic glass ceiling beliefs
for subjective career advancement.
Resignation means women are unwilling to break glass ceiling due to the
belief of experiencing more negative consequences than men. Acceptance
deals with women's preference on other goals such as family involvement
instead of career advancement. Women who want to reach higher levels of
management in an organization can analyze their levels of resilience and
denial. Then, they will be able to build resilience skill through
attitude, behavior and social support in order to overcome glass ceiling
in a highly competitive contemporary workplace.
"Organization effort"
Overcoming
the glass ceiling is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic
advantage for organizations aiming to thrive in an increasingly diverse
in a complex world. To break through this barrier and promote diversity
and inclusivity in leadership, organizations must adopt a multifaceted
and sustained approaches including development of policies, programs,
leadership commitment and evaluation.
1. Policies
Effective diversity and inclusion policies play a pivotal role in
breaking through organizational glass ceilings. Firstly, organizations
must develop robust recruitment
and retention strategies that not only attract diverse talent but also
address attrition rates among underrepresented employees through
targeted retention programs. To foster diversity at all levels, from recruitment to promotions, organizations should establish clear and comprehensive diversity and inclusion policies.
These policies should not only outline specific objectives but also
incorporate metrics and strategies that serve as guiding principles.
Furthermore, compliance with all relevant anti-discrimination and equal
opportunity laws is fundamental in cultivating a fair and inclusive
workplace. Moreover, transparency in promotion and succession processes is essential.
Maintaining clear communication regarding the criteria for advancement
empowers employees to understand and actively pursue leadership
opportunities, thereby dismantling the glass ceiling and promoting a
more inclusive and equitable workplace. In addition to focusing on
policy, organizations should also prioritize their programs for breaking
through the glass ceiling.
2. Program
Firstly, organizations should prioritize the creation of
comprehensive diversity and inclusion programs that clearly show their
dedication to fairness and equal opportunities to all employees in
workplaces. In addition, ensuring fairness in promotions is vital.
Transparent promotion criteria must be developed and consistently
applied across the organization to maintain fairness and equal
opportunities for all.
Furthermore, the implementation of leadership development programs is
essential to identify and nurture potential leaders from diverse
backgrounds. These programs may include elements such as mentorship, training, and opportunities for high-potential employees to gain valuable leadership experience.
To increase awareness and mitigate unconscious bias,
organizations should provide diversity and inclusion training for all
employees, including management and executives. This training should
equip individuals with strategies to minimize the impact of bias on
decision-making and team dynamics. Lastly, organizations should create
platforms and events that facilitate networking opportunities for
employees from diverse backgrounds to interact with senior leadership.
Enhanced visibility through these initiatives is paramount for career
progression and reinforces an organization's commitment to breaking
through the glass ceiling and promoting diversity and inclusion.
3. Leadership commitment
Firstly, leaders must exemplify unwavering commitment to
diversity and inclusion, serving as champions of this vital initiative.
This should be evident in the organization's values, policies, and in
the actions of its leaders.
Secondly, organizations should establish clear accountability
mechanisms. Leadership should be held responsible for achieving
diversity and inclusion goals, with performance metrics directly tied to
these objectives.
Additionally, promoting inclusive leadership is crucial. Organizations
should invest in training their leaders to make equitable and inclusive
decisions, manage teams with fairness, and engage in inclusive
interactions.
Effective communication plays a pivotal role in this journey.
Organizations should transparently communicate their commitment to
diversity and inclusion, both internally and externally. Regularly
publishing diversity and inclusion reports helps maintain transparency
and keeps stakeholders informed about progress.
Lastly, cultural transformation is essential. Cultivating a workplace
culture rooted in respect and open communication is paramount (Bhasin,
2020). Encouraging employees to report
any instances of discrimination or harassment and providing a safe and
supportive space for such reports is vital to addressing issues promptly
and effectively.
4. Performance evaluation
To successfully overcome the glass ceiling at the organizational level, a commitment to continuous improvement is paramount.
This entails regularly evaluating the effectiveness of diversity and
inclusion initiatives through methods such as surveys, feedback
mechanisms,
and data analysis. Organizations must remain adaptable, ready to adjust
their strategies as necessary to tackle evolving challenges and
capitalize on opportunities for enhancement.
A parallel phenomenon called the "glass escalator"
has also been recognized. As more men join fields that were previously
dominated by women, such as nursing and teaching, the men are promoted
and given more opportunities compared to the women, as if the men were
taking escalators and the women were taking the stairs.
