Project 3

Introduction:

The purpose of this project is to learn and inform our audience of potential discrimination that may be present in our economy. This study looks at discrimination found not only in the hiring process but also in the workplace and with wages. Along with exposing the discrimination in the workplace and showing how it is wrong and immoral, it is also possible that this will serve as a call to action for local businesses to change their practices and help create a better and more fair work environment.

The inequalities that exist in our economy have existed for centuries. These practices started in the foundation of our country and are just recently coming to light with the surge of community and nationally led movements demanding for change. Not to say that these issues have not been discussed before, for example, in the 60s with the Civil Rights Movement.

This project is significant because we are the future workforce, and if we are aware of injustices that exist in the economy, we can make changes to lessen these gaps. We hope to raise awareness and determine if these practices are legitimate, not falsifications created by the media. Promoting change is necessary for a more equal future economy and workforce. While they are less noticeable today, they do still exist. We are trying to raise awareness to this matter.

Methods:

Our methods of research primarily consist of the distribution of a survey and the analysis of it's data. Our survey is designed to briefly capture what the work environment may be like in the participants workplace in order to find patterns and other similarities of inequalities. Aside from the survey being entirely multiple-choice, the themes that are expressed through the participant's responses can be chalked up to fit pre-existing archetypes which will be extremely helpful in analyzing the current patterns of inequalities in our economy.

Our survey will be given to the local College of Coastal Georgia students and community members by means of a flyer containing both a QR code and web-link to the survey. More specifically, our flyer will be posted on the CCGA Student forums and local bulletin boards in stores and restaurants with proper consent.

Our target demographic is those of any age, gender, race, or ethnicity that are currently working a part-time or full-time job and business owners. This is done in effort to capture all the points of view, so that we can present the most accurate and helpful data. Our largest demographic group that participated in the survey were female Caucasians. Surprisingly, out of the 24 total responses, 17 were reported Females, with the rest being Male. Out of that same 24 responses, 92% were Caucasians, while Native American/ American Indian and Others each accounted for 4%. We expect that our participants who have an average to below-average job / are currently being negatively affected.

Results:

The total number of participants in the survey were twenty-nine people. 77% of these were women and 23% were men. 92% of the total twenty-nine participants were white/Caucasians, 4% were Native American or American Indian, and 4% were other. The most significant age range for participants were ages 45-54 years of age (38% of participants). The second highest age group was the 55-64-year-olds and they represented 14% of the respondents. The remaining participants were 10% 18-24, 3% 25-34, 10% 35-44, 3% 65-74, and 3% 75 and older. In opposition to the hypothesis, 67% of people reported that discrimination did not occur in their workplace. 11% answered probably not, 11% answered probably yes, and 11% answer definitely yes. In regards to the wage, 35% of women make $150,000 or more compared to only 26% of males. 29% of females make $39,000 or under and 28% of men make this wage. This also does not support our hypothesis and is quite contradictory to an article by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, in which they found extreme levels of discrimination towards African-Americans applying for jobs. While it is not explicitly discussed, we can infer that even if some of their African American applicants were to be hired, that they would experience at least some discrimination towards them or even perhaps from them.

Discussion:

Racial discrimination has been a very pivotal part of our nation's history beginning even before its creation. Over the United States' lifetime, there have been many struggles and conflicts based on these inequalities. To analyze the broader spectrum of things, racism has improved drastically, yet it is still not completely resolved. Focusing on just the racial, ethnic, and gender discriminations in the job application/ holding process, there is a definite unfair divide in treatment. However, before analyzing historic accounts and statistics, it is first necessary to understand what exactly you are looking for. The intersection of several different attributes in the job application process yield results that are most likely uncategorizable, due to the vast variety and independence of each variable (Emeka 558, Pedulla 1578-1479). This is why there is no complete solution to these issues.

Male Caucasians have been found to have the best chances to be hired for jobs and are not likely to be turned down because of their race. This leaves the other groups at ranging disadvantages depending on geographical location and job type. A common recurrence throughout the last half of a century has been how the black unemployment rate is double that of the white one, leaving us to wonder if it is the discriminatory practices or perhaps the lack of pursuing a job that fuels these statistics (Emeka 558-560). Another example of this is how most of the lawn care service jobs primarily consist of Hispanic workers because employers use stereotypes in their application processes along with other stereotypical profiling yielding racial/ethnic dominance in other jobs (Pratto and Espinoza 766). Our survey data shows that several of the participants were white, holding very good jobs, and having little to no experiences of discrimination towards them or those around them. This is backed by similarities in previous studies that have found whites of both genders, to be free of these practices, such as the study by Felicia Pratto and Penelope Espinoza. This could be due to the overarching nature and structure of society as a whole. It has been found that men tend to hold a higher prestige over women in some societies. Historically, this makes sense, because typically men have done the larger more visible work, whereas women usually keep to childrearing and housework/food preparation (Pratto and Espinoza 764).