The chart from Carolyn K. Broner shows an example of the glass
escalator in favor of men for female-dominant occupations in schools.
While women have historically dominated the teaching profession, men
tend to take higher positions in school systems such as deans or
principals.
Men benefit financially from their gender status in historically
female fields, often "reaping the benefits of their token status to
reach higher levels in female-dominated work".
A 2008 study published in Social Problems
found that sex segregation in nursing did not follow the "glass
escalator" pattern of disproportional vertical distribution; rather, men
and women gravitated towards different areas within the field, with
male nurses tending to specialize in areas of work perceived as
"masculine".
The article noted that "men encounter powerful social pressures that
direct them away from entering female-dominated occupations (Jacobs
1989, 1993)". Since female-dominated occupations are usually
characterized by more feminine activities, men who enter these jobs can
be perceived socially as "effeminate, homosexual, or sexual predators".
"Sticky floors"
In
the literature on gender discrimination, the concept of "sticky floors"
complements the concept of a glass ceiling. Sticky floors can be
described as the pattern that women are, compared to men, less likely to
start to climb the job ladder. This is often due to discriminatory
employment pattern that keeps workers, mainly women, in the lower ranks
of the job scale, with low mobility and invisible barriers to career
advancement. Thereby, this phenomenon is related to gender differentials
at the bottom of the wage distribution. Building on the seminal study
by Booth and co-authors in European Economic Review,
during the last decade economists have attempted to identify sticky
floors in the labour market. They found empirical evidence for the
existence of sticky floors in countries such as Australia, Belgium,
Italy, Thailand, and the United States.
"The frozen middle"
Similar
to the sticky floor, the frozen middle describes the phenomenon of
women's progress up the corporate ladder slowing, if not halting, in the
ranks of middle management.
Originally the term referred to the resistance corporate upper
management faced from middle management when issuing directives. Due to a
lack of ability or lack of drive in the ranks of middle management,
these directives do not come into fruition and as a result the company's
bottom line suffers. The term was popularized by a Harvard Business Review article titled "Middle Management Excellence".
Due to the growing proportion of women to men in the workforce,
however, the term "frozen middle" has become more commonly ascribed to
the aforementioned slowing of the careers of women in middle management.
The 1996 study "A Study of the Career Development and Aspirations of
Women in Middle Management" posits that social structures and networks
within businesses that favor "good old boys" and norms of masculinity
exist based on the experiences of women surveyed.
According to the study, women who did not exhibit stereotypical
masculine traits, (e.g. aggressiveness, thick skin, lack of emotional
expression) and interpersonal communication tendencies were
disadvantaged compared to their male peers. As the ratio of men to women increases in the upper levels of management,
women's access to female mentors who could advise them on ways to
navigate office politics is limited, further inhibiting upward mobility
within a corporation or firm.
Furthermore, the frozen middle affects female professionals in western
and eastern countries such as the United States and Malaysia,
respectively, as well as women in a variety of fields ranging from the aforementioned corporations to STEM fields.
"Second shift"
The
second shift focuses on the idea that women theoretically work a second
shift in the manner of having a greater workload, not just doing a
greater share of domestic work. All of the tasks that are engaged in
outside the workplace are mainly tied to motherhood.
Depending on location, household income, educational attainment,
ethnicity and location, data shows that women do work a second shift in
the sense of having a greater workload, not just doing a greater share
of domestic work, but this is not apparent if simultaneous activity is
overlooked. Alva Myrdal and Viola Klein
as early as 1956 focused on the potential of both men and women working
in settings that included paid and unpaid types of work environments.
Research indicated that men and women could have equal time for
activities outside the work environment for family and extra activities.
This "second shift" has also been found to have physical effects as
well. Women who engage in longer hours of work in pursuit of family
balance often face increased mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.
Increased irritability, lower motivation and energy, and other
emotional issues were also found to occur as well. The overall happiness
of women can be improved if a balance of career and home
responsibilities is found.
"Mommy track"
"Mommy
track" refers to women who disregard their careers and professional
responsibilities in order to satisfy the needs of their families. Women
are often subject to long work hours that create an imbalance within the
work-family schedule.
There is research suggesting that women are able to operate on a
part-time professional schedule compared to others who worked full-time
while still engaged in external family activities.
This research also suggests that flexible work arrangements allow the
achievement of a healthy work and family balance. A difference has also
been discovered in the cost and amount of effort in childbearing between
women in higher skilled positions and roles, as opposed to women in
lower-skilled jobs. This difference leads women to delay and postpone
goals and career aspirations over many years.
"Concrete floor"
The term concrete floor
has been used to refer to the minimum number or the proportion of women
necessary for a cabinet or board of directors to be perceived as
legitimate.
Quota Doctors
Government intervention in the admission and promotion process results in beneficiaries being tagged as quota doctors. These quotas are floor quotas, having a required minimum; their contrast is for ceiling quotas, Numerus clausus.
CBO
Chart, U.S. Holdings of Family Wealth 1989 to 2013. The top 10% of
families held 76% of the wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of
families held 1%. Inequality increased from 1989 to 2013.
The inequality of wealth (i.e. inequality in the distribution of assets) has substantially increased in the United States in recent decades. Wealth commonly includes the values of any homes, automobiles, personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments, as well as any associated debts.
Although different from income inequality,
the two are related. Wealth is usually not used for daily expenditures
or factored into household budgets, but combined with income, it
represents a family's total opportunity to secure stature and a
meaningful standard of living, or to pass their class status down to their children. Moreover, wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, contributes to political power, and can be leveraged to obtain more wealth.
Hence, wealth provides mobility and agency—the ability to act. The
accumulation of wealth enables a variety of freedoms, and removes limits
on life that one might otherwise face.
Federal Reserve
data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the
United States held 30.9% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50%
held 2.6%.
From 1989 to 2019, wealth became increasingly concentrated in the top
1% and top 10% due in large part to corporate stock ownership
concentration in those segments of the population; the bottom 50% own
little if any corporate stock. From an international perspective, the difference in the US median and mean wealth per adult is over 600%. A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current level of wealth inequality in the US, and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the wealth held by billionaires in the U.S. increased by 70%, with 2020 marking the steepest increase in billionaires' share of wealth on record.
Statistics
Net personal wealth in the U.S. since 1962
The average personal wealth of people in the top 1% is more than a thousand times that of people in bottom 50%.
The logarithmic scale shows how wealth has increased for all percentile groups, though more so for wealthier people.
Average and median household income by age group
In 2007, the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans possessed 80% of all financial assets.
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the
country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. The top 20% of
Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the
population owned 14%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than
inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning
43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession,
which began in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of
the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of
Americans grew from 86% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop
of 36% in median household wealth, but a drop of only 11% for the top
1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.
According to PolitiFact and other sources, in 2011, the 400 wealthiest Americans had more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a substantial head start. In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, over 60 percent of the Forbes richest 400 Americans grew up in substantial privilege.
Distribution
of household wealth for the Top 1% and Bottom 50% in the U.S. since
1989, from the Federal Reserve (Wealth by wealth percentile group
(Shares (%))). Colored regions indicate the presidencies of Bill
Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, respectively.
In 2013, wealth inequality in the U.S. was greater than in most developed countries, other than Switzerland and Denmark.
In the United States, the use of offshore holdings is exceptionally
small compared to Europe, where much of the wealth of the top
percentiles is kept in offshore holdings. According to a 2014 Credit Suisse study, the ratio of wealth to household income is the highest it has been since the Great Depression.
According to a paper published by the Federal Reserve in 1997, "For most households, pensions and Social Security
are the most important sources of income during retirement, and the
promised benefit stream constitutes a sizable fraction of household
wealth" and "including pensions and Social Security in net worth makes
the distribution more even."
In Inequality for All—a 2013 documentary, narrated by Robert Reich,
in which he argues that income inequality is the defining issue of the
United States—Reich states that 95% of economic gains following the
economic recovery which began in 2009 went to the top 1% of Americans
(by net worth) (HNWI).
A September 2017 study by the Federal Reserve reported that the top 1% owned 38.5% of the country's wealth in 2016.
According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021.
A 2019 study by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
found that the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400
families (0.003%) in the US was 23 percent, more than a percentage point
lower than the 24.2 percent paid by the bottom half of American
households. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
found that the bottom 20 percent of earners pay an average 2.9 percent
effective income tax rate federally, while the richest 1 percent paid an
effective 29.6 percent tax rate and the top 0.01 percent paid an
effective 30.6 percent tax rate. In 2019, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
found that when state and federal taxes are taken into account,
however, the poorest 20 percent pay an effective 20.2 percent rate while
the top 1 percent pay an effective 33.7 percent rate.