Roughly 70% of respondents are over the age of 45 and have seen the rise and fall of equality throughout the years. Due to their longevity in the workforce, perhaps they currently have hold or have held good jobs in places of equal treatment, thus leading to these results. Another plausible idea is that they could have been unaware of these practices, fitting the idea that oppression is only visible to those who are affected by it. A good idea to keep in mind is that most literature and/or statistics on discrimination have primarily been focused on white and black Americans, especially during the mid-to-late portion of the 1900s (Smith 524).

A key inequality found in the workplace is the differences in wages between men and women. Women are being exploited for their work by receiving less pay and benefits than their male counterparts. This is due to a variety of factors ranging from traditional explanations, such as differences in occupation and industry, to education, labor experience, work hours, gender roles, gender division of labor, and discrimination all of which continue to be important (Blau and Kahn, 790-791). There have been efforts in recent decades to reduce these inequalities such as reducing the education gap, but the gender wage gaps still persists. Under a traditional division of labor, women expect to have shorter and more discontinuous work lives due to family responsibility; therefore, they have less motivation to further their job training than men. This smaller investment in human capital lowers relative earnings (Black, 189). Women also tend to place a higher value on temporal flexibility which comes at the expense of a difference in wage which comes from traditional gender roles and women’s greater responsibility for other types of work such as motherhood (Blau and Kahn, 817). Work ethic labels are placed on women because of traditional gender roles, but these should not be applied to all women. Through this survey, it is evident that women appear to have a greater interest in learning and exposing the inequalities in the economy. 77% of the participants were women compared to only 23% that were men. Based on the results, differences in pay favor women. 35% of women make $150,000 or more compared to only 26% of males. 29% of females make $39,000 or under and 28% of men make this wage. Although this data does not correspond with our hypothesis, it does not prove it is not true. Our sample was not big enough to be generalizable, but it is interesting how many more women participated in this study about inequalities in the economy.

There is a significant amount of discrimination in the workplace and racism is a key component. Research has shown that unfair treatment occurring in the workplace has significant roots based on skin color. Business owners mostly focus on an applicant's appearance rather than their professional resume making this a very dominant and problematic form of discrimination in the workplace. An example would be taking a construction area where the business owners consider Hispanic workers rather than consider blacks, whites, etc. This makes it easier for our group to perform a survey to show calculations on the percentage of employees that have noticed the racism in applying and working. Looking at our graph for discrimination in the workplace it was 67% of employees that have not noticed any discrimination at their job. These findings show that racism isn’t causing a problem in the workplace.

While there are plenty of more common types of discrimination in the workplace such as racism and sexism, there are also types of workplace discrimination that haven’t been widely researched yet. It is rare to hear them in places such as the news or open discussion boards. One example is age discrimination. Age discrimination is specifically towards middle aged to elderly workers (ages 45+) and towards young workers (ages 16-21). Another type of discriminatory behavior, is directed towards the mentally impaired. Research studies have proven and most researchers agree that although “Ageism” and discrimination towards the mentally impaired date back decades and decades ago, these types have very little investigations done for them unlike racism and sexism (Llișanu 23). However, the research also proves that these discriminations also cause significant loss of self-esteem, rise in frustration, and have a lasting impact on the activity of older employees at work (Llișanu 23). Furthermore, the exclusion of mentally impaired employees who are still high functioning enough to work if allowed is known to cause secondary, more extreme mental impairments such as depression (Richards 631). Ageism by itself is also of even more growing importance, especially since according to another study on population health, “...the proportion of the older U.S. workforce has been on the rise for more than a decade and represents the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce”(Fekedulegn, et al. 2). Both of these lesser-known types of discrimination, as well as the more widely-known types of discrimination, have a few theories attached to them as explanations for why it occurs at all, including fear of higher employee costs for employers as well as something in the psychology field known as the “Theory of planned Behavior” created by Icek Ajzen and suggested by a researcher named Ulrike Fasbender, which amounts to these minorities being stereotyped based on expected performance/behavior perceived by the employers themselves. Fasbender argues that “...hiring decisions are not only about finding the most suitable candidate for a certain job vacancy but also about one’s internal evaluation of the potential consequences of the hiring decision for one’s self-concept” (Fasbender 2).

Conclusion:

The results of this survey did not yield findings as predicted. A significant percent of the survey population, 78%, strongly disagreed with the presence of discrimination in the workplace. The 22% that did agree still provides evidence of this treatment, although very little. Also, to the surprise of our group, 35% of women make $150,000 or more compared to only 26% of males. This is interesting, but cannot be generalized among the entire economy. 1% more females also make $39,000 or under than males. The possible reason for these statistics is that there was a significant discrepancy in the number of women and men who took this survey. 17 females compared to only 7 males participated in this survey. The number of males is staggeringly low for accurate data accumulation and comparisons between men and women. Further, our findings should not be generalized based on this survey considering the economy as a whole. This is due to our economy having a more equal gender distribution. Another lurking variable is the location where this study was conducted. Gender, wage, and discrimination may not be as prevalent in this community as it is in others. Finally, this study did produce one piece of intriguing information. 77% of the participants in this survey were women. This could be proof of dominant interest and concern by women in the inequalities in the economy. Based on the results, women had a stronger interest in exposing the inequalities in the economy; therefore, a possible conclusion that can be drawn is that women may feel that they face more discrimination than men and therefore, they want to expose and end it. This is hypothetical, but it is an interesting perspective. Overall, the survey was beneficial in learning about the differences in our economy but was not a large enough scale to draw complete generalizable conclusions. The topic studied may have been too broad to come to specific conclusions over the inequalities experienced by certain groups in the economy, but it made room, brought light to, and inspired curiosity for further, more specific investigation.