Using Federal Reserve data, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth
reported in August 2019 that: "Looking at the cumulative growth of
wealth disaggregated by group, we see that the bottom 50 percent of
wealth owners experienced no net wealth growth since 1989. At the other
end of the spectrum, the top 1 percent have seen their wealth grow by
almost 300 percent since 1989. Although cumulative wealth growth was
relatively similar among all wealth groups through the 1990s, the top 1
percent and bottom 50 percent diverged around 2000."
Also in 2019, PolitiFact reported that three people (less than the 400 reported in 2011) had more wealth than the bottom half of all Americans.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the wealth held by billionaires in the U.S. increased by 70%. According to the 2022 World Inequality Report, "2020 marked the steepest increase in global billionaires' share of wealth on record."
As of late 2022, according to Snopes,
735 billionaires collectively possessed more wealth than the bottom
half of U.S. households ($4.5 trillion and $4.1 trillion respectively).
The top 1% held a total of $43.45 trillion.
Late 18th century
In
the late 18th century, “incomes were more equally distributed in
colonial America than in any other place that can be measured,”
according to Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. The richest 1 percent
of households held only 8.5% of total income in the late 18th century.
The Gini coefficient,
which measures inequality on a scale from 0 to 1(with 1 being very high
inequality) was 0.367 in New England and the Middle Atlantic, as
compared to 0.57 in Europe. Some reasons for this include the ease that
the average American had in buying frontier
land, which was abundant at the time, and an overall scarcity of labor
in non-slaveholding areas, which forced landowners to pay higher wages.
There were also relatively few poor people in America at the time, since
only those with at least some money could afford to come to America.
19th century
Inequality
grew in the 19th century; between 1774 and 1860, the Gini coefficient
grew from 0.441 to 0.529. In 1860, the top 1 percent collected almost
one-third of property incomes,
as compared to 13.7% in 1774. There was a great deal of competition for
land in the cities and non-frontier areas during this time period, with
those who had already acquired land becoming richer than everyone else.
The newly burgeoning financial sector also greatly rewarded the already-wealthy, as they were the only ones financially sound enough to invest.
Early 20th century
Simon Kuznets,
using income tax records and his research-based estimates, showed a
reduction of about 10% in the movement of national income toward the top
10% of wealth-owners, a reduction from about 45–50% in 1913 to about
30–35% in 1948. This period spans both The Great Depression and World War II, events with significant economic consequences. This is called the Great Compression. Franklin D. Roosevelt's establishment of social programs under the New Deal and efforts towards wealth redistribution also reduced wealth inequality.
1989—current
Though the 10th percentile of American households have zero net worth, the 90th percentile has $1.6 million of household wealth.
Higher educational attainment in the US corresponds with higher household wealth.
Median
wealth of married couples is almost three times that of single
individuals, regardless of gender and across all age categories.
Effect of stock market gains
The
Federal Reserve publishes information on the distribution of household
assets, debt, and equity (net worth) by quarter going back to 1989. The
tables below summarize the net worth data, in real terms (adjusted for
inflation), for 1989 to 2022, and 2016 to 2022. Journalist Matthew Yglesias
explained in June 2019 how the ownership of stock has driven wealth
inequality, as the bottom 50% has minimal stock ownership: "...[T]he
bottom half of the income distribution had a huge share of its wealth
tied up in real estate while owning essentially no shares of corporate
stock. The top 1 percent, by contrast, wasn't just rich — it was
specifically rich in terms of owning companies, both stock in publicly
traded ones ("corporate equities") and shares of closely held ones
("private businesses")...So the value of those specific assets — assets
that people in the bottom half of the distribution never had a chance to
own in the first place — soared."
The National Public Radio,
also known as NPR, reported in 2017 that the bottom 50% of U.S.
households (by net worth) have little stock market exposure (neither
directly nor indirectly through 401k plans), writing: "That means the
stock market rally can only directly benefit around half of all
Americans — and substantially fewer than it would have a decade ago when
nearly two-thirds of families owned stock."
The table below shows changes from Q4 2016 (the end of the Obama Administration) to Q1 2022.
Annual income of U.S. families is near its highest throughout the 35-64 age group.
Accumulated net worth of U.S. families peaks in the 65-74 year age group.
There is an important distinction between income and wealth.
Income refers to a flow of money over time, commonly in the form of a
wage or salary; wealth is a collection of assets owned, minus
liabilities. In essence, income is what people receive through work,
retirement, or social welfare whereas wealth is what people own. While the two are related, income inequality alone is insufficient for understanding economic inequality for two reasons:
It does not accurately reflect an individual's economic position.
Income does not portray the severity of financial inequality in the United States.
In 1998, Dennis Gilbert asserted that the standard of living
of the working and middle classes is dependent primarily upon income
and wages, while the rich tend to rely on wealth, distinguishing them
from the vast majority of Americans.
The United States Census Bureau
formally defines income as money received on a regular basis (exclusive
of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments on
personal income taxes, social security, union dues, Medicare deductions,
etc.
By this official measure, the wealthiest families may have low income,
but the value of their assets may be enough money to support their
lifestyle. Dividends from trusts or gains in the stock market do not
fall under the aforementioned definition of income, but are commonly the
primary source of capital for the ultra-wealthy. Retired people also
have little income, but may have a high net worth, because of money
saved over time.
Additionally, income does not capture the extent of wealth
inequality. Wealth is most commonly obtained over time, through the
steady investing of income, and the growth of assets. The income of one
year does not typically encompass the accumulation over a lifetime.
Income statistics cover too narrow a time span for it to be an adequate
indicator of financial inequality. For example, the Gini coefficient
for wealth inequality increased from 0.80 in 1983 to 0.84 in 1989. In
the same year, 1989, the Gini coefficient for income was only 0.52.
The Gini coefficient is an economic tool on a scale from 0 to 1 that
measures the level of inequality. 1 signifies perfect inequality and 0
represents perfect equality. From this data, it is evident that in 1989
there was a discrepancy in the level of economic disparity; the extent
of wealth inequality was significantly higher than income inequality.
Recent research shows that many households, in particular, those headed
by young parents (younger than 35), minorities, and individuals with low
educational attainment, display very little accumulation. Many have no
financial assets and their total net worth is also low.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007, incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. (Note: The IRS insists that comparisons of adjusted gross income
pre-1987 and post-1987 are complicated by large changes in the
definition of AGI, which led to households within the top income
quintile reporting more of their income on their individual income tax
form's AGI, rather than reporting their business income in separate
corporate tax returns, or not reporting certain non-taxable income in
their AGI at all, such as municipal bond income. In addition, IRS
studies consistently show that a majority of households in the top
income quintile have moved to a lower quintile within one decade. There
are even more changes to households in the top 1%. Without including
those data here, a reader is likely to assume households in the top 1%
are almost the same from year to year.) In 2009, people in the top 1% of taxpayers made $343,927 or more. According to US economist Joseph Stiglitz the richest 1% of Americans gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010.
A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10
percent of earners earned more than half of the country's total income
in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began
collecting the relevant data a century ago.
People in the top one percent were three times more likely to work more
than 50 hours a week, were more likely to be self-employed, and earned a
fifth of their income as capital income. The top one percent was composed of many professions and had an annual turnover rate of more than 25%. The five most common professions were managers, physicians, administrators, lawyers, and teachers.
A 2022 study in PNAS found that earnings inequality in the United
States did not increase over the preceding decade, marking the first
reversal of rising earnings inequality since 1980. The reversal was due
to a shrinking wage gap between low-wage workers and median-wage
earners, which was due to broadly rising pay in low-wage professions. At
the same time, the gap between median-wage workers and top earners
widened.
U.S. stock market ownership distribution
Stock owned by richest 10%.
2016
84%
2013
81%
2001
71%
U.S. family pre-tax income and net worth distribution for 2013 and 2016, from the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances
In March 2017, NPR summarized the distribution of U.S. stock market ownership (direct and indirect through mutual funds) in the U.S., which is highly concentrated among the wealthiest families:
52% of U.S. adults owned stock in 2016. Ownership peaked at 65% in 2007 and fell significantly due to the Great Recession.
As of 2013, the top 1% of households owned 38% of the stock market wealth.
As of 2013, the top 10% own 81% of the stock wealth, the next 10% (80th to 90th percentile) own 11% and the bottom 80% own 8%.
The Federal Reserve reported the median value of stock ownership by income group for 2016:
Bottom 20% own $5,800.
20th-40th percentile own $10,000.
40th to 60th percentile own $15,500.
60th to 80th percentile own $31,700.