Works Cited

Black, Sandra E., and Alexandra Spitz-Oener. “Explaining Women’s Success: Technological Change and the Skill Content of Women’s Work.” Review of Economics & Statistics, vol. 92, no. 1, Feb. 2010, p. 187. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1162/rest.2009.11761. Accessed 22 September 2020.

Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn. “The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations.” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 55, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 789–865. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1257/jel.20160995. Accessed 11 September 2020.

Bertrand, M., and Mullainathan, S. (2004). “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-2013. doi:10.3386/w9873. Accessed 24 September 2020.

Emeka, Amon. “Where Race Matters Most: Measuring the Strength of Association Between Race and Unemployment Across the 50 United States.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 136, no. 2, Apr. 2018, pp. 557–573. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1557-9. Accessed 5 September 2020. Accessed 16 September 2020.

Fasbender, Ulrike, and Mo Wang. “Negative Attitudes Toward Older Workers and Hiring Decisions: Testing the Moderating Role of Decision Makers’ Core Self-Evaluations.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. Article 2057, 2017, pp. 2–4. ResearchGate, www.researchgate.net/publication/311733610_Negative_Attitudes_toward_Older_Workers_and_Hiring_Decisions_Testing_the_Moderating_Role_of_Decision_Makers%27_Core_Self-Evaluations. Accessed 25 September 2020.

Fatima, Goher. “Female Education as A Determinant of Economic Growth: The Case Study of Pakistan.” Contemporary Issues in Education Research, vol. 4, no.11, 2011, p. 15. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/cier.v4i11.6485. Accessed 23 September 2020.

Fekedulegn, Desta, et al. “Prevalence of Workplace Discrimination and Mistreatment in a National Sample of Older U.S. Workers: The REGARDS Cohort Study.” SSM - Population Health, vol. 8, 2019, pp. 2–3. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100444. Accessed 20 September 2020.

Glauber, Rebecca. "Marriage and the Motherhood Wage Penalty among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites." Journal of Marriage and Family vol. 69, no. 4, 2007, p. 951-61. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2015.0031. Accessed 21 September 2020.

Ilișanu, Georgiana, and Virginia Andrei. “Age Stereotypes and Ageism at the Workplace - #Ageisjustanumber.” Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, pp. 23–25. Compaso, compaso.eu/archive/issue-2-2018-the-puzzle-of-literature-review/ilisanu-andrei-abstract. Accessed 19 September 2020.

Kidd, Michael P., and Michael Shannon. “Does the Level of Occupational Aggregation Affect Estimates of the Gender Wage Gap?” ILR Review, vol. 49, no. 2, Jan. 1996, pp. 317–329. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/001979399604900209. Accessed 30 August 2020.

Kim A. Weeden, et al. “Long Work Hours, Part-Time Work, and Trends in the Gender Gap in Pay, the Motherhood Wage Penalty, and the Fatherhood Wage Premium.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 2, no. 4, Aug. 2016, pp. 71–102. EBSCOhost, doi:10.7758/RSF.2016.2.4.03. Accessed 4 September 2020.

Pedulla, David S. “How Race and Unemployment Shape Labor Market Opportunities: Additive, Amplified, or Muted Effects?” Social Forces, vol. 96, no. 4, June 2018, pp. 1477–1506. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1093/sf/soy002. Accessed 7 September 2020.

Pratto, Felicia, and Penelope Espinoza. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Power.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 57, no. 4, Dec. 2001, p. 763. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00240. Accessed 31 August 2020.

Richards, James. “Examining the Exclusion of Employees With Asperger Syndrome From the Workplace.” Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41, no. 5, 2012, pp. 631–33. Emerald Insight, www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm. Accessed 7 September 2020.

Smith, Ryan A. “RACE, GENDER, AND AUTHORITY IN THE WORKPLACE: Theory and Research.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 28, Aug. 2002, pp. 509–542. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141048. Accessed 25 August 2020.

Young, Iris. “Five Faces of Oppression.” Oppression, Privilege, and Resistance: Theoretical Perspectives on Racism, Sexism, and Hedonism, edited by Maree Heldke, Lisa; O’Conor, Peg, McGraw-Hill, 2004, pp. 39-63. Accessed 1 September 2020.