80th to 89th percentile own $82,000.
Top 10% own $365,000.
NPR reported that when politicians reference the stock market as a
measure of economic success, that success is not relevant to nearly half
of Americans. Further, more than one-third of Americans who work
full-time have no access to pensions or retirement accounts such as 401(k)s that derive their value from financial assets like stocks and bonds.
The NYT reported that the percentage of workers covered by generous
defined-benefit pension plans has declined from 62% in 1983 to 17% by
2016.
While some economists consider an increase in the stock market to have a
"wealth effect" that increases economic growth, economists like Former
Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher believe those
effects are limited.
The income growth of the typical American family closely matched that of economic productivity until some time in the 1970s. While it began to stagnate, productivity has continued to climb. According to the 2014 Global Wage Report by the International Labour Organization,
the widening disparity between wages and productivity is evidence that
there has been a significant shift of GDP share going from labor to
capital, and this trend is playing a significant role in growing
inequality.Selected economic variables related to wealth and income equality, comparing 1979, 2007, and 2015The
image contains several charts related to U.S. wealth inequality. While
U.S. net worth roughly doubled from 2000 to 2016, the gains went
primarily to the wealthy.U.S.
median family net worth peaked in 2007, declined due to the Great
Recession until 2013, and only partially recovered by 2016.
Essentially, the wealthy possess greater financial opportunities that allow their money to make more money.
Earnings from the stock market or mutual funds are reinvested to
produce a larger return. Over time, the sum that is invested becomes
progressively more substantial. Those who are not wealthy, however, do
not have the resources to enhance their opportunities and improve their
economic position. Rather, "after debt payments, poor families are
constrained to spend the remaining income on items that will not produce
wealth and will depreciate over time." Scholar David B. Grusky notes that "62 percent of households headed by single parents are without savings or other financial assets."
Net indebtedness generally prevents the poor from having any
opportunity to accumulate wealth and thereby better their conditions.
Economic inequality
Economic inequality is also a result of difference in income. Factors that contribute to this gap in wages are things such as level of education, labor market
demand and supply, gender differences, growth in technology, and
personal abilities. The quality and level of education that a person has
often corresponds to their skill level, which is justified by their
income. Wages are also determined by the "market price of a skill" at
that current time. Although gender inequality
is a separate social issue, it plays a role in economic inequality.
According to the U.S. Census Report, in America the median full-time
salary for women is 77 percent of that for men. Also contributing to the
wealth inequality in the U.S, both unskilled and skilled workers are
being replaced by machinery. The Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics argues that because of this "technological advance", the income gap between workers and owners has widened.
Income inequality contributes to wealth inequality. For example, economist Emmanuel Saez
wrote in June 2016 that the top 1% of families captured 52% of the
total real income (GDP) growth per family from 2009 to 2015. From 2009
to 2012, the top 1% captured 91% of the income gains.
Nepotism
perpetuates and increases wealth inequality. Wealthy families pass down
their assets allowing future generations to develop even more wealth.
The poor, on the other hand, are less able to leave inheritances to
their children leaving the latter with little or no wealth on which to
build.
Wealthy parents often use their economic or political power to
advantage their own children, such as by providing extra funding for
education, excluding poor families from the local community or schools
(usually through exclusionary zoning), using social connections to provide opportunities for advancement like internships, and allowing children to take entrepreneurial risks without risking homelessness or destitution.
Corresponding to financial resources, the wealthy strategically
organize their money so that it will produce profit. Affluent people are
more likely to allocate their money to financial assets such as stocks,
bonds, and other investments which hold the possibility of capital
appreciation. Those who are not wealthy are more likely to have their
money in savings accounts and home ownership.
This difference comprises the largest reason for the continuation of
wealth inequality in America: the rich are accumulating more assets
while the middle and working classes are just getting by. As of 2007,
the richest 1% held about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United
States. While the bottom 90% held 73.2% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
However, other studies argue that higher average savings rate
will contribute to the reduction of the share of wealth owned by the
rich. The reason is that the rich in wealth are not necessarily the
individuals with the highest income. Therefore, the relative wealth
share of poorer quintiles of the population would increase if the
savings rate of income is very large, although the absolute difference
from the wealthiest will increase.
The nature of tax policies in America has been suggested by economists and politicians such as Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty, and Barack Obama
to perpetuate economic inequality in America by steering large sums of
wealth into the hands of the wealthiest Americans. The mechanism for
this is that when the wealthy avoid paying taxes, wealth concentrates to
their coffers and the poor go into debt.
The economist Joseph Stiglitz
argues that "Strong unions have helped to reduce inequality, whereas
weaker unions have made it easier for CEOs, sometimes working with
market forces that they have helped shape, to increase it." The long
fall in unionization in the U.S. since WWII has seen a corresponding rise in the inequality of wealth and income.
Some tax policies subsidize wealthy people more than poor people; critics often argue the home mortgage interest deduction
should be abolished because it provides more tax relief for people in
higher tax brackets and with more expensive homes, and that poorer
people are more often renters and therefore less likely to be able to
use this deduction at all. Regressive taxes include payroll taxes, sales taxes, and fuel taxes.
A 2022 study in the American Economic Journal found that
greater economic inequality in the United States than in Europe was not
because of the nature of tax and transfer systems in the United States.
The study found that the U.S. redistributes a greater share of its
wealth to the bottom half of the income distribution than any European
country. The study found instead that Europe had less economic
inequality because it had been more successful at ensuring that the
bottom half of the income distribution are able to get relatively
well-paying jobs.
A Brandeis University Institute on Assets and Social Policy paper
cites the number of years of homeownership, household income,
unemployment, education, and inheritance as leading causes for the
growth of the gap, concluding homeownership to be the most important.
Inheritance can directly link the disadvantaged economic position and
prospects of today's blacks to the disadvantaged positions of their
parents' and grandparents' generations, according to a report done by
Robert B. Avery and Michael S. Rendall that pointed out "one in three
white households will receive a substantial inheritance during their
lifetime compared to only one in ten black households." In the journal Sociological Perspectives,
Lisa Keister reports that family size and structure during childhood
"are related to racial differences in adult wealth accumulation
trajectories, allowing whites to begin accumulating high-yield assets
earlier in life."
The article "America's Financial Divide" added context to racial wealth inequality, stating:
... nearly 96.1 percent of the 1.2
million households in the top one percent by income were white, a total
of about 1,150,000 households. In addition, these families were found to
have a median net asset worth of $8.3 million. In stark contrast, in
the same piece, black households were shown as a mere 1.4 percent of the
top one percent by income, that's only 16,800 homes. In addition, their
median net asset worth was just $1.2 million. Using this data as an
indicator only several thousand of the over 14 million African American
households have more than $1.2 million in net assets ...
If you're white and have a net
worth of about $356,000, that's good enough to put you in the 72nd
percentile of white families. If you're black, it's good enough to
catapult you into the 95th percentile." This means 28 percent of the
total 83 million white homes, or over 23 million white households, have
more than $356,000 in net assets. While only 700,000 of the 14 million
black homes have more than $356,000 in total net worth.
According to Inequality.org, the median black family is only worth $1,700 when durables are deducted. In contrast, the median white family holds $116,800 of wealth using the same accounting methods.
Today, using Wolff's analysis, the median African American family holds
a mere 1.5 percent of median white American family wealth.
A recent piece on Eurweb/Electronic Urban Report, "Black Wealth
Hardly Exists, Even When You Include NBA, NFL and Rap Stars", stated
this about the difference between black middle-class families and white
middle-class families:
Going even further into the data, a
recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the
Corporation For Economic Development (CFED) found that it would take 228
years for the average black family to amass the same level of wealth
the average white family holds today in 2016. All while white families
create even more wealth over those same two hundred years. In fact, this
is a gap that will never close if America stays on its current economic
path. According to the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, for each
dollar of increase in average income an African American household saw
from 1984 to 2009 just $0.69 in additional wealth was generated,
compared with the same dollar in increased income creating an additional
$5.19 in wealth for a similarly situated white household.
Author Lilian Singh wrote on why the perceptions about black life created by media are misleading in the American Prospect article "Black Wealth On TV: Realities Don't Match Perceptions":
Black programming features TV shows
that collectively create false perceptions of wealth for
African-American families. The images displayed are in stark contrast to
the economic conditions the average black family is battling each day.
According to an article by the Pew Research Center, the median wealth of non-Hispanic black households fell nearly 38% from 2010 to 2013.
During that time, the median wealth of those households fell from
$16,600 to $13,700. The median wealth of Hispanic families fell 14.3% as
well, from $16,000 to $14,000. Despite the median net worth of all
households in the United States decreasing with time, as of 2013, white
households had a median net worth of $141,900 while black house
households had a median net worth of just $11,000. Hispanic households had a median net worth of just $13,700 over that time as well.
In 2023, the Federal Reserve Board published median and mean
family wealth statistics for 2022, based on a nationwide survey of 4,602
families.
The average white family's median net worth was $285,000. Hispanic
families had a median net worth of $61,600, and for black families, this
figure was $44,900. Although black families had the lowest median net
worth of all racial groups, they experienced the greatest percent
increase in net worth from 2019 to 2022, at 60 percent. For the first
time, the survey calculated net worth for Asian families separately
(Asian families had previously been grouped into an "other" category
along with Native American, Pacific Islander, and multiracial families).
Asian families had the highest median net worth, at $536,000.
In 2021, Jeff Bezos was the richest person in the world.
A 2014 study by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern
concludes that government policies reflect the desires of the wealthy,
and that the vast majority of American citizens have "minuscule,
near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. When
a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with
organized interests, they generally lose."
When Janet Yellen, the chair of the Federal Reserve was questioned by Senator Bernie Sanders
about the study at a congressional hearing in May 2014, she responded
"There's no question that we've had a trend toward growing inequality"
and that this trend "can shape [and] determine the ability of different
groups to participate equally in a democracy and have grave effects on
social stability over time."
In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty
argues that "extremely high levels" of wealth inequality are
"incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social
justice fundamental to modern democratic societies" and that "the risk
of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."
Proposals to reduce wealth inequality
Trends in share of wealth held by various wealth groups 1989-2019Total effective tax rates (includes all
taxes: federal+state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc) for the
richest Americans declined by 2018 to a level beneath that of the bottom
50% of earners, contributing to wealth inequality. Analysis by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
Estate tax
There is a political debate over the estate tax in the United States, which reduces inequality by taxing the estate of large quantities of wealth. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 doubled the exemption of estates by increasing the exemption from $5.49 million in 2017 to $11.18 million in 2018. This increase in estate exemption was estimated to affect about 3,200 estates in 2018.
A 2021 investigation using leaked IRS documents found more than half of the richest 100 Americans use grantor retained annuity trusts to avoid paying estate taxes when they die.
On top of the federal estate tax, 17 states have an estate or inheritance tax.
Increased tax
In President Joe Biden's proposed budget for 2023 there are two proposed tax changes for households with wealth above $100 million.
First, is a new "minimum tax" at death for unrealized capital gains
above $1 million. Second is to realized capital gains as ordinary
income; which is expected to effectively raise the percent of capital
taxed from 23.8% to 43.4%. Combined it is estimated that these tax
changes will place these households at an effective tax rate of 61.1%,
which is nearly double the effective tax rate in 2022.
Taxation of wealth
Senator Bernie Sanders pitched the idea of a wealth tax in the US in 2014. Later, Senator Elizabeth Warren
proposed an annual tax on wealth in January 2019, specifically a 2% tax
for wealth over $50 million and another 1% surcharge on wealth over $1
billion. Wealth is defined as including all asset classes, including
financial assets and real estate. In 2021, officials in the state of
Washington considered proposals to tax wealthy residents within the
state.
Warren's plan received both praise and criticism. Economist Paul Krugman wrote in January 2019 that polls indicate the idea of taxing the rich more is very popular. Two billionaires, Michael Bloomberg and Howard Schultz, criticized the proposal as "unconstitutional" and "ridiculous," respectively. Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
analyzed the Warren's proposal and estimated that about 75,000
households (less than 0.1%) would pay the tax. The tax was expected to
raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years, roughly 1% GDP on average per
year. This was expected to raise the total tax burden for those subject
to the wealth tax from 3.2% relative to their wealth under current law
to about 4.3% on average, versus the 7.2% for the bottom 99% families. For scale, the federal budget deficit in 2018 was 3.9% GDP and was expected to rise towards 5% GDP over the next decade. An analysis by the think tankTax Foundation
found that Warren's proposal would reduce long-term GDP by 0.37% and
raise $2.2 trillion over a period of ten years, after factoring in
macroeconomic feedback effects. It expected the tax to "face serious
administrative and compliance challenges due to valuation difficulties
and tax evasion and avoidance issues." It also expected foreign
investors to replace American billionaires as the owners of capital.
.svg)
![Figure One: The mesonephric System Pathway [7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SRY_Gene_Pathway.jpg)
